Lords Sitting of 15 July 1971

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chichester.

AIR FARES
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether at the IATA conference beginning in Miami in September next they will be prepared to support a move for the introduction of lower fares in Europe.]
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, while Her Majesty's Government are not, of course, represented at IATA conferences, they will support, and indeed encourage, any reasonable proposal for reducing air fares, whether in Europe or elsewhere. It is only fair to say, however, that sharply increasing operating costs make it unlikely that the average level of air fares in Europe could be significantly reduced at this time.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, while being glad of the somewhat more favourable response in the first part of the noble Lord's reply, may I ask him whether he remembers that his noble friend Lord Drumalbyn told me on March 10 (it appears at column 58 of the OFFICIAL REPORT) that while the Secretary of State cannot make recommendations to the International Air Transport Association he can and does make recommendations to the British airlines which are members of it. Arising out of that may I ask the noble Earl—and I have no information on this point—if B.E.A. are not proposing to put forward at the IATA conference in September a proposal for cheaper fares in Europe, will Her Majesty's Government make recommendations to them that they should do so?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are in contact with B.E.A. and Caledonian/B.U.A. over the structure of air fares. Of course it is a matter for B.E.A. and the other airlines concerned to run their businesses in the most appropriate way, but where there are genuine occasions for reductions in air fares Her Majesty's Government are concerned that these should come about. I would add that the only way in which they can reasonably come about is by seeing that the aircraft concerned are filled to capacity, and this can be achieved both by the regular fares and the cheaper fares.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I do not know why the Government cannot give a short answer to a question instead of going all round the bush. Is the noble Earl aware that it is the over-capacity of the airlines which has prevented them from being full? Is he further aware that charter flights have proved that if the fares are right the traffic will emerge? Does he deny the validity of the fact that if the scheduled fares are right the scheduled traffic will rise, and can he please give a little more positive answer?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I think the noble Baroness is entirely right in her facts, but it is because the airlines may be over-subscribed with seats that it is necessary for the airlines to have cheaper fares in order to ensure that the capacity is taken up.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords. I take it from that remark that the noble Earl has made my case. Will he assist the airlines to have the cheaper seats taken up by supporting a proposal in September that cheaper fares shall be introduced in Europe?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the noble Baroness seems to have forgotten that there are cheap fares to Europe which are cheaper than the standard fare, and the reason why they are cheaper is because the standard fare has certain advantages which are not applicable to the cheaper seats.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I do not usually give up, but I am afraid that I do to-day.

SCHOOL MEALS: EFFECT OF PRICE INCREASE
3.9 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will state the reduction in the number of children taking school meals following the increase in price to 12p and the number now receiving school meals free of charge.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BELSTEAD): My Lords, a recent census carried out by local education authorities at the request of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science revealed that 4,161,000 or 53·8 per cent. of the pupils present at maintained schools in England and Wales took the school dinner on a day in May, 1971, compared with 5,148,000 or 67·9 per cent. on a day in September, 1970. Free dinners served in May numbered 753,000 or 18·3 per cent. of the total, compared with 627,000 or 12·2 per cent. of the total last September.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord is being very helpful, but he is so anxious to get on with our business that I am not quite sure whether we were able to follow his figures.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord's first supplementary question, the figures show—
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, we could not follow them at all. Will the noble Lord repeat his Answer, only speaking more slowly?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No!
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I wonder whether I might briefly elucidate for the noble Lord. The figures show that the drop is 19·2 per cent.—that is 987,000 as a percentage of 5,148,000—and that the increase in the number of free meals is 136,000, or a rise of 21·7 per cent., which by any standard is a remarkable rise.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Slow!
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, it is indeed a remarkable rise.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Question!
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, if I may ask the Minister a question, may I say—
LORD SHACKLETON: The noble Lord should ask a question.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that there is indeed a very remarkable drop in the numbers taking school meals, since the figure is approximately one million? I should like to ask the noble Lord—and I hope he will not rush his reply because I think this is rather important—in view of the record drop (indeed the catastrophic drop) in the numbers of school children taking meals, do the Government still intend to impose the further increase forecast for next April in the"mini-Budget ", as stated in the other place in October, 1970?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am glad that at any rate the noble Lord who put the Question was able to pick up the terms of my Answer. I think it is fair to point out that the drop was already beginning as from last September. We do not know, and I do not think that noble Lords on either side of the House know, the exact reasons for that. We think there are various reasons, and that there may be different types of need in primary and secondary schools. At the moment we do not know.
The answer to the noble Lord's final question is that the Government's policy as set out in the White Paper will go forward because, although we do not have complete freedom of choice, we believe that the reallocation of resources which it allows, provides the best choice available to us.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he realises that some of us on this side of the House are also governors of schools and we know perfectly well that the number of pupils taking school meals has dropped substantially since the increased cost was introduced, and that it is a great mistake, if I may say so, for the Government to try to gloss over this and prove a situation which does not exist?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister would be prepared to accept from me that I have had a spot check made in one division in the county where I reside, and it shows a drop in meals taken by children attending primary school of 11 per cent., and a very heavy drop indeed overall of 20 per cent? Does he really think this is a problem that has been developing for some time, in view of the fact that the number of children taking sandwich meals has increased threefold in the last 12 months?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, the drop in fact began after the last occasion when the noble Lord's Party put up the price of school meals. That is a fact, My reply to the noble Lord, Lord Alport, is that the price of the school meals in relation to average earnings this year is approximately the same as it was 16 years ago. This is information given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in the House of Commons on July 8. It is because the Government were obviously worried about the nutrition of children that when the price was increased in April more generous remissions were introduced; hence, the increase of 136,000 or 21·7 per cent. which I have given to the House, in the take-up of free school meals that occurred between September of last year and May of this year. It is for the same reason that remissions will again be increased when social benefits go up in September, and that next month, when family income supplement becomes operative, it will be an automatic passport to free school meals.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the excuse given by the Minister of Education in another place, that this is necessary in order to provide the money for primary school improvements, is rather a poor one in this connection, and that we ought to be able to provide money for both purposes?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, the first school building programme which my right honourable friend announced will allow in the region of 460 primary schools to be improved or replaced, as opposed to about 190 primary schools improved under the last programme under the noble Lord's Government. This is a huge increase, and I would have thought
494
that the whole educational world was absolutely delighted when my right honourable friend the other day was able to announce a record three-year programme. This is something which has never been done before.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, would the noble Lord please reply to the question whether it is necessary to charge more for school meals in order to carry through this programme?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, for the answer to that question I refer the noble Lord to the White Paper which my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer published last October.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it is useless ululating about money being put in bricks and mortar when the creatures crawling there have rickets, are underfed and you cannot teach them at all? A good teacher can teach in any old building provided the children are healthy. Does he not—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Speech!
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I think I must ask the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, to ask a question. He was getting into quite an interesting but long speech.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I beg your Lordships' pardon. All I wanted to ask the Minister was, does he not realise that the most important investment is in the nation's children?—and for God's sake! do not save on their nourishment.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I think there are two things that perhaps the noble Lord is disregarding. One is the change in general feeding habits of children over recent years, particularly since the war; and secondly, the reasons, which I think have now become familiar to the House in our questions and answers, why certain children do not take the school meal during the summer months. I would ask the noble Lord, as I have asked him before, to wait until we undertake the second survey, in the autumn.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord how he can possibly reconcile what he has told the House to-day with the fact that subsidising milk and food constitutes the

495
most important social service in this country? Is lie aware that he is his height and I am my height because we had adequate milk and food?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I was referring in my answer, which the noble Baroness has picked up, to the sort of food which was eaten soon after the war; and I was simply suggesting to the House that people's eating habits have changed. I would have thought that to be common knowledge.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend this supplementary question? The school meal, I think, costs 12p now, still with a subsidy of 3p or 4p. The cost of taking two ham sandwiches to school is something in the neighbourhood of 10p; a slice of ham costs something like 4p to 5p. So an adequate meal costs 12p, and the sandwiches cost very nearly as much.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, my noble friend may be interested to know that snack meals consumed as an alternative to the school meal are not included in the figures I have given to the House. Of course it is not possible to estimate how many meals of this kind are currently being taken by pupils. I think what is worrying my right honourable friend is the reason why these snack meals have been taken. If I may say so, with respect, neither the previous Government nor this Government have managed to get to the bottom of this particular matter.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he will read the Second Reading speech when the Education Bill of 1944 was introduced in the other place? Mr. Butler, then the President of the Board of Education, now a Member of your Lordships' House, said that the purpose of the Bill was to expand the schools and the milk service.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, the noble Lord has every right to take me to task for something about which he is worried, but I would ask the noble Lord to realise that I am worried as well, and I would also ask the noble Lord to look back through Hansard—and I make no political point of this at all—to see that when his right honourable friend the then
496
Minister raised the price of school meals for the second time during the previous Government's Administration, he referred again and again to the reallocation of resources.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, it is now 21 minutes past three and we have dealt with only two Questions. We have a lot of business to-day, and I think that the House, as a whole, feels that our questioning tends to go on rather long. I would therefore suggest to noble Lords that this is a matter to which we can always come back, and that we should now move on to the next Question.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I just say to the noble Earl, having been in the position that he is in, that I would endorse what he has said? There will be an opportunity to come back to this subject on the Second Reading of the Education (Milk) Bill. The position has been made a little more difficult for us by the enthusiastic floods we have had from the noble Lord, the Minister, but we shall have an opportunity to discuss this later. I would expect, since we have no Speaker here to control the proceedings, that the usual custom of the House should now prevail.

THE NATIONAL BUS COMPANY AND RURAL SERVICES
3.23 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any proposals for the reorganisation of the National Bus Company, which has not only made a loss in their last fianncial year of £8 million, compared with a profit of £800,000 in 1969, but has had a loan from the Government of £6 million to cover cash needs for 1971.]
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, 1970 was a bad year for most bus operators, including the National Bus Company. The reasons are fully set out in their annual report. Earlier this year, my right honourable friend the Minister for Transport Industries told Parliament that the Company were taking appropriate action and that the Government were

497
meanwhile making up to £6 million available in additional loans towards the Company's capital expenditure in 1971. I am informed that the current year is showing better results, and that so far it has been necessary for only £2 million of these loans to be taken up.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, may I thank the Minister for his reply. Would he not agree that before nationalisation many of the bus companies were making money? Would he not consider denationalisation and handing over their control to a combination of local authorities and private enterprises? Would he not further agree that, owing to the withdrawal of many of the bus services from country districts and the failure of local authorities to carry out the terms of the Transport Act 1968, very many villages have become completely isolated? Could not small enterprising operators be released from the restrictions imposed by the traffic commissioners?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, my noble friend has asked me one or two questions. The intention is that the National Bus Company will operate at a surplus and we have given them the target of £8 million, which will enable them to service their loans from the Government and keep their heads above water. They did make a profit in 1969, as my noble friend will no doubt be aware, and we have every hope that this year the position of 1970 will be reversed.
As regards the local authorities, they need to be encouraged by the Government and the local public whom they serve. Devonshire have taken the lead in appointing a full-time transport co-ordinating officer, while Yorkshire and West Suffolk are also setting a very good example in helping their local bus services. My right honourable friend will be announcing, probably this month, the result of the rural bus studies which are now to hand, and I hope he will have some comments which the House will find interesting. We are also looking at the licensing system, and we shall be coming forward with suggestions for this in the future.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in Devon there
498
is practically no public transport to coordinate? Nearly all the railways have been removed, and the bus companies seem to have suspended operations.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I think the noble Viscount will find that this will soon not be the case.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that much of the country is going to be without a bus service unless some other means are found to help? Is the noble Lord aware that many of these bus companies are no longer receiving the subsidy from the Railways Board to run these uneconomic services? Can the noble Lord say whether, if the local authorities do grant a subsidy to the bus companies, the local authority, in turn, will qualify for additional percentage grants from the central Government?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I think it cannot be said too often that the Government give any local authority 50 per cent. towards its subsidy on rural services, and the 50 per cent. that they are spending will come up for normal rate-support grant anyhow.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend one simple, straightforward question? Since the National Bus Company not only have operating but also manufacturing interests, can he say how far the loss of £8 million is split between those two sides of their business, and whether there is any particular agreement as to a division between support for the operating and manufacturing interests in the loan of £6 million?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, as regards the first part of my noble friend's question, I must ask him to put it down on paper for me and I will get the answer. I do not have it with me at the moment.

MALTA
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Carrington will be making a Statement on Malta at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m.
EDUCATION (MILK) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

LANARKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
LERWICK HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.

MINERAL WORKINGS (OFFSHORE INSTALLATIONS) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments.
STOCKPORT CORPORATION BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL
Considered on Report.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
3.30 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 155 [Immunity of confidential information]:
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 93H:
Page 115, line 14, leave out from (" unless ") to (" he ") in line 17.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 155, I submit, is a clause of very great importance. That clause and Clauses 55 and 56 deal with the obligation which the Bill places on
500
an employer to disclose information to a trade union which the trade union needs for the purpose of the orderly and effective conduct of wage negotiations. I think that on both sides of the House—and really there is no Party content in this particular aspect of the Bill—it may be agreed that, whatever reservations one may have about other parts of the Bill, this provision is an extremely useful one. It has a long history. It found its place first in In Place of Strife, in paragraph 47. It was introduced in the last Government's Bill which was read in another place for the first time, and it now finds its place in the clauses to which I have made reference in the present Bill.
Your Lordships may have seen on the Ninth Marshalled List that there are four separate Amendments to this clause. The one I am moving is perhaps of considerably lesser importance in principle than two of those which follow. Clauses 56 and 57 having imposed the general obligation to disclose information, Clause 155 excuses the employer from having to disclose information set out in paragraphs (a) to (e) of that clause. Clause 155 is in identical wording to a provision in Clause 22 of the last Government's Bill, except that that Clause 22 contained an additional paragraph which I believe, according to an Amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has put his name, will be put into this Bill later. Among the types of information which the employer need not disclose there is information described in the following wording in paragraph (d):
" any information relating specifically to an individual, unless it is such that the disclosure of it could not (apart from any special private circumstances of that individual) be reasonably expected to be seriously prejudicial to him and he has consented to its being disclosed,"
That is the identical language of the last Government's Bill.
The Amendment which I have put down will leave out all words from"unless it is such"until one gets to the part of the paragraph which reads"he has consented." In other words, the information relating to an individual which could be withheld would not include information if the individual concerned consents to its being disclosed. At the moment, as the clause is worded the employer, in asking himself what information he has to disclose relating to the

501
individual, has to deal with two aspects. First, he has to ask himself whether it is information
" such that the disclosure of it could not…reasonably be expected to be seriously prejudicial "
to the individual, and secondly, he has to ask himself whether the individual has consented to the disclosure of that information. The point of the Amendment is this: surely it is enough that the indivdual has consented to the disclosure of the information. There does not seem much point, once the individual has given his consent, in going on to inquire whether the information is such that
" it could not…reasonably be expected to be seriously prejudicial "
to the individual.
My Lords, I put the argument shortly in these words. Is it not enough if the individual says,"Give the information; I am perfectly ready for it to be disclosed "? Should that not be enough to place an obligation on the employer to disclose that information? I accept that no very great principle is involved, but I think it right to put the point. I put the point in Committee and the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, replied in his usual helpful and courteous manner. Having read through his speech and considered it further, it seems to me that as it relates to this question of disclosure of information it is justifiable to come back to it and to ask the noble Earl whether he has had second thoughts about it and whether there should be a twofold requirement before the information is disclosed. I shall be grateful to know whether the noble Earl has had second thoughts on this matter.
3.38 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has said, the protection given in this part of the Bill is a double-barrelled one. In the first place, personal information may not be disclosed without the individual's consent, and the second barrel is that, even if he does consent, the employer may withhold it if the disclosure would seriously prejudice the individual's in-tests. If the noble Lord's Amendment were agreed to, the protection would become merely single-barrelled, and where this consent was given the employer would not be entitled to withhold the information, even where the disclosure
502
would be clearly against the interests of the individual concerned. The noble Lord quite correctly said that I said in Committee that I would look at the arguments he had advanced at that stage of the Bill. I have done so, but I believe, having done so, that the extra protection afforded by the double lock, as it were, is useful. On the whole we should be reluctant to see it expunged from the Bill. I grant that there may be a touch of the prefectionist about this, but it is the same perfectionism that the last Government imported into their Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, fairly recognised.
I should find it very difficult to state with absolute certainty that someone at some time would not, either foolishly, mistakenly, or perhaps with some other motive, consent to the disclosure of information of this sort. I am therefore reluctant to accept the Amendment, although frankly I am not prepared to die in the last ditch for it. I am reluctant for the reason which I have just given: that this is something which could occur. May I cite an example? An employer might well go to one of his employees and say to him,"Really, I do not consider that it would be sensible for you to disclose this particular piece of information ", but the individual concerned might nevertheless, against that advice, consent to the disclosure, or he prepared to consent. I think that in those circumstances it is reasonable for the employer to say,"You are mistaken. Reveal this information if you think you should; I want no part in it and do not intend to disclose it." I hope that by that example I have shown that the Bill as it stands is intended, as was the last Government's Bill, to work to the individual's advantage. On the whole I should prefer to leave the wording unamended, to have this double lock on door. At this stage that is my advice to your Lordships.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for his temperate and balanced reply, I should like to ask him whether he really needs a double lock on his double-barrel—which is the metaphor which came most easily to him and which seems to fit the circumstances very well. The noble Earl and my noble friend reminded us that this is the wording of an earlier Bill. I would remind

503
the House that this is the occasion when this House examines and improves Government Bills. The fact that a Bill has been put before either House of Parliament, drafted by the Parliamentary draftsmen with the full authority of the Minister of the Government concerned, does not mean that Parliament should automatically accept the wording proposed. We are making something like our 350th Amendment to this Bill. May I suggest to the noble Earl why it would be right for him to yield to his own better feelings, as I gathered they were, and not to be over-cautious about this?
First, there is the solid political fact that the general view is that although the clauses in the Bill requiring information to be given are forward-looking and welcome and in line with the code of practice, the whole benefit of those clauses has been withdrawn by Clause 155 which says in effect,"Yes, it may be right to give the information; but here is a list of the sort of information you do not need to give ". It would be helpful if the Government could show their willingness to support the general view that the code of practice was right in saying that information, where proper, should be disclosed. Secondly, the real test is not that of a double-barrelled gun; the real test is the consent of the individual concerned. That is what matters. If somebody else then says,"I do not think that you should have consented; were you wise to consent?", that is not an equal double-barrel; it is putting a further, unnecessary, cautionary stop on it.
I suggest that it would be extraordinarily foolish if in negotiation the trade union representatives said that they would like certain information; that it emerged that it affected a certain individual; that they should say,"Ask whether the individual is prepared to give it "; that the individual was prepared to give it, but that the employer or his representative nevertheless said."In the interests of the individual we do not think that it ought to be given ". That would not be believed. It would be thought that the employer was withholding the information because it was damaging to the employer and beneficial to the employee and for that reason the information would not be divulged. The real protection is
504
there. We are not removing the protection; we are removing unnecessary and fanciful words. Inasmuch as accepting this Amendment would help in a political sense to remove some of the perhaps exaggerated but not unfounded views that the benefit of the earlier clauses is being withdrawn by this clause, and inasmuch as when a negotiation starts it would be impossible to withhold information which the individual himself consented to be disclosed. I hope that the noble Earl will consider this point further and that he will say that on second thoughts or on second pressure he is able to accept the Amendment.
LORD SHIN WELL: My Lords, the last thing that I should like to see is the noble Earl dying in the last ditch—or in any ditch. I want him to remain.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord before he embarks on one of his longer speeches, or even on one of his shorter speeches? I meant what I said about not dying in the last ditch over this Amendment. I speak, I hope, with your Lordships' permission. With a view to getting on with the Report stage, I may say that if the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, wishes to press this Amendment I am quite prepared not to advise my noble friends to divide against it.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords. I accept that point. I was not intending to make a long speech but merely to say that it appears to me that the clause is redundant. The previous clause covers the whole point. So long as it is understood that no attempt is being made to suppress speech-making in your Lordships' House, I forbear from proceeding in any other direction.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: My Lords. I feel that it is important to remember that people very often disclose information which for some reason or another, they do not wish to be taken further. All of us, myself included, have been indiscreet sometimes. The noble Lord. Lord Stow Hill, referred to Clauses 56 and 57 to which this Amendment would apply. I should like to draw attention to Schedule 3, paragraphs 41 to 44, headed Disclosure of information, where (in 42(c)) reference is made to the provisions of Clause 101. Moreover, paragraph 3 of Schedule 6, in stating that the

505
industrial tribunal can sit"in private for the purpose of hearing evidence ", goes on in sub-paragraph (2)—the wording of which was altered not long ago by Amendment 90B—to provide that the kind of evidence which would enable a private sitting to take place would be
" information of any of the descriptions specified in paragraphs (b) to (e) of Section 155(1)…"
So I feel that we want to safeguard the individual here and give him the double-barrelled protection which the noble Earl felt should be given. I feel that it is a matter of protecting not just anybody, a company or a big organisation, but of protecting the individual. I should like him to have that extra bit of protection.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I feel in a difficult and slightly embarrassing situation. I moved the Amendment saying that I did not think any great issue of principle was involved. I moved it in the knowledge that I had ranged against me the wisdom and very great experience of my long standing friend, Mrs. Castle. I then found that I had also ranged against me the not very strongly held view of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and I felt myself rather vacillating at that point.
Then my noble friend Lord Diamond, made, as I think, a very robust and powerful speech which greatly reinforced my confidence. My noble friend Lord Shinwell, made what I thought was an extremely important point; namely, that if one looks at the previous paragraph one finds that in any event information imparted to the employer in confidence is protected and does not have to be disclosed. My noble friend Lord Shinwell, was saying"in any event, why do you want the preceding paragraph which we are now discussing when you have that limitation which applies to all information imparted in confidence?" My interest then vacillated very greatly. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, then said that he was prepared, as I understood him, having heard the argument to advise his friends not to oppose the change.
I am wondering now where I stand. Technically, I suppose I stand in this position: I have moved the Amendment; I have not yet withdrawn the Amendment
506
and, in view of what noble Lords have said and the views that have been expressed (including, if I may say so, the view of the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, of which I have taken account) I feel the right course I should pursue is to put the question to the decision of the House.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.53 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 93B:
Page 115, line 19, leave out paragraph (e).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment page 115, line 19, leave out paragraph (e), and perhaps it would be convenient if the Amendments 93(D) and 93(E) in my name could be discussed at the same time. The first Amendment seeks to omit paragraph (e) which again is on this same clause we are discussing about the disclosure of information. Paragraph (e) says:
" any information the disclosure of which would be seriously prejudicial to the interests of the employer's undertaking for reasons other than its effect on collective bargaining."
That kind of disclosure need not be made. An employer is not required to disclose that kind of information. If it were prejudicial to his interests for reasons not connected with the collective bargaining then he is not required to disclose it.
That is one way of dealing with the matter certainly. We are on a difficult problem here. It is possible I quite agree, to hold more than one view. How can one best carry out the intention of the Bill, of the Government, of the code of practice that there should be the relevant information given to the representatives of the employees during the course of collective bargaining without damaging the employers' interests; and, of course, thereby damaging the employees' interests, because the employees undoubtedly depend in part on the success of the employer, and it would be no benefit to the employees that the employers' interests should be damaged. You might succeed in getting a very short-term benefit as the result of the immediate negotiation, at the cost of doing damage to the firm, from which the employer and the employees both sought to benefit.
So, my Lords, this is not really a contentious matter. It is certainly not a Party matter. It is a matter of trying to envisage which is the best way to deal with what is admittedly a difficult problem. The way it is dealt with in the Bill is certainly one way of dealing with it. I suggest to your Lordships, however, that it is not the most satisfactory way, because the way the Bill deals with it is to exclude the disclosure of information which would be seriously prejudicial to the interests of the employer. Once information which is needed for collective bargaining—and it is not in dispute that the information is needed for the purposes of collective bargaining—is withheld, no matter how true it is that it would be prejudicial to the employer to disclose it, once that information is withheld when it is admittedly needed for the purposes of collective bargaining, then I suggest to your Lordships that the atmosphere is immediately poisoned. It would not be a co-operative and useful negotiation. Therefore I think it is right that information should be given.
But if the information is given the employer must be protected, and I think the sensible way of protecting the employer is to enable a negotiation to take place through giving the information but to make it absolutely clear that that information must not be divulged. It is for that reason that the following two Amendments are put down. The second one which I invited your Lordships to consider at the same time was Amendment 93D, which states that:
" Where the employer "
and this is the proposed paragraph in place of the one which I am seeking to remove—
" is satisfied that the disclosure of certain information in accordance with the provisions of section 56 or section 57 of this Act would be seriously prejudicial to the interests of his undertaking for reasons other than its effects on collective bargaining "—
exactly the same words as in the present clause—
" he shall communicate that view in writing at the time of such disclosure to each of those persons to whom the disclosure is made."
That Amendment makes it clear that he has to disclose it. He is at liberty to make it clear to the people to whom he is disclosing it, and to make it clear
508
without any argument or doubt by putting it in writing and saying that this is information which will be prejudicial to the interests of this firm if it is disclosed. Therefore one goes on to Amendment 93E which says
after"subsection"insert"(2A) or ",
on page 115, line 34. That arises in the final subsection (4), which at the moment reads:
" If any person discloses any information in contravention of "—
a particular subsection—
" he shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £400."
What I am suggesting is that that clause should be widened so as to include the disclosure of any information in contravention of the very matter we are discussing.
So the total proposal of the three Amendments put together is that where you have information which is admittedly necessary for the purposes of joint consultation, of collective bargaining, and it is information the disclosure of which to the outside world would be prejudicial to the employer, then disclose it confidentially to the employees' representatives but make it absolutely clear when it is disclosed that it is confidential and that it would be prejudicial. Go even further—and this is somewhat Draconian but I nevertheless think it right—and say If this confidential information is disclosed you will be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £400." That makes the seriousness of it quite clear. I hope it will be thought that this is a preferable way of dealing with what is an admitted difficulty, of providing information so that a useful and co-operative discussion can take place during the course of collective bargaining. I beg to move.

MALTA: DEFENCE AND FINANCIAL AGREEMENTS
4.0 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, may I interrupt the proceedings at this point to repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the

509
Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs? I will use his own words.
" I think it is right to inform the House of the situation which has arisen in our relations with Malta over the 1964 Defence and Financial Agreements. The first gives Britain the right to station our Armed Forces in Malta while the second, which is dependent upon the Defence Agreement, covers the provision of British aid to Malta. Both these Agreements are due to run until 1974.
" As soon as he took office on the 17th June, the Prime Minister of Malta, Mr. Mintoff, informed us that he wished to replace these Agreements, which, he said, were no longer valid. Then, in a series of messages, he asked that a Minister should come to Malta to negotiate a new agreement under which aid would be replaced by a form of rent for military facilities and those facilities would be redefined. He also said that the Minister should come on the basis that the 1964 Defence and Financial Agreements were at an end and that the new negotiation should be completed before the end of July. Mr. Mintoff would not elaborate any further on his proposals. This left us in doubt on a number of very important questions, for example Mr. Mintoff's intentions towards NATO, the redefinition he had in mind for our defence facilities and the financial implications.
" Against this background my right honourable friend the Prime Minister sent a message yesterday to Mr. Mintoff in which he said that my noble friend the Secretary of State for Defence would travel to Valletta in the course of the day and would be ready to discuss with Mr. Mintoff his proposals for modification of the existing Agreements. Lord Carrington's purpose would be to ascertain whether it was possible to negotiate fresh arrangements of a kind which he could recommend to the British Government to approve.
" It was in reply to that message that Mr. Mintoff claimed that the Prime Minister had rejected all the conditions proposed by Mr. Mintoff for a fruitful meeting. He added, as he has since
510
made public in a statement, that he hoped that the Malta Government would not be caused the additional embarrassment of having to ignore the presence of the British Cabinet Minister on the island.'
" To this message my right honourable friend replied as follows: ' Your message speaks of conditions. I had hoped I had made clear that there cannot be prior conditions in a matter which is essentially one for negotiation: and a negotiation requires that each of the parties should come to the table, with good will and without prejudice to their respective views, to discuss matters which are of common concern to them in an honest and genuine attempt to reach agreement. It was for this purpose and in this spirit that Lord Carrington would have gone to Malta, in the hope of agreeing with you fresh arrangements which he could recommend the British Government to accept. Lord Carrington remains ready to come, but since you say that you would have found this visit embarrassing, I renew my earlier invitation that you yourself, or your representative, should come to London.'
" We have made clear to Mr. Mintoff that we have no desire to maintain forces in Malta against the will of the Malta Government. We have also made clear that we are ready to enter into negotiation at Ministerial level, in good faith and without preconditions, with a view to reaching an agreement satisfactory to both sides. We hope that the Malta Government will now agree that talks should start on this basis.
" A further message to my right honourable friend from Mr. Mintoff has just been received by telephone. This message holds out a hope that it may be possible to resolve the difficulty between us, but the House will understand if I say no more until my right honourable friend has had an opportunity to study the text."
My Lords, that ends the Statement.
4.5 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, in this rather hot and busy time, first we should all like to say how sorry we were to

511
read of the abortive and wasteful trip that the noble Lord had to Heathrow yesterday. We are grateful to him for repeating this Statement, and I am sure that we all regret that there should have been this apparent friction with a nation with whom we have had such close and friendly associations. So far as we can see, and from the Statement which the noble Lord has given, the difficulties do not arise from this side.
There are only two points that I would emphasise. The first relates to the sentence which the noble Lord included in his Statement; namely, that we have no desire to maintain forces in Malta against the will of the Malta Government. In the present defence situation there is absolutely no reason why we should want to do so. Secondly, I hope that following the telephone call to which the noble Lord has referred an atmosphere can be created in which more constructive exchanges can take place.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I agree entirely with everything that the noble Lord has said, and I am obliged to him. I should like to make it abundantly plain that if difficulties have arisen they have not done so because of any action which Her Majesty's Government have taken.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, we find it difficult, without a greater knowledge of the facts, to express any definite view of the unfortunate state of our relations with the Government of Malta. We appreciate that on the face of it the Government seem to have done their utmost to meet Mr. Mintoff, given the fact that he has undoubtedly repudiated unilaterally a perfectly valid agreement. May we assume that Mr. Mintoff has not had recourse to any threats, direct or implied, in the event of all or some of his demands not being met?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not think that the time has yet arrived when all the correspondence should be published.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question? Although I have no doubt that the Members of your Lordships' House will sympathise with the working people in Malta if, as a result of any severance of good relations,
512
they lose their employment, has not the time arrived, quite frankly facing the facts, when Malta has no longer any strategic value so far as the defence of this country is concerned, and is no longer a deterrent against possibly aggression by any other country?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not think this is the right moment to discuss the strategic value of Malta. It is quite true, as the noble Lord indicates, that even taking into account the affection which all noble Lords will have for the Maltese people, there can be a price which is too high to pay for those facilities.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister this question? Appreciating his difficulties, would he bear in mind two considerations: first, the tremendous contribution which Malta has made to the people of this country; secondly, that Malta has the right to pursue a policy of non-alignment if that is the wish of the people and of their Government. With those two considerations, would the Minister utilise the telephone call which has come to-day to renew negotiations on a co-operative basis?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, of course Her Majesty's Government will bear in mind those two considerations. I hope also that the Maltese Government will bear in mind what a great deal the British Government have done and does at this moment for Malta. At the present time we had better wait and see exactly the text of the message which has been received from Mr. Mintoff, and I do not want to add anything further.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, while recognising Malta's legitimate needs, will Her Majesty's Government undertake not to let themselves be threatened by bad manners or blackmail?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the Statement that I made to your Lordships makes the position of Her Majesty's Government abundantly clear.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, while I regret very much indeed the friction which appears to exist between Her Majesty's Government and the Leaders of the George Cross Island, will the Minister agree that there appears to

513
be a changed attitude regarding Malta towards NATO? Would he consider that the time may have come to consider upgrading Gibraltar in its relationship to NATO?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I was wondering how my noble friend was going to bring Gibraltar into his question. I admire his ingenuity, but I think I will let it go until another day.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he would not agree at this delicate moment that we should now, when negotiations are going on, let the matter ride, expressing our confidence in the noble Lord, Lord Carrington?

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
4.10 p.m.
Consideration on Report resumed.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I am uneasy about Amendment No. 93B. I address myself to my noble friend on the Front Bench. It is quite clear that both the Government and my noble friend are alert to the danger of the disclosure of certain information which might damage the company. That is not the point of the argument, because if one looks at my noble friend's second Amendment he has provided a suggested means of preventing the travelling of information given to representatives which might be damaging to the company; so there is not a deep issue of principle here or anything of that sort. But I want to make what is a technical, or perhaps a better word would be"sociological ", point which might weigh in considering this Amendment.
The role of representative is one where an individual is elected to speak on behalf of others. The possession by representatives of confidential information can be extremely embarrassing. Representatives who are entrusted with confidential information come perhaps under greater pressure than can be envisaged to disclose it to those who press a particular course of action upon them, and who want to know, if they are refused their desires, the reasons for it. Without impugning in any sense the integrity of representatives, I believe that it would be quite unfair to give them
514
important information which could damage the interests of a company, saying,"You must not disclose it ", so putting them in a very serious position in regard to their customers. Here I speak from experience. I have explored this issue of confidentiality over the years with shop stewards, and the resolution of this particular body of shop stewards was, that if the information is of this kind they would prefer not to hear it, for the reasons I have given.
Perhaps this consideration might be in the thoughts of my noble friend and others when one comes to consider whether to press this Amendment or not. I would stress a point which I know that my noble friend has not overlooked—the fact that we are not debating the question, whether managements should be forced to disclose information which might damage the firm. If one looks at Amendment No. 93B alone that might appear to be the intention of my noble friend. But of course it is not, and if you take that Amendment in conjunction with his later Amendment, No. 93D, it is quite clear that he is alert to the danger of disclosure of information which might damage the company. I feel I am making a subsidiary point of some importance. I do not know whether I shall vote for these two Amendments or not but I thought it was worth while airing this point.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I should like to speak on this particular Amendment, No. 93B, because not merely does it pave the way for my noble friend Lord Diamond's Amendments Nos. 93D and 93E, but also, if it is not carried, it would not be possible, as I understand the situation, for Amendment No. 93C to be moved. Therefore I hope that it is convenient to the House if, in the course of my speech, I indicate the characteristics of Amendment No. 93C, which is designed to be an alternative way of achieving what my noble friend Lord Diamond seeks to achieve by his Amendment No. 93D which he has already explained to the House. My Lords, unless paragraph (e) comes out, I should have thought that neither his nor my Amendment could find their place in the Bill. I therefore address myself to the substance of Amendment No. 93C.
First, as a general statement, I would submit that this particular provision of

515
the Bill is really as important as any other. If one is trying to bring about orderly negotiations in a situation in which the relevant information, as to I suppose nine-tenths of it, must, in the nature of things, be in possession of one of the negotiating parties and denied to the other negotiating party—in the possession of the employers and denied to the trade union representatives—one cannot have realistic discussions across the table unless that information is in possession of both negotiating parties.
As I have said, this aspect of the Bill originated in In Place of Strife; it was in the last Government's Bill, upon which the provisions of the present Bill are modelled. But I submit that neither the present Bill nor the last Government's Bill provided an adequate answer to the dilemma as to what the employer is to be compelled to do in regard to information which the trade union representatives must have in order to make a realistic claim and which, nevertheless, is information which the employers' competitors would very much like to have and could use to the disadvantage of the employer if they had it.
My noble friend Lord Diamond has proposed one approach. In Amendment No. 93C I would propose to the House a slightly different approach. I do so having listened very attentively to what I think was a very impressive speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, when we were discussing the code of conduct. Your Lordships will remember that the code of conduct contains a blank space in which the Government say, with regard to the information provisions which will ultimately find their way into the code of conduct, that they are waiting for advice from the Commission which they have not yet received. Clause 155(2) provides that the code of conduct is ultimately to be formulated taking into account the provisions of Clause 155; therefore, it is essential to get this clause right before the code of conduct can take its final form.
The proposal that I would make—I understood this to be the theme of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Byers,—is on the general lines of experience in Germany. This rather lengthy Amendment would require the employer to disclose information whether or not it is information
516
which would, if divulged, be damaging to the undertaking; but to be allowed, if he chooses to do so, to disclose it only in confidential terms to particular representatives of the trade union who are appointed in order to receive that information. That sanction is provided for in the second paragraph of the Amendment.
My noble friend Lord Diamond's sanction would have been the criminal sanction at present specified in Clause 155(4). I propose an alternative sanction; namely, that the employer would be under an obligation, as I have said, to impart the information, but only in confidence to particular representatives of the trade union appointed to receive it. It would be imparted upon the condition that it was to be used only for the purpose of the collective bargaining, and imparted only to those persons who needed it in order effectively to conduct that collective bargaining.
If it were imparted to any other person, then the trade union concerned would be guilty of an unfair industrial practice which would give rise to a claim against the trade union under Clause 101 of the Bill; but the trade union would have a defence, and that defence is spelt out in the last few lines of the Amendment in the following words:
"…it shall be a defence to any such complaint that such use or disclosure was due to the act of some person other than a person acting on behalf of and with the authority of the trade union and despite all reasonable precautions taken by the trade union to prevent such use or disclosure."
In other words, if the information was misused or was disclosed to anybody not authorised to receive it, then the trade union would be liable to be proceeded against under Clause 101 as for an unfair industrial practice, subject to this: that if the trade union could show that it took all reasonable precautions to prevent the unauthorised disclosure, and that that unauthorised disclosure was due to the act of somebody for whom the trade union could not reasonably be said to be responsible, then it would be a complete and perfect answer to the complaint. I submit that that is a workable scheme—and I rather concede that it is not far removed from the German experience. I believe that there the union side do appoint representatives, obviously people who are responsible and careful, and that

517
the disclosure is made to them in confidence.
If that is a workable scheme—and it is one which must be submitted to the judgment of people far better versed in this subject than I am, on both sides of the table—then, in my submission, it affords an answer to the dilemma which confronts any employer who is under an obligation to tell trade union representatives all that they need to know in order to assess the claim which they put forward and answer the question themselves whether the employers' undertaking can afford their claim; and to disclose information which, if it got into wrong hands, would militate seriously against the employer's undertaking. Those two conflicting considerations have to be married and reconciled in some workable scheme, and I submit this scheme for the consideration of the House as at any rate one which might be taken into account as affording a solution to the difficulty.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, arising from what my noble friend Lord Brown said on the question of confidentiality, and the pressures on a shop steward in particular, to disclose information which was given to him confidentially, I can quite understand his point of view and I know something of the serious pressures that arise. But I think my noble friend was dealing with the peculiar circumstances that existed when few employers were willing to disclose anything that was likely to be confidential. In the few cases where they were, it obviously created considerable difficulties, because no one on the shop floor would understand that anything ought to be confidential once the shop steward had got it. If it is embodied in an Act of Parliament as a general rule that a degree of confidentiality must be observed, then I think the pressure on the shop steward would be much less, because it would be a general position within the law. I hope that my noble friend may feel that it will not be so difficult as he may have found it in the past.
4.25 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said in speaking to these three Amendments that this was a difficult matter, and on that I would agree with him straight away.
518
There is a difficult balance here. I think we are all in favour of the principles underlying this part of the Bill, namely, Clauses 56 and 57 and Clause 155 where we are now, about the disclosure of information, improving communications in industry wherever possible and laying definite statutory obligations on employers, where necessary—and I stress"where necessary ". At the same time, there is a balance between our desire to do that and to safeguard the legitimate interests of employers. This is the balance that we are trying to strike in this particular area. My task in replying to this Amendment, plus the two that were coupled with it, has been made, if I may venture to say so with all deference to the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, a little more difficult, because although he has not formally done so, informally he has spoken to his Amendment, too. It might be for the convenience of the House if I replied to the Amendment formally moved by Lord Diamond. I have noted carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has said, and if peradventure these Amendments are not accepted by your Lordships' House, clearly we can turn to Lord Stow Hill's Amendment. I entirely agree with him that Amendment No. 93B is a necessary piece of paving to his Amendment. Having regard to that, perhaps I will deal with his Amendment—I am changing my mind—because if the House does not accept No. 93B, it will not be possible for the noble Lord to move his Amendment.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, it was in my mind that unless Amendment No. 93D were carried it would be impossible to move Amendment No. 93C. That is the only thing I had in mind, and I apologise if I caused inconvenience.
EARL JELLICOE: Not art all. The awful truth was dawning upon me as I was on my feet, because I have now realised the motive behind Lord Stow Hill's Amendment. I should like to reply to his point, because it is an important Amendment, and I will include it in my reply now. This means that I shall speak at rather greater length than I hope to speak for the rest of this afternoon. I do not think there was anything in principle between us on the last Amendment that the House accepted, but it was not perhaps an Amendment of

519
major magnitude. Again on this Amendment, I do not think there is any vast point of principle between us, but this is a matter clearly of major magnitude, because if any of the Amendments in the part that we are now dealing with were accepted, we should be making a major change in the Bill. I think it would be right to recognise that at the outset.
As your Lordships are aware, and as has been made clear, the clause as it stands exempts employers completely from any duty to disclose certain types of information, whether under Clause 56 or Clause 57, subject to the qualification,"other than its effect upon collective bargaining ". Paragraph (e), which this Amendment would seek to delete, forms one of those designated categories and covers information which could be used in a way seriously prejudicial to the interests of the employer's undertaking. What the drafters of the Bill were thinking of here was the safeguarding of information, or not to lay a statutory obligation on employers to disclose information, which was of great potential importance and of a high potential degree of confidentiality on subjects like production or pricing; matters like the forecast of a firm's future profitability; its cash flow position; new inventions, which I imagine would be included; its research and development programme; the fruits of its market research, which would be of considerable value to its commercial rivals. That is the sort of information which we have in mind here. I do not think it is necessary for me to quote further examples of the sort of information which would be caught by this clause of the Bill, in order to emphasise its importance for the firm concerned and indeed for its employees and its subcontractors as well. All I would say is that an unauthorised disclosure or a serious leak here could be utterly disastrous for that firm and its employees, and potentially crippling to its sub-contractors.
Therefore I think we shall all agree that this is an important area of the Bill. I believe that what is suggested in the first group of Amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, would present great practical difficulties, the chief of
520
which is an unauthorised disclosure or leak. I am not suggesting that there would be a leak in most cases: I think that in the majority of cases, confidential information would be perfectly safe in the hands of responsible people to whom it was disclosed. But we should be living in an unreal world if we did not grant that there might be exceptions. There are irresponsible individuals in every walk of life, and that category may include some people engaged in bargaining who, intentionally or maliciously, would not in the last resort keep confidential information of this kind to themselves.
May I suggest as an example the individual who might have received information under this clause as an appointed trade union representative and who then changed his job? In those circumstances he might well be tempted to reveal the information to another employer, and perhaps the commercial advantage of doing so would not be lost upon him. If he did so under subsection (3) of Lord Stow Hill's Amendment his trade union would not be held responsible because there were no reasonable precautions that they could have taken against this. The individual, if he could be traced, would be liable, as the noble Lord said, to a fine of £400; but a sum of that magnitude would be a"fleabite"compared with the potential damage which, wittingly or unwittingly, he might have caused to the firm concerned. It is on those practical grounds that I cannot advise your Lordships to accept the Amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has proposed. The noble Lord, Lord Brown, said, I think, that he was a trifle uneasy about this set of Amendments; I can only say that I am more than a trifle uneasy about them.
May I now turn to the variant which the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill has suggested? I think that it is in order—at least it is as much in order as the noble Lord was. His variant, No. 93C, if I have understood it correctly, if it were accepted, would mean that the employer would be under a duty to disclose information in the seriously prejudicial category, but only to persons specially appointed by the trade union. The intention is that further disclosure would attract fines, et cetera—for example, the £400 fine—to the employee or the individual, unless it was done on

521
behalf of the trade union, which would then be guilty of an unfair industrial practice. It is contended that the system of appointed trade union representatives, together with the"double lock"(to revert to the familiar phraseology) of a fine or compensation, would suffice to prevent the information from leaking any further. Again I grant that in most cases the majority of trade unions and trade unionists could be counted upon to display a responsible and thoroughly trustworthy attitude in handling confidential information of this kind. But because this is important, it is worth examining in some detail how the ingenious system proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, might work in practice.
The proposed new subsection (3) in Amendment No. 93C does not set any limits to the number of persons whom the trade union may appoint to receive the information nor, if I have read it correctly, need they be members of the union. Is it therefore envisaged that only a proportion of those negotiating for the trade union should be privy to this information? If so, I would suggest that this is not realistic. Since the information would have been requested because of its relevance to collective bargaining the entire union team engaged in that collective bargaining will wish to examine it in most cases; and those entitled to use the information under the last paragraph of this subsection on the union's behalf will not necessarily be the same persons as those appointed to receive the information under the second proposed subsection.
In those undertakings where unions or workers' associations negotiate as a joint panel the information is likely to pass to all those who are involved in the collective bargaining process. In negotiations with major companies, where a great many trade unions may be involved, the numbers involved on the trade union side may be very considerable; and the greater the number of those who have access to the information the greater the risk of unauthorised disclosure either at the time of the bargaining or subsequently. Therefore, here again there could be a very grave danger of very material risks which could have crippling effects for the firms involved, and the safeguards—for example, the £400 fine—
522
would not be at all adequate in those circumstances.
I know, since I have been interested in this area from time to time, that in Germany under the 1952 Act there is a different set-up, to which the noble Lord, Lord Byers, referred in his very interesting speech on the code of industrial practice. All I would say here is that the German system operates against a very different background of collective bargaining and a very different, and perhaps in some respects happier, background of industrial relations. I was very surprised to hear the German background adduced as something which we should necessarily follow, in view of the way that we on this side of the House have been criticised from time to time for borrowing trade union law or importing it from abroad. Be that as it may, I seriously suggest that in this Bill, at this stage, what we put in has to stand the test of relevance and applicability to British conditions.
My Lords, I have already spoken too long, but I had to cover quite a wide range. I have suggested reasons why the Amendments which have not yet been moved, and indeed may not be moved, together with the Amendment which has been moved, are open, in my view, to serious practical disadvantages. May I say two things in conclusion? First, nothing in the Bill would prevent any employer from disclosing any information that he wanted to disclose: that is quite clear. The Bill as drafted merely makes it clear that the employer has no statutory obligation in certain very well defined circumstances to make the information available. Again, although through their willingness to throw it overboard from time to time I should not wish to rest too heavily on the argument, I am unable to restrain myself from saying, in passing, that this clause as it stands is modelled precisely on the corresponding clause of the last Government's Bill. I believe that we have the balance approximately right. I do not wish to be dogmatic and claim that it is necessarily perfect, but in my view it would be a great mistake for your Lordships to accept either the Amendment which has been moved or those which appear later in the List.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, I hope very much that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, will persist in his resistance to this Amendment. It seems to me to be a known fact of common experience that although sometimes it is possible to identify the sources of leaks, in more cases than not it is not possible. If that is the case, it means that the sanctions proposed either by the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, or by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, are nugatory.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, will the House allow me to correct one small point in the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and in that of the noble Lord, Lord Robbins? The sanctions which I propose are not the £400 fine against the individual whom it may be difficult to fine: I would make the trade union liable to a complaint as upon an unfair industrial practice under Clause 101, unless the trade union could show that the unauthorised disclosure took place without any negligence on its part and was the act of someone for whom it was not responsible. Then, of course, the limits as to compensation set out in the Act would be applicable, which would be very much greater. It would be the union itself, not the individual, which would be proceeded against.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, I have very great reservations about these Amendments, and I sincerely hope that my noble friend will not press them. I have no faith whatsoever in confidentiality; once certain information is given which can be spread I cannot see how it is possible to keep it confidential. Also, from what I have read, there seems to be a great deal of industrial spying and it would appear to be an area in which industrial spies could have a field day. Therefore, I urge my noble friends not to press these Amendments.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, nobody could resist a persuasive speech such as that just made by my noble friend Lady Gaitskell, who has special justification for putting forward a woman's point of view with regard to confidentiality. We are all in this difficulty: that we are not divided at all as to principle but there is a problem of making information which is needed available.
I come back to the first point, that it is admitted that information is needed for
524
the purpose of negotiations. If the information is not given, the negotiations will not march on the basis that they were intended to on the earlier clauses in the Bill or the code of practice. Therefore, we have to distinguish between the evil of an unsatisfactory negotiation and the evil of damage to an employer's undertaking as a result of information having been disclosed improperly. Certainly I agree with everybody who says that this is not a matter of principle; it is a matter of how to measure the two evils and which is the best way of dealing with the problem. I recognise that the point to which my noble friend Lord Brown referred is also a problem; that it is sometimes embarrassing to be given information if one is not able to disclose it in detail to those by whom one has been appointed to a position to receive that information. I know that, as an appropriate way of dealing with the matter, some of your Lordships have been considering the alternative of giving the information to auditors and asking them to pass it on to the extent that they should in their discretion.
These are all possible alternatives, but the real answer I come to is this. My experience, and that of my noble friend Lord Delacourt-Smith, is that where relations are good the problem of disclosure of information does not arise greatly; certainly the problem of breaching confidentiality does not arise. Therefore, one's first task is to try to ensure good relations. I think it is helpful to good relations to disclose information that is needed, and it is damaging to good relations not to disclose information which is admitted to be needed for the purposes of these negotiations. Therefore, I still come down on the side of disclosing information and protecting the employer.
I thought that going so far as the sum of £400 would be Draconic. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, did not seem to think that that was a great deterrent. It is, of course, the deterrent mentioned in the Bill. Therefore, I should have thought that it was a good guide as to what is a substantial deterrent. Any person disclosing information improperly which has been given in evidence before the N.I.R.C.—and presumably they would be entitled to ask for any information they liked at a confidential sitting, even more important information than that they were then

525
considering—would be subject to a fine not exceeding £400. Therefore, if the noble Lord will forgive me for saying this, I am not deterred from continuing this view on the basis that the £400 is not an adequate sanction.
LORD ROBBINS: If I am in order, may I interrupt the noble Lord? I should like to draw his attention to the words that were uttered by the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell; if information is disclosed to an industrial spy, surely there can be no shadow of doubt that £400 is chicken feed?
LORD DIAMOND: I do not suppose that an industrial spy would rely on that method exclusively to obtain his information. I do not think it would be likely to arise in that way. Equally, if an industrial spy were to obtain information he would be able to contact any one of those persons who were present at the hearing before the N.I.R.C. or the industrial tribunal and obtain his information from them. Again, the figure laid down in the Bill as a penalty for that is £400. I do not dispute that the damage that could be done would be much greater than to the value of £400, but that figure is quite a heavy deterrent; it is a very large fine. Therefore, I should have thought that the Bill went far enough, and I do not seek to go further than the Bill.
Therefore, there is a difference of view as to how one could best deal with it. I note the anxieties which have been expressed by my own noble friends—by Lady Gaitskell and Lord Brown—and I should not want to pursue this matter to unnecessary lengths. We have given it a fair airing. I certainly share the view which I think the Solicitor General expressed during the course of a meeting to-day when he was addressing the American Bar. He said that this Bill would certainly need a lot of improvement in the future. I certainly think that this is one of the areas where it will need a great deal of improvement. But I do not propose to detain your Lordships further on this point.
I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Stow Hill would wish to address your Lordships further. It is entirely my fault that I did not anticipate that it would have been more convenient to discuss his Amendment at the same time
526
as mine, and therefore I am sure that your Lordships would extend to him the normal courtesy if he wished to do so. I gather that he does not wish to do so. Therefore, all I can do is to thank the noble Earl for obviously having given full consideration to these difficult issues, and seek your Lordships' House leave to withdraw the Amendment.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, may I with the permission of your Lordships' House, before the Amendment is withdrawn, say, lightly but definitely, that it was very nice of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, to invite the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, to speak again, but if Lord Stow Hill had in fact consented to that invitation he would have been out of Order because he was not the mover of an Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 93J.
Page 115, line 22, at end insert—
(" or
(f) any information obtained by the employer for the purpose of bringing prosecuting or defending any legal proceedings.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as has previously been said, Clause 155 is in effect word for word Clause 22 of the last Government's Bill, subject to one exception: that Clause 22 has a paragraph which appears in Amendment No. 93J, and for a reason about which I am not quite certain that paragraph was left out of Clause 155. I am pleased to see that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has put his name to the Amendment which I am moving. By way of explanation, may I say that the new paragraph relates to the information which is obtained for the purpose of proceedings by legal advisers acting on behalf of a client in a legal matter. The paragraph was designed to privilege that from disclosure. I beg to move the Amendment, because it seems to me that that ought also to be in the category of information which the employer is not called upon to disclose.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should like to say that I support the Amendment, not surprisingly as my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn has put his name to it. In doing so—this is a point which the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, raised at Committee stage—I should like to thank

527
the noble Lord for bringing what was a clear omission from the Bill to our attention.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for what he has said.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.54 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 94:
After Clause 156, insert the following new clause
Review of ballot taken under Part II or Part III
".—(1) This section applies to any ballot for which arrangements have been made by the Commission under any of the provisions of Part II or Part III of this Act, whether the ballot is to be taken by the Commission or by some other body.
(2) If, in accordance with Industrial Court rules made for the purposes of this section, the Industrial Court finds, in the case of a ballot to which this section applies, that the report made to the Court by the Commission as to the result of the ballot was incorrect, and that it would be just and equitable in the circumstances to amend the report so as to rectify the error without requiring a further ballot to be taken,—

(a) the Court may make an order amending the report accordingly, and

(b) where such an order has been made, the report shall have effect for the purposes of this Act as if it had been made as amended by the order.

(3) If, in accordance with Industrial Court rules made for the purposes of this section, the Industrial Court finds, in the case of a ballot to which this section applies,—

(a) that the ballot was so misconducted that it would not be just and equitable to regard it as valid, or

(b) that the report made to the Court by the Commission as to the result of the ballot was incorrect and that in the circumstances it would not be just and equitable to rectify the error in accordance with subsection (2) of this section,

the Court shall make an order quashing the ballot and so much of the report of the Commission as relates to the result of the ballot, and, if an order has already been made by the Court in consequence of that report, revoking that order.

(4) Where the Industrial Court has made an order under subsection (3) of this section, the provisions of Part II or Part III of this Act under which the arrangements for the ballot were made shall have effect as if the ballot had not been taken."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 94. These Amendments provide for the review of ballots made under Part II or Part III
528
of the Bill. They enable the Industrial Court either to rectify an error without requiring a further ballot or to quash the ballot and so much of the report of the Commission on Industrial Relations as may refer to the result of the ballot. The Amendment which we have already made to Schedule 3 sets out the provisions to be made in the rules of the Industrial Court to deal with reviews of ballots taken under Part II or Part III. The subsections of the new clause are I think quite clear. Subsection (1) restricts the application of the clause to Parts II and III of the Bill. Subsection (2) provides that where the Industrial Court finds that the result of a ballot as reported by the Commission was incorrect it may make an order amending the report if it considers it just and equitable to do so. Subsection (3) provides that where the Industrial Court finds that the ballot was so misconducted that it could not be regarded as valid or that it would not be just and equitable to amend the C.I.R's report, the Court may make an order to quash the ballot and also such part of the C.I.R's report as may relate to the result of the ballot.
I have already expressed my gratitude to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, for drawing our attention to the need for some kind of procedure such as this. I should add that the effect of subsection (4) will be that where the ballot has been quashed arrangements for a new ballot will proceed and the Commission will then report the result of the new ballot to the Court and the other procedure will follow. I promised the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner (I am sorry not to see him in his place), at an earlier stage to explain why it is that we have not made provision for a review of a ballot ordered by the Court on an application by the Secretary of State where there are reasons for doubting whether the workers really want a strike or to take part in irregular industrial action where such action would seriously prejudice the national economy, public order, health or safety. I think it would be appropriate, although the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, is not here, to inform noble Lords who would want to know why we have not covered this point.
We took this view because of the special circumstances surrounding an

529
emergency strike ballot and the overriding purpose of that ballot. We have made it plain that the ballot is intended purely to assess the strength of support for the industrial action taken, or to be taken, and to allow the workers concerned to express their wishes. Once the result of the ballot is reported to the Court the order is effectively discharged. Since the power to take further action either by the Court or the parties concerned does not depend upon the result of a strike ballot, and since the Court has no further statutory powers under the strike ballot provisions, we do not think it is right to give the Court the same statutory powers to review a ballot as in the cases where the result of a ballot imposes a legal obligation upon a party, or may do so. Furthermore, in order to protect the interests of the parties, and especially those of the workers concerned, and to remove any possibility of abuse of the strike ballot provisions, Clause 143(7) makes it plain that after the principal order under Clause 142 takes effect the Court shall not entertain any application in respect of the same industrial dispute or any other industrial dispute which appeared to fall within the scope of the original industrial dispute.
Nor does the Court have any power to extend the period within which the result of the ballot must be reported. The Court itself decides the period within which the result of the ballot must be reported, under Clause 142(2)(c). This means of course that the period in which people are restrained from organising a strike while the ballot takes place can similarly not be extended. We see no point in giving the Court power to quash the ballot when there are no powers available to the Court to continue the restraint on organising industrial action so as to enable a new ballot to be held.
In short, since no legal obligations can follow from the result of the strike ballot and all the parties concerned are free to put their own interpretations on the result of it, we do not think it is right or necessary to extend and complicate the strike ballot provisions to deal with any possible mistakes which may have occurred in the ballot. I quite appreciate that there are arguments on the other side which the noble Lord may put, but we have decided that on balance this would do more harm than good, and
530
therefore we have restricted the provisions of the new clause to ballots taken under Part II or Part III. I beg to move.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, it is my desire—and I know it would be the desire of my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner—to thank the Government very warmly for having put down this new clause. As the House will remember, my noble friend and I put down new clauses to each of the provisions for the holding of a ballot, providing for a review of the reported result. My noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner had only one reservation with regard to the new clause, namely, as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has just reminded the House, that it did not apply to ballots under Part VIII—the emergency procedure.
I should like to say on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner that he would very much have desired to be here to thank the noble Lord in person. Unfortunately he is engaged on public duties elsewhere which require his presence. Therefore in a sense I am standing in on his behalf. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation why the new clause does not provide for the cases in which there may be a challenge to the reported issue of a ballot under Part VIII of the Bill. I accept that it will be difficult to import into that cluster of clauses in Part VIII procedure to make a review possible, there being no legal result of the ballot which ensues here and in other parts of the Bill.
On the other side it can be said that the ballot which will take place in the type of situation with which Part VIII is designed to deal is just the sort of ballot on which there might be a serious challenge as to its reported result. The ballot in Part VIII takes place where there is any doubt whether the workers support the strike. Supposing one gets a ballot which produces a fairly even result, I should have thought one might then get the strongest controversy on whether the ballot accurately represented the views of those concerned. However, we have had the explanation and I do not think I can press the case further. The noble Lord generously conceded that there were arguments on both sides, which of course there are, but I quite see the arguments which have prompted him to come down in favour of not applying

531
the provisions of this clause. Once again may I say that we are extremely indebted to him for putting down the new clause.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.3 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 95:
After Clause 156, insert the following new clause—
Ballots under Part II or III of this Act fairly to reflect opinions of full-time and part-time workers
".—(1) This section applies to any ballot for which arrangements are to be made by the Commission under any of the provisions of Part II or Part III of this Act, whether the ballot is to be taken by the Commission or by some other body.
(2) If the workers qualified to vote in the ballot include a substantial number of workers who are engaged on a full-time basis in the relevant employment and also a substantial number of workers who are engaged on a part-time basis or periodically or for limited periods or purposes or otherwise than on a full-time basis in the relevant employment, the arrangements made by the Commission shall so far as reasonably practicable include arrangements designed to ensure that the result of the ballot shall fairly reflect the opinions of the respective workers so employed, due regard being had to the amount of time for which such workers are respectively engaged in the performance of the duties involved in such employment."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment also is concerned with ballots taken under Part II or Part III of the Bill, that is to say ballots concerned with the establishment or continuance of an agency shop or a closed shop, or a ballot for the recognition of sole bargaining agents.
Earlier in our deliberations we had some discussion because a number of us on this side of the House are disturbed by the thought that, in an establishment or an industry where a considerable and significant proportion of part-time workers is employed, it is not fair that they should have the same weight of voice on setting up an agency shop or a closed shop, or the recognition of a sole bargaining agency. When we were discussing this previously the noble Lord the Minister who was dealing with this indicated that they have their rights and that these rights should find their place in a ballot. There is some substance in this argument. On the other hand we feel strongly that they should not have
532
the same weight of voice in such a matter. Those whose whole life and livelihood are dependent on their full-time employment have a much more substantial interest in a decision of this kind than a group of persons who do not spend their whole working life in the particular job, and who may or may not be ephemeral. They may be seasonal workers, but in any case they do not have their main interests in the job concerned.
We think this should be reflected in the conditions of the ballot if it is felt that they should have some say in the matter. Therefore this Amendment tries to meet the point that, while there should be a place in such a ballot for the part-time worker, or possibly even the seasonal worker, it could be so organised in the wisdom of the Commission that their votes should not count for as much as the votes of the full-time workers. In practice this would not be at all difficult to organise. For example, one would merely have to use ballot papers of different colours, and the full-time workers' vote could count as one unit and the part-time workers could count as half, or whatever seemed appropriate. We have not sought to sot down any precise conditions because it did not seem very sensible to do so. Therefore, as your Lordships will observe, the Amendment leaves it to the good sense of the Commission to make such arrangements as appear to them to be reasonably practicable to ensure that the result of the ballot should fairly reflect the opinions of the full-time employees on the one hand and the opinions of those who are considerably less than full-time employees on the other hand.
In other clauses the Government have made a distinction between full-time and part-time employees. For example, we were discussing unfair dismissal a short time ago, and there the part-time employee does not have the same protection as the full-time employee, so in this legislation distinctions are drawn between the two categories of workers. We have had strong representations about this from some of our colleagues in the trade unions and it seems to us that this is a part of the Bill where there should be a distinction between the two types of workers. It is a real distinction in practice, as those of us who have some

533
industrial practice know only too well; and we hope the Government will accept our view that in something which is so important for the industrial life of all the workers in a particular establishment, those who have the preponderant stake in it should have a more decisive voice than those who have not. I beg to move.
LORD BERNSTEIN: MY Lords, this issue has come up a number of times during the Committee stage and also the Report stage of this Bill. On one occasion the question was raised whether we should pass on the same information to part-time workers as to full-time workers, and that was fully debated. There is an increasing number of part-time workers, as we have heard from people in industry on the Government side of the House, and from trade unionists on this side. We must consider the effect of the votes of the part-time workers against the votes of people who work full-time. I think there is a precedent for this in other clauses that we have agreed, and I urge the Government to accept this Amendment.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for what they have said. One recognises that we had a debate on this in the Committee stage, and the Amendment proposed by the noble Baroness has taken into account the point of view of the Government and has tried to move towards it. As I understand it, the real purpose of the Amendment is that where there is a ballot the votes of the part-time workers should not carry the same weight as the vote of the whole-time workers, because, in theory at least, the votes of a majority of part-time workers could influence the ballot in a way which would be detrimental to the whole-time workers whose livelihood is tied up in the business. I should be the first to say that I think there is a great deal in this argument, and we have recognised this. But there is another side of the picture which I should like to put forward. I think possibly it is best explained by giving two examples, the first where an agency shop exists, and the second where there is an application for an agency shop.
Where there is an agency shop to which both part-time and full-time workers equally rightly belong, we believe that the
534
part-time worker should, in justice, have an equal right to vote, by virtue of his equal membership, as a full-time worker. One might stretch the point a little further and say that since the financial contribution of the part-time workers to the agency shop is the same as that of the full-time worker, it in fact represents a bigger proportion.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, with great respect, that depends on the union rules; workers who work for less than a certain period in the week may pay a diminished contribution.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I fully accept that. I was not making this as a major point; I was merely saying that it could be argued that their contribution represents a larger proportion of their remuneration from their place of work. I do not lay great stress on that point, other than to say that it would seem in those circumstances unfair to give less than an equal right to those people.
The second point is where an application for an agency shop is made. Of course, the question of whether part-time workers should be included in an agency shop agreement in the first place, and therefore included in any subsequent ballot, will be a matter for the parties who are making the application to decide. The union could, for example, apply for an agency shop to cover only full-time workers and specifically to exclude part-time workers. Unless the Commission were to extend the application to cover part-time workers, which seems to be extremely unlikely, unless there was very good reason for it, only the full-time workers would be entitled to take part in the ballot. But if part-time workers are to be included in an agency shop, I suggest that it is just and right that they should have an equal right to vote on the matter. Otherwise it would be possible for a small minority of full-time workers to establish an agency shop agreement against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the people who work at that particular place.
So far as ballots on recognition are concerned, again we think it right that part-timers should have an equal chance to vote. Of course, there are part-time workers who are not members of a union and are apathetic towards the union, and

535
they are hardly likely to take the trouble to vote. Their obstructions, I suggest, will not affect the result and the views of the full-time workers are likely to determine the outcome. But if they are unionised and interested in the outcome of the ballot, we believe that they should, in justice, have their votes counted the same as full-timers. In saying that, I do not wish to denigrate or underestimate at all the view put forward by the noble Baroness. We believe there is a very substantial point. It is our belief, though, that the implied principle of treating the votes of some people as of a different weight and as having a different effect from the votes of others is not suitable. We would also point out that the Amendment could put an enormously difficult task on the Commission, as it gives no guidelines as to how different weights could be given to the votes of different classes of workers. I appreciate that the noble Baroness suggested some ways, but we believe that where a vote is taken, the votes of one class of worker should be the same as those of another class.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, may I ask the Minister what he thinks would be the effect on productivity? if there is a system of part-time workers, obviously it is to reinforce productivity. What is going to happen in this sort of situation where the union would be perfectly entitled to resist part-time working on this basis? I think we are missing the point. The part-time workers, certainly in anything I understand, are people who are brought in for perfectly good and sufficient reasons. In my own profession we have a great many pin-money journalists. But do you think the National Union of Journalists (I am putting a hypothetical case) would allow the part-time journalist, the pin-money journalist to decide the policy of the National Union of Journalists? Any suggestion on those lines would arouse a lot of opposition from the Union.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, if I may speak again, to reinforce the view that I put forward, I would repeat that if the agency shop is so designed as to include part-time workers, we believe it right that they should have a vote. But if, when an application for an agency shop is being made, it is desired that it should
536
refer only to full-time workers, the application would be to that effect, and therefore the part-time worker would not have a vote.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I am sorry the noble Earl, who I thought was approaching in our direction at the beginning of his speech, retreated towards the end and left us where we were before. Of course, this applies not only to the agency shop but also to the closed shop. Surely we have had enough discussion about the theatrical and cinematograph professions, to appreciate that these are both instances where one can have part-time workers, and if they were not brought into a closed shop great difficulty might arise over the efficacy of the closed-shop arrangement. So to say that part-time workers can be left out is no solution whatever to this problem.
As my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder indicated, the whole substance of our objection to treating part-time workers on an equivalent footing to full-time workers is that it does not matter so much to them and they do not matter so much to the industry or the establishment; and this fact ought to be recognised in the form of the ballot. We know that in industry part-time working is not so much a question of pin-money; to some extent it is due to the fact that married women come in for part-time shifts, after-school shifts and so on, which are organised in certain instances, or for seasonal work, or when there is a rush order. I know that in my former constituency Courtauld's have several factories; and when there was a great rush on a number of women who had previously worked there came back to get the order completed. After that it might be several months before they returned to work. But at any particular point of time they would be there as part-time workers, though with a far less stake in the industry.
I do not want to labour the argument. I should have thought it was plain. I do not believe for one moment that it would be beyond the wits of the Commission to devise a sensible scheme. I do not think I should have the slightest difficulty in doing it, or that the noble Earl would have the slightest difficulty, if we

537
set our minds to it. But there is a difficulty here. This is something on which we have had quite considerable representation, and in the circumstances I must ask my noble friends to support this Amendment in the Lobby.
Clause 157 [Restrictions on contracting out]:
5.27 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE moved Amendment merit No. 95G:
Page 116, line 16, at end insert (" or any approved closed shop agreement ").
5.19 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 95) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 54; Not-Contents, 89.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Popplewell, L.

Archibald, L.

Fiske, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Royle, L.

Bernstein, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Beswick, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

St. Davids, V.

Blyton, L.

Henley, L.

Shackleton, L.

Brockway, L.

Hoy, L.

Silkin, L.

Brown, L.

Jacques, L.

Sorensen, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Janner, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Burntwood, L.

Lindgren, L.

Stonham, L.

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

Maelor, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Champion, L.

Mais, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Chorley, L.

Masham of Ilton, Bs.

Summerskill, Bs.

Collison, L.

Norwich, V.

Swaythling, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Pargiter, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Walston, L.

Diamond, L.

Platt, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Plummer, Bs.

White, Bs. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Merrivale, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Milverton, L.

Auckland, L.

Exeter, M.

Monck, V.

Balerno, L.

Falkland, V.

Morrison, L.

Balfour, E.

Ferrers, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Barnby, L.

Ferrier, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Fortescue, E.

Oakshott, L.

Belstead, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Radnor, E.

Berkeley, Bs.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Bessborough, E.

Gray, L.

Rochdale, V.

Blackford, L.

Grenfell, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Boothby, L.

Gridley, L.

St. Just, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Hacking, L.

Sandford, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Hailes, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Burton, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Shannon, E.

Camoys, L.

Sherfield, L.

Chesham, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Clwyd, L.

Hatherton, L.

Somers, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Howe, E.

Stamp, L.

Conesford, L.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Strang, L.

Courtown, E.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Strange, L.

Craigavon, V.

Killearn, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Croft, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Daventry, V.

Latymer, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Denham, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Vivian, L.

Derwent, L.

Long, V.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Digby, L.

Loudoun, C.

Windlesham, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Wolverton, L.

Dundee, E.

MacAndrew, L.

Yarborough, E.

Ebbisham, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Young, Bs.

Eccles, V.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, if it is agreeable to the House, I should like to suggest that we might take Amendments Nos. 95K and 95L with Amendment No. 95G. If I may just remind your Lordships of the purpose of Clause 157, which these Amendments are designed to amend, it is to ensure that no one will forego the rights provided under the Bill by agreement or arrangement, except where specific provision has

539
been made in subsection (2) of Clause 157 to exclude certain rights in certain defined circumstances. An example is where an agency shop agreement has been made.
We have been looking at this clause, and have come to the conclusion that there are three additional types of agreement which should be excluded from the provisions of subsection (1), and the purpose of these Amendments is to exclude them. The first would exclude an approved closed shop agreement. Such an agreement, which would have to be approved, as your Lordships know, by the Industrial Court, would, by its very nature, place some limitation on employees in regard to the exercise of the rights which they have under Clause 5(1) of the Bill for example, the right not to belong to a union.
Second, there are two sets of circumstances in which a conciliation officer, acting under Clause 156, may achieve a settlement of a complaint relating to dismissal or, under Clause 5(1), to the infringement of an employee's rights which had already been, or could be presented to an industrial tribunal under Clause 106. It is the purpose of these Amendments to exclude such agreements.
Thirdly, my Lords, there is the case where an agreement has been reached between the parties as a result of an individual making an application to the Registrar under Clause 81 in relation to a complaint against a trade union or an employers' association. Again, in such cases we think it would be wholly right to preclude the individual from proceeding with such a complaint to an industrial tribunal under Clause 107 where there has been an agreement reached. I hope that that is sufficient explanation of these three quite simple Amendments.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, may I ask just one comprehensive question on this series of Amendments to which the noble Earl, Earl Jellicoe, has referred? I have studied them. Am I right in thinking that no provision, either of the clause as unamended or as it would be amended if these Amendments were carried, could possibly affect the simple case of a worker seeking to claim compensation or other relief for an unfair
540
dismissal under Clause 106? I think that is the case. I think it important that one should not in any event in any way exclude him from exercising his rights. If I read the Amendments coupled with the clause aright, I think that nothing in the Amendments nor in the clause would prevent any worker in ordinary circumstances in which he complains, from prosecuting his case in the ordinary way under Clause 106. I think that is the case, but I should like it to be confirmed by the noble Earl if he is in a position to do so.
EARL JELLICOE: Yes, I can give that confirmation.
LORD STOW HILL: I thank the noble Earl.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 95K.
Amendment moved—
Page 116, line 18, leave out (" or ").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 95L.
Amendment moved—
Page 116, line 22, at end insert—
(" ( ) to any agreement to refrain from presenting a complaint under section 106 of this Act, where in compliance with a request under subsection (4) of section 146 of this Act a conciliation officer has taken action in accordance with that subsection;
( ) to any agreement to refrain from proceeding with a complaint presented under section 106 of this Act, where a conciliation officer has taken action in accordance with subsections (2) and (3) of section 146 of this Act; or
( ) to any agreement to refrain from presenting, or from proceeding with a complaint under section 107 of this Act, where an application under section 81 of this Act has been made to the registrar with respect to the matter to which the complaint relates or, if presented, would relate.").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 158 [Employment under the Crown]:
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 95F:
Page 116, line 26, at end insert (" and in particular section 5 and section 22 of this Act shall have effect in relation to Crown employment and to persons who are for the time

541
being in Crown employment or (where it has ceased) were in Crown employment as they have effect in relation to employment under a contract of employment with a private employer ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I can move this Amendment quite shortly because I observe on the Marshalled List Amendment No. 95D, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, which, if I understand it correctly, is designed to achieve exactly the same result as I seek to achieve in the Amendment I am moving.
In Committee we had a debate as to whether a civil servant was empowered under the Bill to present a claim in respect of an unfair dismissal, if he asserted that he had been unfairly dismissed. I cited a publication in which a doubt had been expressed whether the Bill was so worded as to confer that right on a civil servant. I ventured to offer arguments which might seem to support that view. I put down this Amendment in order to remove that doubt. I did so by borrowing language from the late Government's Bill which I thought put the matter beyond question, but it seems to me that the following Amendment, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, would produce the same result in much shorter and more felicitous language than mine. If the position is as I understand it—I do not know whether the noble Earl will be able to inform me about that—I would then ask leave to withdraw this Amendment.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I recall very well the discussion in Committee on this particular point. The noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, is quite right to remind us of the circumstances. I believe he asked me two things: first, whether it was the intention of the Government that the unfair dismissal provisions of the Bill should apply to civil servants, and I told him, unequivocally, that the answer was,"Yes ". The noble Lord went on to express some doubt, if that was the intention of the Government, whether the Bill as drafted carried out that intention and I said that I thought so.
I am very glad that I only said that I thought it was so. I went on to say that O'Higgins and Stow Hill were wrong and Jellicoe, as usual, was right. I am glad that I expressed this as a matter of thought because, on further investigation, I have come to the conclusion that Jellicoe
542
was wrong and O'Higgins and Stow Hill were right; we were not carrying out as clearly as we hoped to do the intentions of the Bill. I can confirm to the noble Lord that if he agrees to withdraw this Amendment I shall move the next Amendment, which I think he will find meets the point.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Earl and, in view of what he has said, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.38 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE moved Amendment No. 95D:
Page 116, line 36, at end insert—
(" ( ) any reference to an employee shall be construed as a reference to a Crown employee ")
The noble Earl said: I think I need not embroider unduly on this subject. As I have said, we have been into this matter carefully. I have consulted Dr. O'Higgins's article; I have consulted my advisors and it seems that there is indeed a doubt whether the dismissal provisions apply to Crown employees under Clause 158, as drafted. The purpose of this Amendment is to remove that doubt, and I am quite confident that the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, will agree with me that it does so. I beg to move.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I rise simply to thank the noble Earl very warmly for putting down this Amendment, which seems to remove any possible doubt. I am most grateful.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, with the permission of the House, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, for thanking me? May I add, and I say this very sincerely, that I am in a double-barrel capacity, not only because of my slight involvement with this Bill but the more so because of my much deeper involvement in the Civil Service Department. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for bringing this matter to our attention.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 161 [Northern Ireland]:
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS moved Amendment No. 95H:
Page 119, line 21, at end insert (" and it shall be within the power of the Parliament

543
of Northern Ireland to impose or confer duties or powers on the Commission or on the Chief Registrar, whether they are duties or powers similar to those imposed or conferred by this Act or not ").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn. Perhaps I may also refer to Amendment No. 95J. Both these Amendments are what one might call technical, administrative Amendments which refer to Northern Ireland.
As your Lordships are aware, in the main this Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland, but in Clause 161 we are enabling the Northern Ireland Parliament, if it so wishes, to enact legislation on industrial relations. It is of course for the Northern Ireland Government to decide whether or not to do so and whether or not to introduce its own legislation. In case it should decide to go ahead at some time in the future, it would be most convenient for it to be able to use institutions established in this country under this Bill. I should perhaps mention that the Amendments have been prepared after careful consultation with the authorities of Northern Ireland, and the Amendments will achieve a position which is agreeable to them. I hope that with this explanation your Lordships will agree to the inclusion of these two Amendments and approve them.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am sure that it is right that I should thank the noble Earl for having introduced this Amendment which has been carefully and accurately considered in all respects. I am doubly glad to thank him for moving it, for this is one of those unusual Amendments which improve the Bill and stem from the Government's own thinking. It is rather a pleasant and unusual occasion and I am grateful to the noble Earl.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 95J formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 119, line 22, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
(" (2) In sections 120 and 122 of this Act any reference to the Secretary of State, or to a Minister, shall be construed as including a reference to the Minister of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland (in this section referred to as ' the Northern Ireland Minister ').
544
(3) On each occasion when the Commission make a report to the Secretary of State under section 123 of this Act, the Commission shall make a like report to the Northern Ireland Minister; and the Northern Ireland Minister shall lay a copy of every such report before the Senate and House of Commons of Northern Ireland.
(4) Sections 120 and 122 of this Act and subsections (2) and (3) of this section shall be treated for the purposes of section 6 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 as if they had been passed before the day appointed for that section to come into operation.
(5) In the Government of Ireland (Companies, Societies etc.) Order 1922, in Article 22 (which provides for reciprocal status in respect of societies registered in Northern Ireland and those registered in other parts of the United Kingdom), after the words ' Northern Ireland in the first place where they occur, there shall be inserted the words other than a trade union or a branch of a trade union '.")—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 163 [Interpretation]:
5.42 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 95E:
Page 121, line 25, leave out (" this section ") and insert (" section 162 of this Act ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment which in no way affects the meaning of"collective bargaining"as defined in Clause 163(1); nor does it affect the definition of"procedure agreement"which an Amendment in Committee moved from Clause 163(1) to Clause 162(5). It merely corrects the signpost in Clause 163(1) to the definition of"procedure agreement"so as to take into account that transfer to Clause 162 which now defines collective agreement"and"procedure agreement ". I must apologise for the fact that we overlooked this when we made the rearrangement of definitions, and again I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, for bringing it to our attention. I hope that he will not mind my moving this Amendment in preference to his, and that he will feel that this Amendment entirely meets his point while at the same time pointing the way to the definition of"procedure agreement"in terms not only specific but which follow more closely the wording of similar signposts elsewhere in the Bill. I beg to move.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I rise to thank the noble Lord and to intimate

545
that he having put it right in his words it becomes unnecessary for me to move Amendment No. 95C, which does the same thing in different words.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am sure it will not be wasting the time of the House if I add my own thanks and say how pleasant it is to be back on the old familiar ground where the Government move an Amendment which stems from the careful and hard work of my noble friend Lord Stow Hill to whom we are all deeply indebted.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.45 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE moved Amendment No. 95M:
Page 121, line 36, after (" employee ") insert (" subject to subsection (3A) of this section ").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House if I were to discuss Amendments 97E and 97G together with Amendment 95M. They all deal with the same point. The purpose of these Amendments is to exclude from the Bill various special police forces like the British Transport Police and the British Airports Constabulary. Your Lordships will doubtless recall that in paragraph 177 of the Consultative Document on the Bill it was stated that it was our purpose to exclude the police from the scope of the Bill. At that time we had in mind primarily the civil police whose inclusion in the Bill would be inappropriate, and I think that this is generally agreed, because of their special responsibilities and because they have their own negotiating machinery established under the Police Acts. As I am sure your Lordships realise, it has been the position since 1919 (when I think was enacted the first Police Act dealing with these aspects) that no member of a police force may be put in a position in which other unions may compete for the right to recruit him and to call him out on strike. I think it fair to say that Parliament, the public as a whole and the police themselves accept this situation. That is why this Bill does not in terms cover the civil police.
As your Lordships know, there are a number of other special police forces in the country. These constabularies play an important ancillary role in the country's police network. Their members are sworn constables; within the areas
546
in which they work they have powers similar to those of the civil police forces; they operate in close liaison with the civil police forces throughout the country and a great many of their activities—for instance, the maintenance of public order and general public services in airports and large railway stations—are quite indistinguishable from those undertaken by the civil police. The other constabularies that I have in mind, the Ministry of Defence Constabulary and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary, are engaged in guarding establishments which in some cases are of vital importance from a national point of view and from the security angle. Since the civil police are not covered by the Bill clearly these other special police forces should also be excluded. If they were not excluded I think that we should find ourselves in a situation where one group of policemen not covered by the Bill will be working alongside and doing the same job as another group who were covered by the Bill.
In these Amendments—and I apologise for their late delivery, if that is the proper obstetrical term—we are therefore doing no more than to carry out the Government's intentions as stated in the Consultative Document. But because the members of the special police forces are"workers ", as defined in the Bill, and not, as are the civil police,"office holders ", it is necessary to have a specific exclusion in the Bill if they are not to be covered. With those explanations I commend these Amendments to the House.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.50 p.m.
LORD PLATT LORD PLATT moved Amendment No. 95A:
Page 121, line 43, after (" employed ") insert (" or in the case of workers whose salary or conditions of service are determined by any Minister of the Crown, such Minister ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to propose Amendment 95A which I hope to be able to withdraw very shortly. This Amendment, together with Amendment No. 97A which is also in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont if Whitley, appeared at the Committee stage of the Bill and were fairly fully discussed at that time. I shall not detain your Lordships very much longer with them, except to remind

547
your Lordships that the question which we are raising here is with reference to certain professions, notably the medical profession but also the teaching profession, in which the persons concerned may be technically employed by a hospital board, an executive council, a local education committee or a university, and yet the terms and conditions of service are determined centrally by a Minister of the Crown. This was discussed and the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, who was speaking for the Government on that occasion (reference, June 10, column 460) gave us an assurance that the Government were aware of the somewhat difficult position which could occur in these circumstances and were giving thought to it.
I am not alone in finding it somewhat difficult occasionally to interpret some of the clauses of this Bill, and it is my belief that Amendment No. 97H, which we shall reach very shortly, really meets these points. If so, this is really a probing Amendment to see whether the Government are able to reassure Lord Beaumont and myself that that is the case.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE): My Lords, this Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Platt, I take it is designed to deal with workers whose salary or conditions of service are determined by Ministers of the Crown though they are not in fact employed by them. The Health Service doctor, I think, is one of the examples he has given and there are, over the range of what I believe is rather strangely called the"public sector ", a number of similar cases. We recognise that there is a problem here. We have designed to meet it by our new Government Amendment No. 97H, which was put down to redeem a promise given by my noble friend Lord Windlesham on Committee, and we believe that that Amendment does deal with the problem.
The particular method adopted by the noble Lord in this particular Amendment is not acceptable to us. It seeks to deal with the problem by altering the definition of"employer ". We all know that no man may serve two masters, but that is precisely what this definition would seek to make him do for the purposes of the Bill. This is designed really as a
548
criticism of the method and not as the object in view. As I understand that the second noble Lord who put his name to this Amendment is in Holy Orders he will, I am sure, urge the noble Lord, Lord Platt, to withdraw it having heard this terrifying possibility.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I am not sure whether Ministers are cast as"God"or"Mammon ".
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: They are Caesar, my Lord.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 95N:
Page 122, line 19, after first (" dispute ") insert (" subject to subsection (3B) of this section ").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I am briefed to accept this Amendment. I will, however, beg to move it on behalf of my noble friend. It is to be read with Amendment No. 97H. The Amendments will extend the definition of"industrial dispute"to cover disputes arising between a Minister and one or more organisations of workers where the Minister is not the employer of the workers concerned in the dispute, but where the Minister is represented on a statutory negotiating body which determines the conditions of the workers concerned or where he has the statutory duty to determine what the conditions of employment of those workers should be. It is therefore a paving Amendment to the Amendment of which I spoke a moment ago, which is designed to meet the precise problem put by the noble Lord, Lord Platt, in the last Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 122, line 21, at end insert (", or a dispute between one or more workers or organisations of workers,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 96 in a territory with which I am not very familiar. The clause with which we are dealing is the definition clause, and at line 21 we are concerned with the definition of an industrial dispute. The essence of the

549
matter is that the industrial dispute definition does not include a dispute between worker and worker. Originally, that is to say in section 5 of the 1875 Act, a trade dispute—and"industrial dispute"in this definition clause is really the same as"trade dispute"in the 1875 Act—was there defined so as to include not only disputes between employers and workers but also disputes between workers and workers. That is the essence of the matter and the Amendment seeks to propose a method of putting that right by including the words
" or a dispute between one or more workers or organisations of workers ".
Perhaps it would be convenient for your Lordships to consider with this Amendment the following one, because these are two alternative methods of remedying this omission. I am assuming, of course, that the Government wish to remedy this omission because if they did not do so we should be back, so I understand, at the situation that was governed by the law as it was before the relevant 1906 Act, and that would not be, I imagine, the kind of framework which the Government themselves would desire.
There is a particular kind of difficult area of dispute between worker and worker and that is the demarcation dispute. If therefore it was part of the Government's intention that the definition should be widened only to cover that point, then I think the words in the second Amendment would serve that purpose. The second Amendment, Amendment No. 97, would insert at a later point:
" and also a dispute between one or more workers or organisations of workers "—
that is to say, again it is limited to that area; it is not a dispute between worker and employer—
" where the dispute relates wholly or mainly to the allocation of work as between workers or groups of workers ".
In short, we are saying to the Government,"We assume, subject to your correction, that you want the legal framework of this Bill to be brought up to date, in the sense that it should not be left in the position that it was as far back as 1905 ". That being so, the definition of"industrial dispute"ought to go farther than it does in the clause and ought to cover disputes between one or more workers or organisations of
550
workers. If the Government do not feel that the inclusion ought to be as broad as that, and ought to be narrower in the sense that it should apply only to demarcation disputes which involve disputes between worker and worker, then that is an alternative point of view which is catered for in the second Amendment. Accordingly, I move Amendment No. 96.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, we discussed this matter in Committee, and I had hoped that I had persuaded the noble Lord who raised this point (I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill) that the Amendment is totally unnecessary and, indeed, would for that reason be totally inappropriate. Demarcation disputes as such are contained within the existing definition of"industrial disputes"at line 30 on page 122 of the Bill. What the Amendment would propose to do is to insert in the definition of"industrial dispute"a dispute in which trade unions, or groups of workers, are engaged in a dispute inter se without the employer being brought into the matter at all. This is inappropriate because, as I ventured to point out in Committee, there are no proceedings under the Bill, and there is no possible set of circumstances which can arise under the Bill in which such a dispute arises and to which the Bill has any application at all. The moment the employer comes in the dispute becomes an industrial dispute and the Bill bites on it. So long as the dispute is purely between workers, without involving any employer at all, there is absolutely no possibility of the Bill applying to it. It therefore follows that this Amendment is inappropriate in a definition clause because there is nothing to which it can relate.
There is no difference en policy between the noble Lord who proposed this Amendment and the Government. There is no desire on the part of the Government to re-introduce a pre-1906 situation here, and it is our belief that it does not do so. This is what I tried to explain in Committee to a noble Lord (I cannot exactly remember whom) who drew attention to the findings of the Donovan Commission and said that what we were legislating here was inconsistent with Donovan, which on paper it is, but that is because we are dealing here solely with the definition clause designed to

551
meet the provisions of this Bill. We are satisfied that there is no set of provisions in this Bill which would conceivably apply to, or bite upon, a dispute which is purely between workers and has no relation to an employer as such. In such a case we think that such organisations of workers could either settle the dispute among themselves or, alternatively, go to the T.U.C. under the Bridlington Rules. If they involved the employer by taking industrial action then it is within the terms of the existing definition without the Amendment, so that the Amendment serves no valid purpose whatever. I hope that with this explanation the noble Lord will feel it possible to withdraw this Amendment.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord. It has been very worth while having this discussion. His recollection is absolutely correct that we had a previous discussion, and the noble and learned Lord offered an explanation then. The unfortunate position is that some of those who are also learned in the law, and advise us, did not take exactly the same point of view as the noble and learned Lord, in that his explanation disposed of all possible future arguments. However, before the noble and learned Lord takes umbrage at that, what he has now said adds considerably to the case. I attached enormous importance to the fact that he said clearly that he does not think that we differed as to policy. He has said that the Government's policy is not to go back to the 1905 situation. He said that if this Amendment were introduced it would be of no practical effect because the Bill does not govern that kind of circumstance. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for having explained the matter more fully and more persuasively, and I seek your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.7 p.m.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH LORD DELACOURT-SMITH moved Amendment No. 97C:
Page 123, line 9, at end insert (" or action taken by one or more employers not reasonably necessary for the promotion of the interests of the undertaking or undertakings in relation to which such action is taken with the intention wholly or primarily on the part of one or more of such employers of causing
552
detriment to the interests of some or all of the workers employed or engaged in such undertaking or undertakings.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we had the opportunity of touching upon the point of this Amendment at an earlier stage in the proceedings. The argument then advanced was that under this Bill the Government have envisaged action on the part of the trade unions which would take the form of a strike, or an irregular industrial action falling short of a strike, but in the case of action by employers they have referred only to a lockout. It appeared to us that there were a variety of measures which might be taken by employers in the course of disagreements with those who work for them which fell short of a lockout but which ought to be brought within the scope of this Bill. They are in a sense the counterpart on the employer's side of the irregular action short of a strike, to which reference is made in the Bill in respect of trade union action.
The most satisfactory way to try to put this right is to widen the definition of"lockout ". We have taken into account the fact that some action of this sort taken by employers might amount to discrimination under other clauses, but it appears that there is a range of action which employers may take against groups of people or, in some cases, against individuals, which is undertaken in the course of differences of opinion between the two sides in industry and which has not been covered by any of the phraseology at present in the Bill. The list is by no means exhaustive, but we have in mind such courses of action as refusal to employ; limitation or reallocation of overtime; removal of a man from one factory to another in circumstances where such removal is not precluded either by his contract of employment or any collective agreement; re-allocation of jobs so that men or a man might be in a less remunerative position, and so forth. There is the possibility of an employer who has dismissed a man and refused to reinstate him, who in one way or another suggests to, or brings pressure of some kind upon, another employer to abstain from employing the man, or even to dismiss him.
There could be, and in some cases there is, a range of action which ought to be brought within the scope of the Bill, which corresponds on the employers'

553
side to the irregular action short of a strike to which reference is made in the Bill, as one of the weapons in the trade union armoury, and we trust, my Lords, that the way in which we have sought to deal with this necessary matter will commend itself to your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in many ways one can sympathise with the object which the noble Lord has stated, but I do not think on reflection that the House will accept that the means chosen Ito effect the object are either appropriate or really acceptable. There is a definition of"strike"in this clause which we are now discussing. There is a definition of"irregular industrial action short of a strike"set out at length in Clause 33(4) and referred to in the definition clause here, and there is a definition of"lock-out"which is set out at length at the top of page 123 to which the noble Lord's present Amendment is a suggested alteration or addition."Strike"is defined as"a concerted stoppage of work "—noble Lords will see the full definition at the bottom of page 123. I think everybody would say that that is exactly what we mean by"strike"in ordinary language. An"irregular industrial action short of a strike"is defined in one of two ways:
" (a) carried on by a group of workers with the intention of preventing, reducing or otherwise interfering with the production of goods or the provision of services "
or alternatively—
" (b)…is carried on in breach of their contracts of employment…".
That, again, one can understand, and it has a fairly definable and ascertainable meaning."Lock-out ", as defined at the top of page 123 is:
" action…which consists of the exclusion of workers from…places of employment or of the suspension of work in one or more such places…".
The full definition will be seen in the text. That I suppose is exactly what ordinary people understand by a lockout. In other words, these definitions of"strike ","irregular action short of a strike ", and"lock-out"are designed to carry the meaning which ordinary language would probably assign to them.
The noble Lord, in a desire to penalise—which may be highly desirable—a number of other actions by the employer
554
which he claims to be analogous to the"irregular industrial action short of a strike ", which is defined in Clause 33(4), has proposed to include:
" action taken by one or more employers not reasonably necessary for the promotion of the interests of the undertaking or undertakings in relation to which such action is taken with the intention wholly or primarily on the part of one or more of such employers of causing detriment to the interests of some or all of the workers employed or engaged in such undertaking or undertakings."
I can conceive this particular phrase as giving rise to almost endless dispute and controversy in the courts. I simply do not understand how a court could apply this definition in places where the word"lockout"is referred to throughout the Bill. You only have to look at the clause dealing with unfair dismissal, Clause 25, to see how inappropriate those words would be if you tried to apply them in any detail to a concrete situation of alleged unfair dismissal in the course of a lock-out. The fact is it is not a good way of penalising employers or anybody else to introduce, by way of addition, this totally inappropriate definition so as to use words in a sense wholly different from the way in which they are employed in ordinary language. If I may develop that, the noble Lord seems to think, and I think wrongly, that the Act does not bite on this kind of action by an employer, the analogue to the irregular industrial action short of a strike in Clause 33(4). The definition in paragraph (b) deals with breach of contracts of employment as does the elaborate code about unfair dismissal, which can bite upon the employer and which is dealt with in a whole sequence of clauses—Clauses 22, 23, 24, 25, in which unfair dismissal becomes an unfair industrial practice and is penalised as such and gives rise incidentally to a direct claim for compensation at pursuit of the individual worker. That is where you want to look for that kind of analogue. Similarly you find the kind of thing which is complained of against employers in actual practice, the withholding of information, for instance in the course of negotiation. That again is the subject of a whole sequence of individual clauses. It is beyond question that if either the employer or the trade union breaks a collective agreement in writing which does not contain the disclaimer clause, either the employer or the trade union, whichever it may be, is subject to the

555
penalties or the sanctions of the legislation, but, with respect, what you do not get here is any advantage. I can see considerable disadvantage but I cannot see any corresponding advantage by judging the definition of lock-out so as to include various types of undesirable conduct by employers which would then be applied rather inappropriately wherever the word"lock-out"is used throughout the text of the Bill.
There is of course an additional and I think rather important safeguard against the kind of conduct which the noble Lord has in mind to condemn, and which I would join with him in condemning. There is going lo be a Code of Industrial Relations Practice and there is also the fundamental provision of all the sanction clauses of the Bill that the remedy, if there be a remedy, is only available when it is just and equitable that the remedy should be granted. It is of course quite clear that if an employer indulged in the kind of conduct which the noble Lord envisages he would not be able or certainly not be able easily to obtain any remedies under the Act because he was barred by the just and equitable clause and if he were in breach of the code of practice, as he almost certainly would be if he were guilty of these malpractices in a deliberate way, he would find it almost impossible to secure his remedy. The result is that—I do not complain that the noble Lord should condemn practices of this kind—the object of the Bill is to secure good industrial relations and it would be entirely wrong if one encouraged actions of this kind in the course of such a Bill.
I do not quite know how frequently the noble Lord claims his various malpractices occur. I should imagine that they were extremely rare. But I have no direct evidence of it, and the noble Lord has not adduced any. What I feel reasonably confident of is that he has proposed an inappropriate remedy for malpractices of this kind, while the Bill has adequate safeguards which, when properly analysed, indicate no inequity between the two sides of industry proposed.
LORD BERNSTEIN: My Lords, so far as I could gather, the noble and learned Lord rather accepted the possibility of malpractices, and he spoke of remedies.
556
Therefore there must be a remedy for something. He seemed to admit that there was a need for a remedy for what could be an unfair industrial practice. Could the noble and learned Lord explain where that is to be found in the Bill?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if with the leave of the House I may reply to that question, the answer is that it can be found in the procedural clauses where the remedies are given. The clauses from about Clause 100 onwards explain where the remedies for an unfair industrial practice are. They apply equally to employers, trade unions and individuals, and consist in (a) a declaratory judgment, (b) compensation, or (c) an order in the nature of an injunction, which in some ways is the most effective of all applied to an employer who is indulging in a continuing practice. All those are to be found in the clauses of the Bill from Clause 100 onwards. There is, I think, a separate clause dealing with the particular question of unfair dismissal. But it is in that sequence of clauses in the Bill that the noble Lord will find what he is asking for. However, with respect, you will not do any good by trying to pop it into the definition clause, which is not a sanctions clause at all.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I think the House is bound to feel some sense of disappointment at the obesrvations the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has made, but I think he has accepted that the problem to which we are drawing attention in this Amendment is a real problem and that it is one which is not covered in the Bill. Nobody can say how widespread a problem it is, but we have on several occasions at earlier stages in the Bill taken the view, urged on by noble Lords representing the Government, that if there is the possibility of even one case, or a small number of cases, where injustice may arise, provision should be made for it. Therefore the fact that it is not possible to demonstrate that these malpractices are widespread should not be regarded as a sound argument. Since it is accepted that there are malpractices, and that they are not all by any means covered in the Bill—the references which the noble and learned Lord made, for

557
example, to dismissals covered only a part, and indeed not the main part, of the examples that I gave—surely it is incumbent upon the noble and learned Lord to advise the House, even at this late stage of the proceedings on the Bill, how this gap in the Bill can be remedied.
There is, I submit, clearly no provision in the Bill to stigmatise as unfair action which I think your Lordships would agree would be unfair: for example, for employers collectively to abstain from employing a particular individual; for an employer, as I suggested, having had experience of a man whom he might regard as too zealous a trade unionist, to suggest to other employers that it would not be wise to employ that man when he is on the labour market; restriction of normal promotion opportunities for an individual or a group of individuals, or all the other possible malpractices
to which I drew attention. I admitted in making my case that there might well be some of these which could be regarded as discrimination against the individual perhaps for trade union activities, but I wish again to submit to your Lordships that it is clear from the discussion we have had that there is an admitted gap in the Bill. I regret the fact that the noble and learned Lord has devoted a good deal of his argument, though not the whole of it, to the inappropriateness of this particular method of trying to close the gap, without suggesting to your Lordships an alternative method by which the gap might be closed.
6.26 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 97C) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 40; Not-Contents, 94.

CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Balogh, L.

Garnsworthy, L.[Teller.]

Popplewell, L.

Bernstein, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Beswick, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Royle, L.

Blyton, L.

Jacques, L.

Shackleton, L.

Brockway, L.

Janner, L.

Slater, L.

Brown, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Sorensen, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Lindgren, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Burntwood, L.

Longford, E.

Stonham, L.

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

Maelor, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Champion, L.

Mais, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Collison, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Wells-Pestell, L.

Diamond, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Digby, L.

Hood, V.

Ailwyn, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Alport, L.

Dundee, E.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Auckland, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Kinnoull, E.

Balfour, E.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Lansdowne, M.

Barnby, L.

Exeter, M.

Latymer, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Falkland, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Belstead, L.

Ferrers, E.

Loudoun, C.

Berkeley, Bs.

Ferrier, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Bessborough, E.

Fortescue, E.

MacAndrew, L.

Birdwood, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Brentford, V.

Garner, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Milverton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gray, L.

Monck, V.

Burton, L.

Grenfell, L.

Mountevans, L.

Byers, L.

Gridley, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carrington, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Northchurch, Bs.

Clwyd, L.

Hacking, L.

Oakshott, L.

Coleraine, L.

Hailes, L.

Platt, L.

Conesford, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Radnor, E.

Courtown, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hanworth, V.

Rochdale, V.

Croft, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Daventry, V.

Hatherton, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Henley, L.

St. Just, L.

Derwent, L.

Hertford, M.

St. Oswald, L.

Sandford, L.

Strang, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Seear, Bs.

Strange, L.

Vivian, L.

Selkirk, E.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Windlesham, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Strathcarron, L.

Yarborough, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Swaythling, L.

Young, Bs.

Somers, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

6.33 p.m.
LORD PLATT LORD PLATT moved Amendment No. 97A:
Page 123, line 24, at end insert (" and shall include the appropriate side of any Whitley Council or committee thereof ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I feel I am going to withdraw this Amendment, but I should like to be sure that what the noble and learned Lord told us about Amendment No. 97H having met my previous Amendment No. 95A, which of course I accepted, would also apply to cases where the Whitley Council rather than the Ministry or Department itself is concerned in determining the terms and conditions of service. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, before I move Amendment No. 97H I shall have to get a fairly definite answer for the noble Lord. It was certainly designed to meet all the noble Lord's objections under this head, but how far it will actually do so I must ask for a few minutes' grace in order to find out.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, in that case I am quite happy to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 97D:
Page 123, line 41, leave out (" a group of ") and insert (" one or more ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 97D. It reverts to a topic which we have very recently discussed, which gave rise to some considerable difference of view. I am compelled to pursue it not with a view to pressing this Amendment unduly or to dividing the House, but to ascertaining the meaning of the definition as it now stands and whether there is any need to alter it in order to achieve the purposes which I think are common both to the Government and the Opposition.
Line 41 deals with the definition of"strike "—a most important definition.
560
The definition is given as"a concerted stoppage of work by a group of workers ". Those are the only words I need bother your Lordships with. The Amendment seeks to insert instead of"a group of"the words"one or more ". You will immediately say that the concept of a concerted stoppage of work by one worker is an unsual one, and I will grant that immediately, and underline it immediately to indicate to your Lordships the kind of difficulty we are in. A strike is certainly a concerted stoppage. It occurs where a number of workers all come out together from a particular factory shop floor, or whatever the case may be.
The Bill provides, by way of declaring what in any event the present law is, that if a person about to strike gives notice of the same duration that he would have to give in order to terminate that employment, that is a beneficial thing to do. That is the effect of it without going into too much detail; and it is right therefore that, wherever possible, strikers should give notice to strike. We are aware of the fact that a group of workers may, and in many cases will, include workers on different periods of notice in their contracts of employment. So one is confronted with the problem, how do all the workers in this particular physical area stop work at the same time and all give notice, when the notice is for varying periods?
One of the alternatives put forward, in fact by the noble and learned Lord himself, I believe, was that if the vast majority were on one week's notice and there is a very small minority on two weeks' notice, that small minority could walk out later. Supposing that small minority were so small as to be one person? Supposing that one person was the storekeeper on the floor of a factory where everyone else was a machinist, and all machinists were subject to one week's notice and the storekeeper was subject to two weeks' notice?
The suggestion is that the purpose of giving due notice would be achieved by giving one week's notice in respect of the 100 workers, shall we say, who are

561
machinists, and two weeks' notice in respect of the one storekeeper. The 100 machinists would walk out after one week and the single storekeeper would walk out after two weeks, having given a strike notice. If that strike notice is to protect him he has to be striking, not giving notice to terminate his employment; one person joining his mates in a strike one week after the rest of them have withdrawn their labour. Therefore, in order to achieve that purpose, it seems to me that a stoppage of work by a group of workers should possibly include the phrase"the stoppage of work by one or more workers"so that if one worker—our storekeeper in question—walks out he is still striking and not giving up his job.
It may be that it is not necessary to introduce those words because a concerted stoppage may not, for aught I know, mean that kind of stoppage at which everybody stops work at the same time. It may mean that all one has to do is to concert stoppage jointly and one can then walk out at different times. What effect that would have on the strike is a different matter. What effect it would have on the employer is a different matter if one adopted the alternative suggestion put forward, where 100 people walked out and the employer had to keep the whole of his factory open so that there would not be a lock-out against the one storekeeper remaining. We are in a difficulty in reconciling the concept of a strike where all walk out at the same time, and that of giving due notice, which is a necessary and wise precaution—due notice being a varying period of notice because the strikers who are all intending to go out at the same time are on different periods of notice.
The noble and learned Lord will appreciate that I have approached this matter sotto voce, treading with care; Agag has nothing on me.
I hope the noble and learned Lord will recognise this problem, and will be good enough to help us with his knowledge of the meaning of this clause and the impact on the law, as I have no doubt he wishes to help us to resolve this issue, which I think I have explained sufficiently. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful to the noble Lord, whose delicate
562
gait we all admire, for explaining the exact point of this Amendment. I am bound to say that it baffled me and my advisers, because he is not proposing to leave out the word"concerted ", he is just inserting the phrase"a concerted stoppage of work by one or more workers ". I was troubled, as he has anticipated, by the thought that it was difficult to see how one worker could"concert"a stoppage. I was unable to find an answer, although I did have a fleeting glimpse of a managing director suddenly withholding his labour in order to bring pressure on the board to improve his pension rights; but I concluded that was not a strike or indeed a"concerted stoppage"unless he was a very unusual kind of person.
Therefore, I do not think this Amendment makes sense. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, asked me what I think was a legitimate question: supposing in a strike all the workers did not come out at the same time, could it be said to be a"concerted stoppage?". My answer would be in the affirmative, if it was working according to a concerted directive or plan. I thought that the noble Lord, with his command of English, unwittingly supplied the answer to his own question when he put to me the conundrum of what would happen if one worker came out a week afterwards because his contract of employment required him to do so. He described it as joining the strike. I think that is exactly what he would be doing. In other words, he would be joining the concerted stoppage of work, and if he gave due notice he would be protected to the same extent that anyone else would be protected. I am quite sure that this Amendment will not do, and I do not think the problem will be a real one in practice. I accept the general definition of"concerted"which the noble Lord tentatively and with Agag-like gait proposed for my acceptance.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, this is a happy occasion, because both the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and I are in entire agreement that the Amendment will not do. The Amendment was not put in so that it would do; it was put in so that it would elicit from the noble and learned Lord, a statement which I find wholly acceptable. I am

563
grateful to him. With your Lordships' permission I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: At this point I have a manuscript Amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I beg to move yet another Amendment which I hope will find acceptance by the Government. It is a manuscript Amendment referring to the same definition of"strike ", and is:
Page 123, line 42, leave out second (" of ") and insert (" or ").
That will mean that instead of the words
" in contemplation of furtherance "
we shall have the words
" in contemplation or furtherance ".
I am encouraged to put forward the Amendment because I have been told by the noble and learned Lord that these are normal words which are regularly used in a wide variety of statutes. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I accept this Amendment. The noble Lord has discovered a misprint in the Bill. Lest it should be thought that it is necessary formally to amend misprints, I believe it is possible to improve the printing of a Bill without committing a misdemeanour and without Amendment, but I am very grateful to the noble Lord for having drawn attention to the misprint and I accept the Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, Amendment No. 97E is consequential on Amendment No. 95F. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 124, line 14, leave out (" next following subsection ") and insert (" following provisions of this section ").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL had given Notice of Amendment No. 97F:
Page 125, line 2, at end insert—
(" and
(c) the reference to a trade dispute in section 3 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875 shall be construed as a reference to an industrial dispute as defined in subsection (1) of this section,")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the repeal of the Trade Union Act 1871 leaves the expression"trade dispute"as used in Section 3 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875 without a definition. This Amendment seeks to define it as an industrial dispute as defined in this clause. The Government have put down an Amendment (Amendment No. 98L, to Schedule 8), which indicates that they feel this is a necessary change—and upon the assumption that I am right in so supposing, and that they propose in due course to move Amendment No. 98L, I will not move my Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is acceptable. It is consequential on the repeals, and it is the intention of the Government to propose an Amendment at the appropriate place, which is in Schedule 8. On that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord, to whom I give my thanks for drawing my attention to this matter, will withdraw this particular Amendment.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord. I ask leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords. I beg to move Amendment No. 97G. This is another Amendment consequential on Amendment No. 95M.
Amendment moved—
Page 125, line 9, at end insert—
(" (3A) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (1) of this section, for the purposes of this Act—

(a) service as a member of a police force, or as a special constable or as a member of any constabulary maintained by virtue of an enactment (including any local or private Act), or in any other capacity by virtue of which a person has the powers and privileges of a constable, shall not be regarded as work falling within paragraphs (a) to (c) of the definition of"worker"in that subsection, and accordingly a person shall not be regarded as a worker by reference to any such service; and

(b) in the definition of"employee"in that subsection the reference to a contract of employment does not include a contract to perform any such service as is mentioned in the preceding paragraph.")—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 97H:
Page 125, line 9, at end insert—
(" (3B) For the purposes of the definition of"industrial dispute"in subsection (1) of this section a dispute between a Minister of the Crown and one or more workers or organisations of workers shall, notwithstanding that the Minister is not the employer of any of the workers to whom the dispute relates, be regarded as a dispute between an employer and the worker or workers, or the organisation or organisations, in question if the dispute relates—

(a) to matters which have been referred for consideration by a joint body on which, by virtue of any provision made by or under an enactment, that Minister is represented, or

(b) to matters in respect of which a settlement cannot take effect without the exercise of a power conferred on that Minister by or under an enactment ").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move this Amendment—I hope correctly. It is the one I referred to some time ago when I was dealing with the noble Lord, Lord Platt, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. I have now been advised that the Whitley Council point is expressly dealt with under paragraph (a) of the proposed Amendment, and the noble Lord's point is therefore covered. I hope that that will satisfy him. I beg to move.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Lord.
Clause 164 [Power to limit certain provisions of Act to major undertakings]:
6.54 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 97B:
Page 126, line 22, leave out (" 51 and 102(1)(b) ") and insert (" and 51 ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a short point and I can explain it quite shortly. Clause 164 provides that, at any rate for a period of time, complaints are not to be brought under certain clauses of the Bill, which clauses are enumerated in subsection (2) of Clause 164. The clauses under which complaints are not to be brought include Clause 102(1)(b). In effect, the power given to the Secretary of State under Clause 164 is to prevent people from coming to the Industrial Court and asking for relief
566
to which they would otherwise be entitled. I believe that the general object of the clause, with which I do not quarrel, is to prevent an excessive build-up of cases and enable them to be spaced out, no doubt the Orders in Council, the Statutory Instruments, being cancelled as and when the Court becomes able to cope with the volume of cases which come before it.
The purpose of the Amendment is to provide that the prohibition should not be applicable to cases which are brought under Clause 102(1)(b), and if noble Lords will look at that provision they will see that it is the provision which enables a complaint to be made if an employer has failed to disclose the information he is put under an obligation to disclose under Clause 56. If the parties have in some cases to be prevented, at any rate for the time being, from approaching the Court for the reason I gave, I nevertheless submit that the provision that the trade union side of the table in negotiations should be entitled to certain information is of such paramount importance that it would not be in the public interest or conduce to orderly negotiation if, in a given case, they were prevented by Statutory Instrument from seeking to enforce that right before the Industrial Court under Clause 102(1)(b).
This is a short point. We have already discussed in some considerable detail the provisions putting on employers an obligation to supply information, and the importance of those provisions has been stressed, and I believe accepted, on all sides of the House. I submit therefore that the Statutory Instrument ought not to be one which might apply to complaints under that clause, and I accordingly move to omit from subsection (2) the reference to that clause.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the effect of accepting this Amendment would be to remove the power of the Secretary of State to impose a threshold on the provisions for disclosure of information to trade unions; that is to say, that he could not make an order precluding the Industrial Court from considering a complaint under Clause 102(1)(b) unless a specified number of persons were employed in the undertaking. The noble Lord will recall that the arguments for a threshold are based on considerations of case-load—the number of cases that

567
would be likely to come to the courts if one were not to impose a threshold—and limiting the load of the court by imposing one.
The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has already quoted what the Solicitor General has said, and of course we must all recognise that this is new legislation, and when there is new legislation of this kind it is difficult to predict with any accuracy the number of cases that will arise under each jurisdiction. Especially at an early stage of the Bill's operation, at the time when the institutions will be new, relatively untried and getting into their stride, as it were, it is important that the Government should have some means of controlling the case-load of the Court and of industrial tribunals. Otherwise, there is a danger of these bodies being swamped, perhaps in consequence of a single jurisdiction, and prevented from the exercise of any of their jurisdictions effectively. There may be a very heavy case-load in one jurisdiction (this is a matter we discussed at length, of course, on the question of dismissal) and that might effectively hold up the work of the whole field.
I believe that noble Lords opposite accept these arguments in principle, and they seem to accept this in respect of the various clauses mentioned in subsection (2), with the exception of the ones to which the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has referred. I do not think there is a difference of principle between us on this point. I can appreciate that the case-load argument is not so compelling in the case of disclosure as in some other instances—particularly, for example, trade union recognition. But in these matters any Government must play safe, just as it is right for the Opposition to push the Government to go a little further on a particular question. The Government feel that the importance of providing for the efficiency of the Court in its early stages is of overriding importance. It is of course true that the obligation will remain. The only point is that complaints will not be able to be brought.
The Government feel that the caseload arising under Clauses 56 and 102(1)(b) will probably not be very great but we may easily be wrong, so a reserve power such as this is a useful safeguard.
568
If such a safeguard were not to hand, not only could the Industrial Court itself be in difficulties but the result might be a higher threshold for the other provisions mentioned in subsection (2). What the Government anticipate is that Clauses 56 and 102(1)(b) may be introduced with a threshold, which need not be as great as that for the recognition provisions; and in any event it will not be higher than the threshold for recognition. If, as is probable, there is no case-load problem, then the threshold can be lowered, and probably removed. There is no reason why a threshold here should necessarily require a complimentary threshold elsewhere.
As I have said, noble Lords opposite will appreciate that although trade union firms under the disclosure threshold will not be able to enforce their rights in the Industrial Court so long as the threshold remains, the duty imposed on employers under Clause 56 still applies as a moral obligation. Trade unions denied information will be able to point to the code of practice as well as to Clause 56, and of course this can have an indirect effect on other matters arising. I am not saying that such trade unions will be as strongly placed as trade unions in larger firms, but we do not think the disadvantage will be very great. So we think it right to take this power to impose a disclosure threshold, simply as a safety valve to guard against an unexpected case-load. Should the threshold prove unnecessary we shall reduce it or remove it with appropriate speed, and on that assurance I hope noble Lords will not press the Amendment.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will not think that I am being obstinate, but it emerges from his own speech that this is simply a question of balance. If one looks at Clause 164, one sees that, apart from Clause 102, six other clauses are referred to. I do not ask the Government to forgo their power in regard to those six other clauses but simply in relation to this Clause 102. The reason is that that clause is, I submit, of quite transcendent importance. I personally think that the provisions for giving information are among the most important provisions in the Bill. If the noble Lord were able to say that if we do not take power in relation to that clause as well there may easily be a log jam, and the Court may easily be hopelessly

569
cluttered up, then I would withdraw the Amendment. But it emerges from the noble Lord's own speech that this is a question of balance, and I should have thought it desirable at least to take out that clause. If the threshold is applied in each of the other cases, with great respect to the noble Lord, the chance of a build-up in the case-load simply because Clause 102 is excluded is very small indeed.
I listened carefully to the noble Lord, and I thought I detected a degree of uncertainty. I did not think he was strongly convinced, and I urgently ask him to say that this is not unreasonable. I make a request which is thoroughly in accord with the purposes of this Bill, which is to try to get orderly negotiating arrangements.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am bound to support what my noble friend Lord Stow Hill has said and to appeal to the noble Lord to reconsider what he has said, especially at this hour, which would be awkward for a Division, but which nevertheless—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No!
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, if it is not too awkward, then I withdraw that argument immediately, but I much prefer persuasion to force, as the noble Lord may have gathered from our approach to this Bill. May I underline what my noble friend has said so well? If the noble Lord will be good enough to look at subsection (2), of all the provisions in that subsection we are seeking to remove only this one. It is an extremely marginal point, and we are seeking it in an area where we feel that the Government are not helping in the reduction of inflation as much as they should. The third, and very telling point, is that this method of threshold which he has chosen—and I understand it—means that one eliminates those firms who are likely to transgress and leaves in those firms who are not likely to transgress. Of course, the German experience is that the biggest firms already give information and already have a practice of industrial relations which, broadly, is satisfactory. All one would wish to do so far as the code of practice is concerned is, as elsewhere in industry, to invite the worst to come up to the levels of the best and there would then be no problem at all.
570
I am underlining what my noble friend has said, and saying it very shortly because of the hour, and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to meet us on this point.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House may I say another word on this point? I would be very glad to look at it, but I want to emphasise to the noble Lord that this is a discretionary power. I should also like to point out to the noble Lord that he himself has said that the case is very marginal. But there is no means of telling, and when we are introducing new legislation of this kind we do not know how many cases are likely to arise. The reasonable thing is that at the start of legislation of this kind we should see how we get on.
The noble Lord is aware that the information side is particularly difficult. He now says that the test is one of size: before, he said that the test was one of confidence. If there is confidence you do not need the powers. The test here is of size, but what he is saying is that the bigger ones are more likely to produce the information than the other ones.
I would emphasise that this is the case in the information sphere. We know that we are in some difficulty here because the Commission on Industrial Relations is itself looking into the whole question of information at this moment, so that this is perhaps one of the most uncertain spheres in the whole Bill, and where there is uncertainty of this kind it is reasonable to give a discretion. That is why we are asking for the power to impose a threshold here—nothing more than that. Having said that, as the noble Lord is aware, we are looking at the threshold figure which is actually in the Bill, and we shall look at this at the same time.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, in view of what has been said I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration of this Bill he adjourned for one hour for consideration of the Medicine Bill.
Moved, That the further consideration of the Bill be adjourned.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

MEDICINES BILL
7.10 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT on HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, this Bill seeks to make a minor alteration in the provisions about fees to be charged for licensing under the Medicines Act 1968. The alteration is necessary because doubts have arisen as to the legal effect of the original provision and no policy considerations are involved. The Medicines Act 1968 makes provision for the licensing of manufacturers and wholesalers of medicinal products as well as for the issue of licences relating to medicinal products themselves. The Act contains transitional provisions as to products already effectively on the market and manufacturers and wholesale dealers carrying on business immediately before the first appointed day. For these, no licences are required during the transitional period and thereafter they are entitled to licences as of right. The criterion for the issue of these licences is simply that the licensing authority is satisfied that the products were effectively on the market or that manufacturers and wholesale dealers were carrying on business immediately before the first appointed day. On the other hand, licences for products marketed for the first time after the first appointed day may be issued only after consideration of the safety, efficacy and quality of these products; and licences for manufacturers and wholesale dealers commencing business after that date may be issued only after consideration of the adequacy of their equipment and facilities.
It was quite clearly the intention, when the Act was originally presented to Parliament, that fees should be charged in respect of the issue of both full licences and licences of right. In the provisions as to regulations about such fees (Section 128(3)) the draftsman used the word"power ". In the light of certain court rulings, it now seems doubtful whether power"as used in this context comprehends also the duty of issuing licences of right. As I have said, the only criterion for the issue of licences of right is that the transitional provisions in the Act are satisfied, and it may therefore be argued that the issue of a licence of right is a duty which the licensing authority
572
is required to discharge rather than a function which it is empowered to exercise. Since the number of new products likely to be introduced to the market and the number of new manufacturers and wholesale dealers beginning licensable business for the first time is small in relation to the number of existing products and dealers, it follows that if we were prevented from collecting fees in respect of licences of right, which, for the first five years at least, will be the greater proportion of licences issued, the whole burden of fees would have to fall on new licences.
The objective of the Bill is to deal with this situation by repealing the section about which doubts have been expressed and replacing it by an entirely new provision. This provision refers expressly to the issue of licences, certificates and directions, instead of using the more general phraseology previously employed. At the same time the opportunity has been taken to set out explicitly the precise ambit of the regulations which may be made under the provision. These provisions, which are contained in Clause 1(1)(b), are intended to make it clear that it is possible to include in the regulations provision for the payment of fees by instalments and for their refund in certain circumstances. If payment by instalments is to be permitted, it is a necessary corollary that the regulations may authorise the suspension of any licence in respect of which the instalments are in arrears.
The remaining provisions of the Bill are of a formal nature and necessary in order to apply various provisions of the principal Act. As a result of them, the Health and Agriculture Ministers will be required, before making any fees regulations, to consult bodies representative of the interests concerned, and the regulations themselves will require the concurrence of the Treasury and be subject to Parliamentary approval under the Negative Resolution procedure. The first appointed day for the purposes of the licensing scheme under the Act is to be September 1, 1971, and it is very desirable that this Bill should go through as quickly as possible so that the appropriate regulations may be made at the earliest possible date. I therefore should like the House to give the Bill a Second Reading,

573
and beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Aberdare.)
LORD BURNTWOOD: My Lords, before I come to my few observations on this small but significant Bill, I should perhaps declare a personal interest in this matter, as I act as consultant to a company which might be involved. I am not unfamiliar with the principal Act, the Medicines Act 1968, and I was surprised when I heard that there was any question as to the liability of those who apply for transitional licences. I have indicated to the noble Lord that I should be interested to know what are the rulings of the courts which have led to doubts being raised. The noble Lord said that these had arisen because of some uncertainty as to the use of the word"power"as opposed to the word"duty ". I hope he can give us a little more information in this regard. Secondly, I apprehend from his remarks that the provision which he is now moving covers both products and manufacturers' transitional licences. Perhaps he would clarify that point. I would say that my noble friends do not propose to oppose this Bill, which is relatively significant and logical.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords. I am grateful to the noble Lord. I think that this is the first time that we have heard him speak from the Opposition Front Bench, though he did so in another place, and may I say what a pleasure it is to see him there. The noble Lord very kindly gave me notice of his first question and I am glad that he did so, because it is a highly technical, legal subject and neither he nor I are lawyers; but I have been into it and find it an interesting subject. The courts have been obliged from time to time to distinguish between the words"powers"and"duties ". There was a case in Australia, Patch v. Ebbage, in which Mr. Justice Stanley said:
" As at present advised, I incline to the view that a duty is an express or implied obligation to do something; and a power is at least a capacity conferred by the Act to do something for the purpose of fulfilling a duty under the Act."
There was another case, Regina v. Waterfield in 1963, which was heard in
574
the High Court here. The court was concerned with the question of whether an assault on a police constable was an assault in the execution of his duty. The assault consisted in driving a car from a stationary position at the constable, who was standing in its path with raised hand. Mr. Justice Ashworth said:
" The argument involves considerable difficulties. In the first place its validity depends on the construction of the section which would enable the constable not merely to require a moving vehicle to stop, but to require a stationary vehicle not to move. The court finds it unnecessary to reach a conclusion on that because, in the second place, it is to be observed that the section is merely giving a power as opposed to laying down a duty."
There has been no ruling in the courts on the use of the word"power"in Section 128(3), and there has been no occasion for there to be one, because the provisions have not yet come into effect; as I said, they come into effect on September 1. However, the Act itself distinguishes in other provisions between the exercise of a power as distinct from the performance of a duty. Thus in Sections 3(2), 67(3) and 108(4) the distinction is drawn; in Sections 28(3) and (5) and 39(2) there are references to powers conferred; and in Sections 1(2), 2(1), 3(2) and 6(2) the functions of various bodies are referred to. This leads us to the conclusion that the word"power"in Section 128(3) must be construed with some exactitude, particularly as it is a provision which presents a liability to be imposed.
Licences of right are provided for by Sections 25 to 27 of the Act, and, since these provisions refer to entitlement to the grant of a licence, it would appear that in granting such an application the licensing authority would be performing a duty rather than exercising a power. Accordingly, it is necessary to replace Section 128(3), which contains no reference to the performance of a duty, by a new provision that will relate to all applications made under the Act. I hope that that is some explanation of the reason why there is a difficulty. The answer to the other question which the noble Lord asked is: Yes, it applies to the granting of all licences, both product licences and wholesalers' and manufacturers' licences.
LORD BURNTWOOD: My Lords, I think the House is indebted to the noble

575
Lord for his explanation of the fascinating duties and responsibilities of police constables.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

INVESTMENT AND BUILDING GRANTS BILL
7.22 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Sandford.)
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, in rising to make some remarks on this Bill, I owe your Lordships' House and the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, a double apology. First of all, I did not speak on the Second Reading because I was unavoidably delayed by the running of trains. Secondly, I want to speak now because I want to draw attention to this Bill as one of the mosaic of measures anticipatory of entry to the Common Market which really do not add up to a consistent and helpful policy. As I shall not be able to speak in the provisional debate on entry into the Common Market, I should like to use this occasion to make certain remarks.
In the last few days, we have been exposed to very intensive propaganda about the advantages of entering into a larger market, the Common Market, and becoming members of the Community. We have been told that this will be especially advantageous to us, because the existence of a large market will enable our firms to adapt themselves to mass production much better than is the case at the moment, when they are restricted by the size of our market, and that we can therefore hope for a sudden transformation of our economic destiny—which at the moment I do not think even the Government would regard as very attractive. However, I fear that the policy behind this measure not merely does not add to our capacity to adapt ourselves to the Common Market, but deals a very severe blow to our capacity to resist the increased competition in the Common Market.
576
I know that the Prime Minister has a general euphoria about our present position, and believes that our current balance-of-payments surplus is sufficient to take the shock. I myself find it a little puzzling that that is the appreciation which he has been given because, on the whole, it is certain that our imports have risen in volume which, considering the increase in unemployment and the decrease in production which we have suffered, is an extraordinary conjuncture of events. Not only has that happened, but at the same time our exports rose in value, as a result of price rises, by two-thirds, but by only one-third in volume. The relative increase in imports was much greater than the relative increase in the volume of exports.
That is not a healthy situation, but that is not all. The direction of our market has changed. Whereas before we had a very healthy expansion in our exports to the Common Market, lately the Common Market has lagged behind as a market for our exports while the sterling area has been much the more prosperous market. According to the latest information which has been issued, the figures were 9 per cent. and 14 per cent. respectively. We shall undoubtedly undergo a shock when we go into the Common Market, because their protective duties are less than ours. Therefore, we shall immediately be faced with a situation in which their prices in our market will decrease more than our prices in their market. This can obviously be parried if intensified investment can be procured. Unfortunately, our general situation, which has made the current balance of payments so very favourable to us, is not conducive to an increase in investment; indeed, investment has fallen, not increased.
It is obvious that the firms which are going to be most hit are the smaller and less productive firms, and under this measure we shall move from outright grants, giving immediate relief and liquidity, to tax allowances which really amount to a delay in the receipt of the liquid resources. This Bill will favour only the bigger and more prosperous firms which have profits to be written off against their allowances. I fear, therefore, that the"think-tank"of Mr. Heath has not exactly been functioning well; or, to express it in a different way, the principles to which the Government

577
adhere so strongly have in one more case resulted in policies which are contrary to the professed aims of the Government.
Although we cannot do anything in this House about this Bill, I should like to put down a marker to the Government, through the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, that this is perhaps the least propitious measure which has been proposed apropos of our entry into the Common Market. If we go on in this way, I fear that the very great hopes which have recently been expressed by the Prime Minister—whose very great hopes at the time of the Election have already been very rudely refuted by events—will be further refuted by events, and Britain, instead of becoming a prosperous and dynamic member and leader of the Common Market, may become the Ulster of Europe.
7.29 p.m.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, on Second Reading I spoke at length, and I think with some vehemence, because I have very strong feelings against this Bill, and I should have had nothing to say this evening, except to welcome the comments of my noble friend Lord Balogh, were it not for the fact that there have been three extraordinary coincidences since the Second Reading. The first thing is the publication of the rate of investment for the first quarter of this year, which I note, according to The Times this morning, has fallen by 13 per cent. It is a horrifying figure. We were worried when the Labour Government were in office because the rate of rise was too small: we now have an absolute fall. The second thing which has happened is the debate in another place, in which the Prime Minister, in facing the fact that investment grants were in use in the E.E.C. and that there was likely to be some limitation on the size of the grant for all members of the E.E.C., in order to create non-competitiveness in this business of investment, undertook that if this situation emerged he would be prepared to reintroduce investment grants in this country at the rate then operating with our future partners in the Common Market. That was an extraordinary thing for him to commit himself to, in the light of the fact that the Bill abolishing investment grants is not yet through this House.
578
The third and perhaps even more important thing, again reported in The Times today (and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, will be able to confirm that it is true, because I welcome it), is a very substantial move indeed. In relation to investment allowances the practice followed by the Inland Revenue for many years, where such allowances applied, has been to allow companies to write off the capital value of plant, up to the limit of their investment allowances, against the profits of the previous year or of the current year. What is reported in The Times to-day is that this practice is going to be changed, and that in future firms will be entitled to set their investment allowances against capital depreciation, up to the limit allowed, against the last three years' profits. This is quite staggering. Admittedly, this applies only to capital investment in the development areas, but it is going to make a staggering difference; and it is a recognition of the fact that many of the heavier industries, and the more important industries, particularly in the development areas, have not got current profits against which to write off their capital allowances—the very point I made on Second Reading. I am not conceited enough to imagine that my speech caused the Government to change their mind, but if ever one thing followed another in logical progression those two things did so.
My Lords, this is extremely important. It is an alleviation of the rigours of the total abolition of investment grants. But I would point out that, taking into account that investment grants are not apparently being abolished in Northern Ireland because, economically, it is regarded as a very depressed area; taking into account the fact that this alleviation for capital expenditure in the development areas is being produced even before this Bill is through to alleviate the rigours of the abolition of investment grants; taking into account the drop in investment; taking into account the fact that the Prime Minister himself has now agreed that in certain circumstances he will be prepared to reintroduce investment grants at the 20 per cent. level, I think that this exercise of introducing a Bill to abolish investment grants progressively continues to look more and more absurd. I am very sorry that we can do nothing about it.
7.34 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, it is fortunate that we have a fairly flexible procedure and can discuss the Common Market and Amendments to a Bill going through the other place in the context of the Third Reading of this Bill. Nevertheless, I am glad to be able to confirm the development which the noble Lord, Lord Brown, noticed from to-day's newspaper—and I am glad he welcomes this development. The fact is that since we last debated this Bill, on July 2, the Government have introduced a significant improvement to the free depreciation allowance in the development areas. A Government Amendment to the Finance Bill introduced in another place on July 7 has had the effect of permitting companies, as the noble Lord said, to carry back any excess of free depreciation over current taxable profits and to set it off against their trading profits in the preceding three years. Previously, as he said, companies could go back only one year.
The effect of that Amendment will be that companies which have traded profitably in recent years but which are not now trading at a profit substantial enough to cover fully the free depreciation on their investment in machinery or plant in development areas will be able to reclaim corporation tax paid on the basis of trading profits of two more earlier years than was previously possible. This will provide immediate liquid funds for investment. Moreover, it will not be a requirement that the trading profits of those earlier years should have arisen from activities in a development area. Thus a company operating a new establishment in a development area will be able to offset free depreciation on development area immobile machinery or plant against profits of its trade earned in the previous years outside the development area. This new provision is therefore a valuable addition to the improved incentives available to firms moving into or expanding in development areas. I am glad to be able to confirm what the noble Lord said in those terms.
Turning to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Balogh—
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, before the noble Lord turns, as I hope he is
580
going to, to the very interesting and relevant speech of my noble friend Lord Balogh, surely he is going to answer the questions that were put by my noble friend Lord Brown. He was not asking for an explanation of what has been done in another place. We know what has been done in another place. We are perfectly capable of following the Report of proceedings there. What I think my noble friend was asking was: what is the logic of passing a Bill of this kind, even though we have got as far as the Third Reading, if it is now found necessary to back-pedal in the other place and to enhance the value of the investment allowances? What is being done there is carrying out a policy which is completely contrary to the policy of this Bill, and we cannot understand why the noble Lord, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, should wish to persist with this Bill when it is now being found essential to do something completely contrary.
LORD SANDFORD: No, my Lords, I cannot agree that that is so; it is not back-pedalling. The Bill is a change from investment grants, which was the policy of the previous Government, to tax allowances; and the change which has been made in the Finance Bill in another place is not a change back from our system to their system; it is a development of the system which this Bill introduces.
Perhaps I may now turn to the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, who was speaking of this proposal in the context of our entry into the Common Market. The noble Lord has used this occasion to develop the theme that our capacity successfully to overcome the impact of entry into Europe has been undermined by the Government's decision to replace investment grants by taxation allowances. I do not think there is any dispute between us as to the need for increased investment in industrial plant and machinery. The need exists, and it will continue to exist whether or not we join the E.E.C. The argument is much more about means, not about ends. On means, we have on many occasions made our position quite clear and there is no need to repeat all that I said at Second Reading. Put simply, our view is that investment grants were wasteful of resources because they were given to

581
profitable and unprofitable firms alike, whereas taxation allowances—
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but is it not clear that the people who most need an improvement in their capital structure, their plant and machinery, are the unsuccessful firms? The Government have already changed the tax allowances by allowing back-clawing of profits tax into the current situation. Cannot they go further and really acknowledge that capital grants have not been wasteful? The grants enabled an increase in productivity and would have allowed further increase in productivity, which at this particular, very critical juncture is more important than at any other time.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I do not think we can go back over that ground again. I recognise that there is a gulf between us and I certainly cannot bridge it. It was revealed for the umpteenth time at Second Reading. I appreciate that noble Lords opposite think that investment grants are the best way of helping in intermediate areas and development areas and in investment generally; we think taxation allowances are the best way. I do not think there is any point in continuing with that discussion; it was fully discussed at Second Reading. But I should like to continue on the point about the relevance of all this in our approach to the Common Market. Our view is that investment grants were wasteful of resources, whereas taxation allowances will encourage investment.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, the noble Lord has said twice that investment grants were wasteful of resources. This is highly offensive. There is no evidence in the possession of the Government to support this. In order to get evidence, if there was any, they would have had to intervene and explore the efficiency of every industry in the country to see how they used the money to invest. It is really distressing to hear the Government repeat this statement that investment grants were wasteful, as though all the companies who had received these grants had wasted them. That is the general inference. The Government have a different opinion from the Opposition on this, but to go on castigating thousands
582
of industries that they were wasting the support that the Labour Government provided for them through investment grants is really most painful to us.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I do not want to go on saying it, and if noble Lords will let me get on I will deal with the point the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, raised. I will not go back over the paragraph I tried to reach the end of. It has been suggested that the move away from cash grants towards the new and improved system of taxation allowances, at least as a regional incentive, may be in conflict with E.E.C. policies. Now we come to the particular point the noble Lord wanted to raise. We do not think this is the case. The E.E.C. at this moment is only in the early stages of formulating a regional policy for the Community as a whole, and so at present individual countries follow their own regional policies. A basic aim of the Treaty of Rome, stated in the Preamble, is the reduction of disparities between regions. The Community recognises the major role of member States in this and makes special provision for them to pursue their own regional policies. These individual policies vary, and some at least have similarities to our own. We see no reason why we should not be able to continue to operate vigorous regional policies in areas suffering from problems of unemployment and structural adjustment.
Nor, as we understand the position, are our own policies likely to conflict with the principles behind proposals recently made by the Commission. A major objective of the Commission's proposals is to prevent member countries from outbidding each other for investment, especially in their prosperous central areas. This appears to us entirely reasonable and, indeed, to our advantage. The Commission's purpose in proposing a common policy—they have only just begun to do this—to provide balanced economic development, coincides with our own purpose. Finally, it is our understanding that any objection which may be expressed by the E.E.C. to tax-based incentives rests on the principle that investment incentives of whatever kind should be"transparent"(the term they use) in the sense that the amount of benefit is clear to all concerned and

583
that there is no element of hidden subsidy. We believe that the new system provided for in this Bill would be regarded as quite as transparent as any of the systems now in operation in any of the E.E.C. countries, a number of which use accelerated depreciation allowances as well as grants. I hope that what I have said answers, even if it does not satisfy, the point the noble Lord raised.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I beg to move, That the House do now adjourn during pleasure until ten minutes past eight o'clock.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
8.10 p.m.
Consideration on Report resumed.
BARONESS SEEAR BARONESS SEEAR moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 126, line 22, at end insert—
(" ( ) Where the Secretary of State is satisfied that in relation to any trade or industry or section of a trade or industry, the maintenance of any one or more of the general principles set out in section 1(1) of this Act so requires, he may by order made by statutory instrument provide that any one or more of the provisions of this Act shall cease to apply to that trade or industry or section of a trade or industry as the case may be.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Archibald. This Amendment is in no sense an attack on the principles laid down in Clause 1 of this Bill; but the best of principles must, on occasion, be allowed to have exceptions. The Amendment is being moved for a very particular case, as I think many of your Lordships are aware, and for what can indeed be regarded as a unique case: the case of Equity, which has already been discussed at considerable length in debates on this Bill at previous Sittings. The reason why we are asking your Lordships to consider this Amendment is that in the case of Equity, as the noble and learned Lord,
584
Lord Gardiner, explained in the previous discussion of this subject, the theatrical profession is pre-eminently an occupation which is seriously overcrowded and which attracts to it a very large number of enthusiasts who are prepared to work under conditions which are quite abnormal in comparison with the conditions in any other kind of employment. I think it is the view of practically everybody connected with this profession that unless there is some restriction on entries into the profession, the condition, already serious, of many people in its employment will get considerably worse. Thus, the requirement to belong to Equity is a requirement quite exceptionally in the interests of people engaged in the theatrical profession.
It may well be said that the problem has been met by the inclusion of the clauses dealing with the approved closed shop. On paper, no doubt this could be used as a way of dealing with the problems of Equity, but the requirements in order to fulfil what is needed to be an approved closed shop are long and complex. It is very likely that the time that would elapse before such provision could be applied to the case of Equity would mean a serious deterioration in a profession in which the situation is already highly unsatisfactory. We are moving this Amendment because it provides a quick and simple way of dealing with a very special problem. It is the avoidance of delay and the ability to deal with the matter quickly which is of the essence of the case and the reason for our moving the Amendment. We hope, recognising, as I am sure your Lordships do, that this is a particular case, that you will look again at the Amendment and the arguments behind it, and will consider incorporating it into the Bill in the interests of this very unusual occupation.
LORD BERNSTEIN: My Lords, the other night my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder said that part of the discussions on this Bill, in the Report stage especially, have been a dialogue of the deaf. I do not know whether this Amendment moved by the noble Baroness is to be another case of a dialogue of the deaf. A number of people have spoken on the Equity and A.C.T.T. situation, and my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner made a most moving and well-balanced

585
speech about two weeks ago. Nothing has happened, and I wonder whether nothing will happen again. I should like it to go on record that I have known Equity and have worked with them for about thirty years. They have been a most responsible organisation and have made a great contribution to the theatre. I cannot see any reason why anybody who believes in industrial relations, and in advancement in industrial relations, would wish to hurt Equity in any way. There is nothing more to be said about the Equity case. It has been written about, spoken about, discussed. I urge the Minister, or the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor if he is dealing with this, to take a new look at this suggestion, in the hope that this will he the solution. I support the Amendment.
8.16 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will appreciate that we have spent a great deal of time on the Committee and the Report stage of this Bill in discussing this problem. This is not the last ditch but the penultimate ditch, because there is one further proposal with which the Government are acquainted, and I do not know whether we can have any reference at all to that to-night. In fact, it is not covered by this particular Amendment. It may be that the Government feel that this Amendment is drawn a little wide. One could understand that. But I have no doubt that the noble Baroness, and the others who sponsored this Amendment, have put it down because we are assured, by those who have knowledge, that the Bill as it stands does not achieve the object as far as Equity is concerned. We have said this on a number of occasions and have tried various means of meeting the Government's points and at the same time trying to help a union which, as my noble friend Lord Bernstein has said, is regarded by those who have worked with it as a model of its kind. It is they who keep assuring us that they just do not believe that the Bill in its present form can conceivably work. They consider that the sort of timetable which is envisaged in the procedure just will not prove practical in the conditions which apply in the theatrical and cinematographical industries. They also feel that the assurances
586
given by the Secretary of State for Employment—absolutely sincere, as we are sure they are—because they will depend on completely fresh legislation, simply will not be enacted in time.
Therefore, the purpose of this Amendment is to provide a speedier method, and if our apprehensions prove correct, then the Secretary of State will be able to give effect to the pledges which he has given much more rapidly than if he had to embark on a completely fresh Bill, going through all its stages in both Houses of Parliament. It is as simple as that. We just do not believe that the Bill is adequate. The Secretary of State says that it may not be; he admits that there is an element of doubt. He has given his word that if the apprehensions prove correct they will be met, but he has suggested doing so by legislation. It is suggested here that if further action is required he should take powers in this Bill to do it by Statutory Instrument. I hope very much that after all the discussion that we have had and the hours that we have spent on this problem, which is still unresolved, the Government will accept this as a possible method of getting round these difficulties,
This leaves it completely open to the Secretary of State. He is under no compulsion. He will be listening to arguments as to the way in which the Bill has in fact worked out in practice. He will have complete discretion as to whether or not he wishes to introduce a Statutory Instrument. This gives him the opportunity to carry out the pledge which he has given in writing, which we have all seen, but to do it in a timely way, which will at least remove the very deep anxiety—and I would stress this to your Lordships—that Equity feel, that the organisation which has been built up over years will be ruined. Your Lordships may think that that is an exaggeration, but that is the view they take. They do not believe that they can hold the position with the Bill as it stands with the kind of procedure which they will be obliged to go through, and they are really fearful for the state of their organisation. Therefore the question of time is of the essence, and use of a Statutory Instrument, as we all know, is a much more rapid way of proceeding when trying to find a place in the always overcrowded

587
list of legislation. I hope that these arguments will prevail on the Government and that they will see fit to accept the Amendment.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: My Lords, this Amendment is to enable the Secretary of State to exempt particular trades or industries or sections of them from the provisions of the Bill. If, for example, the Secretary of State were to give Equity exemption, I ask whether any other union could take advantage of that and also ask for exemption. It is difficult in legislation to allow one party to get out of the provisions of an Act. I ask whether there would be any possibility of other unions being able to claim exemption under this measure if this Amendment were accepted.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, surely this points to the weakness of the whole situation. The noble Earl, Lord Balfour, has just told us that if this provision gave one particular union the possibility—but only if the Secretary of State agrees—of opting out of certain conditions of this Bill, it would open that possibility to everyone else. That seems to me to have been the thinking throughout this Bill in many respects: if the slightest concession is made to some of the professions, well then there is the danger that all kinds of trades will use it for their own ends. But it still rests with the Government; it still rests with the Secretary of State. I hope that the Government will take a liberal view of this matter and preserve for themselves a certain freedom of action.
8.22 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I cannot help thinking that it was a little ungrateful of the noble Lord, Lord Platt, to make that last interjection, because the suggestion he made was that we were resisting the slightest concession. Yet he knows perfectly well that we have made concession after concession throughout the passage of this Bill. There was a notable concession this afternoon, and I need go no further back than the time just before we adjourned during pleasure. It is not good enough, after we have made concession after concession to professions, to say that we are not prepared to make the slightest concession.
588
There was a great deal in what my noble friend Lord Balfour said. I was much relieved, when the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, moved the Amendment, to know that within this extremely wide frame of words all that she and the noble Lord, Lord Bernstein, and the noble Baroness, Lady White, were really concerned with was one particular union. As noble Lords will remember, we have had a great deal of discussion about that particular union, and I suppose it is not the least bit of good my repeating what we have said again and again; that is, that we have not the slightest intention of letting Equity die. We are not in the least bit convinced that the solitary peg upon which its future continued existence depends is a pre-entry closed shop or, as the union prefers to call it, a point of entry closed shop.
Not a single Member of your Lordships' House who has spoken has even pretended to support that case to-day, and that is the point at which we become a little sceptical. We have made provisions which have within their purview employees among a group of two unions only which are specially protected. It may be that those particular provisions are not by themselves enough, but we have again and again stated our belief that any further protection that is required could be provided by agreement between the union and the employer on conditions of entry into the theatrical profession, provided that such conditions did not include a pre-entry condition of membership of a particular trade union. We do not believe that that is necessary.
Certainly listening to the case which was presented on this Amendment I have heard no speaker so far produce the smallest scintilla of evidence that that is necessary. I accept, of course, that people are anxious, and the noble Baroness was right to say that they were anxious about it. But what one has to consider in this case is not simply public anxiety, whether the anxieties are justified or not. The partticular anxiety which has to be justified here is the belief, for which no evidence has been provided, that, despite the provisions for a post-entry closed shop retained in the Bill and despite the possibility of arriving at conditions of entry into the profession other than a pre-entry closed shop which could be negotiated with the existing employers' association,

589
only a pre-entry closed shop will do. This is not self-evident and there has been no evidence put forward to support it.
I must remain completely agnostic on the truth of it. We have said again and again that we respect Equity, that we respect the theatrical profession, but we do not believe that it will die and we do not intend that it should. I am not at all convinced that legislation is the only means by which to protect Equity. Another assertion made by the noble Baroness was that it might die so quickly that no help could be brought. That is another unproved assertion made by the noble Baroness—but none of these things is clear. I was relieved when the noble Baroness who proposed the Amendment—I was speaking a sentence ago about the noble Baroness. Lady White—suggested that this wide frame of words applied to only one union. It applies, as my noble friend Lord Balfour pointed out, not only to one union but it has in its phraseology the very dispensing power which cost James II his throne, although in those clays there was not the protection of a Statutory Instrument for some degree of Parliamentary control which in another context every Member of this House has in his Parliamentary career, which was totally inadequate but which now exists.
My noble friend Lord Balfour, was perfectly right, but he did not go nearly far enough. This Amendment, if passed, would allow the Secretary of State, on his simple say-so, to dispense with any union—or, I may add, any employers' association, because it is not limited to unions; and that is where my noble friend did not go far enough—from any provisions of the Bill or, so far as I can make out, from all of them, simply on his say-so and on the ground that any one of the principles in Clause 1 of the Bill would thereby be assured. As a matter of fact, it would not give much comfort to Equity if this Amendment were accepted, because the case for Equity, as I understand it, is not that the principles of the Bill are in jeopardy if a pre-entry closed shop is not accepted. This is far from being their contention. Their contention is that if a pre-entry closed shop is not accepted, the theatrical profession will be flooded with large numbers of entrants who will jeopardise the standard of life of those who practise in it.
590
But that is not provided for in the Amendment. So now you have an Amendment which would enable the Secretary of State to dispense with the whole law, on his simple say-so, by Statutory Instrument, subject to the degree of Parliamentary control which that involves, if he is satisfied that one or more of the principles in the Bill are thereby assured, when in fact all he had in mind is the particular situation of an unusual union for which special provision has been made in the Bill and whose particular case does not depend on any of the single principles in Clause 1. Of all the attractive solutions that have been prescribed at one time or another for this particular problem, this is probably the least satisfactory. But we shall continue to consider this matter. All I am concerned with now is this particular Amendment. I would say to the House that, whatever the other merits of the question, this is scraping the bottom of the barrel.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord said that he would be good enough to continue considering the matter, which is always a welcome phrase, and that this was a very wide Amendment. I do not think anybody disputes that; but the noble and learned Lord referred to all the other attractive Amendments which had been put before the House. The trouble about those is that they have all been turned down, and at the end of the day one is compelled to do something. As we get nearer and nearer to the end of the Bill, the particular form of the Amendment has very much to be tailored to what little ground is left on which to place it. The noble and learned Lord said that our anxiety was, and indeed is—and we are grateful that he understands it so well—that before the care which he has in mind could be applied, Equity might die and there would be no proof. The last thing that we want to do is to be in a position to prove the noble and learned Lord wrong by producing the body.
This is a very wide Amendment and of course it is for the noble Baroness who moved it to decide what to do. It is easy for the noble and learned Lord to make the case that this is not the most suitable Amendment. Perhaps those of us who are very concerned about this

591
matter but feel that it could be dealt with perhaps in a slightly different way, will feel that there is some consolation to be drawn from the noble and learned Lord's remarks that he still has the matter under consideration.
BARONESS SEEAR: My Lords, since the noble and learned Lord said that he would keep this matter under consideration and since there will be a further opportunity to discuss it at Third Reading, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 166 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
8.35 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD LORD BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 98C:
Page 127, line 9, at end insert (" or of different provisions of any enactment so specified ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is intended to give greater flexibility to the provisions for the amendment and repeal of existing legislation. We submit that there are advantages in having such a power in reserve. For instance, an Amendment has been accepted (No. 93A) enabling the Secretary of State to make regulations concerning nominations by members of trade unions. That was dealt with last night. The present procedure operates under Section 10 of the Trade Union Act Amendment Act 1876 and it will be useful in that case to have the power to defer repeal of Section 10 when the rest of the Act is repealed. It may turn out that the power does not need to be used, but it is clear that some flexibility is desirable, in view of the large number of enactments amended or repealed in Schedules 8 and 9, and I hope that the House will agree that it is a wise precaution to make this Amendment. I beg to move.
LORD BELSTEAD LORD BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 98G:
Page 127, line 15, leave out (" as appears ") and insert (" or savings as appear ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, under the power conferred by subsection (2) of this clause, the Bill will be brought into operation in different stages, and subsection
592
(4) allows the Secretary of State to make such transitional arrangements as are necessary for the partial operation of the Act. But we are not certain that subsection (4) is wide enough to provide for satisfactory arrangements concerning the existing rules governing industrial tribunals. At present, industrial tribunals operate under regulations made by the Secretary of State in consequence of powers conferred by the Redundancy Payments Act 1965. The relevant sections of that Act are repealed in Section 9, and Clause 100(2) provides that the parallel provisions in Schedule 6 of the Bill will have effect in substitution for them. The problem is the volume of work involved. It is not entirely certain that it will be possible to re-write all these provisions before the Act comes into force. This Amendment will enable the existing regulations to continue so long as is necessary. This could possibly be done under subsection (4) as it stands at the moment; but the Amendment, by referring to the word"savings ", puts beyond doubt both the Government's intentions and the power taken under this subsection. I beg to move.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I do not wish to delay the House but I should like to ask one question. Can the noble Lord tell me where in this Amendment, or in the clause that it seeks to amend, the Secretary of State is compelled to bring in any part of the Bill at any particular time? We were much entertained during a previous Amendment by the statement that the Secretary of State could do almost anything. I want to be assured that it is not a case that the Secretary of State can refrain for ever from bringing in any part of the Bill.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I do not know that we are entirely on the same point. The effect of the Amendment is purely transitional. It is simply to continue the status quo until new regulations about industrial tribunals can be re-written. I do not think that I was putting the same point as the noble Lord.
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS moved Amendment No. 98E:
Page 127, line 30, at end insert (" or to the Merchant Shipping Act 1970 ").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is another small technical Amendment which refers to the Northern Ireland Government. The Government of Ireland Act 1920 reserves to Westminster the right to legislate on certain matters, including merchant shipping. Tucked away in Schedule 8 to this Bill is a small Amendment to the Merchant Shipping Act 1970. It has been pointed out that, for the sake of consistency, the Amendment should extend to Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Schedule 8 [Enactments Amended]:
8.40 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD LORD BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 98L:
Page 165, line 14, at end insert—

" The Conspiracy, and Protection of Property Act 1875 (33 & Vict. c. 86).

In section 3, for the words"a trade dispute"there shall be substituted the words"an industrial dispute within the meaning of the Industrial Relation Act 1971 ".")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 98L. The purpose of this Amendment is simply to ensure that the definition of"industrial dispute"in the Bill applies to the words"trade dispute"in Section 3 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act of 1875. This proposal was, of course, contained in the earlier Amendment (No. 97F) to Clause 163, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, and the House will be grateful to the noble Lords for drawing this point to our attention. The only reason for not accepting their Amendment as it stood was that in our view this Schedule and this form of words were rather more appropriate to an Amendment of this sort. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 98H:
Page 165, line 22, column 2, after (" 1971 ") insert (" not being an organisation for the time being entered in the special register maintained under section 84 of that Act ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment. Its purpose is to exclude organisations on the special register from the scope of the Trade
594
Union Act 1913 so that they are not subject to the restraints imposed by the Act on expenditure for political purposes. The 1913 Act is amended by Schedules 8 and 9 in such a way that the only provisions remaining operative will be those relating to restraints on expenditure for political purposes. These are not appropriate to the types of organisations which will be admitted to the special register; that is to say, organisations which are incorporated by Charter or Letters Patent or which are registered under the Companies Act 1948. Political activities are outside the normal range of activities carried on by chartered bodies and if any organisation registered as a company were to adopt political objects it would be required by Section 19 of the Companies Act 1967 to publish details of such expenditure. To apply the provisions of the Trade Union Act 1913 would, I suggest, only create unnecessary duplication. I beg to move.
LORD BELSTEAD LORD BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 98J:
Page 166, line 15, at end insert—

(" The Road Haulage Wages Act, 1938(1 & 2 Geo. 6. c. 44).

In section 15(1), for the definition of"Trade Union"there shall be substituted the words"' Trade Union ' means an organisation of workers within the meaning of the Industrial Relations Act 1971 ".)

The Industrial Assurance and Friendly Societies Act 1948(11 & 12 Geo. 6. c. 39)

In section 6(1), for the words"or a trade union (whether registered or unregistered)"there shall be substituted the words"an organisation of workers within the meaning of the Industrial Relations Act 1971, or an organisation of employers within the meaning of that Act ".

In section 16(4), for the words"trade union"there shall be substituted the words"organisation of workers or organisation of employers ".

The Insurance Companies Act 1958 (6 & 7 Eliz. 2. c. 72)

In section 1, in subsection (5), the words"or to trade unions"shall be omitted, and after that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection:
" (5A) Where an organisation is either—

(a) a trade union or an employers' association within the meaning of the Industrial Relations Act 1971, or

(b) an organisation for the time being entered in the provisional register maintained under section 78 of that Act,

carries on insurance business, this Act does not apply to it as an insurance company if the insurance business is limited to the provision for its members of provident benefits or strike benefits ".")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of the House I should like to speak on Amendments Nos. 98J and 98K together since their purposes are related. The three parts of the first Amendment, 98J, together with Amendment 98K are each needed to maintain broadly the present application of the Acts mentioned. Each of these Acts applies in some way to trade unions, and with the re-definition of that term in this Bill it is necessary to make clear how the Acts will henceforth apply and whether to unregistered or registered organisations.
The Amendment retains the present practice of applying parts of the Road Haulage Wages Act 1938 and the Industrial Assurance and Friendly Societies Act 1948 to both registered and unregistered organisations. The Amendment to the Insurance Companies Act 1958 and the Amendment to the Companies Act 1967 together ensure that registered organisations of workers and employers, including those on the provisional register will continue to be able to undertake insurance business without having to have their activities regulated by the Insurance Companies Act. The associated repeals in these two Acts are set out in Amendments Nos. 99E and 101 to Schedule 9. The Amendments to Schedule 8 are designed to ensure that the re-definition of a trade union's objects in this Bill will have no significant effect on the types of insurance business in which trade unions and employers' associations are permitted to engage. I beg to move.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. The only question I should like to ask him is that, inasmuch as his speech was exactly the same speech as I would have anticipated if these Amendments had appeared at the Committee stage instead of the Report stage, could he kindly explain what change in the Bill has necessitated, or what change in Government thinking has necessitated, the introduction of these provisions at this stage?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I do not think there is any change. I am consolidating what has been agreed—I know not with the agreement of noble Lords opposite—in Committee and at Report in our previous proceedings.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 98F:
Page 167, column 2, leave out lines 10 to 13 and insert—
(" In section 1—

(a) in subsection (1)(a), for the words"two or more trade unions may amalgamate and become one trade union"there shall be substituted the words"two or more organisations to which this Act applies may amalgamate and become one such organisation ", for the words"those unions"there shall be substituted the words"those organisations ", and for the words"amalgamating unions"there shall be substituted the words"amalgamating organisations ";

(b) in subsection (1)(b), for the words"a trade union may transfer its engagements to any other trade union"there shall be substituted the words"an organisation to which this Act applies may transfer its engagements to any other such organisation ", and for the words"transferor union"there shall be substituted the words"transferor organisation ";

(c) after subsection (1) there shall be inserted—

" (1A) In this Act"organisation to which this Act applies"means an organisation which is either—

(a) an organisation of workers within the meaning of the Act of 1971, not being an organisation for the time being entered in the special register, or

(b) an organisation of employers within the meaning of that Act, not being an organisation which is for the time being registered as a company under the Companies Act 1948,

but which (in either case) is not a Northern Ireland union.";

(d) in subsections (2) to (6), for the words"the union"wherever they occur,"a trade union"and"any trade union"there shall be substituted respectively the words"the organisation ","an organisation"and"any organisation ".

In section 2—

(a) for the words"trade unions"and"a trade union ", wherever they occur, there shall be substituted respectively the words"organisation"and"an organisation "; and

(b) for the word"union"wherever it occurs (except as part of the expression"trade union ") there shall be substituted the word organisation ".

In section 3—

(a) for the words"Where a trade union proposes to transfer its engagements to

597
another trade union"there shall be substituted the words"Where an organisation to which this Act applies proposes to transfer its engagements to another such organisation "; and

(b) for the word"union"wherever it occurs (except as part of the expression"trade union ") there shall be substituted the word"organisation ".

In section 4—

(a) for the words"a trade union"there shall be substituted the words"an organisation to which this Act applies ";

(b) for the words"the union"and"the trade union ", wherever they occur, there shall be substituted the words"the organisation "; and

(c) for the words"the High Court ", wherever they occur, there shall be substituted the words"the National Industrial Relations Court ".

In section 5—

(a) for the words"trade union"and"trade unions ", wherever they occur, there shall be substituted respectively the words"organisation"and"organisations ";

(b) for the words"unions"and"union ", wherever they occur (except as part of the expression"trade unions"or"trade union ") there shall be substituted respectively the words"organisations"and"organisation ".

In section 6—

(a) in subsections (1) and (3), for the words"a trade union"there shall be substituted the words"an organisation to which this Act applies ", and for the words"the union"there shall he substituted the words"the organisation ";

(b) for subsection (2) there shall he substituted—

" (2) In the case of a trade union or an employers' asociation, a change of name shall not take effect until it is registered by the Registrar under this Act; and the Registrar shall not register a change of name if it is identical with that by which another organisation is for the time being registered as a trade union or employers' association under the Act of 1971 or this Act, or by which an organisation is for the time being entered in the special register, or if it is a name so nearly resembling the name by which another organisation is so registered or entered as, in the opinion of the Registrar, to be likely to deceive."

In section 9(1), for the words from"the amalgamating unions"to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the following words—

" the Act of 1971" means the Industrial Relations Act 1971;

" the amalgamating organisations"and"the amalgamated organisation ", in relation to a proposed amalgamation, mean respectively the organisations proposing to amalgamate and the organisation which is to result from the proposed amalgamation;

" employers' association"has the same meaning as in the Act of 1971;

598

" Northern Ireland union"has the meaning assigned to it by section 10 of this Act;

" organisation to which this Act applies"has the meaning assigned to it by section 1(1A) of this Act;

" the Registrar ", in relation to any matter authorised or required by or under this Act to be dealt with by the Registrar, means—

(a) the Chief Registrar of Trade Unions and Employers' Associations, or

(b) any assistant registrar appointed under section 63 of the Act of 1971 who, in accordance with any general or special directions given by the said Chief Registrar, is authorised or required to act in relation to that matter;

" the special register"means the register maintained under section 84 of the Act of 1971;

" trade union"has the same meaning as in the Act of 1971;

" the transferor organisation"and"the transferee organisation," in relation to a proposed transfer of engagements, mean respectively the organisation proposing to transfer its engagements and the organisation proposing to accept them.

In section 10(2), for the words"a trade union ", there shall be substituted the words"an organisation to which this Act applies ".
In Schedule 1, for the words"the trade union"and"the union ", wherever they occur, there shall be substituted the words"the organisation ".
In Schedule 2—

(a) in paragraph 1, for the words"a trade union"there shall be substituted the words an organisation to which this Act applies ";

(b) in paragraph 2(1), for the words the trade union or trade unions"there shall be substituted the words"the organisation or organisations "; and

(c) in paragraph 4, for the words"is to be a trade union or"there shall be substituted the words"is, or is not, to be ".")

The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. The effect of this Amendment is to apply the provisions of the Trade Union (Amalgamations) Act 1964 to organisations of workers and employers as defined in Clauses 61 and 63 of the Bill, and to transfer responsibility for the administration of the Act from the Registrar of Friendly Societies to the Registrar of Trade Unions and Employers' Associations. The Amendment incorporates and replaces the Amendment to Section 4 subsection (8) which is at present included in the Schedule. This is a consequential Amendment to the Act which follows from Clause 114 subsection (2) of the Bill. The changes look very formidable

599
in character but the purpose is very simple. I naturally asked whether it would have been possible to have expressed this in shorter language, but I am told that this is the most convenient way to do it for the future.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I assume he was speaking to 98F. It was not all that clear. As I have read these provisions I understand that what the Government have been good enough to do is to change their mind with regard to non-registered unions—and we are very grateful for any change of mind in that direction—and to apply the helpful provisions of the Act which permits mergers and amalgamations to organisations of workers as well as to trade unions.
I should like to thank him for that, and to say that in this case I therefore understand why this Amendment is brought in, namely, that when the Government started out they had a different policy in mind and, during the course of the debates, they have been persuaded to change it very very slightly. I take the opportunity of saying this because when large Amendments are introduced we are entitled to know why it is that they are introduced at the Report Stage. From a previous answer one might have thought that it was the deliberate policy of the Government to introduce a Bill that was incomplete and to maintain its incompleteness until one got to the Report Stage. I am sure the Government did not have that intention, and so I hope the noble Lord, when we come to the remaining Amendments, will be good enough to explain what changes in Government thinking during Report Stage have produced Amendments which the Government are seeking to produce. I hope I have made it clear. I merely got up to say,"Thank you ".
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful for the noble Lord's thanks. They seemed to take several sentences but I am nonetheless grateful for his thanks. But may say quite frankly to the House that a Bill of this length and complexity, and the length of the Committee Stage, made us doubtful whether Amendments which were not obviously of a contentious nature ought to be poured into the Marshalled List at the Committee stage, and
600
for that reason we retained some Amendments until the Report stage. I see nothing whatsoever improper in that. We have to arrange the business of the House in a way which is tolerable to the House and I hope that this is tolerable. This is not a complicated Amendment and it is not a matter on which we have changed our minds.
Of course you can have amalgamations of organisations and workers, whether they are registered or not. Amalgamations may take place between registered organisations and unregistered organisations. If they are pure amalgamations they will have no doubt to rewrite their rules and apply for registration. If, on the other hand, there has been a takeover by a trade union of an organisation of workers, then the rules of the registered trade union will apply and no further action will be required. There is no mystery about this, but I thought I ought to make the position quite clear.
8.51 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: With great respect, my Lords, this seems rather curious Parliamentary doctrine. I am well aware that in this House, as opposed to another place, one can still make Amendments on Third Reading. It surprises me that the Government should say,"We did not put things down at the Committee stage because the Marshalled List was overcrowded and we thought we would leave them for Report." Is that entirely fair to your Lordships' House? Is that entirely fair to the Opposition? I am not pretending for a moment that this is, in substance, an Amendment to which we take exception. Now we have the Leader of the House with us perhaps we could have his judgment on the matter. It has been put to us that the Government deliberately kept back from the Marshalled List Amendments which they have always intended to make, and because they thought that the Committee stage Marshalled List was rather overcrowded they decided that they would keep the Amendments for the Report stage. Surely this is not the normal way in which one conducts legislation. The Opposition are entitled to know at the Committee stage that the Government are proposing to put down Amendments. Although we are not entirely deprived of our rights because of the procedure on

601
Third Reading, it might have been that although the Government supposed that this was not contentious we might have wished to probe further on some matter. I do not think we ought to let this pass without question.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think—
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, may I speak further to that point? I have an extra point to which I hope the noble Earl will reply, and as he may not speak too often at this stage, even though he is the Leader of the House, I hope he will allow me to make it. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, gave us a good, courteous explanation of why these Amendments were not put down at Committee stage, and the noble Baroness answered that point; and I think that is right. What the noble Lord. Lord Drumalbyn did not tell us is why they were not put down at Committee stage in the other place, because there has not been any particular change in Government thinking on this matter. I submit that the only possible answer to this is the very true answer that an Irish plumber gave to my father when he complained that water was leaking into the dining room from pipes which the plumber had installed. When asked by my father, in a furious rage, why this had happened, the plumber replied."Sheer incompetence, yer Honour; sheer incompetence." I think that is the only answer the Government can give.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady White, asked me a point, not on the question of competence or incompetence but relating to procedures in this House. I heard only the tail end of the discussion, but these particular Amendments have been down for something like a week, which is a not unreasonable period. They are on the Schedules to the Bill and they are completely uncontentious. I see nothing in that which is contrary to the procedure of your Lordships' House. I do not wish to be contentious at this late stage, but there have been periods during our discussions on this Bill where I have noticed procedures which were not in conformity with the traditions of your Lordships' House.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 98K.
Amendment moved—
Page 167, line 13, at end insert—

(" The Companies Act 1967 (1967 c. 81)

In section 60(1), in paragraph (c) the words"or to trade unions"shall be omitted, and after paragraph (d) there shall be inserted the following paragraph:
" (e) an organisation which is either a trade union or an employers' association within the meaning of the Industrial Relations Act 1971 or an organisation for the time being entered in the provisional register maintained under section 78 of that Act, where the insurance business carried on by the organisation is limited to the provision for its members of provident benefits or strike benefits ".")

Schedule 9 [Enactments Repealed]:
8.57 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 98D:
Page 167, leave out lines 25 and 26.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment was put down at an earlier stage, when it tied up with an earlier Amendment which we moved and discussed, and we were hoping that the Government would welcome this Amendment. This deals with the Trade Union Act 1871 and with the related matter of tax treatment of provident funds. I do not know whether the noble Lord has anything further to say on that issue at this point of time. There was a very acceptable undertaking by the Government to give the matter full consideration. I am hopeful that some accommodation will be reached between now and Third Reading. If that were the case, would the position be that the Government would seek to make such adjustments in this Schedule as were necessary? If so, I do not think I need delay the House any further. But I do not want the Government unwittingly to allow a door to close against themselves at this stage if we have an opportunity now of keeping it open in case somebody wants to pass through it at a later stage.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord has moved this Amendment

603
with reference to one particular problem, but he will recognise that if it becomes possible to deal with that problem it will not necessarily be the case that it will be dealt with in this way. He will be equally well aware that it is not our policy that the Act of 1871 should remain on the Statute Book. It is our view that no part of the 1871 Act will still be relevant after this Bill takes effect. The noble Lord has made reference to the income tax aspect of this matter. That is a subject which we are considering, but I have nothing more to say about it this evening. I should like to make the position about the 1871 Act clear this Bill is the first comprehensive legislation in industrial relations since 1871—certainly in this century. The 1871 Act gave rise to a number of Acts; that was the parent Act. It is necessary to replace outdated and piecemeal legislation which has built up and which is no longer appropriate to modern conditions.
I must explain why we are leaving this out. It is because the Act of 1871 had two objects in particular: first, to relieve trade unions from certain criminal and civil liabilities arising from the application of the doctrine of restraint of trade. Clause 136 of the Bill ensures that all organisations of workers and employers will continue to enjoy this protection. The 1871 Act also established a system of registration for trade unions and this is completely replaced by the provisions in Part IV of the Bill. Its retention would create confusion because two systems of registration would be operating side by side, each imposing rather different requirements on similar organisations which are nevertheless defined in different terms. Moreover, these organisations could continue to enjoy the various existing benefits of registration, including in particular relief from taxation of their provident expenditure. We have already debated this subject and, as I said, we are considering it further.
Trade unions which continue to be registered under the new provisions in the Bill will continue to enjoy these tax advantages. Those unions which, for their own purposes, do not want to continue as registered organisations can still,
604
despite what the noble Lord said the other day, obtain broadly similar tax treatment of their provident funds if they are prepared to separate these from their other funds. The Government cannot accept that the registration provisions of the 1871 Act should be continued for this purpose alone. The 1871 Act deals at some length with the function and status of trade union trustees. Part IV of the Bill obviates the need for unions to rely on trustees to hold their property, since it provides for them to be given corporate status upon registration. Registered organisations will not, of course, be precluded from continuing to make use of trustees if they so wish, but the specific provisions of the 1871 Act which relate to them will no longer be necessary.
Other provisions of the 1871 Act which are replaced by various parts of the Bill are Section 5 concerning registration under the Companies Act and the Acts relating to friendly societies, and Sections 19 to 23 which deal with legal proceedings under the Act. This leaves Section 4, which provided that nothing in the 1871 Act would enable any court to entertain any legal proceeding instituted with the object of directly enforcing or recovering damages for the breach of certain agreements between, for the most part, members of a trade union. The intention of those provisions was that the internal and domestic agreements of trade unions should be excluded from the jurisdiction of the courts. For our part, we believe, as did the majority of the Donovan Commission—it is in paragraph 815 of their Report—that there is now no compelling reason why a contract entered into by organisations of workers and employers should be placed on a different footing from other contracts as regards enforceability. All this is overtaken by the present Bill, and we therefore do not intend that this section of the 1871 Act should be incorporated in the provisions of the Bill.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, the observations of the noble Lord indicate how this Bill in some ways goes back prior to the 1871 position, because now it will be possible for organisations of workers to be prosecuted and damages and compensation awarded in the way, indicated, which has not been the

605
position since the 1871 Act. This is a matter which I should like to place on record in these closing stages.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said, for two particular reasons. First I want to thank him for repeating that the tax matter is still under consideration. As he has said that in the context of an Amendment to deal with this particular point he would not wish, at a later stage, to say that if we had only kept this door open we could have dealt with the matter in a certain way. It follows from what he has said that whatever decision is come to in regard to the tax matter there will have to be an appropriate adjustment to the Schedule during the Third Reading. The other thing I am grateful to him for saying is the matter referred to by my noble friend Lord Popplewell. I am grateful to him for pointing out that it is 100 years of liberties and freedoms which are being withdrawn by this Bill. We ought to get that very firmly on the record. If we have had to wait 100 years for this Bill, I only hope that we shall have to wait for at least another 100 years for another Bill like it. My only consolation lies in the fact that I trust and devoutly believe that if there is such another Bill in 100 years' time I shall not be called upon to speak for the Opposition on it. With your Lordships' permission, I seek leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.5 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 98B:
Page 167, line 33, at end insert—

(" 38 & 39 Vict. c. 90.

The Employers and Workmen Act 1875.

In section 3, the words from"(3) Where the court"onwards

In Section 7, the words from"The court may, if the person so summoned"onwards, Section 8.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to repeal those provisions of the 1875 Act which give discretionary power to order performance of a contract by manual workers (including apprentices), which are in conflict with the mandatory prohibition
606
in Clause 128 of the Bill against a court order for specific performance. The related Amendment to Clause 128 clarifies this position.
I think I should say a word or two about this Amendment because of the interest of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, in it. At the Committee stage we agreed that the powers under the 1875 Act for a court to order performance of a contract are to some extent in conflict with the terms of Clause 128 of the Bill and we have already put that right. Moreover, in considering the Act as a whole we are bound, as I mentioned during Committee, by the longstanding and well-established convention that there should not be put into a repeals Schedule anything that is not consequential upon the terms of the Bill. There are provisions in the Act which have no relationship to the Bill before us. I am referring to the following Amendment which would leave out the whole clause. Perhaps we may discuss that at the same time. When this clause was raised previously I referred to Section 11 of the Act which prohibits in certain circumstances the setting up of deductions against wages due to women and young persons covered by the Factories Acts and represents an attempt to remedy an abuse of the Truck Acts, which as your Lordships know are still in force. Again, although Clause 112 of the Bill provides for the transfer to industrial tribunals by statutory order of the power to hear cases for recovery of damages for breach of contract, I should make it clear that until such transfer takes effect these cases will continue to be heard in the ordinary courts.
As the noble and learned Lords, Lord Gardiner and Lord Donovan, pointed out at Committee stage, the provisions of the Act have been rarely invoked for a number of years. However, the Donovan Commission, though noting that employers did not use the jurisdiction set up by the Act to sue strikers, adopted a cautious approach to the question of repeal. They recommended that most of the provisions of the Act might be repealed when all jurisdiction arising from the contract of employment was concentrated in industrial tribunals. We do not necessarily dissent from that view, but it clearly does not justify a total repeal of the Act at this point in time.
We have therefore concluded that in Schedule 9 we should provide for the repeal of Section 3(3), the final sentence of Section 7, and Section 8 of the 1875 Act, dealing with the power to order specific performance of a contract. We do not feel that we should take away the power of a magistrates' court under Section 7 of the Act to order a guarantor to pay damages for a breach by an apprentice of his contract of apprenticeship. This is quite distinct from the enforcement of the performance of a contract.
My Lords, in relation to the remainder of the Act, where sections have not already been repealed by other enactments, we consider that the repeal of these sections might appropriately be a matter for consideration by the Law Commission with a view to inclusion in a future Statute Law Revision measure. As I indicated, Section 11 is one such measure.
I would suggest, my Lords, that this Amendment, together with the related Amendment No. 90A to Clause 128, goes as far as is possible at the present time to meet the proposals put forward by noble Lords opposite, with which, as I indicated in the Committee stage, we really have sympathy, and we are grateful to noble Lords for having drawn the point to our attention. In the circumstances, I hope that noble Lords will agree with this Amendment and will not press their Amendment No. 90A to abolish the whole Act. I beg to move.
9.10 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I have already expressed my noble and learned friend's apologies to the House for not being able to be here. As your Lordships know, he has taken a particular interest in the subject of the Employers and Workmen Act 1875. To save time, may I mention the point of the succeeding Amendment, No. 98A, which appears in his and in my name. As the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, reminded us, he moved Amendment No. 90A because, as he said, if he did not move it there would be a clash between the 1875 Act and Clause 128 of this Bill. That sounds an interesting and adequate reason. Therefore, he asked the House to add to the Bill the following words:
608
" Any power conferred on a court by the Employers and Workmen Act 1875—

(a) to accept security for the performance of a person's contract, or

(b) having accepted such security, to order performance of the contract accordingly, shall cease to be exercisable.

The Amendment that we now have before us, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, seeks to leave out certain words from that same ill-starred Act, the Employers and Workmen Act 1875. As my noble and learned friend pointed out (I have the Act beside me, and I may say that I have verified it), the words which the noble Lord now seeks to leave out from that Act are the very words, unless I am mistaken, which conferred the powers which the noble Lord, by his Amendment No. 98A, said were not to be exercisable. If that is right, may I put this question to the noble Lord: can he cite any precedent in any other Statute in which, when you read half way through the Statute you are told that the power to do X, Y, Z is not to be exercisable, and when you get to the end of the Statute you are told that the powers do not exist anyhow? I should be interested to know whether there is any Statute like that on the Statute Book. I have never come across it myself, and I should be very surprised if I did. If this is a Statute very much sui generis which possesses this wholly remarkable feature, perhaps we ought to place it on record and congratulate the Government on having conceived a rather exquisite new drafting system which will be the curiosity of future judges.
Fortunately, learned judges are admirable, and the judicial bench has not infrequently rescued Parliament from its own language, and I daresay this will be another occasion when they are called upon to do so. But it is a little hard to add to the burdens which they already have to carry. Having said that, I cannot raise any great objection in principle to the removal of these words. I think it is a pity that Amendment No. 98A was moved, as has already been said.
If I may say one word on the Amendment of my noble friend, I could put the argument in a nutshell. When your Lordships listened to his speech you may well have thought that the 1875 Act, after

609
all the changes made in it, really emerged as little more than a piece of mangled nonsense; and perhaps it would have been a good idea, tradition or not tradition, to use this Repeals Schedule to get rid of that Act once and for all. It has very little value: if it has some value in relation to the Truck Acts that part of it could be preserved perfectly well and the rest of the Act got rid of. I therefore do not resist the noble Lord's Amendment and in due course when the next Amendment is called I will ask leave to withdraw it.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said about not moving his next Amendment. I, too, have the Act here and quite honestly I do not think that the rather knockabout remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, were really justified by the facts. I see exactly what is left out. The Act may have been eroded by time, but I do not think it could be said to be mangled. What was taken out was taken out because of, among other things, considerations concerning the change in the constitutional position of Ireland; so he really is not justified in saying that it is mangled.
On other points raised by the noble and learned Lord, the declaratory Amendment introduced in Clause 128 seems to me to be quite right; and once that declaratory Amendment was introduced it was essential to have in the Schedule an Amendment to omit the relevant passages from this particular Act. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, as a lawyer, would not disagree with the principle that you should not use the Schedule to an Act to abolish parts of an Act which have nothing to do with the Bill in question. This is really what he would have been asking us to do had he asked us to abolish the whole of the Act. I am glad that he is not going to ask us to do that, because I think it would have been almost improper.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 99 which repeals the Act of 1883 which now applies only to trade unions and is rendered redundant by the new clause
610
which is to follow Clause 153. This is a consequential Amendment to Schedule 9 following the addition to the Bill. The Act to which I have referred is the Provident Nominations and Small Intestacies Act 1883.
Amendment moved—
Page 167, line 35, at end insert—

(" 46 & 47 Vict. c. 47.

The Provident Nominations and Small Intestacies Act Act 1883.

The whole Act.")

—(Lord Belstead.)
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 99B, the object of which is to relieve the Registrar of Friendly Societies of any responsibilities for trade unions under the Friendly Societies Act 1896 and is a necessary consequence of the transfer of those responsibilities to the new Register of Trade Unions and Employers' Associations.
Amendment moved—
Page 167, line 36, column 3, at end insert—

(" and the words"trade union and ".

In section 4(1), the words"Scotland and ", in both places where they occur, and the word"respectively"where it first occurs.")

—(Lord Belstead.)
9.20 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD LORD BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 99C:
Page 167, line 40, column 3, leave out (" Section 1 ") and insert—

(" In section 1, subsection (1), and in subsection (2) the words"the objects mentioned in section sixteen of the Trade Union Act Amendment Act 1876, namely ".")

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is needed to avoid what I think your Lordships would regard as a serious gap

611
in the law which would have resulted had the whole of Section 1 of the Trade Union Act 1913 been repealed, as is at present proposed in this Schedule. Subsection (2) of Section 1 of the 1913 Act defines the term"statutory objects ", which occupies a key position in the present definition of a trade union. With the substitution of new definitions of"trade union"and"employers' association"in Clauses 61 and 62 of the Bill, the term"statutory objects"ceases to have any function in this context, and it would appear that both parts of Section 1 become redundant. However, that is not so. The concept of"statutory objects"is retained in that Part of the 1913 Act which is not to be repealed; namely, the sections dealing with restraints on the application of funds for certain political purposes.
Section 3(1) of the 1913 Act provides that union funds shall not be applied in furtherance of political objects unless the furtherance of those objects has been approved by a ballot of members and unless the union has rules which set up a separate political fund for the purpose. Section 3(3) of that Act says what are political objects for this purpose: they are familiar to some of your Lordships. The proviso in that section is, I think your Lordships will agree, vital to unions as a means of distinguishing between activities which, although political in nature, are essentially a part of the organisations' normal representative activities on behalf of members and not Party political activities.
There is one more point. Trade unions with political fund rules have tended to adopt the model rules published by the Registrar, which incorporate the 1913 Act's definition of"statutory objects ". Rather than have the Bill cause every union with such rules to revise them, this Amendment retains the present definition of"statutory objects"for the purposes of Section 3(3) of the 1913 Act, thus maintaining the existing position regarding what is or is not to be regarded as political expenditure to be met only out of the political fund.
With that explanation, I hope your Lordships may agree to this Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 99D:
Page 167, line 44, at end insert—

(" 11 & 12 Geo. 6. c. 39.

The Industrial Assurance and Friendly Societies Act 1948.

In section 23(1), paragraph (d).")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission, I will speak to Amendments 99D, 99E and 101 together. These are all consequential Amendments arising from the redefinition of the term"trade union"in the Bill. Amendments Nos. 99D and 99E are a direct consequence of Amendment No. 98J to Schedule 8, and No. 101 follows from No. 99K.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 99E:
Amendment moved—
Page 168, line 14, at end insert—

(" 6 & 7 Eliz. 2. c. 72.

The Insurance Companies Act 1958.

In section 1(5), the words"or to trade unions ".")

—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, Amendment No. 99A is a consequential Amendment necessitated by the redefinition in Schedule 8 of the term"The Registrar"as used in the Trade Union (Amalgamations) Act 1964. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 168, line 29, column 3, at end insert(" In section 7(1)(c) the words ' or by any Assistant registrar '. Section 8.")—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, Amendment No. 100 is consequential on Amendment No. 99. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 168, line 31, at end insert—

(" 1965 c. 32.

The Administration of Estates (Small Payments) Act 1965.

In Schedule 1, Part I, and in Schedule 3, the entries relating to the Provident Nominations and Small Intestacies Act 1883.")

—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 168, line 35, at end insert—

(" 1967 c. 81.

The Companies Act 1967.

In section 60(1)(c), the words"or to trade unions ".")

The noble Lord said. My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment, but before I move it may I, first of all, pay tribute to the Opposition for the care with which they have examined this Bill and for the good temper with which we have carried on our discussions. Secondly, I should like to pay a very warm tribute to the strong support we have had from our own side. It would be appropriate for me to say here that many have doubted whether it was possible to take a Bill of this character through a House of this character; and the way in which Members have taken an interest in this Bill, albeit silent, very often—they have taken a real interest in this Bill—and have attended in the numbers they have throughout this period, is a very great tribute to the voluntary spirit. I ought also to say that we are much indebted to those who have looked after us while we were doing so, as regards both our bodily needs and the other services. We are extremely grateful to them all. My Lords, I beg to move.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am quite sure that all my noble friends on this side of the House would wish me to join in the appreciation of the noble Lord for the facilities which have been made available to us. I repeat what was said on an earlier occasion: we are grateful for the help we have had all round, and we envy again the noble Lord his riches in strong, silent support.

CITIZENS ADVICE BUREAUX: POLICY AND GRANT AID
9.27 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will carry out a review of the future of the Citizens Advice Bureaux and of the grant aid made to them, including the sources from which it is derived. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am sorry to detain the House but I really had no option. As the House may have noted, I have amended the
614
wording of my Motion in view of what was said yesterday by Lord Sandford. I have, of course, discussed this with him. In fact, what now appears on the Order Paper is what I actually intended, at the end of the debate, asking the Minister who was to reply to recommend to the Government as a first step towards helping in this most unhappy affair. And I shall come back to it later.
Might I just mention that Lord Amulree has expressed much regret at being unable to speak tonight and to say at the same time how glad I am that Lord Wells-Pestell is to take part? I think his experience, his pioneering activities and expertise in the whole field of social services are known to everyone associated with this subject.
My Lords, I am raising this matter for three reasons: one, I think injustice has been done; two, I think that an essential development of the Citizens Advice Bureaux has been prevented; three, I think that the value and service to the community from the Citizens Advice Bureaux must suffer as a result. And this last point is where I differ from what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said yesterday, at col. 350 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. This is much more than a matter of personality but it is one fundamentally of structure. For the benefit of anyone who knows little of the Citizens Advice Bureaux, and to quote the Molony Report, at paragraph 489, the Citizens Advice Bureaux
" originated during the last war to help the public with information and advice in disturbed conditions of life. The Local Government Act of 1948 (Sections 134 and 136), authorised local authorities to give financial or other support to the Bureaux in the guise of information or advice centres. The constitutions of the Bureaux vary from place to place. The majority are controlled by independent committees in which voluntary organisations play the prominent part. The Bureaux staff is largely voluntary. Each bureau is independent but the National Citizens' Advice Bureaux Committee guides the conduct of the work and generally supervises the service. Their value to the citizen became particularly well known in connection with problems associated with the Rent Acts."
The Report goes on to say in paragraph 490:
" Since there are no obvious limits to their fields of interest, Bureaux have inevitably attracted dissatisfied and perplexed consumers. Over recent years an increase has been observed in the number of people seeking advice over unsatisfactory goods and services, hire-purchase problems and the means of getting redress."
Under the heading"High Value of Work"in paragraph 492, the Molony Committee state:
" We regard the work described as most beneficial. The fact that many of the complaints handled lack substance does not detract from its overall value. It is important that those consumers who are worried and perplexed about their difficulties should be able to unburden themselves to a sympathetic ear and receive an independent and realistic appraisal of the position. For those with more genuine grievance it is a valuable assistance to have their case presented for them with a forceful clarity which they could not personally command."
I have quoted these comments, my Lords, because, although they were printed in 1962, they say what I believe to be true to-day. The Citizens' Advice Bureaux render a service which is invaluable to people in time of stress and worry. I think they render an indispensable service to the social life and needs of to-day.
Before the last war I had the pleasure of working with the National Council of Social Service. Indeed, it was through their help that I was able to go and work in a Quaker settlement in the Rhondda Valley in the 1930s. After that we were able to co-operate in London—in the East End. So I have only pleasant memories of the N.C.S.S. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, told us yesterday of his own past connection with them, too. During my ten years in another place obviously I had many contacts with the C.A.B. both locally and nationally. Since 1962 I have worked closely with them because of our mutual interest in consumer work: and of course the carrying out of the responsibilities accepted by them as a result of the Malony Report recommendations being accepted by the Government.
For the past two, three or four years it has become more and more obvious to me that if the C.A.B. were to develop their potential some sort of arrangement with the N.C.S.S. would have to be worked out. I believe that such an arrangement would have to give the C.A.B. whole or partial independence. It is no secret to interested people that discussions proceeded over a very long period on this problem. I think equally that those interested people, anxious for the well-being of the work being done, realised that the less said in public the
616
better. Because of this feeling, which I am sure was the right one, I said nothing tangible in the House until 1969. But on November 26, 1969 (at col. 1266), I made what I hoped was a moderate comment:
" I believe that the Citizens' Advice Bureaux should continue as at present, but only if given adequate finance and independence. This must be forthcoming in the near, the very near, future. If not, then the work will not be successful because of lack of adequate implementation. Responsibility here lies primarily with the National Council of Social Services and with the Government. I hope the Minister will comment for the Government, and I understand that the whole position is now under review between the National Council of Social Service and the National Citizens' Advice Bureaux Council."
I hope that the foregoing may be regarded as part 1, or as the explanatory and introductory section, of what I want to say to-night.
What opens my part 2 came as a complete surprise to me, anyway. In the Guardian of June 30, I saw a headline:
" C.A.B. Council to Meet on Dismissal."
The article went on to say:
" The national council of the Citizens' Advice Bureaux is to hold an emergency meeting on Tuesday to decide what action to take over the dismissal of Miss Joan Pridham, its secretary for the past seven years, by its parent body, the National Council for Social Services.
The dismissal has already led the chairman of the CAB Council, Sir Harold Banwell, to announce his resignation. Further powerful support for the greater independence of the CAB is already being mustered."
Following this, I sent a letter to The Times, and I was appreciative of their publishing it on July 9. The Minister will obviously have a copy, and I do not propose to weary the House with it.
On July 13, The Times published a joint letter from the Chairman of the N.C.S.S. and the new Chairman of the National C.A.B. Council. I do not propose to weary the House with this, either; but the letter makes the perfectly relevant point that in a vote taken on June 8, the figures were 163 in favour and 132 against. The occasion was the national conference of the C.A.B., and the motion for independence was not voted on, as an amendment for trying to work out an agreement based on a document agreed between the chairmen of the two organisations was accepted by the vote which I have quoted. I think there was

617
considerable confusion among those present at the conference about exactly what they were voting on, but the majority vote went for the amendment. Although I feel strongly, and am anxious about the work, I have no desire to stoke up the flames. But I want to see justice done, and I think this is not the case.
Your Lordships have probably seen in the Press various statements as to whether the chairman of the National C.A.B. Council was consulted or not, and as to whether the Council itself was consulted or not. Your Lordships have probably also seen statements to the effect that certain people have been dismissed, while others have resigned. The letter from the two chairmen states that nobody has been dismissed—apart from the secretary. My Lords, I have here a letter, which I have obtained permission to read out, from all the people concerned. I think that it should be on the record of this unhappy affair. The notepaper is headed"The National Citizens' Advice Bureaux Council ". It was, of course, the notepaper then current, so the chairman is given as Sir Harold Banwell and the secretary as Miss Joan Pridham. The date is June 29. 1971. The letter is addressed to the Citizens' Advice Bureaux, numbering some 500. It is sent and signed by two members of the Council (Mrs. Eileen M. Crosby and Mrs. Margaret Edmondson) and is as follows:
" Dear Organiser,
" You will probably have read in The Times and Guardian today that Miss Pridham's appointment as Secretary of the National CAB Council has been terminated by the NCSS honorary officers acting on the in-instructions of the NCSS Executive Committee which met on 10th June. The NCSS honorary officers wish her to take paid leave of absence immediately and until the end of her appointment. She will therefore be leaving on Friday next. 2nd July. We understand she is to be offered a small pension.
" The decision to terminate her appointment was taken without consulting the National CAB Council and against the advice of the Chairman and ourselves who were called to a special meeting with the NCSS honorary officers yesterday. The Chairman and we very much regret the action taken.
" The reason for the termination of Miss Pridham's employment is that she ` advocated a policy in complete contradiction to that agreed by the National Standing Conference of CABx'. You will all know that up to the date of the conference she did advocate independent management for the CAB Service, believing with the great majority of CAB
618
Council members that the best opportunity for development lay in the government of the Service by the CABx themselves. Since the conference decision was that the CAB Service should continue to be an integral part of the NCSS the job of the headquarters and field staff was clearly to work towards the implementation of that decision; and this they intended to do under Miss Pridham's leadership.
" Mrs. Prudence King, the Assistant Secretary to the Council, Miss Ingrid Marx, who prepares the monthly Information Circular, and Miss Pridham's personal assistant, Miss Sheila Brent, have handed in their resignations today.
" There will be a meeting of the CAB Council on Tuesday next which it is hoped your regional representatives will be able to attend.
Yours sincerely,
(signed) EILEEN M. CROSBY
MARGARET EDMONDSON."
My Lords, I think the letter speaks for itself.
I have various suggestions on all this, but at the moment I intend to confine myself to one of which I have given notice to the Minister. I am confining myself to this one point because I think it is the most hopeful course of action at this stage. Other things will have to work themselves out as talks continue in an effort to find out whether the amendment carried on June 8 is likely to succeed. Perhaps I might just say, in passing, that I have of course seen the written reply to a Question in another place on July 2 and that my suggestion, or request, is not the one made there.
I am sure that this Government will be aware that their predecessors at the Board of Trade recommended a review of the grant aid made to Citizens' Advice Bureaux and also the sources from which this came. I think this was in March, 1970. The House probably knows that these sources are: the Department of Trade and Industry, which makes a grant direct to the Citizens' Advice Bureaux; the Department of the Environment, which makes a grant to the National Council of Social Service which then allocates that money, part of which goes to the Citizens' Advice Bureaux the voluntary funds of the National Council of Social Service, some of which are raised on behalf of the Citizens' Advice Bureaux; and the Bureaux themselves.
I want to help, and I do the Government the credit of believing that they

619
want to help, too. One of the most helpful results of this unhappy unfair and of this short debate would be that this review should now take place with the Departments concerned. As the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said yesterday:
' The service provided by the Citizens ' Advice Bureaux is, of course, of very great and direct concern when it comes to allocating grant…",—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14/7/71; c. 349–50.]
and he then went on to make the statement with which I disagreed, as I mentioned earlier in this debate. The review for which I am asking the Minister's support would concern the future of the Citizens' Advice Bureaux and of the grant aid made to them, including the sources from which it is derived. I believe, and in this I am supported by many others, that considerable advantage would accrue if this grant aid were to come from one source and not from several. Perhaps the Government grant at least could come from one source and be made direct to the Citizens' Advice Bureaux. Then we should have a starting point for a possible reconstruction. I hope the Minister will be able to say that such a review will now take place.
Finally, may I state quite categorically that I have raised this matter purely on my own initiative. Nobody else is implicated in any way whatsoever. My Lords, I do not like injustice.
9.45 p.m.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry has put the position so adequately and clearly that I think there is little for me to say. In fact, I doubt whether there are any"t's"for me to cross or any"i's"for me to dot. Like my noble friend, I am gravely concerned at what is taking place at the present moment between the National Council of Social Service and the Citizens' Advice Bureaux, because those of us who have worked for many years in the field of voluntary social service know from personal experience that difficulties within can have very serious repercussions on the outside; and if there is one thing which has made a tremendous contribution to our society in recent years, it has been the work of the Citizens' Advice Bureaux. I think I would go so far as
620
to say that when the Citizens' Advice Bureaux came into being just before the war and became, if I may be permitted to say so, extremely efficient after the war, they filled a gap in our vast and comprehensive network of social services in this country; and it is with this in mind that I say that I fear the argument which is going on between these two organisations may have serious repercussions on the work of the Citizens' Advice Bureaux and on the value of their contribution to the community.
I think we sometimes see the Citizens' Advice Bureaux as an organisation staffed by people who are merely telling people what to do. In point of fact, their work goes much deeper than that. They spend a good deal of time with people, and often successfully resolve and bring to a successful conclusion the inquiries they undertake. But it is not only the individual help that they are able to give to people going there for advice: they have become a means by which Government Departments are able to explain the various policies which they are pursuing and have set in motion for the benefit of the people, and I believe that this is one of the most important contributions which the Citizens' Advice Bureaux make at the present moment and have made for some considerable time.
I should have thought the time had come when this organisation should have an opportunity to stand on its own feet, because I believe that the extent of its contribution and its value could be considerably increased if it was completely independent, able to raise what money it needed, able to make its own application to one Government Department for money to enable it to carry on, and, what I think is even much more important, if it could be entirely responsible for the formation of its own policy and the carrying out of that policy. As I said a moment or two ago, the argument which is going on within these two organisations will, I think, militate against that happening. And, like my noble friend, who as I have said has put the position so adequately and so clearly that it leaves little more for me to say, I ask the Government—because the Government provide, through the Exchequer, a very substantial grant to the National

621
Council of Social Service, and, in so doing, to the Citizens' Advice Bureaux—to undertake some kind of inquiry whereby there can be one grant and also, through that inquiry, perhaps give some advice as to the desirability of making the Citizens' Advice Bureaux an independent organisation capable of running their own affairs.
9.50 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, earlier this week I thought it right to declare my own close interest in the National Council of Social Service. Now perhaps I ought to do the reverse, and say that although my daughter's name is Margaret Edmondson she is not the Margaret Edmondson referred to in the letter read by the noble Baroness.
The genuine and personal concern of the noble Baroness in speaking on this question is evidence in itself of the high esteem in which the National Council of Social Service and the Citizens Advice Bureaux are both held. Her Majesty's Government join in acknowledging the great value of the work done by the Citizens Advice Bureaux in explaining the rights and the benefits made available to citizens by the complex legislation of our present society, and in giving friendly and impartial independent advice in cases of perplexity and difficulty. The Government's Manifesto, in considering the means for improving the quality of life, recognised the important contribution in social welfare and to the environment that voluntary and volunteer organisations are already making; and the National Council of Social Service has a valuable part to play, and does play a valuable part, in co-ordinating the efforts and policies across the whole voluntary movement.
The dispute, such as it has been, was about the relationship between the Citizens Advice Bureaux Council and the National Council of Social Service. Her Majesty's Government have taken the view that the way in which these two bodies arrange their affairs is a matter entirely for those bodies, and have therefore not sought to intervene. The changes that have taken place in the administration of the Citizens Advice Bureaux movement are, of course, internal matters in which Her Majesty's Government have no function whatever.
622
The position now is that the dispute appears to be well on the way to being resolved, and it is our earnest hope that the two Councils will speedily settle any remaining differences there may be between them, and that the valuable service they both provide to the community will continue and develop. For these reasons, therefore, there is no cause for the Government to take any initiative in the remaining tidying up operations, although perhaps I do not need to say that we should be ready to give help if the two Councils ask for it. Equally, but unlike the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Her Majesty's Government see no reason in the present situation to undertake any special review of the future of the Citizens Advice Bureaux services or of its finance. That is not to say that the Departments concerned do not and will not of course review the services provided by the Citizens Advice Bureaux whenever the appropriate levels of grant next come to be determined.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord suggest that it would be helpful to the Citizens Advice Bureaux if one single Government grant were paid direct to them. This is certainly something which might be considered if it were to be put forward formally. I see that there might be some administrative difficulties, but, more important, there might be some disadvantages to the Citizens Advice Bureaux in such an arrangement. While it would give the Bureaux greater financial independence in relation to other voluntary bodies, it would do so at a price of much greater direct dependence on central Government. That, my Lords, could be put in simpler and more personal terms as:
" Hold on to nurse,
" For fear of finding something worse ".

MINERAL WORKINGS (OFFSHORE INSTALLATIONS) BILL
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments to be printed.
ALDRIDGE-BROWNHILLS URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL
Reported, with Amendments.

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL
TRENT RIVER AUTHORITY (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
The Queen's Consent signified, and Bill reported with Amendments.

HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.