HL Deb 18 April 1972 vol 330 cc8-17

2.51 p.m.

EARL JELLICOE rose to move, That the Order of Commitment of Tuesday, March 14, be discharged, and that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Perhaps I should give a little background to this Motion. Your Lordships will remember that this Bill was given a Second Reading by your Lordships on March 14, before Easter, by a majority on a Division, despite a reasoned Amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. I think it is true to say that during the debate even many of your Lordships who supported the Bill felt that further consideration should be given to improving it. It has now been agreed through the usual channels and with, I should underline, the agreement of the sponsor of the Bill, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, which will give an opportunity for the Committee to hear evidence. When the Committee have heard such evidence as they consider ncessary they can then examine the Bill in detail with a view to making Amendments. A formal Report is then made to your Lordships, reporting the Bill with or without amendment. It is, by the same token, quite possible for the Select Committee to report that the Bill should not be proceeded with, or that quite a different Bill should be introduced.

Perhaps I should just explain the background here, since for many of your Lordships this procedure is something of a novelty. Until the last war Public Bills of a social or technical nature were frequently referred to Select Committees of both Houses. Since 1939, however, no Bill has been so referred, at least in your Lordships' House, although the White Paper on House of Lords Reform (the ill-starred House of Lords Reform), in Appendix II, contained this sentence: A further possibility would be to commit to a joint committee private members' bills on controversial social subjects after they had received a second reading in either House. Last Session, the Commons Procedure Committee recommended that in future suitable Bills should be referred to Select Committees, and my right honourable friend the then Lord President accepted the principle of using Select Committees on certain occasions. In my opinion—and I trust that your Lordships will agree with me and with the usual channels and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear—this Bill is ideally suited to the Select Committee procedure. It is a Bill of perhaps little political controversy, or Party political controversy, but certainly it is one which touches subjects of very great social complexity.

In the words of the Procedure Committee of another place—and I am quoting: Between 1900 and 1939 Bills were committed to Select Committees principally in cases where additional information was required in socially or technically complicated situations. The fact that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment (as he then was), Mr. Robert Carr, set up a study (which was announced by my noble friend Lord Windlesham during our debate in March) into the causes and areas of discrimination in employment, reinforces the view that this is a complicated subject on which the Select Committee procedure, with its possibility of calling evidence and so on, should be of great benefit. If we are to revive a procedure which has not been used in this House for over thirty years, it is my belief that this Bill is a very good candidate for a pilot run. It has been agreed, again through the usual channels, that if this Motion is approved, the Committee should consist of seven Peers, and I hope to be able to put down a Motion in the near future naming those Peers. My Lords, I beg to move.

Moved, That the Order of Commitment of Tuesday, March 14, be discharged, and that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.—(Earl Jellicoe.)

2.56 p.m.

BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER

My Lords, I may be a lone voice, but I very much regret that this Bill, of which I am an ardent supporter, is to be referred to a Select Committee and that we are not following our usual procedure of referring a Bill, which undoubtedly requires some amendment, to a Committee of the Whole House. My reason for this is that this Bill establishes a moral judgment: the judgment that women are not to be discriminated against. That is not a complicated question but a simple moral issue, and in my judgment moral issues are not suitable subjects for Select Committees to take a lot of evidence upon. That would only have the result of bogging down the essential issue and of creating complication for complication's sake.

The Americans are doing much the same thing in trying to abolish discrimination against women, and they are proposing—and I think this is the right course—a simple constitutional amendment. It takes rather a long time in their country, but we can do it more quickly here. They are proposing a constitutional amendment, well aware that there will be complications when a woman applies for a job in the eighth month of pregnancy, or there may be many other practical difficulties. But they are doing this and saying that this is something which, on moral grounds, must be enacted, and people must work out the complications afterwards if and when they arise. One of the things which is most characteristic in discrimination against women is in always making them a special case and using a special procedure on issues which affect them. I want to suggest very strongly that it is a great mistake once again to have a special procedure about women. Discrimination will end when we are treated as people and not as women.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

My Lords, may I remind my noble friend of one or two things? Of course we all agree that the time has come when discrimination should end, but as a politician who has been in Parliament for 34 years—I think a little longer than has my noble friend Lady Wootton—I regard the setting up of a Select Committee as the best way of ventilating this Bill, and so persuading the other place that they should accept it. The House should recall that this Bill has already been before another place and been rejected. Therefore, in my opinion, there are two objectives: first, to convince your Lordships that morally this Bill should be accepted—and that includes the Bishops' Benches, of which we are a little ashamed—and, secondly, that the other place, when the Bill goes there, should be convinced that it has been carefully examined, that every aspect of it has been discussed, and that able lawyers such as my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, and, I hope, the Lord Chancellor and other eminent people in this House, are agreed that the Bill should go on the Statute Book. I hope that this Select Committee will effect those objectives. It will convince the other place that time and energy have been used in order that this Bill should be perfected. Therefore I must ask my noble friend to realise that when we do something like this we are concerned not only with morals, but also with expediency.

BARONESS GAITSKELL

My Lords, I apologise to my noble Leader, but I should like to say something. Much as I dislike disagreeing with my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger, for whom I have a great respect and affection, I find myself to-day disagreeing with her strongly on this matter. I never regard moral issues as simple. They are never simple. Therefore in this case a Select Committee seems to me absolutely right. I do not always find myself agreeing with my noble friend Lady Summerskill, but to-day I absolutely agree with her.

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, I do not know whether it was an act of discrimination on my part to give way to three noble Baronesses. However, I very much agree with my noble friend Lady Summerskill, with her very long Parliamentary experience, and indeed with my noble friend Lady Gaitskell. I am grateful to the Government for the flexibility with which they have approached this matter. This is not an occasion to re-debate the whole issue, but the fact is that the House carried the Second Reading by a substantial majority. As the noble Earl said, the great majority of us were well aware that there are defects in the Bill, as there always are in Private Members' Bills. Therefore, although I hope the moral point is conceded, what is important is to translate it into effective action.

Passing an amendment to the American Constitution, especially in view of the way their Constitution operates, is a very different matter from producing an effective piece of legislation which can be operated in this country. It may well be that this Bill will have to be altered out of all recognition in order to achieve the objectives, and in a way which would not be possible under the ordinary Committee procedure of this House or an ordinary Public Bill Committee. The Motion closely follows the views of the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Byers, that there are opportunities for something almost akin to a pre-legislation Committee. I would certainly congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, on having got the Bill this far. I think it is important to note that the original Bill is still before another place, but that because, if I remember rightly, it was talked out it is unlikely to proceed further. But as we have found with other legislation—and this is, I think, the sort of factor which led the House to give this Bill a Second Reading—we now have an opportunity to get the Bill into a form in which another place can take it up.

I should like to ask the noble Earl one question. All Private Members' Bills are apt to pass through a number of hands. Happily, in this House this Bill is in the hands of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. But certainly Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Bishop and Mrs. Butler (who I think was really the originator of the first Bill) are all deeply interested. I think the general view is that on this occasion it is better that we have our own Select Committee rather than attempt a Joint Select Committee, but I take it that Members of another place, because evidence will have to be marshalled and they are in touch with the various organisations—I am assuming that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear will herself be a member of the Committee—will be able to give evidence, that the case will be marshalled, and that the Committee will not be debarred either by funds or by anything else from studying what is happening in other countries—for example, in the United States of America, in particular. I trust that the noble Earl will be able to give us an assurance on that matter. But I hope that Members of another place who have laboured long on this matter will feel able to come and give evidence on the Bill. Obviously, that will be for the Committee to decide.

LORD BYERS

My Lords, I should like to make only two points. But, first of all, I should like to thank the noble Earl the Leader of the House on behalf of my colleagues, particularly my noble friend Lady Seear, for putting forward this proposal. I really feel that the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, need not be too worried because in the final result the House will decide what to do when the Select Committee have reported. The two points which I should like to put to the noble Earl are these. While recognising that it is for the Committee to decide how they will conduct their work, may I ask whether it will be possible for them to take as much evidence as they can in public, so that there may be a wide public debate on this issue and, at the same time, an educational process? Also, may I express the hope that, in view of the nature and title of this Bill, there will be more than one woman out of seven on the Committee?

LORD GARDINER

My Lords, the Motion before the House contains no terms of reference. May I ask whether it will be open to the Committee to recommend whatever changes they think fit, not only in the clauses of the Bill, but also in both the long and short titles? Secondly, as this is a field in which women themselves have exceptional experience, has the noble Earl any news to give the House of the likely proportion of women to men serving on the Committee?

LORD PARGITER

My Lords, the noble Earl said that the Committee—to which I have no objection—will have power in certain circumstances to recommend that the Bill be not proceeded with. Alternatively, the Committee could propose an entirely different Bill in place of this one. May we have an assurance that, if it were found necessary to propose a different Bill, the principle already adopted by the House would be embodied in the new Bill?

LORD BROCKWAY

My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House to clear up one misunderstanding which some of us have? We understood from his statement that the proposal was that this Bill would go to a Joint Select Committee of the two Houses, and that that is almost a precedent since the last world war. I now understand from my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition that that is not the case. Perhaps the noble Earl will clear up that point.

LORD ARDWICK

My Lords, may I ask whether I am right in assuming that any Member of this House may attend this Committee, may speak at this Committee and may even examine witnesses before this Committee, but of course may not vote?

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, first of all, I should like to express the hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, will acquit me of any antifeminist bias in this matter. I assure her that there is no anti-feminist bias lying behind the Motion which I have just moved. There is no intention of turning the ladies or the Bill to leg, as it were, by this procedural technique. May I pray in aid of that the fact that the Civil Service Department—I am not claiming any personal credit for this, because a large part of the initiative was due to Sir William Armstrong and my own predecessor in the Civil Service Department—has made clear, by its recent Report on this subject and by its general implementation of it, that it is in the forefront of this move towards anti-discrimination in this sphere. That is by way of—

BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER

My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Earl the Leader of the House can explain why a similar procedure was not thought proper in regard to racial anti-discrimination?

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, may I come on to deploy a few other remarks as well? The noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, suggested that the fact that we were proposing a rather new procedure—although it is really a revival of an old procedure—meant that we were, in a way, discriminating against women. I should like to assure her that that is very far from our intention. It is rather the case that by reviving an old procedure we might be helping in an ordered way, in a way which will allow full evidence to be taken, to bring about the reverse of discrimination. As the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, has said, undoubtedly there are moral questions involved here; but as the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, has pointed out, there are also involved very difficult technical and practical questions which in certain instances go very deeply into trade union and industrial practice. To me at least, this seems pre-eminently the sort of area which should be open to the procedures of inquiry and investigation which this course would open up.

My Lords, I turn to the specific questions which have been put to me. I hope that I have gathered them all in. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, asked me a number of questions. He asked me whether adequate funds would be available to the Select Committee for inquiry abroad. I think I can assure him straight away that this would be the case. He then asked me whether Members of another place would be entitled to give evidence to the Select Committee. The answer is most certainly "Yes". The decision lies within the discretion of the Select Committee itself, I think, but this would certainly be done. May I now remove a misconception which I may inadvertently have given? I think when the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, reads my introductory remarks the position will be clear to him. This is intended to be a Select Committee of your Lordships' House and of your Lordships' House alone. I was merely referring—and this I think gave rise to the misconception—to that part of the White Paper on Lords Reform which spoke of Joint Select Committees looking into this particular area. But this is a proposal to set up a Select Committee of your Lordships' House alone.

The noble Lord, Lord Byers, asked whether the proceedings of the Select Committee would be in public. I think this is invariably the case with Select Committees of your Lordships' House and it is certainly my assumption that this would be so in this instance. I have foreshadowed a Motion proposing the membership of this Committee, and perhaps it would be wrong to lift the skirts of this Motion too high at this particular moment. It is certainly in my mind that this Select Committee of, say, seven people, should contain more than one lady member.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, asked me whether it would be within the powers of the Select Committee to propose amendments to the long or short title of the Bill and it is certainly my understanding that this would be the case. I am afraid that I have forgotten what the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, asked me. I know it was a pregnant question.

LORD PARGITER

I asked whether or not, under the powers which the Committee would have even to present a different Bill to the House, the principle would necessarily be the same in the Bill that was put in its place in view of the decision that the House has already taken?

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I think the Select Committee has very great discretion in this particular matter, but I am quite certain that the members of it would obviously be guided by the decision in principle of your Lordships' House and would not wish to run counter to that decision.

BARONESS WHITE

My Lords, may I press the noble Earl a little on this, because it is surely of the greatest constitutional importance if the House has reached a decision on a matter of principle. Although in this particular case I think we are well justified in following the proposed procedure, one can envisage circumstances in which one might deliberately try to sidetrack the Bill and one might use the excuse of that procedure for getting rid of something one does not care for. I hope that we shall be fully assured that if the Select Committee is to deal with this matter that it should be at least bound by the general principle.

LORD ROBBINS

My Lords, may I put a question supplementary to that which has just been put by the noble Baroness? Is there any constitutional means of setting a term to the procedure of a Select Committee? Much has been said in the last ten minutes about the taking of full evidence. This seems to me to be a subject which we would liken to the devil and all his works which may proceed ad infinitum and that might be a way in which inadvertently the subject might be sidetracked.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I do not know why the noble Lord, who is usually of a very unsuspicious nature, is voicing these dark suspicions. I think the speed at which the Select Committee proceeds will necessarily be a matter for the Select Committee and will very largely be a result of the membership of that Select Committee. I think your Lordships will be able to exercise judgment if this Motion is approved and then on a subsequent occasion, as I have foreshadowed, speak to a Motion on the membership of the Select Committee when your Lordships will again be able to exercise your unfettered judgment, as I hope you will allow the Select Committee also to exercise its unfettered judgment. This applies also to the question which the noble Baroness, Lady White, has put to me. It would be wrong to fetter the Select Committee, although I am absolutely certain—and I am glad to repeat it—that they will pay full attention to the opinions expressed in your Lordships' House. As the Select Committee will be reporting back to your Lordships' House, it lies still within the power of your Lordships' House, if they feel the Select Committee has in any way departed from the views already expressed by your Lordships, to bring the matter forward from that stage.

My Lords, I have covered at least the majority of the matters about which I have been asked. A point was put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, and in reply to his question I should like to assure him that at the Select Committee of your Lordships' House any Lord within that House but not a member of the Committee—and I am now quoting Standing Order 62 of your Lordships' House—is not excluded from coming in and speaking, although he may not vote. I hope that that gives the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, the assurance he was seeking. Unless there are any other questions which your Lordships would like me to answer. I would ask you to agree to this Motion.

On Question, Motion agreed to.