My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, our contribution to the regular budget of UNESCO amounted to£1·9 million in 1974/75 and£2 million in 1975/76.

My Lords, is it right that the United Nations' Organisation, which was founded to promote peace and to which we subscribe substantial funds, should use those funds to promote guerrilla activities and warfare throughout Southern Africa?

My Lords, there is absolutely no evidence that that is what the funds are used for.

My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Baroness is aware of the report that was given by UNESCO officials to the Sub-Commission on Discrimination of Minorities this year, in which it was stated that several hundreds of thousands of dollars are given in support of national liberation movements which are recognised by the Organisation of African Unity and that such support comes out of UNESCO funds? Are the Government aware of that? May I also ask whether, if they are aware of it, they approve and, if not, would they kindly instruct their representative at the present conference in Nairobi not to support these movements?

My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are, of course, aware of it. Certainly UNESCO provides assistance to liberation movements which are recognised by the OAU and which come within the sphere of humanitarian assistance for refugees.

My Lords, might I ask the noble Baroness what efforts are being made by United Kingdom delegates to prevent abuse of UNESCO funds for political motives by certain States, since this consequently causes grave damage to its proper educational, scientific and cultural activities? May I also ask my noble friend what steps are being taken to ensure that all member States are able to participate fully in the proper work and activities of UNESCO?

My Lords, Her Majesty's Government deplore attempts by member States to raise issues which are more properly debated in the General Assembly and the Security Council. I can assure my noble friend that Her Majesty's Government believe that all member States should have the right of full and proper participation in UNESCO.

My Lords, does the noble Baroness therefore approve of the appointment of a special representative of UNESCO at Dar-es-Salaam, precisely in order to co-ordinate the activities between the national liberation movements, including SWAPO, ANC and ZANU?

My Lords, certainly, if they are for educational and humanitarian purposes.

My Lords, does that mean that the money which is given to promote cultural and educational activities can be used to spend on arms and on fighting?

My Lords, that is an extremely tautological argument, if I may say so. We have absolutely no reason to believe that the administrations of UNESCO or of UNRWA do anything but what is completely proper.

My Lords, in view of the question put to my noble friend by the noble Lord, is she aware that it would be most interesting to get to know, since this Organisation was set up in the 1930s, the amount of money that was spent by the previous Government over the 13 years when they had control? Would it not be interesting to know what really happened during that particular period?

My Lords, I have every reason to suppose that the same proportions of money was spent by both Administrations, but I am afraid that I shall have to check on that and let my noble friend know.

My Lords, do the Government approve of the way in which the funds of UNESCO have been used in connection with the representative of Israel where, on one occasion, UNESCO very much discriminated against him? Do the Government not think that that sort of behaviour is unworthy of their support?

My Lords, I am sorry; I did not catch the beginning of the question put by the noble Baroness.

My Lords, my question was whether the Government know of the very discriminatory way in which UNESCO behaved over Israel. Do they believe that this is the way in which UNESCO should behave, and do they believe that we should be supporting UNESCO when they carry out that kind of discrimination?

My Lords, we have spoken and voted against the resolutions which tried to discriminate against Israel and we shall continue to do so; but we think it better to remain within UNESCO, where we can have some influence.

My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she has read the statement in the Press relating to educational departments and institutions in the USSR and Arab countries being used for the purpose of training assassins, hijackers and so on, and whether she is aware that UNESCO is being used for that purpose? If not, what will UNESCO do in order to prevent that kind of use being made of so-called educational establishments?

My Lords, as I have said, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that UNESCO funds are being used anywhere for training terrorists.

My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that I have in my hands a UNESCO document which says that a meeting will be held in Mozambique on social structure, revolutionary change and culture in Southern Africa, and that this will bring together members of liberation movements and sociologists who have done work on colonial societies? Is the noble Baroness aware that many other factors mentioned in this paper suggest that money and considerable support is being given to guerrilla movements throughout Southern Africa? As there is some concern in different parts of the House on several issues, may we have an assurance that Her Majesty's Government's diplomatic representatives in these countries will keep a close watch so that these funds are not misused in the manner in which some of us believe them to be?

My Lords, Her Majesty's Government, along with most Western nations, have recognised the Government of Mozambique and they cannot be considered a liberation movement. We are all delighted that they should meet with sociologists and specialists of every kind. As to change in Southern Africa, it is long overdue.

My Lords—

My Lords, I think we should now proceed.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, it is difficult to obtain precise figures on the number of detainees in Rhodesia because of the regime's ban on publicity for such cases, but it has been estimated that at present there are some 850 people being detained there without trial. The release of detainees was not a prior condition for the convening of the conference. Her Majesty's Government consider that the best prospect for the release of political prisoners in Rhodesia is early agreement at Geneva.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the figure of 850, which he has quoted, appears to be the number of long-term detainees who are incarcerated by means of an order signed by a Minister, and that there may be a much larger number of short-term detainees who may be at even greater risk than the ones he has mentioned? Can the Minister say what are the powers of the chairman of the meeting which is shortly to be convened in Geneva, to prevent detainees being used as a political pawn by the Smith régime?

My Lords, on the factual point, I believe, with the noble Lord, that the figure I have given in answer to his Question is of people detained without trial. There are a number of others who are convicted political prisoners, having gone through the court procedures of the illegal regime, a number or restrictees, and of course there have been a number of executions. The figure of 850 relates only to those who have been detained without trial. As to the chairman's function, I am abundantly satisfied that Mr. Richard will bear in mind the importance of the point raised by the noble Lord.

My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us the name of any African Government which discloses the number of people that it detains without trial? Cart he also, perhaps, disclose the name of any African country in which it is as safe to dissent from Government as it is in Rhcdesia?

My Lords, on the second point, I m got cross swords with my noble friend. On the first point, there are a number or Governments in various parts of the IN odd, not all belonging to one political persuasion, who do not publish the number of people detained without trial within their borders.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that while this position obtains it would be quite impossible for the nationalists to agree to the Smith regime retaining control of law and order?

My Lords, I certainly agree to this extent, that if there were a generous and constructive concession by the illegal regime at once, it would greatly help the success of this conference.

My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government aware that there are many Christians and people of no religious conviction, people who are not Roman Catholics, who are deeply distressed by the treatment of Bishop Lamont by the Smith rè gime—treatment which has been denounced by the Vatican? If there is to be an improvement in the relationships and if the right attitude is to be created for this conference, it might be a great help if Her Majesty's Government could prevail on the Smith régime to revise its attitude towards Bishop Lamont.

My Lords, I am very glad to repeat the assurances which I gave, I think the week before last, when we last discussed the case of Bishop Lamont. As my friend the right reverend Prelate then indicated, it is part of the general inhumanity practised not only against people of eminence, such as his Grace the Bishop, but also against a great many other people in Rhodesia. We shall continue to do what we have been doing for many years, using every opportunity that comes our way to try to prevail upon the Smith regime to follow better and more humane practices.

My Lords, will the Minister also prevail upon leaders of guerrilla movements not to continue the appalling atrocities and cruelties that they arc inflicting upon both black and white Rhodesians?

Yes, my Lords, certainly. Atrocities are indivisible.

Is the Minister aware that Mr. Mugabe and Mr. Nkomo were attempting to secure that the political prisoners should be released as a condition of starting this conference? While that may be possible, will the Minister ask the chairman not merely to bear in mind the point that has been made this afternoon but also to rule out of order any attempt by the Smith regime to use human lives as a bargaining counter to secure the kind of concessions he wants?

Yes, my Lords. When one asks the chairman to bear these considerations in mind one means what one says: that these and other considerations will be borne in mind by the chairman in his conduct of this very difficult but very hopeful conference. I think we would all unite in expressing our confidence that he will do everything from his position in the chair to prevent anybody from using the lives of human beings as a counter in the bargaining across the conference table.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, before replying, I would point out that this is probably the last Question which we shall have in this House from the right reverend Prelate, as I believe that next week he leaves our company; so I think we should all like to wish him well.

Hear, hear!

My Lords, one of the first acts of the present Administration in February 1974, was to honour its Election pledge to remove the requirement to charge for entry to the national museums and galleries. I should need a good deal of convincing that this step should be reversed. Quite apart from wider issues of policy and other costs of administration, the restoration of museum charges would involve additions to musiums' staff.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. May I remind him that in the first year of the opening of the National Railway Museum in York 2 million people attended it? Therefore, may I ask the Minister whether it is not preferable to persist with museum charges, bearing in mind the reduction of museum staff and the redundancies resulting therefrom?

My Lords, I am, of course, aware of the tremendous success of the National Railway Museum at York, and nobody is more pleased than I am about this. This museum, however, is part of the Science Museum and cannot be considered in isolation from other national museums. Exact numbers of the visitors attracted to the museums cannot be measured, but they include many people from overseas, to the great benefit of the economy and of the City of York. The rising costs of living and of travel are making it increasingly difficult for many with modest means to visit the museums and galleries, and I repeat that whatever museums which are not part of the national group may like to do, I think that it would be quite wrong at this stage to reverse the decision which was made in the Manifesto and which we have carried out.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the enormous number of people in the art world who will support the line that he has taken?

My Lords, it is always a surprise to me but also a pleasure.

My Lords, could the noble Lord explain why a charge is made to see the Mantegna pictures at Hampton Court, since these pictures belong to the National Gallery?

My Lords, this is another question which I do not think I can answer without reference back. However, there arc a number of places, like Stonehenge, which arc not part of the national museums and galleries, which always have charged and which will go on charging for as long as they want to do so. Should they wish to stop charging, or to carry on charging, they can do so.

My Lords, is the Minister aware, however, that the Mantegna pictures are part of the National Gallery collection?

My Lords, that is why I should like to have further notice of the question.

My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree with me that the Mantegna pictures at Hampton Court unfortunately do not belong to the National Gallery but are part of the Royal Collection?

My Lords, I think I was right to ask for further notice of the question!

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to explain how it is that the Department of the Environment apparently sanction the levying of visitors' fees to national monuments, to the Tower of London and to historic houses in their ownership (Stonehenge has already been mentioned by the Minister) and that apparently there is no policy to stop the levying of those charges? Indeed, I understand that a rattling good business is going on at some of these places, and I welcome it. On the one hand, the Department of the Environments allowed to levy charges while on the other the Department of Education and Science will not contemplate the levying of charges for visits to the national museums and galleries.

My Lords, I think I have already answered the Question. The undertaking in the Manifesto was specifically in relation to charges imposed by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. I remember sitting opposite the noble Viscount here day after day and feeling very sorry for him because of the obvious discomfiture he was suffering as a result of trying to impose charges. We undertook to reverse the imposition of those charges. No comments were made about other museums, other places and other things. Some of them have charged before; others have not. If they want to charge they will not be stopped by me. I speak only for the nationally controlled museums and galleries.

My Lords, will the Minister take an early opportunity to look at the various museum; in the South Kensington area, for instance, where it appears that the lack of admission fees introduces quite a large lumber of elements who are not interested in art or culture but go there just to pass freely the time of day? Secondly, can the Minister say which other countries within the European Economic Community do not have any admission fees?

My Lords, if the Science Museum, which is presumably the museum about which the noble Lord is speaking, or the Victoria and Albert Museum felt very strongly that they wanted to consider the imposition of charges I should not rule it out of court. I should I consult them, come to a conclusion and then put it to my colleagues. But this has not happened and I do not expect it to happen. I do not think that the imposition of charges would necessarily keep out the people who give the trouble to which the noble Lord has referred, because most of them have a great deal of pocket money.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that other nations who are in a rather stronger financial position almost invariably charge for entry to their museums? In retrospect, does the noble Lord think that as Socialism is the religion of priorities, he was right to give overriding priority to the abolition of these charges in the Government's legislative programme?

My Lords, I repeat what I have said. I stand by the pledge. I think that we were right to abolish charges and I do not believe that the superior financial position of certain countries to which the noble Lord has referred is due to their museum charges.

My Lords, it is a question of priorities.

My Lords, is it not time that the Manifesto was put into a museum?

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, I have studied a full report on this unhappy incident. The mother, who was about eight months pregnant, was brought to this country on 20th October in breach of the immigration laws. At that stage there was no sign of an imminent birth and medical advice was that she was fit to return to Bombay. The baby was born prematurely the following day and mother and child were immediately removed to hospital where the child died. I understand that it could not have survived.

My Lords, the Minister has not answered my Question as to whether there will be an inquiry. How is it that a married woman, the wife of a legal resident of this country, who was in an advanced state of pregnancy was put on a plane to be returned to India, the delivery of her baby taking place without any medical assistance? Should not such an inquiry extend not only to those conditions but also to the alleged behaviour of some of the personnel who were present?

My Lords, the Government do not consider that in this case an inquiry is appropriate. I have indicated that I have studied the papers and so has my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The fact is that entry clearance is required for dependants seeking to enter this country. That is the situation quite clearly laid down by the law. Entry clearances are essential because experience has demonstrated that efforts are made to brine in women who are not the wives they are claimed to be. This in no way under-estimates the tragic nature of this episode, but I must make it clear that in my view there was no impropriety on the part of any member of the Immigration Service and that the Government see no cause for an inquiry.

My Lords, while deploring the fact that anybody should present themselves for entry without complying with the regulations, is it not the case that airlines in general never carry passengers who are more than six months pregnant? How, then, was this woman, who was apparently eight months pregnant, accepted for carriage?

My Lords, that is one question which I am afraid I am unable to answer.

My Lords, is not that a further cause for inquiry? Is it not the case that, while there was a medical examination at the detention home, there was no medical attendance at all as this woman, who was in an advanced state of pregnancy, was being put on to a plane in a condition which airlines generally refuse to accept?

My Lords, it is certainly true that I am unable to answer the question as to why a carrier accepted this woman on to the plane, but that is not a decision for Her Majesty's Government. The Government have in fact a responsibility for answering questions on the subject of whether the Immigration Service behaved with propriety in this particular case. I must make it quite clear that any suggestion that there was calculated inhumanity, or even inadvertent inhumanity, is not a reading of this situation which, having studied the papers, I would accept.

My Lords, will the noble Lord inquire further as to why the woman was accepted for carriage out of the United Kingdom, and can he give an absolute assurance that no pressure was brought to bear by the immigration authorities on the airline to carry the woman?

My Lords, the question why this woman was brought into this country and accepted by the foreign carrier is not one, as I have indicated, that am in a position to answer this afternoon. The essential feature of this case, which has received a substantial amount of publicity, is the suggestion that there was at best some lack of humanity by members of the Immigration Service at London Airport. What I am indicating this afternoon quite clearly is that, having studied these papers, I do not accept that those allegations have any justification whatsoever. I am also saying that there is a clear legal requirement on dependants to obtain entry clearance before they arrive in the United Kingdom. This matter has been debated over a substantial period of time. It is quite clearly the law and it is highly desirable that everybody concerned should attempt to abide by it.

My Lords, would the noble Lord accept that probably the root cause of this tragic affair was the non-declaration by the passenger concerned of her state of pregnancy?

My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am not making any suggestion of calculated inhumanity? I am asking whether there is any suggestion that the woman was not in fact married to this man. Is there an allegation to that effect?

My Lords, the position is that the woman arrived in this country, as we now know, eight months pregnant, without t an entry certificate. The Immigration Service behaved in exactly the same NN ay as they would do to any other person who had attempted to enter this country without an entry certificate. There is one other point which I must make quite clear in view of the fact that it has been touched on. It is quite clear that medical advice was taken by the Immigration Service throughout this incident.

My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, I have the utmost respect for the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and I am in no way hostile to his honourable intentions in the Motion that he proposes to move later on, but I want to oppose the present Motion that we should dispense with the normal business which appeared on the Order Paper and proceed to a further Motion. I do so not because I object to debates: on the contrary, I enjoy them. I do not profess to be an orator at all, but in matters of debate I gain considerable experience. However, I have no desire for "fun and games" this afternoon; nor do I suppose that any Member of your Lordships' House in the existing situation, not only economic and financial, hut political, desires to indulge in frivolity of any kind.

My reason for opposing the Motion is because in neither the Motion to be proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, nor in the Amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is there anything constructive or likely to promote greater goodwill, either in this House or between this House and another place. All I want to say at this stage is that it occurred to me when I saw the Motion on the Order Paper that if the noble Lord, Lord Byers, with his influence—and he has undoubted influence, not only in his own Party but in your Lordships' House—had consulted the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, the Leader of the Conservative Party in your Lordships' House, and they had both then consulted my noble friend the Leader of the House, had met together and had asked a few other Members, for example the noble Earl, Lord Home of the Hirsel, with his vast experience, and the Chief Whips of the three political Parties in the House—or two of them, whoever they are—they could have gathered round a table to consider what representations ought to be made to Her Majesty's Government and to the Prime Minister in particular (or in the first place) with a view to removing any difficulty that exists in connection with the timetable in your Lordships' House.

If this Motion is accepted and we proceed to the further Motion I should wish to take part in the debate, but I can see no great advantage or any relevance in the situation. I recall a statement made by the noble Viscount, Lord Thorney-croft, the chairman of the Conservative Party, some time ago in one of our debates, when he pleaded for a better understanding with Members of your Lordships' House. That does not mean that we should always agree with each other; that would be asking too much. But in a matter of this sort, concerning the timetable and difficulties and even hardships imposed on Members of your Lordships' House, by asking them to r main, sometimes through the night, for the purpose of dealing with Government business, to which they naturally object because of their political philosophy, (I can understand all that), to enter into a debate of this kind at this stage when there are so many other subjects that could occupy our attention, I regard as a complete irrelevance.

I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Byers, should not proceed with his Motion to suspend the Standing Order and proceed with another subject, but that he should do as I have suggested and consult with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, the noble Lord the Leader of the House, the Chief Whips, and any others who are acquainted with procedure, in order to try to remove this obstacle, this dispute between some Members of your Lordships' House and Her Majesty's Government. For that reason I oppose the Motion.

My Lords, I understand the sentiments and feelings of my noble friend Lord Shinwell. I would only say that there are the usual channels, and they have gone through the procedures in the best spirit. I personally believe that we should have a debate. I agreed to the Motion to dispense with Standing Order No. 36, because I believe that if we have a debate we shall not be wasting time unnecessarily. I think it is the general tone of the House that this debate should come at the beginning, and for that reason I have taken this move.

rose to move, That this House declares that it cannot discharge its duties as a revising Chamber with efficiency and diligence if legislation is to be considered throughout the night or for more than ten hours in any one sitting day; calls upon Her Majesty's Government to recognise that it is vitally important that this House should examine in detail legislation much of which has been denied discussion and scrutiny on the floor of the House of Commons, and insists that the Parliamentary timetable be adjusted accordingly. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the substantive Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. First, may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, that there is no intention whatsoever of indulging in frivolity or fun and games, and that all the procedures which, with his great Parliamentary experience, he knows must operate here have been gone through. Nobody could have been more forth-coming and helpful than the noble Lord the Leader of the House and the Government Chief Whip. The fact is that the overloading of the Parliamentary timetable does not start here, but at the other end of this building.

rose to move, as Amendments to the above Motion,—

And Mr. Powell.

And Mr. Powell.

Mr. Powell and a lot of other Tories.

My Lords, I must say quite frankly that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, does not know what he is talking about when he blames Mr. Foot and Mr. Powell, as the noble Lord, Lord Byers, does. I was in the other place at the time; I know exactly what happened. If there had been a reasonable scheme, a scheme which would have appealed to the majority of the Members of another place, it might have been agreed.

My Lords, the vast majority of your Lordships thought it was a reasonable scheme, and it passed its Second Reading in the House of Commons; Mr. Foot opposed it; so I cannot see why the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, is getting so excited. He has already had one turn and he is going to have another turn later. Mr. Foot opposed it, and but for him and for Mr. Powell and a few others we should be reformed. Mr. Foot actually had a lot of Parliamentary fun, but I do not think he did anybody much of a service. So we are not reformed.

It so happens that because the Government have got themselves into a terrible and incompetent muddle over their programme, because they have gravely miscalculated the amount of time needed to get these Bills through the Commons, we are in the mess we are in. Even in the Commons these Bills have not been properly discussed; they have been guillotined. Large chunks of the Bills have never been discussed at all. Unless the second Chamber does something about it, these Bills will, without any Parliamentary examination, go on the Statute Book.

I must honestly say that I am astonished at those in another place and elsewhere who seem to think that there is something malign or improper or unconstitutional or anti-democratic about those of us who suggest that Bills which have not been properly examined in another place should be properly examined here and that proper time should be given to do it. It is a curious doctrine to suggest that the Government must get their own way regardless of what Parliament says, or what Parliament does not say because it has not been given the opportunity to say it, to declare in effect that what the Government want they are going to have. My Lords, Parliament is still sovereign, and I can think of no precedent in my time in this House for the way in which we have been asked to treat these Bills.

The two most contentious Bills that I remember have been the Industrial Relations Bill and the London Government Bill. On the London Government Bill, which was introduced by a Conservative Government, two days were spent on Second Reading, 11 days on Committee spread over four weeks, in which there were 61 Divisions, most of them Divisions on the advice of noble Lords opposite. Four days were spent on Report, spread over two weeks, in which there were another 33 Divisions. The passage of the whole Bill through your Lordships' House took three months. On the Industrial Relations Bill 18 days were spent in Committee, spread over April, May and June; nine days were spent on Report, and the whole Bill took just under four months to go through your Lordships' House. The comparison between the time afforded then and now needs no under-lining. Surely noble Lords would not claim that the Bills we now have before us are of less importance, for if they are why are the Government so anxious to get them through? I must tell your Lordships that I think that the attitude of the Opposition and of the Liberal Party has been wholly reasonable. We have sat late every night. We have worked hard and we have worked long.

It may not be wholly realised by those outside this House exactly what a Committee stage and a Report stage entail. It is bad, but it is not so bad for the Government, because they, after all, have the whole of the Civil Service behind them, preparing briefs, devising Amendments or answers to Amendments, a most efficient and most substantial bureaucracy. We in the Opposition have nothing of the kind. We have to do these things ourselves. We write our own speeches; we devise our own Amendments; we learn our own facts. I think that even the Government have a difficulty, and I make no complaint about this because I realise their problems just as well as they do, particularly those of the Ministers who are answering for Departments in which they themselves do not serve. I remember once when I was First Lord of the Admiralty having to pilot through this House the Shops and Offices Bill for which I was hardly well qualified, and it was very hard work. But the result has been—and I make no personal criticism in this—that some of the answers really have been inadequate. When those answers are inadequate it inevitably means that the Amendments will be put down again on the Report stage, and yet more time will he spent and be needed.

There is one other issue which I think we should consider, and the noble Lord, Lord Byers, mentioned this, and that is the question of the staff of this House. The Reporters who have to take down the debates, the staff of the refreshment room, the Doorkeepers, and countless others are under very great strain. I would therefore say to the noble Lord the Leader of the House that the right and proper thing to do is to allow more time for discussion. If it means that the Opening of Parliament has to be postponed, then so be it. But I, for one, cannot believe that the noble Lord, Lord Peart, who has just arrived from another place—and we have welcomed him—to be the Leader of your Lordships' House, wishes to preside over a House which his Government refuse to allow to function properly.

I have moved my Amendment to Lord Byers's Motion as I said, not because I disagree with his purpose but largely because I prefer my own words. In this House we have very few rules and we do not bind ourselves, broadly speaking, with standing orders. I believe that to accept the first sentence of Lord Byers's Motion would be to take us on the road to having compulsory adjournments at certain hours and would put the House in the future in a straitjacket. Of course we should not sit more than ten hours, but there have always been occasions when the House has found it necessary to do so. They should be, and indeed apart from this spill-over have been, very infrequent. In my Amendment I seek to delete that part of the Motion and to ask your Lordships to agree with me that it is regrettable that the Government have failed to give effect to the principle that we should examine in detail legislation much of which has been denied discussion and scrutiny, and to ask that proper time be afforded to us. I beg to move.

My Lords, I am tempted to get involved in making a debating speech. May I just say to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that while there are some parts of his speech with which I agree there are some with which I do not. He was rather wrong and hi: rd on the Commons in relation to the time they have spent on Bills which have come to this House. I have all the figures. They debated the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Bill in another place on the Floor of the House for 46 hours and 13 minutes, and in Standing Committee for 141 hours; the Health Services Bill, on the Floor of the House 23 hours and 46 minutes, and in Standing Committee 74 hours and 11 minutes; the Education Bill, on the Floor of the House 40 hours 7 minutes and in Standing Committee 30 hours.

I may say to the noble Lord, when he talks about a guillotine, that I remember that it was a Conservative Administration which quite recently guillotined one of the most important Bills this Parliament has discussed. I refer to the Bill which paved the way for our entry into the European Community. I believe it was a constitutional outrage to put a guillotine on a measure like that. So the guillotine has been used by several Governments. Indeed, the Liberal Party itself has not been clean—if I may use that word—in this regard. I see nothing wrong myself, as a former Leader of the House in having a time-table procedure which has been accepted by all Parties. Therefore I believe that that type of argument is not one that really can be taken quite seriously.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that we must have proper discussion. Parliament is sovereign. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that I believed in a reformed House of Lords. I said this. Indeed, I was then partner to the discussions which went on with the major Parties at that time. I regret that we did not have it. It is true that certain individuals took a certain line of activity, distinguished Conservatives and distinguished members of my Party, for various reasons. As the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, has said, they took a certain line and there was force in their arguments. I am only sorry that we did not have a reformed House.

So I say to the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Byers, that I believe strongly in a Second Chamber. I should not wish to be in a Chamber if I thought it was not going to serve an important part in the working of our Constitution. I mean that sincerely, as I think noble Lords on both sides who know me well would agree. But I do not want to make it too personal. We are having major arguments. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Byers, was rather hard on the Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We have had arguments of that kind, but not on a procedure Motion of this type. I have heard them and I do not want to get involved in that type of argument. I know that hard things have been said today, and indeed a number of hard things have been said outside the House in the last few days as well. At this point in the Session there are bound to be hard words on both sides. Nevertheless, I shall not be deterred from beginning with the points on which I believe we can agree. That, I have always been told, is the way in which this House works. It is also the way in which I hope it will work in the future. We shall not make life any easier for ourselves by pouring fuel on the fire.

I can assure noble Lords opposite that I accept a great deal of what they have said. We have been working under considerable strain. A noble Lord said on my first day here, when I made a contribution, that I had jumped into the deep end, and it is a very deep lake that I have fallen into. We have been working under considerable strain; I accept that, and the noble Lord is right. We have been working late in the evening night after night and have been asked to make real personal sacrifices. Noble Lords opposite will understand that the sacrifices are not confined to them.

I am glad that the noble Lord paid tribute to some of my colleagues, because he, too, as he said, had experience of this when he was once in Government. My noble friends behind me, and particularly the noble Lords on the Front Bench beside me, have also borne a heavy burden. I should like to pay a tribute to them for the unflagging way in which they have carried on through thick and thin, debating Bills which quite often are right outside their Departmental responsibility. It just happens that I am lucky: I am conducting an agricultural Bill, a subject which it used to be my responsibility to deal with. But it is difficult for them, and I think we all understand that. Again I pay tribute to the hard work of the staff—the Clerks, Hansard, the people who look after the refreshment departments, and I know it does impose a burden on them. I pay tribute to their work.

I think noble Lords on both sides have always borne in mind the House's constitutional duty to give thorough consideration to Bills, and especially Bills which have been guillotined in another place. I accept this. The noble Lord has in no way frustrated the House. He and his colleagues have been anxious to see that these Bills are adequately scrutinised. I know that on the Bill dealing with tied cottages we have had full debates and full scrutiny; and this is right. I cannot complain—I must be frank with those who may criticise unfairly—and I hope that this attitude will continue.

We have had long debates on many of these issues and it is right that we should. I hope, as I have said to my noble friends, that the House will go on giving full and detailed consideration to the measures that are before us. Of course, I do not agree with everything the House has decided. There are passionately held opinions on the Benches opposite and noble Lords are entitled to express their views vigorously and with passion and eloquence. And certainly it is right that we on these Benches must have this policial debate within the framework of the system which we treasure and defend. We are sure to differ about the significance of some of the Amendments which have been carried against the Government. For my part, I think that some of the Amendments which are called revision could be described in a different way, and I will mention one in particular.

I find it rather ironical or amusing that on a major Bill dealing with the agricultural industry the first Amendment should he to exclude the dairy industry and then later to exclude forestry, a major section of the industry. If that is not what would call a wrecking Amendment, I do not know what is. I do not see, for example, how one can take a Bill on agricultural tied cottages and remove more than half the agricultural industry from its scope without questions being raised. I do not doubt the motive of noble Lords opposite; I believe that they want to change the Bill radically and improve it from their point of view. On the other hand, some other people may argue—I am not—that their motives are different.

I also find that the Opposition has developed an addiction to the Division Lobby. Noble Lords opposite have defeated the Government 169 times in the last two years. Taking the average of Conservative Administrations, we should normally need 28 years to run up a total like that. While I would not argue with the right of noble Lords opposite to carry out their constitutional duty, I think it should be for all of us, through consultation and co-operation, to find the best way to carry out that duty in the time available. We should be seeking to ease this burden on the House wherever we can, and I stress that. So let us find ways of carrying this burden of legislation as sensibly as we can.

Having said that, I must comment briefly on the Motion and the Amendment before the House. I already detect a feeling that one cannot and should not lay down hard and fast rules about how long the House should sit and I believe that there is broad agreement on that. We do not want to have any cut-off points like those in another place because of the opportunities for abuse and filibustering which they create. We do not have a Speaker or elaborate rules of order and I am sure that we do not want them. The other House is a different place. We are much more interested, I think, in ensuring that the House can discharge its duties as a revising Chamber efficiently and well.

A period of heavy legislation like this is, after all, not unknown. One need only go back to 1947, for example, during the nationalisation Bills of that period, to find the House sitting night after night until 11 p.m.; or to 1971, when the Conservatives were in power, to see the House sitting regularly after midnight. Probably Opposition Members expressed the same views then as have bee expressed by noble Lords today. In 1972 there was another period of Sittings regularly until late at night and one on a Friday when the House sat until after 6 p.m. Admittedly we must go rather further back to find a time when the Liberals were in Government; the old House of Lords in October 1909 was behaving just like it is now, sitting until midnight every night.

I know that statistics can prow, anything. My object is only to show that the strain we have undergone in recent weeks is not so exceptional as some noble Lords would have us believe. Although we should be looking for improvements in our procedure, I ask the House to consider what would he the effect of agreeing with the Liberal Motion. It would still be possible to sit until after one o'clock in the morning every day, and we should have trespassed against it only three times this Session. I assure noble Lords that, contrary to what has been suggested in certain quarters, we have no intention of regular all-night Sittings, which I at once agree would have a very harmful effect on the standard of our debate and the value of our revision. This has never been our intention and when noble Lords have consulted me on this point I think I have been able to satisfy them at once.

Much has been made of the suggestion that we should extend the Session. I should point out that we have already extended it; the opening is at least a fortnight later than is customary. Moreover, the conduct of business in this House depends basically on good and without good will business becomes very difficult under any timetable. I recognise, however, that there have been many representations about the programme, that these have been reinforced by noble Lords opposite, and that they may well be repeated. I can therefore assure the House that I do not ignore them, and in any discussions I have following this debate I shall keep the interests of the House firmly to the fore.

The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will not be surprised to hear that I cannot accept the main part of his Amendment because, contrary to what he argues, I think Her Majesty's Government have certainly not failed to provide adequate time for the discussion and scrutiny of legislation. The major Bills were given some of the fullest and longest discussion ever in the Commons and there has been no out-back of debate here. We have had detailed Committee stages and will no doubt have detailed Report stages as well. I agree that we should try to give adequate time for discussion, and I shall do so, but it is more important that we should be looking for ways to meet the spirit of the Motion and the Amendment than that we should increase the source of conflict between us. I believe that this debate will have served its purpose without a Division and I therefore hope that the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Byers, will see fit to withdraw the Motion and the Amendment.

My Lords, the Motion with the Amendment proposed by my noble friend and Leader Lord Carrington, which I cordially support, is expressed in terms of moderation. I understand that last year the House warned the Government that it was unreasonable to swamp us with legislation in the last month or two of the Session and that we could not fulfil our role efficiently if it happened again. The Government, I understood, said that that would not recur, but in spite of that warning it has been incomparably worse this Session.

A number of intensely controversial Bills have been imposed upon us during not the last few months but the last few weeks of the Session, and most of those Bills, in the opinion of many noble Lords, have no relevance whatever to our pressing immediate economic problems. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, just said about the priorities with which we are faced; I thought that his remarks were not relevant to this debate but were relevant to the measures that are being imposed on us at the present time. Confronted with this situation, what have your Lordships done? We came back two weeks earlier, we have sat long hours and our efforts have been concentrated on a careful examination and improvement in detail of the Bills before us. I have heard no filibustering when I have been in the Chamber.

What thanks do we receive from Ministers in the other place? Allegations in some quarters have been made that we have been guilty of the sacrilege of making any Amendments to Socialist measures passed by small majorities in the other place. There have even been threats that if we continue with these efforts we risk abolition. Do the Government not recognise that the main role of this House is a positive and inescapable duty to examine, amend and try to correct defects in the legislative measures which come up to us? So far from exceeding our powers by undertaking this function, we should, if we were to allow the complicated and in some cases hastily drafted legislation that has come before us to pass without criticism, be guilty of utterly failing in our constitutional duty. As a silent Back-Bencher, I should like to pay tribute to the very able noble Lords on the Opposition Front Benches for the way in which they have carried out their tasks during the very tiring past weeks with good temper and conscientious thoroughness. I gladly concede that Ministers, too, have played their part with courtesy, patience and consideration. They cannot have had an easy time either and they have my respectful sympathy. The time factor has made it an almost impossible joint task.

The noble Lord, Lord Peart, just now gave us a very bizarre statistic and perhaps a rather melancholy one. He said that the Government had been beaten 169 times in the past two years. I do not know where he unearthed that figure, but it is very interesting. I hasten to say that I am attributing no blame whatever to the usual channels. I am sure that they have done their very best to make things work.

In particular, I am convinced that excessive hours and all-night Sittings are a recipe for inefficient and ineffective work. I never remember, when I was in another place, any worthwhile discussion of intricate clauses taking place much after midnight. All-night Sittings are an invention of the devil, if that is a Parliamentary expression.

My Lords, the noble Viscount managed to keep me up all night on the Finance Bill on a number of occasions.

My Lords, if everybody had gone home, that Bill would have gone through like lightning! The treatment we have received this Session from the Government on our timetable is utterly unreasonable. I nearly permitted myself to say "outrageous", but in this House we choose our words with studied moderation and I am speaking today more in sorrow than in anger. It is our bounden duty to warn the Government, as the Motion and the Amendment do, that we cannot fulfil our constitutional functions if we are treated with such a lack of under-standing and consideration.

The noble Lord the Leader of the House is greatly liked and respected in all parts of the House. He will know, because he is a wise and percipient person, that if your Lordships are treated reasonably we are an easy lot to manage and are responsible, patient and responsive. As he is a former Minister of Agriculture, I had been going to make a comparison, but I will tell it to the noble Lord afterwards, for I am afraid that, if I do so now, the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, will accuse me of flippancy. I do not want that. I trust that the noble Lord the Leader of the House will represent the reasonable but strongly held views held in many parts of the House to his right honourable friends with force and with that persuasiveness for which he is so rightly admired. In the long term, the answer to this problem can be expressed in two words, "less legislation".

My Lords, in a speech of studied moderation, my noble friend the Leader of the House has appealed to the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Byers, to withdraw both the Motion and the Amendments. I shall, in the language of the late lamented Herbert Asquith, wait and see. We have no authority in such matters; that authority is vested in the over-whelming, built-in Conservative majority in your Lordships' House. There have been criticisms of Her Majesty's Government, some subtly suggested, but the whole point of both speeches that we have heard from the Opposition was to undermine Her Majesty's Government. Let there be no hesitation on the part of anybody on this side of the House in accepting that point of view.

I want to make one point clear beyond all possibility of doubt. Nothing that I have said in any debate in this House indicates that I seek its abolition. I doubt whether there is anything in our Constitution, written or unwritten, which vests authority in your Lordships' House. Indeed, no such claim was ever made except by the Conservative Party itself many years ago. This was when Arthur Balfour, the intellectual and scholarly Prime Minister in the early fart of the century, declared that—and it is on the record—whether the Conservative Party were in Government or Opposition, it was they who controlled the destinies of this country. That was said then, and there are many Conservative Members of this House who still believe that.

Anyhow, they have the authority. On no single occasion in the past few months when engaged in debate—that is what we call it, though it is confrontation, for there is no question of debate when we know that at the end of the discussion, the Opposition will win—have we been able to change the Opposition's mind. The same thing could happen this afternoon or evening, if the appeal that my noble friend Lord Peart has made to the other side fails, as that is likely—for what other purpose have they? A few years ago, they engaged in a policy of union bashing. That no longer applies. They are now seeking to flirt with the trade unions. The speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Carr, and others are an indication of what they would like to happen. Now it is not union bashing but Government bashing, and we had it this afternoon.

All the noble Lord, Lord Byers, is asking for—and it is not so very much—is the withdrawal of the obnoxious legislation that has been passed in another place. That would satisfy t le noble Lord, Lord Byers. In other words, he is quite prepared to accept the Government so long as they carry through legislation that suits the Liberal Party. That is what he said. The same applies to the Conservative Opposition. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said that he would be quite satisfied if the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill were withdrawn. He would prefer that to an extension which would enable discussions to proceed.

There are other items of legislation that are objectionable—repugnant even—to those on the other side. They have said so and still believe so, and, in spite of the moderation shown by my noble friend the Leader of the House, they will continue to say so. Nothing that was said by my noble friend will satisfy those on the other side.

Let me make it clear to Members of your Lordships' House that what I am asking for is what I mentioned in the course of a very short debate when the noble Lord, Lord Byers, moved his original Motion. That is if we are to resolve our problems, whatever they are—even our political problems—at any rate in the foreseeable future and, indeed, for some time longer if need be, it is essential to act together. I do not ask for a coalition because coalitions cannot be imposed suddenly upon the community, and certainly not on political Parties as they now are. But I ask for understanding.

Perhaps I may mention a speech which I made in your Lordships' House when Mr. Heath was Prime Minister. I remarked at a time when it was obvious that problems were in our path which seemed almost impossible of solution that he should have addressed himself to the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Wilson as he then was, and to the Leader of the Liberal Party, Mr. Jeremy Thorpe, and in conjunction with the CBI and the TUC he should have diagnosed the complaint which was affecting our country financially and economically and, having diagnosed it, should have sought a solution—not a coalition but an understanding which would have created confidence in the country. When there was a change of Government and Mr. Wilson found himself at the head of the State I appealed that he should approach Mr. Heath and the Leader of the Liberal Party and so on, as well as the TUC and the CBI, precisely in the language I used on a previous occasion, in order to bring about an understanding. I mention this, not to depart from my political philosophy—not at all. I have strong convictions, sincerely held, whatever others may think. I do not see a possible solution of our problems without such understanding and the creation of confidence. There is no hope of creating confidence, either here or over-seas, unless it is understood that those in authority in this country, in the political arena, get together and talk things over with understanding, even if it means, for the time being, setting aside the political shibboleths that have been current for far too long.

I do not wish to prolong the debate and have only one or two further points to make. I do not believe that this debate will make the slightest difference. If my noble friend the Leader of the House thinks so, I must remind your Lordships that he is new to this place. I wish him well, although I have reasons for wishing otherwise sometimes. I have known him a long, long time. I will not go into details. I leave him, when he writes his autobiography, to refer to them. I will bear what he writes with my customary fortitude. But he is not the politician he is claimed to he—a subtle politician—if he believes that an appeal to the other side has the slightest effect; not at all!

I do not charge them with filibustering; indeed, if I may be permitted to say so, I admire some of the young elements on the Opposition Front Bench: the noble Lord, Lord Elton, the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, and some of the others. There is also the noble Baroness, Lady Elles. I admire them: they are young, they are putting up a show, trying to teach their elders—and that is not very difficult, after all. I can understand their anger, straining at the leash because they hope for an Election and they hope to find themselves geographically placed otherwise than at present. I can understand them; I admire them; I listen to them. But no filibustering, no, not at all; just probing and probing, and indeed having postmortems and inquests at the very beginning, even before the corpse has arrived. I have watched this situation time and again, on innumerable occasions, until it became a bore and I had to leave the assembly. I could not stand it any longer.

They were moving Amendment after Amendment, and then withdrawing them, again and again. If they had indulged in a little thought, more investigation, more scrutiny—that is what is being asked for this afternoon, more scrutiny—then they would not have moved the Amendments at all. At any rate it was their intention to withdraw them. Far more Amendments have been withdrawn than have been carried in your Lordships' House on any legislation under review. We know that. I am getting tired of being in an assembly—although there is nothing personal about this; there are people of remarkable intelligence in your Lordships' House, people for whom one has an affection after a time when one gets to know them; there is no malice at all in it—where one is on the losing side all the time. If only one could once be on the winning side!

Time and again it did not matter. It was said that we do not turn up, that we stay away. I, too, complain about that, although sometimes I do not stay here late at nights; unless you pay me overtime I have no intention of doing that. But there are too few of us here occasionally. Many have been pitchforked into this place, and having been pitchforked into it have pitchforked themselves out. We hardly see them at all—and even if we see them it does not matter very much. That is the position. What is said? We do not appear in sufficient numbers, said the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. How clever it was! What an observation to make. How clever! If only we appeared, he said—

My Lords, I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord, but I never said anything of the kind.

Perhaps the noble Lord will say what he did say—or perhaps he will tell us some other time. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is very clever and very able; no doubt about that. But here I use the language of the famous Lord Salisbury about somebody for whom I had the highest respect, but I will not mention his name: it was said that he was "too clever by half". That is part of our political history. What is the use of coming here anyhow? We know that we are going to be defeated. I admire the activities of our Chief Whip. How hard she works, how industrious she is, and how charming she is at the same time! But does that make any difference? One comes here, one takes part in debates, one argues, one is eloquent and one believes oneself to be right; but at the end of the debate the overwhelm is majority on the other side, who do not even listen to the debate, suddenly appear There are hordes of them. From whence they come I have not the slightest idea. I have not the least doubt that many of them are here today because they have been told to come.

My Lords. does the noble Lord remember what he said on the Business Motion, about fun and games and frivolity?

Yes, my Lords, but I do not see the relevance of that now. It is not a question of fun and games. I am quite serious in what I say; I am very serious indeed. I am serious because I do not want anything to go wrong in your Lordships' House, except to reduce the numbers on the other side. Is there any thing wrong with that? Why even the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has suggested that—and, by the way, how many times has he said, truly said, as he said this afternoon, that he has sought to reform your Lordships' House and to make suggestions. Perhaps he might be a little more practical and some day produce a Motion which is rather more detailed; perhaps we might support him. But nothing short of reducing the number of hereditary Peers in the Howe on the Conservative side will make the slightest difference. It is an imbalance which cannot be sustained.

My Lords, I shall not proceed any further other than to say this. I do not believe that this debate has been of the slightest help—not at all. We will go on as usual; there will be a bashing of the Government, and the Government will proceed with their legislation. I know what they could do in another place. What they could do is this. Instead of legislation proceeding as it does—Second Reading, Committee stage, Report stage, Third Reading and all the rest—they ought to submit legislation to Committees for them to consider and scrutinise in the first place. That is what they ought to do. If they proceeded along Committee lines they would save a lot of lime, and so should we. However, there it is. We shall just have to put up with what is happening, and say what we think is right. That I have sought to do; and if anybody thinks there is malice in what was said he is mistaken. But I do understand what the other side are driving at, and object to it.

My Lords, if we were business executives and not a Legislature we should find ourselves subject to a directive from our colleagues not to attempt to conduct negotiations or enter into agreements while we were suffering from jet-lag, sleeplessness or general travel weariness. That is because boards of directors, who are not divided into a Government and an Opposition permanently finding fault with one another, are prepared to base their regulations upon common sense, and it is generally agreed that tired men do not conduct their business as efficiently as men who are fresh and have had a good night's sleep. Now, if you make an ill-advised business agreement you can usually buy your way out of it; everything has its price. But we here, as a Legislature, are engaged on very much more delicate business. Every time we make a law, either directly or indirectly we compel every one of Her Majesty's subjects, either to do something which left to their own devices they spontaneously would not, or not to do something which left to their own devices they spontaneously would. This is a very serious matter, and ought to be entered into in a very serious frame of mind.

It sometimes requires a double prick, as it were, to drive a point home, and the first time I heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsharn, remind your Lordships' House that in the period he was reviewing we had put through 3,000 pages, I think it was, of new legislation and 10,000 pages of subordinate legislation, I did not react to it as sharply as I might. But when I heard him repeat it the other evening in his now famous lecture on television, the point struck home and I suddenly realised that your Lordships' Legislature is engaged on precisely the same task as Tristram Shandy when writing his autobiography; namely, that it took him longer to write out the events than the time in which they occurred, and so he was falling steadfastly behindhand. Your Lordships' attempts to put on the Statute Book all the opinions which are ventilated as to what might be nice in an ideal world are taking longer than the rate at which the world is changing, calling for more and more legislation conceived in the same way. So we are suffering from an excess of legislation at a time when we ought to have our minds on other things. Here we are, living beyond our means on borrowed time and borrowed money, both of which are running out, and instead of putting our minds to what matters they are engaged in an entirely excessive amount of low-priority legislation which I am quite convinced in my own mind nobody wants.

My Lords, I speak from the Cross-Benches. All seven Benches were full at Question Time today—so full that they were full to overflowing and some of my noble friends were beginning to elbow supporters of the Government Party out into the gangways. But I hope that we shall expand our influence, which we maintain to the small hours of the morning. There has been a Cross-Bench presence up to as late an hour as you please to specify at any time when we were suffering from excessive legislation. This is not moved by Party passion, but by the desire to discharge our duties, in terms of the writs we have received, by coming here and listening—and they also serve who only sit and listen. I was here till three o'clock this morning. I was home by half-past three. By four o'clock I had found a double yellow line on which to park my car, and thereafter I set my alarm clock for eight o'clock so that I could move my car again before picking up a£6 fine, which I should not have been allowed to charge as an allowable expense for attending your Lordships' House. There followed a morning's work, and I am going to do my best in what remains of today.

To what purpose, my Lords? Here, if I may, I must address a word by way of reproof to the Government Party, some-what on the lines of Hamlet, who said to his mother,

"… look here, upon this picture, and on this …".

Let me show them their portrait in my mirror. What does all this low-priority legislation do for us? In my view, it serves but one purpose: to paper over the cracks in the coalition that governs us. I do not care whether you call the paper the Social Contract or the emperor's clothes, the cracks are there. In a sense I support both the Motions which are before your Lordships' House. If I had to choose between (as I think the noble Lord, Lord Byers, called it) the aristocratic tone as enunciated by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and what I would call plain speech, which is the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Byers, I would back plain speech against aristocratic tone any day. But since the noble Lord, Lord Byers, is prepared to pull his punches and go along with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, I will do the same and support the Motion and the Amendment which the noble Lord proposes.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Peart, when he spoke, I think understood very much the feeling of the House. He nearly agreed with everything that my noble friend Lord Carrington said to him; he very nearly agreed with everything the noble Lord, Lord Byers, said to him. I think it is a great pleasure to know that we now have a Leader of your Lordships' House who is as sensitive to the wishes of your Lordships. All I hope is that he can translate those wishes to his colleagues in the Cabinet, and especially to the Prime Minister.

Clive, when accused of bribery, is reported to have replied,

"Gentlemen, I am astonished at my own moderation".

I think that this remark could with all justification have been said by every single Liberal, every single Tory and most Cross-Bench Peers in your Lordships House. The legislation which is being hurled at us night after night is anathema to all of us on this side of the House, and it could be described thus: legislation to provide privileged fiefdoms for some of Her Majesty's Government's most influential supporters; legislation to abolish educational centres of excellence; legislation to deprive the Health Service of much needed funds and people of the freedom of choice; legislation to inflict on the agricultural industry disadvantages not applicable to other industries; legislation for the forced sale of the shipbuilding and aircraft industries to the State on terms which are dubiously near, in come cases, to that of confiscation.

I do not think that the members of Her Majesty's Government in another place realise how much we dislike these measures. If they did, they would see how apt my quotation of Clive was. We have not wrecked any Public Bills; we have not threatened to stand form on any of our Amendments. As every noble Lord who has spoken so far has said, we have done our public duty—as has also been said, this public duty given to us by a Labour Government. Nor, as the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, has said, have we unnecessarily prolonged the discussions. We have not, as was done by the present Party in power when it was in Opposition, forced six or seven Divisions over one dinner hour on one night. The noble Lord, Lord Peart, mentioned "Division addiction"; I presume he is saying that it is catching.

All that my noble friends and I are asking is that Her Majesty's Government should respect the Constitution and not overload us with work, and when we work according to that Constitution not squeal, "Foul!" if they do not like what we are doing. They can always, after all, change it in another place and if they do not like that, they can go and ask the opinion of the people who are our lords an I masters. Above all, as a revising Chamber this is obviously necessary for both Parties in power. How long was spent on the Industrial Relations Act? How long was spent on the London Government Act? The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has told us. Much longer was spent on t hem than on Bills we are now discussing. Let us have a reformed Chamber. The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, made the point so well for this. It must be a reformed Chamber which can carry Amendments against a Conservative Government when it is in power. The arguments then about Peers versus people would no lor ger carry weight because the composition could be justified.

But, my Lords, until that reform has happened I sincerely hope that your Lordships will do your duties to the best of your abilities, each and every one of us. Will not the Labour Party introduce a sensible reform? If the Labour Party will not do this, then will my noble friend Lord Carrington urge it even more loudly and more prolongedly on his friends and our Party to make sure that we have a sensible, sound and wisely constituted revising Chamber.

My Lords, I find myself in almost complete agreement with much that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. Measures which have been guillotined in another place and which come to this House should be looked at line by line and clause by clause. That is the fundamental duty of a second Chamber which regards its function as that of a revising Chamber. It should discharge that duty. My complaint against this House is that it does it with thoroughness only when there is a Labour Government.

I was very glad indeed that the Leader of the House mentioned the Common Market. That was a constitutional outrage and the price for it has not yet been paid. We have not yet paid the first instalment of it. What it meant was that when the Bill was guillotined in another place, forced through unamended, and was placed on the Statute Book, the people of this country missed the opportunity to learn what it was all about from the debates that should have taken place in another place and in this House. The full realisation of what the Common Market means has not yet penetrated the political thinking of the British people. My charge against the Conservative Party opposite is therefore the old one of, in one word, hypocrisy. Today they have said many things with which I agree, but when we judge what they say by what they do, there is a world of difference. That is the charge against them.

For my part I say to the Government something very simple. The Leader of the House, and indeed the Cabinet, should know what this place is about. They should not expect any different behaviour from that which has happened. When there is a great majority and the popular will is plain for all to see the Tory Party, as always, is either at your feet or at your throat. In the early stages it will be at your feet. Nothing is too much for you—"Yes, old boy"—all the collaboration in the world. But when the wind changes and the majorities are narrow, then off comes the sheeps' clothing and you find out that the wolf has teeth.

If one wanted another example in addition to the Common Market, one could look at what happened last Friday, on a Private Members' Bill. The noble Lord on this side of the House "boxed" it a bit by giving the Tories opposite an excuse for doing what they did, for voting it down. But I thought that this was a judicially-minded Chamber, a Chamber which took full account of the legal processes. There was a Select Committee of the House which made a recommendation. That however made no difference, and because this smacked of something the Tory Party did not like—nationalisation, they said—so off with its head.

I have been a critic of the present Prime Minister; my attitude towards the Prime Minister may perhaps he likened to the attitude of my noble friend Lord Shinwell to the Leader of the House—we wish him well, but not too much if I may say so. But after listening to the Prime Minister's broadcast last night, let me say that he has my 100 per cent. support. And one needs support when times are not as good as they might be. Of course, the Government should recognise what is afoot and should behave accordingly: never threaten, never warn, just promise. The Government should extend the sittings; they should go all through the motions; they should give the Party opposite all the rope in the world, because that is the only way in which they will hang themselves. If necessary, they should introduce the Felixstowe Docks Bill as a Government measure and, if it is slung out, then use the Parliament Act to enforce it.

The Prime Minister was asked last night: "Who governs this country?" Somebody said, "The TUC." "No", he said, "We govern". Very well, let the Government govern, and govern in the face of the Opposition opposite. What does it mean? Nothing. On the day the House reassembled I—a minority of one—ventured to get to my feet just to put on the record what the economic crisis was all about. I pointed out the situation of the Rhine Army which is now costing not a penny less than£1,200 million a year. For practical purposes its military use is not worth tuppence. An American general said it was "pathetic". Why did he say that? He said that because it is armed with atomic tactical weapons that have a range of 12 miles. They are obsolescent and under American control. It has always been so. If ever war comes then within two hours we are in the bag. Would noble Lords please note that since the end of the last war £58,000 million has been spent in defence; and if an American general says that is pathetic, I in my barrack room way would say, "You couldn't knock the skin off a rice pudding"—but that after£58,000 million has been spent.

The comparison is made with the reserves of Germany. That is what your noble policies have done for this poor benighted country. We won two wars. Noble Lords will perhaps remember the popular song "We Won the War". Whatever for? Look at the defeated. Germany and Japan have not done so badly. But look at us. The cause of our economic crisis is because the people of this country have never been brought face to face with the truth. It is not because we do not work too hard. The Prime Minister last night spelt out the Rhine Army, the reserve currency, and of course our Middle East policy. All those trips to Israel have to be paid for, and they are paid for by runs on sterling by those who now hate our guts. That is what we have done. It is within our control; but we shall not control it until we face up to it, and we have not faced up to it.

I will now venture another prophecy. Noble Lords have behaved as they have over the Common Market and over the Felixstowe Docks Bill. What they are doing—I probably will not live to see it but it will come—is to lay the foundation in Britain for the largest, strongest Communist Party in Europe. Let the economic crisis worsen because of the phoney policies here, and what results from them? A Conservative Government might fall through; but the bill comes to be paid, and then the scales drop from people's eyes just like that. Noble Lords will see what happens. As to their vaunted so-called power to come down here and vote down this Administration night after night, they will see what it is worth.

I congratulate the noble Lord the Leader of the House on his speech; he is a reasonable man. But he can be quite sure of one thing. The Amendment put by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is going to be carried, and its effect is to regret the Government's action. Of course, if they do not put you into shackles, the reason is because they fear they might inherit the shackles too; and so they leave it. We should go back to the Prime Minister and say: "If that is the game they war t to play, play it. Go to the people of 'Wales and Scotland and say to them that they cannot have devolution, that you are very sorry but devolution will have to be put off because the Tory Party are having political fun and games." That is what politics is about. If they wart to play the games that they have played, let them play them—but make sure that they pay the bill.

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down may I put one point to him. He said the reason why the Felixstowe Docks Bill was rejected by the House was because the Tory Party dislike nationalisation. Would the noble Lord not agree, on reflection, that something between 85 and 90 per cent. of the people of this country also dislike it?

It may well be; but I must say to the noble Lord that he really oughtto try to understand howademocracy works. Once a Government ale elected they are not expected to trim their sails to every wind that blows. They do what they believe to be right as long s control of the House of Commons is in their hands, and at the end of the day the electorate will take a decision But I do not happen to believe what the noble Lord said. Of course, as the situation is presented by the media—the impartial BBC and our impartial Press—what chance have the people of this country to under-stand objectively what it is all about?

My Lords, the debate in which we are engaged is on a procedural Motion with constitutional overtones, so I do not propose to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, and others in controversy about controversy, if I may put it that way. I will return to the noble Lord's point about the imbalance and constitution of this Home later. If we had listened to one speech this afternoon which is more outstanding than any other, I believe it was that of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, who in effect said: "What on earth does this House and Parliament look like, at the centre of a great economic storm, fiddling around with matters of second-rate importance?" I am, of course, paraphrasing, but that is very much what the noble Earl said.

We must surely consider first the standing of this House and of Parliament in the eyes of the people. If there is one feature of recent weeks which is less agreeable than any other, it is the decline of the normally co-operative atmosphere in this House. During the Felixstowe debate last Friday I was struck by some words used by the noble Lord, Lord Champion, who, although he was accused at one point of "wriggling", at any rate included in his speech this useful passage that I am about to quote. He said he regretted that particular Bill had come before your Lordships for its Third Reading—

"in a particularly charged period politically when there has been a great deal of discussion against nationalisation and nationalisation proposals."—[Official Report, 22/10/76; col.1734.]

He continued:

"It has partly resulted from the pressure of the overspill and the fact that we are all operating under time pressures which are not to the benefit of sober discussion and debate."

I believe that statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Champion, whose moderation we all respect and whose personality we all admire, will command the general assent of this House.

A rather similar point was made in the very moderate speech made by the noble Lord the Leader of the House, when he said in effect that if, for example, in another place a cut-off point for debate is established, that immediately invites filibustering. I believe he was on to an absolutely right point and one which is relevant to our own proceedings here. For the difficulty that we are up against, and about which we are now protesting, is that so early a date has been fixed for the next Session. I grant that it is later than usual, but it is an early date against the background of the Business still before us. An early date has been fixed for the next Session, against which there is so heavy a backlog, which—and, my Lords, one must say this with honesty and modesty—amounts, or at least may be thought to amount, to an attempt to bulldoze this House.

The "bulldozing" that many of us have felt—and as the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, has said, our debates in this House have been attended by Cross-Benchers throughout the night—does not apply simply to Members of these Benches or of the Liberal Benches but certainly also to the Cross-Benchers. The fact is that this sense of pressure has been, one might almost say, "blessed" by some words less temperate than might otherwise have been expected from respected members of the Cabinet such as the Prime Minister and Mr. Varley. I ignore the vituperations of some rather lesser Members with all their silly gibes about Rolls-Royces and things. But we have had words from the Prime Minister and another member of the Cabinet which reinforce the sense of pressure under which this House has been labouring. May I say—it is an old saying—that "threatened folk live long".

We are all aware of the limitations of both Parliament Acts. I personally do not complain about them. I am reminded of the words which were attributed to the late Lord Beveridge at a time when he was either still a senior civil servant or had just recently retired. He said that as a senior civil servant he had possessed considerable influence, and he added: "If you have influence, why do you need power?". This House has very considerable influence, and if it is the case—and one certainly understands it to be the case—that noble Lords opposite feel themselves in such a numerical minority that there is no point in coming anyway because they will lose the vote, the simple fact is that this House has very considerable influence in a whole number of ways. Perhaps the first of them is this: it is a place where ideas may be tossed out, and although they are invariably incomprehensible to the Front Bench of either Party they are well under-stood by civil servants. Since in the Civil Service No. 2 is always waiting for a good idea to bring in when he replaces No. 1, these ideas are mopped up by the Civil Service and are in fact seeds that are sown in very fertile ground. How often, indeed, have we not seen an idea launched in a debate here reappear perhaps within months as the genuine, spontaneous thought of the Government of the day?

Then there is the very considerable work that is done by Select Committees of this House, whose Reports are quoted in the other place. Indeed, they are sought after. We have even found that fundamental research, of which the other place is incapable, is among the burdens borne by this House. I see the noble Lord, Lord Roberthall, sitting on the Cross-Benches now. The Select Committee over which he presides is a very good example. I hope it will not embarrass him—though I embarrass him often enough in his Committee—when I say that he has been invited to preside over a Select Committee doing what amounts to original research on the whole problem of commodity prices and their possible stabilisation. The suggestion conies from the late Prime Minister himself, Sir Harold Wilson. It has been laid upon this House, and a number of noble Lords from both Parties and from the Cross-Benches are taking part in that work. It is work which could not conceivably be done by another place.

There is a whole apparatus of Select Committees working in this House, which are busy as bees without sight of the public. The noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, who graces the Woolsack at this moment, presides with distinction and charm over no fewer than 80 Members of your Lord-ships' House, who work on the scrutiny of European legislation, and the Reports stemming from that Committee are not only quoted, cited and argued about in the European Parliament; they are cited in another place as well. It may well be, indeed, that the House of Lords has something to show Parliament as a whole, and perhaps even another place, about how business might be transacted. There is a system here of sifting and examining secondary legislation. Perhaps the Committees of both Houses, which are looking at the procedures and practices of Parliament, might consider, also, the possible sifting and scrutiny of delegated legislation at home by a like system.

But whether or not that be so, the manning of these Committees is an arduous task for any Member who spends time on them, and attempts to get through the amount of paper that has to be read, let alone understood, and who has to consider before each meeting when evidence is heard what questions can most shrewdly, tactfully and usefully be put. There is very considerable work involved. It is difficult enough to man these Committees as they are, but under the burden of the contested and contentious legislation going through this House, keeping us up late at night, it is very difficult and very burdensome indeed. The noble Baroness, Lady White, who had been sitting in this House till a quarter-past three this morning, was again presiding with her familiar grace and deftness over one of these Select Committees only a few hours later—at eleven o'clock. Since many of us are either of pensionable age, or still earning our livings, or both—and most noble Lords in this House earn their livings and do not live in style on private incomes—these are very serious burdens.

On the matter of contentious legislation, so far as I am aware the Salisbury-Addison agreement has been upheld to the letter. Just to remind noble Lords who may not immediately recall what that amounted to, may I say that when the Labour Government came in will a vast majority in 1945 the Tory Opposition, though out-numbering the Government Benches considerably, came to an agreement to the effect that it would never destroy legislation coming from the other House that was based on the fulfilment of an Election pledge, and I do not believe we have ever voted down a Bill on Second Reading. If we have, then I stand to be corrected, but I am not aware of any single occasion.

But what happens when we pt down to the Committee stage is very often another story; and here may I say in parenthesis that what I am going; to say should be balanced by a compliment. The noble Lords who have manned the Government Front Bench nigh after night have done so with unfailing courtesy and good humour. Unfortunately, those noble Lords whom I have tormented are not sitting on the Front Bench at the moment, but I think they will accept it as sincere when I say that they have taken our sometimes rather playful arguments with very good humour, and they haw batted steadily and well. But, my goodness! they have stonewalled and when the Government of the day, despite all the support of the Civil Service machine behind them, stonewall so completely against serious Amendments, seriously argued by persons who have given up their time to come here, sometimes at some cost, it makes a poor impression.

The noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, spoke several times last week with great vigour, great eloquence and superb knowledge, on certain Amendments. He had had to work at his bank throughout the day; he came here and stayed up the whole night; he had to go back to his bank at eight o'clock that morning, and he was on his feet in this House two days later after only six hours' sleep in between. It was a sacrifice by him to come and make those serious speeches which were not properly answered, although they were worthy of very serious answers. When serious Amendments—if I may put this in the nicest possible way to the Government—which are argued cogently by persons who have practical knowledge and give up time to come and make their speeches, are not properly answered, a different situation obtains. This is where the strain under which we have been operating has begun to tell.

If the Government show no "give", if they agree only to give lip service to the revising function of this Chamber and do not admit that any revision is necessary, desirable or acceptable, then that is where the charge of hypocrisy will properly lie. When there is no "give", when we are exposed to the reading of Civil Service briefs that do not answer the Amendments one is reminded of the Scots Minister who came to be considered for a call to a particular parish, and the sermon taster in that parish commented: "He read his sermon. He did not read it very well, and it was not worth reading." Very often, that is how we are forced to react to some of the replies from the Government Front Bench, although, I say again, the noble Lords manning the Front Bench do so with grace, with kindness, with good humour and with tact. But their answers sometimes elicit a poor response, because they are such poor answers. Therefore, when we are up against a timetable which really amounts to a guillotine, if the answers are not satisfactory reason goes out of the window, brain gives way to brawn, argument gives way to numbers and the worst comes out of us all.

I said earlier that I would return to the frustration which the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, and others expressed about the absurdity of the numerical composition of this House. Personally, I always regret that the Party opposite has not created far more Life Peers to man those Benches, so that there could be some equality of numbers in this House. But I must also say that it is disappointing when noble Lords, who have made a name for themselves in industry, commerce, business or the City, are brought to this House, ennobled and immediately take their place on those Benches, and then we do not see them again. That is a disappointment, because the House should be enriched by their arguments; and very often their arguments would provide better replies to the Amendments put forward from this side than the briefs read out from the Front Bench.

All this talk about confrontation is really beside the point and need not be pursued. What we must get quite clear is that if this is accepted as a revising Chamber, then answers put forward to serious questions must be real answers. I think it was Samuel Butler who said:

"Learned nonsense has a deeper sound than easy sense and goes for more profound."

The Motion put down by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, is reasonable. I think that the Amendment accepted by him and put down by my noble friend Lord Carrington is more reasonable still. I hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the Party opposite and the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies, who is now on the Front Bench and to whom we are indebted, and whose kindness and friendliness are such a pleasure to us all, will carry to the business managers of the other place the message which the noble Lord, Lord Byers, gave them. It is to serve notice on the business managers there that they must do better in future.

Now that Mr. Michael Foot is a gentleman of distinction in the Cabinet, and now that Mr. Enoch Powell has retired to the outer marches, perhaps the opportunity might come to return to the proposals for reform which were supported so well by my noble friend Lord Carrington. Our job is not to push a Party position; it is to make the House work, to make Parliament work, and to see it give a lead to the nation.

My Lords, it is a sad sign of our times that at the end of October we have to indulge in a debate of this kind, particularly when the pound and currency in many parts of the world is in such a parlous position. Nevertheless, I believe that this debate is necessary and that on the whole it has been useful, and in the few minutes that are available to me I hope I can keep up the standard. Some will ask whether this has been a counter-productive debate. It has been pointed out that the composition of this Chamber means that, whatever happens, the inbuilt majority on this side will carry the day. This is true. I have spent 18 years in your Lordships' House and have been a fairly regular attender and participator. I have never been what one might call a Tory hack. In fact, I have rebelled against my Party on more than one occasion. My noble friend Lord Carrington mentioned the London Government Act. I carried then the only Amendment against my Party. If it happened now I should do the same again because I happen to believe that that was the right decision.

The real bone of contention is that in this Session we are dealing with more than one controversial Bill. It is quite true that during, our period of office there were the London Government and the Industrial Relations Acts. Both Bills were highly controversial and figures have been quoted as to how much time was spent on these measures in Committee, on Report and so on. Figures can be quoted on many occasions and in many circumstances, but the point is that, whereas in those Sessions there was one, or there were possibly two, highly controversial pieces of legislation, in this Session there are five, if not six.

At this hour I shall not seek to go into any detail whatever or say anything whatever about these Bills. My feeling is that we should discuss all of the Bills and that the Government should adhere to their programme. I do not believe that the Government should drop any of the Bills. I do not say that because I like the Bills. I do not; I object in various ways to all of them. However, I make this appeal to the Government. Although we have had a long Session I believe that it should be prolonged because, as has been pointed out, we are a revising Chamber. Revision can he a lengthy process and there is still much to be revised in these Bills.

I sincerely hope that when the noble Lord the Leader of the House, whom I have known for a number of years and for whom we all have such respect, reports back to his honourable and right honourable friends in the other place he will report back the views which have been expressed in this Chamber. I end with the hope that further time will be given during this Session for these maters to be properly, constructively and the heatedly debated.

My Lords, may I make one brief point? We have heard a great deal about—

My Lords, I think it is the wish of the House that we should come to a conclusion. It has been a very useful debate. I gather from what was said by the noble Lord the Leader of the House that he has got the message and I hope he will find that it is possible to adjust the timetable to a more reasonable tempo. If the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, intends to press his Amendment to my Motion I shall be very happy to support it and to ask my colleagues to do the same.

My Lords, I am sorry for the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker. I feel sure that he would have been on my side, but then; we are. If I may say so, the Leader of the House made a very conciliatory speech. I think that both he and the noble Baroness the Chief Whip understand perfectly well the difficulties of the House. I hope that nothing I have said is in any way taken as being a personal reflect] on upon either of them because that was the last thing that I intended. The noble Lord, Lord Peart, said that he was there on in at the deep end. Well, so he was, Jut he is still swimming and he is still swimming very courteously. For that we on this side of the House are very grateful.

I think that the sense of the House is perfectly obvious. Nevertheless, the noble Lord the Leader of the House is enable to accept my Amendment to the Motion which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Byers. I understand the reason, for it is difficult to accept an Amendment which regrets his own actions. But the fact remains that if we pass this Amendment it will make things a little easier for the Government in their dealings with another place, because at least they will be able to tell their colleagues there of the real feelings in this House about the timetable.

My Lords, the original Motion was in the terms set out on the Order Paper, since when Amendments have been moved:

My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

• Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Amendment) Act 1976,
• Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976,
• Maplin Development Authority (Dissolution) Act 1976,
• Armed Forces Act 1976,
• Resale Prices Act 1976,
• Trinidad and Tobago Republic Act 1976,
• Coity Wallia Commons Act 1976,
• Methodist Church Act 1976.

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.

moved Amendment No. 5:

Page 2, line 42, after ("specify") insert ("not being less than 12 months").

My Lords, I must confess to a certain mild dose of impatience over these two Amendments, which seem to me to illustrate very well the persistence and at the same time the ambivalence of the Opposition's approach to the Bill. May I take first Amendment No. 5, which would require the Secretary of State to give the governors of voluntary schools not less than 12 months to submit their proposals. In Committee the Opposition put down Amendments designed to take voluntary schools out of the Bill altogether. They were sternly rebuked by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, who pointed out that this was the last thing that the Churches wanted; so the Opposition withdrew in some confusion. Now they return with this Amendment, designed simply to delay the whole process of reorganisation of voluntary schools, of which, may I say, some 80 per cent. are Church schools. Does the Opposition realise that all the Roman Catholic schools and all but a handful of the Church of England schools have already accepted the comprehensive principle? What, then, is the point of this delaying tactic except as a naked delaying tactic? This Amendment is intended simply to delay the reorganisation of a handful of non-denominational voluntary grammar schools.

Amendment No. 6 is even harder for a simple man to understand. In Committee the Opposition carried an Amendment requiring the Secretary of State to give local authorities not less than 18 months for submission of their proposals. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, told us, at Col.1474, that this was needed to ensure that

"people shall be able to collect themselves;"

that he wanted to defend

"schools which are being peppered with grapeshot from Transport House."

My Lords, it was late; I say no more.

Having got their 18 months on the first round, the Opposition want six months more on the second round for the submission of revised proposals. They tell us that the local authorities, harried to distraction by the unreasonable demands of central Government, need two years in all before they can be ready with a second set of proposals. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, who has served both as a Minister and as a member of a local authority, knows full well that in a fraction of two years the local authorities are perfectly capable of preparing proposals, consulting on them, and submitting them to the Secretary of State.

This Amendment is almost an insult to the local authorities. I am using strong words because in other Amendments the Opposition have sought to add to the burdens of these same local authorities by imposing on them new statutory requirements about parental appeals and about the publication of information about their schools. Yesterday, outside the House, the noble Lord, Lord Elton said, I think to a newspaper, in a moment of selfrevelation, "There are a lot of people in the Lords who speak rubbish". My Lords, who am Ito differ from him? These Amendments show what splendid sense he was talking. He knows, the House knows, that these are wrecking Amendments and are meant to be wrecking Amendments.

The noble Lord asked me a specific question about subsection (4). I think he has misunderstood the subsection. The voluntary aided school plan, to be acceptable, would have to fit into that of the local education authority, and it is highly improbable that an acceptable plan could be put forward by the voluntary school if at the same time the LEAs plan was unacceptable. I really believe these Amendments to be, if not wrecking Amendments, delaying Amendments, and I cannot for one moment recommend the House to accept them.

My Lords, I was a little surprised to hear the noble Lord "going to town", if I may put it that way, when he referred to an Amendment which I moved at the Committee stage with regard to voluntary aided schools. It is a fact that I moved an Amendment which would have deleted voluntary aided schools from this miserable Bill, but when I moved it I started off with these words:

"There is no desire, as far as I know, on the part of any of the voluntary schools to see this Amendment to the Bill."

I explained that that was provided there could be some improvements made to the Bill on their behalf. I went on to explain that I was using that Amendment as a peg on which to hang a series of questions which I then put to the noble Lord. It is not the fact that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn—who, unfortunately, is not here today—then took me to task for this at all. He bore out what I said when I moved that Amendment, namely, that he did not wish to see the Church voluntary schools excluded from the Bill, and it was my impression that he listened with interest to the debate which ensued, which certainly cleared up certain points.

The position of the voluntary aided schools, despite the questions I asked on that occasion and the answers I received, still remains difficult under this Bill, and particularly so with regard to Clause 2. It is never easy for an authority to reach agreement with its voluntary schools about reorgnisation, if for no other reason because many of the voluntary schools are small; many of them are three-form entry or less. Unless the authority is prepared to try to change these very good schools which have large sixth forms into mini-comprehensives, as the Inner London Education Authority has been making a habit of trying to do, it is extremely difficult to know how such schools can accept non-selective intakes without radically changing the sort of schools that they are. My noble friend Lord Eccles gave a particularly clear example of this yesterday when he referred to a voluntary aided school in South London which had a thriving sixth form of, I think I remember him saying, some 200, but under proposals which Inner London wished to put forward, would become a mini-comprehensive with a sixth form of only about 60.

I ask the noble Lord to take on board that this is a problem, and that it may need time to work out between the voluntary school concerned and the authority. In addition to that, the latest projection of the child population figures for the whole country show a dramatic fall, as the noble Lord knows perfectly well, of 1½ to 2 million children over the next 12 years or so. With a falling school population, another problem is that an authority is always bound to be tempted to ensure, when reorganising, that if an) schools have to be closed they will not be their own schools. It is a perfectly natural thing for any local authority to want to ensure that their county schools are preserved. Therefore I am putting it to the noble Lord that it will be necessary for a period of time to be allowed for voluntary schools to consult with their local education authority when proposals are demanded by the Secretary of State under Clause 2. I would have thought that a period of 12 months could not be seen as a totally delaying or wrecking tactic but as a reasonable period of time, as my noble friend has tried to say.

My Lords, a reasonable period of time is what is already contained in the Bill under the law. What we are objecting to is the period of 12 months as a minimum.

My Lords, there is no reasonable period of time written into the Bill. The noble Lord is looking at the wrong subsection. Let me turn now to subsection (4) of this clause, the six month period for consultation when proposals have been rejected End the Secretary of State demands further proposals. Here again, I should not have thought that this would be an or unreasonable period of time. Once again there is no reasonable period of time written into subsection (4).

I have already had occasion on previous debates on this Bill to criticise due intentions of the Government for the procedure which is contained in Clause 2(4). It was in my view, as originally worded, a dictatorial procedure, because the noble Lord will remember that the wording of it was that the Secretary of State could specify conditions and could force the local education authority to adhere to those conditions. I put it to the noble Lord that I thought that this was an intolerable situation for a local authority.

How Ministers can get up from the Government Front Bench and suggest to the Opposition Front Bench that we are laying extra burdens on local education authorities, when this Bill is destroying in a way that has never been seen before, so far as I know, the partnership between local and central Government, defeats me. However, that aside, I should have thought that the Government could have agreed that a period of time not exceeding six months should have been allowed for consultations at that particular stage, even though I do not think that the consultations by that stage are going to be very genuine because it is the Government's intention that the proposals will be dictated as approved by the Secretary of State.

With those few words I shall leave it to my noble friend Lord Elton to decide what to do with this Amendment. But I hope that we shall hear no more from the Government Front Bench about ambivalent attitudes from the Opposition side with regard to voluntary schools, and I hope we shall hear no more from the Government Front Bench, from the Minister of the Arts, about wrecking Amendments, when all we are trying to do is put reasonable periods of time into this miserable Bill.

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Belstead has dealt so effecttively with most of what the noble Lord opposite has said that it is scarcely necessary for me to say more. The remark I made outside this House about your Lordships was taken at one remove from context there, and has been taken at another remove from here. I in fact said that some noble Lords do on occasion speak rubbish, and I am afraid that the noble Lord opposite would bear this out if he only quotes me as an example. I went on to say that your Lordships as a whole were a wise and excellent body of men, but that did not get into the column. I would leave it there. I think that the noble Lord has used rather strong words—words like "insult", and "tedium"—which I would rather not use so early in the night. They may after all accelerate the pace of exacerbation as we draw towards midnight. It is our intention to keep this cool.

Our feeling about the way this clause should be adminsitered is clear. It is quite clear that we are not convinced from what the noble Lord and the noble Baroness have already said, that it is going to be administered as it should be. But we should try to preserve an element of decorum about our exchanges, and I fear that if we were to put this very modest requirement into the Bill it would inevitably be seen by the noble Lord and his friends, both here and elsewhere, as being another wrongful exercise of a rightful privilege. I do not think it would be, but in the interests of good relations I would rather concentrate our fire on more important things and merely see that ombudsmen and others keep a very close eye on how this Bill is run. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

moved Amendment No. 7:

Page 3, line 7, at end insert ("and if the Secretary of State does so require, he shall inform the local authority of his detailed reasons for finding the proposals unsatisfactory.").

My Lords, I welcome the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. When he moved a similar Amendment during Committee stage, I explained certain legal defects which he has now corrected. On that occasion I also pointed out that the Amendment was unnecessary in the light of the then Clause 2(4). That subsection, as originally worded, enabled the Secretary of State to require fresh proposals to fulfil such conditions as she may specify with respect to any matter in the previous proposals which she considered unsatisfactory. Clause 2(4) assumed that the Secretary of State would tell proposers what in her view was wrong with the original proposals and require them to avoid that error on the second attempt.

If the Bill were still as originally drafted I should have to tell the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that his new Amendment, whilst no longer defective, was still unnecessary. However, during Committee stage your Lordships carried an Amendment to remove part of Clause 2(4) from the Bill, so the Secretary of State is now prevented from stating the reasons why proposals submitted under Clause 2 are unsatisfactory and requiring further proposals to avoid those unsatisfactory features. In order to show how conciliatory, helpful, moderate and flexible we are on these Benches, may I say that as the Bill now stands this Amendment improves Clause 2 and is therefore acceptable to the Government. Having said that, I must reserve the Government's position to consider the wording of Clause 2 when the Bill returns to another place, but in this House I am happy to accept it.

My Lords, I simply cannot understand why the Government cannot write into Clause 2 a requirement that proposals submitted or transmitted by LEAs should have to conform with the general principle of Clause 1. If that were written into the clause—that proposals under Clause 2 must conform with the general principle of Clause 1—and if this Liberal Amendment were accepted, then by the time local authorities came to the end of the procedures under Clause 2 they would be bound to have produced proposals which would then lead to the Section 13 procedure under Clause 3.

There would be a world of difference between that sort of procedure—which I should not like because this is not my Bill; it is a miserable and horrible Bill—and having the procedure which I know perfectly well is what the Government want to insert in the Bill again when it goes back to the House of Commons; namely, the old wording of subsection (4) which was that the Secretary of State could stipulate exactly what the local authority had to put in any revised proposals. Have the Government really moved to the position where they are convinced that the Secretary of State should dictate to LEAs the details of how authorities are to provide their own educational services? If that is the Government's view, they have moved a very long way since Circular 10/65, which spelt out a variety of ways in which authorities could reorganise.

I welcome the Amendment for another reason. I cannot resist spelling out in a little more detail, to remind your Lordships of how unpleasant it was, the original wording of the subsection, a point to which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, referred in passing. Under the subsection as originally worded the Secretary of State could stipulate exactly what an authority was to propose under what we should call the second round, and of course that would put a local authority in an impossible position. They would have been dictated to by the Secretary of State so that when they came to consult under subsection (4) they would have been unable to explain that the proposals were the best they could devise, because the proposals would not be their own. The local authority would therefore be unable to recommend their acceptance to people because the proposals would clearly be at variance with what the authority originally thought would be the right policy for their schools.

I put this to the Government earlier and I am bound to tell them that it has been put to me by representatives of local authorities that the old wording of Clause 2(4) placed authorities in a very difficult position when they came to consult with parents, teachers, governors of schools and the general public in the way with which many noble Lords are familiar, when the chairman of an education committee, usually the chairman of the schools committee and the chief education officer or one of his representatives go to a variety of meetings. I therefore hope that the Government will think again on this issue. Here they have what I should have thought was a reasonable Amendment from the Liberal Front Bench. If they could tie that in with a requirement that proposals sub-mitted or transmitted by authorities should conform with the general principle of Clause 1, that would, in my view, do the trick under this clause, without having to do what I deprecate so strongly, namely, spell out in detail what the Government believe an authority should propose.

My Lords, if the noble Lord will turn to Clause 2(1) he may find that it states exactly what he is asking for:

"If at any time it appears to the Secretary of State that progress or further progress in giving effect to the principle stated in section 1 above"—

That was the point the noble Lord was particularly making—

"is required in the area or any part of the area of any local education authority, he may require the authority to prepare …".

It seems to me that that meets the noble Lord's case. I believe that it is totally unfair to suggest that if a local authority, a voluntary school or any body has to submit a scheme for the approval of the Secretary of State it should be regarded as detailed dictatorship to tell that authority in what respects the proposals put up fall short of what the Secretary of State would approve. Clearly, this could be used I suppose as a means of dictating. On the other hand, it is done everywhere wherever people have to put up schemes for approval; the approving body is almost always obliged to give reasons why the approval cannot be given. I think the noble Lord is on an entirely wrong tack. I am not saying that it is a tack which is in any sense a wrecking one, but it is not what this is about.

My Lords, perhaps I may intervene because if I make a speech the noble Lord will not have the right to reply. He seems to be defending exactly what the Amendment says, because it states that the Secretary of State may inform the local authority what the grounds for rejection are. There is no question about that. Specifying what the solution to the problem has to be is what the objection is about, and that is a different matter.

I agree entirely, my Lords, that I am defending the Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, was, as I understood it, complaining that by giving reasons the Secretary of State was dictating. First, I do not agree with that, and secondly, I do not fully understand it. Perhaps I have misunderstood Lord Belstead, but if he is content with the Amendment, we are.

My Lords, I hope that we may have complete understanding about this. The clause as previously drafted entitled the Secretary of State to tell an authority virtually what they were to do and then to resubmit what he had told them to do, whereupon he would sit in judgment on them under Section 13. That seemed to us to be a very unusual procedure, to say the least, in that one should tell somebody what to do and then sit in judgment on one's own decision as to what should be done. As amended, I think that our people would find it entirely reasonable. If the Secretary of State finds the proposals submitted not acceptable—for whatever reason there may be, and there may be many—he will indicate why they are not acceptable, which is again reasonable. The authority will then resubmit their proposals for approval. That will enable the authority at least to submit plans which they believe meet the criticisms that have been made, but they are their plans. As previously drafted they would not have been their plans. I hope, therefore, that the Government will find it possible to leave the clause as amended and accept the Amendment, which I think would be helpful to my people.

My Lords, may I elucidate and confirm what has been said: that is, that we do not object to the Amendment and that we defend it very much in the terms that the noble Lord has done? My noble friend Lord Belstead was adding a rider to the effect that when this goes down the corridor and the noble Baroness's reservation is noted about the wording being considered in another place, they should not too keenly consider reinserting what was here before, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, said, that was undemocratic, unusual and unacceptable. This is not, and I hope that if we were at cross purposes we no longer are.

My Lords, there still seems to be some slight confusion, particularly on the Government Front Bench, about the difference between the Secretary of State's duty to diagnose and transmit the diagnosis of a problem, and her duty, if it should so exist, actually to prescribe how it should be dealt with. However, I think that there is a genuine difference and, if a change is made in the other place, we may come to discuss this matter a great deal more fully. In the meantime, it is a very rare pleasure to have put forward an Amendment that appears to be welcome on all four sides of the House, if I count the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, on his own as a whole side.

moved Amendment No. 8:

Page 3, line 35, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").

My Lords, I am absolutely happy with this probing Amendment. I believe that there was some misunder-standing before and I am grateful for the opportunity of clearing it up. The noble Lord has asked his question very clearly. He has asked whether the operation of Section 13 procedure means that that procedure can be skipped. The answer is that it does not. It means that the procedure begins and is then gone right through. I can give him an absolute assurance that, under these arrangements under the Bill, which is were the application of Section 13 is new, the whole consultation procedure, the publication and all the rest of it, is legally necessary when the procedure begins.

Clause 3(1) envisages that if short-term proposals are satisfactory to the Secretary of State they will be subject to the Section 13 procedure. There can be no question of the Secretary of State giving formal approval to proposals that would then have to be implemented by the proposers without the proposals having been through the Section 13 procedures. I believe that this was the point that was worrying the noble Lord. Such approval would be illegal under this Bill, as it would be under the provisions of the 1944 Education Act.

It is true that Clause 3(1) confers a power rather than imposes a duty, but, as I indicated during the Committee stage, it would be inconceivable that the Secretary of State would call for proposals but not direct that they undergo Section 13 procedure if they satisfied the necessary criteria and were, in her opinion, prima facie satisfactory. How else could the proposals she had called for be implemented? The answer is that they could not. So we do not consider that this this Amendment to Clause 3(1) would safeguard anything. It would result in the pointless Section 13 consideration—as the noble Lord admitted at the beginning of his speech—being brought into operation, and in quite unnecessary effort and equally unnecessary delay and expense. I hope that after what I have said, it will be felt that there is no difference between us on this matter and that the noble Lord will be satisfied and will withdraw the Amendment.

My Lords, the noble Lord said that he welcomed the opportunity to elucidate. He has elucdated one half of the problem very clearly. I apologise if I have not followed him to rough the other. But what exercises me is this: I still cannot quite define in my mind the junction between the procedures c f Clause 2 and Clause 3. As I see it, all proposals which are treated in Clause 3(1) are proposals which have already been taken through Clause 2. This is how it was explained to us at the Committee stage. We were told that Clause 2 proposals were to be outline proposals, and frequently they were referred to as the sketch-map proposals, but a sketch map is not something which one puts through a Section 13 procedure.

I wonder, therefore, whether what we are to have are Clause 2 proposals, which are woolly and imprecise aspirations studied with a few concrete, voluntary school-type proposals like lumps in tapoca, and only the lumps go through the Clause 3 to Section 13, because they are the only precisely drawn plans, whereas the others are aspirations as to how general problems are to be handled. If so, the remainder of Clause 2 plan escapes that clause. It relates presumably to busing and banding and matters such as that which do not require ministerial sanction under other legislation.

But if this is the case, why is it necessary under the Bill to submit plans in that grey area to the Secretary of State anyway? It would seem that without an Amendment she has the power only to reject and none to accept. I am puzzled by this, because I try to visualise a plan through Clause 2 into Clause 3, emerging at the end as a block of buildings, and I cannot quite get the tie up. I am sure that the noble Baroness has anticipated this point, because I tried to express this difficulty previously, though perhaps no more successfully than now. Bui I shall be grateful if she can tell me how it is that one can refer to Clause 2 as sketch-map plans only and then in Clause 3(1) all the plans that come for Section 13 are referred to as plans that have already gone through Clause 2, specifically in the first two lines of the clause. Perhaps the noble Baroness can elucidate this point.

My Lords, the effect of the Amendment at which we are now looking is one that will require the Secretary of State to direct that all the short-term proposals that are submitted under Clause 2 on the sketch-map procedure—whether they are to establish, to enlarge, or to change the character of the school or what-have-you, or even to cease to maintain schools—should all undergo Section 13 procedures, even if at first sight they appear to be unacceptable. It is quite unnecessary. If a proposal in a sketch map appears to be unacceptable, then surely the sensible thing is to send it back to the authority, saying why the Secretary of State feels it is unacceptable, and not to go through all the Section 13 procedure until the proposal is one that is likely to be accepted—

My Lords, if I may intervene it may reduce the length of this exchange. I see the force of what the noble Baroness says. She may feel, and she may strictly speaking be right, that I am not in order in asking her this question although it is analogous to the Amendment, but this is the last occasion on which we can have an explanation. It seems to me that the Bill provides for a sketch plan to be prepared under Clause 2 procedures, which we discussed at great length. Under Clause 3 everything has to go in order to get into bricks and mortar. We are told that everything in Clause 3 will go through a Section 13 procedure, and that is not of the nature of a sketch plan. Therefore I am asking the noble Baroness whether this requires an enormous amount of detail to be written into the plans which go through Clause 2, because they have to be the same plans which are taken through Clause 3. I will not go further on this point if the noble Baroness is not able to enlighten me. Perhaps she would like to write to me about it, but it seems to me that we are discussing a fairly complicated procedure—at least it appears more complicated to me than it does to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge; that I can see by his expression. But I am a sinful man, and there are many such, and perhaps the noble Baroness can help us.

My Lords, under the sketch-map procedure, if the plans come back with the general approval of the Secretary of State, they are then firmed up and are submitted as firm proposals, and then, when accepted, go through the Section 13 procedure. I will look in Hansard to see what we have all said, and if I can put the matter more clearly to the noble Lord I will write to him again.

My Lords, as I moved the Amendment may I, in with-drawing it, speak for a moment? I have one worry. I think that this is by way of being a complicated clause and as people talk about it so things come to mind. What is now worrying me is the wording of line 36 where Clause 3 provides that

"the Secretary of State may direct that those proposals"—

that means sketch-map proposals from Clause 2—

"(or any of them) shall be treated as if they had been submitted to him by the local education authority"

under Section 13 of the Education Act 1944. The point I should like to put to the Government—and we still have a Third Reading to come—is that clearly the proposals from Clause 2 cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be treated as though they had been submitted to him under Section 13 because they are general sketch-map proposals on reorganisation, as the noble Baroness has pointed out to us in Committee on the Bill.

Section 13 proposals are a very different creature. They are individual proposals for individual schools, to enlarge them, or to establish them, or to change their character. All I am saying is this: I wonder whether the wording of line 36 is an accurate reflection of what the Government mean. I will not say any more on that, but I ask that the Government have one more look at the wording. I am not trying to persuade them to a different way of thinking. All I am trying to do is to say, is the Bill drafted accurately? With that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

moved Amendment No. 9:

Page 3, line 45, after ("Education") insert ("(Miscellaneous Provisions)").

My Lords, the Government will always be happy to accept any Amendment of the noble Lord's drafting, and I am happy to accept the Amendment in this case.

My Lords, if it is the will of the House, I think that this might be a convenient moment to adjourn the Report stage.

My Lords, I should like to register the strongest protest—I do not think that one does that in this House, but I will have a go—about cutting out this piece of the Education Bill. It seems typical of democratic procedures that we wasted two hours debating whether we should speak at shorter length. We could have usefully spent that two hours on this Bill. There seems to be some informal arrangement that consideration of the Bill was to cease at six o'clock. This was not noted on the Order Paper, and one can only assume that it was an arrangement between the two Front Benches. It is not even mentioned on our unofficial Whip. But we are defrauded of at least one and a half hours of the Education Bill.

We are supposed to reach another stage of the Education Bill on Friday morning. This cannot now be so, and I feel it is most deplorable in the case of a very important Bill of this kind. We so rarely get the opportunity to debate education. We debate almost everything else in this House, but very rarely education. There are many of us who feel very strongly about this, and I deplore the fact that we have been cheated out of 1½ hours of discussion on this very valuable Bill.

My Lords, I think it is worth saying that I hope we are not being cheated of any time at all. Of course, these arrangements arc made between the usual channels, but I cannot believe that the usual channels would think that we should curtail the debate on this Bill, and I was not under the impression that they had. But it would he very helpful to us and our Front Bench to know when it is proposed to take the next stage; and I do not doubt that the remedy which the noble Baroness seeks would assist us in this matter also.

My Lords, perhaps I can help there. I have a lot of sympathy with what my noble friend has said, but of course at the moment there is a great pressure on the timetable. It was agreed, I think, that three hours would be given to the Report stage of the Education Bill today, but that the Docks Bill would start at 6 o'clock, which must come on now and be completed today. Earlier today your Lordships agreed to pass a Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, with an Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, the debate on which of course took until 5 o'clock, so that has, I am afraid, rather curtailed some of the time we were to spend on the Report stage of this particular Bill. But I think we have made some progress, and I can assure my noble friend that what she has said will be noted. Further consideration on this Bill, it is proposed, should be on Friday; and I may say that the fact that the Dock Work Regulation Bill was to come on at 6 o'clock was given in the advance notice of business when it was agreed between the usual channels. I hope that goes some way towards satisfying my noble friend.

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to give us an assurance that we are not going to have the Third Reading as well on Friday?

No, my Lords; Friday will be given over to completing the Report stage.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

moved Amendment No. 96:

Page 26, line 17, at end insert ("either by structure or contract").

The Amendment is presumably intended to extend the meaning of "associated company" to include one which has any kind of contract with the owners of the business who own or produce the goods in question. The noble Lord is seeking in this way to exclude from classification work at third-party warehouses which have contracts with their clients to store goods on their behalf. The Government cannot accept that cargo-handling work at third-party warehouses should be automatically ex—cluded from the Bill. Moreover, the Amendment would also seem likely to exclude from classification a great deal of ordinary stevedoring work, and probably any cargo-handling work except where the contract by the firm handling the goods was not with the owner but with an intermediary, such as a forwarder. While this may frequently be the arrangement, it is certainly not so in all cases, and could in any case be changed by the parties if they found it desirable to avoid classification.

I must say that I would regard this as a wrecking Amendment, even though the noble Lord may not have intended it as such. May I put it in simple language? If the person who owned the goods had a contract with the port employer, then it would mean that the handling of those goods at the port could not be classified because there was an association by contract. This is certainly an Amendment which the Government could under no circumstances accept.

The noble Lord, in rejecting this Amendment, is I think taking no account of the small man and the smaller business. For example, in food and other commodities protection is given to the enormous chains that have their own exclusive warehouses but the many other smaller companies, or divers companies, which may draw from different warehouses, are in no similar way protected, and it will merely add additional cost and expense to the middle-sized company, the middle-sized firm and the middle-sized distributor. I think the Government might give some consideration to them, because the big chains, with their exclusively-owned warehouses, can bring the muscle in and tell the Government it is not on, but the small businessman suffers all the time.

This has nothing to do with the size of the firm. The whole question here is whether, in addition to the goods belonging to the company or an associated company, it should also cover the goods which belong, not to an associated company but to a company with whom the principal company has a contract.

I am obliged to the noble Lord for his answer, although disappointed. I must say I am flattered to think that my Amendment should be classed as a wrecking Amendment, because, as the noble Lord rightly surmised, that was far from my intention. One of the purposes of tabling this Amendment was to try to extract from the Government their idea of what is an associated company. Is it a company simply owned by the parent company? Is it a company in business in some way with the principal company? I thought that my Amendment would give the Government an opportunity to expand on that point and I hope that the noble Lord is able to do that.

As for the second phrase in my Amendment, namely, the words "or contract I agree that as defined by the noble Lord this would widen the scope quite considerably. I can, however, confirm to the noble Lord that the thought that was in the mind of my noble friend Lady Hornsby-Smith when she was talking about the smaller company was that it was most certainly my intention to try to provide some easement for these kind of people and that was one of the reasons why the Amendment was tabled. But the definition of an "associated company" is an important point and while I am pondering upon what to do with this Amendment perhaps the noble Lord could help me there?

The definition is in Clause 15(3), page 19.

I shall not weary the Committee while I look that up and ponder on it. I will take the noble Lord's word for it, and with that I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

moved Amendment No. 97:

The consequences of this Amendment as it stands would be that in any case where there was a collective agreement with a recognised trade union the work in question could not be classified as dock work—even if the union and the management were both anxious that it should be so classified. It would, for example, prevent classification of the work of the tally clerks at Liverpool. The tally clerks at Liverpool are working in very close association with registered dockers. It is the wish of both the employers and the employees that this work should be classified, but this Amendment would prevent classification.

In discussing an earlier Amendment I also mentioned that on the North-East coast fish bobbers at all ports except at Hull are registered dockers, and the Hull fish bobbers claim that this is entirely due to an accident of history and they want the work classified. They have a very strong case for the work being classified, but this Amendment would prevent that classification. Consequently, we hope that with this explanation the noble Lord will see his way clear to withdraw this Amendment.

I am sure we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, for his response to my noble friend's Amendment; but is it really fair to suggest that for the sake of classification, arrangements which have been in force in some places for very many years should be upset? I know that in Southampton a number of jobs are done by dockers by agreement with other employers and unions. Surely, as the Bill stands, there will be a case for classification—with all the trauma that that is likely to bring.

If one takes the case that the noble Lord has cited, at Hull, if those workers are currently excluded from having their work classified as dock work, instead of going through the rigmarole of classifying the work throughout all the ports, surely a collective agreement as is provided for in this Amendment could be entered into and then they would have the same status? If such an arrangement, as suggested by my noble friend in moving the Amendment, is good enough for all parties, why do we need to make a law which will upset it?

I am told that at Southampton there has been a great deal of harmony over the years in agreeing different types of work. Certainly a trade union leader and road haulage official told me about ten days ago that they thought that the Bill was quite stupid in this respect, and quite unnecessary because with good will and good intention on both sides everybody could be satisfied. Surely that is all my noble friend Lord Lyell is seeking, an area in which people of good intention can be satisfied without having to resort to the law.

But that is not the effect of the Amendment. The effect is that where both the employers and employees wish for classification, it could not happen in a case where there is a collective agreement if this Amendment were passed. In the case of the Liverpool tally clerks there is a collective agreement. They want the work to be classified and they want to come within the Scheme. The employers do not object, but if this Amendment were carried they would be excluded. In our opinion that is an intolerable position.

Either I have not made myself clear or I have quite misunderstood what the noble Lord has said. Surely, if the tally clerks have a collective agreement they have got what they want.

No.

And by coming within the Scheme, it is the same thing but called by a different name.

No.

Then could the noble Lord tell me what real, and not the imagined, difference, would occur in the case of the tally clerks so they could get what they do not have under their collective agreement?

There are many collective agreements associated with dock work covering non-classified work, where the workers are quite happy with the agreements. But the agreement is quite different from the terms and conditions that would operate if they were registered dockers. There are advantages and disadvantages. There are certain advantages in not being classified and being subject to a collective agreement which they have had for years, and to be able to belong to the union they want to belong to. All those things count. In the case of the Liverpool tally clerks there is a collective agreement, but there could be further advantages to the staff if they were registered dockers, and the employers wish them to join the Scheme. I imagine that what has happened here is that most of the employees are already registered and covered. But there is a sector, the tally clerks, who want to be covered and the employers want them to be, even though they have a separate collective agreement.

With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, I think the Government are absolutely right on this matter and I have the feeling that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has not quite appreciated the point. Part II of this Schedule, as the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, said, covers work excluded from classification. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, talked about tally clerks at Liverpool, but it would apply to ordinary dockers in the ports of London, Southampton or elsewhere. They all have collective agreements and therefore would be excluded. It must be appreciated that Part II refers to work excluded from classification. Part I covers work that is subject to classification, but it does not follow that it will always be classified. If you include it in Part II it is excluded from classification. That is the point which the noble Lord is making. As regards the difficulties that have been mentioned, I wonder whether they not be met by Amendment No. 107. That might help the noble Lord, Lord Lye11, if the Government can be persuaded to accept it.

I must apologise for not having been here at the beginning of this discussion. As I see it, the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, is saying that this Amendment is unreasonable because there may be some workers in a particular occupation who will get advantage by having their jobs classified as dock work and would be prevented from seeing that happen because of this Amendment. I seek the indulgence of my own Front Bench as well as that of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, but it seems to me that this Amendment is talking about the state of affairs that will result when the Bill becomes law. Then, people who are working in a certain business or on certain premises and have a collective agreement with a recognised trade union will, by means of this Amendment, be able to remain with that trade union and with that particular type of work without its being classified as dock work.

It seems to me that there is nothing within this Amendment—and here I must ask the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Lyell—to prevent the workers, if they so wish, seeking to have another collective agreement with their employers. In my experience, collective agreements are not rigid things which never change. As I see it, the Bill would not prevent a group of workers from having discussior s with their employers and negotiating, if they wish, on whatever grounds there may be, to have themselves switched over. It would seem to me, therefore, that the particular clause is more a holding of the status quo at the time the Bill becomes law, rather than a long-term thing which would stop changes ever happening in the future. Perhaps I have gained the wrong impression.

I would not agree with that interpretation. My interpretation of this Amendment is that at any time if the workers doing certain work have a collective agreement, their work could not be classified.

First of all, may I say that I am afraid the exigencies of our business has meant that the Front Bench team is having to be changed in mid-play. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, and other members of the Committee will bear with me if we have to go a little more slowly when I am taking part. It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has not registered the intention as expressed by my noble friend Lord Lyell. I thought he had made it abundantly clear that this Amendment—which after all is more or less on a par with what is set out in paragraph 10—seeks to do no more than secure that everything was left well alone when the arrangements that obtained were based upon a collective agreement with a recognised trade union.

If I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, it is really no answer to that to say that there are collective agreements which, if this Amendment were passed, would prevent those concerned from having their work classified as dock work, because, as my noble friend Lord Mottistone said, all they would have to do then would be to cancel their collective agreement as the first of a series of steps to get their work on to a different basis. Once the collective agreement is there, the proposed new paragraph would not bite. We should find it helpful if the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, would give an indication of the Government's attitude towards the intention expressed by my noble friend; namely, would they not agree that where work was being done that was based on a collective agreement with a recognised trade union it is better to leave well alone? That is the purpose of this Amendment. What my noble friend will do concerning this Amendment at this stage will be a matter for him to decide, but it would be helpful if the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, could help us on that point.

May I rise for the first, last and only time in the course of this long series of debates to support the noble Lord, Lord Jacques. I venture to suggest that this Amendment would have an effect which is far wider than is intended. What it would do, in fact, would be to make an already rather meaningless clause totally meaningless. It would mean that in no conceivable circumstances could work ever be classified if a collective agreement was in force, and even if a new collective agreement came into force it would be caught by the terms of the Amendment. The only time work could be classified, if this Amendment were accepted, would be if there were no collective agreement in force at all. That, with respect, is surely a recipe for industrial anarchy.

In answer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, I would say that we can go a very long way with him. In fact, under Clause 8 if the Board have under consideration the classification of work, a trade union recognised by an employer as from the end of decasualisation in 1967 can veto the proposal.

The noble Lord said that the date is the end of decasualisation, and we shall be coming to that later. But I should like to thank him for some of his answers, particularly when he said that the Government go a long way with my noble friend Lord Sandford. As the noble Lord said, there are defects in the Amendment and it prevents classification. He quoted the example of the tally clerks at Liverpool who, I presume, do not belong to the docks section of the Transport and General Workers' Union, because if they did there would be no difficulty. I understand that the tally clerks in the Port of London belong to that union, but I suppose that different ports have different customs. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, said that there would be advantages to the employees in belonging to a union of their choice. I hope that there would also be advantages to an employer in allowing his employees to belong to a union of their choice, and this is what the Amendment seeks to preserve.

I take the points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. They are probably valid points, but not so valid as our good points. I was very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, accepted the fact that we are setting out in a constructive spirit. I appreciate that the effect of the Amendment will be to prevent classification when the work force wishes it, but we are of the opinion that when there is a collective agreement between an employer and employees or a trade union it should be upheld. The noble Lord's reply had considerable merit, and I should like to take this opportunity of withdrawing the Amendment and will consider it for a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

moved Amendment No. 98:

This Amendment is very similar to Amendments which were considered during the Committee stage in another place, and which were negatived on a Division. In the debate which took place in the other place the Secretary of State made it clear that it was certainly not envisaged that the driving of such vehicles within dock estates should in general be classified as dock work. He explained that there were, however, some cases where it might be considered appropriate to classify such work; for example, there could be cases where, as a matter of practice, convenience or efficiency, vehicles were left in cock parks by their drivers and driven on board by dockers. Another case was that of cars or lorries for export or import. The fears expressed in some quarter; that the effect of the Bill as drafted will be to lead to a general take-over of driving lorries within dock estates by registered dock workers, are unjustified. It is the, Government's views that the various tests to be applied under the Bill, before work is classified as dock work, are adequate to ensure that the work of driving vehicles normally used on public roads will be recommended for classification only in those exceptional circumstances when it would be appropriate to do so.

I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, on this Amendment, which is sound. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, explained very carefully that classification would be sought only in special cases. This seems to be introducing a great complication, unless these special cases are all itemised. Is it not better to accept this Amendment, which excludes from classification the driving of any vehicle within the port limits?—because there is nothing to prevent someone from employing Registered dock workers to do unclassified work, and it is still possible, in the kind of case which the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, mentioned, when by custom, or whatever it may be, dockers are employed to drive a vehicle on to a ship, for them to do so.

If the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, is not going to answer the noble Viscount, I shall have to try to prompt him into a reply. This is a good Amendment, because it will satisfy one set of workers as against another. Those members of the road haulage industry who are engaged in going to and from the docks are extremely worried. No amount of assurances in the other place have satisfied them.

It is not good enough for the Minister to say, as he has just said, that the Secretary of State made it clear that he did not envisage that this work would become registered as dock work but that there might be some cases where classification may be sought. The members of the truck driving industry feel, rightly or wrongly, that they are the poor relation. They see themselves as highly skilled men, in that the vast majority of them have to hold an HGV Class 1 licence. You do not pick up such a licence by sending £1 to the Post Office; it can cost a man or his employer £300 or £400 to get that licence.

Perhaps I may quote from the August 1976 issue of Headlight, the independent journal of road transport:

"We can only judge what the dockers will do from their record in the past. Such as at Chobham Farm container depot, in East London. Once the dockers moved in, they soon elbowed out the people who were already working there".

These men may arrive at a dock having driven a long distance over many hours. I have known of drivers waiting outside a dock to get in for as long as two days, for a variety of reasons, without enjoying any kind of facilities bar the street. Why should these men work under the threat that one day their job will be taken away from them and given to somebody else, or that they may be required to join either another union or another section of a particular union?

This Bill is so incompetent. It holds out promises to a wide variety of people, so much so that along the South Coast there are already moves by the docker section of the Transport and General Workers' Union to persuade the drivers within that union that they should register, albeit in an unofficial capacity, as drivers who regularly do work in and around the port area. They will be issued with a card. Those firms which send a truck into the dock with a driver who does not hold a card may find that it is a little difficult to get their work done. That is the kind of suggestion the Bill is already creating. That there may be vehicles left in a pound and therefore unaccompanied is not germane to the argument because an unaccompanied vehicle, whether it is a new motor car, a new land rover, a new lorry, a private motor car being shipped to Le Havre for collection by somebody who flies over, or a loaded lorry, has then passed, surely, into other hands. Different rules will apply because then it is under the guardianship, as it were, of a shipping company.

If the arguments are correct which the Government advanced when we discussed Amendment No. 88, which was moved by my noble friend Lord Gowrie, and were trying to decide when goods became cargo, it may be that that would be the case, but what happens in the case of a rigid vehicle or an articulated vehicle that is accompanied? Why should there be any reason to suggest that the law should provide that on a private road or in a private part of a dock that vehicle could be, might be, may be driven by a docker who may or may not have (my contention is that he will not have) the requisite qualifications? Nor, indeed, is he likely to be covered by insurance. These are the kind of cases which the haulage industry feel could he upset by the Bill.

The drivers are responsible at all times not only for the safety of the vehicle but also for the safety of the load. This is not to say that loads are not well looked after, particularly in ferry boats, in terms of lashing down vehicles. At this point it might be appropriate to pay a tribute to those workers on board the ferries who so well looked after commercial vehicles and their loads during the recent gales. Nobody would deny that they did a good job. Nevertheless, why should they move wagons on or off a boat? We have spoken a good deal about roll-on/roll-off. This is only the current expedient for moving goods about; later on there could be another one, although I do not know what it might be. I do not believe that it is fair that there should remain in a Bill a clause whereby this group of people may have their jobs taken away.

At col.621 of our Second Reading debate I asked what would be the situation with drivers coming from Common Market countries if the provisions now contained in the Bill obtained. I know full well what happens in practice. Whether the vehicles are usually, by custom, or by a collective agreement driven by dock workers, no foreign driver that I have spoken to or heard of will ever allow his vehicle to be moved by any person other than himself. I asked at that time whether the Bill impinged upon our commitment to the relieving EEC regulations. A good deal more traffic will be moving across the Channel and, it may be, across the oceans. The development of the movement of goods in whole wagons, whether they are rigid, whether they are the train type vehicle or whether they are the tractor-trailer type vehicle, means that more drivers will be employed, and they are not going to give up one part of their job to another group of people. It is not right that there should he any gap in the Bill that would enable one group to ease out another.

Unless the Minister can give very much better reasons for refusing the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Lye11, I think that my noble friends will have to test how the entire Committee feels about it.

If the Amendment were written into the Bill rather than paragraph 11 which is already contained in it, would it preclude dockers from doing the jobs they already do which the noble Lord instanced that the Secretary of State had given as examples in another place? As I read the Bill, it means that driving these vehicles not only on public roads but also on private roads within the ports could be done by transport workers who are not dockers. Presumably if it has been the normal practice so far it could also be done by dockers. Is this reading of the Amendment correct or would it prevent dockers from doing this work? I think this is an important point.

If the work was not classified it would not prevent dockers from doing it but they would not have a right to claim it as their work.

But if it had been the normal practice for them to do it up till now presumably they would be perfectly entitled to continue to do it?

I think the noble Duke is now supporting my case of rejecting this Amendment. Let me tell the Committee what the position is. Work within a dock site driving lorries we say would not normally be classifiable because it would not get over the tests which are laid down in Clause 8 and Schedule 4. Let us look at the tests which they have to get over. It is a two-stage procedure in Schedule 4. First, the Board has to consider whether there is a prima facie case and in order to do that they have to take three things into account: first, whether the work is in substitution for work previously done by registered dock workers; secondly, whether the work needs the training, aptitude and experience of a registered dock worker; thirdly, whether the work is for the time being wholly or mainly done by workers employed as casual labour. They have to take those things into account, and having done so they come to a decision as to whether or not there is a prima facie case.

During the course of that any parties can make representations anti if they decide that there is a prima facie case they have to start afresh with a second procedure. They have then to inform the parties that they have decided there is a prima facie case and in conseatence they propose to give further consideration to the matter. They have to allow time for further representations and when the second procedure is completed they have to decide whether it is sensible having regard to the efficiency and the effect upon industrial relations, to classify this work. In my view ordinary driving would never get over those tests. We have gone out of our way to prevent it from got ting over those tests. Consequently we say that without this Amendment ordinary lorry drivers need not fear for their jobs. It is only in very exceptional cases, such as those which I have mentioned, where by normal practice they take their lorries into the car park and leave then for the dockers to drive them on to the ship. We do not think that the normal drivers have anything to fear, and if I may say so I do not think that the Transper ort and General Workers' Union would be very unhappy if drivers were threatened in that way because I imagine that they have far more drivers than dockers in their membership.

If I may intervene briefly, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, is very close to admitting that this Amendment is valid, in that I think I heard him say that should this Amendment be written into the Bill, in the exceptional cases that he me mentioned much earlier on, where registered dock workers do indeed drive such vehicles within the dock areas, they could continue to do so. Is that the position?

I think I made the position clear. I said that if the work was not classified the registered dock worker could do it but he could not claim the right to do it. Even though he had been doing it he could not claim the right to do it because as a result of this Amendment it would be unclassifiable. We are considering Part II of Schedule 3, which lays down that work which is not classifiable. Noble Lords opposite are trying to make this not classifiable so therefore even if the dock worker is doing it at the moment I am saying that he could continue to do it, but he would not have the right to continue to do it.

This is the whole purpose of the Amendment. We agree that where by custom and practice—I think that is mentioned earlier in the Bill although we should need to have it defined more clearly—registered dock workers do indeed drive these vehicles, there is mutual agreement between the owners of the vehicles and the dockers that this should be allowed. I thank the noble Lord for clearing up that point but I think my noble friend has something more to say.