I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker. With respect, I was replying to the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East, who talked at length about the judge and his qualifications. I do not wish in any way to be disrespectful or to say anything malicious. I sought merely to restore the balance in respect of Sir John's background.

I have been looking at the records in the Library dealing with the president of the court. As long ago as 9th June 1972 Sir John Donaldson said that the Press was free to comment responsibly on the National Industrial Relations Court. The Times said then : The press is free to comment responsibly … without the risk of being in contempt of court … Sir John's assurance came after a reply in the Commons by Sir Peter Rawlinson, QC, Attorney-General". You, Mr. Speaker, ruled that my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), when replying to the debate from the Labour Front Bench, could not refer to the president of the court as "a national disaster." That had to be withdrawn, and it was said that his decisions were a national disaster.

There were complaints, not by the House but by members of the legal profession. There was a complaint of intervention by the judge, recorded in The Times of 12th October, when Mr. Peter Pain, QC, complained of persistent interventions by the president while hearing a union case. The report says that Mr. Pain: told Sir John that his interventions made it very difficult for him to get his cross-examination over on behalf of the Transport and General Workers' Union. It had 'put the defence in an impossible position'. Mr. Pain said that the president had shown : considerable impatience with questions he had put. He said that the impatience must have been apparent to the president's fellow judges. Mr. Pain also said that certain "back-chat" at one point had "completely smashed" the effect of his questions. Mr. Pain said : I do not like saying this in open court, but it seems that I ought because of the atmosphere I felt was being built up. So there is criticism of the court and its operations, not just in the House but outside, among other legal people, and there is consequent dissatisfaction.

One of our difficulties as trade unionists is the continual gagging we have had to face over the last three years. First, trade unionists, with their sound experience and common sense, were gagged by the Government's timetable. Then we had to put down a motion on the Order Paper. I shall not refer to it except to say that we had to use those terms, demanding dismissal, because no other motion would have been in order ; it could not have been done in any other way. Some of us had to seek legal advice in the House. We have spent many hours with law books up to our necks. One of the things that became apparent to us was that the lawyers have a better trade union than we do. It has been in existence much longer and in fact is more like the Mafia than a trade union.

Whenever we have tried to take action or to comment on these matters, we have been given the finest advice possible by the officials of the House, but every other sort of legal gentleman has said, "For God's sake no not get me involved." This is ridiculous. The time has come to examine the workings of the court. Learned people should cease being astonished that trade unionists should answer back. It might seem defiance and contempt of the law, but trade unionist MPs and union people outside have the right to question the official established bodies. It may be their right to say that they disagree with them, but if they disagree, they must be prepared to stand the consequences.

Industrial relations were summed up best two or three years ago in a short statement by Mr. Vic Feather, when he said that industrial relations were like marital relations. The boss and the worker will have a fight sometimes, and a strike may result, but that does not mean that there will be a divorce. It means that sooner or later they will shake hands and get on with the job. But once we bring in the Government, we are bringing in the mother-in-law, interfering, laying down rules and regulations and making things worse.

Now, we have not just the mother-in-law but the brother-in-law as well. As will as a third party, we now have a fourth party ; even the Government have to take a back seat while the fourth party does what it thinks is just and legal—no one denies that the court's actions are legal—but what in many cases is very unwise and shows a complete ignorance of the way in which trade unions function and what their purpose is.

I declare my interest—the AUEW is my union. Fifty per cent. of the salary of my full-time agent in Bassetlaw is paid for by that union. I do not get a penny. This means that if the court were to empty the kitty of the AUEW my agent would get the sack. It would not make any difference to my being elected, but we should not be able to pay him.

The union also pays part of our election expenses. In the debates on the Industrial Relations Bill, the Solicitor-General and the then Minister of State, Department of Employment, consistently and wisely resisted Conservative amendments to stop the political levy being paid. They knew that if that happened, when we were in power we would stop the Conservative Party funds in the same way. There was an understanding between the two sides, even under the guillotine, that political money should not be touched. When in Government we might provide for publication of the sources of Conservative Central Office funds, just as the sources of Labour Party funds are known, but we never tried to stop them.

It is easy for anyone to get a copy of a union balance sheet. I am willing to give a copy of my union's balance sheet to any Conservative Member. It sets out receipts and shows how many members pay the political levy, varying over the country according to job or factory. It shows where the money is invested and what it is used for. It has to be done in that way to meet the requirements of the Registrar-General.

If the court does not know that, its knowledge is sadly lacking. Those who set up the court should ask themselves how the present situation came about, how sequestrators, acting on the court's instructions, just as civil servants act on the instructions of the Minister, did not know that they were taking 25 per cent. of the Labour Party's General Election funds—a major slice of our income. Something is wrong if they did not know.

The Opposition have not pushed for a debate on Early Day Motion No. 49. There has been no great outcry in our party that we are not debating it. We realise the consequences. It is a very serious thing to table a motion calling for dismissal of a High Court judge and has been done only rarely in the last century. In 1843, Lord Abinger was criticised for sending some Chartists to the Knutsford House of Correction and the action was questioned in the House. Those men were put on the treadmills and exhibited on Tuesday and Wednesday afternoons, instead of just on Wednesdays, for the amusement of lords and ladies. The Press then had more freedom, and one newspaper called Lord Abinger … a valuable tool of the Tory Government, to whom no dirty work comes amiss. That was an apt comment.

There have been allegations of a "department of dirty tricks" having been set up in America. I am not saying that that has happened in this country, but, by negligence of the court or negligence of the Government, a similar sort of action came into being. If that action had not been criticised, if trade union MPs had not kicked up a fuss and put down a motion, the court, in its benign ignorance, might have gone on to take every penny of every political fund of every union, and virtually bankrupted the Labour Party. So action had to be taken and this debate is the result, because of the reluctance of some legal people to push things to their ultimate conclusion.

It should not be said that it is not necessary to talk about these things. It has never been more necessary. When a third of the members of the AUEW—350,000 people—sacrifice a day's pay to make a point of political principle, that is no mean feat. The sacrifice of £8, or whatever it is, to protest requires great self-sacrifice by working people. It is no good scoffing that only a third of the membership protested.

The Government have acted the part of Frankenstein and created a monster which no one can now control. Three years ago, the Prime Minister used to jeer at the Leader of the Opposition that he ran away and chickened out of the confrontation with the unions, that he did not have the guts to see it through. We do not hear those jibes now, because if the Conservative Party was honest it would admit that the time has come for a long look at the Act. But a long look does not mean merely publishing a White Paper or setting up a study group or allowing civil servants and others to give their views. There is only one way in which the matter can now be analysed, namely, by a Select Committee. Mr. Scanlon and Mr. Jones would recognise such a Committee. Mr. Feather who has now retired, would probably have attended. It would be recognised by Len Murray. The employers and the legal profession would attend. Examination and cross-questioning could take place. The Committee could accept evidence and present a report of the workings of the Act.

If such a Committee presented its report it should not be supposed that a political row would not follow. It might be said that this or that was wrong in somebody's after-dinner speech. Sir John's after-dinner speech was certainly not wise. It was foolish but not illegal. The only way in which we can solve the problem is by both sides realising the need for the problem to be set out. We need the lawyers to give the matter their consideration.

Let us be honest. We have in the trade unions today—we have always had them—a tiny minority who are against the present set-up. They are probably no more than a tenth of 1 per cent. For such people it is manna from heaven when a Government sets up an Act such as the Industrial Relations Act and judges take certain decisions. I have to defend Parliament when I meet such people. There are not many of them, but when I occasionally meet them I have to defend our system. I have to say that it is relevant, that it fulfils a need and that it is essential. I have to take that stand whenever these matters are debated and it is said that Parliament is irrelevant and that it is time we rid ourselves of it.

The minority to which I have referred suggest, "It is time we got rid of Parliament. Blow it up. Let us act like Guy Fawkes." When measures such as the Industrial Relations Act appear they are just the sort of thing for which these people are looking.

People in the trade unions who do not pay political levies choose not to do so not because they are Conservatives but because they are Communists. It never seems to dawn on Conservative hon. Members that it is manna from heaven for them to be presented with an Act such as the Industrial Relations Act. They can then say, "It is a waste of time paying the political levy. The judge will pinch the lot. You may as well keep in your pocket your subscription money or make a subscription to the Communist Party. You are in the wrong party. The Labour Party is a waste of time. You will get clobbered by all the parties." That is what is said by anarchists and others.

That attitude can be stopped only when the House, the Government and the lawyers admit that they have been wrong. Now is the time for all of them to admit that they have made mistakes and that they have been wrong. We shall never get industrial peace until that comes about. Let us take the advice of Mr. Vic Feather, who said that industrial relations are like a marriage between husband and wife. That is what it is all about. There will be rows on the shop floor but sooner or later the men and the bosses will meet each other in the market place and they will agree to work together. That is what we should be debating.