Lords Sitting of 24 May 1971

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Rochester.

NORTH SEA GAS PRICE
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government on what basis the price paid by the Gas Council for North Sea gas was raised.]
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, the contracts for natural gas produced from the Continental Shelf are a matter for negotiation between the Gas Council and the producing companies.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his interesting reply. May I ask whether he is aware that the Russians are paying 1·8d. at the frontier for gas, that the Americans are paying below 2d. and that the old price of 2·87d. was far too high? Is he aware that the present price is going to do grave damage to our balance of payments and to the welfare of the country?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I am aware of some of these facts, but we have to bear in mind that this is a matter for the Gas Council to negotiate with the oil companies.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the fact that, in case the Gas Council has difficulties with the oil companies, the Minister is responsible in the ultimate sense under the law to arbitrate and fix the price which seems to be adequate and just?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, everybody is agreed that, so far as possible,
758
with these nationalised Boards the matter should be left to the commercial judgment of the Boards.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in spite of the talks which the Minister of Power had with the nationalised boards the price of gas at the moment has gone up tremendously? It is about time the Minister took some form of action by having talks with the Gas Council in regard to this matter.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, the Ministers who are controlling these nationalised industries, or are in a position to have the ultimate say in what happens, must keep an eye on what happens. I am sure that your Lordships would not wish each Minister concerned to watch over what happens from day to day in the nationalised industries.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, could the noble Lord tell us whether it is a fact that in the case of the steel industry the Minister intervened with alacrity when prices were under discussion?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, the steel industry is a little wide of this Question.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, with regard to the principle which my noble friend was arguing, the two industries are identical.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, it has always been held, with regard to the relationship between Ministers and the nationalised industries, that it is up to the Minister concerned to decide to what extent it is necessary for him to come in.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, is he aware that, contrary to what my noble friend said, the gas industry is a completely different and special case, because in law the Minister is responsible for arbitration between the oil companies and the Gas Council.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, for arbitration. In this case, the Gas Council and the oil companies came to an agreement.

NORTH SEA GAS: PROFITS OF CONSORTIA
2.41 p.m.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what the last year's financial results were of the consortia exploiting British Government licences for gas exploitation and what percentage the profits represented on total investment for exploration and exploitation.]
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, the information in the form requested by the noble Lord is not available.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the OPEC countries, which include the smallest Sheikhdoms of the Gulf, have this information? Why should not the British Government have the same information?
LORD DENHAM: Because, my Lords, the information is very difficult to get. It is extremely difficult to work out exactly what the costs of the gas exploration are. It is an extremely risky business, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware. Only one in forty of exploration wells lead to commercial production. An exploration well in the North Sea costs somewhere between £300,000 and £2 million, according to circumstances. To find out the figures which the noble Lord wants would be very difficult indeed.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that both the American Government and the Sheikhdoms have this information? It cannot be difficult to get. Moreover, is the noble Lord aware that most of these consortia have the Gas Council and the Coal Board as members, and therefore they ought to have the information readily available?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I quite appreciate the worries behind the noble Lord's Question. I am sure that my right honourable friend will pay close attention to what he has said. But I must come back to my original Answer: it is not the practice, where agreement has been reached between a nationalised Board and the production companies, for the Minister to interfere.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, is not the Minister unaware of the fact that in the steel case a different attitude was taken? Further, is he not aware of the fact that a penny in the pound over the life of these gas fields represents something between £1,000 million and £1,500 million? Is he not aware of the fact that most of this £1,000 million to £1,500 million will go over the exchanges because even in the case of B.P. a large part goes over the exchanges? And will he not readily agree with me—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD BALOGH: No, my Lords; I am not going to give way. It is not a speech. Will not the noble Lord readily agree with me that in this case an intervention was necessary, and it is a grave defalcation of duty that it has not happened?
LORD DENHAM: No, my Lords; I cannot agree with all that the noble Lord has said. On the other hand, the noble Lord's knowledge and wisdom in these matters is well known, and I have no doubt that my right honourable friend will read with great interest what the noble Lord has said.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, does not the noble Lord think that the Government ought to be able to make these calculations and publish this information, especially in consequence of the huge increase in the number of civil servants that has taken place since the present Government came into office?
LORD DENHAM: No, my Lords; for the reasons I have already given, I do not.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, would the Government agree that it is important that the price paid should represent a return on gas from the North Sea which is such that the companies and the consortia are encouraged to go on drilling and looking for more, and thereby improving our balance of payments?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, has raised a very important point.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that if this is an important point he ought to know whether in fact they are getting an adequate return? Is he aware that the questions of

761
my noble friend Lord Balogh might relate equally to the welfare of the companies and the consumers? Will the noble Lord therefore consider further whether he will press his right honourable friend actually to read this exchange and consider the policy in the matter?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I shall certainly do what the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has asked me. While I was certainly aware of what the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, has said, as I have said before the information asked for by the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, is not available; and I have explained why it is not available.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, as my noble friend is aware of the history of this exploration that takes place over several years, is he able to tell us what the record of difficulty has been over the last six years in gathering this information together?
LORD DENHAM: No, my Lords; but I will write to my noble friend.

FOOD PRICES AND AGRICULTURAL DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS
BARONESS PLUMMER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their estimate of the effect on retail food prices of phasing out agricultural deficiency payments by 1974.]
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, the effect on retail prices of the Government's longer-term policy objective of reducing the cost of agricultural support by a system of import levies will depend on a number of factors, including the nature and timing of the changes and the level of market prices at the time. But the effect on food prices should not in any event be very great. The Conservative Party's policy document The Farming Future estimated that the effect would be equivalent to an extra 5 to 6 per cent. on the cost of food spread over three years; and it is considered that this gives a fair indication of the order of increase that might be involved.
BARONESS PLUMMER: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply. Would he accept that this estimated increase in the cost of food will be in addition to normal factors making for an increase in the cost of living; in other words, it will be entirely additional to normal factors'?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, this increase of approximately 2 per cent, per year will be absorbed in the general increase which is occurring at the moment throughout the Food Index.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, in view of the remarkable and unexpected escalation in price levels, in spite of the promise the present Government made nearly a year ago to keep prices down, what is going to happen if we are stupid enough to enter the Common Market and there has to be an additional increase? Why not tell the electors of this country, before the coming by-elections that are likely to take place within the next week, the truth about what is going to happen, so that they know what is in store for us?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I do not think there is any basis for the noble Lord's suggestion. The new system of agricultural support is an integral part of the Government's agricultural policy, whether or not we go into the Common Market.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl a serious question? Has he recently looked at his housekeeping bills? Is he himself not aware that there has already been a sharp rise in the cost of food—basic foods—perhaps in anticipation of the Government's policy? Also, is the noble Earl not aware that his right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture said tin other day that the country must expect a sharp increase in the price of commodities as a consequence of the Government's decisions relating to entry into the Common Market?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I accept that there has been an increase in the price of food. In fact the next Question standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Plummer, deals with that specific point; so perhaps when we get to that Question we might enlarge on the subject.
BARONESS PLUMMER: My Lords, before we come to my second Question may I ask whether the Government accept that spending on food constitutes an abnormally high percentage of the total expenditure of retirement pensioners, and that the Government's policy is therefore one of particular concern to that section of the community?
EARL ST.ALDWYN: My Lords, I fully accept that the percentage of the categories of people to which the noble Baroness has referred is higher than that of other categories of the public, but that is why the Government have announced recent increases in pensions and allowances generally, and they will of course keep this matter constantly under review as time goes on
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, do I understand the noble Earl to say that even if we fail to enter the Common Market the adjustments in connection with the agricultural policy will increase prices? Does he say that, irrespective of whether or not we go into the Common Market, prices will increase?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, what I said was that we shall continue with the system of moving over to import levies whether we go into the Common Market or not.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, the noble Earl referred just now to recent increases for old age pensioners. There has been no recent increase. There are increases due in the future, but before that time arrives, in September, they are likely to be already swallowed up.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I dc, not think I can accept that last remark, and as I have said, the question will be under constant review by the Government.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords can the noble Earl explain what he meant by saying that he cannot accept my noble friend's remark? He has just been given a fact, that old age pensions have not gone up. Does he say that they have gone up?

FOOD PRICE INCREASES
2.55 p.m.
BARONESS PLUMMER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the percentage rise in basic food prices since June 18, 1970.]
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, between June 16, 1970, and April 20, 1971, the latest date for which information is available, the Food Index rose by 8·5 per cent.
BARONESS PLUMMER: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for that Answer, can he say what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to reduce this appalling figure?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, we see as the root problem here as the inflationary wage claims that have been made, coupled with a considerable rise in world prices of certain commodities. We are satisfied that in the long run—although I appreciate that it is the long run, and I am not pretending that there will not probably be further increases in the immediate future—our system of dealing with the inflationary problem of this country will settle food problems along with others.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, can the noble Earl indicate a little more precisely what inflationary wage claims affect the prices of food? Are they the claims of the agricultural workers, the distributive workers, or of whom?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, the problem covers a considerable field, which embraces all the distributive trades and the transport industry; and a large number of other sections of the country are involved either directly or indirectly with food supply.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, do I understand that everybody is to blame for the increase in food prices: the international situation, world prices, inflation and the rest—everybody, that is, except the Government?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I would have thought that a good deal of this problem stemmed from the activities of the last Administration.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he can recall a period in recent years when there has been such an astronomical rise in the cost of living in so short a period?
EARL ST.ALDWYN: No, my Lords.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords.. is my noble friend aware that while he and his noble friends in Government are certainly to be congratulated on the excellence of their administration, they can hardly be expected to bring under control the inflationary wave that they inherited on June 18? And is he aware that for some months afterwards the price increases and cost increases which they had to deal with were the inheritance left by their predecessors?
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I follow up those observations by asking whether Mr. Heath, who was fully aware of all the potentially inflationary circumstances, said during that month of June that he would halt these rising prices "at a stroke "?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Yes, " at a stroke "!
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I do not think it was ever said that it would be done " at a stroke ".
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh yes, it was!
Lone SHACKLETON: My Lords, does the noble Earl recall that in reply to an earlier Question he said that the likely price rise was in accordance with the Conservative Party document? May I ask him whether this price rise is also in accordance with the Conservative document, and in particular that the statement related to reduction " at a stroke ". which the noble Earl must have heard if he was in England during the Election campaign? Is what has happened now in accordance with the Government's promises?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I am not quite sure to what document the noble Lord is referring. I do not think
766
this arises out of my reference to the document, The Farming Future. Perhaps the noble Lord can enlighten me.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that while the price index that he quoted to the House, in regard to the price increases which have taken place over this particular period, will not be accepted by the general public as being authentic, we accept the statement made by the noble Earl in reply to this Question? One only has to travel around—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Question!
LORD SLATER: All right, my Lords, I will ask a question—noble Lords need not be worried. Is the noble Earl aware that he need only go with his good lady into one food store to find that, as against the figures he has already quoted, prices have gone up tremendously within the last month.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, when I go shopping with my " good lady " I know that it involves going around innumerable shops in order to get the best bargain possible. By this means we succeed in keeping the housekeeping figures down to a reasonable level.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell us what will happen when he and his " good lady " reach the age of 70 or 80? Will they still be able to shop around?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, possibly we shall not be able to shop around with quite the same rapidity, but I believe that a large number of people of 70 still succeed in shopping around very successfully.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that one of the sharpest inflationary spirals in butchers' meat took place following the imposition of selective employment tax?

FUTURE BUSINESS
EARL ST.ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a Statement on the Prime Minister's visit to Paris at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m.

767
It may be for the convenience of your Lordships to know that the House will meet at 11 a.m. on Thursday, May 27, and, subject to making satisfactory progress with the Committee stage of the Industrial Relations Bill, I hope that it may be possible to adjourn at a reasonable hour.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, what is a " reasonable hour "?

TRIBUNALS AND INQUIRIES BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAI LSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Tribunals and Inquiries Acts 1958 and 1966 as amended. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

DUNBARTON COUNTY COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report.

LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
3 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Stow Hill.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 5 [Abolition of control of widows' damages]:
LORD AIREDALE LORD AIREDALE moved to leave out Clause 5.
The noble Lord said: I beg to move to leave out Clause 5. This clause would repeal Section 19 of the Administration of Justice Act passed as recently as 1965, which provided that in the case of widows receiving damages under the Fatal Accidents Acts, in those cases where the widow had dependent children the
768
damages should not be paid straight to the widow but should remain under the control of the court. In 1965 Parliament had the advantage of having before it the Report of the Committee on Funds in Court which had reported in 1959 and which was chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearson. In 1959 that Committee had reported unanimously in favour of widows' damages under the Fatal Accidents Acts in all cases being retained under the control of the court whether or not there were dependent children, this being thought at that time likely to lead to the protection of widows.
In 1965 Parliament no doubt thought that it was anomalous to preserve a distinction between a spinster and a widow having no dependent children, so that in the spinster's case the damages could be handed over to her and in the case of the widow the damages would remain under the control of the court. In 1965 the control of the court was retained only where there were dependent children to be considered as well as the widow; and it is that 1965 provision which this new clause seeks to repeal.
My Lords, this matter came before the Committee of the whole House on the afternoon of last Friday week, after the House had risen at twenty minutes to nine following. an all-night sitting on the Industrial Relations Bill; and therefore perhaps it will not be a surprise to your Lordships to learn that the Committee of the Whole House on that Friday afternoon was not very well attended. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, in moving the Amendment to insert this new Clause 5, expressed the hope that it would prove to be non-contentious, but that hope was not to be fulfilled. The next speaker was the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, who expressed very strong reservations indeed about accepting the new clause, and he summarised the finding on this point of the Pearson Committee in 1959 in these words:
"They thought it would be wrong to allow a widow with no experience of handling large sums of money to have unfettered control of an award of damages which is meant to take the place over the years of the family wage packet."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14/5/70, col. 1586.]
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, spoke. and although he was by no means an enthusiastic supporter of the

769
new clause, was quite open-minded on the question.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said (at col. 1590):
"I have absolutely no doubt that this is the right thing to do. If a man is left with infant children to look after as a result of a motor accident and he gets damages, he is allowed to do what he likes with the money. I see absolutely no reason why widows should not be put in the same position. I cannot begin to see what the arguments to the contrary are."
With great respect, I think I can see one argument at least to the contrary, which is this: a widower presumably will be able to persuade an aunt or a grandmother to bring up the children. He will contribute to their support, and if he has the misfortune to lose his lump sum damages he will presumably retain his capacity to earn his living and will continue to provide for the dependent children whereas the widow, similarly placed, will be tied to bringing up her children and will have nothing like the same capacity of earning to support them if, by some unwise investment, she has squandered the lump sum damages she has received.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill spoke in favour of accepting the new clause, as did the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge. The noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, spoke against it. and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearson, spoke with the advantage of having studied this matter in very great detail, as Chairman of the 1959 Committee. The noble and learned Lord concluded his speech with this sentence:
"I urge noble Lords to consider the evidence with some care before deciding to accept the Amendment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th May 1971; c. 1593.]
Three noble Baronesses supported the new clause—Lady Wootton of Abinger, Lady Emmet of Amberley and Lady Plummer—and it was agreed to without a Division by this very small Committee of the Whole House.
My Lords, those being the circumstances, it seems to be right to raise the matter again, because, although it proved to be somewhat contentious, it has not received the careful consideration of a representative gathering of your Lordships' House such as it deserves. Having said that, I have no intention at all of pressing this matter if it should appear
770
that the House is agreeable to the new clause, as agreed to by the Committee, remaining in the Bill. I beg to move.
LORD PEARSON: My Lords, I think I ought to say a few words, and I will say them very briefly, in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has said on this issue. I had the honour to be on the Committee on Funds in Court, which had to deal with several questions, one of which was whether the system of controlling widows' damages awarded under the Fatal Accidents Acts should continue. The Committee included several members who had special information on the subject, and there were two women members also. We considered carefully the evidence given and the advice received from important bodies such as the Law Society and the Trades Union Congress, both being bodies whose members would have special knowledge of the subject. Having regard to the evidence, we decided—and we were all of one mind—that the control should be continued. That was admittedly 12 years ago, but there is an obvious argument and, so far as it goes, a strong argument in favour of controlling widows' damages in suitable cases. I say " in suitable cases ", because in other cases, where it is obvious that the widow will be able to lock after a large sum of money properly, there is a discretion in the court to have the money paid out of court to the widow forthwith.
There is the other class of cases. Fatal accidents happen not only on the roads but also in factories, mines, ships, and so on, and frequently the widow is the widow of a weekly wage earner. She has never had to look further ahead, in financial terms, than one week. She has no experience of handling a large sum of money, and she may well not be able to manage it with skill and wisdom. Also, as has been pointed out, she may fall victim to the sort of person who was described in the former debate as the " smooth tongued predatory gentleman ". She may be persuaded by indigent friends and relatives to part with her money.
It was on that sort of evidence—and it was strong evidence at the time—that we made our recommendation in 1959. It may be that the situation has changed. It may be that full investigation and consultation would reveal a change in the

771
situation, but I do not quite know why, and I should like to be sure, at any rate, that this matter has been investigated with some care before the whole system of control is at one swoop swept overboard in this way. I would ask that full and careful consideration should be given to this matter, because it may inflict great hardship on some widow if this safeguard, which has previously been provided for their benefit, is suddenly done away with.
3.12 p.m.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, I should like to speak against the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, and to support the clause added in Committee by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor. What is it we are discussing? We are discussing whether an adult woman should have control of her own funds. Where there are infant children, then the money allocated to the children still comes within the control of the court. If she wishes her own compensation to be subject to a court's control, she still has that right. She has the opportunity of obtaining a great amount of advice from voluntary organisations, and if her solicitor does his job properly he will advise her. There is a considerable waiting period between the time of the accident and the time that the case comes to court and she receives compensation.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearson, pointed out that there may have been changes since his Committee reported. I think that that is so. Over the last 12 years there has been a tremendous change in the pattern of the lives of modern women, in the role they play outside the home and in the number of women who go to work and have a great deal more to do with financial administration and dealing with their own money and other people's money than before. I took the trouble to discuss this particular matter with one of the largest welfare organisations dealing with aid and help to widows. Their view is that while many widows require advice as to how they should deal with their money, they do not think that they need it still to be kept within the control of the court if the widow is not willing. I find this proposal—as I think they do as well, if I may translate rather liberally—an
772
indignity to a woman. It is a way of saying that she is really—however one wraps it up—incapable of dealing with her own affairs. There are a certain number of people, both men and women, who will deal in an irresponsible manner with any money that comes their way and lose it, but that is not just the prerogative of women..
There is a strong case for saying that one should see that advice is available, and one hopes that solicitors and voluntary organisations will give it, but to me it seems quite out of keeping with what we are talking about in 1971 and with the whole pattern of women's lives to take out this clause, which was put into the Bill at Committee stage. I hope that the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, will be turned down and that the clause, which I think makes far better sense and ties up with what is in the rest of the Bill, will be retained.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I think we ought to be clear exactly what we are proposing. 1 would certainly agree that there may be grounds for protecting the interests of infant children, but what the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, is proposing in his Amendment is that a woman who receives damages for the benefit of her children should not be allowed control of them and a man, in exactly similar circumstances, should. I think that is a proposition that this House will find it very difficult to agree to in the year 1971.
The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, prefaced this by a most extraordinary argument. He said that both the woman and the man may be irresponsible and " blue the money ", and I agree; but that the man might be able to get it back and the woman would not. It was rather significant that the word " presumably " appeared twice in the noble Lord's speech. These are astonishing presumptions. Either party might be able to get it back, but neither party has a right to " blue it ". Certainly the male party has no greater right to " blue it " than the female. I think that is the heart of the matter. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearson, I have no doubt with the most admirable intentions, says that these things happen to people who live on weekly wages and have perhaps not been in the habit of looking more than

773
a week ahead. That is indeed true of many working class widows; but if it is true of working class widows, it is 101 per cent. true of working class widowers, who have probably never handled the money at all.
3.18 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, the noble Lord was quite right in saying that when we debated this subject the other day the Committee was really not in a condition to debate it. It was at about a quarter past or half past two, and I think they were all faint through lack of sustenance and lack of sleep. I confess that this Amendment came rather suddenly upon the Committee. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearson, who has just spoken, cannot charge me with not being a feminist, hut, as a feminist, I have sought throughout the debate on this Bill to protect the widow, because I believe that she is particularly vulnerable. I think that the smooth, predatory male who has been mentioned is looked upon by most women with some trepidation, even when they arc not widows. Undoubtedly the widow with a lump sum is vulnerable to his approach. She is distressed and distraught, in the early stages, and later, particularly if she has dependent children, she is longing for somebody in whom she can confide, somebody on whom she can depend. and who will care for her. Then along comes a delightful looking man who is fully aware of her bank balance, and it is inevitable, of course, that she will be attracted by him. If we did not accept this, we would not be realistic.
The question is whether that woman should have special protection? To argue with me that a woman is quite as capable of investing her money as a man is nonsense. We all know that there is no argument about it. We accept that. But nobody can say that a widow with dependent children, perhaps small children—almost certainly small, because we are told that the typical widow is 35 with two children—tied to the house, can be equated with a man who is free to earn a wage or a salary, without any domestic responsibilities. My attitude in this matter, therefore, was to consider whether we should continue to give this woman special protection when she was awarded a large lump sum.
However, having said that, I listened to the noble and learned Lord who sits on
774
the Woolsack and I was extremely impressed by what he said. He said that in his long experience he had observed that many women who had had their damages paid into court had had full confidence in the investing ability of the gentleman in whom they had trusted—I am glad to see that the noble and learned Lord nods his agreement—to whom they had left their money. Then, to their horror, after a few years they had discovered that that man had betrayed them. He had no more knowledge of how to invest money than had the widow herself. Therefore, far from receiving the protection which they thought they had, they were left without their money.
It was that which convinced me that one cannot just argue from the point of view that this is a woman who is vulnerable and who must be protected. She was not protected by the courts. No one cared tuppence, apparently, when she got her damages and the money was paid into court. No one worried about the poor little woman living in a small house in Wigan, about whether she had any protection, and her money was lost. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, was quite right in saying that I had put the case against it—not completely against, for I said I had reservations. I thought that we should be guided in this matter by what we had been told by the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack. Of course there are reactionary organisations such as the Stock Exchange who would not agree with us. Nevertheless, when we consider carefully, we must admit that the woman in the home who manages to remain solvent although her husband may spend an amount of money not commensurate with his wages on tobacco and beer, is nevertheless the person who keeps the home solvent. She is shrewd and has common sense, and I think that her maternal instinct will direct her activities.
3.23 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I listened with very great care and interest to the argument put by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, in moving this Amendment. He began by describing in some detail—I thought he was of great assistance to the House in so doing—the very careful consideration which had been

775
given to this problem. First, it was exhaustively considered by the Committee over which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearson, presided. His Committee reported in 1959. Then there was a full debate in 1965 in this House, and noble Lords divided upon this precise issue. Finally, after mature and careful consideration, they arrived at what was in effect a compromise solution which is contained in the 1965 Act.
Then the matter came to this House. The Bill which your Lordships are considering, the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, I should have thought, is precisely the instrument in which there can properly be introduced, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has done, a change of this sort in the law. If we do not do it in a Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, where are we to do it? That is precisely what the noble and learned Lord has done.
Having listened so far with attention to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, I wondered how it was that at the end of his argument he was able to come to the conclusion that, nevertheless, this addition by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor should be left out of the Bill. I think the only reason he gave us was that when the Committee stage of the Bill was taken last Friday week we were rather tired. I am not sure that we were. I thought we had had a refreshing and delightful night. discussing fascinating aspects of the Industrial Relations Bill, and I thought we were all eager for action. I may be wrong. What is the logic of the noble Lord's argument? If the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, is right in that submission, I suppose the logic is that we should put a pen right through the Committee proceedings. He should have moved that the Committee proceedings on that Friday should be treated as not having taken place at all, because we were no less and no more too tired when those proceedings began as we were when they ended.
LORD AIREDALE: It was not that we were tired. What I meant was that we were few.
LORD STOW HILL: We were few? After all, it is not the case that in every debate on a measure of this sort that
776
there are three noble and learned Lords present who have held or hold the office of Lord Chancellor and take part. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, spoke. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, spoke. The noble and learned Lord who now sits on the Woolsack spoke. Certainly rich and learned speeches were addressed to the Committee. I thought that they were listened to attentively by those who were present. In addition, two noble and learned Lords, and other noble Lords and noble Baroness spoke, and the matter excited keen interest.
At the end of it all, when all the arguments had been deployed on both sides, what did the Committee do? Those who opposed what the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had done did not think it right to take the matter to a Division. If now we arc to be asked to disregard what happened, where are we to get to? Which of our proceedings in this House are to be regarded as valid and which are to be regarded as a mere waste of time? That is what the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, is asking us to say about what I thought was an extremely valuable and interesting discussion. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack made, I should have thought, on the merits of the argument a case which does not admit of answer. He added that if it should transpire that the proposal he had introduced into the Bill was controversial, in that it might risk the life of the Bill, he would not press it. What more he could do I do not know.
I should like the House to consider the merits of this, and if I may say so with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, to disregard considerations which I do not think should carry very much influence. What are the merits? When are we males at long last going to be honest and sincere when we say that we want to treat women as our companions and not as our inferiors? They are not our inferiors. They are in every way up to us in intellect, understanding and feeling.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Hear, hear!
LORD STOW HILL: It is very rare that I receive approbation from my noble friend Baroness Summerskill.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL BARONESS SUMMERSKILL Superior!
LORD STOW HILL: My noble friend Baroness Summerskill talked about the predatory male. I do not know how one recognises a predatory male. Perhaps it is by over-developed jaws. What would apply to predatory females I do not know. I do not know why we should be taken back to the days before Mrs. Gaskell and Jane Austen. In 1971, my Lords, let us realise that women play foremost roles in this country, in this House, in the other House and outside both Houses, in every field of activity. They excel us in one hundred dozen different ways. I hope that I do not exaggerate, but I find it rather offensive if I am told in this particular context that a widow, who has undergone the appalling tragedy of having her husband taken from her by a malign fate through the action of some other person. is not to be treated as being capable of looking after a sum which may run into some thousands of pounds. I find that a repulsive suggestion, and I do not for a second think that it is true.
If one were considering the attitude of women against that of men—and I loathe these generalisations as they are so unreliable—as to the custody of money, one should say to oneself that unhappily it is the case that the economic condition of women is still not as secure as that of men. They do not find it so easy to get jobs as men do—I wish they did, I am speaking in these days of unemployment —but I think that in due course this will happen. If that influences the situation, it influences it in this way: that women are rather more careful about the custody of money. They do not think that money hangs on trees, and they do not say airily, " I can spend what I want because I can always earn it back ". They are much more careful. On the whole, I should have thought they are much more careful than men. I therefore beg this House to say (a) that the reasons why we should now re-open this question. on which your Lordships' Committee has already pronounced, are inadequate; and (b) that even if we do reopen it surely the logic, the feeling, the tempo, the emotion of 1971 tells us that rejecting this Amendment is a step that we ought to take in courtesy to women, in chivalry to them
778
and in recognition of the plain, obvious fact that the sexes are equal.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, this has been a fascinating discussion in which my noble friend Lord Stow Hill has been rather more feminist than my noble friend Baroness Summerskill, which I never expected to hear. Like her, I have some reservations. In Committee, I explained that this was not a point on which I had ever had, or had then, any strong view. I reminded the Committee of the contents of the Report of the Committee of which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearson. was chairman, which had unanimously recommended that both where there were dependent children and where there were not, the practice of the law as to the payment of the widow's damages into court should be continued, and that most of those who gave evidence before that Committee and who had contacts with widows—the solicitors, the T.U.C. the High Court masters, the county court registrars, working women's organisations and so on—shared that view.
I also reminded the Committee that we discussed this fully when the matter came before Parliament in the 1964/65 Session and that what I had recommended was that where the widow had no children the money should be paid to her direct but where there were dependent children it should be paid into court. I agreed that there had probably been some change in public opinion in the last six or seven years, and that I thought that to-day it was probably more generally the view that women should be treated the same as men. I explained that my sole concern personally was that this should not stop the Bill going through by making it run into difficulties in the other place; and I said that so far as I was aware it was practically without precedent for the Government to " muscle in " on a Private Member's Bill with an Amendment which raised an entirely new topic for the first time in the Second Chamber. I concluded by saying:
"I am anxious to see the Bill go through. I should not, therefore, oppose the Amendment if we could obtain some assurance from the noble and learned Lord that if this part of the Bill runs into trouble in the other place he will consider withdrawing this part of the Bill in order that the rest of the Bill may go through ".— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 14 /5 / 71, col. 1590.]

779
The noble and learned Lord was good enough at once to say:
"I think I can answer that straight away. I will not risk the Bill anywhere for the sake of this, because it is a relatively small matter".
My Lords, I was content before the Committee with that assurance, and I am equally content to leave the matter to the House now.
3.30 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not want to obstruct my own business, but I should like to add just a word to the many speeches which have been properly made on this subject. I should like to point out to what the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, is committing himself. It is not only true that if a man is left with young children—in some ways a more difficult position than if it were a woman, because in that case the children have no mother when they are young—he is absolutely free to deal with the damages awarded to him as he wishes, but apparently not in the case of a widow, according to the noble Lord. But suppose the man dies of cancer of the lung at 35 and leaves the "typical" widow with two young children. She is absolutely free; but not, apparently, according to Lord Airedale, if he dies as a result of somebodys else's negligence. Where is the sense of that? Nor is it a provision of the law of Scotland. Scottish widows are absolutely free to deal with their money now. Are English widows so much more improvident than Scottish widows? It may be they are, but so far nobody has suggested it.
Then the noble and learned Lord on the Cross-Benches says that most of them are wage-earners. So are the men; so are the Scottish widows; so are the widows whose husbands die of cancer, who may get some money from insurance. They are vulnerable, says he, to the predatory male; but are not men vulnerable to predatory females? I am. Where are we really getting to? It is said that women are apt to make unwise investments. Are not men? Can men do without advice about their investments? I will tell the House something about women: I think they are not so apt to drink it away, and they are not so apt to bet it away. I regard this as a straight issue of public policy, and I ask the House to reject the Amendment.
VISCOUNT BARRINGTON: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, in the absence of the right reverend Prelate who was here at the beginning of this debate, may I ask him a question? This is only in defence of the case made by my noble friend Lord Airedale, because it was rather a thin Committee and it was also rather a tired Committee, because I for one had sat through all the previous night and also attended this debate. What I would ask is: might it be advisable to revise the Prayer Book? I think it is the Prayer Book of the Anglican Church which asks us to look after the fatherless and the widows. Should we not make it that it also asks us to look after the motherless and the widowers, for whom the noble Lord made a very strong case? I am all for it. This case did not receive a great deal of discussion in Committee. It has now been discussed, and I will sit down and say no more.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am always in favour of prayer for whomsoever it is offered, but not if the meaning of the prayer is that we put the money in the county court and leave it there subject to the discretion of the judge.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, we have had a very interesting debate, and I do not propose to keep the House any longer on this. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, at the end of his main speech, said that men are more likely to drink the money away than women are, and that they are more likely to bet it away, but I think that perhaps the women are more likely to bingo it away; but I dare say this does not happen in a very great number of cases. I am extremely grateful to the three noble Baronesses who intervened in the debate; and, having regard to the rather rough time that I came in for at the hands of the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, I am all the more grateful for having had the support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearson, who has studied this matter in very great detail and, I imagine, knows more about this subject than anybody else in the House. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, thought I was suggesting that a man, having "blued" his damages, would be able to put the money back. I did not suggest that. What I suggested was that, having "blued" the damages, he would

781
have a rather better chance than a widow to go out to work and earn money with which to support the children.
My Lords, it seems to me that the House is satisfied that the Committee came to a proper decision on this matter. I would finally say to the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, that I am quite unrepentant about this. My private belief is that if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had realised that this matter was not going to be non-contentious on that Friday afternoon a week ago last Friday, this new clause would not even have been moved on that occasion. I do not believe it would have been right. I believe the proper thing would have been to have said, " This is a contentious matter and something which ought to be discussed on Report ". For that reason, my Lords, I thought it right that it should be discussed on Report. Having said all that, 1 beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, have consented to place their interests, so far as they are concerned on behalf of the Crown and the Duchy of Cornwall, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Then, Standing Order No. 42 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of May 20, 1971):
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene at this stage. I do so simply for the purpose of saying in two sentences how extremely grateful I am to noble Lords and to noble and learned Lords for the obvious care and attention that they have given to the consideration of this small Bill, and the anxiety with which they have approached it. I am deeply grateful to them. I do not think I would be justified in taking up the time
782
of the House any more on this Bill, which has been very thoroughly considered.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

E.E.C.: PRIME MINISTER'S TALKS IN PARIS
3.40 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, with the permission of your Lordships House, I should like to repeat a Statement now being made in another place by the Prime Minister on the visit he paid to Paris last week. This is the Statement:
"With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a Statement about the visit which I made to Paris last week.
" I should like first to tell the House of the warmth of the welcome which I received from the President of the French Republic and from the Prime Minister and his colleagues. I was impressed by their unmistakable desire for a renewal of friendship and co-operation between Britain and France, as an essential element in the growing unity of Europe.
" My talks with President Pompidou extended altogether over a period of something like eleven hours. Except for a short time at the end of the talks when we were joined by the Prime Minister of France, we were accompanied during this time only by interpreters. This enabled us to deal with the wide range of subjects covered in the communiqué issued at the end of the talks, which I will with permission circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
" Our main area of discussion was the whole field of European policy. It was heartening to discover how close are the views of the French and British Governments on the development of Europe and its role in the world.
" Our talks showed that both Governments wish to bring about the development of a united Europe through an enlarged European Community. We do not intend this as a defensive alliance against external threat. We see it as certainly the best means, and probably the only means, in the world

783
of to-day, of guaranteeing peace within Europe, providing prosperity for her peoples, and restoring to Europe that political, economic and cultural influence in the world that her traditions and her potential justify.
" We also found an identity of view on the role which a united Europe can play in relation to the problems which face us in other parts of the world, and particularly in relation to the developing countries, where there is so much that an enlarged Community which included Britain and France could contribute.
" We discussed the development of the European Community and the working of its institutions. We agreed in particular that the identity of national States should be maintained in the framework of the developing Community. This means of course that though the European Commission has made. and will continue to make, a valuable contribution, the Council of Ministers should continue to be the forum in which important decisions are taken, and that the processes of harmonisation should not override essential national interests. We were in agreement that the maintenance and strengthening of the fabric of cooperation in such a Community requiries that decisions should in practice be taken by unanimous agreement when vital national interests of any one or more members are at stake.
" This is indeed entirely in accordance with the views which I have long held. It provides a clear assurance, just as the history of the Community provides clear evidence, that joining the Community does not entail a loss of national identity or an erosion of essential national sovereignty.
" As to the means by which greater unity and co-operation could be achieved, our primary concern was with the development of common economic policies, in the context of the British application for entry into the European Communities. But we both saw this as the basis for closer political collaboration, if the negotiations for enlargement of the Communities could be brought to a successful conclusion. We had only a brief dis
784
cussion of defence questions, recognising that these were matters for the future, after enlargement.
" We reviewed the progress made in the Community towards economic and monetary union, following the meeting of the six Heads of Government in The Hague in December, 1969. I told President Pompidou that Britain looked forward wholeheartedly to joining in the economic and monetary development of the Community, if negotiations for British accession could be satisfactorily concluded. We both arrived at a clearer understanding of each other's anxieties and objectives in this fields; and I was able to dispel any reservations which the French Government might have felt about the British Government's willingness, which my right honourable friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster have often expressed, to accept the consequences of this development for its own policies.
" We agreed upon the need to negotiate suitable arrangements for those members of EFTA who are not applying for membership of the enlarged Community, and thus to avoid the re-erection of trade barriers between them and the Community.
" We discussed the problems which would arise as a result of enlargement of the Communities, when the time came to renew the Yaounde Convention. The House will have noted that our agreement on the need to safeguard the existing rights of present associates under the Convention was matched by our agreement on the need to safeguard the interests of future associates under a new Convention and particularly of those who would depend largely on exports to the enlarged Community of sugar or other primary products.
" Finally, the President and I reviewed the progress of the enlargement negotiations. We did not attempt to reach definite conclusions on issues which fall to be considered within the negotiating conference in Brussels and Luxembourg. But the President emphasised the importance he attached to the system of Community preference and his welcome for Britain's

785
acceptance of this principle upon entry into the Community at the last Brussels meeting. I went over the main issues involved in a settlement of Britain's contribution to the Community budget in the years leading up to the full implementation of the Community's system of financing its expediture. And I emphasised to President Pompidou the importance of reaching satisfactory arrangements for New Zealand. I also explained the difficulties presented for us by the existing fisheries regulation. On all these points, though we did not seek to arrive at final conclusions, President Pompidou's attitude was positive and constructive.
" The results of our exchanges on these matters are best demonstrated in our joint conclusion that it is desirable and possible to reach early agreement in the negotiations between Britain and the Community. The President and I both felt able to say after our talks that we were confident that the main issues could be settled before the end of June.
" There are still important questions to resolve, and there is still much hard work to be done before Her Majesty's Government will he in a position to come to Parliament with an account of the arrangements on which our entry into the European Communities can be negotiated. But this I can say today, as a result of my talks with the President of the French Republic. I am confident that the divisions and suspicions which have so hampered relations between Britain and France in recent years have now been removed. We have established that the views of the two Governments are very close over the whole range of European policies. The French President has shown his clear desire to proceed with the building of a united Europe on the basis of an enlarged Community, with Britain as a member. We can therefore approach both the final phase of our negotiations for entry into the Communities and, if they go well, the development of Europe thereafter. in a spirit of confidence and partnership. I believe that this opens the prospect of a degree of unity, and thus of peace and prosperity, in Western Europe which our Continent has never seen before, and which would be of pro-
786
found significance for Britain, for Europe and for the whole wcrld."
My Lords, that concludes the Prime Minister's Statement.
Following is the text of the Communiqué referred to in the Statement:
" The President of the French Republic and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom held discussions en tete a tete in Paris on 20 and 21 May, 1971. Mr. Heath also called upon Monsieur Chaban-Delmas on 20 May.
" On the role of Europe following the enlargement of the European Economic Community the President of the Republic and the British Prime Minister had a thorough exchange which showed that their views were very close. They expressed in particular their determination to contribute through the enlarged and deepened Community to increasing European co-operation and to the development of distinctively European policies, in the first instance principally in economic matters and progressively in other fields.
"The discussion led to a complete identity of view on the working and the development of the Community. The President of the Republic and the British Prime Minister considered the range of economic, financial and monetary problems which could arise as a result of enlargement. They also discussed the progress of the European Community towards economic and monetary union, and its implications for existing financial relationships. The Prime Minister reaffirmed the readiness of Britain to participate fully and in a European spirit in this development. These discussions produced a useful clarification of views which will provide a firm basis for the future.
"The President of the Republic and the British Prime Minister took note with satisfaction of the agreements recently reached at the Ministerial Meeting between the Community and the United Kingdom on 11 and 12 May on agricultural and industrial matters, and particularly on the application of Community preference in the agricultural field.
"The President of the Republic and the British Prime Minister considered that it was desirable and possible to reach early agreement on the main outstanding issues in the negotiations for British entry, particularly the problems relating to New Zealand and the British contribution to the Community budget.
"The President of the Republic and the British Prime Minister expressed their joint desire to resolve the problems which will arise from the renewal of the Yaounde Convention in a positive spirit and having regard to existing rights. It would equally be necessary to take account of the need to safeguard the interests of the countries who are, or will have the opportunity to become, signatories of that Convention and who are largely dependent upon the markets of the enlarged Community for their exports of sugar or other primary products."
3.48 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: We are truly grateful to the noble Earl for reading

787
this long Statement. There is one thing we can all say. We welcome anything which leads to an improvement in Anglo-French relations and I think there can be no disagreement amongst any of us of the desirability of this. I am not quite sure, but I do not think the noble Earl will attribute the improvement entirely to these particular talks. Noble Lords know my own position in regard to the desirability of our entry into the Common Market providing the terms are right, but it seems to me that we are not —and I do not mean this critically—very much further forward when it comes to a discussion of terms. The Statement makes clear that there are a number of matters still to be discussed and still to be settled, and although one welcomes the reference to the Yaounde Agreement as important, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Eskan made clear the other day our difficulties even where that is concerned.
I certainly welcome the fact, and I think most noble Lords do, that there has been no suggestion of a deal with regard to nuclear sharing. We would hope that at some stage France might consider returning into NATO as a first step, but I do not wish to make critical remarks at the moment. Although there were no witnesses other than the interpreters, I hope that the strength of feeling and the sense of honour that is involved with regard to New Zealand was firmly laid on the table. I conclude that this was done. I think that that is a matter to which we all attach the greatest importance. The terms that emerge may well be decisive in a matter of this kind.
There are aspects of the Statement which are a little difficult to follow and I think that some noble Lords may still wonder what one or two sentences mean. There is almost a decent obscurity about them. One important thing that does seem to emerge is the need for unanimous agreement. There are some who hope that Europe is now moving very much further towards integrated form. But this does not appear to be at all the issue at the moment, except in so far as we may find ourselves already committed to aspects of European policy which we do not like. No doubt these will come out when, finally, we see the terms.
788
May I conclude by asking what plans there are for the publication of a White Paper? There have been many reports in the Press, but one never knows how much is officially inspired or is speculation. I would urge on the Government on a matter of such profound importance —this apparently is what was discussed at dinner last night; and I was glad to see, according to the papers, that the noble Earl was at the dinner—the necessity that the public and Parliament have plenty of time to consider, so that we do not make up our minds too quickly in one direction or another.
Is it the noble Earl's intention that we should have a debate before we rise for the summer? I am not pressing him on this. I can see arguments for and against. But clearly, if these negotiations are to be concluded at the end of June, there will need to be some opportunity for discussion, even if we do not make a final decision until after a period of consideration in the country. I should be grateful if the noble Earl could say something on that point, and also if he would confirm my understanding that unanimous agreement is required. I am wondering how far this may lead to a postponement of the implementation of the Werner proposals.
3.52 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I know that this is departing from convention, but may I deal comprehensively with the points put to me by the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition before we proceed? I should like to thank him very much for the general tenor of his reception of the Statement of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, which I have just repeated. I should like, above all, to dwell for a second on what the noble Lord has said about the improvement in Anglo-French relations. It is my belief, on the basis of what I have learned about the conversations—and it is certainly my right honourable friend's belief—that these talks do provide a new point of departure in the Anglo-French relationship. I believe that this is a matter of very profound significance for Europe, because I believe that a great deal of the progress which we could have made in Europe and the good influence which Europe in a more unified sense could have brought to bear on the world has been bedevilled by the malaise and

789
misunderstanding which has existed for too long between our two countries. I do not wish to attribute this improvement to any specific factor, but here I should like to pay tribute to the officials concerned because the success is in part attributable to the very careful preparations of these important talks. They were a model of preparation.
The noble Lord suggested that on points of detail the Statement which I have made does not advance us all that far. I think in a way that that is quite true, because the Paris talks, significant though they undoubtedly are and as I am sure they will prove to be in the perspective of history, are no substitute for negotiations between the Six and the United Kingdom. But I believe that they advance us a great way forward in three vital particulars. In the first place, it is now clear beyond a doubt that all the Six wish us to join the Community. Secondly, there is an evident desire to see the main negotiations concluded, settled, by the end of June. Thirdly (and this brings me back to the point I was making) all this implies a positive French attitude towards the success of these negotiations. I believe that these are fundamentals which are far more important than any point of detail.
On matters of detail, the noble Lord rightly referred to the crucial importance of a fair deal for New Zealand. I have clearly in my recollection what I said on that question and I do not dissent for one moment. All I will say is that his views on that matter, which are widely shared in this country, were made crystal clear by my right honourable friend to the French President. I can also confirm what the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition said about the need for unanimous agreement on vital issues. This implies that we have accepted the position, which I think is usually referred to loosely as the Luxembourg formula.
Finally, so far as Parliamentary discussions on this matter are concerned, I agree entirely that it would be desirable that Her Majesty's Government should publish a White Paper so soon as the progress of the negotiations makes that possible. I should prefer not to be tied down on time on that, because it depends on the progress of the negotiations; but in principle I entirely agree and again, depending on
790
the progress of the negotiations, given the vast importance of this matter and the differing, sincerely held views about it, my own personal belief is (but I do not wish this to be a governmental commitment, and clearly it can be discussed through the usual channels) that if and when progress makes a White Paper possible, it should not be too long thereafter when this matter is fully ventilated at least in this House of Parliament.
3.59 p.m.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, we on these Benches unhesitatingly welcome what we believe to be a real landmark in the construction of a new, democratic order in Western Europe. Clearly we cannot press the Government, nor should we wish to do so, for further details regarding the outstanding issues in the present negotiations; but, happily, it looks as if agreement on these will now be possible, indeed, likely. Far the most important aspect of the talks seems to be the meeting of minds as regards the sort of Europe which we are seeking to create when the negotiations are successful. For this agreement, this meeting of minds, has lifted a potential French veto on British entry on purely political grounds. A threat which was always latent in the background has, happily, now been removed and from this point onwards all is possible.
I join with others in congratulating the Prime Minister on his success in dispersing that " malaise " which for so many years has poisoned our relations with France. I would only add that, while most of us would agree with what the Prime Minister says about the reservation of the national identity of this country, it is clear that for the time being, if we join the Community, it will operate in the last resort on the basis of the unanimity rule in the Council of Ministers, with such assistance as can be afforded by the Brussels Commission. I myself believe, my Lords, that this system will become quite inapplicable after a rather short period. How can we advance, for instance, towards any kind of monetary union if it is maintained? But for the time being it is clear we shall have to put up with it, whether we think it is a good thing or not, just as for a considerable time we shall not be able to expect a directly elected Parliament, though all democrats must be

791
of one mind in thinking that this must come as soon as possible.
I have only one definite question to ask the Government. It was a good thing, as I believe—and I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton on this—that nuclear matters were not discussed; but I am a little disappointed that apparently so little attention was given to the problems of defence. Would not the Government agree that it will be necessary in the very near future at least to think about the reform of Western European Union, for instance; and how to advance, if we can, on the present rather rudimentary machine for concerting foreign policy? Subject to these remarks I should like again to congratulate the Prime Minister, and wish him and Mr. Rippon all success in the remaining period of negotiations, which are certainly likely to be difficult if we are to reach terms on New Zealand and on Commonwealth sugar which are sure of approval in this Parliament.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a very short question?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, may I first answer the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn? Again I should like to thank him for his reception of the Statement which I have repeated. So far as the unanimity rule is concerned, I would point out that in fact this is in practice accepted by all of the Six at the present time. I would not rule out the possibility that over a period of time—and, clearly, this will be the case—that institutions will develop; and also I myself would hope (because I share to this extent the noble Lord's views) that we shall see over a period of time the strengthening of European Parliamentary institutions. But I believe that this is bound to take time, and therefore it is only sensible for us to proceed on the basis on which such firm agreement has now been reached between the French President and my right honourable friend.
My Lords, so far as W.E.U. is concerned, I should only like to say that I think it would be sensible to start from our present position. But here again modifications may be required. This is quite clearly a matter for discussion within the enlarged Community, and
792
indeed within W.E.U. I am sure we shall be very willing to join in those and contribute positively to any such discussions that may take place.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl a short question? Would not the noble Earl the Leader of the House concede, that many people have reservations about the phrase in the Prime Minister's Statement, that the close views of Britain and France about the development of Europe were the only means of attaining peace and prosperity in Europe, and feel that it goes much too wide?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am not certain that I recollect any precise phraseology saying that it was our belief that this is the only means of advancing the cause of European unity or helping in other directions, but I think it can make a very important contribution to it indeed.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, as a champion of the cause of united Europe for a quarter of a century I should like to welcome the Prime Minister's Statement, repeated here by the Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House. There is only one little question that I imagine he expects me to ask, and it concerns the fisheries regulations. I was not quite clear from what he said whether he thought the present fishery regulations of the Common Market were to be the subject of further consideration at Luxembourg. I hope that that is the case, and if it is I shall be quite satisfied.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, may I say that there are very few Members of your Lordships' House, if any, who have made so great a contribution to the cause of European unity as the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, and he is entitled to ask his supplementary question on fisheries. The answer is that it will be the subject of further discussions. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is leaving for Norway this evening and will be discussing this matter with his Norwegian colleagues. I can however confirm, as was made clear in the Statement, that this matter was discussed in Paris. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister made our position unmistakably clear to the French President and it was clearly

793
understood that this will be a matter for negotiation between us and the Six.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that all of us welcome the understanding between the French and this country? Is he further aware that none of us would assume that it will mean just that, friendship and European peace? The problem of Europe is much greater than that. May I ask the noble Earl whether he is also aware that an eleventh-hour speech is not enough to change one thousand years of British history despite the fact that in this noble House we use the Norman French "La Reine le veult"? We are now being told that English is the language of America and not of Britain, and not an official language. Is he further aware that some of us think that the unity of Europe is a bigger thing than this, and that neither this noble House, nor the 630-odd Members of another place were elected at the Election on the issue of entry into Europe? Norway and some other countries are having a referendum, and some of us, despite the enthusiasm that some people display, would press for a referendum in this country before such a terrific decision is made. The reception of this Statement in this noble House to-day sounded more like a funeral oration than an oratorical arpeggio of entry into a great new venture in the history of the world.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am aware of some of the points which the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, has put to me and I am also aware that if we are successful in our negotiations—and I believe we shall be successful in our negotiations now to enter the Common Market—that this is not by any means the end of the matter in Europe. But I believe that the strengthening of European unity which that event will bring about will make a very material contribution to the world outside Western Europe itself. This I believe profoundly. It is implicit in the Statement I repeated that both my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the French President believe in particular that thus Europe will be enabled to play a far more positive part in both trade and aid policies towards the developing world than they have been able to generate up until now,
794
and I believe this to be a matter of very considerable importance.
My Lords, on the question of the English language, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek with touching solicitude was uneasy and so concerned about, all I can say is that the position is perfectly clear. The languages of all member countries of the Community are official languages of the Community. If we join the Community, English will be an official language of the Community. But I see no difficulty at all, as since 1961 British officials, with their usual adaptability, have shown that they have been able to hold their own in discussions with the Six, be they in French or in English, and I think that this happy situation will continue.
4.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT WATKINSON: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend a question? First, speaking as one who has close business ties with France, I should like to congratulate the Prime Minister on clearing away so many misconceptions. If it be that this is the critical and psychological moment for concluding the negotiations, will he give the House an assurance now that Her Majesty's Government will use every possible endeavour to bring this matter to a successful issue, and thus allow us to reap some of the undoubted economic benefits?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Watkinson for what he has said. I can give him, without equivocation and quite categorically, the assurance for which he has asked.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, can the noble Earl answer a specific question on unanimous voting? He quoted from the Prime Minister's Statement to the effect that unanimous voting in the larger Community, if we join, would continue on important issues. I wonder whether he can say who is to determine what is or what is not an important issue? This is most important to our future if we join the Common Market.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think that over a period of time the Six have had no difficulty whatever in identifying what are the vital national interests where

795
the Luxembourg Agreement, so called, applied.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether President Pompidou has made an official report on the conversations, in the same way as we have heard this afternoon from the Prime Minister, and whether it is possible for this to be made available to us in this country?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I do not think I can undertake to make French official reports available to your Lordships. Meetings of this kind, as my noble friend must be well aware, are necessarily confidential. What I can say is that there is no possibility, as I understand it, of any misunderstanding, of the sort that followed, for example, the Rambouillet meetings, arising in this regard. Each side made its own record of the conversations and of the agreements and understandings reached. We have made quite sure that there is no possibility of misunderstanding concerning that area arising between us and the French Government.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, the noble Earl seems to be satisfied that the negotiations will prove successful. Has he taken into consideration what may happen in the other place and what the majority opinion of people in the country may be? Back-Benchers, owing to Standing Orders of your Lordships' House, are at a disadvantage in that they cannot debate the matter, but can only ask questions. I should like to put two questions to the noble Earl. He has referred to the possibility, indeed the probability, in his mind, as in the mind also of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, of the strengthening of political ties in Europe. The noble Earl also referred to the possibility in the future of a strengthening of ties relating to defence. Are we to understand that there is a possibility, indeed a probability, of a federal structure being decided upon after we have entered the Common Market; and equally, that a defence organisation on a European basis may be implemented after we decide to enter the Common Market without the people of this country or even Parliament having a voice in
796
the matter? Are these matters of vital importance to this country, and indeed to Europe and the world, to be determined after we enter the Common Market, without primary consideration?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think I can answer the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, very clearly indeed. I agree that both the possibilities on which he touched —and I made it crystal clear that defence and nuclear matters were barely discussed at all in these discussions—are matters of very great consequence indeed. I can only say that, if it was the belief of the British Prime Minister at the time that there were proposals within an enlarged Community in that sphere which were running counter to our vital national interests, this is clearly one of the matters on which we should be able to reserve our position absolutely. The Prime Minister of the day and the Government of the day are subject to Parliamentary control. Parliamentary control will therefore be exercised. That, in my view, is how it should be.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, further to that answer, can my noble friend explain a little more the defence aspect here? Can he say how it is possible to negotiate membership of a political association aiming at a monetary union with one country that is divided, and whose reunification is only possible with Russian consent, upon the demise both of NATO and of the E.E.C., and with another which has withdrawn from NATO altogether?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I can only say that what we are here doing is negotiating entry into the European Economic Community. The points which my noble friend has put hardly arise in that particular connection. It was of course on the agenda for discussion between the French Head of State and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, but I made it absolutely clear in my reply that these matters of defence were barely touched upon in the discussions in Paris.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that to negotiate what is described as being intended to be a monetary union with, among other countries, one that is

797
split, and indeed explosive, does not really make a great deal of sense? As it stands some of us are very puzzled by the whole proposal.
EARL. JELLICOE: My Lords, my noble friend would take me very wide indeed if I were to attempt to answer these matters. They are just the sort of things that I believe we should explore more fully in debate. They are not susceptible to quick question and answer.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that a number of us are deeply concerned about the effect of this proposal not only on sugar and New Zealand, but on the living standards of the people in the developing countries? Can he give us an assurance that this consortium of industrial Powers in Western Europe will not be used for the exploitation of countries producing the primary commodities and raw materials?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, underestimates the sense of responsibility of the Six towards the developing world. Their aid policies do not compare unfavourably—if anything the reverse—with those which we ourselves have been able to achieve in recent years. But I believe that there is an identity of interest here, and it is one that has been shown by the Paris discussions. It is my understanding that the French President made it absolutely clear that it was the policy of his Government that the existing associates of the Community, the Francophobe countries to a large extent, should not suffer when the Yaounde Convention falls to be reviewed. But, by the same token, my right honourable friend made it clear that we were equally concerned that the interests of the Commonwealth countries in question should be safeguarded, and not least the developing countries, when we are members of the enlarged Community. I believe—and I say this in all seriousness to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway—that there is a very real identity of interest between France and the United Kingdom on this particular matter.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend one question about New Zealand, whence I recently returned. Is he aware that the farmers, of whom I met several, are par-
798
ticularly worried about the transitional period of negotiations regarding dairy produce? Can he give an assurance that during these talks, and during future talks, particular attention will be given to a reasonable transition period?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think I have already made it clear that Her Majesty's Government are no less concerned than my noble friend in safeguarding the interests of a country which is very dear to all of us, and where I happen to have spent my early childhood. The protection of essential New Zealand interests, and its importance, was a matter that was made absolutely crystal clear by my right honourable friend in the course of the Paris discussions. The fact that both he and President Pompidou were able to say that they saw no reason why the negotiations should not be satisfactorily concluded, that we should be seeing our way to a full settlement by June, shows that there was a response from the French side on this particular matter.
4.20 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl—I think he may not have understood the point my noble friend Lady Gaitskell made—whether he would consider that it is an accurate statement (he may not wish to answer) that we, the British, consider that the best and probably the only means of guaranteeing peace within Europe is by the policy now advocated? This is a very West European point of view. I think that was the point my noble friend was making; and perhaps it is unfortunately worded. Could he also again consider the point made by my noble friend Lord Brockway. Whereas it is true that Europe as a whole, and certainly France, have probably been contributing more, and do accept their duty to the underdeveloped countries, we in this country have tended to follow a less deliberate pursuit of British interests in the giving of aid; and there are some of us who are concerned that the giving of aid becomes a purely political weapon.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, of course I shall be glad to bear in mind both points which the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition, has put to me.

799
I think the first one has a slightly semantic quality which we need not go into now, but I quite take the point he has made, and if I misinterpreted the noble Baroness's question I apologise.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, while welcoming the noble Earl's Statement, may I ask one question? Supposing our entry into the Common Market breaks down through economic difficulties, will it be possible for a political and defence union to be formed between Great Britain and the Six?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I suppose it could, but I think that is a very hypothetical possibility. In view of the success of the Paris talks I very much doubt whether it is going to be an eventuality which we shall have to face.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, in the Statement the noble Earl made, he made reference to the Council of Ministers. Is he in a position to state whether there was conversation between the two leaders in regard to a European Parliament?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I cannot go beyond the Statement repeating what my right honourable friend has said on that point, but I shall be glad to look into the matter for the noble Lord, Lord Slater. I believe that on a matter of this sort, where chance words should not be idly spoken, it would perhaps be best for us to move on to our other business, with which we are equally familiar by now, and we can come back to this subject, as we doubtless shall. This is, I believe, a matter of primordial importance to us, to Europe and to the world, and we shall have a great deal of opportunity in the coming months to discuss it at length in your Lordships' House.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I fully accept what the noble Earl says. May I ask him whether he is in a position to say anything more about a debate? And would he bear in mind that we should be very upset if we thought there was no discussion about a European Parliament between the Prime Minister and the President? But I equally accept that he cannot add to what has been said to-day.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I do not think I can add a great deal to what
800
I said about a debate. I have said, quite clearly, this is a matter that we shall wish to discuss. The exact timing must depend on the rate of progress in the forthcoming meetings at Brussels and Luxembourg, which will be of great importance. Perhaps we can continue to discuss this matter through the usual channels, and if and when there is a desire and it seems the right moment we will not be at all resistant to the idea of a debate of this whole area.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, did I understand the noble Earl to say that there will be a White Paper and that it will be on the basis of that White Paper that we shall have a discussion?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, it seems to me sensible, as and when sufficient progress has been made, that that progress is brought together in a White Paper, but I think the timing of that must depend on the progress and the speed of negotiations in Brussels and Luxembourg. I say Luxembourg, because one of the meetings of the Seven will be in Luxembourg.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
4.26 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER in the Chair.]
Clause 72 [Incorporation and vesting of property]:
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELIIELVIE)THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELIIELVIE) Moved Amendment No. 263LLL:
Page 57, line 2, after (" organisation") insert—
(" (a) if it is not already a body corporate")
The noble Baroness said: If it is convenient for the Committee, perhaps with this Amendment we can also consider Amendment No. 263MMM. The purpose of these Amendments is 4o remove a difficulty which might arise if subsection (1) of the clause as it now stands were applied to a body which is already incorporated. The subsection states that upon receipt of a certificate of registration under the Bill an organisation " shall become a body corporate ". However, some organisations which obtain registration under the Bill may already he bodies corporate, either because they are registered under the Companies Act 1948 or have been incorporated by a Private Act of Parliament. Therefore, it would clearly be wrong to refer to such organisations becoming bodies corporate when they have this status already. This Amendment seeks to clarify the Bill, and I commend it to the Committee. I beg to move.
LORD STOW HILL: While I do not for a moment oppose either of these two Amendments, I should be most grateful if the noble Baroness would be kind enough to indicate what, in the view of the Government, is the effect of the incorporation of trade unions produced by Clause 72. I know that Clause 72 applies both to organisations of employers and of workers, but the questions I desire to put to the Government relate particularly to the trade unions. I do not know whether the noble Baroness has had an opportunity of looking at the case of Bonsor v. The Musicians' Union, which was decided by this House sitting in its judicial capacity in 1956. In that case, the nature of a trade union and its existence in law was very carefully and thorough considered by this House.
Although there was some difference of view between the noble and learned Lords who took part in the decision in that case, they, I think it would he right to say, all agreed that if you ask what is a trade union, the answer must be that it is simply an association of individuals bound by contract one to the other, the terms of the contract being contained in the documents, primarily the rules of the trade union. I hope I have put that clearly. That is the effect of Bonsor v. The Musicians' Union.
The union is not a corporate body, it is simply an aggregate of individuals. If
802
you ask what are their rights, one as against the other, you have to look to the rules, you have to look at other documents—application forms and so on —to find the answer. They are bound together by a contract contained in those documents. Clause 72 provides that when a certificate of registration is granted that aggregate body of individuals shall become a body corporate. Then there are certain further consequences which follow and which are set out in subsection (3). What is the effect of incorporation upon those rules? If you find that the trade union has become a corporate body, what are the relations as between themselves and as between them and the corporate body which are then brought into being? Do you still look to the rules of the trade union to find them? If that is so, and if the rules become the equivalent or counterpart of the articles of association, or the memorandum of a limited company, what provision of the Bill produces that result? I have not found such a provision. This is not a trick question. I know that to answer this point needs a certain amount of preparation, and I apologise to the noble Baroness for not having given her notice of it. Presumably it is intended that the rules are in some way made as the structure or the skeleton of the corporate body.
If you are talking about a body incorporated by charter, you look at the terms of the charter to see what are the rights against the charter of those who are broadly described as members, and you look at the rules set out in the charter to find out what are their respective rights. I do not find anything analogous to produce that result in the case of the incorported union. This question is one of great practical interest. In the Marshalled List there are two Amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Diamond which would have the effect of incorporating in the structure of the incorporated trade union the limited liability which a limited liability company is invested with under the terms of the Companies Act 1948 and later Acts. What my noble friend seeks to do is limit the liability of the members of the trade union. I shall seek to deploy the case for that when your Lordships come to it. I have paved the way by asking my question, and if the noble Baroness says that it is a matter on which she would

803
like to take advice before she answers me, I shall understand.
4.35 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: It is not easy to debate with Lord Stow Hill, but I have been aware of the particular question he raised, the case of Bonsor v. The Musicians' Union, because that is clearly discussed on page 208 of the Donovan Report. While Lord Morton of Henryton said that the Union was capable of entering into contracts and of being sued as a legal entity, as distinct from its individual members, and Lord Porter took the same view, Lord MacDermott and Lord Somervell did not. They thought that a registered trade union was not a separate juridical person, and that it could be sued in its own name simply because Parliament had, in the result, sanctioned such a course. It was because of the uncertainty of the exact legal status of a trade union that the Donovan Report recommended in paragraph 784 that registered trade unions should have corporate status. This was supported by the Society of Labour Lawyers. It is for this reason that Clause 72 stands as part of the Bill.
So far as the Bill is concerned, any registered trade union would first go on to a provisional register and would then become a registered trade union; and by so doing it would have corporate status. There are various advantages which it could claim. Corporate status would include the right to hold property, to sue and to be sued in the organisation's own name, and there would be protection of the organisation, and its authorised agents, if in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute it either induced or threatened to induce another person to break a contract to which that other person was a party. There are several other examples. So far as the specific rules are concerned, we shall debate this on Clause 73. The trade union has the right to draw up its own rules; it is only for the Registrar to examine the rules to see that they conform with the ordinary concepts of natural justice.
LORD STOW HILL: I do not want to continue the debate on this rather technical aspect. I am not trying to take time unnecessarily. From what the noble
804
Baroness has said, I infer that there is no provision in the Bill which would have the effect of automatically making the rules, mutates mutandis, the rules of the corporate body. Therefore I assume that there is no such provision. That produces the result that the union would become an incorporated body, a corporate entity. But if you ask what is the structure of the corporate entity, who governs it, who is liable to look after its finances, who can discipline anybody in accordance with the terms of the corporate body. you will find no answer. You will find nothing except a piece of paper saying that a particular trade union is a corporate body, and you will find nothing to tell you what the rules are.
I do not know whether the correct conclusion I should draw from the latter part of the speech of the noble Baroness is that it will be incumbent on every union, immediately upon incorporation, to scrap its rules, draw them up again with the necessary alterations and specifically, by some process, incorporate them as the rules of the corporate body. If that is so, under what process does it do that? Are there any provisions of the Companies Acts incorporated? There seems to be no process provided in this Bill whereby a union is to be enabled to determine what its rules are to be. There is a gap in the Bill in that respect. That aspect of Clause 72 may require further consideration. It will be difficult to deal with the two Amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Diamond without knowing approximately what the answer to my question is. I am grateful for the answer of the noble Baroness, but it leaves a particular aspect of the problem not wholly covered.
LORD DRUMALBYN: If the noble Lord will look at paragraph 785 of the Donovan Report he will see that it says quite clearly:
" If trade unions were corporations the contract of membership would be a contract between the union and each member. We see no adverse consequences which might flow from this. Indeed it would seem to correspond more to reality than the present doctrine that the contract is between each member and every other member."
And I suppose the Report might have added, " and bound together by the rules ". But the noble Lord has made

805
a very valid point and we shall be glad to look at it carefully in the light of what he said.
LORD STOW HILL: The rules could not be a contract between the union and members without more. There would have to be some process which altered the terms of the rules and introduced as a party to them the new corporate being. But I do not take the matter further.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: This is a vital point which I cannot hope to deal with as clearly and in such a concise way as my noble friend Lord Stow Hill has done. But, as somebody who has had to deal with the establishment of, say, a small company, I know that one of the things that struck me when I saw the noble Lord's Amendment from the other side of the Committee was this. If a company is incorporated it has the right then to take part in any activities that it puts into the charter. Can it do this, or has it first to go to the Registrar of Unions? The noble Lord has again referred to another clause to make this clear. This is one of the matters which in all sincerity worry us. As the Committee stage of this Bill proceeds, and the Government add provisions here and there to the clauses, or delete this and add that, the Bill becomes more and more complicated and labyrinthine. Had poor old Ariadne been alive, trying to steer a way through the catacombs and provisions of this Bill, she would have got lost in the galleries because she would not have enough string to find her way out to the sunshine—if the noble Lord can follow my figure of speech. This is the difficulty the whole of the legal world is in in dealing with this Bill, as has been proved by the erudite question just put by my noble friend.
LORD BERNSTEIN: May I ask a question? It seems to me, in reading this clause and taking account of the Amendment, that it would be possible for a member of a union to be sued for damages, or what-you-will, if the union itself did not have sufficient funds to pay. I may be wrong on that. On the other hand, there are employers' associations which would be limited organisations, and it seems to me that their members could not be sued if there were damages against them, which is very unlikely.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: Perhaps it would be better to discuss this point on the next two Amendments, which are to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, because they specifically refer to limited liability which I think was the point in the noble Lord's mind. In reference to the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, I should have thought this particular part of the Bill on registration is fairly clear. We shall come to the next clause which deals clearly with rules. What we are discussing now is the question whether on the receipt of a certificate of registration the organisation shall become a body corporate. It is something rather limited in its nature.
LORD DIAMOND: We are grateful to the noble Baroness, and indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for what they have said in response to the most important issue raised with such clarity by my noble friend Lord Stow Hill. The noble Baroness said, absolutely correctly, that we shall be able to deal more easily with the specific question of limited liability when we come to deal with the next Amendments. But my noble friend Lord Stow Hill has made a point, which I should like to underline, that whatever the noble Baroness, or whoever deals with the next Amendment, tells us will be subject in a certain sense to the answer to this first question, which we have not yet had. I do not therefore want to pursue the matter too far at the present time. It is a most important and, if I may say so, not easy point, and I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Stow Hill for having raised it in such a clear way.
We shall have to have (and perhaps I am now addressing my remarks specifically to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn) an answer to this question at a later stage. We are obviously not going to object to the Amendment, because it removes a possible cause of confusion and to that extent is broadly acceptable. But we shall have to come back to the first overall difficulty raised by my noble friend, which will affect what the noble Baroness says with regard to the subsequent Amendments. I am only making that point absolutely clear before we go on to accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.45 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 263D:
Page 57, line 4, at end insert (" and limited liability ").
The noble Lord said: In a sense we have in part already argued this Amendment, but I should like to take the matter a little further. The Amendment seeks to append to the nature of the registered body limited liability such as attaches to a limited liability company under the Companies Acts. Its object is perfectly clear, and possibly your Lordships might think that while this Amendment is being considered we might consider the next Amendment in the name of my noble friend, which is designed to achieve the same purpose. May I elaborate my argument by asking your Lordships to look at two other clauses? If one looks at Clause 148 one sees there set out the property against which a judgment or an award in an arbitration may be executed. The clause is framed in such a way as to exclude certain property from the ambit of the property which may be used to satisfy a judgment. If your Lordships look at subsection (2)(b) you will see that the property which may be taken in execution does not include any property:
" belonging to any member of the trade union or employers' association otherwise than jointly or in common with the other members of it ".
It seems to me that the effect of that paragraph, when one is considering a judgment or an award, is to exclude any property from liability to be taken in execution other than property which in a broad sense can be said to be the property of the trade union itself.
The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, has just come into the Committee and possibly he would like me to put the point again. The Committee is discussing the Amendment to Clause 72 which reads:
"Page 57, line 4, at end insert (" and limited liability ")".
The clause, as the noble and learned Lord knows, is one which produces the result that when a certificate of registration is granted the trade union becomes a corporate body. That is the effect of this Amendment. Having indicated the objective, I would ask the Committee to go forward and look at Clause 148. The noble and learned Lord will see that,
808
under subsection (2)(b) of Clause 148, where you are talking of a judgment or an award, you cannot execute a judgment against certain property, and you cannot execute it under paragraph (b) against property vested in a member otherwise than jointly and in common with the other members. It would seem to me that the objective of that paragraph is to limit the liability of members, to ensure that an award can be levied only against property jointly held by members as members of the union. That is the case with regard to a judgment.
However, if one goes back to Clause 88 one sees there a provision that the Chief Registrar, if he has reason to think that a trade union is insolvent—the usual definitions, I suppose, being used to decide whether a body is insolvent or not —may present a petition to wind it up. Then, if the petition is successful, the trade union is wound up by the court " in accordance with the Companies Act 1948 ". There is, so far as I can discover in that particular clause, no similar provision limiting liability for debts which have not yet become crystallised in a judgment, to property of the trade union strictly. So far as that clause is concerned the result would seem to be that property of a member held individually and privately by him—if he has been party, for example, to a contract entered into by a trade union to pay the rent or to discharge some other liability—is itself liable. It may be that I am right or wrong in the reading that I am attributing to Clause 88. If I am right, where there is a judgment there would seem to be limited liability; where there is not a judgment and there is a winding up, the debts of the union which have not given rise to an action in court crystallised into a judgment could be enforced against the property of individual members of the union, other than property, or in addition to property, which they hold in common as members of the union; in other words, their private property as distinct from property of the union itself, viewed in the strict sense.
If I am right so far, I am sure that the Committee will agree with me that there is a good deal of uncertainty about this. I would apprehend that it is the intention of the Government that the liability of the trade union should be equivalent to the limited liability of a

809
limited company. I imagine that that is the desire and intention of the Government. It may be that I am wrong about that and that they wish all members to be liable to the full extent of their assets, but I very much hope that is not the case. If it is the desire of the Government that the liability should be limited in that sense, I feel sure that the Ministers on the Front Bench will recognise with me that. to put it at its lowest, there is some measure of obscurity and uncertainty about this. It is at least open to various readings, and I would respectfully submit that it is desirable in the interests of everybody—the many millions of people who are affected by this—that it should be made plain beyond a peradventure where the corporate trade union liability is to be a limited liability, a liability limited to the union's property strictly so viewed, or whether it is to go beyond that.
As has already been said, the argument hinges upon what took place in the course of the discussion on the previous Amendment, but it may be that Ministers feel that they would like to give further consideration to this. I would press upon them that it is highly desirable in the first place that the position should be made plain beyond a peradventure. There should be no uncertainty as to what properly is liable to be taken in extinction of the debts of the union. That is the first proposition that I put before the Committee. Secondly, I would hope that it would be made plain that the trade union's liability should be a limited liability analogous to that of a limited liability company. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I must apologise to the Committee for having been absent when the noble Lord began to speak. I understand that we are discussing Amendments Nos. 263D and 263E, which is somewhat analogous. The broad position of the Government is that we could not accept No. 263D but we would consider the possibility of embodying something on the lines of No. 263E, although not the exact words, by the Report stage if necessary. My present inclination is that it is not necessary to do it, at any rate as regards the liability of individual members, because the general law protects the assets of individual members from liability for the debts of a corporation of this kind.
810
Therefore, I do not think it is necessary at all, but should it be necessary we will consider it between now and Report stage because it is fully our intention that the assets of individual members should not be liable to be seized in satisfaction, either of a judgment debt or on the winding up of a trade union, except in so far as the rules provide. I hope that that will satisfy the noble Lord.
LORD STOW HILL: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord. It certainly satisfies me, but I do not know whether it satisfies my noble friend Lord Diamond.
LORD DIAMOND: I echo the appreciation shown by my noble friend to the noble and learned Lord for what he has said. My own uninformed view was that I had hoped and expected that the Government would say that these words were not necessary. But although they might say that they were not necessary from the legal point of view, I was hoping that they would listen to an argument that might be beneficial for a general understanding of the situation, especially now that the Government have introduced the words " corporate situation ". As soon as one hears that a body has corporate status the thought automatically springs to mind as to whether the intention behind those who give it that status is that it should have limited liability, and it might just be that if it does not, people will have unnecessary anxieties. So I hope the noble and learned Lord will consider that aspect even though he has given me the answer which I hoped he would give me; namely, that these words are possibly not strictly necessary.
Therefore, all I need say at this moment is that I am grateful to my noble friend for having put the matter forward, and repeating what the noble and learned Lord will not have heard (because this was raised on a previous Amendment), that we are still taking the view that until we know a little more about what is meant by the words in Clause 72(1),
"the organisation shall become a body corporate ".
we are taking the view that the matter is somewhat up in the air as to the rules of the corporate body. Possibly the simple answer will be that they are the rules which would have been the rules

811
of the body had it not been made a corporate body. On the other hand, as my noble friend is disposed to have some anxiety about it, it may well be that there is a large gap here, and apart from knowing that it has a common seal and that actions automatically get transferred, we know very little about it, how it is to behave and what the rules of the corporate body are. Therefore that matter is still left open.
I do not think it need affect what the noble and learned Lord has said. I think all I need do is to thank him for what he has said and hope that he will be good enough to consider what I have said about including some words along the lines of Amendment No. 263E, which will give more understanding to those who might seek it. In those circumstances, I am sure that my noble friend would wish to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD STOW HILL: I am not quite sure whether it lies with me to withdraw the Amendment, but if so I would certainly desire to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I beg to move Amendment No. 263MMM.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 4, at end insert—
(" or
(b) if it is already a body corporate, whether by the name specified in the certificate or by a different name, shall thereafter be a body corporate by the name so specified.")—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 72, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
5.0 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor very kindly indicated when we last met that he was disposed to make a statement with regard to the income tax position of trade unions, and I should be most grateful if he would be so kind as to do so. As the Committee knows, at the moment under the Consolidation Act of 1970, the Income Tax Act and Corporations Act (Section 338), trade unions
812
have certain rights. Section 338 incorporates what used to be Section 440(2) of the Income Tax Act 1952 and Section 26 of the Finance Act 1956. Those rights are very valuable. They confer income tax relief in respect of income of various types, such as dividends and so on. Under the provisions of the 1952 Act they were subject to the limitation that the rules of the union did not assure annuities in excess of £104 a year. But the value of the concession was very greatly increased by the 1956 Act, which provided that what I think are known as the Millard Tucker policies are not to he taken into account in assessing the £104.
Going through the Bill, I apprehend it may be the intention of the Government to provide for the situation in the following way. Only registered unions are entitled to that relief, and under the 1970 Act unions' can only mean unions registered under the 1871 Act; and the last Schedule repeals the 1871 Act. Therefore, prima facie, the result would seem to be that that relief goes. I should be grateful if the noble and. learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would be so kind as to correct me if I am wrong. It may be the intention of the Government not to bring in that repeal until they have been able to restore the relief given in their first Finance Act after the Bill becomes law. It may be that they can defer the repeal under Clause 160 of the Bill; and that may be the answer. I am indeed grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for having said he would be prepared to enlighten us on this to-day.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think I can help the noble Lord about this matter since he was good enough to give me advance notice of the point he intended to raise. He is quite right in saying that under the law as it stood prior to 1970, that is to say under the Income Tax Act of 1952 and the amending section of the Finance Act 1956, the concession as regards tax was limited to trade unions registered under the Act of 1871. But what I think has perhaps escaped notice is that in the consolidating Statute of 1970, in Section 338, the reference to the Act of 1871 is omitted, with the result that it is " registered trade unions ", in those words and without the reference to 1871, which are entitled to the immunity.

813
The result is that the immunity will be carried on when this Bill becomes law without further amendment of that section because, either from good luck—which it may be, for all I know—or from prescience on the part of the draftsman that legislation of this kind would be contemplated by one Government or another, the consolidating Act omitted reference to the Act of 1871.
The noble Lord's query led me to ask a further question of the draftsman as to what would happen to the unions on the provisional register, and I think it will be necessary, either when still on the Committee stage or on Report, to thicken up the provision of Clause 160, to which the noble Lord also referred, in order to enable us to make quite sure that the registration provisions do not leave a hiatus. But it is fully the intention of the Government to continue the tax concessions, and it will not be necessary to amend Section 338 of the consolidating Act. It may be necessary to amend Section 160 of this Act so as to provide for the provisional register.
LORD STOW HILL: I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for what he has said and for his extremely helpful speech. I had noticed that in the 1970 Act the word "registered " appears without there being any linking to the 1871 Act. If I may just put to the noble and learned Lord the point that it may be desirable to make the matter clear in any amending words he proposes to use, it occurred to me to wonder, inasmuch as at the time when the Consolidation Act 1970 was passed clearly " registered " meant registered under the 1871 Act, that automatically the word "registered " when applied to registration under this Act would apply. It seems to me to be arguable that it did not, and to put the matter beyond any argument I respectfully suggest that it would be desirable to insert in Clause 160 of the Bill words which will make the matter absolutely clear. I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord for what he has said.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I did, as a matter of fact, raise this point with the draftsmen and also with the Departments, and the advice I received was that we were all right under Section 338
814
of the consolidating Act in its present form. But in view of the fact that the noble Lord has raised the point I will ask the question again—hoping to receive the same answer—and it will be looked at before the Bill leaves this House positively one way or another.
LORD STOW HILL: I am most grateful for what the noble and learned Lord has said.
LORD DIAMOND: The noble and learned Lord said during the course of his remarks that it was the intention of the Government that trade unions should continue to get the benefit of this income tax concession. He said " trade unions " —I am quite sure he meant registered trade unions only. He knows that we shall be coming back to this point on a subsequent Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There is no misunderstanding about that at all. The noble Lord is quite right.
Clause 72, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 73 [Examination and approval of rules by registrar]:
5.8 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 263F:
Page 57, line 19, leave out ("in that").
The noble Lord said: I think it would be helpful and would make for an intelligent discussion of what we are engaged upon if I invited your Lordships to be good enough to accede to my request that the first four Amendments to this clause which stand in my name be discussed together—I do not seek to include the Amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn—that is to say, Amendments 263F, G, H and J, because although they could be taken separately they all refer essentially to the same point.
I am in a slight difficulty here because I did not have the privilege of hearing the whole of the debate on Thursday when I was engaged elsewhere; but from a quick reading of part of Hansard I gather that the essential point behind these Amendments was discussed then, and I shall deal with the matter very shortly now in the hope that that is what your Lordships would prefer. What we

815
are here concerned with is first of all a principle, and then the application of the principle. I suppose the fundamental principle we are concerned with is the right of association—a freedom of that order; and in relation to trade unions we would interpret that right as meaning that workers can get together and form their associations and decide how they are going to run them. Of course, for the convenience of their members they must make clear what their rules are so that members joining will know what kind of a body they are joining. Donovan looked at this matter very carefully and, as was discussed on Thursday, he made it quite clear that the freedom of unions to decide their rules should not be interfered with. I do not quote the exact words, but that is the import of what he recommends.
This clause, as it stands, is a clause under which a registrar has to approve rules, and he has to approve detailed rules. The objection to the approval of the detailed rules is twofold. First of all, the union knows best what its own rules should be. It is a number of workers getting together to decide how to manage their own affairs within this association. Secondly, if, as a matter of public policy, it is thought wise that unions, being of the importance they are, should have rules which are sufficiently clear to their members and rules which cover essential points, then you must have some machinery for deciding how that public interest can be satisfied if a union takes a different view and feels that its own rules are already adequate.
Donovan recognised this and said that this is still a matter for the unions, and the best way of helping the unions to frame suitable rules is to give them the freedom to do so in the first place. But if the rules, as they emerge, are not sufficiently clear and do not sufficiently cover matters of public policy and public interest, then the formation and the clarification of the rules should be helped by an appropriate body. The appropriate body is, in fact, a body of trade unionists helped by a lawyer chairman. That is a perfectly simple proposition. There is (a) the right of association—freedom of association, a fundamental liberty; (b) the exercise of that right by unions by their
816
having rules which they make for themselves; and (c), where public policy may be to intervene, assistance to the unions by a body of trade unionists—because trade unionists have the right experience —and that body of trade unionists should be chaired by a lawyer, who would be helpful in directing the consideration of that body in a fruitful way.
That is all within Donovan, and on this side of the Committee we should find all of that acceptable. But that is totally at variance with what is proposed in this clause. What is proposed in this clause is that " the man in Whitehall knows very much best "—the " man in Whitehall " being the Registrar in this case—and that the Registrar shall lay down what the union's rules shall be. Irrespective of the fact that the union may have been in existence for a great number of years and have learnt, through long experience and possibly many difficulties, the best way of framing its rules, it is the Registrar which will lay them down, and the force of law will be behind what the Registrar has to say.
All that is totally unacceptable to us on this side because we do not think that this is the way in which unions will function better (which is what we are all after), and be strengthened—as Donovan recommends, and as the Government said is one of the purposes behind this Bill. Therefore, I move this Amendment, but draw attention to all these other Amendments which seek to leave out the specifying of individual rules, knowing that behind each of these individual rules to be approved by the Registrar the Registrar has the power to insist on his view of what the rules should be. Therefore, I beg to move.
LORD SLATER: I rise to give support to my noble friend Lord Diamond in moving this Amendment. The more I look at this Bill and try to study its purpose and its intentions, the more I am convinced that, as has already been said by my noble friend, the Government really do believe that they, and they alone, know more about industrial relations than anyone else. So far as the trade unions in this country are concerned, they are to be treated—and I say this with true conviction—as if they were little children.—One would think that they

817
have never been associated as a group of people, organised labour, within this country, working for the benefit of the people and the membership of their respective trade unions. I appreciate that the Secretary of State has within his Department these conciliation officers in senior posts who have been there with successive Ministers since it was the old Ministry of Labour and who, he believes, have studied how organised labour ought to behave on the industrial front in this country. No doubt many hours will have been spent by these people in studying the problems that will arise as a result of these various principles coming into operation. No doubt the Minister in charge of the Bill will be posing questions to the people in his Department on these principles.
The answers to the questions that he was seeking to pose in the drafting of this Bill must have satisfied not only him but the Cabinet of the present Government, or we should not have had this Bill, either in the other place or here. Therefore I have come to the conclusion that it is one of the easiest things in life to be able to sit down and produce a formula by reading a pamphlet, or textbook, on labour relations, without ever having been associated with industry at all, either as an employer of labour or as an employee. Knowledge and practical experience are thrown out of the window as being of no importance and having no validity at all. It is this that disturbs those of us who have come from the industrial arena.
My objection to these particular subsections and the clause itself, is the powers which are to be vested in the person of the Registrar. Here we are to have trade unions which will be required to satisfy a wide-ranging set of conditions laid down—by whom? Laid down in the particular Schedule that is attached to the Bill and by the Registrar.
Unions will be required to have rule's, which have been referred to by my noble friend, Lord Diamond, which raise certain principles. What is basic to a union for its functioning on behalf of its membership may not be obvious to the Registrar and may not fit in with the principles of this Bill. It may be that a trade union, after weeks of consideration and formulation of its rules by dele-
818
gates from branches throughout the country, with legal advisers in attendance, submits the result of those deliberations to the Registrar for his signature and approval. He in turn, after re-examination, may disagree with the rules because, in his opinion, they do not meet with the objects and principles laid down in this Bill. I have sat as a delegate for day after day with members of the legal fraternity drafting rules for my association and I know what these deliberations involve.
Who is to be the arbiter; who is to question the Registrar? Before the rules have been submitted, legal advice will have been taken by the union. Those rules would not be there unless these responsible people with legal knowledge had been present when they were drafted for the association. The question arises, if these wide-ranging conditions do not meet with the demand will this result in the union having to ask its branches to go again over the whole of the ground they have traversed in arriving at their conclusion? This could result in more legal wrangling. It would be as well if this point could be cleared up. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, or whoever is to reply on this Amendment, will do so. I hope that noble Lords on both sides of the Committee will ask themselves when considering these subsections, is the Registrar to be judge and jury in this matter? When I sat in another place we introduced the official who became known as the Ombudsman. Many of us received cases from constituents and were able to contact the Minister concerned. We contacted a Minister before we thought of taking action and submitting a problem to the Ombudsman for investigation. Suppose that we reach a particular position with reference to this Bill and concerning the Registrar, will trade unions be able to contact representatives of another place and ask them to intercede with the Ombudsman against a ruling by the Registrar?
I hope that the noble Lord who seeks to answer the questions raised by my noble friend, Lord Diamond, and the points that I have been citing about the way in which rules are drawn up by trade unions, will be able to give some positive answers so that the unions may know what will be their position. If they have to go back to consult their

819
branches again because the registrar turns down proposed rules, and all the branches connected with the unions then have to supply more information, I wonder what staff will be needed for the new registrar. In adding my contribution to that of my noble friend Lord Diamond, I hope that we may have some positive answers about the powers which will be embraced by the registrar and whether in this case he is to be both judge and jury.
5.27 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: It may be of convenience and I may help the Committee if I intervene to try to dispel some of the misgivings expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Slater. Then, if I may, I will deal with the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. I think it important to recognise that at the moment the registrar has the rules of the unions which are registered under the Trade Union Act 1871. If the noble Lord, Lord Slater, looks at Clause 76 of this Bill he will see that there has to be a provisional register on to which those unions registered under that Act will be transferred with any others which may apply later. The clause says, in subsection (2):
" The registrar shall forthwith enter in the provisional register every organisation …"
The registrar is then given six months in which to scrutinise the rules. Where in his opinion the rules are defective he will draw that point to the attention of the union concerned. So at the moment there is nothing for the unions to do. They will automatically go on to the provisional register. Their rules will then be examined and they will be told if the rules are (to use the words of the Bill, which perhaps are a little sharp) in any way "defective ".
At that stage the union will have to consider whether it wishes to bring its rules into line with what the registrar requires. The registrar, of course, will require only what is in the Bill. Then the union will be able to have the meetings of which the noble Lord, Lord Slater, has spoken. We believe that most unions will have little difficulty in bringing their rules into line with what the Bill requires. They will then forward the amended rules to the registrar, and if he agrees with them that will be the end of the matter.
820
If he does not agree with them it will be open to the registrar to give the union concerned a short time to adjust its rules. If, after that time, the union has still not been able to bring them into line, it will be possible for the registrar to apply to the Court for the cancellation of the registration. I have missed out the vital statement that even before the registrar has decided that the rules are in order he will issue the certificate and at that stage the union will become a body corporate with a common seal. If the union still disagrees with the registrar, then the Court can decide either that the registrar is right or that the union is right; so in no case is the registrar ever the judge, let alone the jury. He is doing an administrative job in comparing the rules of the various unions with what they are intended to contain under Schedule 4, and he is also making certain that they do not offend against the guiding principles in Clause 63. I hope I have made that plain, but at any rate I hope I have made it clear to the noble Lord that the registrar is not going to be the bogey man that he seemed to think.
The Registrar will be constantly in touch with trade unions. I have no doubt. Complaints will be made, and he will no doubt be in very close touch. Let me give the noble Lord an example of what has happened. because he will know of this and it is in my experience. He will be aware that the weights and measures authorities are the enforcement officers under the Trade Descriptions Act. But the weights and measures authorities are able to maintain very good relationships with those people under their supervision. Obviously, if somebody is recalcitrant, or something of that kind, they get across each other; but this is the kind of way we do things in this country, and I do not think he need regard the Registrar as in any way a bogey man. He will become, I think. the friend of the trade unions. He will be intimate with them; and when things go wrong they can be straightened out amicably. The conciliation officers will not come into it at this particular stage, not as between the union and its members. Clause 63 deals with the relationship between the union and its members, and lays down standards to be observed in those relationships.
LORD SLATER: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his reply, but he used

821
the word " defective ". You can stretch that word as much as you like: it is like elastic. It seems rather strange for the noble Lord to use that word " defective " when we have already been operating as trade unions under a system of registration and up to the moment there has been no trouble at all. So how can we come into the position whereby we are going to be " defective "? The other thing is this. He talks about these other unions who have not registered: they will not be affected at all, but will be more or less carrying on as they were. That is what I understood from what he had to say.
LORD BERNSTEIN: Before the noble Lord answers that point, perhaps he will help me, because there is a thick fog around. First of all I think the comparison with the weights and measures authorities is not quite a proper one, because the animal or things which are weighed a re not human beings. We are talking about what would happen to a group of human beings. The noble Lord earlier mentioned " every organisation ". Does " every organisation " include unregistered organisations? Because, as I read it. where a union is registered, an unwelcome fellow member who has had the rules and does not like them can initiate an investigation by the Registrar. The Registrar can also initiate an investigation himself, as in the case of a registered union: but if a union is not registered, the person has his remedy before the tribunal. Unless I have misunderstood the situation it seems to me that registered unions are being exposed to more effective threats of disruption than unregistered organisations.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The organisations of workers have the choice: either they can come within the ambit of the Registrar, as a registered trade union, and accept the responsibilities and gain the advantages of a registered trade union, or they can be unregistered organisations of workers, either through cancellation of their position in the provisional register or by indicating that they do not want to be registered trade unions. They have the choice. In the latter case they will then have to comply with the guiding principles in Clause 63, but not with the rules in Schedule 4. They will still be open to complaints by their members if there are contraventions of
822
the guiding principles in Clause 63, and in that case, of course, the complainant will be able to take the complaint to the Industrial Tribunal.
LORD BERNSTEIN: So there is a difference between an unregistered trade union going before the tribunal and a registered trade union going before the Registrar.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Nobody will go before the Registrar, because the Registrar is not a court in any way. If there is a complaint to the Registrar, then he will investigate that complaint and, if necessary, he may then take the complaint either to the Industrial Court or to the Industrial Tribunal, whichever is the more suitable; or, I suppose, he can advise the member of the trade union and the member himself can take i he complaint. But the member need not take the case to the Registrar at all; he can. if he wishes (I am still talking of a member of a registered trade union) take the complaint direct to the Industrial Tribunal. In the same way, a member of an organisation of workers can only take his complaint direct to the Industrial Tribunal.
LORD BROWN: May I—
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I finish my speech?—because I have not really come to the Amendment yet. But I think probably this is what noble Lords would have wished, because I have been filling in the background to this Part of the Bill. The closing remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Slater, neatly brought me round to the Amendment. The difficulty about the Amendment is this. I quite understand that the word "defective " is an irritant, but the literal interpretation of " defective " is that it falls short of the requirements, either in that the rules have not provisions to cover the matters in Schedule 4 or there is a breach of the guiding principles set out in Clause 63. Now this is what is laid down in the items that the noble Lord wishes to leave out. I understand the noble Lord's attitude to this, but the curiosity of it is that to accept his Amendment would give the Registrar exactly what the noble Lord does not want him to have. It would give him a very wide discretion indeed as to making requirements for the adjustment of the rules of registered trade

823
unions. I am sure the noble Lord does not want that. I take note of his—
LORD DIAMOND: And for that reason I gave notice that I proposed to leave out Clause 73.
LORD DRUMALBYN: At the moment, with respect, we are dealing with this particular Amendment. What the noble Lord is really doing is first of all to amputate a limb and then, if he has his way, he is going to exterminate the rest of the carcase.
Perhaps I might say just one or two words in reply to the noble Lord on this, because I appreciate that he was not here the other day when we went into this matter. Inevitably, we are constantly referring to the work of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, but I mentioned here what the Donovan Commission said on the question of the rules and on the position of the Registrar, and I drew attention to paragraph 656, which said:
"The requirements as to rules … will call for more supervision on the part of the Registrar than in the past. The Registrar already advises unions informally on the drafting and re-drafting of rules, and we hope that this beneficial practice will continue."
It will. Then the Report goes on:
"The possibility exists however that disagreement may at times arise between the Registrar and a trade union as to whether its rules comply with the revised requirements of the law. We think that such disagreements should he referred for settlement by the independent review body whose establishment we propose."
The noble Lord was quite right. We went into this point on Thursday, that the review body proposed by the noble and learned Lord and his Commission is not the same as the review body proposed under this Bill. The review body in this case will be the Industrial Court, but frankly, with the assistance of the Registrar we do not think that there will be a great number of cases that will go that far. We believe that when unions know what the Registrar suggests and have deficiencies drawn to their attention, they will rectify them and carry them through their various representative organisations in the constitutional way. So we do not think that this review is likely to arise to any great extent.
824
I do not think it would be right again to debate the merits of the proposal for two trade unionists with a chairman presiding over them as compared with the Industrial Court, which is quite likely to have somebody with experience. All the members ought to have experience of trade unions ultimately, and two of them will probably have experience from the start. So I stressed the view that I did not think there was a gigantic difference. I pointed out that the touchstone is simply that we think the contents of union rules are a matter of concern to the community as a whole and not to trade unionists alone, whereas noble Lords opposite seem to think that this ought to be a matter of concern only to the trade unions. That is a difference of approach but I think one can narrow it down to that. I am afraid we could not accept these Amendments but I hope I have managed to clarify the situation.
LORD BROWN: Before the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, replies I wonder whether he will consider whether he ought to withdraw these Amendments. As the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said, if these Amendments were gratuitously passed it would give the Registrar an unchallenged right to assess the rules of the unions without reference to Clause 63 and Schedule 4. One of the main burdens of our speeches on this side of the Committee is that we should restrict the degree of detailed legal interference with the unions which this Bill seeks to pursue. I take Lord Drumalbyn's point that some subsequent Amendment might alter the circumstances. If, as a manoeuvre, the Government were to accept these Amendments and subsequently we did not get the other Amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has in mind, then we should have increased the possibility of detailed interference with the rules of the unions as a result of passing these Amendments. I think this is the wrong way of pursuing our objective. I hope he will consider this point.
LORD SLATER: As to asking the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, to withdraw these Amendments, I should like to bring to the notice of the House that the rules of the union are drafted with the cooperation of the legal profession. It is not the membership alone but the advice they receive in the first place from the

825
legal profession which assists them to do the job.
LORD BROWN: I did not understand the point which the noble Lord was driving at. I do not think he was speaking to these Amendments at all during his rather long speech, and I am still puzzled. I have completed what I was going to say and will now sit down.
LORD TANGLEY: I have intervened very little in the debates in this Committee, and then usually " agin the Government ". Indeed, I had the unprecedented pleasure the other night of bringing joy to the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Champion—a thing I never hoped to do. But on this occasion I should like to appeal to the Opposition. I believe that their attitude to this clause is quite unduly suspicious and does not take sufficient account of the necessity for dealing with trade union rules. While I was sitting on the Donovan Commission I spent many weary days and nights and weekends in reading the rules of a great number of trade unions. There are many distinguished trade union leaders on the Opposition Benches here who know the rules of their own union pretty well and rather assume that other unions are in as good a state. The result of all my reading was to leave a melancholy picture in my mind.. There are very many unions whose rules urgently need rationalisation and modernisation and their leaders know perfectly well that the machinery for altering the rules within the union is so complicated that they have little hope of bringing those rules up to date, quite apart from the requirements of the public interest.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: May I ask a question? Is the machinery for changing the rules so complicated? It is demanded by law that every five years the rules shall be reviewed, and the executive council has the power to deal with it. There may be difficulties in dealing with the rules, but there are no complications.
LORD TANGLEY: I say without fear of challenge that there are many union leaders who know quite well that it is impracticable, through the efforts of the union themselves, to get the rules rationalised and brought up to date. Those very leaders, when the dust of this controversy has settled, will be very relieved
826
that there is the liability to have a little friendly nudge from the Registrar of trade unions which will enable them to go to their members and say, " Put your own rules in order or else we shall be in difficulty with the Registrar ". I believe that trade union leaders will live to bless this clause and I think they are very ill advised to oppose it.
LORD POPPLEWELL: It seems a very peculiar argument, particularly the argument just advanced by the noble Lord, and I should like to follow the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, on the complication of the machinery to change rules. The noble Lord, Lord Tangley, may have some instances in his mind about trade union complicated machinery, but that must be in a minority of cases. We should be very interested indeed if the noble Lord would highlight the type of unions in which he says that there is complicated machinery to change the rules. He says it is difficult for a leader of a trade union to change the rules. If this clause is adopted as it is, what change will take place regarding the ability of unions to get a change of rules? Will it be dependent on the Registrar, or on the union rules or machinery they have now for changes to be recommended by any of their members or branches or the executive and for those recommendations to go to the five-yearly or the two-yearly rules revision meeting? Will there be any change in that particular direction? That is the position now.
I cannot see what change will take place except that instead of the rules being drafted and agreed upon by the men who are actually engaged in the project there will be a legal definition attached to it. We accept that, but I think we are entitled to ask why there should be this change. Where is the big upsurge of union indiscipline or anything like that which warrants such a radical change from the voluntary system to the legal system. The Committee are entitled to know why, after the test of a hundred years experience, this radical change can be justified. It is no use saying that it is better that it should be legally binding. In what way? The trade union movement feels extremely unhappy about this.
When we turn, as we shall do later on, to the suggestions made in Schedule 4, I wonder what justification there is for

827
occupying so much Parliamentary time with so many innocuous things that are already accepted by the present Registrar of Friendly Societies in the registration of trade unions. Why make all these changes? Why ultimately bring about two separate organisations—trade unions which are registered and accept the full implications of the Bill, and those which do not? As my noble friend Lord Cooper of Stockton Heath indicated only last week, this is a sort of blackmail which, by means of giving privileges, especially tax concessions, will operate to compel trade unions to register. Many unions, with this in mind, will have to accept this clause in the interests of the shillings paid by the union members in dues, which they do not want to see dissipated.
Then there are the unregistered trade unions. At the moment they are registered bodies of workers and it is difficult to know what definition will be given to these unions. Will they be able to negotiate with the employers and register agreements, even though they do not have the force of law? If they called a strike, would they be subjected to the compensation clause of the Bill? This seems a complete anachronism. I think that we should reject this clause as a whole. The trade union movement and the employers are quite capable of working on a voluntary system and organising industrial relations with the least possible disturbance. In addition to explaining this clause, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, should say why it is so necessary to change customs and traditions which we have had for so long.
LORD DRUMALBYN: If I may, I will reply to the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, straight away. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, gave the complete answer before the noble Lord spoke. The noble Lord, Lord Tangley, made it clear that while there arc trade unions which have good rules, there are others whose rules fall far short of what they should be. This is exactly what the Donovan Report says in the very first sentence on trade union rules. It says:
" We have said that it is very desirable that trade union rule books should be clear and
828
unambiguous and that they generally fall far short of a satisfactory standard in these respects."
What more justification do we want for doing something about this? But we are not arguing at the present time that something should be done. As I understand the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, we are arguing on the way in which it should be done, and obviously we differ.
LORD DIAMOND: We differ fundamentally and profoundly, and it is my view that the Government are acting extremely unwisely in saying that they are going to impose their view in a whole hog manner, when they could get a good deal of what they want in improvement if they would be a little less autocratic and conceited about their knowledge of trade unions, and listen to those who have enormous experience, and also to those who have spent three years investigating the matter and giving us a valuable report. Before I come to deal with the helpful remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, I am compelled to deal with the challenge which the noble Lord threw out on the unwisdom of putting down Amendments. The noble Lord is wasting the time of the Committee in issuing the challenge and having me answer it, because he knows as well as I do that the difficulties of an Opposition are very great. If we want to draw attention to individual points all we can do is to put. down Amendments about them. That is the way we proceed. And if we want to make clear our general attitude there is a facility, which does not exist in another place, of drawing attention to our view about the clause as a whole. That is the simple reason for doing what we did, and I am sorry that the noble Lord thought that it was worth making a point on this.
LORD TANGLEY: May I interrupt and say that if I had made that point I think it would have been a bad one. I did not make it.
LORD DIAMOND: And if I had said that the noble Lord had made it, I would have been totally in error. I was talking about the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn.
LORD TANGLEY: I am sorry. The noble Lord shifted target without my noticing it.
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I interrupt only to say that it is normal to state what the effects are of Amendments taken together. I hope that I had done no more than ask for that. I did not mean to be discourteous.
LORD DIAMOND: I was not complaining about discourtesy. The point is a different one. Having got the procedural point out of the way, may I now come to the substance of the matter.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: While still on the procedural point, I do not think that the noble Lord has made it clear why these Amendments are down on the Marshalled List. He has just said that we have a method in this House of dealing with these major points on the Question, whether the clause stand part. Why then put these Amendments which, if passed, could not possibly do anything which the noble Lord wants? What is the point of discussing them separately, when every point he has raised could have been discussed on the Question, Whether the clause stand part?
LORD DIAMOND: If your Lordships wish me to take up the time of the Committee, which I have been trying very hard to avoid doing, I will explain in detail why each one of these Amendments was separately necessary and what the total effect might have been. The total effect, coupled with other Amendments about the review body and the powers of the Registrar, might have been perfectly satisfactory, and with the benefit of other Amendments we might have returned to exactly the Donovan position. That is the short answer to the noble Lord on the Liberal Benches who intervened. If he wants justification for each individual Amendment separately I shall give it, but I should have thought it was taking up the time of the Committee unnecessarily.
LORD SHINWELL: If my noble friend wants an answer, I shall give him one. Take not the slightest note of the Liberal Party.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: The noble Lord Diamond has sat down—
LORD DIAMOND: I have not given way. I was going to say that I expect the noble Lord is conscious of the fact that it is not my desire to spend too much time on these Amendments.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: I am well aware that it is not, but I still do not see why we have spent any time on them at all. If the noble Lord had explained with what other Amendments we could have returned to the position of the Donovan Commission, some of us might have been eager to support him. Some of us might have seen the point of his moving the Amendments. As he has not explained that, we have not.
LORD DIAMOND: I must reconcile myself to the fact that in the forthcoming Division I am not going to get the support of the noble Lord or of all the other noble Lords who are sitting with him.
May I turn to the substance of the matter and, in particular, to what the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, said? I hope I was interpreting correctly, in the first place what the Royal Commission said. I do not make a great deal of this point, but I was not aware that there was an objection by the noble Lord, Lord Tangley on this part of the recommendations of the Royal Commission therefore I thought I was supporting entirely what the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, had said, namely, that there was a case for strengthening the review of rules of certain unions. We are dealing with such a large body of unions that what anybody says can be correct about individual unions. There are so many very small unions that I would not attempt to lay down categorically whether their rules are wholly satisfactory or wholly unsatisfactory. There are over 1,000 of them, I believe, and some are extremely small indeed. So I am sure we can quite accurately make comments about the state of some of the rules.
But the general view of the Royal Commission was that:
"The requirements as to the rules of registered trade unions will henceforth be rather more extensive and will call for more supervision on the part of the registrar than in the past."
That I accept. I accept it, and I was seeking to assist the Government to enable it to be done. The Commission very wisely said that there is one way of doing it and that is to continue the healthy practice which has existed in the past of trade unions consulting the Registrar as a friend and getting his advice and, where there was difficulty with the Registrar and

831
where the Registrar needed a little help for doing exactly the thing which the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, said should be done, having an independent body. I hope Lord Tangley appreciates that what I am debating with him now is not the principle but how to give effect to it; how not to go too far and lose out completely but instead to go in gentle stages and make considerable progress. And the way to progress was pointed out by the Royal Commission, of which the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, was a most distinguished member. What they said was —putting it in round terms—to continue the wise course of treating the Registrar as a friend. Do not do anything that puts him in the opposite camp; treat him as a friend. Consult him, and where there is difficulty have an independent review body which is—and I now use these words deliberately—" one of us; not one of them ", a review body consisting of trade unionists but helped, co-ordinated, clarified and directed by having a lawyer chairman. It could even have been the noble Lord Tangley himself, and he would have been very acceptable all round I am sure. That is what the Royal Commission said and I am bound to repeat that I have not noticed anywhere a Minority Report by the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, on that part of the Royal Commission's views. That is what I am putting to the Government. That is the sensible way to go about it.
I go further and I take completely Lord Tangley's point—everyone with experience of government does—that there are times when bodies need to be helped out of their difficulties by the Government taking the responsibility on to itself. I recognise that, and the bodies in question will be grateful at the end of the day. I recognise that, too. But the question is, what is the best way to go about doing that? I have already detailed it and would bore your Lordships'
House by repeating it. The best way to go about it is the way suggested by the Royal Commission. My regret is that the Government are going completely in the opposite direction. It is turning " us " into " them ", and all of us who know that these human relationships are deeply psychological know what an important and foolish step that is. The Registrar is being turned from a friend into somebody else. I think it was my noble friend Lord Bernstein who used the words " appeared before the Registrar ", and the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, picked it up as if it were an incorrect expression. Technically, legally, at the Bar it is incorrect, but in terms of human relations and the understanding that everybody has of what the Registrar is going to be under this Bill it is very correct and very illuminating, and the Government ought to think about it. The Registrar is being turned into one of " them " and the body that is going to help the Registrar. instead of being one of us, namely, trade unionists with a lawyer chairman, is being turned into yet another legal body with one trade unionist out of three.
Now, with respect, every unionist will laugh when you say that that is a trade unionist body. Every trade union officer of great experience knows what happens. So I am saying to the Government that they are going wholly against the reconmendations of Donovan which a wise Government would seek to meet. The noble Lord opposite is closing his mind, too. He has not moved one inch over the weekend since the last debate, and we are bound, therefore, to show our views about this blindness of the way to achieve what we all wish to achieve, in the Division Lobby.
6.9 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 263F) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 58;Not-Contents, 96.

CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Champion, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Bacon, Bs.

Chorley, L.

Henderson, L.

Balogh, L.

Collison, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Bernstein, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Jacques, L.

Beswick, L.

Diamond, L.

Kennet, L.

Blyton, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Leatherland, L.

Brockway, L.

Energlyn, L.

Lee of Asheridge, Bs.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Lindgren, L.

Burntwood, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

Gardiner, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Longford, E.

Rusholme, L.

Sorensen, L.

McLeavy, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Maelor, L.

St. Davids, V.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Moyle, L.

Serota, Bs.

Summerskill, Bs.

Nunburnholme, L.

Shackleton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Pargiter, L.

Shepherd, L.

Walston, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Shinwell, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Popplewell, L.

Slater, L.

Williamson, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Snow, L.

Willis, L.

Royle, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Mancroft, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Essex, E.

Milverton, L.

Auckland, L.

Ferrers, E.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Balerno, L.

Fortescue, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Balfour, E.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L. [Teller.]

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Northchurch, Bs.

Beauchamp, E.

Gray, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Greenway, L.

Oakshott, L.

Belstead, L.

Grenfell, L.

Powis, E.

Berkeley, Bs.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Bessborough, E.

Hacking, L.

Rochester, Bp.

Boston, L.

Hailes, L.

Rockley, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

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

Rothermere, V.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Rothes, E.

Burton, L.

Hankey, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Chandos, V.

Hanworth, V.

St. Helens, L.

Clinton, L.

Hawke, L.

St. Just, L.

Clwyd, L.

Henley, L.

Selkirk, E.

Coleridge, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Somers, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Stamp, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Strang, L.

Courtown, E.

Jessel, L.

Stranae of Knokin, Bs.

Cowley, E.

Kemsley, V.

Suffield, L.

Craigavon, V.

Killearn, L.

Tangley, L.

Crathorne, I,.

Kilmarnock, L.

Teviot, L.

Daventry, V.

Lauderdale. E.

Teynham, L.

Denham, L.

Loudoun, C.

Thorneycroft, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Dudley, E.

Lyell, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Dundee, E.

MacAndrew, L.

Willingdon, M.

Ebbisham, L.

McFadzean, L.

Windlesham, L.

Eccles, V.

Malmesbury, E.

Wolverton, L.

Effingham, E.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

6.17 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment. No. 263NNN:
Page 58, line 11, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to leave out subsection (5) of Clause 73 with a view to inserting the subsection in an amended form as a new clause after Clause 91. Noble Lords will see that subsection (5) says:
"For the purpose of enabling an organisation to alter its rules so as to comply with the requirements of a notice served … the governing body of the organisation shall have power, notwithstanding anything in its rules, to convene and hold general meetings of the organisation at any time."
The subsection, as drafted, does not cover all the situations in which an organisa-
834
tion might seek to change its rules to comply with the provisions for registration, and it would not apply to organisations on the provisional register.
The general meeting of an organisation is not always the body with power to change the rules. Many organisations have special bodies for this purpose. Some organisations have rules to limit or prevent successive attempts to change rules and rules of meetings, or to require a specified period to elapse before a proposed change may be reconsidered. As at present drafted, the subsection can be read as giving an organisation power to ignore any requirements relating to procedures for changing rules, and not only those relating to the calling of meetings as was intended. It is not intended, of course, to give them power to ignore any requirements relating to procedures for

835
changing rules, but only those relating to the calling of meetings. I hope that that is an adequate explanation of the reason for leaving out this subsection. We shall of course come to the new clause in due course. I beg to move.
On Question, Whether Clause 73, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DIAMOND: We cannot let this clause go, because it is unwise: unwise in terms of good government, and offensive to the unions. I gave the reasons on the earlier Amendments why I think that this is so. If the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, wishes to debate the matter further, I am at his service. So far as I am concerned I have now been able to

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Eccles, V.

Malmesbury, E.

Ailwyn, L.

Effingham, E.

Mancroft, L.

Auckland, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Milverton, L.

Balerno, L.

Ferrers, E.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Balfour, E.

Fortescue, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Barnby, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Northchurch, Bs.

Beauchamp, E.

Gray, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Greenway, L.

Oakshott, L.

Belstead, L.

Grenfell, L.

Powis, E.

Berkeley, Bs.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Bessborough, E.

Hacking, L.

Rochester, L.Bp.

Boston, L.

Hailes, L.

Rockley, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

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

Rothermere, V.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Rothes, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hankey, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Burton, L.

Hanworth, V.

St. Helens, L.

Chandos, V.

Hatherton, L.

St. Just, L.

Clinton, L.

Hawke, L.

Selkirk, E.

Clwyd, L.

Henley, L.

Somers, L.

Coleridge, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Stamp, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Strang, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Cottesloe, L.

Jessel, L.

Suffield, L.

Courtown, E.

Kemsley, V.

Teviot, L.

Cowley, E.

Killearn, L.

Teynham, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kilmarnock, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Crathorne, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Daventry, V.

Loudoun, C.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Vivian, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lyell, L.

Windlesham, L.

Dudley, E.

MacAndrew, L.

Wolverton, L.

Dundee, E.

McFadzean, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Burntwood, L.

Henderson, L.

Bacon, Bs.

Champion, L.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Balogh, L.

Collison, L.

Jacques, L.

Bernstein, L.

Diamond, L.

Kennet, L.

Beswick, L.

Energlyn, L.

Leatherland, L.

Blyton, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Lee of Asheridge, Bs.

Brockway, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Lindgren, L.

Brown, L.

Gardiner, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Longford, E

read what he said on an earlier occasion when similar points were touched on, and we have exchanged views this afternoon, and I am satisfied that the Government are not opening their eyes or their mind to what the needs of the situation are and to the method by which improvement could take place. The result of pushing far too hard in a far too legalistic way in an unsympathetic surrounding is to drive off the object we are seeking to achieve. I therefore think all we need do now is to register our total disapproval of this clause by voting against it.
6.21 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 73. as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 97;
Not-Contents, 49.

Maelor, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Moyle, L.

St. Davids, V.

Strabolgi, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Shackleton, L.

Tayside, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Shinwell, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Popplewell, L.

Slater, L.

Williamson, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Snow, L.

Willis, L.

Royle, L.

Sorensen, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs

Rusholme, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 73, as amended, agreed to accordingly.
Schedule 4 [Requirements as to rules of trade unions and employers' associations]:
6.30 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 263K:
Page 141, line 26, leave out paragraph 1.
The noble Lord said: I think it would be convenient if we could take the following two Amendments together with this one, Nos. 263L and 263M, which make it a more tidy debate. We are now on to the Schedule which specifies the details of the rules of the trade unions and employers' associations which we were considering in general principle under the last clause. One of a group of Amendments which was discussed was an Amendment to leave out this Schedule. Our objections to the Schedule are to the intervention of the Registrar in an excessively detailed way. When I say " excessively ", I mean excessively in relation to the recommendation of the Donovan Commission which went into this question with great care. They recommended that trade union rules should cover certain matters. If the matter had been left there we could have made real progress—specifying not what the rules ought to provide, but just the headings of the rules, the matters which the rules ought to cover. We could have left that in a few words, and the Donovan Report dealt with it in a very few words. That is the first objection: that instead of following along the recommendation of the Donovan Commission and merely dealing with matters which ought to be covered by the rules, and leaving the unions the freedom as recommended by Donovan, to frame their own rules to suit their own circumstances, there is all this detailed paraphernalia. There are several pages of it, 25 paragraphs of specific detail, under which the rules must specify this and must specify the other.
We are opposed to this Schedule and these detailed provisions on that score; and we are also opposed to them because they give excessive power to the Registrar, and to the court behind the Registrar, to impose rules on a body which is entitled, within reason, to make its own rules to fit its own circumstances. It is a free association of human beings for a common purpose, and broadly they ought to be allowed to make their own rules to fit their own circumstances. This is a simple and fundamental liberty, and to the extent that public high policy in any way impinges on that, and requires rules to cover certain points, there would be no difficulty about including that freedom, provided that where disputes arise they can be settled by those who understand and are of the trade union movement. Paragraph I says:
"… the rules of a trade union or an employers' association must comply with the requirements set out in this Schedule."
We object to that. It would be much less objectionable, although not wholly satisfactory, if, instead of saying that, we left it as Donovan said, that the rules of a trade union or employers' association should be framed to cover the various matters which it goes on to describe. There would have then been left out the words at the start of paragraph 2:
"The rules must specify …"
If the first Amendment (as I suspect it is) is unacceptable to the Government, then the three Amendments together would give a framework to the kind of philosophy which Donovan proposed, and which I am recommending to the Government.
It is perfectly true that if for every Amendment an Opposition puts down it were then to put down all the consequential Amendments running throughout the Bill to make it a consistent whole, this Marshalled List of Amendments would not be, as it is at present, 28 pages long,. but would be nearer 280 pages long. Therefore we did not think it right to take our own time, the time of the

839
printers, or put the burden on the Committee of making consequential Amendments, either in substance or words, throughout the Bill. It is open to anybody who wishes to do so to say that these Amendments, taken by themselves, will not make a tidy whole if you follow the whole thing through. I thought I would take the opportunity of explaining to the Committee why we thought it right not to inflict this extra burden on your Lordships and on the printers. The first three Amendments to which I have referred hang together. I therefore move the first Amendment formally.
6.35 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The Donovan Commission used the words " set out ". It said: " set out the subjects to be covered by the rules ". The noble Lord takes exception to the word " specified Sometimes I think he removes " specified " and says, " make provision for ". His main Amendment is to leave out the whole of the first paragraph. The second one is to say that the rules,
" shall be framed to cover the matters"
When you have matters of this description, some of them may be covered by " specified ". One could have said:
"The rules must give the name of the organisation, the address of its principal office, and the objects for which it was established."
We are again in the realms of semantics to a large extent. The noble Lord feels that he is being held too tightly down by a particular word. Plainly there are certain things that have to be specified, that have to be given precisely. In other cases it is a matter of making provision for this and that; that is what the Schedule does. Where something has to be specified it has to be given precisely. It could be given in any words that anybody likes to use provided that the words are clear and unambiguous.
Where provision has to be made for this and that the rules can be written exactly as the trade unions want to write them. It is left to the trade union to write their rules as they wish, provided they cover these matters. The noble Lord's phrase, " to cover the matters " is less precise, and it is better to make it quite clear that these are matters with
840
which the rules of a trade union or an employers' association must comply. In other words, certain things have to be specified; the other things have to be covered in the rules. They do not have to be covered in any particular way but, nevertheless, they have to be covered.
The noble Lord did himself rather less than justice in saying that he had not necessarily followed through all his Amendments. Certainly I agree that it is quite reasonable for an Opposition merely to indicate the Amendments they want to make and leave consequential Amendments to be dealt with by the Government, if they are accepted. I believe I understand what he is after in these Amendments because I have put down what his first Amendments, Nos. 263L to S would do. They would wipe out the whole of the paragraph and the Bill would read in this way:
" Subject to paragraph 24 of this Schedule, the rules of a trade union shall he framed to cover the matters set out in this Schedule:

(a) the name of the organisation, the address of its principal office, and the objects for which it was established and whether the organisation has branches,

(b) the election or appointment and removal of a governing body by whatever name and offices and officials".

I think it ought to be, " officers and officials ". That cuts out everything from paragraph 1 to paragraph 7. That is perfectly comprehensible. That is roughly what the 1871 Act provides, and he is taking us right back a century; whereas the point is that, in order for the Registrar to carry out the functions that we have laid upon him in Clause 73, he must know things specifically. It is no use asking him to investigate unless he knows where the branches are, how many branches there are, and so on. So these matters are in a sense consequential to the duties we have already laid on the Registrar.
There are various ways of doing things. So long as it is quite clear what unions have to do in this regard, I should have thought that Parliament would be achieving its objective. So the Registrar will then be able to carry out his duties, and the unions will be able to comply with their general duty, and the rules will be clear to all concerned—members, outsiders, the Registrar, and for that matter the Government.
6.41 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: Why does the noble Lord persist in repeating that the unions can frame their own rules? He has said this over and over again, ad nauseam, and I am getting just a little tired of it. I have listened to some of the debate this afternoon and this has been the piece de resistance of the Government's philosophy. Let us examine this. If one looks closely at the Schedule under review, one discovers that the unions are specifically, rigidly, with the iron heel, told what kind of rules will satisfy the Registrar. I challenge contradiction on this. If necessary, if it will satisfy noble Lords, I will read out, the whole of the Schedule; but presumably they have read it themselves.
A body of people come together. They are trade unionists they seek to form a union and they are engaged in the process of framing their rules. They have a discussion: they have to establish the name of the organisation, to decide how their officers are to be elected, how far the executive, the supreme body, will control the activities of the branches. They have to decide this, that and the other. This is all covered in the Schedule. It is all there, plain for anyone to see what the Registrar will expect from the union in framing its rules. It may well be that a body of trade unionists come together for the purpose of framing their rules and decide on a certain course of action. The Registrar will expunge every single item with which he appears dissatisfied. What happens then? What is the appeal against the Registrar? I should like to be corrected if I happen to be wrong, but so far as I know there is no appeal against the Registrar's decision. If the union is dissatisfied with the decision of the Registrar about the compilation and temper of the rules, it has no redress whatever. It cannot go to the Commission on Industrial Relations—or can it? If it can, I am open to correction.
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I draw the noble Lord's attention to subsection (3)(b) of Clause 74. The subsection says that where
" the registrar has not approved the rules, the trade union or employers' association may apply to the Industrial Court for an order—

(a) allowing it a further period for altering its rules …

842

(b) directing the registrar to approve the rules as already submitted to him ".

So the Registrar can be overruled.
LORD SHINWELL: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for correcting my apparently erroneous impression. But what does that mean, anyhow? The union must go through the process of applying to the Industrial Court. This means procrastination. How long is it going to take a union to frame its rules, faced with a Registrar who may, be difficult and with an Industrial Court even more difficult than the Registrar? Reference has been made in the course of our deliberations to the Government's philosophy of hamstringing the unions, tying them down, putting shackles on them. This is exactly what is happening. Indeed, in spite of the protestations of members of the Government, including in his very courteous fashion, in somewhat muted tones occasionally, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn (because the last thing I would accuse him of is any discourtesy in your Lordships' House), one gathers the impression that the Government want to tie the unions down. No nonsense from the unions any longer! Is that the game that is being played? And what do the Government think is going to happen in consequence? That the unions are going to take that lying down? In point of fact, the situation will be an impossible one for any leader of a trade union. I can imagine what the rank and file will say. Talk about suppressing militancy—this encourages militancy! I am bound to say that if I were a member of a trade union and had to face conduct of this kind on the part of the Government—faced with a Registrar; faced with going to the Industrial Court; faced with this and that, not knowing where to turn—I should decide to have nothing more to do with trade unionism at all and would join the philosophical anarchists. That would be the only alternative, much as I should dislike doing that because it would not accord with my temperament at all.
I am surprised that your Lordships allow this sort of thing to go any further. I can understand the need for a Registrar. We have had registration of unions ever since I can remember. It may surprise your Lordships to know that way back

843
in the years 1911 and 1912 I was involved in a rumpus about the registration of a union. It was the National Seamen's and Firemen's Union, which was not a registered union. I had a partial association with that union and then left to join another union; and it was necessary to take legal action, only to discover that because the National Seamen's and Firemen's Union was not registered it had no power to sue us. We could sue it but it could not sue us—which was a very desirable situation for us. So I have some acquaintance with registration. I do not object to registration. Indeed, I said in the course of one of our debates (I think it was last Thursday) that I believed that the unions, generally speaking, will favour registration. If I had anything to do with the union, I would agree about that. But in the circumstances proposed, there is all this pallaver, this pabulum, this leading to procrastination, this tying the unions down hand and foot. I shall be surprised if the unions put up with it.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is not paying the slightest attention to me; his time is occupied by another member of the Government. However, now that he is devoting part of his attention to me, I would beg of him to give this matter further consideration; just see where we are leading to. Although I do not want to indulge in parentheses unduly, it occurs to me to wonder what happens when we go into the Common Market. What is going to happen with this industrial relations business? Are we going to conform to the diktats of M. Pompidou? Are the unions all going to talk French when we go to the Registrar? Is this the sort of thing that will happen? I am very worried about this situation, although the last thing I want to do is to impinge on the time of your Lordships by discussing the Common Market. Nevertheless, I am wondering what is going to happen to this Industrial Relations Bill if it ever becomes an Act of Parliament. In these circumstances, I would beg of my noble friends on the Front Bench to fight this tooth and nail, and if they do I will support them up to the hilt.
LORD POPPLEWELL: I see that in Schedule 4 to the Bill eleven of the para-
844
graphs commence with the words, " The rules must specify …"; six paragraphs say, " The rules must make provision …"—that is 17 paragraphs out of the 25 in the Schedule, and this is a free trade union movement, to which the noble Lord constantly refers. Of course this is not a trade union: this is the qualification of a State licence to allow an organised group of workpeople to band together and if they do not conform to these conditions—" these must specify ", " these must make provision "—a State licence will not even be issued to them. They will just have to be a rabble, an unorganised body of workers, not registered, and what their name will be I do not know.
Of 16 Amendments, only 3 deal with certain narrow points. It is not at all to be wondered at that with 16 Amendments tabled to deal with these particular rules, to allow the State licensed unions to practise, this will not be the only thing to which they will have to conform. They will have to conform to a number of unfair practices contained in other parts of the Bill before they can obtain the State licence to practise.
As I have said before, there is no democratic basis in the mind of the Government in regard to the trade unions of the future. There will be either Communist or Fascist rule. The trade unions will have to observe what an ideological group of people, who know nothing at all about industrial relations, decide is best for them, and the people within industry who are knowledgeable will have to conform to that ideological approach which is totally irrelevant and not calculated to improve industrial relations.
LORD BROWN: I would agree with the necessity for some rulings to be in existence to ensure that all trade unions were able to conduct their affairs in an orderly manner, but this Schedule goes much too far. The Government would have been so much wiser, if instead of laying down a Schedule which contains, for example,
" the rules must specify a reasonable charge to be made for the supply of copies of the rules in accordance with Section 86(5) of this Act "—
that is really going into enormous detail—the Schedule were to be obliterated and a simple clause put into the Bill, giving

845
power to the T.U.C. to draw up such regulations with reference to the rule books of unions as the T.U.C. felt necessary. In that case one would have had a degree of self-regulation which is completely lacking under this Bill and the degree of detail which is exhibited in Schedule 4.
LORD DIAMOND: Does the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, wish to speak before I do?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I do not know that there is a great deal for me to add.
LORD DIAMOND: I did not invite the noble Lord to speak, but I did not want to stop him from getting up.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I was merely going to say to the noble Lord, Lord Brown, in regard to the charge to be specified, that a lot of these rules merely follow out what is already contained in the 1871 Act, in which the charge is actually specified. Here we leave the unions latitude to charge what they like for copies of the rules. But the general point surely is simply that this is really a check list for the rules, to show what the rules must contain. In my view it is done with exceptional clarity and that is what is desired by everyone. I do not think that anything here would be left out of the rules by anyone who wanted to work efficiently and in accordance with natural justice. I would have thought that these ought to be quite acceptable, and I would challenge anybody to do it better.
LORD BROWN: They may be utterly reasonable and utterly proper, but the job could so easily have been done by a body like the T.U.C., which after all is the co-ordinating body of the trade unions and that course would have been psychologically so much wiser on the part of the Government. Psychologically this is a serious blunder that will damage the intentions of the Bill because it has been done in a thoroughly ham-handed way.
LORD BERNSTEIN: In the early days of the Second Reading debate on this Bill noble Lords on the other side of the Committee compared this Bill with the Companies Act. Why did the Government allow the Stock Exchange to have
846
rules and the Take-Over Panel to have rules which are not in the Companies Act?
A NOBLE LORD: Answer!
6.55 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: Perhaps the noble Lord takes the view, which is not unreasonable, that one collective answer is perhaps better than a number of detailed answers to each individual speech. I listened carefully to what he said earlier, and I am sorry to say we are making no progress at all. The noble Lord really does not seek to answer the argument. Where we say two things are different he says they are the same. If he keeps on saying that they are the same then at the Report stage we will put in everything that we propose on the grounds that they are the same as the Government are proposing, and there can be no argument. But of course the noble Lord knows as well as I do that they are very different. What he says is the likely course of events is, with the greatest possible respect. no more important than what I say. Both statements are completely irrelevant when we are considering what is to go into a Bill. The difference arises because, as one of my noble friends pointed out very clearly, there were six or eight references to " specify " alone.
If the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. will be good enough to look at paragraph 648 of the report of the Royal Commission he will see that it is demonstrated that the current requirements as to the rules of a registered trade union are that they should contain provisions in respect of certain matters, which are listed. In the summary the Commission covers it even more shortly, although a summary is not perhaps completely reliable. I am reading from paragraph 1071.
" The revised requirements suggested relate to admissions, discipline, disputes between a union and a member, elections and shop stewards ".
If the Bill contained a clause saying that this is what these rules ought to cover I do not suppose there would be a great deal of difficulty about it, but what the noble Lord is refusing to recognise is that he is introducing a Schedule of some 25 paragraphs, each one of which lays down in detail, to which he himself has referred, the rules which the organisation must make. and most of which refer to

847
it in totally unnecessary and offensive detail. He is not getting the cooperation of the unions, which I should have thought he would want to seek, in pushing detailed rules and rule-making arrangements down their throats.
He could justify it if he were to say, as he did nearly say on the earlier stage—and I will quote what he actually said at column 601 on May 20. What the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn then said was:
"Our view is that the trade unions are bodies with immense responsibility; they have risen from small beginnings to immense power, and power carries with it responsibility. Power can be abused, and it is the responsibility of the community, to the individual, to ensure that the power is not abused."
That is absolutely right. If the noble Lord's argument is that the rules are inadequate to prevent power being abused and powerful unions are guilty of abuse, so therefore the rules should be much more detailed and should be specified in 25 paragraphs and there should be a Registrar with powers and with an Industrial Court to back him up—if that is what he is saying, then I am bound to ask on what evidence is he saying there is abuse, which is the sole link in his argument, and where is the abuse? Donovan says it does not exist. If the Government say that it does, let them show us where it exists; let them tell us which union is involved, and in what way it has abused its power so that it can no longer be relied upon to make its own rules and to run its own affairs in a responsible way, but has to have rules drawn up for it in full detail, 20 paragraphs long.
That is what I am putting to the noble Lord. If he wants me to read out again that Donovan says there is no abuse, or none that needs to be taken into account, I will do so—it is somewhere in the Report. But Donovan makes it quite clear that, having inquired among 500 individual trade unionists to see whether there was any abuse, the answer came back that out of 500 there were four disgruntled members, two of whom complained—and I am relying on my
memory here—that there had not been enough people in the branch when a decision was taken. That we can all sympathise with, but that is a different issue. Two of the others had a real complaint, out of 500. If you ask me whether there are other places where power is abused to the extent of two out of 500, I would say " yes ". The House of Commons, in a recent example, is one such, and I would say that what the Government are doing here to-day and every day with this Bill, ignoring our arguments, not listening, not taking any steps to meet us at all—that is another way in which power is being abused. Those are two good examples which occur to me immediately.
All I am saying is that the unions are made up of power-seeking men and women: that is life. But there is no justification or evidence for degrading the unions into bodies of people which must have rules made for them and thrust down their throats whether they like them or not. And that is the essence of our case. The Government can meet us by saying for example: " We will scrap the Schedule and we will put in one short paragraph copied directly out of Donovan ". That would be a great step forward, and that would help enormously. Of course it would not specify in detail what each little rule would be. It would not say how much would have to be charged for a book of rules, for example, and it would not say how the problem of inflation under the present Government would be dealt with, because the price to-day would not be the price that would be effective in three months' time. Bearing in mind also that it takes most unions three years to alter their rules, I do not know how one would cope with that. It is another ridiculous example of excessive interference with the liberty of responsible people that we wholly object to; and we are going to vote on it.
7.5 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 263K) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 44; Not-Contents, 97.

Champion, L.

Jacques, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Collison, L.

Kennet, L.

Rusholme, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Leatherland, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Diamond, L.

Lee of Asheridge, Bs.

St. Davids, V.

Energlyn, L.

Lindgren, L.

Shackleton, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs. [Teller]

Shinwell, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Slater, L.

Gardiner, L.

Longford, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Garnswoi thy, L.

Maelor, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Henderson, L.

Milners of Leeds, L.

Tayside, L.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Plummer, Bs.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Hughes, L.

Popplewell, L.

Willis, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Dundee, E.

Mountevans, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Eccles, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Balerno, L.

Effingham, E.

Northchurch, Bs.

Balfour, E.

Ferrers, E. [Teller.]

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Fortescue, E.

Oakshott, L.

Barnby, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Beauciiamp, E.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Powis, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gowrie, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Belstead, L.

Gray, L.

Reay, L.

Boston, L.

Greenway, L.

Rockley, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Grenfell, L.

Rothermere, V.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Rothes, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hailes, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Burton, L.

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

St. Helens, L.

Chandos, V.

St. Just, L.

Clinton, L.

Hankey, L.

Sandford, L.

Clwyd, L.

Hanworth, V.

Selkirk, E.

Coleridge, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Somers, L.

Colyton, L.

Hawke, L.

Stamp, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Strang, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal)

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Cottesloe, L.

Jessel, L.

Sudeley, L.

Courtown, E.

Kemsley, V.

Suffield, L.

Cowley, E.

Killearn, L.

Teviot, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kilmarnock, L.

Teynham, L.

Crathorne, L.

Latymer, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Daventry, V.

Lyell, L.

Vivian, L.

Den ham, L.

MacAndrew, L.

Wade, L.

Derwent, L.

McFadzean, L.

Windlesham, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Wolverton, L.

Dudley, E.

Milverton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I think it would be for the convenience of noble Lords if we adjourned now for the Scottish busim,ss. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and on Question. Motion agreed to.

REDEMPTION OF STANDARD SECURITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL
7.12 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This four-clause Bill seeks to amend the
850
Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act which passed through this House only 12 months ago. It was considered in the period immediately before the General Election and because there was general recognition that it was an important and necessary piece of legislation it was hurried through with speed. It is perhaps for this reason that we failed to predict accurately the full impact of the then Bill on industrial and commercial lending in Scotland, and that the Act now stands before us again for amendment. This short amending Bill, which was supported by the Opposition in another place, seeks to overcome urgently difficulties which have arisen in the practical operation of the Act. Apart from the Second Reading, all stages were taken formally in another place.

851
One of the major reforms embodied in the 1970 Act was the creation of a new form of heritable security—the standard security—which, with effect from November 29, 1970, replaced all other methods of securing loans over heritable property in Scotland. The provisions of the Act before you to-day for amendment are those contained in Section 11(3), Section 18(1), and standard condition 11(1) in Schedule 3. The effect of these provisions, taken together, is to confer upon the debtor in every standard security an absolute statutory right to redeem the security on giving the creditor two months' notice of his intention to do so. This right cannot be varied, and it is impossible for either party in the security to contract out of it.
The inflexibility of these provisions has had unhappy results for the flow of capital into Scottish commerce and industry. Many industrial lenders rely heavily for the successful management of their affairs on an ability to negotiate fixed term loans with people who borrow from them: these are loans in which the borrower will not make repayment before a fixed time, the lender thus being assured of income by way of interest on the loan at a fixed rate over a fixed period. Under the provisions of the 1970 Act the lender has now to guarantee that this income will not suddenly cease when borrowers, who may perhaps have found cheaper rates of interest elsewhere, redeem their loans at short notice. In these circumstances, industrial lenders are extremely reluctant to lend at all on the basis of a standard security and a disturbing number of Scottish firms are prevented from obtaining the long-term finance on which they depend. This fact has been brought home to us in pressing representations from all sides of Scottish industry and commerce—lenders and borrowers alike—from the legal profession and from Members of Parliament. They stress that commercial lending has ground almost to a halt, at a time when credit is vital to Scotland's survival as a competitive trading nation. There are two particularly serious aspects of this crisis. First, its harshest impact is on the small firms, including one-man businesses, who cannot afford to wait for their credit or look to other sources. Secondly, it handicaps Scottish firms in competition for credit with their English
852
counterparts, for in England, I regret to say, there is no such rigid restriction on the making of agreement on fixed-term loans. All these considerations have led the Government to act and to act quickly. The Bill now before the House is brief, but I think it is effective.
I should like to turn now to its provisions, which of course have to be read with the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970. Clause 1 makes a number of detailed amendments to the provisions of the 1970 Act which relate to redemption of the standard security. The key amendments are those to Section 11(3), Section 18(1) and standard condition 11(1) in Schedule 3. These amendments all hang together; and the core of the change which we are seeking to make lies in Clause 1(c), which provides for a new Section 18(1A): the new Section 18(1A) would have the effect of making the debtor's right to redeem at two months' notice subject to any agreement to the contrary. Such an agreement could be made either when the security was granted in the first place or at any time subsequently. The other provisions of Clause 1 are consequential on the fundamental change effected by the key provisions to which I have referred.
Clause 2 deals with the operation in Scotland of Section 89 of the Companies Act 1948. That section made lawful, among other things, the creation of debentures in a form which made them irredeemable securities. Since such debentures can be heritable securities, the 1970 Act might have been considered to be in conflict with the provisions enacted by Parliament in the 1948 Act. The opportunity is being taken in this clause to resolve any doubts on the matter. The clause provides that the 1970 Act does not affect and has never affected Section 89 in its operation in Scotland. Clause 3 is directed at heritable securities granted and recorded in the period between November 29, 1970 and the passing of the present Bill into law. The provisions of the clause make it possible for the redemption provisions in such securities to be altered in accordance with the provisions of the Bill. Any such alteration can of course be made only if both the debtor and the creditor agree that it should be made. Clause 4 contains provisions of the usual kind as to citation and construction.

853
It only remains for me to ask noble Lords to join those who have welcomed the Bill and to encourage its speedy progress through Parliament. It commands the complete support of the many organisations which the Government have consulted about their proposals for legislation; and it has had all-Party support in another place. I hope that the support of this House to-day will enable the Redemption of Standard Securities (Scotland) Bill to pass on to the Statute Book as soon as possible. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Bellielvie.)
7.22 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, in her concluding words the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, expressed the hope that this Bill will pass speedily on to the Statute Book. I gather, however, that it is not the wish of all Members of your Lordships' House that we should get -through this stage of the Bill too speedily. Otherwise those engaged on the Industrial Relations Bill will not have an opportunity even of getting through the soup, apart from anything else. I must congratulate the noble Baroness on the fact that she has made an excellent contribution towards that objective in the speech she has just made. Short of reading all the actual wording of the Bill, I doubt whether she could possibly have made her speech any longer. I have become very much aware of the fact that the diligence of the noble Baroness has made my task in trying to keep the debate going even more difficult, I am now more than ever aware of the problems which the Jews must have had in the times of the Ancient Egyptians when they were faced with the task of making bricks without straw.
I started by looking through the proceedings in another place to find how they dealt with this Bill. I had been aware of the fact that it was not the subject of acute controversy there. First I looked up the Third Reading, and I found that the Third Reading was reported on the same page of the OFFICIAL REPORT as the Committee and Report stage's, and (that no one spoke other than the officials. Then I turned up the Second Reading and found that no one spoke other than to agree that the Bill should be transferred for the Committee stage to a sitting of the Scottish
854
Grand Committee. The Scottish Grand Committee managed to talk on the Bill to the extent, I 'believe, of some 34 columns of Hansard. Of course, for another place that is tantamount to saying nothing at all.
LORD CHAMPION: Now, now!
LORD HUGHES: My noble friend Lord Champion has intervened, and that gives me the opportunity of speaking for perhaps another thirty seconds to say that if anything I said in the last few seconds should he regarded as a reflection on the privilege of another place I unreservedly withdraw that comment.
The surprising thing is that in both Houses, which are almost infested with lawyers, the earlier Bill should have got through without any of them noticing such a dreadful defect. -It may well be that at the present time lenders of money are coming up against a needless difficulty. As the noble Baroness explained, the problem arises from the fact that people may borrow money at high rates of interest and lend presumably at higher rates of interest; if 'the second party has a right to redeem on two months' notice, should interest rates fall, he may find a lower rate elsewhere and the first party is stuck with his high rate of interest. In existing circumstances, this seems to be a needless fear because no action that the present Government are taking will result in a precipitate or steep fall in the rate of interest. Nevertheless, although the fears may be groundless, I am satisfied that what (the noble Baroness said is perfectly true: that the effect of this provision in the 1970 Act is to dry up the opportunities for -borrowing by perfectly reputable borrowers. In these circumstances, I think the Government were right to introduce this Bill in another place and I think my honourable and right honourable friends in 'another place were equally right not to impede its passage.
If it were not for the need, which I have already indicated, to give my noble friends and noble Lords opposite the opportunity of having something to eat, I should not have said anything other than that I found nothing in what the noble Baroness -said which makes me feel it necessary to impede the Second Reading of this Bill.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I wish to add a word, not with the object of leading on to the entree course, but for the purpose of saying that I think this is a good example of what Parliament can do when it really wants to get down to business. I think my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie and the Government deserve full congratulation for bringing forward this Bill at very short notice. It is true that if we had had a little more time last year we might have picked up this matter then, but in these days, when Parliament is so fully occupied, it might have been thought that Parliament would not have time to do this. It has done this and should receive full credit for doing so. I must say that I heartily dislike a Bill drafted in this form, which is completely incomprehensible and not very easy to read without reference to the previous Act. I hope that something may be done speedily to consolidate this legislation which is incomprehensible to all but lawyers.
7.27 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and my noble friend Lord Selkirk for their interventions in this short debate. It may be possible to extend it in order to answer some of the points which they raised. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, even had to resort to a reference to the ancient Egyptians in order to come back to the Bill as it is, but he raised a very important point. He said that this House, as he put it, is infested with lawyers, yet no one seemed to notice this potential defect. This is perfectly true, because although, as I understand, the 1970 Act took five weeks in Committee in another place there were no representations at all on this matter during the Parliamentary proceedings. The Law Society of Scotland raised a mild query upon it but did not pursue the matter, and therefore the Bill went through and is now the 1970 Act without this point being raised or debated.
I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, welcomed this Bill. He referred to the problem of money lending and rates of interest. Of course the Bill is not designed to give lenders an unfair advantage over borrowers, but is
856
designed to replace what is an inflexible provision in the 1970 Act by a flexible one in which borrowers and lenders can agree on the terms of a loan. The 1970 Act gave the borrower the right to redeem a security which was so absolute that, even had he wished to do so he could not have modified it.
The terms of redemption hinge on a freely negotiated agreement between borrower and lender; in other words, there will be flexibility on both sides. Few borrowers would be grateful to receive an absolute right to redeem the security if, in consequence, they could not raise a loan; and there has been a tendency in this direction as a result of the provisions of the 1970 Act which we are seeking by this Bill to amend. Many institutional lenders themselves borrow capital at a fixed interest over a long term, and they often borrow in the South. They clearly want to be able to re-lend the money under similar arrangements, but they have been discouraged by the right given to the borrowing party in Scotland. I hope, therefore, that this Bill will be of real benefit to Scotland.
I would say to my noble friend Lord Selkirk, who has been good enough to examine the provisions of the Bill and the way in which it amends the 1970 Act that I do not think it is quite so incomprehensible as he suggested, because if one looks at the amendments to the 1970 Act one finds that they relate to only three main parts of the Act. They relate to Section 11, Section 18 and to the standard condition in paragraph 11(1) of Schedule 3. All the other provisions, which appear to him to be somewhat incomprehensible, are consequential upon those three main amendments, apart from Clause 3 which, as 1 said earlier, removes any doubt which may exist that the operation of Section 89 of the Companies Act 1948 does anything other than what it really does. Therefore I hope that my noble friend is satisfied. I thank noble Lords who have been good enough to attend this interesting debate, and I hope that the House will feel it right to give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
7.32 p.m.
House again in Committee.
LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION moved Amendment No. 263N:
Page 141, line 33, leave out paragraph 3 and insert (" and whether the organisation has branches.")
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is quite clear. We are dealing here with paragraph 3, which states that the rules of the union must indicate whether or not it has branches. Our Amendment provides for the retention of the words about " whether the organisation has branches ", but seeks to delete all the words after " branches ". Here we must again protest against what the Government are seeking to do in this Schedule; namely, to dictate to the unions what is clearly a matter for the unions themselves. The rules of a union have always been a matter for the union itself and are part of the democracy of a trade union. This is a matter upon which we feel rather deeply. I suppose that it is difficult for the Government to realise that trade unions do not wish to be dictated to in this way; and, indeed, they ought not to he dictated to in this way.
I have had something to do with trade unions in the course of my life, and they are very responsible bodies which frame their own rules in order to secure the good governance of the union. In paragraph 3 there is an instruction to the Registrar that the rules must indicate whether the union has branches—and we agree with that, because a union ought to indicate that it has branches; and that is provided for, as we suggest, by an addition to paragraph 2—but the instruction then goes on to state that the rules
" must also indicate the extent to which, and the manner in which, it has power to control the activities of its branches."
That is surely a matter for the trade union itself, and not a matter for the Registrar. It ought riot necessarily to be included in the rules, although I must say that most of the organisations with which I have ever had any association had their own rules which indicated how a two-way traffic was going to work; namely, how the branches were going to control the executive, and how the executive was
858
going to have some control over the branches. This is very much a matter for the rules which the union itself should frame.
I happen to have in my hand the rule book of the National Union of Railwaymen. If I keep on returning to this point, it is because I think one should speak from personal knowledge and experience if one possibly can, and should not speak merely because one has read that certain practices exist. There are 121 pages in this rule book, which are carefully thought out and sifted by the members themselves at their annual general meetings and so on. There is provision for the branch to take its own decisions, up to a certain point. For example, a rule relating to a branch states:
" Each branch may make bye-laws for the government of its local affairs. Such bye-laws must first be approved of and signed by the Executive Committee or the General Secretary, and be strictly consistent with the general rules of the Union."
I could add to that that the bye-laws must conform to the general policy of the union, which will be known to the branches because of their close association and good communications with head office. These bye-laws—and I have helped to frame them in the past; we usually call them standing orders in the local branch—are framed by the local branch. Then, before they can become bye-laws, they have to be sent up to the executive committee of the union which will examine them very carefully, sign a copy and return it. They then become the laws of the local branch and are obeyed by the local branch.
This is surely a matter which ought to be left to the union concerned, and the Registrar ought not to be asked to enter into it. The more one sees examples of this sort embodied in the Bill, the greater the difficulty there is in seeing why the Government should have started on this matter in the first place. The Bill is bad and, certainly, this Schedule has a number of instructions which ought never to be there. I agree that if one registers one must to some extent conform to general principles, and I do not mind my branch conforming to general principles such as those which I, as a member of a union, have helped to form. But what the noble Lord is trying to do here is to see that there will be a rule which will insure that the centre will he able

859
to control the branches absolutely. If I am incorrect, I am sure he will tell us so when he comes to reply. But that is not quite the way to do what is wanted. We should ask the branches to conform generally to the policy of the union and to the bye-laws which have been prepared, and the Government should not act in the way proposed in paragraph 3.
There is something else. If we are going to include in the rules, as an instruction to the Registrar, that the centre must control the branches, we ought at least also to include in them an instruction that there must be something in the rules which will enable the branches to control the executive—and I am very much in favour of that, both in my trade union and, indeed, in Parliament itself. If Parliament exists for any purpose at all, it is to control the executive, which is, of course, the Government of the day. If it cannot do that to some extent, we ought all to pack up and go home—and that applies to the other place, too. The control of the executive is right in relation to national affairs: a certain measure of control of the executive is also right in connection with our trade unions.
I think that this paragraph goes much too far. I believe that if we are going to have this we ought to have it as a two-way traffic, in which we also lay down a rule that there shall be clearly stated the extent to which it will be possible for branches to control the national executive of the union and, indeed, its annual general meeting, which is normally the governing body of the union, when the executive committee is not in fact sitting. I cannot impress too much upon noble Lords opposite that this is a matter that ought to be left to the unions concerned. This is a matter in which democracy ought to work within the unions and if it does, I am sure that noble Lords will have no great objection. I have never heard the slightest objection to the control that exists within the National Union of Railwaymen of the executive over the branches, simply because there is a reasonable flow of information between them and they trust one another. Trust is what should operate within a trade union, as indeed it ought to operate to some extent between the executive of this country and Par-
860
liament. I am delighted to move this Amendment because I think it is a very sound one. I beg to move.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: I am very much for leaving out paragraph 3. In fact, I am for leaving out all the rules in the whole of this Schedule and in the clause. The clause makes the Government's attitude to industrial relations absolutely transparent. These rules would be regarded as naive if they were drawn up by a group of sixth-formers trying to start a tennis club. Indeed, they might have been drawn up by a governess looking after an unruly class, or even a ruly class. It seems to me that they are absolutely ridiculous when they are applied to millions of trade unionists and thousands of trade unions who have evolved rules for themselves over the last 100 years. Seriously, this particular innovation, these particular rules, are a real scandal.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I find myself a little puzzled at the mud which has been thrown at this particular paragraph. I am bound to say that I do not think it really merits it. All that it says is:
"If the. organisation has branches, the rules must so indicate, must also indicate the extent to which, and the manner in which, it has power to control the activities of its branches ".
The noble Lord, Lord Champion, always speaks to us so agreeably that it is difficult to disagree with him, but what his argument seemed to me to amount to was this. The National Union of Railwaymen is a good union and it has a rule of this kind. He made it clear to what extent the activities of the branches are controlled: their rules have to be signed by head office. Then that is the answer: but he does not want any other union to do the same. Is that it?
LORD DIAMOND: No.
LORD DRUMALBYN: All that this does is to lay it down:
" If the organisation has branches, the rules must so indicate, and must also indicate the extent to which, and the manner in which, it has power to control the activities of its branches ".
This is a matter of importance in many ways. It is important to know what

861
power the branch committee has; for example, to call a strike. This is important. I do not think there can be any real cavilling at this particular requirement. I say again, as I said on the previous Amendment, that the Registrar must know. If he is going to make inquiries, he has got to know about the union. The members also have a right to know of the procedures of the union; and the branches themselves will want to know about them. I cannot for the life of me see why this should not be in the rules. I hope noble Lords will not object to this kind of thing. I know they do not object to its being in the rules: what they are objecting to is the Bill saying that it should be in the rules. Again, it has to be said that the N.U.R. is a good union; it is an experienced union. It probably has its rules in very good shape. I have not looked at them myself, but I have seen the noble Lord with a copy from time to time. We want that high standard throughout. We want to raise the standard of the rules of all unions. This is a provision which will enable them to do it. There really is no more to it than that.
LORD CHAMPION: That is all right; we accept that. The union ought to have rules which will enable them to control the branches to some extent; and, as I said, they ought also to have rules which will enable the branches to control the executive. It should be a two-way traffic. What we object to in this connection is that the Registrar will be able to dictate. This is our objection here. He will be in a position virtually to dictate to the unions, and that is what we object to. I do not think that this is an Amendment upon which I would seek, particularly at this stage, to divide the Committee. Clearly, between now and Report I shall have to consider what the noble Lord has said and if necessary return to this point at that stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to 'withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.48 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 263P:
Page 141, line 36, leave out paragraph 4, and insert (" the election or appointment and removal of a governing body by whatever name and offices and officials ").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps it would be convenient to take Amendments Nos. 263Q, 263R, 263S and 263T together with this Amendment, because they all really stem from the same point. I beg formally to move the first one. My first pleasant duty is to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, on the success with which he overcomes his difficulties. He said that my noble friend Lord Champion spoke with such quiet persuasiveness that it was difficult not to be persuaded by what he said. I can only say that he succeeded in overcoming that difficulty 100 per cent. It made not the slightest difference what my noble friend Lord Champion said, although he produced a rule book which was produced voluntarily by the men themselves—and this deals with all the Amendments which I have in front of me.
Far from not going into sufficient detail, this rule book contains 121 pages, covering everything that is in the Schedule and a great deal more. The point I am making is that, however long you make the Schedule you would not even then get a model set of rules applicable to every union. Even this set of rules, excellent though it is, is defective, according to this Bill, in one material respect: that it does not say on it what the price is. It is true that it covers 285,000 men;it covers years and years of experience; it was got together long before an Industrial Relations Bill was ever thought of; nobody considers that the rules are in any way inadequate for the purposes of this long-established and responsible union. But according to the Schedule we are now discussing it is defective in a material degree because it does not specify the reasonable charge to be made—
A NOBLE LORD: Perhaps it is free.
LORD DIAMOND: As my noble friend intimates, it may be free. But that is a grave defect according to the Schedule. Why am I saying this? Not only to pass a pleasant moment, but to make it clear that what we object to in this Schedule (as each of these five Amendments shows) is that the Government are attempting to do something which it is inappropriate for them to do and which does not need doing in this detail. If you get into this amount of detail you are bound to make

863
two mistakes: too much detail for certain purposes, too little for others; too much detail because the Bill says that the N.U.R. rules are defective because the price is not stated; and not enough because there are only 24 paragraphs in the Schedule, while there are 120 pages in this set of rules of one union alone.
What we are saying is that the unions are capable of framing their own rules, and that it does not help to produce a greater sense of responsibility by telling the unions that they are incapable of providing their own rules and that therefore the Registrar must specify in detail what each rule has to be. I do not know bow many times we have to make this simple point to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. I do not complain about his not accepting our argument, but that each time he gets up he shows that he has not begun to understand it. We are saying there are too many details. The unions provide these rules by themselves, so why stuff them down their throats? That creates opposition, not co-operation. It can only lead to ridiculous situations as in the case of this excellent set of rules being defective because there is no price.
Leave it to the unions. If the noble Lord wishes to have a general reference, as the Commission thought it right to have, let us have one paragraph saying what the rules should have regard to, what they should cover. Leave it at that. Leave it to the good sense of the unions, and let them co-operate with the Registrar in the friendly way they have done hitherto in producing rules, which perhaps in some cases are not clear enough or not adequate in all respects. These particular Amendments are examples of the same lack of understanding, and of excessive authority and excessive interference in what should be the natural democracy of the unions. They each give evidence of the same thing. Therefore I do not think I need go into each of them in detail. They are each to leave out successive paragraphs which are objectionable on the grounds I have already indicated. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Lord has grouped these Amendments together and has made a general argument from which I take it that he does not quarrel with what the Schedule says should be in the rules, but merely with
864
the fact that it says that these matters should be in the rules. He believes that they should be in the rules but does not want the Schedule to say so. He says that there is too much detail laid down. I gather that something like 328 unions will be transferring to provisional registration straightaway. The noble Lord, Lord Tangley, made it clear that of the many rule books that he had read many fell far short of requirements. What is the right thing to do in the circumstances? Is it to put down just a few notes on the sort of things that might be in the rules and then leave to the Registrar as the unions submit their rules (or get in touch with the Registrar to get their rules right) complete discretion as to what should be in the rules of each trade union, with different requirements for different trade unions? Or is it to set out a comprehensive set of things that should be contained in the rules? I do understand the noble Lord's argument. I just think that it is wrong. I am sorry. I think that the right course is to set out exactly what things ought to be in the rules and to put them in the Schedule, and that is what we have done. I simply do not think that the noble Lord's argument is better than mine.
7.58 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: If I may respectfully say so, I think that my noble friend Lord Diamond is right in not wanting to pursue this matter at length. I think our point has been made on the Schedule. We have done our duty qua the Committee. If there is anything that will wreck this Bill it will be Schedule 4. I thought that the Government wanted the trade unions to register. The effect of these rules is to make it virtually impossible for any union to register. Some civil servant has got out this terrific catalogue. I agree with my noble friend that if it had said that the trade union rules must cover certain matters, that could have been done. But let us consider the circumstances in which the trade unions make the rules. They are voluntary bodies They make alterations in their rules at ordinary annual conferences or at special rule-making conferences, and the branches will be mandated by their members on how they ought to vote. How you can get rules

865
to cover the 23 paragraphs of Schedule 4 I cannot conceive. Paragraph 7 of Schedule 4 says:
"The rules must specify the powers and duties of the governing body of the organisation, of each of its officers and of officials who are not officers of the organisation."
Who are the " officials "? We are told all about it in Part IX, in Clause 158 which says:
"" official ', in relation to an organisation of workers or an organisation of employers, means any person who is an officer of the organisation or of a branch of the organisation or who (not being such an officer) is a person elected or appointed in accordance with the rules of the organisation to be a representative of its members or of some of them, including (in the case of an organisation of workers) any person so elected or appointed who is an employee of the same employer as the members, or one or more of the members, whom he is to represent;"
One of the difficulties which the courts sometimes get into is that they do not really understand trade union terminology and start talking about a branch secretary as a trade union official, whereas in my experience, which my noble friends will confirm, a trade union official, in trade union language, is an employee of a trade union. His occupation in life is to do what the trade union tells him, a branch secretary's occupation in life is to drive railway trains, he has been elected by his mates to keep the books and keep the minutes; he buys the minute book out of his own pocket and he does not get a penny for what he does.
What limited company, or, if it appeals to the Minister more, what Government Department, could possibly operate for a week if they were told to put down in writing exactly what everybody employed in the Department does, and could change it, in the case of a limited company, only if the articles of association were changed? Trade union rules compare with the articles of association of a limited company. How can you possibly run a company if the managing director cannot say to Jones, " I know you do the following ten things. Now I want Snooks to do your number 10, and I want you in future to do Snooks' number 1 "; or, " I know you have been embracing legal aid; I don't want you to do legal aid in the Lord Chancellor's office, I want more help on the Courts Bill."? These rules
866
mean that when any minor person in a trade union who is an employee—or even one who is not an employee of the trade union at all—is appointed to any sort of task, that task cannot be changed or varied with any other member without a fresh application to the Registrar to approve a change in the rules. I agree with my noble friend, Lady Gaitskell, that the whole thing is completely unworkable, and will be found in practice to be unworkable. I think we have made our ojections plain and have thereby done our Parliamentary duty.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: I should like to add a couple of sentences, and would ask the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, to think what would happen if the Government applied the same kind of rules to employers. How would they feel? Does not the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, understand that this setting out of these fiddling rules is an affront to trade unions? The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, gets up and says that he does not understand what we feel. Certainly we do not understand what the Government feel. They do not seem to understand in the least that after 100 years of struggle and experience trade unions have drawn up their own rules. They may not be perfect; that does not matter. But now they are told, like a lot of schoolboys, that these are the rules they have to conform to.
LORD DRUMALBYN: If the noble Baroness will forgive me, this is saying what there are to be rules about. The Registrar is not writing the rules for anyone: he merely has to see what there are rules about. Perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to point out that, although this may not apply to employers, it certainly applies to employers' associations as well as to trade unions.
In reply to the noble and learned Lord, if, as is necessary under the terms of the Bill, people are to know what is the scope of authority of particular officers and officials, then that scope of authority must surely be defined; and this is what the rules call for. The scope of the authority should be defined in the rules. I would have thought that this was essential. Now that this is a body corporate it is necessary to define what the authority of the various officials at

867
various levels is. I should have thought that this was right.
LORD GARDINER: Will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt him? It does not merely specify their powers; it also specifies their duties. This means that what every employee, and even people who are not employees, has to do is to be specified in the rules which cannot be changed without application to a civil servant. No limited company and no Government Department could possibly carry on in these circumstances.
LORD POPPLEWELL: It is further emphasised in paragraph 24, which says:
" Where by reason of special circumstances relating to a particular trade union or employers' association, it appears to the registrar that a particular requirement set out in this Schedule would be inappropriate in the case of that trade union or employers' association "
and so on. This, again, gives power to the Registrar to form his own opinion, as distinct from the trade union machine that will have defined the rules.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Would the noble Lord forgive me, for the sake of good order? There is an Amendment down about this. He is perhaps anticipating his noble friends' Amendment.
LORD POPPLEWELL: It is extremely difficult to confine our discussion to this particular Amendment because the whole series of Amendments and this particular Schedule must have a bearing on the way we approach this item in the Bill.
The noble Lord repeatedly says that there must be someone to define these things. It is difficult to understand the logic of this argument. He has been asked repeatedly for evidence as to whether there has ever been any grave breach. He takes refuge in what the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, stated: that when they were considering this they found numerous rules that were, in the opinion of the Commission, far from suitable. I am not surprised. I understand that they took evidence from something like 500-odd different trade unions. About 130 of those are affiliated to the T.U.C., and it is in these big unions that difficulties are likely to arise. But it is interesting to note that the Donovan Commission have not been able to pinpoint any grave breach of rules that would have created difficulties.
868
As the noble Lord knows full well, the Bridlington agreement of the trade unions has gone a long way to ironing out difficulties which the trade union movement has experienced, and surely it would have been better to consult with the T.U.C., bringing before them and discussing together the Donovan recommendations. If there are real difficulties, what is the best way of ironing them out? The General Council cannot compel any decision it takes on the free trade unions, but it is astonishing that the recommendations of the General Council of the T.U.C. do bear fruit. It is slow sometimes in permeating down, but on the other hand it is very useful and has proved a real guiding line.
I have deviated a little from the actual Amendment. The Bill says that the rules must specifically describe all persons eligible for membership of the organisation. If a union desires that only a skilled person should be admitted into the union, and every member has to prove his bona fides before being accepted as a member —if they put up a bar against people who are not fully skilled, would that be accepted by the Registrar? I do not think that the Registrar would be able to accept a rule of that description. Again, this indicates the need for trade unions to make their own rules.
8.11 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, has the right idea about this. When we talk about duties, it is common practice in business to specify the duties of accountants and others.
LORD JACQUES: Is the noble Lord suggesting that it is common practice in business to lay down in the constitution the duties of branch managers? That is what is asked for here.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I said it is common practice to lay down duties. The point here is that we have to know the scope of the authority, the powers and the duties which are involved. The noble Lord is concerned merely with powers, but it is equally necessary that certain duties should be prescribed and should be laid down as well. I know that noble Lords feel that these clauses go too far. They have been carefully looked at, but I am quite willing to look at them again to see whether they go too far in any

869
particular respect and whether anything that seems unreasonable and impracticable is included in them. But broadly they cover the main points that have to be laid down.
The noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, spoke about paragraph 15, to which we have not really come; but the answer to him is that we are talking about descriptions, as distinct from people who are " appropriately qualified ". These words were precisely designed to cover apprentices and ranges of qualifications, as distinct from descriptions. If noble Lords feel strongly that this paragraph is too detailed, we can look at it again. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord was right, after all, in drawing attention to the last paragraph and saying that where the cap does not fit, one cannot wear it. It may be that in certain cases—for example, of unions on the special register —some of this would not apply. But subject to that, the Schedule seems to cover what is required. I am prepared to look at this matter again in detail, but I hope that in general noble Lords will feel that this will act as a check list, covering the whole range of what is required to be in the rules.
LORD SLATER: I am pleased to hear the noble Lord say that he will look at this again because my noble and learned friend presented a wonderful case of how trade union branches work in the alteration of rules. From time to time branches formulate resolutions for alteration of rules, which, if passed by the branch, are sent forward for consideration at the annual conference of the union and so are considered by all the members before being resolved. The case presented by my noble and learned friend is one of the best I have heard on this issue, and I sincerely hope that the noble Lord will be able to say that he can concede the point that my noble and learned friend has made.
LORD DIAMOND: I should like to echo what my noble friend Lord Slater has said. We have had a useful debate on this group of Amendments. With penetrating oratory, my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner at last seems to have made our position a little clearer to the Government. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for saying that he will look at the whole
870
Schedule again. We still think that in several respects it is ridiculous and unworkable and that it has the wrong philosophical approach. He does not accept that. But even if he thought it was the right approach, it is still making nonsense of this Schedule so to particularise as to make it unworkable and ridiculous. So I hope that he will look at it again to see whether, at an appropriate time, he can make some improvement.
The running of a union, which is often part-time work, is not to be compared with the running of a business by people who have offices and secretaries. and have had considerable training in administration, and who act administratively all day long. It is an entirely different type of work. It is wholly inappropriate to compare one with the other and to say, if one can do it in business, why can one not do it in the trade union? I can visualise my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner taking part in a union branch meeting, reading out a description in the definition clause and then turning round and saying, " That makes the position quite clear, Bill." One can imagine what " Bill " would reply to that one! I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will realise that there is a totally different atmosphere in a trade union. I am grateful to the noble Lord, and in the circumstances, I think it would be right to ask leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.20 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 263U:
Page 142, line 37, at end insert—
(". Any employers' association which as part of its business acts as a disciplinary body towards employees shall have an equal number of the employees' trade union representatives as members of such disciplinary bodies.")
The noble Lord said: Inevitably when we are discussing Amendments to a Schedule, all the clauses concerned tend to be discussed. I think that it would be helping the Committee if I asked your Lordships to be indulgent and to take all the remaining Amendments on this Schedule together, because I think that they all raise the same point, which we have been trying to drive home all the way through—the wrong psychological approach, excess of details, not leaving

871
the unions to exercise their own responsibility sufficiently and, where there are differences, going the wrong way about solving them.
I need to say only one thing more, and that is to answer the question which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, asked on the last discussion, namely, what do the Opposition want us to do if we get into difficulty, if there is a dispute or anything of that sort? We want to ensure that the Registrar should not be so burdened with statutory legislative duties of a legalistic kind as to be regarded as somebody like a judge before whom you have to go, but that instead he should continue to be regarded as a friend of the unions who can offer wise advise drawn from hits great experience across the board of a great mass of unions. We want the Registrar to remain in his present position and to be helped in case of difficulty, where he needs support, by a body of the kind recommended by the Donovan Commission, of two trade unionists and a lawyer who could give the necessary guidance and advice with just a little bit of push such as we realise is sometimes necessary.
In that event there could well be cooperation and the rules, to the extent that they are not now satisfactory, would be more likely to be satisfactory. Perhaps the noble Lord would take away the whole of this Schedule and consider having a totally different approach under which the Act merely provides, as Donovan suggested, for the things which ought to be covered and to leave it to the unions to fill in the detail—they should, Donovan said, retain the freedom to create and to devise rules to suit their own individual circumstances. If the noble Lord would take away the Schedule and bring back a totally revised version in those terms, with an independent review body as recommended by Donovan, he would be doing two things: he would be giving pleasure to Her Majesty's official Opposition and he would be carrying out the recommendations based on a 3-year consideration by a distinguished Royal Commission. I beg to move.
8.23 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am always anxious to be accommodating to the
872
Opposition, but the Opposition are really asking a lot in this particular case. They are asking us to alter the whole system that is devised here in order to take on something that we had already obviously examined and rejected in favour of what we regarded as a better system and one which fits in, as I said before, with the whole structure that is being set up under this Bill.
I do not think that that would be the right approach. After all, what is provided here is simply sufficient to deal with the various aspects of trade union activities; requirements relating to constitution and management, requirements relating to members of the organisation, requirements relating to property and finances, and the Registrar's power of exemption at the end to deal with cases that do not actually fit in with the rules as here set out. I believe that if noble Lords were to take these points and set them out in tabular form instead of in the form they are here, as unions will no doubt do for themselvesl—the trouble about tabular form is that it is a little more difficult to fit in particular cases—they would find a complete check list and if the noble Lord, Lord Champion. who spoke before. were to go through his rule book, which he probably knows by heart from cover to cover, with these rules, checking one thing against another, he would find in almost every particular that the rule book covers the points here. I must say again, that all we are asking is that where good standards are not met at the present time, where rules are deficient because things are not covered, then those deficiencies should be rectified and, if you have a check list of this kind, this is the ideal way to rectify it.
From the point of view of the administration by the Registrar himself, the situation is made so much easier. Here is a complette list of things that have to be covered, and as he looks at every single set of rules he will be able to check off to see that these things are covered. I am sure that is the way he will do it. So long as these things are clearly expressed and he is not asked to cover things which are for some reason or another impracticable—or otiose if you like—I think that is the right way to operate.

873
I am sorry, but even if the Donovan Commission recommendation had been accepted in this regard, I do not myself see how we could really have gone about this in any very different way. They would have had a check list. They would have had to see that all the points were met and if there were disagreements at the end of the day then there was this different means proposed of doing it from the way we proposed in the Bill. But that is the major difference. If I may say so, I think noble Lords are making rather too much of this matter. However, they have expressed their point of view.
I have said that we shall have a look to see that nothing is asked for here that is impossible. impracticable or unreasonable; but with that I hope that noble Lords will be prepared to express their opinion on the Schedule if they wish or, at any rate, perhaps as I should like to think, I have been able to persuade them. But I am afraid that does not seem to be practicable.
BARONRSS GAITSKELL: May I make a suggestion to the noble Lord, that instead of having this excruciating detail it would have been easier to have the Registrar provided with a copy of every trade union's rules? Would that not have been easier, more democratic, fairer and more acceptable to trade unions?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I do not know whether the noble Baroness heard me say so earlier, but the Registrar has copies of the rules at the present time; and what he has to do is once the provisional register has been set up to start working through these rules to see that these points are covered.
LORD SLATER: With regard to this particular Schedule, I wonder if the noble Lord is aware of how industry really does work from both sides, either at national level or at local level. At local level, just as at national level, unions have what are known as consultative committees which deal with all types of projects governing the particular form of industry that is operating with the employees covered by specific unions. In my own union we have these consultative committees where you find that the management becomes the chairman and the leading secretary of the branch union is the vice-chairman, and they are able to talk
874
over the various problems covering that particular type of industry in.which they are engaged. They come along with their various suggestions, and they work there as a team. It means that the individual member working inside the industry—apart from the management, which is responsible for running the industry—representing the membership, is accepting individual responsibility; and this comes right down to everybody engaged in that type of industry.
This gives a form of unanimity between management and men. You gel more out of a team within the operation of the system as it works; and would to God that a lot of managing directors would leave their offices, and get down to talk to some of the employees on the shop floor! If they did that, they would get to know them and how things were working. I am convinced that if this was done more than it has been done in the past, production in this country would go up by leaps and bounds, to the benefit of the country.
My noble friend has presented his case on this Schedule and has asked the noble Lord to accept the Amendments that have been submitted. The noble Lord has previously agreed to have another look at proceedings. Why does he not have another look at these Amendments, which are all to the one Schedule and cover the same type of people who were referred to in a previous Amendment that we debated? I hope that he will look at this further. He says that we are asking for too much; but we are not. It is not a matter of asking too much, but of trying to get the thing on a proper basis which will be beneficial not only to one side of industry, but to both sides.
LORD POPPLEWELL: The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said that he felt that it was impossible to accept this Amendment as drafted. To be quite frank, I can fully appreciate his difficulty. I realise that it would be difficult to write anything like this into the rules of a trade union. But we are grateful to my noble friend for putting down this Amendment so that we could have a discussion about disciplinary machinery. It would not be practicable for a small industry to have this type of machinery, but a large industry must have some disciplinary machinery. Most unions have tried to get this. In some of the old

875
basic industries they have this disciplinary machinery. I wonder if the noble Lord would think this over to see if he could write some ideas into the Bill which would meet us in this direction.
Many disputes have been created by an arbitrary decision to dispense with the services of a man—possibly quite justifiably—or to take a man off his particular work and put him on to something else. These difficulties do arise. If it were possible to establish some type of disciplinary machinery which would suit both sides of industry, in order to establish the basic principles, I am sure it would help considerably. It cannot be a one-sided affair. The men are not always right but neither are managements. Where, as in much of industry, you have the position that the manager's decision is final, then there are difficulties. If the Government would see whether they can get some broad principles to which both sides of industry should work, to establish this disciplinary machinery, this would be a useful exercise.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Perhaps I can answer that question right away. This part of the Bill does not deal with what the noble Lord has been talking about. It merely says what there have to be rules about. The noble Lord is quite right in that it says the rules must specify the nature of disciplinary action and so on. But where unions want to help in the setting up of disciplinary action, that is much more a matter for the C.I.R. or the conciliation officers, or that side of the Bill, than it is for the Registrar. The Registrar can help with advice on the rules, of course, but the disciplinary procedure generally forms part of a procedure agreement, and it is the procedure agreements on which the C.I.R. can help when a matter is referred to them, and the conciliation officers.
LORD POPPLEWELL: I do not want to minimise the difficulties, but if this is a Bill on industrial relations, surely it is not beyond the wit of the draftsmen and the legal fraternity to embrace somewhere in the Bill the principles about which we are talking. If it is to be mandatory, it would be a useful exercise to make it equally mandatory in the interests of good relations, to instil upon both sides that
876
on this disciplinary issue there must be a meeting point somewhere, in order to extract the measure of support that is necessary from both sides if we are to have smooth working.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Perhaps I can come back on this, because it is important that noble Lords should understand it. The point is that what has to appear in the rules is what the disciplinary procedure is. I am quite certain that there is room for improvement in disciplinary procedure, but I do not believe this is part of what we are dealing with here. What the noble Lord has been saying illustrates very well indeed the difference between the content of the rules and the mere fact that there is a rule about something. The content of the rules is a matter for the trade unions to decide and when it comes to joint disciplinary bodies, then it is a matter for negotiation.
LORD DIAMOND: I am particularly grateful 'to my noble friend Lord Popplewell, who dealt specifically with the points involved in this Amendment. I now turn to the speech made a little earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, who said that he would seek to persuade us as to two propositions. I accord the noble Lord full marks, and say that he has persuaded us completely as to both. The first of his propositions was that there should be a check list of the items to be covered. I am asking the noble Lord to take this Schedule away, and to bring along a thing called a check list, with an introduction saying: " This is a check list of the points to be covered ". It may not be wholly appropriate for a Statute. but it would be appropriate for a code of practice. I am asking the noble Lord to bring that along, and then his purpose and our purpose would be served, and we should have made progress.
The second proposition was that we should express our point of view when it came to the Question, That Schedule 4 stand part of the Bill. I think that is a sensible proposition. We have explained our difficulties about the Amendments. I do not think there is any point in going through each one individually unless any of my noble friends wish this. We can go straight to the Question, That

877
Schedule 4 stand Part. With the permission of the Committee, I will withdraw Amendment No. 263U, and I will not move any of the other Amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Dundee, E.

Penrhyn, L.

Balerno, L.

Falkland, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Balfour, E.

Falmouth, V.

Redmayne, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Ferrers, E. [Teller.]

Rothermere, V.

Barnby, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Beauchamp, E.

Gowrie, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gray, L.

St. Helens, L.

Belstead, L.

Greenway, L.

St. Just, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Grenfell, L.

Sandford, L.

Boston, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Selkirk, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hailes, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

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

Somers, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Stamp, L.

Burton, L.

Hankey, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Clwyd, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Suffield, L.

Colyton, L.

Kemsley, V.

Teviot, L.

Conesford, L.

Killearn, L.

Teynham, L.

Cowley, E.

Latymer, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Crawshaw, L.

McFadzean, L.

Vivian, L.

Cromartie, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wade, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Windlesham, L.

Denham, L.

Oakshott, L.

Wolverton, L.

Derwent, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Popplewell, L.

Ardwick, L.

Henderson, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Bacon, Bs.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Rusholme, L.

Balogh, L.

Hughes, L.

Sainsbury, I..

Bernstein, L.

Jacques, L.

St. Davids, V.

Beswick, L.

Kennet, L.

Shackleton, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Lee of Asheridge, Bs.

Slater, L.

Champion, L.

Lindgren, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Collison, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Diamond. L.

Maelor, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Energlyn, L.

Milner of Leeds, L. [Teller.]

Walston, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Platt, L.

Willis, L.

Gardiner, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Schedule 4 agreed to accordingly.
Clause 74 [Application to Industrial Court as to approval of rules]:
On Question, Whether Clause 74 shall stand part of the Bill?
8.49 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: I do not think we need spend a great deal of time on Clause 74. It merely repeats the mischief which we have been discussing on the earlier clause and indeed in the Schedule which the Government have just succeeded by such a narrow margin in incor-
8.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether Schedule 4 shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 75; Not-Contents, 41.
porating within the Bill. The difficulty we have with this clause, as with other clauses, is that the Registrar, having been turned more into a commissar than a Registrar, now has the additional powers of the Industrial Court for disposing of difficulties, and in this particular clause for withdrawing a registration, directing a registration of a trade union to be cancelled on the grounds,
" (b) that the rules submitted to him by the organisation were defective … and the defect was not remedied within the period so specified …
For example, that the registration of one of the largest and most moderate and

879
reliable trade unions, the union of railway workers that we were discussing a little earlier on, should be cancelled, with all the penalties that involves, because they have not put the price on their 220 page booklet.
The noble Lord says, if I heard him aright, that that is not so. My recollection of the Schedule we have just discussed is that it does say that. It says:
" The rules must specify a reasonable charge to be made for the supply of copies of the rules …"
It says that the rules must specify " a reasonable charge ", not a variety of reasonable charges but a single reasonable charge, to cover all time, until the rules are altered, which is a three-year process. The union in question, having a good deal more common sense and practical experience than the Government, decides that it is not wise or appropriate to specify a reasonable charge. It may take the view that it costs more to collect a small payment than to supply the booklets free, so it supplies them free. The Registrar says, "I am sorry, the Statute says that you must specify a reasonable charge; you must specify a charge of some kind." They have an argument, and the union says, "If you

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Derwent, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Balerno, L.

Dundee, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Balfour, E.

Falkland, V.

Redmayne, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Falmouth, V.

Rothermere, V.

Barnby, L.

Ferrers, E. [Teller.]

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Beauchamp, E.

Goschen, V.[Teller.]

St. Aldwyn, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gowrie, E.

St. Helens, L.

Belstead, L.

Gray, L.

St. Just, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Greenway, L.

Sand ford, L.

Boston, L.

Grenfell, L.

Selkirk, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Grimston, of Westbury, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Hailes, L.

Somers, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

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

Stamp, L.

Burton, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Chelmer, L.

Hankey, L.

Suffield, L.

Clwyd, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Terrington, L.

Colyton, L.

Kemsley, V.

Teviot, L.

Conesford, L.

Killearn, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Cowley, E.

Latymer, L.

Tweed smuir, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Tweedsmuir or Belhelvie, Bs.

Craigmyle, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Vivian, L.

Crawshaw, L.

McFadzean, L.

Wade, L.

Cromartie, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Windlesham, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Wolverton, L.

Denham, L.

Oakshott, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Balogh, L.

Blyton, L.

Ardwick, L.

Bernstein, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Bacon, Bs.

Beswick. L.

Champion, L.

think we are going to have one of our three-year conferences " (I imagine it is three years) " to alter the rules in order to provide for a reasonable charge in our rules for our booklet you arc making a great mistake." A row develops and the Registrar says, "If you will not specify a reasonable charge, and insist on this ridiculous practice of giving your rule books away to your members, all I can do is cancel the registration of the union."
That is a ridiculous position to arrive at, and it can be arrived at under this clause. I suggest that the clause goes far too far. One does not need the Industrial Court; one needs, if necessary, the help of an independent body of trade unionists with a lawyer chairman, as recommended by Donovan. That would be a sensible and effective way of producing co-operation and achieving what the Government want to achieve. The present method is wholly unsatisfactory, and I can se no good advantage in the clause at all.
8.52 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 74 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents 76; Not-Contents, 39.

Davies of Leek, L.

Kennet, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Diamond, L.

Lindgren, L.

St. Davids, V.

Energlyn, L.

Liewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Shackleton, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Maelor, L.

Shinwell, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Milner of Leeds, L. [Teller.]

Slater, L.

Gardiner, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Plummet, Bs.

Strabolgi, L.[Teller.]

Henderson, L.

Popplewell, L.

Walston, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Hughes, L.

Rusholme, L.

Willis, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 74 agreed to accordingly.
Clause 75 Application to Industrial Court for cancellation of registration on other grounds]:
On Question, Whether Clause 75 shall stand part of the Bill?
8.59 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: I did not move Amendment No. 263BB because I thought it was a point which was more sensibly and simply discussed on the Question, Whether the clause stand part. I therefore ask the Government whether they will be good enough to explain two things with regard to this clause. First, what other change of circumstances are envisaged in subsection (1)(b)? It is a very wide phrase; I cannot imagine what is in the mind of the Government. I imagine that the paragraph covers the possibility of a union doing something quite useful, beneficial, socially attractive, which is not within its rules and it is thereby running the risk of having its registration cancelled. It is such a wide phrase that I do not know that it is possible for that to happen. The second question I want to ask is one which is covered by the Amendment and relates to paragraph (c)—what the time limits are and how the Government in a general way envisage this subsection working.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Lord asked first what was meant by, " other change of circumstances ". For example, it might mean that the trade union had ceased to be independent. The nature of the organisation might change in many ways. If he looks at Clause 65(1)(a) and (b) he will see that it might be that it would cease to be eligible for registration through a change of circumstances.
The second question the noble Lord asked was about subsection (3). This is obviously very much a long-stop. As he knows, it is to cover those cases where
882
the administrative requirements are not met; and, of course, under Clause 89 a fine can be imposed where they are not met. It is only if this went on and on and was really persistent to the extent where it was shown that the trade union was thoroughly inefficient, badly managed and not serving its members properly, that this would be considered.
I am not certain that I can answer the question in regard to the time element. It is obviously a matter within the discretion of the court to extend the time in which to remedy the default. It might be that a complete overhaul by outside consultants, or something of that kind, would be undertaken, but I should imagine that this would be a matter for the union to make a case for in the light of its determination or otherwise to put itself in order. I hope that that is a satisfactory explanation.
LORD SHINWELL: I should think it is generally admitted on both sides of the Committee that a trade union remaining unregistered is not afforded the protection that is available to a registered union. But here the time element is of extreme importance. If your Lordships will look at subsection (2)(a) of this clause, you will find that if an application is made to the Industrial Court by the Registrar on the ground that the rules are not, in his opinion, of the character required, the union may be called upon to amend its rules so as to make itself available for registration.
LORD DRUMALBYN: With respect, I think the noble Lord is talking about the clause that we have just voted on. We are now discussing Clause 75.
LORD SHINWELL: I am dealing with Clause 75. It is on the same point. I am pointing out that if a union remains unregistered for some time, either because the Registrar procrastinates or the Industrial Court does not give its decision as urgently as is required, then the union is

883
in a position of some difficulty. Therefore, although the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, says that he is unable to answer the point about timing, and this is a matter for the discretion of the court, in my judgment that is hardly satisfactory.
It seems to me to be exceedingly important that the time factor should be specific. After all, the term " specific " is used on many occasions in the proposed legislation and there is no need to protect a union against being excluded from registration for some reason or other. It may be a sound reason. It may be that the Industrial Court or the Registrar found it difficult to come to a decision or there may be some complications, but nevertheless neither of these bodies would be at fault. The union would not be effectively safeguarded if too long a period elapsed before a decision was reached to enable a union to be registered, having amended its rules and met the requirements, either of the Registrar or of the Industrial Court. In my submission, this is a point of some substance and I think that the Government, either now or at the Report stage, should give an assurance that this matter of timing meets the requirements of a union placed in such a position.
LORD SLATER: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is sitting on the Government Front Bench as the legal luminary, and I cannot understand why there should appear in the Industrial Relations Bill such a sentence as, " that the registration was obtained by fraud ". Why should a trade union seek to obtain its registration by unfair methods? It is absolutely ridiculous to think that Her Majesty's Government have reached a position where they seek to have inserted in legislation such wording as, " by fraud or by mistake ". I do not take exception to the word " mistake", but I certainly take exception to the word " fraud ". I think it is absolutely wicked that any band of men or women coming together with the object of forming a trade union and seeking to be registered through the Registrar, should resort to such methods as could be looked upon as fraudulent in their approach for registration. I think it is absolutely abominable to think that
884
the Government should allow that word to appear in this legislation, when it becomes an Act.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a very wicked world, and the noble Lord, Lord Slater, does not seem to know how wicked it is. But I should have thought he would have been the first to accept the necessity for this, since one of the main objects is to stop splinter unions from obtaining registration by giving false particulars. Therefore I would have thought this would have met with his wholehearted support. The intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, was based on a misapprehension that this deals with the unions which are not yet registered. It does not.
LORD SHINWELL: I can understand that, but the question I ventured to pose deserves an answer. There is only one reference to timing in the clause under review, and that is a period of two months to enable a union to make its application in certain circumstances. But I think the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is a little abrupt in brushing my point aside as being of no consequence. I cannot understand his attitude, because this is not the first time he has adopted this method of debate when I have ventured to pose a question, for some reason or other which I have so far failed to understand. Perhaps before the end of our deliberations I might ascertain the cause of the trouble, but meanwhile I want an answer to the question as to what happens if, for some reason or other—and I put it as clearly and plainly as I can—either the Registrar or the Industrial Court, through no fault of their own, find it necessary to occupy a certain time before the union is enabled to gain registration. That is the position. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, shakes his head. I am not quite sure why, but I am quite prepared to sit down and hear what he has to say.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I can only repeat what I said before, that the noble Lord is labouring under a misapprehension that this clause has something to do with a situation when a union has not yet registered. I can only say again that he is under a complete misapprehension, because it does not.
9.11 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: If I may intervene, I am following the point my noble friend is making, and I think he is supporting the question I put and that he is making a most valid point. If it were the case —which it is not—that my noble friend was dealing with an earlier clause, it would not be surprising in view of the breakneck speed with which we are going through this Bill. But it is not that at all. What my noble friend is referring to is 75(1)(c) where it says:
"… has persisted in its default after the registrar has given it notice specifying the default and fixing a time (not being less than two months) for remedying the fault, and that time has expired."
What my noble friend is making clear is that it is an even greater penalty for a union which has succeeded in registering, having wanted to register and to take on all the responsibilities of registration to have its registration withdrawn for some fault—and we are concerned with timing now—and to have been given at least two months to put it right. I know that is at least two months, but if it had said at least two years I would have been much more content; because two months is a totally ridiculous period to put into anyone's mind when one is dealing with changes of a union's rules. It is a ridiculous period, and gives the impression that if two months is too little, well, three months is all right and six months must be all right. But six months is a totally inadequate period. I am bound to say to the Government, with great seriousness, that my noble friend has made a very valid and important point.
The reason for raising these questions is that we want to ascertain the Government's position so that we can put forward appropriate Amendments at the Report stage, because we are not going to leave the Bill without a serious attempt to get a less than two months' provision removed and something more sensible put in its place. If the Government wanted to say " a reasonable period " that would be something, but a period which definitely points to three, four or five months being an adequate period is a wholly misleading provision in this Bill, and it can lead to tremendous penalties and would be totally inappropriate. I hope the noble and learned Lord now understands why my noble
886
friend Lord Shinwell and I certainly share the view that this is an impossible provision to have in the Bill.
While I am on my feet, may I say with regard to the other change of circumstances that I did not regard the answer to that as at all reassuring. I am told, for example, that this provision could mean that if a union were to take on the task of training members this would be a change of circumstances. Training is not the first and primary function of a trade union, but a trade union does a number of very valuable things; for example, it proposes names for men who are appointed to the Bench, who are on hospital committees, who do a great number of valuable jobs, and it may be that a union would take the view that training is so important that it ought to start initiating itself some form of training for men. It would be ridiculous that the union should in any way be penalised for taking on such a wholly useful social activity.
I am bound to say that the words " other change of circumstances " are not at all satisfactory. I heard what the noble Lord said the first time. If he has nothing more to help us, we will come back at Report Stage with something which meets what the noble Lord said but which is not in the Bill. Something as misleading as " not being less than two months " is wholly unsatisfactory.
LORD SHINWELL: May I return to the matter for a moment? I began my speech by pointing out that both sides of the Committee, and in particular the Government, want unions to become registered. If a union, for some reason or other, fails to secure registration,obviously it is not afforded the protection that a registered union has. That is quite plain. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, assents to my proposition. Because the rules are not up to the requirement of the registrar, or not specific in character, a union having made its application but having defaulted for some reason or other should not be excluded from registration again, for the simple reason that it loses the protection that a registered union possesses. That is what I am pointing out. I put the simple point: can we be assured that in the legislation there is such provision in timing so that neither the Industrial Court, nor the registrar, should lengthen

887
the gap in any way, either deliberately or unwittingly, that would prevent the union becoming registered? That is the question to which I want an answer.
Why the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, adopts his " hoity-toity " attitude when I venture to put a simple proposition is more than I can understand, unless he is trying to get revenge for what I used to do to him in the other place. I am beginning to think that that is what the trouble is. He can try that on somebody else, but he must not do that with me. I beg of him not to indulge in that attitude. I prefer an answer from the noble Lord, Lord Dumalbyn.
LORD CONESFORD: I think the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, is under a misapprehension as to the attitude taken by my noble and learned friend. We are on Clause 75; his speech is devoted to the case of a trade union that has not been registered. Clause 75 deals with a trade union that has been registered. I really think that the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, is wrong in thinking that his point arises under this clause at all. If I may come to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, about the period of time mentioned in subsection (1)(c), " not being less than two months ", he suggests that such a period would be insufficient. I appreciate that in some cases it may be insufficient, but what the noble Lord has overlooked, it seems to me, is the fact that the Court is entitled to deal with that, if the period is insufficient, under subsection (3) because it can extend the time. I suggest that there is nothing wrong with the two months as a minimum. If in any case it is not sufficient, the Court can, under subsection (3), extend the time.
LORD HANKEY: I personally think this a good text, but in view of the fears that have been expressed on the Opposition side of the Committee, would the Government consider having something put into the code of industrial practice to make clear how this is to work in practice? We obviously want it to work in a humane and reasonable way, taking account of the necessities of the situation. I believe that a paragraph in the code of industrial practice might give noble Lords of the Opposition the satisfaction which they require.
LORD DRUMALBYN: It is not a case of organisations of workers having to wait for registration. They start with registration, so the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, can put that idea right out of his mind. We are dealing here with the cancellation of registration once a union has got it. Concerning the two months we are here dealing with rectifying an administrative defect. Subsection (1), says " not being less than two months ". So an organisation must have at least two months in which to do what is required. The extent of the time will naturally vary with particular circumstances and according to what has to be put right. If the trade union thinks that not sufficient time has been given, the Industrial Court can further extend the time if it thinks fit. I think noble Lords opposite might be satisfied on this occasion, at any rate.
LORD DIAMOND: I do not share that view. I am bound to say that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is the Minister in charge, and he must know the best way of getting business through. But I should have thought that on a small matter like this it would not have stretched his responsibility overmuch for him to say that he thinks that two months is right but that he will look at this question again before Report to see whether it is misleading. I think two months is misleading. We do not want to keep criticising the Government and we want all the time we can get to criticise the Government for the many defects which are evident in the Bill. I will not pursue the matter, although we are wholly opposed to the clause, but we will let it go through in the ordinary way.
Clause 75 agreed to.
Clause 76 agreed to.
Clause 77 [Transfer from provisional register and cancellation of entries]:
9.24 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 263CC:
Page 61, line 21, at end insert—
(" (6) Cancellation of registration pursuant to this section shall not affect the traditional tax exemption of any organisation of workers which would have been eligible to register under the Trade Union Act 1871 in respect of provident benefits, and for which it is at present eligible under section 338 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970.")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with a fundamentally important point relating to the existence, I might almost say the continued existence, of many trade unions. It relates to the tax exemption of an organisation of workers, which has existed for 100 years under the 1871 Act. This was consolidated in the Income and Corporation Taxes Act, 1970. I understood what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said earlier, that that. being a consolidation measure, and not intended to alter the rights of any individual in any substantial way, it excluded a reference to registration under the 1871 Act specifically because such words were no longer necessary as that was the only meaning that could be put on those words. We are therefore on common ground in saying that the exemption from tax of the income of certain provident funds, which has continued since 1871 for unions registered under that Act, will no longer apply if unions do not register under the Bill. The noble and learned Lord will correct me if I am wrong.
The Government think it right that unions should register. Many unions are already registered, and the figure that I gave earlier was an understatement. In fact, according to Donovan, over 85 per cent. of trade unionists are in trade unions which are registered under the 1871 Act or under subsequent Acts. The reason why many unions will not register under this Bill is because of the burdens which it puts upon registered trade unions. Therefore, those unions which do not think it right that burdens from which they have been exempt for a century should suddenly be put upon them and which refuse to register, will in the Government's view be failing in their duty.
The Donovan Report recommended that there should be registration, but explicitly stated that registration should be on similar lines to that already existing. So that was a totally different contemplation. The Donovan recommendation as to registration went on to state that those which did not register should he penalised in the same way as a company which does not register with the companies' Registrar a change of registered office or the fact that one individual has ceased to be a director and another individual has been appointed in his place, has to pay a fine of £x per day or per week if the default continues. In
890
short, there is a monetary penalty of a very modest order.
But now the Government are proposing deliberately, as I understand it—quite apart from the other denial of rights in which non-registration will result, so far as organisations of workers are concerned —that unions will cease to be entitled to reclaim the tax on their provident funds if they do not register under the new Act. That is not a small penalty. That is not giving force to a particular point of view. That is withdrawing from the beneficiaries of provident funds—whether a fund caters for old age, illness or a variety of life's difficulties and miseries —a large part of their income, because that income is derived from the total fund. Under the present proposals of the Government, the amount available to go to widows, to people of greatly advanced years, to people who are suffering, to people who have been injured, will be reduced by a substantial proportion running into many tens of thousands or even hundred of thousands of pounds in the case of very large provident funds.
To make sure what we are arguing about, I should like to ask the Government this question. What would be the total amount of additional revenue for the Inland Revenue which would result from this provision, if all the unions refrained from registration? I hope I am making it plain that what we are discussing is a most serious withdrawal of funds from those suffering in one way or another, and who are at the moment covered by trade union provident funds, as a result of the present proposals of the Government. I want to know what the Government are proposing to do about this in order to put the matter right. They can put the matter right in a Finance Bill; they can put it right in this Bill. I am suggesting a form of words which obviously will not be wholly satisfactory, but which could put the matter right and would certainly enable this very difficult position to be dealt with. I do not think it would be right for me to say more at the moment. I should be grateful if I could be supplied with the facts and the answers to the questions I have raised. I beg to move.
9.31 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): This is

891
an important Amendment. It is a large subject, and it might be helpful if I replied for the Government at this stage and then, if there are further questions and comments from other noble Lords, I would be happy to reply to them at the end of the debate. I should begin by explaining the current tax legislation. Under the provisions of Section 338 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970, which were mentioned in the discussion on an earlier Amendment this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, registered trade unions are exempt from tax on the income derived from investments or chargeable gains which is devoted to the payment of provident benefits. This has been the position since the 1920s. Provident benefits by definition include superannuation, sickness and other benefits for members, but not strike benefit. The exemption is restricted to those unions which limit the benefits receivable to £500 as a lump sum or £104 per annum, and although it is believed unlikely that any union offers benefits in excess of these limits, if they did the concession cuts off at that point.
It therefore follows from what I have said that trade unions benefit from this tax concession only if they provide provident benefits for their members, and that the importance of the concession is directly related to the scale of benefits which they provide. Thus, the big, long-established unions, such as the Transport and General Workers, the A.U.E.W. and the Municipal and General Workers, which Lord Cooper spoke about last Thursday, which spend very substantial sums each year on superannuation and other provident benefits, obtain, according to their own estimate, tax relief at the rate of approximately three-quarters of a million pounds for the Transport and General Workers and half a million pounds for the A.U.E.W.; whereas certain other unions, notably the newer, so-called white collar unions, have little or no expenditure on provident benefits, and are consequently not affected by the tax concessions. I do not have a figure of the total amount that would go back to the Revenue if this concession was withdrawn, but I do not think I would argue with the tenor of the remarks of the noble
892
Lord, Lord Diamond. We are talking about very substantial sums, and I have given him the estimated figure for the two largest unions which are concerned in this field.
Unregistered unions are not eligible for the concession at present, which therefore provides a powerful incentive to the older unions, for whom provident benefits are an important part of their activities, to register under the 1871 Trade Union Act. This incentive is reinforced by the exclusion of registered unions from the insurance companies Acts, which would otherwise prevent them from carrying on this type of insurance activity. The principle behind the concession is that trade unions should enjoy the same kind of tax advantages as are enjoyed by other organisations providing provident benefits for their own members. I give as an example friendly societies. The concept is limited therefore to that part of the activities of trade unions which is on all fours with those of the friendly societies. We must get it clear that we are talking about unions which are registered—and I believe the figure is of the order of 328 separate unions registered under the 1871 Act—and those which have provident activities. Some of the particularly big and well-established ones have and the newer ones have not.
I hope noble Lords will forgive me for having dealt with the background before coming on to the substance of the Amendment. The fact is that there may be some organisations of workers which, because of the Bill, will no longer be able to register as trade unions, and they should not on that account be deprived of this tax concession. We must ask ourselves what organisations could suffer in this way. The Amendment envisages those organisations whose registration is cancelled under Clause 77; but the only organisations whose provisional registration would be cancelled, other than when they transfer to the main register, are those which the Registrar finds ineligible for registration as trade unions.
We have already dealt with the clause defining the conditions of eligibility for registration as a trade union, and with Clause 59 which defines an organisation of workers and trade unions. Taken together, these definitions include virtually all trade unions of workers which are

893
at present registered under the legislation to which I have referred. The effect of the Bill is that the only trade unions of workers registered under the existing legislation which will be precluded from registering as trade unions under the Bill and thereby from remaining within the scope of Section 338, will be those organisations which are under the dominance or control of employers. From what noble Lords who were debating this point last week had to say, I find it difficult to see that they would have any wish to grant preferential treatment to organisations of this kind.
We should also dwell for a moment on the position of the branches. We are dealing with a matter of great importance and we ought to be clear what the Bill proposes. It is true that some branches are at present registered in their own right and may be claiming relief under Section 338 accordingly. Subsection (1)(b)of Clause 65 could prevent the separate registration of such non-autonomous bodies in the future. But I should make it clear that this will in no way prevent them from benefiting from tax relief granted in respect of the activities of the parent organisation and all its branches providing the parent organisation registers under the Bill.
Finally, there is the question which the noble Lord has raised and which lies behind his Amendment. That is the organisation of workers which is at present registered under the 1871 Act but which wishes to cancel its registration under this particular Bill. There is no question of tax exemption being used as a threat to force reluctant unions to remain registered. 'Tax exemption is not mentioned in this Part of the Bill or in any Part of the Bill. For many years it has been a principle of legislation, and not only in this field, that tax relief should be related to registered status. We have debated the principles underlying registration very fully. We had quite an extensive debate last Thursday to which the noble Lord, Lord Cooper, made a notable contribution, when we were talking about the definition of trade unions as registered trade unions. The matter has been fully discussed this afternoon and this evening on Clause 63 and on Schedule 4, in which we have been over the ground again. In short, it seems to the Government that registration is a
894
reasonable requirement, particularly bearing in mind that the unions we are speaking of now have been registered for many years past and it is hard to see what arguments of substance exist against the principle of registration. The only really significant change is that the rules of trade unions in future should be open to scrutiny and improvement by an independent and impartial official. This does not seem to the Government very much to ask in return for the very substantial privileges which trade unions will enjoy under the Bill. As I said on Thursday, I think that we can understand and appreciate very well the traditional reasons for the trade unions' opposition to this part of the Bill with the strength that they have. This is a legitimate argument, put forward by a special interest claiming special treatment to be allowed to continue in the way they have done for so many years past. We can understand and respect that point of view, but in Parliament we have to think also of the public good, and it is for this reason that we think this feature of the Bill is an essential one and must be retained.
LORD SAINSBURY: The noble Lord has explained in his usual careful and courteous way, but would not lie accept that unions would he justified in feeling that this is a financial sanction to force them to register, because it deprives unions of their tax concession, as he pointed out, on their provident benefits and therefore it is another means of antagonising the unions?
9.42 p.m.
LORD POPPLEWELL: I would like to support my noble friend in what he has said on this point. I must confess that I was alarmed at the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. He confirmed exactly what we have said in connection with this registration and the tax on provident funds. He stated that this was no threat; that tax remission was not being given to non-registered trade unions; it was not mentioned in the Bill. Of course it is not mentioned. The only people who are mentioned are those who register; and only those organisations of workers who register according to the terms laid down by the registrar will be classed as trade unions. The others are organisations of workers with no definition as to

895
trade union standing. This Bill puts them outside the law so far as trade unions are concerned. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, made it perfectly clear that the unions who do not register will be found by the registrar to be ineligible as trade unions. To think that this blackmail should come in to compel trade unions to register!
The noble Lord has mentioned the sums that might be involved with the Transport and General Workers, and the Municipal and General Workers. He also mentioned the principle involved, that it is where the funds are limited to £500 grant or £104 superannuation. Surely if the workers in a given trade union feel so keenly about their objections to this Bill that they are prepared to face paying up to £100,000 compensation for any illegal action, according to the definition of the Bill, that is a sufficient penalty, without penalising them again by taking away the privileges given to them under the 1871 Act. Surely this is a mean and despicable action. The unions were born on a friendly society basis and developed on this basis, but this has been ignored by previous Governments in the legislation they enacted. The provident funds of the union are not used at all with a view to disrupting industry. The amounts involved in strike pay do not come under income tax relief. The Government have talked a great deal about penalising widows and orphans. My own union, the National Union of Railwaymen, have funds for giving benefits at death and to orphans and widows. But these are the funds which will be penalised should the union refuse to register. These funds are on a non-profit-making basis. No one gets anything out of them except the unfortunate, the sick and the disabled. Surely if an organisation is prepared to fight and to stand up to the penalties that can be placed upon it, it is a mean and despicable trick to make its provident funds pay income tax.
9.47 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, in answering my noble friend Lord Diamond, did not adequately take into account the argument which my noble friend had advanced, to this effect: that in refusing relief to the unregistered union the persons who are being penalised
896
or damnified are the persons who would qualify for the receipt of benefits. One has to bear in mind that tax relief is granted only in respect of funds which are applicable and are actually applied for the provision of provident benefits. If it were the case that the union which recovered tax on the amount it paid for the purpose of providing provident benefits could incorporate the tax refund as part of its general funds, then the argument of my noble friend would not be so forceful. But, surely, he is on a very strong point indeed when he submits to this Committee that in refusing the relief, the loss is not being suffered by the general members of the union, but those specific persons who would come within the category of qualifying for provident benefits.
It seems to me a very cogent consideration, when one is considering whether the relief should be applicable only in the case of unions who become registered under this Act, that you are not talking really about the interests of the union; you are talking about the interests of the annuitants. It is a little hard that their interests should depend upon the question of whether the union which pays them their benefit is or is not a registered union. I do not think that the noble Lord answered that point at all, and I would respectfully submit that it tilts the balance of merit the other way. One should look at the annuitant, and one should look at the fund which provides the benefits. One should then ask: is it right to reduce the amount of that fund by cancelling the tax repayment which would otherwise be obtained on that fund? I would respectfully ask the noble Lord to give further consideration to this matter, because it seems to me that he has applied the wrong touchstone. He has asked whether the union deserves the relief, whereas the question that should be asked is: does the annuitant or do other posible annuitants deserve the relief? When one considers that those are the people whose interests really are involved by this relief, it becomes more or less irrelevant whether the union does or does not qualify the registration under the present Bill.
LORD COLLISON: Reference was made by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham to the speech made last Thursday by my noble friend Lord Cooper. He described

897
it as a very useful and important contribution to the debate, and I entirely agree with that; but to make quite sure that there is no misunderstanding I am certain that if Lord Cooper were in his place this evening he would have been on his feet now, because Lord Cooper made it perfectly clear that while he was going to register his union he was doing it under duress. That bears out what my noble friend has just said. Lord Cooper recognises the involvement of his people in this affair, and it is because he has a sense of responsibility to his union and his membership that he made clear to your Lordships that he would register, as I say, under a form of duress. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, will acknowledge this because I think it is important that my noble friend, whom we all greatly respect, should not be misjudged in this matter.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, conceded, or admitted, that this Clause was a hard one on the unions, but said that it was a fair exchange for the many privileges that the Bill gave to trade unions. There seems to be a real breakdown in communications somewhere, because if there are real privileges in the Bill for trade unions why are they so against it? They are surely not mad. If they felt there were privileges they would be for the Bill.
9.53 p.m.
LORD BERNSTEIN: I should like to say the same as Baroness Gaitskell. What are these privileges which the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, mentioned that trade unions get under the Bill? I should like to know them. I have not seen them, and I have tried to extract what I could by reading the Bill a number of times. I do not agree with my friend Lord Popplewell that this is blackmail. I think that is too strong a word. It may be a rich carrot for the workers. There are no similar opportunities for employers. They do not require a bribe of this kind. What seems to me to be involved is a kind of people's dignity. If you offer people a concession of this kind it is tantamount to saying to them: if you do what we want you to do, if you tip your hat in the right way, you will have a special privilege—that is, a tax exemption. This
898
undermines the very independence which the Government say they want the trade unions to have. I cannot believe that this is good for trade unions, and I cannot believe that it is good for any kind of thing in this country to offer a tax incentive when there is no real benefit to either side. If it was for export, and the trade union were to get an " E" for export, it might be understood, although I should not agree with it. But I cannot see the point of this kind of bribe to get a group of people who in the past have not done too badly—we have not got the evidence, but my noble friend Lord Diamond suggests that they have done badly so far as other cases are concerned—involved in something just because there is going to be a tax exemption. It does not seem right to me.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: I have not joined in these debates very much because I have some doubts about our attitude towards this Bill, but it seems to me that in this case the Government are suggesting something that is extremely disagreeable. They seem to be suggesting retrospective action in respect of a third party. Suppose you are an annuitant and receiving your £104 a year, or whatever it may be. Because your leader, from whom you are detached—you have retired from the union—does something, with which you may not agree, your annuity is placed at risk. If this is the position, I find it extremely disagreeable. I should like to be clear that that is an accurate description of what the Government are proposing.
LORD DIAMOND: So far as I am concerned, what my noble friend has just said is an accurate description of what the Government are proposing, and he has put it in very moderate language which I shall find difficulty in following. I much prefer a simple word like " blackmail ", with all the authority that I can put into it from the Front Bench. As my noble friend Lord Stow Hill made clear, what the Government are doing is not what the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said. What the Government are doing is penalising beneficiaries who are widows, people suffering from accidents, people whose funeral expenses have to be provided for, and all that kind of thing. Those are the beneficiaries who

899
will suffer, for reasons which have nothing to do with them directly; and unexpectedly so, because all their arrangements, which have been in force since 1922, for half a century, have been based on the continuance of national policy in favour of saving for this kind of thing.
When the noble Lord referred to this as being some kind of ex gratin benefit—I think " concession " was the word he used—he was not giving us the whole story. It has been national policy for a century, I imagine, in terms of insurance generally, which has brushed over to small savers of this kind, to encourage saving, and to encourage people to be prepared for their own misfortunes in later life by saving for them, by giving some special relief from taxation. This is what insurance relief is. There is no justification for giving relief to people who have insurance policies except as a matter of deliberate Government policy, of which anybody who has spent any time in the Treasury is well aware, in order to encourage individuals to provide over the years for the difficulties that life may have for them later on. This is not a concession of any particular kind; it is a continuation of that kind of policy. That is now being withdrawn from the beneficiaries of these provident funds, the categories that we have described, because the unions, who continue to provide benefits but keep their funds quite separate (these funds cannot be used for industrial purposes), are not proposing to register and take on the additional liabilities which the Government want them to take on.
The unions take the view that they have carried on perfectly properly for the last one hundred years; they take the view that Donovan has found no evidence of their abuse; they think they are entitled to the same conditions which have existed for the last one hundred years, and therefore they do not propose to take on additional responsibilities. Where they take the view (and the Municipal and General, I am glad to hear, is in exactly the same category, because it takes the view that were it not for the pressure, amounting to duress, it would not register) that they should not register, the Government are proposing to penalise the widows and orphans, to put it shortly, under this provision. I do not
900
know what the difference between that and blackmail is. It is merely putting pressure on a trade union, as pressure may be put on an individual for something which he cannot control, which is not related to the argument at all; it is totally divorced from the argument, as my noble friend Lord Stow Hill made clear. We regard this as a most despicable attempt on the part of the Government to force a very large section of the population to comply with the Government's own view of what its conduct should be. And I have not finished yet, not by a long way.
The noble Lord did not say one word about what his right honourable friend said in the other place. The noble Lord took a different line. His right honourable friend in another place said that of course he admitted that this would be a terrible thing to do. But he said that the Government are not doing it; he said that all that the union has to do in order to escape from this withdrawal of income tax benefits, in order to maintain the funds for the beneficiaries in the way that they have contracted to do and that the beneficiaries have had good legislative reason to expect for the last half century, is to hive off the provident funds and register as a separate organisation. If I am wrong the noble Lord will correct me when he replies. What was behind the right honourable gentleman's making that statement was that admittedly this would be a terrible thing to happen to provident funds. The noble Lord has given the figures—three-quarters of a million pounds for one provident fund alone. I understand malice, but I do not understand malice to the extent of three-quarters of a million pounds per annum. What the Government are therefore proposing, so far as the right honourable gentleman is concerned, is that unions should avoid this tragedy happening so far as their provident funds are concerned by hiving them off and registering separately.
I am saying to the noble Lord and the Government that if there is a difference of view between us as to whether it is right to register or not, there can be no difference of view as to whether there are burdens put upon those who wish to register and maintain their position as trade unions. As we are concerned with provident funds, why do

901
not the Government carry on in the normal way—I know that noble Lords have to speak to one another on the Front Bench, and I have been as guilty of that as anyone else; but this is a matter of such importance that I am bound to repeat it, for I would not sleep if I thought I had not done everything possible to right the worst wrong in this Bill. Why do not the Government, therefore, if there is this difference of view as to whether trade unions should register, allow tax repayment and relief from taxation to unions so long as they have had these funds and so long as these funds continue?
You may, if you want to, take a different view about the future. You may take a different view about those who contract in the future, who pay their small amounts in order to receive their small benefits when misfortune arises, if you think it is a wise policy. But what you cannot do is to say, as a matter of pressure to register, that it is right to withdraw a benefit which has been in existence as part of deliberate Government policy by every kind of Government of all Parties over the last 50 years.
I am saying to the noble Lord that I should be grateful if he would deal with the essential point which my noble friend Lord Stow Hill brought out: that it is an irrelevance, and evidence of the malice of the Government against the trade unions, to penalise the widow because the trade union takes a particular view as to whether or not it should register. It is grossly unfair, and discreditable to the last degree, to withdraw a large part of those benefits. It is open to the Government, without prejudicing their position with regard to registration of trade unions, to rely on the kind of formula f have indicated under which unions with existing provident funds could, for subscriptions so far received —not necessarily future subscriptions—deal with the income from the invested funds in exactly the same way as they dealt with them over the past 50 years.
10.7 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: It is important to see a proposal of this sort in the context of the Bill. What the Bill is trying to do, and the approach of the Government, is towards the reform of
902
trade unions—because that is what we are concerned with. Let us take the general question first, and then move into the particular. The noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, and the noble Lord, Lord Bernstein, asked what are the benefits that the registered trade unions will obtain under the Bill. That is an extremely fundamental question to put, and we need to be clear in our minds about it. There are a whole number of them, and I should like to itemise five only, because these are the principal ones.
The first is the protection of the organisation, and its authorised agents, if in furtherance of a trade dispute it either induces or threatens to induce another person to break his contract. That is a legal privilege given, I think I am right in saying, to no other organisation or individual in this country. Secondly, the right to apply—
LORD DIAMOND: I apologise for intervening, but I hope the noble Lord is going to make it clear that the question that he is answering is what new benefits will be given in return for new responsibilities. It is no good the noble Lord rehearsing all the existing benefits.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I am saying what, in my view, will be the principal benefits for trade unions of registration. Some of these are the established benefits, such as immunity. The noble Lord has quoted Donovan in his support of this question of registration. We speak in the presence of the Chairman of the Royal Commission. The noble Lord will remember that Donovan recommended the registration of trade unions. The noble and learning Lord, Lord Donovan, told us in a most interesting intervention that that flowed from a belief of a number of members of the Royal Commission—including himself—that trade unions should have corporate personality; that they should be incorporated, and from that flowed the recommendation that unions should be registered. It is also true that a majority —not the whole—of the members of the Royal Commission recommended that immunity from legal proceedings should be attached only to registered trade unions. Let us bear that in mind when we talk of the Donovan Report.

903
Let me continue with the list of benefits, because some points are new, and some are existing ones. Secondly, there is the right to apply for recognition as a sole bargaining agent; thirdly, the right to enter into an agency shop agreement. Of course, that is a completely new right and benefit. The agency shop has not existed before, so that that, by definition, must be a completely new benefit. Noble Lords do not seem to be as familiar with this Bill as they should be. Here is another new one: that employers will be under a general duty to disclose to trade union representatives information about the business. Then there are the limits on compensation, which we have not yet discussed but which we shall be coming to in the course of this week. Finally, there is the continuation of the financial and other advantages relating to the benevolent activities of trade unions. In return for these benefits the Government are asking one thing. They are asking that unions should register—most of them do already—but the Registrar is being given new powers to scrutinise the rules of the trade union and to improve those rules if it is thought to be necessary.
Let me move next to some of the points that were raised in the course of the debate. I cannot accept the word " blackmail ". The noble Lord will have to square his choice of that word with his noble friend Lord Bernstein behind him, who speaks with great experience as a most enlightened employer and who thought that word was too strong, although he dissents from what is proposed in this part of the Bill. The noble Lord will also have to square it with what the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, had to say earlier today, speaking with great experience as a former member of the Royal Commission and independent of the main political Parties.
As I have listened to this debate, it has seemed to me—and this thought occurred to me on Thursday, but I did not have an opportunity to share it with the Committee then—that in a way the benefits for registered trade unions that I have itemised under this Bill are so great that a sort of reverse transference takes place in the minds of some trade union leaders, who say, " If these benefits are so great, why is it that we are being urged towards registration? Look how
904
terrible it would be if we did not register ". Therefore the fear of registration has built up into this great bogey. I can understand the origins of this matter, but I do not believe that 100 years after the trade union movement first coalesced into these voluntary movements they still have the vulnerability that they had then, or need the protection that they needed at that time.
The noble Lords, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge and Lord Stow Hill, asked about the beneficaries of the union provident funds. I think there are two points to be made here. The first is what the noble Lord, Lord Cooper, said—and I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Collison, for his comment. When he studies Hansard I think he will see that 1 was not seeking to imply that the noble Lord, Lord Cooper, was in any way in agreement with these proposals; he made his opposition quite plain, both in public as reported in the Guardian about two weeks ago, and in his speech last Thursday. But what he did say was that if a union decided to cancel its registration it would then have to increase its contributions. Therefore it would be within the power of the union itself to decide whether or not to increase its contribution in order to fulfil its commitments.
The second point concerns what my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said, about which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, asked me. I can confirm that what the noble Lord said is, generally speaking, an accurate report of my right honourable friend's observation, and it bears on this: that the registered union at the moment which decides, despite everything, that it is going to defy this extremely advantageous provision and to cancel its registration, can hive off its provident fund into a sperately registered fund, but that would of course be registered. It would not be under this Bill, but it would be registered, presumably, as a charity with the Charity Commissioners, or perhaps registered as a friendly society; but in each case it is an absolute requirement for tax exemption that there should be a registered body. One of the reasons for this is quite straightforward, although it has not been mentioned in the debate: in order to benefit from tax exemption, any organisation has an obligation to keep and produce proper accounts and to have them audited by independent and

905
professionally qualified accountants. Schedule 5 to the Bill provides for exactly that.
This debate has been an important one. Strong feelings have been expressed, and we cannot argue against that in any way. But what we are being asked to do in this Amendment is to accept the status quo. The arguments have been put skilfully, ingeniously and with passion, but it is an argument for continuation of the present system. Yet it was this system that led the noble Lord, Lord Donovan, and the Royal Commission to say that rules should be clear and unambiguous but that at present they fall far short of a satisfactory standard in this respect. Those were the words used, and the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, elaborated on this point earlier today. This is an argument to be left alone: it is one that anyone in politics gets very used to—and one can understand it and the strength with which it is held—hut it is not one which we can accept in the context of this Bill.
LORD SLATER: I am not going to take up any time—just two seconds—but I want to comment on what the noble Lord has said before Lord Diamond rises to his feet again. In effect, what the Schedule is putting forward is a form of lockout imposed upon trade unions because they refuse to register.
LORD STOW HILL: I am sorry to intervene again, but may I just put one question to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham? Assume for the sake of argument —I do not accept it; nor does anyone on this side of the Committee—that the Government are quite right in saying to the trade unions " You will obtain the benefits which the Bill provides, for example, in respect of Clause 92—only if you register ". What on earth has that to do with the question of whether provident funds, which do not belong in any real sense any longer to the union but belong to the prospective or actual annuitants, should or should not be depleted by not having tax repayment?
LORD BERNSTEIN: As the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, mentioned my comment, I should like to say that I suggested " bribery " would be the word. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor could no doubt tell us about the
906
criminal law and what happens with regard to bribery and blackmail. To me they are both despicable. Bribery affects the human dignity of a greater number of people in this Bill than perhaps blackmail does in other walks of life. They are both equally despicable.
LORD POPPLEWELL: I wonder if the noble Lord would agree that there are five points involved. The first one concerns privileges—and those privileges are ones that the trade union movement has had to fight for throughout the ages. Points 2 and 3 refer to agency shops and the right to have an agency shop. This is just a subterfuge to prevent the further development of the closed shop in which nearly four million workers are already working.
As regards the disclosure of business accounts, this is something that is inevitable in large-scale industry to-day when applications for wages are being put forward. The accounts are being produced, and all kinds of statements are made that the undertakings " simply cannot afford anything more at the present time ". This question of the disclosure of accounts is only a matter of following up practices that are now developing, particularly in the publicly-owned undertakings. I am astonished that the noble Lord should mention benevolent fund benefits, because those benevolent funds that have been established by the trade union movement are there to protect their fallen brethren, and have been so through the ages, and this is nothing new.
10.21 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: We are not far from being in agreement that we have not got a fair, objective answer to our complaints yet. The noble Lord has not improved the case in a number of ways. First of all, he has not explained why he thought it right to give a full answer in his first speech without dealing at all with the argument which was put forward by his right honourable friend in another place. When the noble Lord found that he had to deal with this argument he was compelled to speak about a union, in spite of all the advantages that were being offered to it, for some curious reason taking the view that it should not register, as if these large and responsible unions are going to take the view that

907
they should refrain from registration for some totally unreal reason. They are refraining from registration because they take the view, which I share, that, on balance, the advantages of registration are much less than the disadvantages, and that they are entitled to go on on the same basis as previously.
Their case has been examined, and the result of the examination is twofold: first, that unions should be strengthened (and the Government are claiming that this is what their Bill is doing); and, secondly, that evidence of abuse on any substantial scale is absent. So, if you are starting off to strengthen the unions, and there is no abuse to justify a variation in the circumstances, what is the justification for varying them so profoundly? The noble Lord did not advance his case by putting forward this catalogue of advantages, some of which exist already. I thought it was a great pity that he did not make it clear that he was referring to advantages which already exist before claiming them as new advantages. When he tries to pretend to us that the agency shop is a new advantage, then it is difficult not to smile about it. The agency shop is a withdrawal of the rights which many unions enjoy in practice at the present time, and which many employers hope will continue, and urge us to press the Government to see that they should continue. That is the situation with regard to the closed shop.
There is not a single new advantage accruing to unions as a result of this Bill which goes in any sense to match the disadvantages. I am bound to say again that it is the unions who ought to be regarded perhaps as authoritative as the noble Lord in deciding whether it is an advantage to register or not. A union having decided not to register, then the widows of previous members of the union are going to be penalised, against public policy, in this way. I find this utterly scandalous, and we are bound to press the Government to give some explanation of why it is that they are taking this action—unless it is what we allege, that the Government are exerting undue pres-
908
sure on unions to make them register by withdrawing these very substantial financial rights which they, and everyone who saved in similar controlled and small circumstances, have been entitled to certainly since the turn of the century, and in this specific form for 50 years. I find it absolutely intolerable that the Government should maintain this attitude. We must have some explanation.
THE EARL of BALFOUR: May I ask a question before my noble friend Lord Windlesham speaks for the Government? If this Amendment were accepted, would he then allow an unregistered charitable organisation to have full tax relief regardless of whether it was a registered trade union or any other body?
LORD WINDLESHAM: I have already spoken twice at some length on this Amendment and I do not think I should delay the Committee further. I do not think that however long I spoke now we should reach agreement. I said when we debated registration on Thursday last that I thought this was a feature of the Bill on which more than any other arguments for and against did not meet; they flew past each other. I hoped that in our debates we might come a little closer to reconciling those points of view. I am not sure from what the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has said that we have come any closer. I think we still have a very wide gulf between us. I made a rather full speech at the beginning of the debate. I did not cover the comments made by my right honourable friend in another place, but I think the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, will find when he studies Hansard a great deal of new and factual information which was not available before. We have said on one or two occasions that we should concern ourselves with those Parts of the Bill which another place did not discuss, and I think that where we can cover fresh ground it is advisable to do so. Of course I agree that on major issues it is right that these things should be threshed out and that we should have a full debate, but I think it is now for the Committee to decide this question.
10.27 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 263CC) shall be agreed to?

CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Platt, L.

Bacon, Bs.

Gardiner, L.

Popplewell, L.

Barrington, V.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Rusholme, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Bernstein, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Shackleton, L.

Beswick, I..

Hughes, L.

Slater, L.

Blyton, L.

Janner, L.

Stamp, L.

Brockway, L.

Kennet, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Champion, L.

Lee of Asheridge, Bs.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Collison, L.

Lindgren, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Diamond, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Wade, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Maelor, L.

Walston, L.

Energlyn, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Willis, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Daventry, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Abinger, L.

Denham, L.[Teller.]

Mansfield, E.

Ailwyn, L.

Derwent, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Digby, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Auckland, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Balerno, L.

Dundee, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Balfour, E.

Falmouth, V.

Penrhyn, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Barnby, L.

Fortescue, E.

Redmayne, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Glendevon, L.

Rothermere, V.

Belstead, L.

Goschen. V.[Teller.]

St. Aldwyn, E.

Bledisloe, V.

Gowrie, E.

St. Helens, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Gray, L.

St. Just, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Greenway, L.

Sandford, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Grenfell, L.

Selkirk, E.

Burton, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Chelmer, L.

Hailes, L.

Somers, L.

Clwyd, L.

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

Suffield, L.

Colyton, L.

Terrington, L.

Conesford, L

Hankey, L.

Teviot, L.

Cowley, E.

Inglewood, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Craigavon, V.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Tweedsmuir, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Kemsley, V.

Twecdsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Cranbrook, E.

Killearn. L.

Vivian, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Windlesham, L.

Cromartie, E.

Latymer, L.

Wolverton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 40; Not-Contents, 78.
10.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 77 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DIAMOND: I do not think I need detain your Lordships long on this clause. Although the serious Amendment which we have just discussed was placed under this clause, the clause and the Amendment were quite independent. The tax evil remains whether this clause stands or not. Therefore, as this clause is not otherwise an important one, I do not wish to detain your Lordships on it.
Clause 77 agreed to.
Clause 78 [Effect of entry in provisional register]:
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD ST. HELENS): I understand that Amendment No. 263PPP is not going to be moved, and that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is going to move a manuscript Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved a manuscript Amendment.
Page 61, line 26, after the first " of " insert "section 5 of ".
The noble and learned Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I propose not to move Amendment No. 263PPP, but in its place to move a manuscript Amendment in a different form. The only difference between Amendment No. 263PPP, as it appears on the Marshalled List, and this new Amendment is that the new form omits the reference to " section 147 "; otherwise all the other provisions of the printed clause and of Amendment No. 263PPP remain. We have not agreed about very much this evening, but I hope that we can agree about this.
The reason we want to insert " section 5 " into Clause 78 at the appropriate place is purely consequential on something that has already been done. The original form of Amendment No. 263PPP contained a reference to " section 147 ", and this was intended to be paving for a subsequent Amendment which may not now be moved. That is the reason why I have omitted it from the revised form of Amendment, and I hope that in its revised form the Amendment will be reasonably uncontentious. I beg to move.
LORD DIAMOND: I am sure that every one of your Lordships will have found the explanation of the noble and learned Lord as simple and obvious as I did.
On Question, Amendment agreed to. Clause 78, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 79 [Application to registrar to investigate]:
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD ST. HELENS): If Amendment No. 263DD is agreed to, I cannot call the following Amendment, No. 263EE.
10.38 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 263DD:
Page 61, line 30, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: We now move on to Clause 79, which deals with the power of the Registrar to investigate and, as the rubric makes clear, with applications to him to do so. The Amendment seeks to leave out subsection (1), under which anybody who is a member of an appropriate organisation or who has ceased to be a member can make application. The reason why we seek to leave out subsection (1), which enables individuals who are members of a trade union to apply to the Registrar for an investigation on the grounds that the union has been guilty of an unfair industrial practice (and of course it does not apply only to employees; it applies also to employers), is the same as that for which we opposed Clauses 63 and 64. Unfortunately, I was not able to be here when those clauses were discussed, but those clauses are themselves regarded as objectionable. This clause enables dissidents, some of whom will not even be, and will never have been, members of the organisation, to introduce a series of investigations as to whether the organisation is complying with the principles enunciated in Clause 63.
Clause 63, your Lordships will remember, contains the guiding principles for organisations of workers, in which, in particular, subsection (7) was most objectionable. So the evils of Clause 63 are carried on into Clause 79, and individuals

913
are given power to apply to the Registrar for investigation. This power, we think, is given not only to an existing member but also to one who was formerly a member and has ceased to be a member otherwise than by voluntary resignation, as well as to somebody who has tried to become a member but has been refused admission. We think that this clause, mind in particular subsection (1), will extend the evil, to which we have frequently referred, of giving far too much power to those who are dissident and temporarily dissatisfied with the way the union is behaving, and will lead to splintering and a diminution in the proper powers of the unions. It is for that reason that we think that this particular subsection ought to be removed. I beg to move.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: This clause appears to go very considerably further than it should, and although I do not go the whole way with the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, in suggesting leaving out the whole subsection (unless, of course, he explains to me that he has so many other Amendments up his sleeve that it really makes sense after all), I think that the Government ought to give something on this point. So far as I can see—and I stand open to correction—anyone who has ceased to be a member of one of these organisations other than by voluntary resignation, or has been refused admission to it, shall be eligible to make application under this clause really for as long as he wishes. So far as I can see, there does not appear anywhere in the rest of the clause, or anywhere else in the Bill, to be a time limit on this.
Now whereas I can perfectly well see that someone who has been refused membership, or who has been expelled, should have the power to make an application, exactly such a person may well be a serious troublemaker over and above any particular damage that he thinks he has suffered: the kind of person who, as the noble and learned Lord or any other lawyer will know, comes back and back and back to the courts on smaller and smaller pretexts in order to argue more and more unconvincing cases. We must allow for the possibility of anyone who is aggrieved applying to the Registrar; but there is no obligation on us at all to
914
grant this concession without a time limit or to grant it except for the particular circumstances in which such a person has been aggrieved. I hope that the Government will be able either to give us an explanation of what seems to be an uncommonly widely drawn clause or to give us some satisfaction.
10.45 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: If I may, I will deal first with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. There is a limitation as to time in the following clause, Clause 80(2). To turn to the substance of the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, I find it difficult to agree that application to the registrar to investigate should be made only by a person who is a member of an organisation and not by one who has been forced to resign. Surely former members should also have a right to complain against what they thought was unfair expulsion, not merely to an internal appeals body but also to an independent body which can give an unbiased judgment. The same applies to potential members who have been unable to gain entry to a union. They ought also to be allowed to make application to the registrar to investigate. This is all that is involved here. They must do it within a certain period. I should have thought it was only fair that this should be done; and, what is more, it would be impossible to assure that their rights under the Bill would be secured unless such investigations were possible.
LORD DIAMOND: The.noble Lord gave an example of an ex-member being entitled to ask a question relating to the cessation of his membership. I did not read the subsection in that way. He says that the application can refer only to matters affecting the applicant himself. I read it as meaning that any person can apply for an investigation if there is anything to be investigated, and that his application will succeed if the registrar is satisfied that there is something to be investigated; but that the subject matter of the investigation could be anything; that there need be no direct connection between the applicant and the matter complained of. Would the noble Lord tell me whether the example he gave was deliberate? If so, would he justify it in relation to the subsection?
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. That is how I read it. That is what I meant by saying there is no time limit. There is a time limit from the moment that what is to be investigated occurs and the moment when the application is to be made; but there is no time limit affecting the period between the person's ceasing to be a member of the organisation, or being refused membership of the organisation, and any complaint he may make about anything the organisation does. I think that this is a serious point.
LORD BROWN: Any person who applies for a job in an organisation and is refused can make an application to the registrar. Of course, the registrar could turn it down if the grounds were slight, but it must mean that the registrar is going to get a large number of applications, and he will have to consider and investigate them all. We all know in employment circles that there are many people who believe they have been discriminated against. This may not be so; but they will have the right to apply and may do so.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The intention of this clause undoubtedly is that the person who himself has cause of complain shall be able to get it investigated. Others can complain to the registrar and ask for an investigation; but in such cases the registrar will be initiating the investigation himself—he is bound to get his information from somewhere. That is not a complaint within the meaning of this clause. We are here talking about an unfair industrial practice under Clause 64 in regard to the guiding principles or under the rules. I do not really see that there is any great difficulty about this. The intention is that it should be the person who actually has the cause of complaint who brings the matter to the registrar to investigate.
LORD DIAMOND: Then I must press the noble Lord a little further. I am grateful to him for explaining to us that that is the intention of the clause: he has answered my first question. He says that this was a deliberate answer that he gave, of an individual complaining about something affecting himself.
916
The second question I asked is where in the clause does it so limit an application? I cannot see it. Would the noble Lord be good enough to help me? Clause 79(3) says:
"Any person who … is eligible to do so …"
and the eligibility arises in the subsection we are now discussing. It covers somebody who has never been a member of the organisation at all, but who sought to become a member and has been refused admission. To go back to subsection (3), it says:
"Any person who … is eligible to do so may make an application to the registrar on the grounds that action specified in the application has been taken by or on behalf of the organisation and …
(b) constituted a breach of the rules of the organisation."
So (b) is one of the grounds. I am saying, therefore, that this person who has never been a member of the organisation, can apply for an investigation on the grounds that a specified action taken —not necessarily this action:
"constituted a breach of the rules of the organisation."
That is a very wide statement indeed. It could refer, so far as I can see, to any action. I should have thought that there was enough doubt about it—we are not experts on this side of the Committee—for the noble Lord to undertake to look into this matter very carefully to see whether the clause can be construed only in the way he has construed it, or whether it could also be construed in the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and I both construed it.
LORD BROWN: There is another point that emerges. Under Clause 21 we have the start of the section dealing with an appeal against dismissal. This is a drafting point—all these Amendments are in a sense drafting points. Clause 79(1)(b) refers to a member who has ceased to be a member " otherwise than by voluntary resignation ". If a person is dismissed unfairly he falls under Clause 79(1)(b), but he also has a right of appeal under Clause 20(1). Is there not a great danger, owing to inadequate drafting, of confusion here in setting up what are in effect two means of appeal for the same implied unfairness?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Looking at the point which the noble Lord has made I do not think that this is so. I must confess that I was wrong in the guidance I gave to the Committee on this point. Clause 79 does not confine the right of complaint to aggrieved persons. Of course it is necessary to look at the matters on which complaints can be made. If the noble Lord will look at the guiding principle he will see the sort of thing that can be complained about. For example, under Clause 63(2)—
"Any person who applies for members of the organisation … shall not, by way of any arbitrary or unreasonable discrimination, be excluded from membership …"
If he does not get in, why should he not have a right of complaint, or why should somebody not have a right of complaint about his not getting in? I should have thought it obvious that a case like that had to be covered by saying that a man may have sought to become a member and had been refused admission. The same applies to a person who has been a member and who has been unfairly deprived of his membership. Clearly both cases have to be covered. I am sorry that I construed this point in the wrong way. have been informed that what I said is not correct. l should he glad to look at this point further.
LORD DIAMOND: I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that he will look at this matter further. He was saying earlier that the intention of the clause was that the application should be limited to matters affecting the applicant. He is now saying that this is not the intention of the clause. So all the arguments he used are quite invalid. The noble Lord is in considerable difficulty in this regard. It is only because he is a person of common sense that he used the obvious argument to justify this subsection, and he was wrong. If one uses the only argument there is and finds one is wrong, there are no arguments left which one can use.
That brings us back to what I was saying in the first place. Any person who applies to a union and is not admitted can apply to the Registrar and may cause trouble. Anyone can threaten, " If I am not admitted, I will apply to the Registrar." Of course, that course may not get him far, but it will be a nuisance for the union in question and they do not
918
wish it. We are grateful to the noble Lord for saying that he will look at this point again, but we think it a little too late. He has been advised that he was wrong and any argument he used has been cut away beneath him. I am bound to say to the Committee that this is a subsection which ought not to be in the Bill; it is one which tends to undermine the unions and to splinter them.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: No one will grudge the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, harrying the Government on a point into which he has been able to get his teeth deeply. I suggest that this is not an occasion when this Amendment should be pressed to a Division. This is a situation which is bound to occur in a long and complicated Bill which has not been offered to scrutiny in another place clause by clause. Here I think that a genuine mistake has been made. In the circumstances, I suggest that the best thing is for the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. to look at this point again, as he has said he will do, but with a slightly more generous grace. The Government have been caught out on this clause. The field is opened to people who have been known to apply for membership and do not get admitted, just for the sake of harassing a union; and they can go on doing it for any breach of the rules. They can keep an eye on the Press and everything that goes on in that union and they can make themselves a nuisance. Of course, they will be turned down by the Registrar, but it is not really good enough that this should be allowed. The clause is really drawn a great deal too widely. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will not just look at it again, but will seek to amend it; and I hope further that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, will not press this Amendment to a Division.
LORD BROWN: May I for the purpose of having it taken into account when the noble Lord reconsiders this matter, say that there are a large number of citizens not born in this country, many of whom suffer, justifiably or otherwise, from the feeling that they are discriminated against by employers and by unions. Any personnel officer in a large company in this country will tell you that, having made what he would claim to be a fair rejection of a candidate for a job, quite frequently he is immediately

919
accused of discrimination. That is not uncommon at all, and the circumstances really provide of threat of being a nuisance which goes too far. I wonder whether these remarks could be taken into account when the drafting of this clause is reconsidered. I am not asking for any sort of reply to this comment now.
LORD DIAMOND: I have listened and agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont said. We had a very frank admission by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that he will look at the matter, and in these circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.3 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 263EE:
Page 61, line 35, at end insert (" for nonpayment of any contribution which under the rules of the organisation he is required to pay, or ").
The noble Lord said: This is a second-best to the first Amendment, but as that has been withdrawn it rises in priority and becomes an Amendment which we seek to have accepted. It relates to Clause 79(1)(b) where a person who can apply was a member of such an organisation of the union and has ceased to be a member of it otherwise than by voluntary resignation. This means that he cannot apply if he resigned voluntarily, but that in any other circumstances he can apply. That is going far too far and, in particular, it is quite absurd, in my view, that a person who has not paid his contribution, and has thus ceased to be a member under the rule of the organisation, should be entitled to apply. It really is going far too far and is asking for trouble.
I hope that this Amendment, which is absolutely simple and straightforward, will be accepted—if not in these words, in words which give effect to it.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BELSTEAD): The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has argued that an individual has a responsibility to pay his
920
subscription and if he does not do so, and as a consequence is expelled by the trade union, he should not then have a right of complaint against that organisation. On the face of it this point certainly seems reasonable, but I think there are two reasons why it is difficult to accept the Amendment. First, it may not, for example, always be the fault of the individual that he gets into arrears with subscriptions; and of course, as your Lordships know, there is the case of Edwards v. SOGAT where the branch secretary failed to forward to the employer a form completed by Mr. Edwards authorising his union subscription to be deducted from his wages. Unknown to himself, Mr. Edwards fell into arrears and was in fact deprived of membership
The second reason why it is difficult to accept this Amendment is that the Registrar is empowered to investigate, under this clause, breaches of the rules and breaches of the guiding principles of Clause 63. This is the purpose of the clause, and what we on this side of the Committee do not want is for the Registrar to become involved in lengthy preliminary investigations to determine who is or who is not eligible to complain. That is why we are glad to have a simple eligibility test in subsection (1)(a), (b) and (c) of the clause. In brief, I think the chief reason for resisting this Amendment, in general terms, is that we feel that a breach of rules or the guiding principles is wrong in principle, and it seems to us that it is fundamentally dangerous to exclude particular types of people who otherwise would be considered eligible to complain. Though we concede that it is invariably necessary to envisage extreme cases of difficulty or extreme cases of injustice, it is possible that, if one accepted this Amendment, sooner or later an injustice that would be regretted might ensue.
LORD DIAMOND: The noble Lord has made it clear that the view of the Government and the view of the Opposition are poles apart in their approach to the freedom of individuals to having unions and to make a nuisance of themselves unnecessarily. So far as the Government's position is concerned, it seems to me that anybody can come along and complain: a person who has been a member, a person who has not been a member, a person who has not paid his

921
subscriptions—virtually anybody can come along and start complaining, and the justification for this is that it is nice to have a simple eligibility rule. Well, they have the simple eligibility rule, and anybody can come along and make life difficult for the unions. The Government may think that that is satisfactory, but we do not, and we propose to divide against it.
LORD BROWN: The arguments used by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, were, frankly, ridiculous. If a union member had taken steps to pay his subscription, and the subscription did not arrive at the right place through the inefficiency of somebody else, could that possibly be construed as non-payment of that member's subscription? I very much doubt if the Registrar could possibly construe it in that way. Any sensible person set up to judge such a case would not construe the individual as not having paid his subscription. If that is the case, then the law is an ass. This is an extremely thin reason for rejecting the Amendment, and the arguments put forward by my noble and learned friend are very strong. This ought to be considered seriously, otherwise individuals, particularly when they have animosity against the union or past happenings, will seek to harry the union in this way.
LORD BELSTEAD: Before this matter goes to some form of conclusion, it might be fair to point out to the Committee that it is because basically we on this side agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brown, that we are resisting this Amendment. It is because in a previous case precisely this happened: the rules of the union took a certain view, and a certain situation developed. This can happen. It is the sort of thing that everyone deprecates, but it can occur. Unfortunately, it is no good the noble Lord, Lord Brown, and it is no good noble Lords on this side, saying that we deprecate this: it is something that could occur, and we feel that it could occur on this Amendment.
LORD BROWN: The point is that in the previous cases cited the union or some other body made the decision to which the noble Lord referred. The person who in future, when this Bill becomes art Act, has to make the decision will be
922
the Registrar. It is a different set of circumstances. The situation is not the same as it has been in the past, and the cases cited from the past have no relevance to the future situation.
LORD BELSTEAD: With respect to the noble Lord, I do not think what he is saying, which is eminently reasonable, ties up with subsection (1) of the clause. I would also point out that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, called in aid that what we were voting on was that anybody could be difficult and harry a union. I think it is reasonable to draw your Lordships' attention to an ensuing Government Amendment. We do not know what view the Committee will take of it, but it is the intention of the Government that they would like the Committee to agree that complaints should not be vexatious or frivolous. It will be for the Committee to decide.
11.10 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: The Government might take that view, but there is no reason why, even if the Committee does support the subsequent Amendment, that we should on this Amendment support the Government's ambivalence. If the Government want to go two different ways, they cannot expect us to be equally pointless and support them in both directions. T did not dwell on this because I thought the other point was more important: namely, the attitude of the Government. But as the noble Lord has come back to the case itself, I do not think it is relevant to the case.
We are considering who should be eligible to complain; and what the Amendment indicates is that the person who is eligible to complain should not be a person who has ceased to be a member of the union for non-payment of his contribution. As my noble friend said, you cannot say that he ceased to be a member for non-payment of his contribution if he has paid it. That determines whether he is eligible to make a complaint. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has made it clear that if he is eligible to make a complaint the subject matter of the complaint is not restricted to this particular incident; it can relate to anything affecting the union. Therefore, once he has got through this hoop he can complain.

923
I repeat what I said earlier. I think it is quite ridiculous that a person who was a member of the union and refused to pay—not an unfortunate sufferer of some mistake in the accountant's office or something like that—but refused to pay, and ceased to be a member because he refused to pay, can then have a roving brief to apply for investigation and harrying of the union because he feels disgruntled about it. No doubt it was because he felt disgruntled that he ceased to pay. But he cannot have it both ways. Nor can the Government.
LORD HANKEY: I do find this pretty hard to understand. A person has not paid his subscription and has been pushed out of the organisation and then makes a complaint to the Registrar; is it seriously contended that under subsection (3) he could claim that the organisation had committed an unfair industrial practice against him? I do not see just how the case lies; it seems to me thought up out of the sky. A chap like this is entitled to make an application, but if you look at subsection (3) it says what he is to complain of; it is either an unfair industrial practice or a breach of rule of the organisation. I do not see that anybody who has failed to pay his contribution can make a claim under either.
LORD BROWN: Nobody is contending that he would win his case. What is being contended is that he has the right to make an infernal nuisance of himself. This would involve the union opening their books to investigation and the Registrar having the problem. The noble

CONTENTS

Bernstein, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lindgren, L.

Beswick, L.

Energlyn, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Blyton, L.

Gardiner, L.

Shackleton, L.

Brockway, L.

Garnsworthy, L.[Teller.]

Strabolgi, L.[Teller.]

Brown, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Walston, L.

Champion, L.

Hughes, L.

Willis, L.

Diamond, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Bessborough, E.

Chelmer, L.

Abinger, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Conesford, L.

Aldenham, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Cowley. E.

Balerno, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Cranbrook, E.

Balfour, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Belstead, L.

Burton, L.

Cromartie, E.

Lord is satisfied he could not win his case, but he cannot be satisfied that he cannot make a confounded nuisance of himself on the flimsiest of grounds.
LORD HANKEY: We cannot draft our laws to avoid any trouble by any crackpot. It is only an utter crackpot who can do this.
LORD BROWN: Our laws are drafted so that people who want to take matters before the courts have hurdles to clear before they can cause a nuisance in the courts, and this is so in this case.
LORD SOMERS: Before we divide, could my noble friend say whether a man who, under the agency shop provision, has consciencious objections, and is not a member of the union, and is paying instead to a charity, will still be eligible to complain?
LORD BELSTEAD: I think the answer is " Yes ". I am speaking without advice, but I have looked again at subsection (1), and confirm my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Brown. You may get a situation in which a union member says he has paid a subscription and the union says he has not. Who is to tell? One is forced back to the guiding principles. For that reason I feel we are reasonable to say we will not accept the Amendment, and to exclude the wish of the Opposition in this matter.
11.16 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 263EE) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 19; Not-Contents, 71.

Daventry, V.

Hankey, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.[Teller.]

Denham, L.

Inglewood, L.

St. Helens, L.

Digby, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

St. Just, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Kemsley, V.

Sandford, L.

Dudley, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Selkirk, E.

Dundee, E.

Latymer, L.

Selsdon, L.

Falmouth, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Ferrers, E.

Mansfield, E.

Somers, L.

Fisher, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Terrington, L.

Fortescue, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Teviot, L.

Glendevon, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Goschen. V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Gowrie, E. [Teller.]

Pender, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs

Gray, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Vivian, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Windlesham, L.

Hailes, L.

Redmayne, L.

Yarborough, E.

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

Rothermere, V.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
11.24 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 263QQQ:
Page 62, line 17, at end insert (" other than a breach to which the next following subsection applies.
(3A) This subsection applies—

(a) to any breach of any rules made in pursuance of section 3 section 4(1) or section 5(1) of the Trade Union Act 1913 (which relate to political funds), and

(b) to any breach of rules in taking a vote on a resolution to approve an instrument of amalgamation or transfer within the meaning of the Trade Union (Amalgamations, etc.) Act 1964.")

The noble Lord said: This Amendment seeks to exclude from the right of complaint to the Registrar any matter for which redress already exists under the Trade Union Act 1913 and the Trade Union (Amalgamations) Act 1964. The reason for the Amendment is that the procedures laid down by the 1913 and 1964 Acts for complaint to the Registrar are considerably different from what is provided in Clause 79. As the Clause stands it allows complaints to the Registrar against any breach of rules or guiding principles by a trade union. In other words it covers complaints from the 1913 and 1964 Acts.
As noble Lords will know, the 1913 Act deals with unions' political funds, and it governs the means by which such funds may be established and the objects for which they may be expended, and the right of members to contract out of paying a union's political levy. There is a parallel with the present Bill in that both measures seek to secure rights for indi-
926
viduals and to provide enforcement machinery, but there are two significant differences. Under the 1913 Act the Registrar may hear complaints against any organisation satisfying the old definition of trade union, whereas in this Bill the Registrar deals only with workers' organisations which have registered and thereby become unions in the new sense. Secondly, if a complaint made under the 1913 Act is found to be justified, the Registrar may make an order enforceable through the County Court, whereas under Clause 80 of this Bill, on the other hand, he has no power to enforce a settlement. He can attempt to settle matters informally or, failing this, refer the case to the Industrial Court or an industrial tribunal.
There being these differences, it is felt that it is much better that the 1913 and 1964 procedures, which have worked satisfactorily in the past, should be retained alongside the procedures of this Bill. Clause 81(2) of the Bill provides for the exclusion of political funds and amalgamation cases from the Bill's provisions as to investigations undertaken by the Registrar on his own initiative. I hope the Committee will agree that a parallel provision is needed in this clause, which deals with complaints by individual members to the Registrar. I beg to move.
LORD DIAMOND: I would only wish to thank the noble Lord for his explanation and to say how much I agree with him that procedures which have worked well in the past should be continued. It seems to me a very appropriate context, and I would like to support this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 79, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DIAMOND: We have discussed this clause and have made our views known on a particular section of it. It really is a most unsatisfactory clause—unsatisfactory in a series of ways—and I

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Digby, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Aldenham, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Dudley, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Balerno, L.

Dundee E.

Pender, L.

Balfour, E.

Falmouth, V.

Penrhyn, L.

Barrington, V.

Ferrers, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Fisher, L.

Redmayne, L.

Belstead, L.

Fortescue, E.

Rothermere, V.

Bessborough, E.

Glendevon, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

St. Helens, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Gowrie, E.

St. Just, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Sandford, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Hailes, L.

Selkirk, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

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

Selsdon, L.

Burton, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Chelmer, L.

Hankey, L.

Somers, L.

Conesford, L.

Inglewood, L.

Terrington, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Jellicoe, E. (Lord Privy Seal.)

Teviot, L.

Cowley, E.

Kemsley, V.

Thorneycroft, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Cromartie, E.

Latymer, L.

Vivian, L.

Daventry, V.

Mansfield, E.

Windlesham, L.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Yarborough, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Bernstein, L.

Diamond, L.

Lindgren, L.

Beswick, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Blyton, L.

Energlyn, L.

Shackleton, L.

Brockway, L.

Gardiner, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Brown, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Willis, L.

Champion, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 79, as amended, agreed to accordingly.
11.35 p.m.
Clause 80 [Action by registrar on application under section 79]:
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD ST. HELENS): I have to inform your Lordships that if Amendment 263GG is agreed to, I shall not call the subsequent Amendment No. 263RRR.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 263GG:
Page 62, line 38, leave out from beginning to end of line 40.
The noble Lord said: Nevertheless I think it would be a sensible course for me to move this Amendment and to
928
think we should register our lack of approval of the clause as a whole.
11.28 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 79, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 71; Not-Contents, 17.
invite your Lordships to agree to Amendment No. 263GG, which perhaps can be discussed with Amendment No. 263RRR as the points are closely related and the Amendments come at the same point in the Bill.
The reason, as will be obvious, why we put this Amendment at the start of line 38 is that we thought the reasons given earlier in the clause in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) were quite inadequate and there was no justification for a further one, namely, that the Registrar should be satisfied that in the circumstances there were special reasons for proceeding with the application. This is extremely vague and could open the door to almost anything. I am aware that what the Government propose is
" it was not practicable of the application to be made before"

929
is an improvement on the situation. Obviously the Government and the Opposition are thinking somewhat on the same lines. I think the best course is for me to move this Amendment without more ado and leave it to the Government to explain why their Amendment is better than ours, apart from the fact that their troops are more numerous than ours.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. As he has said, obviously we are thinking along the same lines, and obviously some sort of time limit is needed as memories become blurred. Having proposed a fairly short time limit of four weeks, we think there should be some discretion given to the Registrar to be able to extend the period in appropriate cases, for example where the complainant has been sick or where seamen or other workers have been employed outside the country and it has not been practicable for the complainant to present his case to the Registrar. To meet these cases and to avoid possible injustice we propose that the Registrar should have this discretion to extend the time limit.
As will be seen from the Marshalled List of Amendments, the Amendment in my name would have the effect of restricting the discretion of the Registrar to cases in which it was not practicable for the complaint to be brought within the time limit of four weeks. We accept that it is not justifiable to give an unlimited discretion to waive the four-weeks rule, and the Government Amendment narrows the Registrar's discretion very much indeed. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, will accept this compromise which is much closer to his Amendment than to the words actually in the clause. I hope that he will graciously withdraw his Amendment and allow me to move mine.
LORD DIAMOND: It was the fact that the Government Amendment was near to ours that made me so suspicious, but having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I beg to move Amendment No. 263RRR:
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 38, leave out from (" circumstances") to end of line 39, and insert ("it was not practicable for the application to be made before ").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN: moved Amendment No. 263SSS:
Page 63, line 11, at end insert—
(" () The registrar shall not be required to proceed with any such application if in his opinion it is frivolous or vexatious.")
The noble Lord said: At present the Registrar is bound to investigate any complaint which complies with the conditions specified in Clause 79. This Amendment seeks to remove this obligation in respect of " frivolous or vexatious " complaints. Under Clause 79 the complaint must be made by an eligible person against a registered organisation on grounds of a breach of rules or guiding principle. If these conditions are fulfilled, as the clause stands the Registrar is bound to investigate. But it may be that it is clear from the outset that the complaint is frivolous and the complainant has been in the habit of bombarding the Registrar with similar baseless and irrational effusions. Without this Amendment, the Registrar would still have to investigate the complaint, however baseless, and notify the conclusions to both parties. That would take up unnecessary time. Those of us who have been Members of Parliament are all too familiar with this kind of problem. I hope in those circumstances noble Lords will agree to accept this amendment, particularly as the N.I.R.C. and the industrial tribunals will have a sanction against vexatious and improper complaints which may be brought to them.
LORD DIAMOND: I am grateful to the Government for going a little way to meet our point of view.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 80, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 81 [Investigation initiated by registrar]:
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 263HH:
Page 63, line 32, leave out (" has been a serious breach or have been persistent breaches") and insert (" have been serious and persistent breaches").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment. It really speaks for itself. At present the Bill at line 32 refers to " a serious breach " or " persistent breaches ". The point I am making is that persistent breaches may be persistent breaches of such a very minor character that the fact that they are persistent really does not affect the issue; it is a very minor breach, it does not matter how many times it is repeated. What I presume the Government in the clause are getting at is the serious and persistent breach, and a persistent breach which is a serious breach is even more serious. I think the wording proposed in the Amendment, " serious and persistent breaches" is the better wording.
LORD BELSTEAD: What worries us about Lord Diamond's wording in this Amendment is that it restricts the Registrar's initiative to the investigation of breaches which are both serious and persistent. There have to be the two aspects of the case. The noble Lord will remember that the Royal Commission envisaged that all complaints by individuals would be addressed in the first instance to the Registrar, and the Commission thought it important that ordinary trade unions should feel that they could turn to the Registrar for expert and impartial help when needed. It is fair to say that we share that view. It seems probable that in the course of these frequent contacts with trade unionists the Registrar will from time to time hear of grievances which individually appear to be relatively insignificant but which when taken together could imply underlying weakness in the organisation. For example, there might be a number of individual complaints about fines being imposed upon union members not in accordance with the rules, and each incident might seem to be of comparative lack of importance, but a number of such incidents would be sufficient justification for the Registrar to suspect that perhaps the liaison between the trade union, its local officials and shop stewards was not satisfactory. We believe that in such circumstances the Registrar would be justified in undertaking an investigation.
932
On the other hand, if there is a serious breach of the rules, such as an election malpractice, it is surely desirable that the Registrar should be able to investigate, even though it is not persistent and is only a single occurrence. In a case of that sort, would it be that under this Amendment the Registrar would hold back because a breach had not been persistent? One might almost ask: would it be that the Registrar was an accessory because he had no evidence that the trade union, knowing that it was acting in breach of its rules, persisted in the malpractice? It is because of these two sides of the case that we feel we must resist the Amendment in this case
LORD SHACKLETON: The noble Lord is probably right that the Amendment is defective. On the other hand, the present requirement is that if the Registrar suspects a number of persistent breaches he has no alternative but to investigate. Anybody in administration, in a trade union or anywhere else, will know that in order to carry on at all there may be all sorts of minor matters where there are persistent breaches. I am wondering whether the Government would be prepared to look at this matter again. I fully accept that if there is a serious breach the Registrar probably ought to investigate it, but what I am thinking of—and I do not have the right form of words—is something like " a serious breach or breaches " or " a number of breaches which have a serious effect in total ".
As the Bill is drafted, if there are a number of breaches which go on all the time, the Registrar has no option but to investigate, and I do not think anybody would recommend that. Will the Government undertake to look at this point further and see whether they can find a better form of words than the ones which we proposed, which would prevent the Registrar from having to look at a large number of minor breaches which nobody would want to look at anyway but which he would now have no option but to look at?
LORD BELSTEAD: The noble Lord is certainly persuasive in the way he puts his argument forward. There are perhaps two points here. I am quite sure that the Government will be only too pleased to look at this point, but I am

933
not in a position to give any form of helpful or encouraging commitment. I say that for two reasons. The first is that the word " persistent " presumably means what it says, and that denotes a degree of gravity which I tried to explain. The other point is that there are the conciliation provisions in subsection (3), and they are obviously a safety valve to the clause. For those two reasons, although I certainly undertake to ask that this matter be looked at, I am not in a position to say that it definitely will be looked at with a result which the noble Lord would wish.
LORD SHACKLETON: I cannot see how the word " persistent " can possibly include gravity. Otherwise, why do the Government bother to insert the word " serious "? The escape is, of course, when an investigation takes place. I fully accept that the noble Lord has taken my point. It is a perfectly valid point and I will not press him further—
LORD DRUMALBYN: I took the trouble to look up the dictionary. I think the gravity lies in the obstinacy of it. The dictionary gives the interpretation, " obstinately pursued ".
LORD SHACKLETON: I do not know that " obstinately pursued " necessarily means that it is grave. I do not want to waste time now, although 1 ant sure that the noble and learned Lord would help us if we really went into the matter. All I am asking is that the Government take this as a serious point and will look at it again. They are making no commitment to do anything about it, but we may wish to return to it at a later stage when they can improve the drafting a little. Otherwise, even if " persistent " means " obstinately pursued ", it may not be very sensible for them obstinately to pursue minor breaches. We all have to commit minor breaches. Indeed, we do it constantly. We do it constantly in your Lordships' House, sometimes to our benefit, sometimes more seriously to our disadvantage.
LORD DIAMOND: I gather the noble Lord said that nevertheless he was going to look at the matter; that he is making no promise; but he is going to look at it. In those circumstances, I seek the leave
934
of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.51 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 263JJ:
Page 63, line 34, leave out from (" section") to end of line 40.
The noble Lord said: I hope we can deal with this Amendment very shortly indeed. Some of the lines which it is sought to leave out the Government and ourselves would never agree about; namely, the principles set out in Clause 63. Therefore, there is no point in arguing about them. But, again, there is a reference to
" persistently taken by it or on its behalf ",
and if the noble Lord would take into his review that word " persistently " as well as the earlier " persistant " I do not think I need keep the Committee any longer. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, this is the same point, and we shall certainly be willing to look at it.
LORD DIAMOND: Then I seek the leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 263TTT:
Page 63, line 44, leave out from beginning to end of line 4 on page 64, and insert (" any breach of rules to which section 79(3A) of this Act applies").
The noble Lord said: I mentioned the need for this Amendment when I moved Amendment No. 263000. I then explained that it was desirable to ensure that there was no power in the Bill to deal with any breach of the rules made in pursuance of the 1913 Act. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 263MM:
Page 64, line 17, leave out from (" question ") to end of line 35.
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is the normal one of restricting somewhat the field of the Registrar and turning him, if possible, back into the role which we think he

935
should occupy, that of conciliator, and away from the role which the Government try to put him into; that is to say, the role of prosecutor.
I still think and hope that the Government will recognise that the way to improve the situation is to make the relationship between the unions and the Registrar of the same friendly kind as that which has persisted hitherto, and if this Amendment were accepted it would help towards that end. Accordingly, I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: This Amendment would remove the Registrar's power to bring a complaint to the Industrial Court if, once the Registrar had investigated a suspected breach of the rules or guiding principles, the trade union or employers' association concerned failed to take the necessary remedial action. I understood the noble Lord to imply that such power is inconsistent with the Registrar's role, and that it turned him into a prosecutor. I think we should look at it rather from another point of view. Suppose a trade union has conducted its elections improperly and the Registrar has good reason to suspect what has gone on although he has had no formal complaint. He decides to investigate and finds his suspicions justified. He tells the union and endeavours to have the matter put right, and asks for an undertaking that future elections will be properly held. The union refuse to take any action or to give an undertaking. What then? If we accept this Amendment, nothing happens. The union carries on in the same way and the Registrar exhausts his powers. His findings cannot be enforced. This may be rare; but it is an undesirable state and not in the interests of ordinary trade union members.
We believe that if this Bill is to effect an improvement of industrial relations in this country, its provisions must always, so far as possible, be enforceable. That is not to say that we believe that employers, trade unions, registrars or anyone else should complain to the courts every time there is a problem. As my right honourable friend said in another place, recourse to the courts will be the last, not the first, resort. As regards the clause and the Amendment we are now
936
discussing, I do not expect that the Registrar will have frequent need to initiate investigations into breaches of rules. Organisations which accept the responsibility implied by registering are unlikely to disregard their obligations. Where the Registrar initiates investigations we expect that the occasions on which he is unable to secure a satisfactory undertaking or remedial action will be rare; but all the same we should provide for the eventuality.
LORD BERNSTEIN: It seems to me that there is no parallel procedure in the case of unfair dismissal or an unfair industrial practice by the employer. Have I overlooked something?
LORD DRUMALBYN: That is quite understandable; because the dismissal must be by the employer. We have discussed the dismissals aspect already. I do not understand the noble Lord's point.
LORD BERNSTEIN: My question was a simple one. What the Registrar can do in the case of a trade union, can he also do in the case of an employer?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I have already pointed out that this applies to employers' associations as well as to trade unions.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I think this follows what was said earlier. The purpose of the Amendment is to mitigate the effect of the clause, so that the Registrar simply gives notice but does not have the power of enforcement. In this way we believe the Registrar will have a conciliatory role and not that of a prosecutor. I believe that to build an iron framework of law, with all the nuts and bolts secure, will ultimately fail. We need an element of human understanding, a situation in which the Registrar can take on the role of adviser. That, I believe, would be the better approach. I deplore this tendency to try to screw everything tightly in legislative phraseology. I do not want to reiterate points which have been more ably made than I can do; nevertheless, I want to support my noble friend on the Front Bench.
LORD DIAMOND: My noble friend should not be so modest; he has made a most persuasive speech, and what he has said I echo to the syllable. I can

937
only say to the Government that we regard this as a most unsatisfactory clause. The part covered by this Amendment is very unsatisfactory indeed, and we can only show our dissatisfaction in the usual way.

CONTENTS

Bernstein. L.

Diamond, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Beswick, L.

Energlyn, L.

Shackleton, L.

Champion, L.

Gardiner, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller]

Davies of Leek, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller]

Willis, L.

NON-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Aldenham, L.

Dudley, E.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Dundee, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Balerno, L.

Eccles, V.

Pender, L.

Balfour, E.

Falmouth, V.

Penrhyn, L.

Belstead, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Bessborough, E.

Fisher, L.

Redmayne, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Fortescue, E.

Rothermere, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Glendevon, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Goschen. V. [Teller]

St. Helens, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Gowrie, E.

St. Just, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gray, L.

Sandford, L.

Burton, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Selkirk, E.

Chelmer, L.

Hailes, L.

Selsdon, L.

Conesford, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone L. [L. Chancellor.]

Semphill, Ly.

Cottesloe. L.

Somers, L.

Cowley, E.

Inglewood, L.

Suffield, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Jellicoe, E. [L. Privy Seal].

Terrington, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Kemsley, V.

Thorneycroft, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Cromartie, E.

Latymer, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Daventry, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Vivian, L.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Mansfield, E.

Windlesham, L.

Digby, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Yarborough, E.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 81, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.

MOTOR VEHICLES (PASSENGER INSURANCE) BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendment agreed to.
EXETER CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]

  MANCHESTER CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
  Reported with Amendments.
  12 midnight
  On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 263MM) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordship divided: Contents, 12; Not-Contents, 71.