asked the Minister of Technology what discussions he has held with foreign countries regarding the mutual development of advanced technological projects.

As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary explained on 3rd May, the possibilities of practical collaboration in the fields of aircraft development and other advanced technologies are being considered with various European Governments. In my own field there have been a number of talks at the official level, but matters have not yet reached the stage where discussions between Ministers would be fruitful.

Does the Minister agree that really it is extremely important that we should get closer co-operation with Europe in the field of science, and has he carried out any detailed analysis to find out in which sectors of science and technology such co-operation would be fruitful?

It is, of course, highly desirable that there should be collaboration in civil technological subjects, but I repeat that it is in the best interests of all of us that we should not hurry into something of no commercial value to us. The hon. Gentleman will have heard of the steps taken in one field and we hope that there will be opportunities to develop others, but this is not primarily a Government responsibility.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, with the approval of his Ministry, a conference was held three weeks ago with all the European technicians with regard to computers and space research with a view to finding out how far the private enterprise computer and space research industry could collaborate in having an independent European production of these articles?

I am aware of that conference, of course, because we participated in it, but I remain convinced that it is primarily a commercial job in the first instance.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of analogue computers were being used in connection with the TSR2? Is he taking any steps to see whether these computers might be useful in the joint development, for example, of the swept-wing aircraft with the French?

No, Sir. I have not. This is primarily the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation.

asked the Minister of Technology what is the number of civil servants currently employed in the Computer Advisory Unit.

The present strength of the computer advisory service is 32.

Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that this unit has an expanding rôle? Can he hazard a guess as to how many civil servants there might be in 12 months?

I believe that the unit has an expanding rôle. As I outlined in my speech in the recent debate, it is likely to grow. The extent to which it grows is dependent upon the rate at which we are able to recruit people, but certainly there will be growth.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this extension of the interests of the Computer Advisory Unit to cover those of the local authorities and the nationalised industries should have been made 10 years ago? Is he aware that a further extension might now be required to enable the Conservative Party to elect its new leader?

Order. I do not think that the Minister even of Technology can assume Ministerial responsibility for answering that. The first part was a matter of opinion, so the Minister cannot answer that either.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider giving more information about the number of cases that the unit has considered and which are currently under review? The difficulty faced by the House, as the right hon. Gentleman realises, is how to measure all the efforts and information that the unit has to offer?

There have been a considerable number of cases, but there is a later Question on the subject and I hope to draw the House's attention to it then.

asked the Minister of Technology when the Computer Advisory Unit will be making its report to him; and whether he will make a statement.

The computer advisory service reports to my right hon. Friend continuously on technical aspects of computer policy and on proposals in the public sector to acquire computers as they arise.

asked the Minister of Technology, in view of the fact that the most appropriate location for the forthcoming fast breeder new type reactor station is at or near Dounreay Atomic Station, with its relevant scientific equipment and staff, if he will now take steps to have it placed there; and when he will now take decisions on whether the project will proceed and on where it will be sited.

asked the Minister of Technology when he expects to make a statement on the siting of the prototype fast breeder reactor.

asked the Minister of Technology whether he will now announce the siting of the proposed prototype fast breeder reactor.

I expect the Atomic Energy Authority to submit to me its proposals for a prototype fast reactor some time in the next few months. As soon as possible thereafter the Government will announce their decision whether to proceed and, if so, where the reactor should be built. The claims of Dounreay will be taken fully into account along with those of other possible locations.

Does not my right hon. Friend realise that it would be in the national interest if the splendid but largely experimental work carried out at Dounreay were linked up with an adjacent factory of a productive character producing scientific instruments, fine tools, machine tools and similar articles, which at present have to be imported from Germany and elsewhere, to the national loss? Will my right hon. Friend take steps to bring this about?

This is a difficult assessment to undertake. One has first to understand what the experimental reactor is doing and what a prototype fast reactor would do. It would be a producer of energy for transmission to industry. That would be the purpose and not to be used as an instrument to make fine tools. Wherever it is placed it will inevitably create energy that will require to be transmitted to an adjacent industrial area. But it would not be the corollary of putting it in an area that one should set up another establishment at the same time.

Can my right hon. Friend indicate when the Atomic Energy Authority will be making its recommendations to him? Will it be this side of October or November? Can he further say what representations he has received, particularly from Scottish sources, on the siting of the fast reactor in the Highlands on social, economic, political and every other ground one can think of?

I cannot state precisely when the Atomic Energy Authority will report to me, but, as I have said before, I hope it will not be much longer before I can announce the date. Delay was caused by the fact that the Authority had to complete work on the design of the fuel elements before it could make suggestions as to the creation of the prototype reactor itself. Representations have been made to me from Scotland, and they have been very substantial. Indeed, many areas have made a point that it should be placed where it would be of the greatest value to Scottish development.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the last Government intended to come to a decision on this matter in March or April this year because they were concerned about research work drying up at Dounreay and a consequent brain drain? Why is it taking so long to come to a decision?

The facts are not as the hon. Gentleman suggests. The last Government were not intending to come to a decision by March or April. They could not have done so until they received the report from the Authority. Research work is not drying up. The Authority has a considerable amount of work to do at Dounreay. My understanding of the approach is that the facilities will be used for the creation of power for development of the Dounreay area in toto.

Nevertheless, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that considerable anxiety has been expressed by many bodies and by hon. Members on both sides about the delay in the decision? Is he further aware that Mr. Norman Elliott, Chairman of the South of Scotland Electricity Board, has come out in favour of the reactor being placed at Dounreay? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the work on burn-up in the fuel elements is sufficiently advanced to make the prototype forecast compare favourably with the advanced gas-cooled reactors?

I would not be prepared to confirm that until I have received the report. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, I am conscious of the anxiety over where the prototype is to be placed. Indeed, he and I were together during a recent visit to examine the social and economic problems affecting Caithness. The decision will not be delayed any longer than is required to consider all the economic and social consequences.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will now make a statement on the progress of the development of marine nuclear reactors.

asked the Minister of Technology whether he is satisfied with the rate of progress of development of atomic reactors for marine propulsion of surface vessels and that sufficient manpower and resources are now being devoted to this; and if he will make a statement.

The Joint Anglo-Belgian programme on the Vulcain reactor continues as planned and the experimental operation of a Vulcain-type core in the Belgian BR. 3 reactor is about to start. As my replies to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) on 7th July indicated, the effort on marine reactor research and development has been diminishing for some time, pending a Government decision on a nuclear merchant ship. I am satisfied that the Authority was right to reduce its effort.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a considerable volume of professional opinion believes that no further technical advance can be obtained until a prototype ship is afloat? As the matter has been under consideration by the Government for some months, when can we expect a final decision on a prototype nuclear-propelled ship?

I am aware that there are some views to the effect that there can be no further developments until they can be put into practical operation. But there are also views that it is useful to continue the programme envisaged for reactors in order to get information for purposes other than propulsion for nuclear ships. We are all conscious of the need for an early decision, and I hope that there will be an announcement before the Recess. I cannot go beyond that today.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the fact that he has reduced the number of people working on the subject, together with the expenditure, almost forces him to reach a decision quickly, otherwise we shall ask him "Why"?

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the United States Government are experiencing considerable difficulty in connection with their nuclear ship "Savannah", about which there was so much enthusiasm some time ago? Before the Government reach a decision, will they consider all the factors involved, including the cost, so as not to waste money?

I do not want to anticipate the statement which, as I have said, will be given before the Recess. One must recognise that there are considerable differences of opinion about the value of nuclear propulsion for commercial shipping at this time. There are no successful examples of it in the world now, and there is little enthusiasm amongst the maritime nations to develop nuclear ships.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will now make a statement on the future of the Hovercraft industry.

As my hon. Friend will remember, I referred to Hovercraft in some detail during the debate on 14th July, 1965. The Hovercraft industry has got off to a good start, and I believe that Hovercraft will make a valuable contribution to transport and to our exports.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is great potential for the Hovercraft in a cross-Channel service, and particularly a cross-Channel ferry service? Will he and his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport do whatever they can to encourage British operators to get into this field so that it will not be left to foreign operators?

Discussions are at present in train between us on the possibility of a Solent ferry service being operated by British Railways. It is necessary to remember when talking of the Hovercraft, as I made clear in the recent debate, they were not simply created for internal use. They were also designed to have export possibilities, and if people buy them they have to have somewhere to use them. There have to be some easy waterways in order for experiments to be carried out. We hope that the Hovercraft will be a commercial success, which is why we are asking British Railways to continue its experiments in this direction.

Has the right hon. Gentleman had any discussions with the Secretary of State for Scotland about the use of the Hovercraft for communication between the islands of Scotland? Further, has he had any discussions with the Minister for Overseas Development about the possibility of using Hovercraft instead of helicopters on rescue operations in areas with poor communications, such as Pakistan, where the recent flood disaster could have provided a splendid opportunity to use them?

I have not had direct discussions with the two Ministers concerned on the specific subjects mentioned by the hon. Member. The subject is still under consideration by the Interservices Hovercraft Working Party, which is considering where they can be used. There are some really valuable uses to which they can be put at the moment.

What advice, if any, has the right hon. Gentleman received on the potential of the Hovercraft in relation to the Channel Tunnel?

Have I got the question correctly? Did the right hon. Gentleman mention Hovercraft in relation to the Channel Tunnel?

I asked what technical advice has the right hon. Gentleman received, if any, on the potential of the Hovercraft in relation to the Channel Tunnel.

Unless someone has been misleading me, they are not constructing the tunnel for Hovercraft; they are constructing it for rail services. If there is any basis for an assumption that Hovercraft might be a useful creature to operate in the Tunnel, I suggest that a direct Question should be put down.

asked the Minister of Technology what action he has taken in the last two months about the cyclical difficulties in the pattern of machine tool ordering within that industry.

asked the Minister of Technology when he expects to have the report of the working party set up to study the difficulties created by the cyclical pattern of machine tool ordering.

As I told the House on 14th July, the membership of the working party I have appointed to study these difficulties is now complete. The Working party has held its first meeting and I have asked it to report as soon as possible.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long it took the working party before it held its first meeting after 14th June? Secondly, what is the present position in relation to the cycle in the pattern of machine tool ordering in the industry?

The working party has had its first meeting. I have not got the particular date. It is a substantial committee in its own right. I did not quite understand the second part of the supplementary question. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would put it down.

There has been a cycle of ordering in the machine tool industry which that industry has found it difficult to carry. When he answered a similar Question last time he said that he was considering financing the stocks in this difficult cycle. What is the position of that cycle at the moment?

This machine tool committee has been asked to consider the problem of cyclical difficulties. We have placed in front of it a number of tasks upon which it can make its examination, one of which is the question of the ordering of stocks in slack periods and the ordering of prototype models. It has not yet reached its conclusions on this, but it will let me know as soon as it has. I suggest that we should not get into the position where we assume that the committee will resolve the problem of cyclical ordering of machine tools. It is not a function of the committee.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the latest published figures suggest that in the three months ending in April the new home orders for machine tools are 20 per cent. lower than for the preceding three months? In view of that trend, does he not agree that it would be highly desirable that this committee should report at the earliest possible moment?

I agree. The hon. Member will recall that in the debate on technology I mentioned that the Machine Tool Trades Association had not expressed such concern as I did about this problem, because I think it is a wrong position where we have a down-turn in our machine tool ordering at this time. But this machine tool committee is a committee of some substance, and the people on it know what it is all about. It consists of people like Sir William Carron, Mr. Harrison of Alfred Herbert Ltd., and Mr. Kearns, Chairman of the M.T.T.A. They know what the problems are. I mention those three people as an indication of that fact that this is a committee of substance.

asked the Minister of Technology to what extent his Department is consulting the machine tool industry with a view to extending public participation in the manufacture of machine tools.

I am not at present planning an extension of public ownership into the manufacture of machine tools. No consultations are therefore taking place.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that we on these benches have been pressing for a consideration of this policy for a very long time in view of the inefficiency of the machine tool industry, as at present owned and controlled? Is my right hon. Friend looking at this again, because progress is going to be slow unless he carries out this consultation?

Of course, we are aware of the dissatisfaction that has existed in some quarters about the pace of growth in the machine tool industry and its inability, in some cases, to meet requirements of modern industry. The question specifically asked of me was whether I have plans at the moment, and the answer to that is certainly not.

Would the right hon. Gentleman be assured that, whatever his Left-wing friends want, public participation in the machine tool industry would not help it at present? What is really required at the present time is a new scheme of investment allowances to get over the cyclical trend.

I do not accept that that is a right conclusion. The question I was asked was whether I had had any discussion as to the possibility of public ownership at this time. The answer is still "No".

Will my right hon. Friend have a careful look at the very substantial imports of machine tools with a view to establishing Government manufacturing facilities in this field to which the machine tool industry has at present expressed a complete indifference?

In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman was very anxious to deny that there was any risk of a sword of Damocles hanging over the industry, may I ask him what he is now going to do with the lesser swords being hung over it by his hon. Friends?

One of the things which I feel would be helpful to the machine tool industry would be for it to recognise that we have set up an appraisal team which has a responsible task in trying to determine the issues and problems confronting the machine tool industry. The House should address itself to serious questions so that we can help rather than hinder the industry.

asked the Minister of Technology what steps he is taking to encourage the recruitment of women scientists into the computer industry.

The Ministry of Technology is examining with the others concerned the need for further training courses to increase the supply of computer staff of all kinds. My right hon. Friend understands that the computer manufacturers would be glad to recruit more women scientists with the right talents and qualifications. If my hon. Friend has any evidence to the contrary, the Minister will be glad to consider it.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I am glad that he and the computer industry realise that there is a great deal of skill and ability among women—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and not only in matters of science and technology? May I remind him that a recent educational survey showed that girls in secondary and grammar schools—and, therefore, the heads of mixed and girls' secondary and grammar schools—are unaware of the opportunities that are available for girls and women in science and technology? Will my hon. Friend, therefore, take this matter up with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Education and Science and see that all the available information goes into all the secondary schools?

On the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I would say that she proved her point a long time ago, as far as the abilities of married women are concerned. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"] Some hon. Members opposite have nasty looks on their faces. Currently, there are shortages of mathematicians and physicists in industry, so there is no difficulty in married women who opt out of computer work for a period finding other employment. But in the next two or three years we shall need between 300 and 400 more people in this work, and it will be quite a job training them. I hope that my hon. Friend's Question will have some effect in obtaining publicity.

Is my hon. Friend aware that it will be dangerous to rely wholly on the computer-producing industry to produce the necessary amount of staff for industries requiring computers? Is he further aware that last week I took a short course on computers, at the hands of a lady systems analyser, with, I think, beneficial results?

I was only going to add that currently there are about 200 courses with some element of computer knowledge at the technical colleges and universities in this country. My right hon. Friend, together with other Members of the Government, is examining the whole question of facilities.

asked the Minister of Technology what discussions he is having with the computer industry in Great Britain to expand production to meet foreign competition, with particular reference to modern design and price.

My Department keeps in close touch with computer manufacturers on all these matters.

Would my right hon. Friend not agree that it is not design or price but rapidity of introduction and new equipment by British manufacturers which matters?

This is the criticism that has been made against the British computer industry very frequently. It is not so much design or price. It can be argued whether a particular design is the most suitable one, but there have been considerable delays in the introduction of new equipment. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples), on the last occasion of a technology debate, drew attention to the fact that he had been giving particular attention to the question of software. We also have been giving some attention to this and hope that the British computer industry will recognise that that is one of its failings and help us in that direction.

Would my right hon. Friend consider inviting British computer manufacturers to put forward a design for a computer which could be used in schools, because the industry will not have sufficient people who know how to use computers unless we begin training them, as in the United States and the U.S.S.R., at school? Furthermore, will he bear in mind that the successful design and manufacture of cheap computers for schools would be of tremendous export value?

One of the British computer manufacturers is already tackling this. It forms part of our discussions with the Department of Education and Science, because we, too, believe that there needs to be training of young people in the use of computers.

In order to keep part of world trade looking towards this part of Europe, has the Minister any views on the suggested merger between an English computer firm and a French one?

This is a different question. It was raised a little earlier on another question, probably before the hon. Gentleman entered the Chamber. I have said that this is, in some cases, a matter for commercial interests in the first instance. They have drawn my attention, as the Minister responsible, to this, and we shall be dealing with it at some time.

asked the Minister of Technology what technical co-operation exists between the research stations of his Department and similar establishments in Holland and East Germany.

The Ministry's research stations exchange information as appropriate with the corresponding research institutes in Holland. There is rather less contact with East Germany.

I am glad about the first part of the Answer, but not about the second. Can I ask my hon. Friend if he is aware that, in the field of industrial building in particular, we have a great deal to learn from East Germany? Is he also aware that officers in his Department are not allowed to go on official vists to East Germany, and, if they do go in order to visit scientific establishments, they have to go at their own expense and take time out of their annual leave? We are the losers in this. Will my hon. Friend undertake to have a look at this so that it is put on a more sensible basis?

My hon. Friend will accept that this is a difficult question in view of the political atmosphere in relation to East Germany since the end of the war, which obviously creates some difficulties. It would be a mistake to believe that there are no contacts with East Germany. The Warren Spring Laboratory and an East German scientific institute are co-operating at present, and there is an exchange of research reports.

asked the Minister of Technology if he is aware that the new discovery by Aberdeen's Torry Research Station under the auspices of the Herring Industry Board, whereby kipper sausages can be produced with the herring bones eliminated, can be of commercial value to Scotland and of benefit to consumers; and when the process will be completed so that they can be put on sale.

The process referred to is being developed by staff of the British Food Manufacturing Industries Research Association, which is an independent organisation, grant-aided by the Ministry of Technology. The results are promising, but I cannot say when they will be ready for commercial application.

Does the Minister realise that it is the partnership of the herring with Aberdeen Angus that has made the British nation great? Will he give what assistance he can to this very desirable experiment with a view to maintaining the greatness of the British Commonwealth of Nations?

While not wanting to go too far into the possible effects of the British Commonwealth of Nations and the consumption of kipper sausages, it is true that research is going on into this, but the commercial value to Scotland of smoked fish sausages is said to be uncertain.

asked the Minister of Technology what measures he is now taking to encourage the modernisation of British industry and to make it more competitive in world markets.

I would refer the hon. Member to the full account I gave of my Department's activities in the debate on 14th July.

Quite apart from the strictures of the Estimates Committee, which are very serious, would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that one of the most helpful steps that he personally could take to make British industry more competitive in world markets would be to support the incomes policy of the Cabinet of which he is a member? Does he support that policy or that of the Transport and General Workers' Union? If it is the latter, he ought, in decency, to resign from the Government.

There has been rather a lot of noise. The hon. Gentleman was asking about the modernising of British industry.

Could I deal with the relevant part of the question? I was reminded of the strictures of the the Estimates Committee. It would not be my wish at this time to make a comment about this. I shall do so at the appropriate time, but I would remind the hon. Gentleman that these great strictures which were made—and not the way they were reported in the Press—were that we had not put people from industry on the appraisal committees, a fact which I denied a few moments ago by giving the names of some members of one of the main committees. Another of the strictures was that there had been a delay in making appointments and that there was topheaviness of structure. I hope that this House will at some time get round to the idea that it is much more important to know whether we are going to put the British computer industry, or any other industry, on its feet, rather than whether I have two deputy secretaries in my Department.

Will the right hon. Gentlemen remember the advice of his hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray) and throw his weight about in Whitehall rather more? Will he try to persuade his hon. and right hon. Friends to use the purchasing power of Government and local government agencies to place orders only with companies and firms which are using modern equipment and techniques?

This is part of the approach which my Ministry is making to other Government Departments. When we get down to the question of bringing practical issues before the House, I wonder how many hon. Members opposite would support the idea that we should throw our weight about to place orders where we want.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is a sad reflection on the so-called attributes of private enterprise that they have to be so dependent on his Ministry encouraging them to do what they ought to have been doing long ago?

asked the Minister of Technology what co-operation he has been able to achieve between the British Overseas Airways Corporation and British European Airways in the use and purchase of British computers.

asked the Minister of Technology what steps he is taking to ensure that the computer to be purchased by the British Overseas Airways Corporation will be compatible with that already in use by British European Airways.

Both Corporations have at different times from 1963 onwards satisfied the Government of the day that the computer systems of their choice were the best technical and commercial solutions to their requirements. The computer systems of the Corporations already intercommunicate, but the new equipment which B.O.A.C. are ordering will make this easier. It is important that each Corporation should have the system which meets its requirements, and these are not necessarily identical.

If the right hon. Gentleman wants to put the British computer industry on its feet, surely he could use his influence with nationalised Corporations such as B.O.A.C. to buy a British computer system, because this is the one Corporation which could assist the British computer industry in its developments.

Yes, Sir, I agree that this should have been the position. However, I would remind the hon. Member of the point I made, namely, that since 1963 both Corporations have made it clear to the Government and had the Government's endorsement that they should purchase the computers which they require. They put forward the reasoning—it was put to me in the technological debate—that I ought not to interfere if the Corporations were satisfied that they were getting the best piece of equipment. I happen to hold different views about this, but the facts were as I stated.

While accepting at once that it is in the interests of both Corporations that they should buy the computers best fitted to their own services, would the Minister not agree that it is wrong that B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. should not have reciprocity; that they are not able to programme one another's passenger information so as to pass it on to one another? Is this not the same as building one railway line with a 4 ft. 8in. gauge and another with a 5 ft. 2 in. gauge? They must be compatible.

It is not the same. The particular operations which these computers are doing are ticket and passenger checking and documentation. These were the aspects in which they were making themselves compatible with American lines which use the international airways. The B.E.A. machine is compatible, to a degree, with the new machine which is being ordered. Therefore, it is not worsening the situation. It is, if anything, easing it. The Corporations, although entitled to have advice and guidance from us—they had it from our Computer Advisory Unit—have been given a wide degree of freedom from Ministerial control in the past, and they exercise this—all the nationalised industries do.

Is the Minister aware that this illustrates the need for continuity in such complex systems and that, if we are to avoid such quandaries arising in the future, all the work of his Programming Centre and Computer Advisory Unit is needed to lay the foundations of a healthy industry in future?

That is obviously correct, and we are hoping that the unit will be of value to people who want to purchase computers before they place orders.

In view of the importance of compatibility in these computer systems, would the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what the advice of the unit was?

On the advice of the unit, we saw no justifiable reason at this stage for preventing B.O.A.C. putting the order where it went.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the space programme prepared by his department.

My right hon. Friend has no direct responsibility for space research but following an invitation from the Secretary of State for Education and Science, he has directed the Atomic Energy Authority to undertake research on the design of the "payload" for the large astronomical satellite project of the European Space Research Organisation. At present, the Authority is carrying out a preliminary design study, which is expected to take about six months.

Has there been co-operation between my right hon Friend's Department and the Postmaster-General about satellite communications?

There is very considerable co-operation and constant discussion between the two Departments.

Could my hon. Friend say when the satellite will be launched in Australia?

It is very difficult to give any precise date, but probably some time in 1967.

I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

That will be entirely acceptable if it is agreeable to the House.

Hon. Members will remember that our purpose in introducing the Bill was to clear up the confusion concerning trade union law which had arisen from the Rookes v. Barnard case. The Bill does this by providing that it shall no longer be actionable to threaten to break a contract of employment or to threaten to induce another person to do so in the circumstances of a trade dispute.

I never get any particular pleasure out of attacking the Minister, for he and I think in the same way on a number of issues. I remember that when I was Minister he helped me on various issues, and I have tried to do the same thing for him; but I am bound to tell him that in this case, as he knows, our approach is fundamentally different. I must say to him things which he may think somewhat harsh in this context, but I should be failing in my duty if I did not, because we on this side of the House feel very strongly about this matter.

"I should like to ask a specific question of the Minister. If the Bill secures its Second Reading, will he be willing in Committee to accept an Amendment designed to exclude from the Bill's protection intimidation intended to injure individual workers?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 16th February, 1965; Vol. 706, c. 1039.]

"The right of trade union representation and proper safeguards against arbitrary dismissal would be included"—

"to give workers and their representatives the protection necessary for freedom of industrial negotiation."

"In all their policies My Government will be concerned to safeguard the liberties of My subjects."

"… we did not intend to raise any fundamental question of human rights in dealing with it."—[OFFICIAL RFPORT, 17th November, 1964; Vol. 702, c. 192.]

"… we will legislate to put the matter of legal interpretation beyond all doubt. I am advised that this can be done clearly, briefly and crisply without raising the issues of human rights or public policy."

I am puzzled about this. Of course, I would not defend intimidation, and I believe that the whole law on this matter ought to be reviewed. During the last few weeks my attention has been drawn to a letter sent out by a firm near Grantham to its workers. The letter said that the National Union of General and Municipal Workers had recruited workers to the union from the firm. It went on to say that if any worker joined this union he would either have to resign or, if not, he would be given his cards and dismissed. Only if a worker refused to join the union would he be retained. The employer added that he hoped that this would be taken in the spirit in which it was intended. A very strange remark indeed! I think that that was a deplorable letter to issue to the workers in that firm.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, because it helps me to make my point clear. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is deplorable that a firm should take that action, and I agree, too, that the Royal Commission should look at all these issues, but it is the right hon. Gentleman who has brought in this legislation. We have not brought it in, and the point that I am making concerns this Bill.

Do I understand that at no point in his conversations with the trade unions was the right hon. Gentleman asked to restore the law to what it was thought to be before the Rookes v. Barnard case?

They asked me to restore the law, but they never specified this particular reason for so doing. Their reason for wanting the law restored was that ordinary trade union officials carrying out their everyday duties would be impeded by that decision. I am speaking about their reasons, rather than about what they asked for. We never discussed the form of words. We always discussed the reasons, and that was always the wider reason that was given for their request. That was the position when I was Minister, but, of course, I do not know what reasons they have given the right hon. Gentleman.

"If this Amendment simply makes illegal the threat to strike without making illegal the strike itself, then we might be driven to advise unions not to get in contact with the employers at all and simply to advise their people to walk out without informing anyone of their intention to do so, and without giving any opportunity for negotiations. This is why I call it distorting industrial relations. But if we are driven to it by the vindictiveness and stupidity of the legislators—in this case the House of Lords—we will have to do it."

"… I am convinced that the closed shop, with all the complications which surround it, is precisely the sort of problem which needs to be studied by the Royal Commission. To try to legislate about it without the benefit of such a study is, in my view, like trying to read without learning the alphabet … all that we have tried to do is to bring some measure of order out of the chaos created by the House of Lords decision in Rookes v. Barnard. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th May, 1965, Vol. 712, c. 1262.]

rose—

The hon. Gentleman will have a later opportunity and I am now coming to the end of my remarks.

rose—

Order. If the right hon. Gentleman does not give way, the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) must resume his seat.

The hon. Gentleman will have plenty of opportunity to intervene. I was drawing my remarks to a close. I have tried to state the case fairly and that is why I do not propose to give way.

I am surprised that an ex-Minister of Labour can deliver a speech of that type. I am not complaining about the tone or the manner of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but I am amazed that one who has had experience of the Ministry of Labour should treat the matter so academically. One would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman, as the Opposition spokesman, would have dealt with the right of the other place to amend a principle which has already been decided by the House of Commons. After all, there were long debates about this question here. The House of Commons took its decision. One can understand the other place altering details, but it exceeds its functions when it interferes with a principle which has been decided here.

I am trying to follow the right hon. Gentleman's argument. If the case is as strong as that, why does not the colliery manager take action? Why is it necessary for the men to force the issue in this way?