asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the need for reconstructing and extending the fish market wharves in Aberdeen concerning which he has been in consultation with Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeen Harbour Board; if he will now make a statement on the result of those consultations; and when the work of reconstruction and extension will commence.

My officials have recently discussed with representatives of the Harbour Board and the Town Council the need for repair of certain sections of the fish market wharves and I understand that the Board and Council will now consider the position in the light of the discussion. Further developments will depend on the outcome.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is a very important matter for the development of the export trade of Aberdeen? Does he further agree that the consultations may involve the possibility of the fish market operations being confined to a smaller area and modernised so that berthage can be released for fishing vessels and other traffic to meet the growing export and other trade demands of Aberdeen Harbour? If so, will he expedite these improvements in the interests of the trade industry, commerce and employment of north-east Scotland?

Yes, Sir, as soon as the results of the necessary consultations have come to me for consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the disparities between the salaries and conditions of service of probation officers in different parts of Great Britain, and that their removal was recommended by the Morison Report on the Probation Services; and what steps he intends to take to have them removed.

I am aware of the Morison Committee's recommendations on this subject. I cannot yet add to the reply that I gave the hon. and learned Member on 10th April, but the decision of the industrial Court is expected shortly.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman ashamed to continue to inflict these wrongs upon these probation officers—officers who are doing just as good work as, if not better work than, probation officers elsewhere and who deserve just as high remuneration? Will he look into this matter with a view to seeing that justice is done to these Scottish probation officers?

I welcomed the finding of the Morison Committee that the work of the probation officer is essentially the same throughout Great Britain, but I cannot anticipate the decision of the Industrial Court.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he proposes to introduce legislation to implement recommendations of the Morison Committee proposing changes in the present administration of the probation service in Scotland.

Following consultation with the interested bodies, I have decided, after very careful consideration, that I should not take a final decision on the future administration of the Scottish probation service until I can also consider the effect of other developments in the field of social work in the prevention of crime and the treatment of offenders.

Meanwhile I am considering what steps can be taken to improve the service without legislation.

Could my right hon. Friend say what kind of steps they are? Do they involve salary alteration or alterations of conditions of service, or what?

The salary alterations will have to wait till the Industrial Court has given its decision, but things like provision of premises for the probation service can be done without legislation.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give an estimate of the cost of providing the roads which will be necessary to provide alternative transport to meet the implementation of the recommendations of the British Railways Board on the reshaping of British Railways.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent he proposes to expand the road programme in Scotland in order to meet the demand for additional road services which will be created by the proposed rail closures.

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has explained the statutory procedure which applies to proposed passenger closures. Until this procedure has been followed out in individual cases, it is impossible to anticipate what additional highway expenditure may be necessary. Meanwhile, I am making a preliminary examination of the possible effect of individual closure proposals.

How can the Government assess whether or not closures will be economic if they do not have, and are not seeking, the information that is asked for in this Question? Does not the Secretary of State realise that literally hundreds of millions of £s would be needed to produce the roads that would be required if the Beeching proposals were implemented? Does he not also recognise that this is a foolish way, and a very narrow way, of looking at the transport problems of Scotland as a whole?

I appreciate, of course, that the two things are connected, but I listened to most of the debate yesterday and the day before, and I have the feeling that even if I had been able to provide all the information for which the hon. Gentleman asks, he would only have turned round and said that it meant that I intended closing every line.

But is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport told us nothing—that it was a political speech? Is he not also aware that his right hon. Friend also indicated last night that the Beeching proposals will commence coming into operation at once? In view of that, is it not time that the Secretary of State had some information about what the alternatives will be?

In winding up the debate on Monday night, I said that we had given priority to examining the problems in the central industrial belt. This is so. We shall continue looking at the other ones as quickly as we can.

Surely, the Minister of Transport and the right hon. Gentleman accepted, generally, the Beeching Report. Did they accept that Report without making any estimate at all, generally, of what it would cost to provide the alternative services and roads?

The general broad picture has, I think, been accepted because, in general, if the proposals are phased in the right way it will be possible for many of them to fit in with the road programme already in existence.

What is the cost of that acceptance? Was it a blind acceptance, or was the social cost also estimated?

It was certainly not a detailed study of all the possible effects, because that could not be done until Dr. Beeching's proposals were put forward. I do not think anybody in this country could work out the full details of all the possible consequential costs.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what new industries were established in the new town of Cumbernauld from 1st April, 1962, to 1st April, 1963; and what was the number of new jobs provided.

Three new firms were established in the new town of Cumbernauld between 1st April, 1962, and 1st April, 1963. The number of new jobs provided in the same period was 167.

I thank the Secretary of State for that Answer. This is a modest achievement, but it is some achievement. Nevertheless, 460 people travel from Cumbernauld Station to Buchanan Street because there are no jobs for them in Cumbernauld and they have to keep their jobs in Glasgow. The position will get worse with the increasing number of families coming to Cumbernauld. Will the right hon. Gentleman really make efforts to increase the number of jobs being created in the new town by bringing more industry there? Otherwise, the position will really be frightening when the station is closed.

I appreciate the hon. Member's point, but the development corporation has three new factories nearing completion which will provide work for 450 workers. In addition, there is an extension of an existing factory, which is expected to yield 200 jobs. In addition, four standard advance factories, capable of employing up to 500 people, are under construction. I think that the development corporation is doing its best to meet what the hon. Gentleman and I want.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what response has been made to the appeals for married and other nurses to return to the profession in the hospitals and infirmaries of Glasgow; how many applicants have been found suitable for refresher courses; how many have been offered appointments in the past three months; and if he is satisfied that there are adequate facilities for refresher courses.

Two Glasgow hospitals have each offered two courses for nurses returning to hospital work; 73 nurses have attended. At one hospital, the nurses attending undertook to accept employment in that hospital and all have done so. At the other hospital, there was no obligation to take employment in the same hospital but a few of the nurses did. I do not think that special facilities are required for such courses.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, but can he assure us that there is no truth in the widespread belief that in the last three months of the financial year the hospitals are unable, because of their budgets being expended, to take on nurses; and that as long as there are facilities for retraining, the money will be available for this very necessary re-entry of ex-nurses, even at the end of the financial year?

This, of course, is a matter for the hospital boards. I have no information that they are in difficulty in this particular respect at the moment.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what access to police files and records is given to ex-policemen subsequently employed as security staff with other organisations.

I understand that ex-police officers employed as security staff by commercial and other similar organisations do not have access to police records.

Is the Secretary of State aware that there is a widespread belief among the public, with some evidence, admittedly very difficult to substantiate, that these officers are employed precisely because of their close association with the police force, their knowledge of police methods and their informal association with policemen? Will he take steps to ensure that there is absolutely no access, either official or unofficial, to police records by ex-policemen employed in these jobs?

As far as I am aware, there is no such connection, and it is difficult for me to deal with rumours that may be current. If the hon. Gentleman knows, or hears, of a particular case, I hope that he will bring it to my notice, because I agree with him on the principle.

asked the Secretary of State far Scotland how many individual applications have been made to him to date by local authorities in Scotland under Section 5 of the Local Employment Act; and how many derelict sites have been cleared as a consequence of these applications to date.

Of the 35 applications submitted, 18 have been approved for work worth an estimated total of £270,000, and 13 are under consideration. Four schemes have been completed, and work is in progress on six.

In view of that very slow rate of approval and clearance, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether it is a case of an excess of red tape, as many local authorities agree, or of Ministerial lethargy in the matter? Would he be willing to look again at the memorandum he sent to local authorities, and ask himself whether he really believes that the application form is easy to complete, and that his Department is doing everything possible to encourage local authorities to proceed with this vital work?

My Department is as keen as I am that this work should proceed as quickly as possible. I do not believe that there has been delay in my Department in considering proposals when they come forward. If local authorities find it difficult to fill up the form, I hope that they will bring the matter to the attention of the Department, and we will see whether we can help them in any way.

Does not this represent terrible progress, since there are no fewer than 15,000 derelict sites in central Scotland? Apart from other matters, will the Secretary of State look at the legal position, because many local authorities, in clearing derelict sites, face legal difficulties that do not affect England and Wales? Will he look into that aspect?

I will certainly look into that aspect. As the hon. Gentleman knows, progress must, to a considerable extent, depend on the speed with which local authorities bring forward schemes.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that for tourist purposes sites should be cleared in places like Cromarty? Could those be recognised as eligible under the Act?

I will look into that point. I am not certain of the exact position.

When looking into that point, will the right hon. Gentleman look at whether or not applications are frustrated by the terms of the Act, which very directly relate the clearance of a site to the provision, or possible provision, of employment?

Yes, Sir. I will certainly look into that matter, too.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress of the Forth Road Bridge; and on what date he expects the work to be completed.

The exceptionally bad weather of the last eighteen months has set the programme of work back considerably, and it now looks as if work may not be completed until about mid-1964. Technical discussions are taking place regularly to see what can be done to recover lost time, and the contractor still hopes that, given reasonable weather, traffic may be able to use the bridge by April next year.

Is the Secretary of State aware that there are now many hours of daylight during which, apparently, no work is being undertaken on the road bridge? In view of the dreadful unemployment position in Fife, will he give an assurance that the earliest possible steps will be taken by the contractors to utilise every hour of daylight to try to speed up completion of the project? Further, will not he give some encouragement in the district by announcing that he does not propose to charge toils to the users of the bridge?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the bridge is being built by the Forth Road Joint Board. I am sure that what the hon. Gentleman has said will come to the notice of the Joint Board, and that it will consider the point with the contractors. With regard to tolls, the Government were under considerable attack the whole of yesterday and the day before for failing the railways by trying to help road transport. In this matter, at least, I seem to be somewhat changing the pattern.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the approach roads will be finished in time? In the meantime, could the right hon. Gentleman arrange for these approach roads to be linked more easily with the Bo'ness road so that people using the Kincardine bridge may have the benefit of a new road as soon as possible?

I am not able to give the exact position with regard to the approach roads, but if this can be done it certainly will be done.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what evidence he has received from the Scottish Council concerning the effects on the future industrial development of Fife as a result of the imposition of tolls on the Forth Road Bridge; and what reply he has sent.

The hon. Member will recall what was said by the Council's representative at my meeting with the local authorities concerned, at which he was present. The Council has, however, not addressed any formal representations to me.

Since the right hon. Gentleman studiously ignored the evidence of the Scottish Council when it presented firm evidence that industrialists had refused to consider coming to Fife because of the likely imposition of tolls, may I ask whether he will now give a considered answer to that evidence? Has the right hon. Gentleman not considered the desirability of getting a panel of economists to examine the social implications of the imposition of tolls on this bridge? Does be not recognise that Fife is almost wholly a development district and that the imposition of tolls on this bridge will do nothing to help the county out of that difficulty?

As the hon. Member knows, the problem as presented to me by the Scottish Council is that one or two firms said that they disliked tolls and one or two said that they would not come if tolls were imposed. On the other hand, six or seven firms have decided to come to the county regardless of tolls. There have been others since that meeting.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent road accidents involving motor vehicles are classified and recorded by his Department.

Particulars of all road accidents involving personal injury are reported by the police, and various statistics based on these reports are published either monthly or annually. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the most recent report.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it is of great importance to keep records determining the cause of accidents to try to eliminate those accidents? Is he further aware that when I asked his hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State whether or not he could give particulars of accidents caused by vehicles parked on the roads he told me that he was unable to do so? Will my right hon. Friend see that records of this kind are kept, with a view to reducing the number of road casualties?

As I think my hon. Friend appreciates, it is difficult to know in what form to keep records and yet keep them within some sort of bounds. Last year parked cars were directly responsible for four out of 617 fatal accidents. It is very likely that parked cars might have been minor but contributory factors in others. If we tried to keep statistics covering all possible points we should probably get bogged down.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the form sent to his office contains about eighty different replies to various questions? Is he also aware that there are no full-time officials in his office to handle this matter, and until it is properly handled no work will be done on getting results from the local authorities or any useful information out of these statistics?

As far as I am aware, the police and the Road Research Laboratory try to tabulate all information collected about accidents.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of pupils left school in 1962 before completing the three-year secondary course; and how this compares with 1961 and 1960, respectively.

In the year ended 7th June, 1962, the percentage for public and grant-aided schools was 45·6. This compares with 45·4 per cent. and 44·4 per cent. in 1961 and 1960 respectively.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a very high proportion and that it shows no improvement on the previous year? Has the right hon. Gentleman no advice to give to the local authorities to assist these pupils, of whom half the number fail to complete the course?

I agree that we should like to improve on these figures, but the proportion staying on has risen from 40 per cent. in the early 1950s to about 55 per cent. in 1960, and it has remained at that level for two years.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of sixth form classes now functioning in the Scottish public schools under his jurisdiction, and what number of pupils those classes enrol.

In January, 1962, the latest date for which figures are available centrally, 209 public and grant-aided schools had sixth year classes with a total of 6,224 pupils.

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that there is no information in the Departmental Annual Report on this aspect of sixth form classes? Will he say whether the figures he has given reveal an increase over the previous year? If they do, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the rate of increase?

I have not the figures to make a comparison with last year, but there has been an increase of 82 per cent. since 1954. This is substantial.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the extent of the reductions in the school building programmes submitted to him by the Scottish education authorities that he has decided to impose; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the cuts he has made in the programmes of educational building proposed by Scottish education authorities.

I would refer the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) to the figures given in my reply to the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) on 24th April.

The educational building which authorities have in recent years proved capable of starting has fallen so far short of their initial proposals that authorised starts to a much smaller value have enabled all essential projects to proceed that were in fact ready. My initial authorisations in the current financial year should suffice to maintain, if not increase, the present level of educational building, which is higher than ever before: and I shall seek to approve further projects in the year as circumstances may require.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the figures which he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) reveal a cut of more than 60 per cent. in the proposals as distinct from the approvals? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of my hon. Friends, and certainly many people in Scotland, believe that he has made these severe cuts on this occasion because he suspects that the education authorities can carry out this building very substantially and he is finding a new justification for preventing the work being carried out?

This is most certainly not so. The authorities' proposals this year may be at least as optimistic as in previous years. Only at the end of the year is it possible to say whether projects have been held back as a result of restriction on capital investment. In the past no projects have been held up for this reason.

Local authority proposals reflect the needs of the areas. Is it not a condemnation of the Secretary of State and of his predecessors that they have not been able so to organise building labour in Scotland that the need for Scottish schools can be met? Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether what he has decided to authorise is an increase or a decrease on what was actually started last year?

The position is simply that it is not a question of available building labour. In the past not one project has been held up through lack of authority for starting it. This is the position. It is not a savage cut in any sense. The local authorities have done this year what they have done every year, which is to produce a list of schools. In agreement with them we have arranged what they should start, and these are initial starts and not total programmes.

Is it not a fact that if we look at the programmes as a whole, including the building of technical colleges and teacher training colleges, the building programme is a record?

Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The building being undertaken this year is around £50 million worth, which is a record for Scotland, and this includes expansion both in the teacher training college programme and in the further education section.

With all due respect to the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask whether he is aware that he is misleading the House? Is he aware that the number of places provided in all categories of schools last year was less than it has been since 1955? The right hon. Gentleman will find that in the table in his own Report. It is no good talking about the amount of money spent when that, because of inflation, disguises a decrease in the number of places provided. To return to the original Question, do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that these cuts were made in agreement with the local authorities?

Having agreed the amount that was reasonable, the schools which should proceed have been broadly agreed with the local authorities. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not true."] If it is not true, I hope that hon. Gentlemen will bring forward any particular cases, because my Department has had discussions with, not every local authority, but many local authorities which have approached the Department and have agreed the priorities which they wanted within that framework, which is exactly what I said in reply to the hon. Gentleman.

rose—

I think that we should pass on to the next Question.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he had with Glasgow City Corporation before deciding to reduce its proposed educational expenditure; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he had with Dunbarton County Council prior to a considerable reduction in its school building programme; and if the decision was agreed.

The regulation of educational building is a continuing process in which consultation is not confined to any particular stage. Each January, authorities submit programmes for the three following financial years with the approximate dates at which they hope to start each project. The authorisations then given list, with regard to the authorities' own order of priority, the projects which may proceed in the coming financial year as soon as they are ready. Authorities are free at any time to seek approval to change one project for another, or approval to start additional projects which become ready. A meeting of this kind has already been held with representatives of Dunbartonshire County Council.

I take it from the right hon. Gentleman's Answer that no such meeting was held with Glasgow City Corporation. Is he aware that the Glasgow City Corporation had prepared a planned educational building programme over the next four years to the value of £9·4 million and that he, without consultation, in one brutal cut reduced that amount to £3·8 million? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the Corporation was seeking to get rid of slum schools, to modernise old schools and to build new secondary schools which are desperately needed? Will he reconsider his action, or does he want to make the slum school a permanent feature of Glasgow's educational life?

As to the hon. Gentleman's first point, no request has yet been received from the Glasgow education authority to meet my Department. It may well be that Glasgow wanted to appeal to the public rather than to my Department, but this is the fact.

With regard to the second part of the supplementary question, this is covered by various other Questions which will arise later.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, contrary to what he said about consultation with the Dunbarton County Council, I have had serious complaints from the Burgh of Kirkintilloch and from Cumbernauld New Town about the fact that the primary programme for Cumbernauld New Town is to be continued but that the secondary programme for Kirkintilloch—

Will the hon. Gentleman reach a question at some time? That is all we are allowed.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the secondary programme for Kirkintilloch, which takes the secondary school students from the new town, is being savagely cut? Will he look into this matter again and see that both in Lenzie Academy and St. Ninian's adequate places are provided for the new pupils coming along in the new town of Cumbernauld?

The position is, as the hon. Gentleman says, that the education authority has had a meeting with representatives of my Department. Broadly speaking, they were in agreement on what should be done within the limit which they have, and if more money can be provided later I am sure they may be able to use it.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I have your guidance? The right hon. Gentleman has just said that a Question of mine which he has answered is bound up with other Questions, and that points that I have raised are covered by Answers to these other Questions. In view of that fact, may I put another supplementary question to the right hon. Gentleman?

I am afraid not. Multitudinous supplementaries and long supplementaries are very unkind to other hon. Members.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory state of secondary education in Kirkintilloch, I give notice that I shall take the first opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for speeding up new school building and modernisation of schools in Glasgow.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why he has cut the Glasgow Corporation's plans for school building.

With my encouragement, Glasgow Corporation has now become a full member of the C.L.A.S.P. consortium; and I have authorised it to begin new schools in the current financial year to the value of £2·5 million. This is £400,000 more than the value of schools started last year, and is as large a share of the available investment as can be allowed at the moment. It is not possible at this stage to extend it to cover the Corporation's proposals for modernisation to the value of £300,000.

While I am grateful for that Answer, in view of the human urgency of the matter will the Minister assist in getting rid of the over-sized classes and proceed with the modernisation of the primary schools in his minor works programme?

Certainly. If we can move a bit in this direction later in the year we shall, but I think Glasgow Corporation and my Department felt that at the beginning of this very considerable programme the money should be spent mostly on new schools which are urgently needed.

Is the Minister aware that Glasgow sought approval for £7,900,000 and was granted approval for only £2,500,000? Does he not appreciate, as all previous Secretaries of State have appreciated, the need for phasing such a programme over a period of two or three years? This does not necessarily involve all the expenditure taking place in one year. The right hon. Gentleman is adopting a stupid attitude.

It may well be that in the future, because of the success of these consortia, we shall be able to move to a different method of building, but I do not think one can say that it is stupid to increase the already very substantial allocation that Glasgow has had by the amount we have done this year. The consortium cannot operate to any major extent on any building in this programme.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that it is totally inadequate for the needs of Glasgow and that it has been consistently so over the years? Will he bear in mind that his own Report, to which I refer once again, shows that Glasgow has 12·6 per cent. of its classes overcrowded at present and that a special effort requires to be made by the Scottish Education Department, if not by the right hon. Gentleman, to ensure that the educational programme is maintained in Glasgow?

We are doing our best to maintain educational progress, and we have given Glasgow more as a start this year.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost of the three-year school building plan proposed to him by the Ayr County Council; and what was the cost of the programme he has allowed.

The total proposed for the three years 1963–66 was £7·3 million. This included £2·3 million for 1963–64, of which I have so far approved £1 million.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a very grave cut and that over the period in question the total is less than half what the county council considers is required for the educational building programme? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is an even more grave aspect to this matter, namely, that by his lack of agreement with the Ayr County Council he is now causing it to ignore the statutory obligation to provide a sufficient number of school places for the children under its care? What reply has he to that allegation?

I think it is not unfair to say, although I am not keen to delve back into the past, that in 1961 the Ayrshire education authority spent only £100,000. In offering the county council £1 million for a start this year, that is quite a considerable increase.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received following his decision to reduce by over £5½ million Glasgow Corporation's plan for educational building; and whether he will make a statement.

None, Sir. My Department is always available for a discussion of details of school building programmes.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that it ill becomes him to allege in a sneering way, as he did earlier, that the local authority probably wanted to make a public appeal rather than an appeal to his Department? Is he aware that the association through which these local authorities act is at this moment preparing such an appeal to him? Since children have to be conveyed from the outlying housing estates into their former schools in Glasgow, with consequent increased pressure on transport, will he reconsider the decision he has made?

I was merely recording a fact when I said that there had been no representation. I am sure that Glasgow Corporation will in due course make representations to me, and I shall then consider any points which it makes.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland by how much he has reduced the school building programme for Glasgow in respect of new schools, modernisation of schools, and extensions of existing schools, respectively.

The difference between Glasgow's proposals and my initial authorisation, is for new schools £3,045,000; for modernisation of schools £297,000 and for extensions of existing schools £1,653,000.

Does the Secretary of State recall that in Comnd. 603, Education in Scotland—The Next Step, the Government characterised the continued use of antiquated and unsuitable buildings, many of the nineteenth century, as being one of the most serious shortcomings in their educational provision and asked the local authorities to deal speedily with the problem? How does he reconcile this policy of severe cuts with that declaration?

I have tried to make clear to the House that the policy is not one of severe cuts. The position is no more one of severe cuts than if I had offered the local education authorities an enormous sum of money and, if they failed to spend it, as they would have done regularly in the past, it would have been fair for me to say that they had let down the whole educational system. The authorisations are in line with what education authorities have been able to do in the past. If they meet their target, or look like meeting it, we shall then try to give them some further authorisations if we can.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make up his mind on whether it is a question of money or a question of building resources? Is he aware that, while he was a black-faced sheep farmer before he came to the House, before I came to the House I was a pale-faced Glasgow school teacher? Will he think again about cutting down on the modernisation programme? Some of the conditions in some of these schools are really scandalous.

The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in implying that it is one or the other. It is obviously both. It would be completely uneconomic to allocate a very large amount of money which authorities could not spend because that money would not be available for other developments in Scotland. It is also a question of resources, because local authorities are having increased expenditure not only on schools but on housing, roads and all the other things, and resources must come into it.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of junior secondary schools in Scotland provide extended courses; and what proportion of the junior secondary school population follow those courses.

Details for the present session are not yet available centrally, but last session rather more than a quarter of the junior secondary schools or departments provided fourth-year courses, which were taken by about 2 per cent of pupils following junior secondary courses.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am not asking about fourth-year courses? I am asking about extended courses being provided in junior secondary schools. That is quite a different question from fourth-year courses. Will he tell us the number of extended courses which are being provided in junior secondary schools?

I should certainly like to see more done. I am afraid I have not got the exact figures for the extended courses but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, a working party on the linking of secondary education and further education is at work on this subject and we shall study its results.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of these three-year junior secondary school courses, so far as they go, are dead-end courses? They lead nowhere. This is what we on this side of the House are concerned with. Will the right hon. Gentleman see to it that these three-year courses at least have the possibility of opening up to four- or five-year or other types of courses?

There are at the moment certain intensive fourth-year courses of a vocational type in commerce and engineering. This is an excellent development.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many schemes of hydro-electric generation proposed by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board are awaiting authorisation.

Four schemes have been published by the Board. Objections have been lodged by various parties against three of these, and the statutory objection period for the fourth has not yet expired. Statutory inquiries will therefore be necessary before three of them can be authorised and may be necessary in the case of the fourth.

When will the Secretary of State take some action on these schemes? Does not his continued inaction coupled with the delay while the Mackenzie Committee was sitting completely frustrate hydro-electric development and, incidentally, is it not causing considerable unemployment in the Highlands among people who were previously employed on construction?

As I have said on several occasions in the House, I realise the urgency, but it is even more important to get the answer right.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm what is said by the Hydro-Electric Board, that these schemes which have been published have been proved more economical than the most modern thermal scheme? If that is so, should not we be getting on with this work? As I understand it, the Board is using there the yardstick proposed by the Mackenzie Report.

I think that my hon. Friend is confusing the Mackenzie Committee's recommendations on costs, because the generating cost of the most recent thermal station which the South of Scotland Board is building has not yet been published.

Will the Secretary of State depart for the hills of Argyll and think this question over in relation to his rights and responsibilities for the Highland areas? Is he aware that already, according to the Inverness Courier last week, it has been said that the bare unvarnished truth is that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to sell the pass?

I imagine that the Inverness Courier will not have failed to notice that a very large pulp mill is coming within its area.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the estimated cost of the technical colleges being built in Kilmarnock and Ayr, respectively; and how these figures compare with the first estimate given.

The original, highly speculative, estimate made by the education authority at a very early stage was that each would cost £250,000, and this was later increased to £500,000. Present estimates are for Ayr Technical College, £522,000, plus £211,000 for fees, furniture and equipment; and for Kilmarnock Technical College, £620,000, plus £282,000 for fees, furniture and equipment.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the original estimate was given at a time when he was still a black-faced sheep farmer in Argyll, to quote his own words in one of the few speeches be ever made as a back bencher? Does he realise that we were told seven years ago—a couple of elections ago—by the late and respected Member, James Henderson-Stewart, that this had first priority, and is he satisfied that sufficient importance and urgency has been given to the project by his Department, since neither of these colleges is yet completed?

I am not satisfied that nothing could have been done to speed it up, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, in 1959, which was just after I ceased to be a black-faced sheep breeder, the estimate had gone up to £500,000. Before that, the delays were very largely due to questions of acquisition of land.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps are being taken to assess lobster stocks round Orkney and Shetland; and whether he has any evidence that stocks are in danger of being depleted.

My Department's scientists are doing this by sampling the fishing grounds, measuring samples of the lobsters caught and studying data of the catch in relation to fishing effort. Present indications are that the lobster stocks in these waters are not in danger of being overfished.

I am somewhat reassured by that Answer, as far as it goes, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that great efforts are being made to extend the lobster and crab fisheries and that it seems that this may well result in the end in some diminution of stocks? Does he agree that his Department might well now do some research into artificial stimulation of these stocks and methods of breeding?

I am aware that there was a proposal to have artificial hatcheries for lobster stocks in the Orkneys. If any proposals of this kind are put to me, my Department will, I am quite certain, do everything it can to help.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the cost to local authorities, and other public bodies, of providing roads, water, power, houses, schools, medical facilities and transport in connection with the pulp and paper mill development at Fort William.

Identifiable extra investment in roads, water and sewerage, houses, and schools will be about £2½ million. No major items of extra investment in power or medical facilities are foreseen, and I have no figure for investment in railways.

This is a very large sum and the rateable value in these areas is, of course, very low. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to consider further assistance to local authorities or is he prepared even to look at Clause 9 of the present Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill which penalises development areas where populations are increasing?

The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that the annual cost of 166 new houses to the Burgh of Fort William is estimated at approximately £5,300, as compared with housing and Exchequer equalisation grants totalling £19,000. The corresponding figure for Inverness County Council is, for 420 houses, a cost to the council of £8,500 per annum, with grants of £45,000. The Government are bearing a very fair share.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had from Scottish local authorities and other bodies about the effect of the Beeching Report on the Scottish economy.

So far, more than twenty local authorities or other bodies have made representations to me.

Is the Secretary of State aware that he simply classifies among other bodies important Scottish associations such as the Tourist Board and the North of Scotland Association, which is being formed to deal with this matter? Is this not a very loose classification which he is giving us? Would he not agree that all these bodies are definite in saying that if the Beeching Report were put into operation, for the seven Highland counties and Scotland generally it would be an impediment to economic growth? Will the Secretary of State give an assurance, quite apart from the one he has given concerning roads, that if the removal of the railways is likely to stop industrial location, he will safeguard the position for Scotland by carrying out his duty as Secretary of State for the country?

I made my position very clear on this mtter on Monday night. There is nothing more one can say at the moment, because these are only proposals.

Was the right hon. Gentleman's own development unit in the Scottish Office in touch with Dr. Beeching before the Report was drawn up? If so, what representations did it make?

No. My development department and department group came into the picture only after Dr. Beeching had produced his Report.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has investigated the reasons for the high death rate from bronchitis in Scotland; and what plans he has to deal with the situation.

Yes, Sir. I recently published a comprehensive report on bronchitis which has received wide publicity, as explained in my reply of 6th March to the hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Dr. A. Thompson).

Is the Secretary of State aware that, apart from the high mortality, because of the great distress that this disease causes and the great economic loss to the country, the best way to deal with it is to prevent it? Is he prepared to adopt an educational method of getting the young people to realise that healthy living, fresh air and exercise are the best ways of preventing bronchitis?

Publicity on all these matters is very important. It is only two months since the Report was published and we cannot already expect to see the results of the efforts which the local authorities are making in this respect.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has now given further consideration to the appointment of principal teachers of science and mathematics on a basis similar to that for principal teachers of Latin and Greek; and when he will announce his decision.

As I indicated in my reply to the hon. Member on 3rd April, I am re-examining the provisions of the Schools (Scotland) Code regarding posts of responsibility, but I cannot yet say when it will be possible to announce decisions.

When considering this matter, will the Secretary of State beat in mind—while not disparaging either teachers or students of the classics—the increasing importance of science and mathematics in industry and commerce and the great shortage of teachers in both of these subjects? If the basis of appointment of principal teachers of the classics is to double the number of teaching hours, will he consider using that same basis?

I have considered that problem. The position is that science and mathematics are taken by so many pupils that the appointment of principal teachers is justified under the existing rules in all but the very small schools.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many local authorities in Scotland provide chiropodist treatment; and how many do not provide such treatment.

All local health authorities in Scotland have made arrangements to provide chiropody treatment for the elderly, twenty-five of them by employment of chiropists on a full-time or part-time basis and the remaining thirty by agreement with voluntary organisations.

While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that Answer, may I ask whether it would not be better if they were all employed full-time in providing this necessary service for the old people who cannot afford to go to the ordinary practitioner, thereby making sure that they are all covered by this service, which they cannot afford out of their miserable pensions? Will the Secretary of State carry out this suggestion?

I will certainly look into it. The local authorities are, however, providing a very good service and I have heard no complaints of failure in dealing with the elderly.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the average weekly earnings of regular adult male agricultural workers in Scotland during the most recent 12-month period for which these figures are available; the average weekly hours worked; and the average weekly value of payments in kind received by these men over the same period.

The average total earnings of regular adult male agricultural workers in Scotland for the 12-month period ended 31st December, 1962, were £10 18s. a week. The average weekly value of payments in kind received as part of total earnings was 18s. The average weekly hours worked were 47·9 excluding the customary hours worked by shepherds, grieves and stewards which are not statutorily fixed.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a few weeks ago, figures of a similar nature were given for England and Wales and that according to my mental arithmetic it would be true to say that, despite the lower basic rate which Scottish farm workers enjoy, the rates earned per hour are higher than those in England and Wales? Is not this a considerable tribute to the system which we enjoy in Scotland of classifying farm workers under specialist groups?

My hon. Friend is right. The earnings in England are 6s. more. but for three hours longer a week, so that in Scotland we are doing better.

Can the Secretary of State confirm that a man, wife and three children will get almost as much on National Assistance as the man would get by a wage, as indicated in the Answer? Does the right hon. Gentleman regard this as part of the Tory affluent society?

I am delighted to say that agricultural workers prefer working to sitting back and drawing money from the State.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total value of local government rate-borne expenditure for the years 1950–51 and 1962–63, respectively, and the total amount of interest charges paid by Scottish local authorities for each of these years.

Rate-borne expenditure of Scottish local authorities in 1950–51 was £32·2 million and interest charges amounted to £8·6 million. Information for 1962–63 is not yet available, but provisional figures for 1961–62 are £93·6 million and £42·9 million, respectively.

Do not these figures prove just how intolerable the burden is becoming for local authorities in Scot- land because of the high interest rates which are being forced upon them by the policy of the Government? What will the Secretary of State do about it?

If the hon. Member had asked me, I might have told him that the amount of Exchequer grants went up in roughly the same period from £39·9 million to £113·4 million. I regard this as fair. The question of interest rates is, surely, connected with grants, and the grants take into account the interest rates current at the time.

The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that this intolerable increase of nearly 500 per cent. in the interest rates over this period makes the burden upon local authorities intolerable. What is he doing to ease the burden that this is causing to local authorities?

I have already answered the hon. Member. The Government have increased their grants by nearly four times. I regard this as easing the burden.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the total interest charges, repayable over 60 years, incurred by local authorities in Scotland for a house built at a cost of £2,000 in the years 1950–51 and 1962–63, respectively.

The annual charge for a 60-year loan of £2,000 raised at Public Works Loan Board rates in 1950–51 would be £72 1s. 6d. and today £118 19s. 4d.

This has nothing to do with the grant. We would like to know, first, who is collecting this money. Indeed, when the figures prove that the Secretary of State has increased the cost of a house by nearly 50 per cent. per annum by interest charges, is it not about time that the right hon. Gentleman directed his attention to this on-cost in housing rather than tried to extract the last penny from municipal tenants and put the blame upon them for what, in fact, has been the policy of the Government?

The hon. Gentleman continues to quote gross figures. If the grant is taken into consideration the rise is nothing like that.

I beg to give notice that on Friday, 10th May, I shall call attention to the need for more dynamic policies to help to raise living standards in the under-developed countries, and move a Resolution.

I beg to give notice that on Friday, 10th May, I shall call attention to the need for expanding university and higher education, and move a Resolution.

I beg to give notice that on Friday, 10th May, I shall call attention to the need for a full appraisal of the export potential of individual British industries, and move a Resolution.

I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

In Committee on the Bill there were discussions from time to time concerning the enforceability or unenforceability of collective agreements, both agreements made between an employer, and employers' federations, and the trade unions. Of course, modern industry and modern industrial relations would be quite impossible without such agreements, but, in fact, collective agreements of that sort are not recognised by the law. Under Section 4(4) of the Trades Unions Act, 1871, no legal proceedings shall be instituted with the object of enforcing any agreement made between one trade union and another, and in that context "trade union" means not only a union of employees, but a union or association of employers.

The Committee, in discussing these matters, certainly rejected any alteration of the law making such collective agreements enforceable or, indeed, penalising in any way the breach of such agree- ments. My right hon. Friend the Minister maintained that the Bill dealt with, and should only deal with, contracts between the individual employer and the individual employee. In this new Clause I have respected that principle. I have dealt with the contract as it may be between the employer and the employee and not directly with any collective agreements between an employers' federation and a trade union.

However, if one is dealing with individual contracts of employment at all, then surely it is quite unrealistic to shut one's eyes to the collective agreements which stand behind these individual contracts of employment. So far as they affect an individual employer and individual employee entering into a contract with each other, these collective agreements are and must be part of the individual contract, if the parties are members of a union or an employers' federation respectively.

It is my submission that they ought to be recognised as such, so the first part of the Clause would make it clear that the relevant terms of the relevant collective agreement are part of the individual contract provided that the collective agreement is between the federation of which the employer is a member and the union of which the employee is a member. After all, that is surely what the parties intend to be the result of their membership of such federations or unions, that they will be bound by agreements which their union or federation makes on their behalf. Surely that is the whole intention of membership of a union.

So much for the employee and the employers themselves, the actual contracting parties to a contract of employment, but it should follow, surely, from that, that others should not be permitted wrongfully to cause a breach of that contract. The law does not normally allow third parties to induce one contracting party to break his contract with another except in one particular instance, and that is under Section 3 of the Trade Disputes Act, 1906. That Section says that:

"An act done in contemplation or in furtherance of a trade dispute shall not be actionable on the ground only that it induces some other person to break a contract of employment".

So the position is that a trade union and an employers' federation may solemnly reach an agreement vital to the interests of the members of each and with the full agreement that it should be observed by their members, and yet we let any Tom, Dick or Harry bully or cajole an individual to treat his contract with contempt. We not only let any outside party like that induce another to break his contract but we give him something of a legal right to do so. So the second part of the new Clause endeavours to prohibit anyone from interfering with that part of a collective agreement which has become a contract between the individuals.

I hope that it will not be suggested by hon. Members opposite, or, indeed, by any of my colleagues, that this is in any way an attack on trade unions or their rights by taking away any right or privilege or exemption or freedom which has been granted to a trade union. Section 3 of the 1906 Act gives no right whatsoever to a trade union as such. All it does is to give a right to an individual to undermine a trade union agreement.

I believe that, if accepted, the new Clause would strengthen trade union agreements. Indeed, that is my genuine and honest intention. The argument is sometimes put that the employer-employee relationship is a human relationship and that one ought not to contaminate it with any form of legal contract. I take a different view. I believe that any human relationship is far better if its terms are properly defined and if, in the last resort, it is enforceable. I believe that if that is done one seldom reaches that last resort.

Nor does one have to resort to taking the law into one's hands, which is frequently the result of the present absence of law in connection with collective agreements between unions of employers and employees. I believe that the Clause would really strengthen those agreements and prevent them from being undermined by irresponsible persons.

I think that the House ought to be clearly aware of what importance attaches to the proposed Clause. We want to be quite sure that we are interpreting it correctly and interpreting correctly the intention of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page).

As I understand it, the effect of the Clause would be to repeal a Section of the 1906 Trades Disputes Act. That Act and that Section are of cardinal importance in the history of industrial relations in this country. The provisions of the Act do not have any particular bearing upon wildcat and unofficial strikes and matters of that kind. They are of cardinal significance in what may be described, contrariwise, as legitimate collective action by workers in furtherance of a trade dispute. For the hon. Member to argue that in the fashion which is proposed in the Clause that hard-won privilege should be abandoned by the House is remarkable.

I would remind the House of the effect of Section 3 of the 1906 Act. It states that

"An act done by a person in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute shall not be actionable on the ground only that it induces some other person to break a contract of employment or is an interference with the trade, business or employment of some other person, or with the right of some other person to dispose of his capital or his labour as he wills."

It is true that the right conferred by the Section is a very wide one but, manifestly, it confers a privilege upon, among others, trade union officials and properly and correctly sponsored representatives of the union concerned to induce in the manner referred to by the Section. For the hon. Member to suggest that his Clause can be rationally regarded as a provision that is likely to assist the trade unions in the performance of their duties and obligations is, I should have thought, quite unacceptable not only to hon. and right hon. Members on this side of the House, but to other hon. Members on both sides of the House.

That, then, is the effect of the proposed Clause. But it is not the only defect, as I understand it. The Clause, even if it would not repeal it, would for all practical purposes override the effect of Section 4(4) of the Trades Unions Act, 1871.

indicated assent.

I am obliged to the hon. Member for indicating by a nod that he agrees with that interpretation of the effect of the Clause.

The 1871 Act provides, in Section 4, that

"Nothing in this Act shall enable any court to entertain any legal proceeding instituted with the object of directly enforcing or recovering damages far the breach of any of the following agreements".

Those are then listed, and the fourth is:

"Any agreement made between one trade union and another."

It seems to me that the Clause, in its fashion of overriding that section of the 1871 Act, adopts, quite apart from the merits, an undesirably clandestine method. What I conceive that the hon. Member seeks to do is to evade the consequences of that provision in the 1871 Act by incorporating the provisions in the collective agreements arrived at between employers associations and trade unions in the individual contract made between employers and employees, and making the terms of the collective agreements enforceable inside the individual contract. This is not only, in our view, therefore, an undesirable thing to do but, additionally, an undesirable way of doing it.

In our consideration of the Bill on Second Reading and in Standing Committee, we have throughout taken the line—I think that it will be generally acknowledged—that the Bill has some, albeit extremely limited, advantages in offering minimal security to the employees in certain classes of employment and in making provisions which will enable the workers to have better information than they have at present about the terms of employment under which they are working, and which are binding.

From that point of view we have given some support to particular provisions of the Bill, and our endeavours have been directed to a constructive attempt to improve these features of the Bill. The moment that anyone suggests, as is suggested now and has been suggested before, that the Bill should be made the occasion for introducing matters which are derogatory of hard-won trade union rights—which is how we see it—we become immediately and implacably resistant. That is our attitude to the new Clause.

These objections to the new Clause are objections in principle and are much more important than the more specific objections which could be made, but I wish additionally to suggest to the House that for it to be provided by Statute that it shall be an implied term in the individual contracts between employers and employees that the terms and conditions of any contract between the employers' association and the union shall be the terms of the individual contract is an expression much too vague to be acceptable to lawyers. It would give rise to endless difficulties and would inevitably involve extension into the principles and rules which govern the implication of terms in contracts to which the courts give consideration.

But that is a secondary and relatively technical point. Our main objection to the new Clause is on important principle.

While I do not expect that the House will agree to the new Clause, I feel that we should say something about this matter. I hope that I can bring the discussion down from the legal stratosphere to the Floor of the House. I am interested in this matter as it would affect the trade union official and the worker in the factory.

The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) said that it was wrong to allow any Tom, Dick or Harry to induce people to break a contract. But what if it is Frank or Sir William? This is where the problem arises. One of the facts of industrial life is that there is no clearly defined way of altering an existing contract. The hon. Member said that the new Clause was not an attack on trade unions; but that is exactly what it is. It is not an attack on any Tom, Dick or Harry, but on the trade union officials, on the shop stewards, on officially appointed trade union representatives.

I had occasion to say during a previous discussion on the Bill that the attitudes of trade unions were mainly reactions to decisions by employers and to circumstances in industry and in particular to the problems associated with negotiation in industry. Hon. Members opposite have to decide on one vital point of principle: do they wish the present system of free negotiation in industry to continue? If they say that they do, they must also accept that both sides of industry must be free to exert pressure when needed. Otherwise, there would be nothing to prevent negotiations from being prolonged beyond reason, or carried out in a thoroughly negative manner.

The probable alternative to the existing situation if the new Clause were accepted would be that all negotiations in all firms on all questions, if the firms were members of the employers' association, would be carried out by national officials. There would be no flexibility and no negotiations at local level. It might be said that that is stretching it too far, but that is how I read the new Clause. There would obviously have to be provided methods whereby local managements and workpeople could initiate their own negotiations, even if a firm were a member of an employers' association. It must also be agreed that it would be desirable in such circumstances for individual managements and workpeople to be able to reach settlements to their own satisfaction.

It may help the hon. Member for Crosby to understand what I am trying to get at if I quote part of the Agreement for the Avoidance of Disputes in the Engineering Industry. Clause (d)11 states:

"Employers and Shop Stewards and Works Committees shall not be entitled to enter into any agreement inconsistent with agreements between the Federation or Local Association and the Trade Unions."

It may well be considered inconsistent for a local management to enter into agreement with local shop stewards to pay a rate of wages higher than that laid down in the national minimum. Yet that is now the accepted way in industry of finding the true level of wages. National negotiations merely lay down the national minimum and the real level of wages is determined by local negotiations. There are many faults with this system. It is a method of subsidising the inefficient firm and also subsidising a firm located in some rather remote area, but it also allows a measure of flexibility which would be denied if the Clause were accepted.

To make industrial agreements enforceable in law and to make any breach of such an agreement actionable would inevitably produce a reaction among the trade unions who would require to seek an appropriate remedy. For better or worse, the decisions of trade unions and the policies of trade unions are not promulgated from above. They are based on and are the result of pressure from below, from the workshop, which is how it should be. But this requires flexibility in negotiation. Workpeople must be able to demand from a management or group of managements the revision of existing contracts and, if the management or group of managements is unreasonable, to stop work in pursuit of their case. The new Clause would obviously have the effect of discontinuing the present arrangement whereby local arrangements can be made for improving minimum rates of wages and working conditions laid down in national agreements.

The effect of this would be that trade unions in national negotiations would have to fix higher levels of wages, and possibly adopt the tactics of the American unions. In America, certain firms are picked on for the establishment of the pattern of wages and conditions, and all other firms then have to follow suit. This system would not be to the advantage of British industrialists.

Surely in national agreements there is permission for the making of local arrangements which would be part and parcel of the national agreements. Therefore, the new Clause would not prevent such local negotiations.

The hon. Member has not got this quite right. It might amaze him to know that it is a matter of conjecture whether trade unions have the right nationally to demand a meeting of the National Engineering Employers' Association. These things are largely based on custom and practice and not on written agreement. It is a matter of the way the thing has grown up, but new problems would be raised if the Clause were made law. Present agreements would have to be reconsidered and recast in the light of the new situation. It may be rather silly, but that is the way that the thing has grown up, and I think that it has been a jolly good way, because it has provided the flexibility necessary to meet difficult situations. We do not need to look at the book of words whenever a problem arises.

But all that has been in relation to the employer who is a member of an employers' association. I was waiting to hear from the hon. Member what was likely to be the position of a firm which was not a member, and the majority of engineering firms are not members of the employers' association. [HON. MEMBERS: "It does not matter."] Does it not? Are we clear about that? The history of the law relating to trade unions is such that even if I were a lawyer I would hesitate to pronounce on this question. It seems to me that once we breach the law as laid down in the Acts of 1871 and 1906, we open the door to allowing other things to happen.

One of the virtues of industrial relations and negotiations in Great Britain has been the absence of lawyers when agreements have been made. Although agreements might have made legal nonsense, at least the parties to them have been able to understand exactly what was meant and what the intentions were. If there was any difficulty, they had custom and practice to guide them.

I think that any suggestion that there should be any alteration at all of the law relating to trade union agreements and to questions of inducement of people to break their contracts would be thoroughly bad. I believe that it is true to say that it was on the Floor of this House that these protections were given—and for very good reason. It would be surely wrong that from this House a Clause should emerge in a Bill of this kind, dealing with periods of notice and payments to be made during those periods, in which any such new principle should be injected. I hope that the House will not accept the Clause.

If I have followed the hon. Gentleman rightly, he is saying that the trade union law between the Statutes of 1871 and 1946 is sound, that it is like the law of the Medes and Persians and should never be altered. Is he really saying that, because, if so, I think that he should realise that there are a great many people outside the trade union movement who think that many of those inside it are living in a dream-world, deluding themselves that the present law is perfect?

I would not say or accept that. My mind runs in a rather different direction. I think that there is not sufficient protection for trade unions and that there is not sufficient disability brought upon the employers; but we will not argue that now.

I wish to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. J. Robertson) in expressing strong opposition to this new Clause. I do not want to be impertinent to the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), or to impute any wrong motives to him. I recognise that he is an expert in the law, and that I am not. I want to follow a point that I thought that my hon. Friend might have come to on this question of companies which are members of federations and companies which are not members. There are what we call the federated firms and the non-federated firms.

As I read the Clause, if a company is a member of, for example, the British Employers' Confederation—and worked for many years for an employer who was a loyal member—that company would be inhibited from pursuing any wages or conditions of employment terms different from those reached by the federation of which it is a member with the trade union, either one trade union or a group of trade unions, covering the classes of labour employed.

The hon. Gentleman has not read the words in parenthesis in the fourth line, which are:

"(… unless the contrary be expressly stated in the said contract …"

It is open to the parties expressly to state that the collective agreement does not apply to them.

Therefore, any firm in a federation of employers could contract out of the national agreement with the trade unions in order to give different conditions to its employees in that industrial unit, whether they were superior conditions or inferior conditions. I presume that that is what the hon. Member means.

They can do that now.

Of course they can. Therefore, as I read the new Clause there must be some other motive for it than the creating, as it were, throughout the country of one solid basis of uniform agreement or wage pattern. The hon. Member concedes that this Clause makes provision for variation of agreements as between the employer and his employee. But he uses the phrase,

"… any wrongful inducement or conspiracy."

to change the conditions of those contracts.

All sorts of inducements are used. Some people may call them wrongful either on the part of the employer or of the workpeople. But what about companies that are not in these associations? Will they not have a superior position in negotiating with employers or groups of employers with firms that are in the federation? Will they not be able, by all sorts of inducements, to attract labour—I am not saying that it is a bad thing that they should—and have greater freedom by not being members of an association?

May not the ultimate result of such a Clause as this be that an industry or production unit of some kind that is not a member of the trade association will be able to break through the minimal conditions and go outside the general agreement laid down by the trade union and the federation, because, as my hon. Friend said, quite rightly, they are minimal conditions? Every employer today, without this new Clause, is free to negotiate with his group of employees—whether in a car or any other factory—and can negotiate conditions far superior to those laid down as minimal conditions. Surely the tendancy might be, for federated firms and national agreements under this Clause, to create a uniform standard. The only people who might find it quite easy to move out of that standard would be those firms which are not members of the association.

When my hon. Friend said that members outside that association would be free to do this, hon. Members opposite said "Not at all". They disagree with him. They cannot have it both ways. If they are outside the association, they have freedom to negotiate other terms and conditions outside the national agreements between the trade unions and the British Employers' Confederation. Does not this give them an advantage in the movement and attraction of labour over firms which are subject to national agree- ments made by trade unions with the British Employers' Confederation?

The hon. Gentleman is framing his remarks in the form of a question to me, so I must answer them. The new Clause deals only with collective agreements between employers within an association and members of the trade unions. If an employer is outside the association, he will have the same advantages or disadvantages as he has at present, and the new Clause does not attempt to touch those.

That is my point. In my view, the new Clause limits the capacity of inducement of federated firms which make agreements with the trade union movement as against non-federated firms which make agreements with the trade union movement. I do not wish to be dogmatic, but this is how the new Clause struck me when I read it, that it gives greater freedom and advantage to firms having national agreements with the national trade union movement over firms which are members of associations. They would be tied by the new Clause to national agreements and would be in danger of breach of that agreement if they use a "wrongful inducement", whatever that means.

Nothing that the hon. Member for Crosby has said makes me feel that my interpretation of his new Clause is wrong. Unless I can be assured that I am wrong, I hope that my hon. Friends will divide the Committee against the new Clause, because I think that it is a most dangerous proposal and certainly would not give justice as between non-federated firms and federated firms. If accepted, it would undermine the function of the trade union movement and individual executives of companies in using their expertise, efficiency and organisation to provide better conditions and to give better remuneration in the most efficient plants.

I did not intend to intervene, but I have been led into doing so by the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine), which were not, I think, relevant to the new Clause. It seemed to me that what he was saying was that, whatever change has to be accepted by others in this country, and whatever privileges have to be whittled down as society evolves, the privileges which under no circumstances shall ever be touched are those which have been won and are enjoyed by trade unions. Everybody else must be modernised. That, fundamentally, was what the horn, and learned Member was saying, but it is not relevant to this new Clause.

What the new Clause tries to do is to strengthen and not impinge on free negotiation engaged in between trade unions and employers' associations. As I understand it, the new Clause seeks to provide that nothing in the Bill shall invalidate agreements freely negotiated and entered into by trade unions and employers, and that if both sides freely accept obligations together they shall not use the Bill as a means of evading them. I should have thought that every hon. Member would agree that that was a desirable object.

Anything which preserves the sanctity of contracts is to be admired, and the spirit behind the new Clause is to be commended. But in its literal interpretation I have some grave doubts about it, because it seems to me that it seems to elevate to a superior position collective contracts of employment over individual contracts of employment. Rightly or wrongly, individual contracts of employment between a master and an employee can be interfered with under the doctrines of the 1871 and 1906 Acts, not only by trade union officials, as was explained by the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) but by other people, and nothing in the new Clause would prevent that from happening.

However, if the new Clause were passed, collective contracts could not be interfered with. It seems to me that that is not right. Individual contracts are, I believe, far more sacred because they are more freely entered into than collective contracts. What with the instance of the closed shop and the pressure, not only among employees but also among masters, to join trade associations and trade unions, it does not seem to me that collective contracts have a greater sanctity than individual contracts.

Nevertheless, if the new Clause is passed the contract freely entered into between an employer and an employee on an individual basis can still be interfered with in the way that the 1871 and 1906 Acts permit, whereas large group contracts in respect of which the consensus ad idem between the individual employee and the individual employer is much more remote and much more forced are given a superior status.

For that reason, I do not think that the new Clause is right.

I think that my hon. and learned Friend is misreading the new Clause. It starts with the words:

"A contract of employment made between an employer … and an employee"

and in the latter part still talks about the contract of employment between the employer and the employee. Therefore, the latter part refers to the individual contract and not only to the terms of the collective agreement.

I understand entirely the purposes of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) in moving the new Clause. Before I deal with it, however, I should like to point out to the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. J. Robertson) that I propose to spend a minute or two in an area as rare to me as it is to him, namely, the legal stratosphere. Having done that, I promise the hon. Gentleman that I will return to the Floor of the House and to the implications of the Clause on the shop floor.

The first aim of the new Clause appears to be to ensure that the terms of any relevant collective agreement are imported into the employee's contract by implication unless the contract expressly states the contrary. This part of the new Clause is, I understand, intended as a means of assisting the enforcement of collective agreements. There must be some doubt as to whether it would be a useful addition to the existing provisions. It seeks to import the terms of a collective agreement into the contracts of members of the associations on both sides which have made the agreement unless the contract expressly provides otherwise.

The provisions of a collective agreement reached between representative organisations in an industry are usually terms of the contract, whether expressly or impliedly so. Under the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act, if, on a reference to the Industrial Court, an employer is shown not to be observing the established terms and condition, the court can make an award which is legally binding on it. It is perhaps worth noting that under the Clause the terms of a collective agreement would be binding only on members of the associations which made the agreement. The machinery provided by the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act goes wider and makes it possible to require the observance of established terms and conditions by non-federated employers as well.

Secondly, the new Clause seeks to make a breach of any contract which incorporates the terms of a collective agreement actionable, and also to make any

"wrongful inducement or conspiracy to cause a breach"

of such a contract actionable.

What strikes one first is that it is a little surprising to limit this kind of provision to one kind of contract only—that is to say, to contracts the terms of which are imported from collective agreements. This would be a very arbitrary line of demarcation, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby would agree.

Now I return to the shop floor. In a factory, where some of the workpeople belong to a union—

rose—

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind if I do not give way now. I am only too ready to give way to him, but I should like to finish what I am saying.

In a factory where some of the workpeople belong to a trade union and some do not, the contracts of employment of the trade unionists would be subject to this provision, but the contracts of those outside the union would not. I do not think that there really can be a basis for such a distinction.

It is also surprising that the Clause should state that a breach of contract of this kind would be actionable. It is surprising because a breach of contract of employment is already actionable, and the Clause, therefore, in this respect only states what is already the law. And in so far as it only applies to contracts of employment of a particular kind, it might seem to imply that other contracts of employment are not enforceable at law, which would be an unfortunate implication.

Now I turn to what my hon. Friend made quite clear is the real point of the Clause. This is that any wrongful inducement or conspiracy to cause a breach of this kind of contract should also become actionable at law. As I understand it, the intention is that someone who induces another person to go on strike or to take other coercive action in breach of contract, or a number of people who combine for this purpose, would be liable to be sued in tort by the other party to the contract for inducing the breach. But, as was pointed out by the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine), this would alter the effect of Sections 1 and 3 of the Trades Disputes Act, 1906, which gives immunity from legal actions of this kind.

Clearly, this provision is aimed at a man who takes the lead in an unofficial strike or in some other form of disruptive action in breach of contract. Very often in Committee upstairs and in this Chamber it has been shown that hon. Members are at one in condemning such unconstitutional action, which is damaging both to our economy and to industrial relations. We would all welcome any practicable way of reducing and discouraging it. What we have to decide is whether this Clause would be an effective provision towards this end.

Almost invariably, the person we have described would be an employee who is himself taking part in the unofficial strike. He can, of course, already be sued for breach of contract. He hardly ever is. The employer knows that he cannot recover worthwhile damages and is in any case unwilling to embitter relations with his employees by taking legal action. We must ask whether this new Clause would give much greater incentive to the employer to bring such an action. He would know that even if he were awarded substantial damages he would be very lucky if he were able to recover them. The risk of embittering relations with his employees would remain and might be increased. The employer would surely wonder whether, by bringing an action, he might not end up by making a martyr of the defendant.

I have sought, in answer to a serious endeavour on a serious matter by my hon. Friend, to put forward what I believe to be the difficulties in accepting a provision of this kind. I must return to what has frequently been said by my right hon. Friend and by me in Committee—that the Bill is not a suitable place to include a provision of this kind. The Bill has two purposes. The first is to lay down minimum rights to notice and the second is to require employers to inform their employees in writing of the main terms of employment. This Clause strays far beyond those purposes.

I hope that I have been able to convince my hon. Friend that there really are practical difficulties in the way of the Clause and that for those reasons it would appear very unlikely that the Clause would have any real effect in carrying out what my hon. Friend has in mind. In addition, the Bill is not the place for it. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend, after this interesting debate, feels able to withdraw the Clause.

This is a most commendable effort by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) to bring a most important provision to the Floor of the House. I would be happier to accede to the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that we should not pursue it further if he had gone further himself in indicating that the Government would take positive action by legislation to deal with the type of situation covered by the Clause. From our discussions in Committee upstairs, and the speeches both of hon. Members opposite and of my hon. Friends, it is clear that very serious legislative consideration is being given to severance and redundancy payments and to general improvement of the position as between employers and unions.

It is partly true that this new Clause seeks to amend Section 4(4) of the Trade Unions Act, 1871. That subsection prevents one from having an action for damages as between one union and another, be they unions of employers or of labour. I take the view that it is time that it was amended. It is out of date and not in accordance with modern conditions. It is also time that we altered Section 3 of the Trade Disputes Act, 1906. It is a thing of the past and out of keeping with modern conditions. Where possible, we can get an enforce-ability of contracts with plenty of good will on both sides of industry.

This Clause would put some contracts in a superior position. It is one thing to deal with a contract where the employee is not a member of a union and the employer is not a member of an employers' association. They may enter into a contract quite freely. But the case is different where there has been a long period of collective bargaining, such as with the contracts of the electricity and gas industries, which are drawn up between parties with detailed representation from both sides. These contracts are negotiated by gigantic men of industry—the union men throwing down 3 million votes on one side and the employers' representatives speaking for whole industries on the other—and they guarantee that their employers and employees will honour the contract.

What lies behind this Clause is the pursuit of that type of policy. If we find, for instance, that the E.T.U. or the Transport and General Workers' Union have freely negotiated a contract, we have to consider carefully whether, if there is a breach of that contract by either side, there is any reason why there should not be an enforcement by way of damages in respect of the breach.

4.30 p.m.

The new Clause does not go quite so far. It says that the contract of employment, a collective contract between the employer and the employee, shall give that employer the right to sue the employee unless the parties expressly exclude that, and they can exclude it if they wish. Those of us who deal with these matters in the courts from time to time cannot accept the argument of the Minister that an employer will not sue an employee because he will thereby create bad relations. If an employer were sued in the execution of this new Clause, it would merely be a test case. The union would appear for the employee, the employers would no doubt be represented by their association, and they would test whether there had been a breach of the contract.

We have at the moment a preposterous situation with regard to the agreement with the electricity boards. There is a divergence of view about whether if a man is absent for three days under Clause 64 of that agreement he is obliged to provide a certificate in relation to his illness. He does not do so in practice. I take the view that if he does not establish his illness he is guilty of a breach of the agreement.

It might be very useful to have a test case to establish what really is the meaning of the terms of Clause 64 of that agreement. If a person were absent and did not provide a proper certificate to say that he had been ill, and his employers brought a test case to get a decision on the terms of that Clause, they would be able to sue for a breach of the agreement. Similarly, they would be able to use the new Clause for a test case.

I hope that the Government will take very much more seriously the overwhelming feeling in the country, including within the trade unions and among employers, that there is a need to go a great deal further than we have in the past. The question of honouring agreements is uppermost in the minds of many people, and there is deep-seated anxiety that a great many people on both sides of industry are not really honouring their obligations as employers and employees.

I am sure that the Minister will agree that we on this side of the House have shown great restraint. I would have liked to see this Bill widened immeasureably to meet the real feelings in the country today, but I accept it because it is admirable in many respects. I hope that before the General Election the Government will bring forward a Bill to further improve the position and thereby better our trade and industrial relations.

From the tone of his speech I gather that the hon. Gentleman wants to go back to the pre-Taff Vale decision and make the trade unions responsible for the actions of individual members. According to the new Clause, if a man violates his agreement action will be taken against him. If 1,000 or 2,000 men on the factory floor violate their agreements, will action be taken against them, too?

I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, to leave out "two years" and to insert "twenty-six weeks".

I think that it will be convenient to discuss with this Amendment the next two Amendments in line 8, the Amendment in line 10, the two Amendments in line 14, the two Amendments in line 18, the two Amendments in line 22, the Amendment in Clause 2, page 2, line 13, and the second Amendment in Clause 2, page 2, line 19.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I think that all these Amendments hang closely together.

The effect of the Amendments is to alter Clause 1 so that both employer and employee will be obliged to give at least one week's notice of termination after the employee has been continuously employed for 26 weeks. The employee's right to have at least two weeks' notice after two years, and four weeks' notice after five years, remains unaltered.

The Bill as it stands gives the employee a right to a minimum of two weeks' notice after two years, but it does not give him any right to notice until two years have been completed. In Committee, we had a detailed discussion on whether an employee should be entitled to a week's notice after a period substantially shorter than two years. During the course of the discussion it was argued by hon. Members on both sides that many employees in certain industries with a fairly high labour turnover, for example, shipbuilding, ship repairing, and construction, would not benefit from the right to notice in the Bill because they would not have the necessary record of continuous employment.

Moreover, it is these very employees who for the most part form the minority who do not have even a right to a week's notice. This point was also stressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr), and other hon. Members, on Second Reading. I think that it constitutes a powerful argument for introducing into the Bill a right to a week's notice after a reasonable qualifying period, and in these Amendments we have accepted that argument.

At the conclusion of the discussion on this point my right horn. Friend gave an undertaking to consider carefully what had arisen in the debate, and he also said that he wanted to find out the views of the British Employers' Confederation and the Trades Union Congress. The views of the B.E.C. and the T.U.C. differ. The B.E.C. thinks that the question of the right to notice after a shorter period than two years should be left to voluntary negotiation.

If, however, there were to be a statutory right to a week's notice after a shorter period than two years, the qualifying period should not, in the Confederation's view, be less than one year. The T.U.C. has indicated that it thinks the qualifying period should be much nearer to one month. The House will see that the proposal in these Amendments for a qualifying period of 26 weeks' continuous employment falls roughly midway between those opposing views.

I do not suggest that for that reason alone it is necessarily right, but I think that it is worth pointing out as a strong argument in its favour a recent development in the building industry. A right to a week's notice after six months' employment has been agreed in principle by the industry's National Joint Council. We all welcome this progress, and I note that the right to a week's notice appears at the same point as is proposed in these Amendments.

The hon. Gentleman has shown himself to be courteous and honest throughout our proceedings. Would not he immediately recognise that the building industry is the one industry which is singled out as being the most difficult for giving long periods of notice because of the essential conditions attaching to it, and that that is why it has been one of the very few industries, if not the only one, in which up to this point in time it has been possible to sack a man at an hour's notice?

I would not be so definite, but I accept that the building industry is one of the difficult ones. Far from detracting from my argument, I think that what the hon. Gentleman said adds great strength to it, because I remind him that what we are doing is laying down a statutory minimum. Of course, we hope that people will do better voluntarily, but when we are laying down a statutory limit we must have regard not to one aspect but to the whole field of employment, as has been said very often. Therefore, I feel that the point raised by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) has added weight to my argument, and I am grateful for the help that he has given me in raising it.

The Bill confers a statutory right to notice where the employee can be regarded as having earned it by a qualifying period of service. I would say that six months was about the shortest period in which an employee could be thought to earn a statutory right of this kind. I emphasise again, as I remarked to the hon. Member for Gloucester, that I am speaking only of the statutory right, and the last thing that I would want to do would be in any way to discourage the granting of a week's notice for less than six months' employment, where it is appropriate, under voluntary arrangements. Indeed, I believe that one helpful outcome of the Bill will be that by laying down a statutory limit better arrangements by voluntary agreement will be encouraged.

In laying down a statutory limit we must be careful not to go too low. I believe that it would be difficult to justify going below a period of 26 weeks. In view of what I have said, I cannot invite the House to accept the Opposition Amendments, which would provide a right to a week's notice after one month's employment.

I am a little surprised that the Opposition should have put forward these Amendments. In Committee I thought that it had been clearly shown that if we reduced the period to one month we would run into great difficulties in respect of the casual and temporary workers. I emphasise that I do not base the decision to make the qualifying period one of six months on the need to exclude these workers, but if we imposed a qualifying period of only one month we would run into some very severe difficulties in this matter. These difficulties would occur in agriculture, building, civil engineering, and many other employments. In my view, it would be unreasonable to provide for a week's notice to be given to someone who had been taken on for five or six weeks for the purpose of a little fruit picking.

I agree that in their Amendments hon. Members opposite are consistent, since they provide that the employee should also be bound to give a week's notice after a month's employment. I suggest that many employees not only do not expect to receive a week's notice, but certainly do not wish to give a week's notice, either. We must beware that in our anxiety to give the employee rights we do not saddle him with obligations which he does not want. I suspect that that would be one of the dangers of reducing the period to one month, as suggested by hon. Members opposite.

I think that hon. Members opposite will agree that, following the discussions in Committee, the Government have accepted the general principles of the arguments put forward, and in those circumstances I hope that the House will agree that we should give employees the statutory right to a week's notice, and that for the reasons I have given that right should accrue after 26 weeks' employment.