ADDRESS IN REPLY TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM)

The noble Lord can forget the 6d. I am very glad to have given him a copy.

VISCOUNT HALL

I am almost inclined to say that I thought that the sixpence would have gone into the Conservative Party funds, and that is why I did not send it along.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

It will do so, but I will pay it myself on behalf of the noble Viscount.

VISCOUNT HALL

These are the remarks of the noble and learned Viscount. I am reading from the book. There is little difference between the book and the newspaper report. Someone not very far from here has recently said that it is our policy to wage war on the trade unions. That in a compedious form, as Sir Winston Churchill used to say, is almost exactly the opposite of the truth. If it has a fault"— That is, the Government and the Tory Party— which, of course. I cannot admit, the Conservative Party and the Government are almost too anxious to keep the peace wish the trade unions, and even the most blustering and rumbustious of their leaders. On the other hand, I am more than a little suspicious that one or two of those leaders are rather anxious to pick a quarrel with us. This would be a disaster for both sides, but I must say frankly that I do not believe Britain would tolerate or forgive art attempt by trade union leaders to dictate to the country, or to Parliament or to the Government what our economic policy should be. We entirely agree with that. But by the like token, I do not believe that Britain would encourage or condone in a Government any attempt to provoke a quarrel with the unions, and we shall provoke no such quarrel. I wish I could be equally sure that there was not a conspiracy on foot between some of the more extreme leaders of the 203 unions and some of the less scrupulous leaders of the Labour Party to sabotage our economic policy by irresponsible wage demands, and then to claim that Conservative freedom has failed and must give place to Socialist tyranny… I have not heard very many "Hear, hears" from the other side in support of a suggestion such as that. As I have said, the politicians to whom the noble and learned Viscount referred can take care of themselves. But who are the more extreme leaders of the unions who would join in a conspiracy to sabotage the Government's economic policy? There are thirty-five members of the General Council of the Trades Union Congress. Are all of these people to be suspect of doing such a thing? It would be interesting for us to hear whether the Government, in which the noble and learned Viscount holds a very high position, is of the same opinion as himself, or, indeed, whether he has asked the Minister of Labour if he has the same suspicion as the noble and learned Viscount and if he is of the opinion that there are some irresponsible Labour leaders who are attempting a conspiracy. That should be disclosed and disclosed at once.

The trade union leaders are men of great experience, knowledge and character. They carry a great responsibility, both to the nation and to their members. They represent no fewer than 10 million of the skilled men upon whom the country depends for its economy. In my long experience of all the trade union leaders whom I have known, particularly in such a crisis as that with which we are faced, they have all behaved in a restrained, co-operative and responsible manner. I am sure that, given a proper approach by the Government, that assistance which is so greatly needed will still be available. I trust that the noble and learned Viscount, who said that he was very anxious for that co-operation and who claimed that he was proud of the trade unions as British institutions, has had second thoughts about these remarks to which T have referred and that he will now agree with me that it would have been very much better if they had not been made. I have no doubt that had the noble and learned Viscount the background of, let us say, a coal-miner, a steelworker, a railway man, or even a clerk, it would not be very long 204 before he would become the most "blustering and rumbustious" of trade union leaders in the country—but not a saboteur.

Leaving that, may I say that there are about 23 million of our fellow countrymen and women who are working in industry, in civil employment and in the professions, all of whom are concerned about income, wages and salaries, and what they will provide for their families and themselves? All of these, I am sure, if properly informed as to what inflation means to them, would join in the battle to deal with it. The Government cannot be complimented upon their preparatory work in relation to wage restraint. I understand that the representatives of industry were not consulted or informed: nor, indeed, were the trade unions. In July last, the General Council of the T.U.C. were consulted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the setting up of the Council on Productivity, Prices and Incomes. They afterwards issued a statement on the grave view which they took of the position and the statesmenlike approach that they were anxious should be taken. This was the statement: Conscious of the consequences of this interaction of the forces affecting incomes and prices, not least upon their own members, the T.U.C. has constantly appealed to the Government to use its powers to prevent unnecessary price increases and thus set the scene for a collective effort to control these forces and encourage greater productivity. While the T.U.C. cannot fail to be aware from past experience of the problems of wage bargaining under conditions of full employment and the importance of maintaining a correct balance between wages and other incomes and costs and prices, it is Convinced that unless economic policy is directed towards full employment and social welfare, and the Government is demonstrably taking measures to that end, it will continue to be impossible to advocate, with any hone of success, a policy of voluntary restraint. It appears that no action was taken by the Government after the announcement of this statement.

I am convinced that much confusion and feeling during the past few weeks could have been avoided had the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Labour, before that announcement was made, held consultations with the representatives of both sides of industry on the subject of wage restraint. There was, and still is, concern about Government interference with the principle of independent 205 arbitration—indeed, there are differences between the statements of the Ministers who are responsible. I am afraid that I have to quote again. At the conference to which I have referred, the Minister of Labour was reported as follows: The Government had no intention of interfering with the principle of independent arbitration. The machinery of arbitration should be kept under review and he was examining with the T.U.C. and the British Employers' Confederation the future of the Industrial Disputes Tribunal. It was the essence of arbitration in Britain that it should be wholly independent. That meant independent not only of industry but of the Government as well. A few weeks after that, in announcing his proposed wage restraint, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 575 (No. 156). col. 57]: Wage increases unrelated to, and going far beyond, the general growth of real wealth within the country are by far the greatest danger we have to face, and we should be deceiving ourselves if we pretended otherwise. Those who ask for wage increases, those who grant wage increases and those who adjudicate about wages should have this fact firmly in the forefront of their minds. The Minister of Labour made a similar statement. Though from that day on many explanations have been given by the Ministers, I do not think that anyone is sure about what the position is at the present time. Not only that. What about the 3 million to 4 million workpeople in this country whose wages are based upon the cost of living, and the millions of our best workpeople who are working on piece rates and upon whom we are largely dependent for our production? All these are matters which could easily be discussed between the Government, the employers and the workpeople. I beg the Government to make full use of the facilities which are so easily given to them in dealing with these matters.

Another problem which gravely concerns the people of this country is the continuing fall in the purchasing power of the pound sterling and the increase in the cost of living. Since the present Government were returned, on a promise to restore the value of money and halt the increasing cost of living, the purchasing value of the pound has fallen by over 20 per cent. I have here the latest figures of the United Nations on the movement of the cost of living in different countries between 1953 and 1956. What do we find? The United Kingdom is on top 206 with a 16 per cent. increase. In France the increase has been 4 per cent., and in Germany 6 per cent., with all the other European countries well below the increase in this country. I can well understand the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and the warning he gave to the Government. The question uppermost in the minds of the people is: Where is the cost of living going? Then, too, there are hundreds of thousands of people—in fact I should think a few million—who will be faced with substantial increases in rent as a result of the coming into operation of the Rent Act. That, again, will put up the cost of living.

The nation's economic problems disclosed to your Lordships' House a month ago cannot be solved, I say, by a state of attempted open conflict between the Government and the mass of the producers of the nation's wealth. Surely reason will not break down, even in this crisis. Let every section make its contribution to the solution of this crisis. I trust that the Ministers, even at this late hour, will meet with the employers' representatives and the leaders of the trade unions and iron out the difficulties about wages, production and closer co-operation between the three partners. Let good reason prevail, for it would be a difficult future for this nation without that cooperation.

There is just one other matter to which I should like to refer—that is, the absence of any reference in the gracious Speech to the Bill amending the law on the closing of shops and related matters, a reference to which was included in the gracious Speech of a year ago. As is well known to your Lordships, such a Bill was presented in your Lordships' House and passed through all its stages, taking up 25 to 30 hours in its consideration here. This Bill was the fulfilment of a promise made to the Trades Union Congress by the then Prime Minister, Sir Anthony Eden. The noble Viscount the present Lord President of the Council was in charge of the Bill in your Lordships' House, and I can remember that he described the Bill as a modest, piece of social reform, and invoked the spirits of Shaftesbury, Disraeli and another Quintin Hogg, his grandfather, to help them through. At the end of May, after the Bill left your Lordships' House, the 207 Home Secretary announced that it was not intended to proceed with the Bill that Session because of lack of time. That Bill was not only a Shops Bill; some millions of workpeople in many other industries are involved. They will fear that the Government will not proceed with it. If so, of course, this definite promise will be broken. I trust that, whoever is going to reply for the Government—perhaps the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, or the Lord Chancellor—will say whether the promises which were given are, in fact, to be carried through. I beg to move the Amendment.

LORD REA

My Lords, the Amendment which we are now debating is couched in rather more extravagant and condemnatory terms than I should have chosen, but the motive behind it is that the gracious Speech adumbrating the programme of Her Majesty's Government does not really go far enough, in view of the problems which confront us now. For those reasons, we on these Benches would, in principle, support the Amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Hall. Although this is the third full day on which we have been debating the gracious Speech, I think your Lordships will agree that it is not too late for us (and I should like to take this opportunity of doing so from these Benches) to express again our deep gratitude and admiration to our gracious Monarch for the tremendous work she is doing in the interests of our State. To many of us the burdens imposed by her completely selfless life would seem intolerable. I would also express again our congratulations to the Royal Family on what I would describe as the triumphant way in which they maintain and achieve the very high standards which they set themselves.

Reverting to the gracious Speech, there are two points in it, in particular, which appeal to us on these Benches: the point 208 of the United Nations, and that of the Free Trade Area. Despite the terms of the Amendment to-day, I understand that we are free to roam fairly largely over the terms of the gracious Speech, and I should like to touch briefly on one or two points, although I am not going to keep your Lordships for long. The United Nations Organisation is not a proprietary matter of any political Party or any country—we are all in support of it—but I suggest that we in this part of the House are particularly anxious to see it supported, and we welcome Her Majesty's Government's avowed intention to support it in every way possible, because it is a Radical and Liberal conception that we should increase internationalism as much as possible.

I do not complain that other Parties do not support the general idea, but I think it cannot be denied that approximately a year ago, the Party opposite seemed to some of us to be rocking the United Nations boat rather severely. While the same could not be said of my noble friends on my left, I would suggest that some of us would be better pleased if they devoted a little less attention to nationalisation and a little more attention to internationalisation.

Nevertheless, we are gratified that the Prime Minister has recently endorsed officially this international character of outlook, and has made it quite clear—bravely I think, because I do not think he will carry all the Members of his Party with him—that we must abrogate some measure of sovereignty in the world in which we are living to-day.

The terms of the gracious Speech are rather nebulous, and I am sorry that it contains no reference to what I feel concerns us all very much—namely, the possibility of a United Nations armed force. It would seem that in recent conversations between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States they turned their back on that question as being perhaps not practical or, at least, not likely to be put into effect. But your Lordships will remember that the Charter provides for an armed force to be maintained by the United Nations and, further, that such an armed force exists in the emergency force which worked in the Middle East with considerable effect. Perhaps some rearrangement in the composition of that force is needed—for instance, I think it 209 would be better if its members were directly responsible to, and were controlled by, the United Nations, rather than being individual national units, a position which may lead to friction and strike a spark which sometimes, in unfortunate circumstances, may flare into a bigger conflagration. The truth is, as I understand it, that nations who have endorsed the idea of such a force, and supported it by word of mouth and promises of financial support, are, unfortunately, not living up to their word or their promises of financial help. That is a matter which I hope Her Majesty's Government will pursue and try to rectify.

As regards the Free Trade Area, this is perhaps not the moment to expand upon that proposal, but we on these Benches naturally welcome the fact that Her Majesty's Government are supporting it. We have always maintained that world prosperity and world peace include, as the greater includes the less, British prosperity and British peace, and that that can be obtained only by the freer movement of people and of goods. In the old days, the hackneyed phrase "Free Trade" was used a great deal among Liberals, but for many years past now members of the Conservative Party have, to our great pleasure been talking about the lowering of tariff barriers as only common sense. And if the phrase "the lowering of tariff barriers" is more acceptable than the phrase "Free Trade", so be it; we are very pleased. But, I hope that, in pursuing the main principles of European Free Trade, Her Majesty's Government will also give attention to the many smaller sides, the irritations and pinpricks which go with the limitations of the free movement of men and women and of goods.

I have in mind one illustration, which is in a sense rather trivial, but I think it worth mention; that is, the travel allowance allowed to people in this country of £100 a head per annum for travelling in foreign countries. As your Lordships know, the population of this country at the moment is very internationally minded, and a great many of them, not thousands or ten thousands, but hundreds of thousands, are now taking their holidays abroad. This irritating, pinpricking restriction has, I think, a serious effect. I do not suggest that the ordinary man who goes abroad for a holiday on the 210 Continent intends to spend anything like £100, or does, in fact, spend that amount; but the fact that the restriction is there, and he knows he cannot go abroad with ease but must have something in reserve, is both irritating and frustrating.

What is even worse, I think the fact that the Englishman, who used to be looked upon with a certain amount of cachet when he went abroad, is now regarded as somebody who scans every list for the cheapest article; who cannot have a cup of coffee after a meal, will not take a bus, and, worse still, cannot return the hospitality of his host, is most harmful to our prestige, and embarrassing not only to the individual but to the trade reputation of our country as a whole. I would ask Her Majesty's Government to investigate whether the considerable machinery needed to keep this unnecessary scheme (as I regard it) in being—in the Passport Office, the clerks in banks, travel offices, immigration offices and the Treasury—make it worth while. That is altogether apart from the irritation, or even alarm, caused to people who have to fill in forms which they do not understand. I ask the Government to consider whether the whole scheme is not in fact a great restraint on what is one of our biggest industries—namely, the tourist industry. That, of course, is very much on the side and not a main point, and I will pass shortly to the matter of defence, which is so little referred to in the gracious Speech.

The question of defence is a large one and demands a debate of its own. My own "King Charles's head", which I will bring up once more, if I may, is that here we are spending £500 million or £600 million on warlike preparation for defence, and, of course, defence includes counter-attack when we are attacked, but we seem to have no realisation that we can attack on the peace field, as apart from the warlike field. I would once again appeal to the Government, who are spending these hundreds of millions of pounds on warlike preparation, and are spending only a fraction of 1 per cent. of our national income on intelligent propaganda for a peace offensive—an ugly word, but it describes what I mean; what I prefer to call the enlightenment of information or overseas information. I beg the Government to reconsider and give much more generous consideration to the matter of overseas education and 211 information. If we were to spend on what I would call enlightenment, one-tenth of what we spend on defence, I feel we should be making a nearer approach to general pacification in the world than we should by spending ten-tenths on warlike preparation.

Finally, there is the matter upon which the noble Viscount has just addressed your Lordships, the question of industrial relations. We are indebted to him for having put so clearly before us the position of his Party. We are also indebted to the noble Viscount, the Lord President of the Council, for telling us last week at some length, and also clearly, that it is not the intention of the Government at any cost to come to a head-on clash with the trade unions. No good will come of going to war. In the field of international politics we are directing all our energies away from war; surely we can do the same in our industrial field at home.

I am not going to speak on what the noble Viscount unfortunately called the "sides" in the industry question—the side of the employer, and the side of the work people. I should be sorry to think of them as sides. There are not only two parties to this question, but three—the consumer, the housewife, the house-owner and the man and woman in the street, who is not directly concerned either with the employing firm or with the trade unions. I am not speaking from any Party point of view, and I am certainly not attacking the trade unions. These my Party have always maintained to be a fine organisation, entitled to their right to withdraw and withhold labour, either singly or collectively. But I do speak for a great many people of this country who are a little unhappy about the position within the machinery of the trade unions. I am not mentioning the employers at the moment—they can look after themselves.

Some of us feel that there are occasions when a trade unionist, or a body of trade unionists, or even a large area containing a certain industry, is not getting quite the right deal in trade union organisation. This enormous and admirable organisation has been running for fifty years or more without any public overhaul at all. I suggest that the time has come when investigations should be made to see whether it cannot be streamlined or 212 brought up to date in some way, preferably by itself, but if not by itself then by the Labour Party, and if not by the Labour Party then by the Party opposite. There are cases of victimisation, and I think we should not forget them. There are cases about which we are particularly uneasy when a decision is taken by the leaders of a certain trade union who maintain that they represent the views of all their followers. Would it not add to their strength if there had to be a quorum at meetings at which big decisions were taken, before any decision could in fact be put into effect?

Secondly, would it not add to the strength of the leaders of the trade unions if the votes which trade unionists give were given in a secret ballot—a method which has in fact been abandoned only by totalitarian States and organisations? Would it not be stronger if a trade unionist knew that he could vote without fear of offending the majority of his friends and the general policy of his union, whatever it might be? Let us not forget that there are many good trade unionists whose political affiliations are with the Conservative or the Liberal Party. On that note I should like to leave the question. I think the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, has started a most interesting subject, and I beg Her Majesty's Government to take a generous and searching view of these matters.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

My Lords, as I think your Lordships know, I always try to answer the speeches as they are made, and if, therefore, on this occasion my own phraseology should seem a little halting or homespun compared with the fluent speeches to which we have listened, your Lordships will, I hope, take it as an act of deference and respect which left me to await what was going to fall from the two noble Lords who have addressed your Lordships before I actually determined what it would be right for me to say.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Rea, who has just addressed your Lordships, I could not help noticing a marked divergence between the somewhat belligerent language of the Amendment—in which I thought I traced the aggressive and rumbustious character, if that is the word, of the noble Viscount, the Leader of the 213 Opposition in this House—and the extraordinarily temperate and restrained way in which it was proposed by the noble Viscount, Lord Hall. Indeed, if he will allow me to say so, he is far too kindly a character to move anything which has in it the elements of a vote of censure.

My noble and learned friend on the Woolsack is to reply to the debate. I will seek to answer, in as few words as possible, certain observations of the noble Viscount, Lord Hall. I am sure he would wish me to adopt a conciliatory tone, as I think, on the whole, he wished to adopt himself. I should like to start from certain basic points of agreement which I think we all have about this subject, and, indeed, from the point at which I left the matter when I spoke on the main Motion last week, because it seemed to me that in the last words which the noble Viscount addressed to your Lordships, when he spoke of the absolute necessity for reason to prevail in our discussions about this matter, he was really echoing—and I hope favourably—the plea with which I ended my speech last week.

Since that time I have read, as no doubt your Lordships have, that discussions have taken place, very much in the spirit of what was then put forward, between the lenders of the trade union movement and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I read, and I hope it is true, that the leaders of the trade union movement themselves will be discussing these matters to-morrow in council, and I know that your Lordships—even at the expense, perhaps, of something I might unsuccessfully attempt, namely, scoring a debating point over the noble Viscount—would wish me to eschew saying anything which would adversely affect the possibility of a reasonable and objective discussion of these important national matters. If I sing a muted note in that respect—I think I shall be less muted later on—I hope your Lordships will agree that if am taking a course which is probably agreeable to both sides of the House at the present juncture.

I would venture to add this. We all have our differences in politics and outlook about these important matters, and I think it would be a disservice to the country if we concealed them and did not air our differences openly, frankly and robustly. When politics cease to be discussed robustly they cease to be interest 214 ing, and when they cease to be interesting democratic life becomes progressively more and more difficult. But the country will, I think, never forgive any Party or any movement if it allows the strength with which it holds its own opinions to damage the day-to-day relationship with its fellow countrymen. That, again, renders democracy less easy and, indeed, in extreme cases, impossible. After all, the future of Britain is more important than the Labour Party; it is more important than the Conservative Party; and, I venture to add, more important than the trade union movement. We all want to bear this fundamental truth in mind when we come to approach controversial matters, as I hope we shall do, in a spirit of complete honesty and frankness.

I would go further with the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, in what he said to us this afternoon. Although I would describe the Government which immediately ensued upon V.E.-Day, not as a piece of good fortune. which was the phrase used by the noble Viscount, but as a national calamity—although I would use that slight difference of terminology in relation to the Government of that day, I would say that we all, both in politics and out of it, learned a very great deal from our experience of the period after the First World War. In deference to those who were responsible on both sides of industry at that time, we owe it to them to remind ourselves that they had experienced, for the first time in a hundred years, warlike calamity of unparalleled dimensions. After victory had been gained they were travelling uncharted waters, and if they did not make a success of their voyage entirely I think it does not rest with us, who have had their experience to profit by, to condemn them unmercifully. However that may be, I would agree with the noble Viscount that, by and large, our experience has been a great deal more fortunate, not only in the realm of production to which lie referred at the beginning, but also in the realm of industrial relations.

Here I wish to say most emphatically that I have always been an admirer of the trade union movement. I have had my differences with them on a number of occasions, and I expect I shall continue to have them, but I have always been an admirer of the trade union 215 movement, and this is not a new or sudden observation on my part. The noble Viscount was good enough to quote part of a speech which I delivered on October 10 at Brighton. But he did not quote the bit I like best; and, not in a spirit of vainglory but to establish a certain measure of consistency, I should like to read the two or three sentences which followed on where he left off. I said this: Let, therefore, this be said peaceably and firmly. We are proud of trade unions as British institutions. We have no 'Dave Becks' here and we are glad of it. We all know that trade unions exist to defend and improve the living conditions of their members. So they should, and so I hope they always will. They believe in high wages. Well, let me tell them, so do I, and so does the Conservative Party. That was the bit I liked best of what was, to my mind, a series of remarks from which I would not seek to diverge in any way. At all events, I should be the first to agree that the elaborate system of con.ciliation—the earliest part of it going back to the beginning of the century and by far the most important part developed since the end of the First World War—has been incomparably valuable in maintaining industrial production at a high level without undue industrial unrest. And, of course, that depends on responsible and co-operative attitudes between the Government of the day, the trade union movement and employers. I should hope to endorse almost every word that the noble Viscount has said on that score.

I would however say this: there has been in recent weeks, I would say, as a result of certain matters to which I shall now refer, a slight heightening of the emotional background which has not been to the good. The noble Viscount was good enough to suggest that a speech of mine had something to do with it. I must, with respect, completely dispute that and give chapter and verse for what I say. My speech was in answer to a speech made by the Leader of the Opposition in the same place—that is to say, at Brighton, at another conference of another Party about a week before. In that speech the Leader of the Opposition was reported as saying that the policy of the Government was something very like a declaration of war on the trade union movement. "War" is a strong word to use of a Government in its relationship with a movement co-operation with which 216 is, on the noble Viscount's own showing, essential to harmonious industrial relations. I should like to know whether the noble Viscount used his heavy artillery to attack Mr. Gaitskell for using inflammatory language of that kind. If he did not, what does he find wrong with my language? What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If one politician is to be allowed to accuse the Government of declaring war on the trade union movement, I think the other side should be allowed to reply that they suspect the boot is on the other foot.

VISCOUNT HALL

My Lords, I really cannot see why the noble Viscount associates me in that sense with Mr. Gaitskell. I told him that the politicians are quite capable of defending themselves. I have not attempted to defend the politicians. What I want to ask the noble Viscount is who are the trade union leaders to whom he refers when he has suspicions of their sabotaging the action of the Government. Will be confine himself to that side and not get away by criticising the politicians?

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

I shall certainly give the noble Viscount every satisfaction in the matter of quotation of the kind he wants. In the meantime I am making a point which I regard as legitimate. The noble Viscount attacked me for saying something about the relationship between the Labour Party and the trade union movement. I pointed out that it was in reply to something far more inflammatory and irresponsible by the Leader of the Opposition, and I inquired, perhaps naively, whether the noble Viscount had reproached the Leader of the Opposition for that inflammatory language. Mr. Wilson in the same place had accused the Government of being guilty of a calculated attack on the trade union movement. Mr. Wilson reportedly said: I say there was collusion between Ministers of the Crown and some of the employers' associations, and this decision to force a showdown was not accidental or even spontaneous. I ask the noble Viscount (whom I take to be a fair-minded man; I have always found him so) what is the difference between Mr. Wilson accusing the Conservative Party of collusion with the employers for the purpose of enforcing a showdown, and the Lord President of the Council, in his capacity of Chairman of the Conservative Party, hoping that there was not similar collusion between some of the 217 more irresponsible leaders of the trade union movement and some of the less scrupulous leaders of the Labour Party?

This is all quite frankly nonsense. To claim that the word sabotage has any literal significance of course will not wash, any more than the claim that "war" has any of its literal significance in this matter. I was making an answer to criticism of a kind which seemed to me to be deliberately designed by the leaders of the Labour Party to misrepresent the motives of the Government towards the trade union movement and seemed to me directly designed to foment industrial strife. It seemed to me that the leaders of the Labour Party could have had only that intention when deliberately using language of that kind. It certainly has had the result of increasing tension, because, unfortunately, there are millions of trade unionists who are silly enough to believe the leaders of the Labour Party when they talk this kind of rubbish. I thought I should have been doing less than my duty if I did not draw the attention of the public to this inflammatory kind of language and report that, in my judgment, the hoot was on the other foot.

VISCOUNT HALL

My Lords, I know that the noble Viscount is a very clever debater, but I want to ask him why he linked up trade union leaders with the politicians, if his grouse and complaint is against the opoliticians? The politicians mentioned by him are quite capable of taking care of themselves. Indeed, I saw a letter in one of the daily papers from Mr. Wilson challenging the noble Viscount about certain things, and asking him to face it. I have not seen any answer to the statements made by Mr. Wilson. If those statements are true, then I should say that the noble Viscount himself is much more unreliable than the two persons he is denouncing in their absence.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

My Lords, I should have thought that the noble Viscount would have appreciated that, at least so far as the latter part of what he said is concerned, two of the quotations which I gave from Mr. Wilson's speech were a complete answer to Mr. Wilson's challenge. But so far as the other part of his statement is concerned, that politicians can look after themselves, I may say that that was what I was intending to do by my speech at Brighton; and 218 that is the burden of my song this afternoon.

But let me now return to what he says about trade union leaders. He has absolutely no reason whatever for suggesting that I made a general charge against trade union leaders as such—I never have and I never will. Nobody realises more clearly than I do that the great majority of trade union leaders are, like the noble Viscount himself, responsible and patriotic gentlemen who use considered and moderate language, and, if possible, avoid the giving of unnecessary offence. If the noble Viscount thinks that at any stage I was desiring to make a general charge against those leaders as such, all I can say is that he can disabuse himself and his friends at once of any such idea.

VISCOUNT HALL

My Lords, I never suggested that the noble Viscount made a general charge. He has made a charge against some of the trade union leaders. I have asked him on three or four occasions to name the "some"; otherwise all the others, in the minds of many people, will be suspected of sabotage.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

My Lords, the noble Viscount need not be afraid, I have not nearly finished yet. But I must say this: if he is going to pretend that the trade union movement does not have some extreme and some irresponsible persons in some positions of authority, he really is pretending what everybody knows to be incorrect.

VISCOUNT HALL

My Lords, the noble Viscount is really trying to be just a little too clever. I have never suggested that there are no extreme persons in the trade union movement. But know of no saboteurs in the trade union movement. If there are any, tell us who they are.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

At any rate, we are getting on famously at the moment—the noble Viscount has agreed with every proposition which I have made so far. I am not going to give an exhaustive list of all those irresponsible and extreme leaders, because the noble Viscount has now admitted their existence. But what I am going to do is, first, to give one or two examples of the kind of thing which gives rise to the suspicion in Conservative minds which I have referred to on a previous occasion. Let me, for instance, refer to two passages from the reported 219 speeches and interviews of one most prominent trade union leader. He is very well known. I will certainly give them to the noble Viscount in a moment when I have quoted from them. This is from The Times of July 10: Wage restraint and the Government's plan for an impartial body to review economic questions were condemned in downright terms by Mr. Frank Cousins, general secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union, at his Union's biennial conference here to-day. If the delegates truly represented the feeling of the 1,300,000 members, their prolonged cheering and clapping proved that this policy was more to the taste of Britain's biggest union than the moderation shown by their late leader, Mr. Arthur Deakin. This was not unexpected, but their attitude, endorsed later to-day in a unanimous resolution, ensures that when the Trades Union Congress meet in September there will be even greater support for the industrial cold war against the Government ".

LORD BURDEN

Whose words are these?

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

These are the words of The Times.

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS

Oh!

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

Perhaps noble Lords will bear with me—they may not like this, but I am afraid they have asked for it, and they have got to have it. The Times newspaper is regarded generally as a fairly responsible organ, and I was indicating the kind of thing which gives rise to the kind of suspicion which I expressed. The column goes on: …there will be even greater support for the industrial cold war against the Government. That was the effect upon the mind of The Times' correspondent, not of the chairman of the Party, of that speech. The correspondent goes on to say: and even more encouragement to millions of trade unionists to strike if necessary for their aims. Mr. Cousins said that workers would not forgo wage demands while prices and profits rose. Every claim his union had submitted had been fully justified, and they had shown extreme moderation. They had no wish to say to the country: Feel our muscles'; they did not have to prove their strength but the justice of their claims. What does that mean?

It so happens that on the very same day Mr. Cousins was giving an interview to a highly responsible correspondent of the Daily Herald, Mr. Harold Hutchinson, who, although a member of the Labour 220 movement, is a journalist, I think, of the highest repute. He clearly demonstrates what he feels when he writes in the Daily Herald of July 10, 1957. This Government"— says Mr. Cousins, as reported by this journalist— has created a welfare state for the wealthy. Easy money for those who have already got it. Cars and a cushy life by courtesy of the Treasury. All paid for by inflation because the owners of property are safeguarded from the effects of inflation, but the recipients of pay packets are not. It loads the cost on the wage earners and their families. Frank Cousins says two can play at this game. He says: 'We'll safeguard ourselves too, or we'll have a damn good try; and then what? 'For one thing, it means the era of the official strike. Not stupidly, to get an easy reputation for militancy, but as a calculated risk. This requires strong nerves, because all the economists and the committees and the National Joint This and National Joint That will be bombarding the T and G and the T.U.C. with predictions of disaster. And. indeed, something will have to go. If Frank Cousins is right it will be this Government and all it represents that will go. If anybody is going to pretend that that is not a direct threat to use industrial weapons for the purpose of securing a political result, and that it is not a direct link-up, coercion, for that purpose between the Labour Movement and the trade union movement, all I can say is that the English language to me has no meaning.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

I should say that there was no more irresponsibility about that statement, having regard to all the economic facts which have been so frequently pointed out, than the irresponsibility of the economists and journalists of the capitalist class who have regularly pressed the Government to embark upon the kind of programme they have now embarked upon in regard to worker's wages.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

If I may say so, I have consistently rebuked and protested against those who have dictated head-on collisions, or a show down with the trade union movement, from the Right, as I have for this kind of objectionable stuff from the Left. And I was doing no more in that speech than to emphasise that fact.

But that is not all of it. Here is another quotation—I am sorry to reiterate all this, but the noble Viscount has asked 221 for this information; he has reiterated his demand for it three times, and I am bound to give it to him. I hope that, when we have had our little row about it, the noble Viscount will agree with me, and that it will lead us to determine that our divergent views on this subject are not going to prevent the fundamental determination of both sides to secure the good of the nation. After what the noble Viscount has said I am entitled to read out some of this material. This is an account of an interview given by Mr Ted Hill, chief of the Boilermakers' Union—the man described as being "behind the recent shipbuilding and engineering strikes"—to Mr. Ronald Pearson (and not, I believe, repudiated) on the eve of the Trades Union Congress: We will fight the Tory Government to the death on wage restraint. We won't have it—and they can't win. We will use every industrial weapon in our armoury. That means nationwide strikes if necessary. The country's economy cannot stand the attack we will make in defending the rights of our members to enjoy a reasonable standard of life. It is only right that I should go on with the report of this interview in which Mr. Hill said what he thought about the Labour Party. On Mr. Gaitskell's nationalisation policy he said: He and those like him must consult their Big Brother—that is the Trade Union movement. That is where our strength lies. It was that kind of thing that I had in mind when rebuking some of the leaders of the trade union movement for being what I described as irresponsible and extreme.

In case any noble Lord should think that this is a "flash in the pan" I have in front of me a copy of to-day's Star newspaper, in which further remarks by Mr. Hill appear. He is there quoted as saying this: The Tory Government have decided to declare war on the trade unions of this country in a more vicious way than any former Government"— That is quite contrary to what the noble Viscount says this afternoon— By their action they are depriving the trade unions of the fundamental right of free negotiation with employers on wages and working conditions. To fight against this menace to our freedom, we will have to resort to some of the tactics applied by our forbears. 222 The important thing to trade unionists is to win this struggle, and if we plan our campaign we will not only demoralise the employers, but get rid of this class-biased, provocative Tory Government. We could declare war on a vital industry, or on the most vital part of an industry, and sustain this by financial assistance from the whole trade union movement. We could, on the other hand, use our discretion in each industry, as we normally do, and apply sanctions such as working to rule where this could be applied. In engineering and shipbuilding we could do one of many things: Put an embargo on all overtime or stop all piecework where it is not a condition of employment; or where piecework is a condition of employment we could put a ceiling on earnings, or perhaps have a day's golfing and work a four-day week, or perhaps we could re-introduce some of our old trade practices which we have voluntarily abolished to improve productivity. It is all very well to put a smile on one's face and say, "This gentleman, who is the head of an important trade union, does not perhaps represent the trade union movement." I might accept that he does not. I might accept that this gentleman who gives rise to this kind of thing is as different from the noble Viscount as chalk is from cheese. That is exactly what I meant in saying that I am as aware as anybody else that the general run of trade union leaders are responsible, decent, patriotic citizens, as I believe myself to be and I should not dream of making any attack upon them. But when the Leader of the Opposition makes a deliberate attack at Brighton on Her Majesty's Government, and says that that Government is declaring war on the trade unions, and when he is supported by his adjutant, Mr. Harold Wilson, who said things as bad, or worse, I consider that I was fully justified in saying what I did. May I remind you of what I said? Someone not very far from here has said it is our policy to wage war on the trades unions. That in a compendious form, as Sir Winston Churchill used to say, is almost the exact opposite of the truth. On the other hand, I am more than a little suspicious that one or two of these leaders are rather anxious to pick a quarrel with us. This would be a disaster for both sides, but I must say frankly that I do not believe that Britain would tolerate or forgive an attempt by trade union leaders to dictate to the country, or to Parliament or to the Government what our economic policy should be. By the like token I do not believe that Britain would encourage or condone in a Government any attempt to provoke a quarrel with the unions, and we shall provoke no such quarrel. I wish 223 I could be equally sure that there was not a conspiracy on foot between some of the more extreme leaders of the unions and some of the less scrupulous leaders of the Labour Party to sabotage our economic policy by irresponsible wage demands and then to claim that Conservative freedom has failed and must give place to Socialist tyranny and controls. I intended to do no more than to describe, in very moderate and restrained language, the kind of irresponsible and wicked nonsense from accredited leaders of trade unions that I have been reading out.

VISCOUNT HALL

I am sorry that this controversy has taken up so much time, but the noble Viscount, with all his cleverness, does not really understand the trade union movement. That movement certainly includes Mr. Hill and Mr. Cousins They are two out of the thirty-five members of the Trades Union Congress, and before anything such as is suggested by Mr. Hill or Mr. Cousins could be done it would have to be discussed, and decisions would have to be come to by the General Council of the T.U.C. In exactly the same way, the noble Viscount is a member of the present Government, and we could describe certain things about himself—and possibly he has someone of like mind—but that does not discredit Her Majesty's Government—

LORD PAKENHAM

Does it not?

VISCOUNT HALL

I am told that even that would discredit a Conservative Government. But it ought not to discredit the trade union movement. Mr. Hill has a very small organisation, as compared with many of the others, and he is one of thirty-five. I still say that it is very unfair to charge leaders of the trade union movement in the terms which the noble Viscount did.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

My Lords, the noble Viscount has already expressly accepted, that there was no such general charge. I began with a proposition that I make no such general charge and the noble Viscount expressly referred to it.

VISCOUNT HALL

My Lords, I did not refer to a general charge at all. It was the noble Viscount who brought out the general charge. I referred to the individuals whom the noble Viscount had in mind.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

My Lords, I thought I was making that very plain. I consider that I should have been doing less than my duty to the country and to my Party by failing to draw attention to the kind of stuff which these persons (whom the noble Viscount rightly disclaims as being representative of the trade union movement as a whole) were putting forth and are still putting forth. And I made plain in my speech that there was no general charge against the trade union movement as such, nor any charge against the noble Viscount or any of his responsible friends for whom. I will repeat if necessary, I retain the highest possible regard and for whose integrity and patriotism I have nothing but admiration. I share the noble Viscount's sorrow that the House should have been detained with the details of this matter. I should not have referred to it at all, and should have left the matter as it was at the end of last week, had not the noble Viscount expressly invited me to say what was in my mind. I may say that nothing the noble Viscount has said this afternoon has in any way shaken me in my belief that what I said was a moderately expressed and legitimate defence of Her Majesty's Government and of the Party to which I belong.

VISCOUNT HALL

My Lords, equally so, nothing the noble Viscount has said in his defence has in any way indicated that he has not done a very serious disservice to the trade union movement of this country.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

My Lords, I cannot believe that a disservice is done to any movement by saying what cannot be denied to be true. The noble Viscount is really rebuking me like a Victorian maiden aunt telling her niece that she should not refer to the fact that the piano has legs, even though it has legs and it is no disservice occasionally to remind the piano that it has these organs.

VISCOUNT HALL

The noble Viscount is lecturing me as though he is a university professor and has a little dog under his control. I shall not say more.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

I am very sorry the noble Viscount should take anything I have said against himself personally. I thought I said, and I say again. I have nothing but respect for the noble 225 Viscount. But perhaps he will allow me to say this—and I have no intention of lecturing him at all—that he allowed himself to be the vehicle this afternoon of a strong personal attack upon me for certain words I used. He cannot complain if I defend those words in this House. I bear not the slightest resentment against him for having made a criticism. On the contrary, I am glad he made it, because it has enabled me to put forward my own side of the matter which I believe to be a legitimate side.

I shall not reply upon the question of the Shops Bill; I shall ask the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack to do that. We have had our disagreement about this matter. Let us now agree that nothing we say hereafter about it, to our- selves, to one another, or to our friends, will do anything to interfere with the good relationships which I think the noble Viscount. Lord Hall, and I both desire to see persist in the industrial held. I know that he does not believe in my views, and I do not believe in his; but I do not think the noble Viscount, in spite of a temporary asperity a moment ago, really believes that I am in this House at all inaccessible or undesirous of arguing reasonably about things which require objective discussion, and I make him, without any qualification whatever, this promise—and I am sure that in saying this I speak for my right honourable friends in another place and for my noble friends. If he or his friends desire any good offices on my part; if we can do anything to answer any doubts or difficulties they have, in public or private matters; if we can do anything to ensure the continuance of good relations, or to promote better relations, whatever may have passed between us this afternoon, I give him my unqualified assurance that I shall do my level best to promote that situation. I do not refer in more detailed terms to other matters of the debate only because, quite unfortunately, this matter has occupied a disproportionate amount of your Lordships' time.

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

My Lords. I expect the noble Viscount will be remaining in the House, so I shall not at the moment make reference to what he said in regard to the trade union movement. Then I want to pay a compliment to the noble Viscount, Lord Hall. He has saved me 226 very much trouble. I shall not need to repeat the quotations or the statistics which he has given, nor to refer to the facts regarding what happened after the First World War.

I should like to refer, however, to one or two matters which were spoken of by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, who seemed concerned about the trade union movement and was anxious to know how they conducted their business. The noble Lord wanted to know whether they could not in their branch meetings fix a quorum and have secret ballots on certain issues. Evidently the noble Lord is as badly informed on the trade union movement as is the Lord President of the Council; otherwise he would know that there is a bigger quorum at every trade union branch meeting than there is in your Lordships' House; and there is a bigger proportion of members present, generally speaking, at our branch meetings. On all major issues, every trade union has an individual ballot vote which is as secret as the vote in any General Election. On those two issues the noble Lord, Lord Rea, need have no worry concerning the trade union movement.

The noble Viscount the Lord President of the Council has enjoyed himself. I think he enjoyed himself more than did anyone else during his speech. I sometimes wonder in what capacity he addresses us. He has the advantage of holding the position of Chairman of the Conservative Party and he holds the position of Lord President of the Council; and yet occasionally he tells us, regarding something personal, that he is speaking in his personal capacity. Very well. Let me tell him this quite frankly: that I do not think he has been speaking just in his personal capacity. I am quite sure the Conservative Office helped him to gather some of that material together.

I am not too sure whether it is a good thing either for the Tory Party or for the Government to be in the position of having one person holding the office of Chairman of the Tory Party and, at the same time, holding one of the highest positions in the Government. And it is just as well for the noble Viscount to remember this: the Conservative Party are suspect in the trade union movement, whether they are in office or out of office. There are doubts, there are suspicions, as to whether the Tory Party are not more 227 sympathetic to the employer than to the worker. And that imposes a very big responsibility on Tory Ministers. They may regard this attitude inside the trade union movement as unfair, and say that there are no grounds for it. But it is there, and we in the trade union movement know it is there. For that reason statements and announcements made from time to time by Cabinet Ministers need to be exceedingly guarded. It is no use their saying they have been misinterpreted or misquoted. It is important that Cabinet Ministers holding high positions in the Tory Party should make statements which are very carefully worded and which cannot be misinterpreted—unless deliberately, and then it is not worth taking account of the misinterpretation.

We are told that we have some responsibility for the present economic crisis. I agree with the noble Viscount when he says that we differ fundamentally, basically. We do not believe that the capitalist system can deliver the goods. We may be wrong, but we are as firm in our faith as he is in his. When the noble Viscount refers to enthusiasm for one's opinions being accompanied by tolerance for the opinions of others who differ, we agree. But I cannot say that he always practises that—or he may have been wrongly quoted at Ipswich. I feel that his enthusiasm has sometimes run away with his fairness towards others. It is very difficult for the best of us to be enthusiastic about our own views and to be magnanimous and tolerant towards those who differ with us. It is a great achievement for those who can do it. I agree, it is the ideal.

From time to time the noble Viscount makes appeals—very sincere, genuine, moral appeals, there is not the slightest doubt about that, and I think it is necessary that they should be made. However, there is always a danger, I think, of our moral resources not being adequate to deal with our material resources. I have seen many an individual who has done well materially but whose moral resources were inadequate to meet the responsibilities of his material success, and he has become a dismal failure. That has happened to some countries, too. I do not mind these powerful moral appeals. I think it is vitally important for us all 228 to realise that the economic solution of our economic problem must safeguard the moral side of life. After all, man is something more than an economic being. I remember raising this very issue at Lake Success with a Russian representative: that his Party were concentrating too much on the economic side of life.

Let me say this to the noble Viscount: our difficulty in the Western world is that we accept a certain standard of morals. Our difficulty is to find a solution to an economic problem which safeguards our intellectual, moral and spiritual development. When the Prime Minister, last Thursday night, spoke to the Institute of Directors at their meeting, he said we wanted a little self-discipline. Let me tell the noble and learned Viscount that I agree with the Prime Minister. I have known many occasions when individuals who refused self-discipline have become subject to discipline from elsewhere. So I agree with these moral appeals, for I am sure that they are necessary. And I can assure the noble and learned Viscount that he will not make such appeals in vain so far as we are concerned.

But I sometimes feel that he might make the same powerful appeals as he made at Brighton, and as he made here only last week, to a wider audience. I thought he opened his speech last week with a peroration. Indeed, I said to my noble friend, Lord Hall, "Is it not strange that he is opening with a peroration?", but I found that, after all, the noble and learned Viscount had a peroration with which to end his speech. These powerful appeals at a time like this are vitally important. If we are faced with a national economic crisis, what must we do? I would suggest that the first essential in dealing with a national economic crisis, whatever its nature, is to get the support of the nation for your efforts. You should get the whole of the nation behind you.

At the moment we are not doing too well in that direction. Like the noble and learned Viscount, I have tramped the country and I have heard views expressed. I am not blaming his speeches; they may have been a factor, but I should not lay great stress on them; he may have aggravated a few trade union leaders, which is a thing he ought not to have done; he may even have 229 been speaking the truth concerning some of them. But these men are friends of mine. I have been working for fifty years with some of them. I have seen these youngsters among the thirty-five members of the General Council of the T.U.C. growing up; I have seen them at work over considerable periods. There are many personal friends of mine among them, and I was in touch with some of them over the week-end. Now they are certainly hurt—the noble and learned Viscount can take this from me—by some of his speeches and some of his references.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

My Lords, will the noble Lord do me this very great favour? Will be convey to his friends that none of the speeches in question were ever intended to refer to his friends? I am deeply sorry that they should have taken it that they were. They were intended for quite different targets.

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

I can assure the noble and learned Viscount that what he says will be received with satisfaction. They will get copies of Hansard and will read there what he has said, and they will then become fully aware of his attitude. All I am saying is that the pitch has been queered; matters have been made difficult for us. I know it was not intended, but it is so. A mighty effort must be made to get back on lines in the interests of the country. Remember, there has not been a section of the country which has shown greater patriotism in time of crisis than the trade union movement—the leaders and the rank and tile alike. Satisfy them that there is a crisis, satisfy them that they are rightly going to be asked to make a sacrifice—but not a greater sacrifice than other sections of the community—and you will not appeal in vain to trade unionists, leaders and rank and file.

It had been my intention to dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s of the speech made by my noble friend, Lord Hall. However, he dotted every "i" and crossed every "t" himself, so that job is done and I need not follow it up. Lord Hall referred to the years following 1918. I was in the thick of the events to which he referred. There were, as he has said, 49 million days lost in a year owing to disputes and more than half 230 of those were lost in the mining industry. I happen to be to-day the only surviving member of the National Executive of the Miners' Union of those days. The task which faced us was terrific. The complexion of the House of Commons at that time was such that I think it was possibly the worst Parliament that has ever been known in this country. The employers were represented there and they used the situation in such a way as I hope that no Conservative Government or National Government or Labour Government will ever use a situation again. Unemployment was used by the employers to crucify the workers. I know; I was there, and I and others like me remember those days. And we fear the possibility that they might come again. Mind you, I do not think that they will. I think that a Conservative or any other Government will do their best to prevent a recurrence of anything of that kind. But I ask your Lordships to remember that the suspicion that such a thing might happen again is there, and that is why we are so concerned at the present juncture.

Now let me refer to one or two simple matters. In the first place, I ask how the Government are going to deal with the coal industry in regard to this question of no increases in wages. It is an industry which is beset with many difficulties. It is undermanned. It needs many more miners throughout the country but it cannot get them. The non-mining section of the community have never sent their sons into the pits and the mining section are now keeping their sons away from them. What are we to do? I think the noble and learned Viscount must know how this business of wage claims works. In case he does not, however, let me tell him. The workers in the coalfields are feeling the pinch. They find that increases in the cost of living are affecting them and that their wages are not adequate to meet those increases. They attend branch meetings of their union and they pass resolutions. Those resolutions go forward and the National Executive of the Union are instructed accordingly. The Executive meet the National Coal Board and discuss the matter with them. They present a case for the miners. The National Coal Board then say: "We are sorry but we are not quite sure how the position stands 231 with regard to output. What is the output now? Has the output increased, and has it increased sufficiently to pay this claim?"

Now is that an idea that is going to be persisted in? Has the coal industry to show that its output and its proceeds have so increased that they can meet fresh wage demands out of that output and those proceeds before claims will be favourably considered? It must be borne in mind that this is an industry which can run into great difficulties from geological causes, and that these can reduce output and increase the difficulties of the miners. I would ask the Government to be very careful before they apply this principle too straitly. Remember that the miners and the miners' trade union leaders realise that they depend on output for wages and they do not ask for wage increases regardless of output. This is why miners' leaders are devoting the most powerful efforts to exhorting the miners to increase output. Let me tell the noble and learned Viscount that miners' leaders have been doing their best in this direction on the public platform, in the open air, at indoor meetings. They have been emphasising to the miners the need, wherever possible, to increase output. But let me also tell the noble Viscount that such miners' leaders are also concerned to see that the miners are adequately remunerated for their work.

I shall not deal with one or two other matters with which I had intended to deal. I think it would be far better to let the case rest there. The noble and learned Viscount was very anxious to have the last word, but I am having the last word to-day. He was anxious that he and the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, should be friends and that what has gone by should now be a closed chapter. Let me say this to him. I hope that he will not allow his enthusiasm—and he has plenty of it and, moreover, an enormous amount of intellectual and physical ability with which to express that enthusiasm—to run away with him. I know many men who cannot find words to express their enthusiasm. They lack intellectual and physical vigour. That is not the case with the noble and learned Viscount. But, in my opinion, some of the things he said were not very wise, and I think it would have been better if he had left 232 them unsaid. I am sure he himself sometimes wishes he had not said them.

My Lords, I happen to be a Welshman, living in Wales, and some of my friends have asked me why there was not some reference in the gracious Speech to the Report made by the Council for Wales which contained recommendations for devolution of a certain kind. I do not know whether a paragraph on page 3 may be taken as including a reference to that matter. I should like to know what is the position. Do the Government intend in any way to accept that Report, with or without amendments? People in Wales are anxious to know what has become of the Report of the Council for Wales on the question of devolution.

I have said already that peace in industry is essential at the present time. I have spent my life in industry and have been fortunate to see industry from each side and from in between, and I know how difficult it is sometimes to establish the right relationship and the right atmosphere. But I appeal to the Government, because I understand that a move is afoot for a meeting with the employers and trade union representatives, which I think is essential, to see that before they make any further announcement about what they are going to do they make this anouncement following consultations and not before.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, in the few words that I propose to address to your Lordships to-day, I do not propose to carry on the war of words between my noble friend the Lord President of the Council and the Opposition Front Bench on the relative merits of the two Parties. However justified it may have been, it has, to my mind, tended to divert the attention of your Lordships from the main issues before the country; and I should like to return to these.

Last week, in the debate on the Address, your Lordships were concerned with the two spheres of public policy which I think have been causing most anxiety at the present time to us all: these are, of course, the international situation and the economic position of the country. To-day, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, explained, the Opposition have tabled an Amendment, the purpose of which, as I understand it, is not so much to censure the Government as to 233 enable a discussion to take place on the other aspects of home policy which have not yet been brought under examination. The chief of these, as I think the noble Viscount rightly said, is the industrial position and the whole question of industrial relations at the present time. That matter, concerned, as it is, mainly with wages in relation to production and profits, might well have been regarded as a subject to be included in the economic debate last week, but I personally entirely agree with the Opposition that there are valid reasons for splitting the subject and raising the question of the industrial position to-day. For, after all, an economic debate which was also expected to cover the whole question of industrial relations would have been far too wide and too discursive to be in any way profitable to the House.

The noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, both of whom have the respect of us all, gave a most encouraging account, I thought, of the present industrial position in certain respects. They said—and I hope and believe that it is true—that it is far better than during the same period after the last war; things then were very much worse. We all greatly rejoice that that should be so, and welcome the wise words which they spoke. But there are many of us, I think, in all parts of the House who, even now, do not view the future with undiluted optimism. For one, I think that one of the reasons why the industrial sky has been comparatively clear is that there has been a steady rise in wages. We are all very glad that that should be so, and long may that situation continue, if the economic situation of the country will allow of it!

But I am sure that neither the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, nor the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor; nor myself, nor anybody else, will forget that economics and industrial relations are closely related. That truth, however, has not always ben recognised, and I think that that is the root of a certain number of our troubles at the present time. For this, I am afraid, all Parties are to blame, my own among all the others. There is one particular instance of this to which I should like to devote some remarks. I think that, in passing, the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, mentioned one aspect of this, 234 and I can assure him that in these remarks I am not now criticising the Party opposite. As I say, this is a question in which we are all of us involved.

The point I want to make is this. During recent years, in arrangements which Parliament has made for some of the greatest industries in this country, especially those that have been nationalised, where the State is, in effect, the employer, Parliament has been, perhaps naturally, so anxious that Governments, of whatever colour they may be should not be influenced by purely political considerations on the question of wages, that they have tended to try to set up to deal with rates of pay completely independent bodies which were not to be regarded as subject to the same political pressure. In theory, I think that idea was both sensible and laudable, but I am afraid that in practice it has turned out to have one unfortunate result.

These independent bodies are concerned, as I understand it, only with the position of the particular industry with which they deal. They are not, like Governments or Parliament, concerned with the broad picture of the national situation. Indeed, probably, with the best will in the world, they do not know the full facts in the way Governments do. Moreover, if they do know the facts, it has come to be regarded as very wrong that they should take these wider considerations into account in reaching their decisions. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested the other day that the national position was material to the consideration of wages, a great many people threw up shocked hands, as if he had said something which was extremely improper. Yet it is ultimately the community for which the Government are responsible who will have to pay the piper. It is the Government and Parliament, and country as a whole—consumers and everybody else—who will have to find the monies which are to be expended.

Nor, I hasten to say, is it only in the nationalised industries that this rather strange position has developed. Take agriculture. In that industry, as everybody knows, an Agricultural Wages Board has been set up. This body (I say this not in any spirit of criticism of the Board, which I am sure is admirable, but as an example of the point which I 235 want to make) was set up by Statute. It is composed, if I remember right, of equal numbers of representatives of the farmers and of the agricultural workers, plus a number of independent members, who, I take it, are intended to represent the interests of the community. At stated intervals, quite rightly no doubt, the Board review agricultural wages. Normally, no doubt, people being what they are, the representatives of the farmers and of the agricultural workers find themselves in disagreement, and the final casting vote is given by the independent members. And nearly always the independent members recommend a rise somewhere between the figures proposed by the labourers and those that have been proposed by the farmers.

But—and this is what I do not know and I do not suppose anybody else knows—do they take into account, in coming to their decision, the broad national position and the situation of the consumers and the production of the agricultural industry? Do they even take into account the fact that, of approximately £330 million (I believe that I have the figures right), which represents the profits of the farming industry every year, £240 million—that is, over two-thirds—comes in the form of subsidies of one kind or another from the general body of the community? Do they take these things into account? Perhaps they do; perhaps they do not. It is not laid down, at any rate, in the Agricultural Wages Act, 1948, that they should. I looked up the Act this morning, and nothing is said in that Act, so far as I can see, of considerations of a wider kind. It merely directs that the Board should fix—not recommend, but fix—wages and make the necessary arrangements for holidays and so on. The public do not know, and so far as I can see, even the Government do not know, exactly what considerations the Agricultural Wages Board bring to their decisions. The public do not even know the names of the members of this Board, and would not know who they were, if they were told. Yet the Board have this vast power over many millions of pounds.

And what happens? Governments—for it applies to all Governments, Conservative, Labour and all others—are practically bound, in fact are bound, to accept 236 their award, otherwise they are told that they are ignoring the machinery which Parliament has set up. Then along come the farmers, with a request for a review of prices for their agricultural commodities to take account of the new scale of wages. Here, for the first time, the Government come directly into the picture, and an agreement is reached which nearly always means that the consumers have to pay, in one way or another, rather more than they had to pay before.

I do not say that all this is necessarily wrong; and I am certainly not advocating lower wages for agricultural workers—if we want a prosperous agriculture, we may have to pay for it and we should fairly face up to that fact. But I do say that it seems to me a serious matter for consideration in all Parties whether these small bodies of people, who are no doubt intelligent and patriotic, but not especially eminent, nor probably in possession of the full facts about the national economic position—and they are not encouraged, in any case, to take this into account—should have, in effect, the final word over the expenditure of such vast sums of money outside and above Parliament. What is true of the Agricultural Wages Board (and I do not want to concentrate particularly on that body) applies also, as I understand it, in greater or lesser degree, to similar bodies in other industries, whether nationalised or not.

The point that I want to put—and it is much easier for a private Member like myself to put it than for someone who sits on the Government or Opposition Front Bench—is this. Would it not be better for this grave responsibility to be in some way restored to Parliament itself, either by the sort of direct conversations between the Government, who are responsible to Parliament, the employers and trade unions, which I think was envisaged by the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, in his speech, or in some other way? I think that in such circumstances the position would be far healthier than it is to-day. There would be no need for interference with the existing machinery of collective bargaining—that would exist as at present—but the final responsibility would rest, not on these Boards of the kind I have described, which really have no direct responsibility to anybody, but on Parliament, which in turn is responsible to the 237 nation which elected it. That, I suggest, and it is the main thing I want to say, would be more in accord with the principles of a Parliamentary democracy in which we all believe.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

I am most interested in the speech of the noble Marquess and I think this is most important. To put it in a nutshell, should I be misinterpreting him if I said that what he said at the end is that there should be Parliamentary control, ultimately, of wages?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I should prefer that the control rested with the Minister responsible to Parliament, than that it should rest with someone who has responsibility to no one. It is not because I want a lowering of wages, but because it seems to me more in accordance with the general structure of Parliament in this country.

LORD SILKIN

Perhaps I can clear my own mind. Would this mean what is known as a national wages policy? Is that what the noble Marquess is advocating?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

All I meant (and I am not speaking for the Government; I will say at once that they are not bound by anything that I say) was that where these independent Boards exist, I think their position needs a reexamination and reconsideration. At the same time, I do not want to suggest for one moment, and I should be foolish if I did. that such a change as that, useful though it might possibly be, would by itself get us out of the present difficulties between capital and labour; of course, it is not sufficient, and something far more fundamental than that is needed.

At present, as I think we all know to our cost, there is a tendency to regard employers and employed as inevitably opposed forces, each seeking by some method or another to get a victory over the other. I am sorry to say that every day one sees in the newspapers some expression which gives colour, at any rate, to that view. I am sure that all of us in this House agree that, ultimately, that can lead only to complete disaster, not only to the parties to the disputes but to the country as a whole. What I feel is clearly required—and I am not saying anything new about it—is that we in this country must, by some means or other, 238 reach a position in which the parties to industry should regard themselves as partners in a common enterprise in which the prosperity of each is essential to the prosperity of all. That is one essential change of heart that we need. As I say, there is nothing very new about it. If noble Lords will look at Shakespeare's play, Coriolanus, they will find there a most moving passage in which one of the characters expounds the parable of the belly and the members, the belly being capital and the members labour: exactly the same problem in ancient Rome as we are faced with here.

But in spite of the age of this long argument, and the view of so many wise people that a new outlook is wanted, the idea of an inevitable conflict still unhappily persists, with disastrous results, as I have said, to the unity of the country and to its credit in other lands. There are still employers who, in their heart of hearts, regard labour only as a commodity to be bought and sold, with all the implications of an inevitable conflict between the opposing interests of the buyers and the sellers. And there are still trade union leaders who regard a crusade against the wicked capitalist class as the only raison d'être for their existence.

It is only slowly and hesitantly that the more modern conception of an equal partnership between capital, management and Labour—that is to say, between those who lend their money, those who lend their "know how" and their knowledge of administration and those who lend their manual labour to a common enterprise—is gaining ground. No doubt even under such a system as that which I have adumbrated discussions must go on as to the allocation of the proceeds of the operations of a firm or industry between salaries, wages and dividends; that must exist under any system. Nevertheless, as I see it, the emphasis would be changed from a division of the existing "cake" (if I may use a word which has become rather a cliché) between contending parties to a joint examination as to how to increase that "cake" for the benefit of all, which is a far better conception for industry.

If that change of heart took place, and a new conception of a joint effort came to animate every section of industry, how happy we should all be, and how 239 much rosier would be the future before the country! I myself am confident that that change will in time come—indeed, there are already signs of it in the proliferation of joint industrial councils and joint works committees, and even co-partnership schemes in one or other firms in industry. But that movement would be greatly accelerated if it had the support of all Parties in the State. It is for that purpose, apart from any other, that I should like to-day to make a plea to all concerned to work without bias for that object; and the reason why I have made bold to address your Lordships this afternoon is because I believe that that is the only way that, ultimately, we shall get through the present rapids and shoals into the calmer waters of industrial peace.

LORD PAKENHAM

My Lords, like my noble Leader I feel that the noble Marquess has ventilated ideas of great significance this afternoon; and. if I may say so without presumption, he seems to me to enjoy himself even more now that he is able to come among us unmuzzled, as Mr. Gladstone once said of himself, than when he bore the heavy burden of speaking for so many others. I am sure that all that he has said will be studied for long to come with exceptional interest. I should not feel it part of my duty to continue the controversy centring around some utterances of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. When one has been knocked out in fair political fight by an opponent, and that opponent himself is then knocked out by a bigger man than either of us, in the form of the noble Viscount. Lord Hall, and knocked out again when he comes up for air by an even bigger man, the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, it is not for me to kick him as he lies on the ground.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

Nor, if I may say so, is it for the noble Lord to act as a referee. He is not entirely impartial.

LORD PAKENHAM

I will invoke in aid a higher authority even than the noble Viscount—the Prime Minister. I am not one of these gentlemen who advertise the Daily Mail, as some noble Lords have at times felt called upon to do—no doubt without remuneration—but at any rate I read the Daily Mail, and there was an 240 article yesterday which explained what was going on in the high places, of the Government. It is called "Macmillan to Hailsham," and we are informed by the Daily Mail that the Prime Minister has told Lord Hailsham to quieten down. It is an instruction which was overdue but which may not have been attended to at once. The Daily Mail, well informed, of course, admits that the precise words which passed between the two men are not known, but the writer said: I can vouch for the fact that Lord Hailsham has been given a wigging by the Prime Minister"— the referee, apparently, in this case— This is not surprising. In recent weeks Lord Hailsham has threatened to do the Conservatives considerable harm. I will not go through the rest, but, remarkable though it may seem, it says that Lord Hailsham has raised the morale of the Labour Party even more than that of the Conservative Party. He has, by his behaviour, given the Labour Party a wonderful symbol of attack: 'If this is all the Conservatives can offer, why vote for them?' That is the view of perhaps the most popular of all Conservative papers, as expressed by one of their leading writers yesterday. I do not want to suggest a period of complete silence for the noble Viscount, because I think we should all be the losers. We recall that some years ago the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, wrote to a leading member of my own Party a letter, subsequently published, which finished: A period of silence on your part will be welcome. Those words were addressed to the late Professor Laski. I am not suggesting a period of complete silence, but there is a general feeling that a measure of restraint on the part of the noble Viscount would enable him to serve the country better than he is serving our people at the present time. I would say that in support of the justified rebukes which have been administered by my two noble friends.

I had intended to raise three topics this afternoon, but the time is passing, and, in any case, three topics might be two too many, considering how many speakers wish to address us. I should, however, like in a few moments to say a little about penal reform. Before coming to that subject, however, I want to raise one definite question about university 241 development and, at the end, say a few words about the change from the percentage grant to the block grant for education. We discussed the university position some time in May, and I think it was conceded by everybody—the noble Viscount, if I may say so, was at his best in his reply—that by the early 1960's we shall need to provide for a much increased university population. I will not stop to argue the statistical points this afternoon. Since then, the Russian scientific triumphs have made us still more conscious of our requirements, and many of us must be wondering; how the Government, in view of their economy measures, propose to handle this situation.

I ventured to argue in the summer, after a good deal of expert advice, that if we are really going to expand the building programme from 1960 onwards, planning should begin early in 1958. That was said in May. Here we are in November, and the universities still do not know what planning they will we able to undertake for the latter part of the quinquennium. I have given the noble Viscount notice of this question, which I should like to ask him: whether he is able to tell us at least