Lords Sitting of 23 July 1974

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

BARONESS FALKENDER
Marcia Matilda Falkender, formerly Marcia Matilda, Mrs. Williams, C.B.E., having been created Baroness Falkender, of West Haddon in Northamptonshire, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Lord Shepherd and the Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe.
The Lord Fraser of North Cape—Took the Oath.

RATE SUPPORT GRANTS
2.46 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will seriously consider a return to the percentage grant system in place of the present rate support grant system having regard to the present unevenness in the incidence of rates.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, this is no doubt one of the issues which the Committee of Inquiry into local government finance will be studying.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I say that I am glad that this will be one of the matters which the Committee will be urgently considering. I appreciate what Her Majesty's Government were able to do yesterday in the short term, but it is a most pressing question for the long term as to how this very vexatious problem will be solved. I hope that the Committee will report at an early date and that it will give the matter its serious consideration. Undoubtedly education is taking the lion's
1552
share of local authority spending. If we reverted to the system which I suggested, more money could be given to that service.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, anyone who has had anything to do with local government finance must realise that the issues involved here are enormously complex, not to say incomprehensible to most people. There are no magic solutions. I sympathise with the impatience of ratepayers, but I do not think they would be satisfied if the Committee came up with ill-considered recommendations due to lack of time. It is much more important that the Committee should arrive at the right answers rather than attempt to achieve those answers too quickly.
LORD WADE: My Lords, is the noble Lord able to give us any indication as to when the Inquiry will be completed?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords. I understand they will be asked to report at latest by the end of 1975.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is really no need for such a long delay in settling this matter? Is he further aware that various organisations, political and professional, have put forward various schemes, and that it merely remains for the Government to make up their mind which of those schemes they suggest? If I may be helpful to my noble friend, may I ask him to look at the paper I placed before the Rating and Valuation Conference ten years ago, where he will find a complete and ideal solution to this problem.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I shall be glad to look at my noble friend's paper.

LIBERAL PARTY AND PARLIAMENTARY SALARIES
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follow:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they consider that in view of the support at the last General Election for the Liberal Party remuneration

1553
from the public purse should be granted to the Leader and Chief Whip of that Party in both Houses.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, I cannot speculate whether the leaders of the Liberal Party may become persons specified in the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1972.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord the Leader of the House for that speculative reply, and while accepting the difficulties of creating a precedent and the possibility, of course, of the Parliamentary Liberal Party being somewhat depleted at the next General Election, would the noble Lord the Leader of the House agree that when a Parliamentary Party comes close to forming and joining as a member a Coalition Government, and when that Party commands over 23 per cent.of the electorate's confidence, there is a case for proper recognition of that Party, particularly when so many of its better ideas are so often borrowed by successive Labour Governments?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have no intention of joining the speculation about a possible coalition between noble Lords opposite and the Liberal Party. The noble Earl will be aware that this Government made recommendations and are now in consultation with the Parties in opposition about financial assistance for the performance of Parliamentary duty. Those conversations are proceeding, and I suggest that we should leave it there.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, while I am most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for asking this Question—there is no collusion here—and while I fully appreciate that the noble Lord the Leader of the House himself would not wish to speculate, is there not something we can have by way of reclamation from the public purse?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I was not aware that the noble Lord needed reclamation; but if he does, no doubt some of his friends in another place will help him.
LORD CASTLE: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that on yesterday's showing on the Industrial Relations Bill such a use of public funds would be another means of subvention to the Tory Party?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I did notice a degree of coalition yesterday in the Division Lobbies, right or wrong, but that is a Parliamentary opportunity that is available to the Liberals and the Tories. But I do not think, if I may say so, that it arises out of the Question which is on the Order Paper.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that the Liberal Party is now officially recognised and that we cannot avoid that? And now that they are officially recognised, why not make honest women of them?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, there are certain things I can do and there are certain things I cannot do. In regard to that, I think I will leave the matter there.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that since 1920, when the Liberals had a coalition with the Tory Party, the lion has swallowed the lamb and the Liberals were in the wilderness for years, and that it will happen again if they do it this time?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, if they do they will have done it with a great deal of warning; but whether they will or not I do not know. Perhaps only events will show. My guess is that they will not have the opportunity, certainly in the next twelve months.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, would the noble Lord accept from Back-Benchers on this side of the House that we greatly appreciate his leadership of the House before he demits office in the ordinary course of events?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Earl is very kind, but I do not think this is an occasion for obituaries.

HOUSING POLICY CONTRAVENTION
2.55 p.m.
LORD MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that at least one Estate is deliberately contravening the Government's housing policy by

1555
destroying cheap rented accommodation in London, and whether they will sanction a loan so that the G.L.C. can immediately purchase properties providing such accommodation which are now being demolished or threatened; for example, in Christchurch Street and elsewhere in Chelsea.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I presume that the noble Lord has particularly in mind the redevelopment of the Christchurch Street/Tedworth Square area by Cadogan Estates. The Estates are acting in accordance with planning permissions granted to them in 1971 and 1972. The Secretary of State for the Environment has, however, now listed some of the properties, 26 to 52 and 60 to 76 Christchurch Street, as buildings of historic or architectural interest. No request for loan sanction for the purchase of these or other properties in Chelsea threatened with demolition has been received from the Greater London Council.
LORD MELCHETT: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. May I ask him whether he is aware how welcome the news that these buildings in Christchurch Street have been spot-listed will be, not only to everyone who cares about the environment and the architecture of London, but also, of course, to the people living in Christchurch Street? May I further ask him whether he is aware that as soon as the Cadogan Estates got news of the fact that somebody was trying to get these houses spot-listed they moved in a gang of demolition men—rumour has it "lump" labour—who immediately set about destroying the houses? I think I am right in saying that the reason why there is a gap in the numbers which are now being listed is because three of the houses have been demolished in the last few days. In fact, I wonder whether the Minister is aware that the demolition men were at work on two of the houses this morning, although it was known yesterday evening that the buildings would be spot-listed. Secondly, may I ask the Minister whether he will now take steps to urge the G.L.C. or the Kensington and Chelsea Council to take these houses into municipal ownership—if necessary by compulsory purchase—so that the homes of the people living there can be preserved, as well as the architecture?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I was aware that three houses had been demolished. I was not aware that men were still working on demolition of other houses this morning. I think I ought not to comment on a situation where, quite clearly, there may be legal problems. In regard to the latter suggestion of my noble friend, I will see to it that the attention of the Greater London Council and of the Chelsea Council, as well as that of my right honourable friend, is drawn to what he has had to say.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, can the Minister reassure the House that the utterly appalling steps being taken by this Estate Company will be stopped? I can confirm that the houses were being demolished this morning—I passed along—and it seems—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Question!
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that it is outrageous that a company can defy the desires of the inhabitants and also of the Government and the G.L.C. in this matter? Would not my noble friend agree that this company has been defying public opinion all this century?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, my noble friend who has just asked a supplementary question has placed certain information on the Record, as did my noble friend who spoke before him. Having regard to the situation that exists there, I would do well to refrain from commenting on an issue where legal proceedings may well be under consideration.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, if we do not in some way stop the progress of some of these planners who seem to build these "mega-highline" monstrosities, we shall destroy the possibilities open to some people who are not greedy to get full purses but who believe in life, living and a little art? Can he ensure that there are cheap places to rent for people who want to live in the Chelsea area?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, of course the Government want to see an increase in the number of accommodations to let at reasonable rentals. The Question, however, refers to particular properties. I would say to the House

1557
that I have been at some pains to ascertain exactly what has happened with regard to those who have been displaced. I will see that all the comments which have been made are drawn to my right honourable friend's attention.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, is it not true that there are practices of the same kind in connection with property which is rent controlled? Is it not a fact that there have been many cases where people have been encouraged, coerced or bullied to give up these properties which are rent controlled, in order that they may be bought by a company and turned into luxury flats?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, having regard to the inquiries that I have made and to the information that I have received about these properties, I have no intention of being drawn further.
LORD MELCHETT: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the great care which he has taken in looking into this thorny problem. May I ask whether he is aware that Mrs. Gladys Dimson, the chairwoman of the G.L.C. Housing Committee, has already said that she is carefully watching the situation with regard to the houses in Christchurch Street, and that if Kensington and Chelsea Council are not prepared to exercise their responsibilities in regard to these tenants she will ensure that the G.L.C. takes the appropriate steps?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I take note of what my noble friend has said. May I say further that I believe that the Greater London Council is well aware of the situation, and I think that it has played a very worthy part in getting the buildings I have mentioned listed.

POST OFFICE DELIVERIES
3.3 p.m.
BARONESS SEEAR: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the inefficiency and loss of time caused by the serious delays in the delivery of post; to what extent these delays are due to shortages of staff and what steps are
1558
being taken to reduce these shortages by the employment of women.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY (LORD BESWICK): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government share the Post Office's regret over recent delays in postal deliveries; these are primarily due to serious staff shortages in some areas averaging about 9 per cent.nationally and 14 per cent.in London. It is hoped that completion of current pay negotiations which Her Majesty's Government have authorised and the prospect of increased London weighting allowances will help alleviate the difficulties. I am also advised that the Post Office is seeking agreement with the Union of Post Office Workers on the recruitment of more women.
BARONESS SEEAR: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Can he give us information about the numbers of women at present employed in the categories in which there are shortages?
LORD BESWICK: No, my Lords, not without notice. I quoted a figure for a particular post office when a Question was asked a week or two ago, but I am afraid that I cannot give the noble Baroness a breakdown. However, I will certainly send her such information as I can obtain.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, can the noble Lord assure us that the arrangements to which he referred and the possible increases in staff will not result in further requests for an increase in postal charges?
LORD BESWICK: No. my Lords, I can give no such undertaking. The Post Office is of course working at a deficit, but I do not think that that is the Question which we are now discussing.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the under-payment of Post Office workers has been the cause of this very serious shortage, and that there is no hope of any improvement or of a reduction in the 80-hour week that many of them are working until something is done about it?
LORD BESWICK: Yes, my Lords. There is no doubt, as I said in my Answer to the original Question, that pay has been a problem here. I must say that

1559
I am a little surprised that the noble Baroness should appear to correlate female labour with shortages which follow from inadequately paid employment.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, is it not a fact that women have never been encouraged to go into the Post Office service, and that that is the reason why they are not there? Would it not be a good idea to tell women that all sorting jobs will be women's jobs, and that the driving of the small vans which do so many deliveries to-day could be done by women?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I have said that there are now discussions going on with the Union of Post Office Workers and it is hoped that, as a result of those discussions, there will be more women working. At the present time there are women workers, but it is not quite as simple as some people might suggest to employ labour and have only certain jobs available to them. The men, of course, are available for all work.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, though it is most pleasing to hear that the Post Office has been able to engage women into the service in such a manner as my noble friend has indicated, will he agree that the suggestion of my noble friend Lady Summerskill, that all sorting work should be assigned to female labour, would be the means of making trouble in the Post Office in regard to the engagement of women? Will my noble friend further agree that many people have the idea, when they see a postman on his beat, that he is engaged in a more or less menial task of labour, although I know, as one who was engaged within the Ministry covering this Department, of the many problems that face these men as they seek to carry out their duties?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, my noble friend has touched upon some of the difficulties of the situation. My own mail appears promptly every morning and, before it is delivered by a postman, he sorts it out. It is not easy to say that some people should do the sorting and others should do the delivering.
LORD TREVELYAN: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in some places
1560
there are no delays to deliveries of the post, but that there appear to be rather more deliveries and collections than are strictly necessary—at any rate, for the ordinary householder?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord. I think we should bear in mind when we criticise that each day 35 million different letters are collected from 100,000 different points, and that 92 per cent.of those that are first-class mail are delivered the next working day which is something of which we can be proud.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, can the noble Lord give the House any idea of how the Post Office is coping with the present backlog in the West One postal area?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I understand that that backlog is almost cleared up now.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, as I am the last one to advocate discrimination, is it not a fact—and this is why I make my suggestion—that in the past we have always been told that women were not strong enough to do postal work? That is why I am suggesting that they should do work which everybody agrees they are strong enough to undertake.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, to follow up what the noble Baroness has just said, may I ask whether the noble Lord realises that in the North of England we have for many years had postwomen, and that in the toughest conditions in the country they have carried out their work admirably?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I think it is common knowledge that in the North of England they grow huskier men and women.

BUSINESS
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich will, perhaps rather appropriately, be making a Statement on the equal status of women at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m.
WORKINGTON HARBOUR BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

THURROCK BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL
(formerly Thurrock District Council Bill)
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS BILL
3.10 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itelf into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair]
Clause 10 [Acts in contemplation or furtherance of trade disputes]:
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: This is effectively part of the previous Amendment. I beg to move Amendment No. 16.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 36, leave out subsection (3).—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE THE EARL OF GOWRIE moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 9, line 38, at end insert—
("( ) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any act done by a person if at the time of doing the act—

(a) he knows or has reasonable grounds for believing that another person has entered into a contract with a person whether or not that other person is a party to the trade dispute;

(b) his purpose or principal purpose in taking or threatening to take those steps is knowingly to induce that other person to break that contract or to prevent him from performing it; and

(c) that other person is an extraneous party in relation to the trade dispute.

( ) For the purposes of this section a person shall be regarded as an extraneous party in relation to the trade dispute if—
1562

(a) he is not a party to that dispute, and

(b) he has not, in contemplation or furtherance of that dispute, taken any action in material support of a party to it.

( ) A person shall not be regarded for the purposes of this section as a party to a trade dispute or as having taken action as mentioned in subsection ( )(b) of this section by reason only that he—

(a) is an associated employer in relation to an employer who is a party to the trade dispute, or

(b) is a member of an organisation of employers of which a party to the trade dispute is also a member, or

(c) has contributed to a fund which may be available to such a party by way of relief in respect of losses incurred or to be incurred in consequence of the dispute, where the fund was established, and his contribution to it was paid, without specific reference to that trade dispute, or

(d) supplies goods to, or provides services for, a party to the trade dispute in pursuance of a contract entered into before the trade dispute began, or is a party to such a contract under which he is or may be required to supply goods to, or provide services for, a party to the trade dispute.").

The noble Earl said: In moving this Amendment which deals with the question of immunity I wish to refer the Committee back briefly to the Second Reading debate. Noble Lords will remember that on that debate I cited a letter from Mr. Campbell Adamson in The Times of June 11.
LORD SHEPHERD: May I intervene? We are in some slight procedural difficulty. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor of course has had to move from the Woolsack, disrobe and then return to the Front Bench. I understand that the noble Earl had moved Amendment No. 16; it was consequential, and I did not intervene at that stage. The noble and learned Lord has advised me that it was an Amendment of some substance and had he been able to get to the Front Bench he would have wished to speak to it. We have passed the Amendment but we are in some difficulty and, since we have a degree of flexibility, I wonder whether the noble Earl would agree, with the concurrence of the Committee, to move the Amendment again formally. I can see the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition shaking his head.
LORD WINDLESHAM: If I may intervene, the Question has been put. Our Rules of Order are extremely flexible, but

1563
when a Question has been put and an Amendment has been accepted I really think that the right course of action is for the Committee to move on to the next Amendment. We are in Committee; but we have the Report stage, and if the Government feel that an error has been made it will be open to them then to put down an Amendment to reverse the effect of the previous Amendment. I think that to try to go back to an Amendment that has already been carried would be procedurally wrong.
LORD SHEPHERD: Before my noble and learned friend speaks—and I think he ought to be allowed to say a few words on this matter—if we are going to be faced with this difficulty, quite clearly when the Lord Chancellor is to take part we shall have to see that sufficient time is allowed before an Amendment is moved so that the noble and learned Lord is enabled to reach his place. I appreciate that, quite inadvertently, we are in difficulties, but I think the Committee ought to be appraised of the matter.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD ELWYN-JONES): I regret that the speed of motion back to the Front Bench was such as to make it impossible for me to intervene when Amendment No. 16 was moved. My understanding from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, last night was that in view of the passing by the Committee of Amendment No. 15 there was no intention to move Amendment No. 16. On the strength of that understanding I took a rather more leisurely course in returning to my place. However, Ordnung muss sein (if I may put it in the familiar language of insistence upon order) perhaps the matter can be rectified at the Report stage. I regret the misunderstanding which has arisen and it may well be that when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, returns he will confirm my recollection of what he said last night.
LORD BYERS: I do not wish to pursue this in any great detail, but it certainly was my recollection that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, said that if we could stop at the hour we selected it was not his intention to move Amendment No. 16, and indeed that we could start to-day on Amendment No. 17. That
1564
was my recollection and Hansard will bear it out.
LORD WINDLESHAM: This proves the desirability of allowing a reasonable period of time to elapse between the Committee stage and Report stage so that the two noble and learned Lords can get together. Only one of them is present at the moment. If there has been a misunderstanding, I am sure that my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone will be most anxious to take the proper course of action on Report, but I think that the Question having been put, we ought now to move on to Amendment No. 17.
LORD SHEPHERD: I must agree with the Leader of the Opposition that Amendment No. 17 has been called and it is before the Committee. I felt I ought to intervene so there should be no misunderstanding if we have to take this matter again on Report.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: If I may now go on with Amendment No. 17, I should like to say to the noble and learned Lord that I was not trying to call the fastest Amendment in the West on that occasion. I want to refer the Committee back to a letter by Mr. Campbell Adamson in The Times of June 11, which I cited on Second Reading. I want to cite Mr. Adamson not merely on account of his wide experience in this area but because it is, I think, generally known by your Lordships that he was one who acknowledged, or thought, that, as it had not been effective, the Industrial Relations Act of 1971 should be taken off the Statute Book. About the present Bill, however, he said, and I quote:
"If the Bill is passed as at present drafted unions, their officials and shop stewards, will be free in law to strike or indulge in other industrial action or to black, blockade or boycott, or threaten to do so, whenever they like, officially or unofficially, constitutionally or in breach of procedure, in respect of a trade dispute anywhere in Great Britain or in the rest of the world. It will be lawful to use the picket line for the purpose of establishing boycotts or blockades whether against an employer in dispute or against employers, companies, public corporations or any other bodies which have nothing to do with the dispute in question."
I also acknowledged at Second Reading that the repeal of the 1971 Act was an essential and basic platform to the Government's social contract with the labour organisations of this country. I

1565
have never been one to attack the social contract which I feel is simply another word for the voluntary policy that all Governments must seek in this sphere. The great labour organisations felt that the 1971 Act threatened their rights and they feel, as I can understand, that at the heart of their rights is the power to withdraw labour. In my opinion it did not threaten to do so, but that is neither here nor there; they felt that it did.
The present Bill is designed to soothe them and is an important part of the social contract. But I must point out to the Government that in many other ways it can be abrasive to others and we must make social contracts with all society. That is the point and pursuit of law. Here we are discussing not merely the right to withhold labour in a trade dispute in a particular industry or service, but how far the frontiers of that right should extend beyond any particular dispute. We want to see a position in which there will be some statutory limits to the immunity which people who engage in these disputes may enjoy. Our Amendment would limit the immunity of either of the parties or a single party taking industrial action in a trade dispute. We feel that this widening under the Bill of the area of immunity becomes all the more important now that society has become so dependent on certain crucial industries or services, and as I shall say in a very few minutes the Minister of State has acknowledged that as well. For example, we have seen recently how vital the power stations are to the life of the nation. During the miners' dispute in 1972 the oil-fired power stations were picketed though they were in no way involved in the miners' dispute.
This Amendment would help to set some limit to immunity from action of that kind. When one sees how dependent our nation is on services such as the power stations, one wonders whether the workers in future will follow this example and perhaps attempt to have their own dispute resolved in their favour by operating in a similar way on the jugular vein of our society. For example, might not ASLEF, in pursuit of a claim by the engine drivers, do this? I put it as a doubt that other unions or groups might seek to use the power stations lever. We believe then that some limits are needed because as
1566
Clause 10 now stands no limits of any kind are set upon the immunities available to those who are involved in action in pursuit or furtherance of an industrial dispute.
I think there is an illusion prevailing, if not inside Parliament certainly outside it, that this part of the Bill simply exists to restore us to the position as it was before 1971, that it is part of the declared and promised repeal of the 1971 Act. However, we feel that this is a very great widening of provisions and immunities from that time. There were times when changes in the law over this area were not of any very great concern. I recognise fully that the trades unions object to what they think of as legalistic procedures or legalistic tampering in their affairs. But we must acknowledge that those who conducted disputes in former times were very much part of the established trade union tradition and there was no great fear in this country of abuse of power.
We are now in an age when one recognises that some disputes may or could have a political character, and we are in a period in which people feel that this is not the best time for any Government to extend immunities and privileges of selected groups of people when engaged in trade disputes. It must be a fundamental feature of Clause 10 that the immunities which are extended are for people engaging in disputes, whether they are members of a trades union, or are trade unionists or are merely an ad hoc collection of people, who, in certain circumstances, might not be employees of any of the firms involved. The immunity of the 1906 Act was restricted to contracts of employment, but we feel now that a blanket immunity is being given to break contracts or to induce breaches of contracts of any commercial kind.
To return to this Amendment: perhaps to the surprise of the Committee, I should like to cite in favour of this argument another letter to The Times, this time from Professor Wedderburn who (I think it is widely known) was an influential voice in the framing of this Bill. He made it clear in a revealing paragraph which he put in italics halfway through his letter, that:
"The protection provided by the law should be restricted to those acting in furtherance or contemplation of their trade dispute."

1567
That is to say, not of trade disputes generally but of "their" trade dispute, the one in which they were involved. Our Amendment would achieve just that.
The honourable gentleman, the Minister of State, is another person on the other side from ourselves whom I should like to cite in this context. He said that:
"I come very close to one or two Opposition Members in agreeing that damage to the community can result from strikes or from blacking or secondary boycott in modern terms and that these can be of enormous consequence to the community."
He went on:
"It is evidently the case that modem technological development in services frequently puts a very small number of people in a position whereby their action or their refusal to act can do enormous damage to the capital equipment of the country and to important services on which many people depend."
Again, in accounting for why he was unable to accept an Amendment along these lines, he said:
"We want to think again. We want to think harder about it. We want to look forward to the Employment Protection Bill."
However, we feel that it would be wrong to pass the Bill entirely unamended in the hope, as my noble and learned friend argued yesterday, that a future Bill would clear up an anomalous or a doubtful situation. I therefore beg to move the Amendment. I wish to state that we have had some concern ourselves as to whether the exact wording of the Amendment as we have put it down on the Order Paper is totally consonant with the Amendment which we passed last night. If the House gives me leave, I may withdraw it at the end, after hearing what the noble and learned Lord has to say, and we can return to the question of getting it right on Report.
3.25 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is a transplant from the dying body of the Industrial Relations Act 1971. It derives from Section 98 of that Act which dealt with action commonly called blacking or secondary boycott, which has traditionally been regarded as a legitimate way for trade unions to bring pressure to bear on an employer with whom a trade union has been in dispute. It may be significant that the Donovan Commisison did not propose any restrictions on secondary boycotts, even though the Commis-
1568
sion recommended extending the protection for inducing breach of employment contracts to all contracts.
When we come to look at the Section 98 provisions, the position under the 1971 Act was this: in the Act, registered unions and their officials had immunity under Section 96 of the Act in respect of inducing breach of any contract, be it a contract of employment or a commercial contract. Section 98 was a slight inroad on that complete immunity that the 1971 Act gave to registered unions and their officials, but the Amendment which was moved last night by the Opposition and carried, denies to such unions and their officials that immunity, and we are faced for the time being—unless that Amendment is dealt with in another place—with a new situation. I am interested that the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie. is aware of the implications of that in terms of the language of this Amendment. So far as the Amendment is concerned, as it stands at present, its scope is much wider than that of Section 98 of the previous Act and in my submission it is much more dangerous, for unlike that section it refers to a contract with a person whether or not that other person is a party to the trade dispute so that it would seem that it could refer to any commercial contract and even to a contract of employment.
Whereas Section 98 required that one of the parties should be a party to the dispute which was being furthered, Amendment No. 17 contains no restriction of that kind, and it would appear to make actionable in tort all sympathetic industrial action. I wonder whether the noble Lord really intends this serious encroachment upon trade union activity and rights to be made. This Amendment is in a form in which the immunities provided by Clause 10 shall not apply in the circumstances that are described, and, as I said, Clause 10 after last night's Amendment leaves us in the position that there is no immunity for inducing a breach of a commercial contract or for interfering with its performance, or even for threatening to do so. It is clear that this Amendment, coupled with last night's successful Amendment, detracts from the ability of a person to take strike action even to the extent of inducing breaches of employment contracts, and this is indeed piling Pelion upon Ossa.

1569
I really must ask noble Lords opposite where they are going. From the Amendments which are being moved on the Conservative side it would seem that they are striking a wholly Bourbon attitude. They have learned nothing from the experience of trying to deal with industrial relations by legal sanctions and legal enforcement. The effort that was made to do so on the strength of the 1971 Act brought the law into industrial relations certainly in a big way. It was no doubt hoped that by doing so industrial relations problems would be solved and strikes, if not stopped, would at least be reduced in number. But what has happened during the years in which the Act has been in operation is that there have been a record number of days lost through industrial action. I am not saying that all of these were directly caused by the 1971 Act, but the provisions and working of that Act were in a large measure responsible for a general deterioration in our industrial relations over the past two years or so. More important, in my submission, it has been proved time and again that to make industrial action subject to legal processes only makes a bad situation worse.
The use of the 1971 Act elevated minor issues in modest companies and organisations into headline news. Substantial companies, responsible employers, fought shy of using the dangerous weapon that was being pressed into their hands. The outcome of such cases as were brought, generally speaking, was that instead of a quiet and amicable settlement which could have occurred were it not for the hardening of attitude in the full glare of publicity, the industrial difficulties were aggravated.
Time and again in these Amendments noble Lords opposite are showing that they have not learned their lessons from these experiences, and the future bodes ill indeed if they persist in this posture. We on the Government side take this position: their effort, their technique, failed disastrously. We ask by this Bill, and subsequent Bills that will be coming forward, to be given our opportunity to deal with the problem. I concede that certain risks are being taken; that certain additional freedom of action is being taken which may be exploited by some elements. This risk, however, is the risk that we have to take. We feel that it is
1570
imperative to cross this bitter divide that has divided a large part of the working population of our nation from the Government of the country. We believe that as part of our policy of conciliation in the face of confrontation, the kind of powers and authority which this Bill will give to trade unions is a reasonable price to pay for their offer and willingness to collaborate. I therefore hope that not only will this Amendment be withdrawn on merely technical grounds, but that noble Lords opposite will carefully review the course upon which they appear to be embarked.
3.34 p.m.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: May I support my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in his appeal to the Opposition not to press this Amendment. When talking about extraneous bodies, I believe the Opposition are thinking about the revolutionary parties which exist in this country and which have no more support from this side of the House than they have from the Opposition. The Amendment says that people belonging to extraneous bodies cannot interfere with respect to arranging strikes or assisting in strikes. These revolutionary parties do not go about the business in that manner. They make up their minds where they want to cause disruption; they do not go in as a party themselves. They have one of their members become a member of the trade union which is directly implicated in the action and he can take whatever action he likes in spite of anything one could put down in this long and tenuous legislation.
If you try to prevent strikes—and very often they are unofficial strikes—by legislation of this character, you will find that these revolutionary parties know the legal way to get round legislation. The trade unions themselves are now finding a practical way to prevent them from doing that. I ask noble Lords to have some faith in the trade union movement at the moment and the efforts they are making to overcome these difficulties. I am not going to speak at length but there are many arguments I could put forward. The main reason I am asking the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, to withdraw the Amendment is that if he does not do so he will not be able to put its effects into practice. If I may draw

1571
an analogy, having decided as an Opposition that you are going to drop the old Industrial Relations Act, do not try to graft a piece of diseased bark from the old Act on to the new one that is intended to do the very things that the Opposition want and will do if given the opportunity.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My noble friend said that he did not intend to press this Amendment, but there is one aspect I should like to put before the Committee. One effect of the clause would have been to extend the immunity to all contracts. I recognise that we passed on from that last night. There must, all the same, be some doubt in the minds of people as to how far it is right that there should be any extension at all of the immunities. One can say it is rare at the present time for contracts to be enforced where they are unlawfully frustrated by sympathetic strikes or inducements to strike. I doubt whether that would be a good reason to take away the right to enforce. That would be a fallacy. It is up to the person who enjoys the rights—and these are civil rights—to enforce or not enforce them. If they consider it is not likely to improve industrial relations or to be ineffectual it is likely they will not enforce them. To attempt to extend the immunities seems unnecessary.
The noble and learned Lord last night said that Clause 10, as it then was, put the matter in a clear and satisfactory position. We certainly would not regard it as it then was as a satisfactory position in practical terms. If it is not satisfactory I should have thought the legal clarity was not then a virtue. Safeguards for civil rights no doubt complicate the law, but to suppose that through simplifying the law by removing safeguards for rights you are doing something praiseworthy seems to be fallacious.
Many trade unionists regard these immunities as rights that they possess, as rights they ought to possess; but the immunities were granted simply because the pay and conditions of workers at that time left a great deal to be desired, and strikes, whether they were extensions of strikes or strikes in the first instance, were regarded to a large extent as justifiable because they were strikes in order
1572
to endeavour to relieve hardship. That may still be the case sometimes, but no one can pretend that it is the case always. Unless and until we can have an assurance that all the procedures envisaged in the procedural agreements have been gone through, and unless there is some provision for arbitration, trade unions are to be regarded as being judges in their own cause. For that reason, it would be dangerous to extend the immunities in any way whatsoever.
I hope that my noble friend—when he redrafts his clause, if he decides to do so—will bear this in mind, because I am quite certain that this is something which is felt very strongly in the country. It is all very well for people who are in a dispute because they have a grievance, or think they have a grievance—because they think there is an injustice being done to them which is contrary to their interests—to pursue that and to bring any pressure they can on to employers, but to carry that further is, I think, extremely dangerous.
I quite recognise that Clause 10 as it now is without the addition of this Amendment would make it possible for contracts of employment to be interfered with, but at any rate it would mean that one would not have a kind of "forest fire" effect—that is, having a dispute, a strike, and then immediately the trade union going to other employers, or employees of other employers, and seeking to extend that strike in breach of the contract of employment. That would have a much quicker effect, a kind of forest fire effect, which I should have thought wholly undesirable in the present circumstances.
Strikes nowadays can have the most immense effects. We sometimes talk of this being the age of the consumer, but the consumer's interests can be tremendously badly affected by a rapid spread of a strike. There does not seem to be any machinery at all for that to be taken into account. In those circumstances, the most we can do is to make certain that the immunities are not extended. I fully agree with what Lord Houghton said yesterday, that we have to work towards a situation in which there will be a form of arbitration and so avoid strikes, but in the meantime we certainly should not extend immunities in any way in this Bill.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: May I add one or two sentences as a complete non-expert in this field? I have listened to arguments put forward by those with experience such as the noble Lords, Lord Douglass of Cleveland and Lord Houghton, but, having listened to the debates on the 1971 Act and learned a certain amount from them, I feel when listening to this debate that noble Lords opposite are completely unrepentant about the 1971 Act. They have learned nothing; they still speak as if they believed in it. Unfortunately for them they did not win on this one. The truth is that until they realise what the dissolution of the 1971 Industrial Relations Act means we shall get very little further with the social contract or compact, or whatever it is called.
The words of wisdom spoken by people who know how the trade unions work show that it is no good speaking in terms of yesterday's arguments. To-day it is quite different. As we have seen in Northern Ireland, whatever line we take on what happened in Northern Ireland the Government have to accept it whatever their views were. We should take notice of the views of people who really know what happens in the trade unions.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: When listening to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, I confess that my feelings were a little hurt. I spent the first four or five minutes of my speech making our position on the 1971 Act quite clear and I had all kinds of glowing things to say about the social contract and how necessary it was.
I think there is not a great argument between us on this matter. My noble friend Lord Drumalbyn put his finger on the operative point when he spoke of the repeal of the 1971 Act, which I acknowledge was an essential part of the social contract, and said that it should not involve an extension of immunities which were not there before that Act. This was our objection. When the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor appealed to me asking whether I really intended serious encroachment of rights in what, in the jargon, is called the secondary and tertiary fields, I was not aware that rights of this kind were seriously encroached upon before the Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Douglass of Cleveland, said that we should not graft
1574
bits on to the new Bill. We have accepted the repeal of the 1971 Act and said that we will not reintroduce it, but, just as the Government have taken on board whole tracts of the 1971 Act as well as much of the Donovan spirit which inspired it, we feel it is not dishonouring that Act but furthering it if we try to amend this Bill into a form workable and acceptable in all areas of the community—indeed to the 12 million or 14 million workers who are not members of powerful organisations. Again, as my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn said, we are talking about civil rights and civil sanctions, not criminal ones.
I am quite unrependant about the spirit in which the Amendment was moved, and indeed about its provisions, but I am alert to the difficulties consequent on our carrying the previous Amendment. With that in mind and a desire to use the time between now and Report most carefully to examine the position, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STRABOLGI: For the purpose of hearing a Statement on equal status for women, I beg to move that the House be now resumed.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

EQUAL STATUS FOR WOMEN
3.48 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH): My Lords, may I now repeat the Statement made by the Home Secretary in another place:
"I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, make a Statement on the Government's proposals for securing equal status for women and give a brief outline of my proposals for a Sex Discrimination Bill. These will be set out at greater length in the White Paper which I intend to publish in a few weeks' time.
"The Bill will apply to employment, education, housing, the provision of goods, facilities and services to the public, and to advertising.
"Discrimination on grounds of sex or marriage will be made unlawful in

1575
employment, training and related areas. It will complement the Equal Pay Act. It will be comprehensive, subject to some limited exceptions: such as for employment in private households, and, at least initially, for small firms, as well as for a few carefully defined instances where sex is a genuine occupational qualification for a particular job. The Bill will apply to employment agencies and training organisations; employers' organisations, trade unions, professional associations, and bodies issuing licences connected with employment. Existing protective legislation, contained mainly in the Factories Act 1961 will be retained for the time being but will be kept under review.
"In the field of education, the Bill will lay a duty on educational authorities in both the public and private sectors to provide facilities for education to either sex of the like quality, in the like manner and on the like terms in and on which they are provided for members of the other sex. There will, however, be a saving for single-sex educational institutions. Complaints relating to the maintained sector of education will be dealt with in the first instance by the Education Ministers.
"The Bill will also make it unlawful to discriminate in the provision to the public of goods, services and facilities, the main exception being where such services and facilities are clearly designed for one sex.
"The Bill will not cover fields dealt with in separate codes of legislation, such as social security and pensions.
"Effective enforcement is essential. The Bill will provide individual civil remedies for the victim of unlawful discrimination and will make provision for dealing with general practices of discrimination. Employment complaints will be considered by industrial tribunals, which will also be dealing with related issues arising under the Equal Pay Act; other complaints will go to specially designated county courts in England and Wales and to the sheriff courts in Scotland. The number of women appointed to tribunals will be increased.
"The Government propose to set up a powerful Equal Opportunities Comm-
1576
ission with responsibility for enforcing the law in the public interest on behalf of the community as a whole. The Commission will be able to represent individuals in suitable and significant cases but its main role will be strategic: to identify and deal with discriminatory practices by industries, firms or institutions. It will be empowered to issue non-discrimination notices, which could if breached be enforced through the civil courts, as well as to follow up court and tribunal proceedings. It will also be able to conduct general inquiries and research, to advise Government, and to take action to educate and persuade public opinion. The Commission will have adequate powers to require the production of relevant information.
"Consultations will be undertaken with interested parties on the basis of this Statement and of the White Paper.
"These proposals go well beyond those put forward by the previous Government both as regards scope and enforcement. They are founded on the principles outlined in the Labour Party Green Paper. They take account of the findings of the two Select Committees which considered Private Members' Bills introduced into this House and another place, the practical experience of the operation of the race relations legislation in operating similar legislation, the recommendations of the Street Committee, and the views of many organisations and individuals.
"I have tried to avoid a number of the weaknesses which have been revealed in the enforcement provisions of the race relations legislation. Sex and race discrimination will be dealt with separately at this stage, but my ultimate aim is to harmonise, and possibly to amalgamate, the powers and procedures for dealing with both forms of discrimination."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.52 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, this is an unusual form of Statement. So far as we can tell, it is not attached to any event. It relates more to the intentions of the Government. Why is it being made now? Why is it being made in this form? We are told that there will be a

1577
White Paper. If the Government's proposals are ready, why is the White Paper not published?
My Lords, this is a subject which is well known to Members of this House. Very expensive proceedings took place on the Bill which was introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and a Select Committee of the House sat. We know that there are, indeed, considerable problems in this field—in education, for example, and in pensions. I understand from this Statement that it is likely that pensions will be left out completely. On education, there is a sentence in the Statement which we have just heard that facilities should be provided,
"for education to either sex of the like quality, in the like manner …"
with a
"…saving for single-sex educational institutions".
The whole problem is contained within that single sentence. There are problems, and they should be debated and discussed upon the Government's White Paper or upon the legislation which is forecast and which we are told is to be introduced. It is almost impossible to deal with it in the form of question and answer. It is regrettable that there are these references to the Labour Party's Green Paper and to the fact that this Statement goes considerably further than it was believed that the previous Government would have gone. I think that it is regrettable and therefore I make these comments. My Lords, I do not propose to pursue the subject at this moment. It is a subject which is important and it is one which we know is important, and we must discuss it when we see how realistically the Government will approach it when the White Paper is published.
BARONESS SEEAR: My Lords, I welcome the Statement. While recognising the point which has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, we have awaited this Statement for some considerable time and in so far as we know from the Statement what the Government now intend to do, it represents an advance upon what was proposed by the previous Government. I do not think that this is the time or the occasion to discuss the detail. I should like to echo what the noble Lord, Lord
1578
Windlesham, said in regretting that pensions are once again explicitly excluded. It may seem rather ungracious to pick on one particular point when a good deal is being offered for which we have pressed for so long. All that I should like to say at this point is that we should like to see the "colour of your money" as soon as possible in the form of a Bill.
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, may I begin by saying that I welcome what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said in welcoming the proposals which I have indicated that the Government will be introducing. If I may deal first with the points which have been made by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, this is one of the most important single issues with which the Government will be dealing in the next Session of Parliament; it will be the major piece of Home Office legislation. I am bound to say that it would seem to me to be a very extraordinary thing if the House were to rise and a White Paper were to be produced in the Recess. I suspect that then we might hear criticisms of a rather different character from the Opposition—that the House had not been informed before it adjourned of something as important as this. That is why my right honourable friend the Home Secretary considered that it was appropriate to tell Parliament as early as possible of the general broad scope of these proposals. And that is what he has done.
To deal with the specific points which have been made by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, pensions have been excluded. Both of my noble friends are wholly right in saying that. A number of matters have been dealt with. A number of questions of taxation policy have been excluded for the same reason, and these will be dealt with separately.
So far as education is concerned, this is a difficult point. No doubt that is why the last Government did not deal with it. We are devoting a substantial amount of our attention to it at the moment; but there is a very serious problem, as I am sure that the noble Baroness will confirm, about the substantial number of complaints which have been received about the unequal treatment of girls in the maintained sector of public education. That is why we are making these proposals.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, while on this occasion the intentions of the Government seem to be wholly honourable and, indeed, commendable, is not the effect of their Statement to-day an apology for not having the White Paper ready now? Will the noble Lord undertake that the White Paper will be printed, as he said, within a few weeks—and, I hope, a very few weeks? Will he undertake that it is published before the end of September?
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, the intention of the Government is to do just that.
LORD REIGATE: My Lords, will the Government's White Paper make it quite clear in what respects it differs from the Bill which was introduced into this House by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear?
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, I will certainly draw that request to the attention of my right honourable friend. I can give a guarantee that it will certainly deal with the differences between these proposals and our predecessors' proposals. I will see whether that particular point can be dealt with.
BARONESS SEEAR: My Lords, may I ask that the interval between the White Paper and the Bill should be the shortest possible interval? We do not need another period of discussion of this subject, following a While Paper. We can deal with a Bill without a White Paper.
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, as a result of the Statement which has been made to-day we shall begin a period of consultations which will be intensified after the publication of the White Paper. On this point I agree with the noble Lord that highly complex issues are involved and that a number of organisations will have to be consulted. The proposals which we are making go substantially further than any of the proposals which have hitherto been made by anybody. As a result of that, we shall have to discuss the matter and give people an opportunity to let us hear their views.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, are we to understand from the Statement that
1580
the intention of the Government is that the curriculum in schools for boys and girls should be exactly the same? Does the Minister realise that at present there are no mixed schools? There are only boys schools which girls attend. This seems to me to be very reactionary.
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, I do not think my right honourable friend the Home Secretary or, more important in this context, my right honourable friend the Education Secretary, have any designs on the curriculum. But my right honourable friend is certainly determined to deal with the problem on which the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, agreed with me a moment ago; that is, the very substantial volume of complaints about the unequal treatment of girls in the maintained section of education.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, while welcoming this Statement—which goes a lot further than any by the previous Government—I press the hope that the White Paper will not result in so long a period of consultation as to delay the Bill.
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, the Government's intention is to bring the proposals before Parliament as rapidly as possible after the publication of the White Paper, consistent with giving people an opportunity to express their opinions. We wish this Bill to be on the Statute Book by the end of next year so that it can take effect at the same time as the Equal Pay Act.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, is the noble Lord able to tell us how its contents were so accurately forecast in The Guardian this morning?
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, I cannot, I fear, assist the noble Lord in that respect. With his experience of Government, he will appreciate that it is always difficult to know how members of the Lobby discover these things.

FINANCE BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS BILL
4.2 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 [Immunity of trade unions and employers' associations to actions in tort]:
BARONESS SEEAR BARONESS SEEAR moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 9, line 41, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Baroness said: I am moving this Amendment partly for elucidation and partly because I wish to raise an issue which is a fundmental libertarian one, and which is, I believe, somewhat being lost sight of in discussing the detail of this Bill. This clause gives total immunity to actions in tort to a trade union. We have become accustomed to the idea of trade union immunity, and we are not stopping to reflect how fundamental is this privilege of immunity which is being conferred and which is surely to give a quite exceptional privilege.
We in this House and in another place have agreed in all discussions on this Bill that Parliament is sovereign; that trade unions are subject to the rule of law. I am sure it would be common ground between us all that privileges should be conferred on people only for limited and highly specific reasons, when there are undoubtedly grounds which can be made crystal clear for granting them. Yet here we have this total immunity of trade unions, save only in subsection (2) of this clause where there are slight limitations. I know it will be said that these immunities stretch right back to the days of 1906, but a great deal has changed since the days of 1906. I would remind your Lordships that even then the Whigs, who were highly partial to the trade unions and extremely knowledgeable about them, made the point that un-undoubtedly this put the trade unions in a privileged position—greater than the privilege conferred on any other entity in the community at that time.
It is accepted on all sides that this immunity is absolutely essential for protection in relation to trade disputes. But the reason for this is surely that without
1582
this immunity in trade disputes a trade union would be unable to fulfil its essential function of withdrawing labour, and therefore of being able to deal on equal terms with employers. That was the reason behind the immunity in relation to trade disputes. I am moving this Amendment because I want to know the Government's reasons for believing that there should be this total immunity outside the area of a trade dispute. What is the purpose of giving this highly privileged position to a trade union, apart from its legitimate function in relation to trade disputes?
We have discussed the question of trade union action in political strikes, or in strikes which are a challenge to the law. I have asked how limits can be put on this power, because while this blanket immunity is granted to trade unions no such limit appears possible. If we want to keep total immunity for the trade dispute, but at the same time not put the trade union in a position of privilege quite unlike that enjoyed by any other entity in our society except the Monarchy, then we do not need the first subsection of Clause 11. All the protection that the trade union needs in a trade dispute is contained in the following clauses. Why do we require this blanket immunity which stretches beyond what is necessary?
LORD HANKEY: May I ask, purely for information, why this clause says nothing about action in contemplation or in furtherance of a trade dispute? As the noble Baroness has said, this is really a very broad blanket and I should have expected to see those words included somewhere in the clause. I am deplorably ignorant on the legal niceties of this matter, and if I have asked a stupid question I ask to be excused.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment raises a question which, I admit, is an important one. The effect of the Amendment, as I understand it, would be to put trade unions—including special register bodies which are trade unions—and unincorporated employers' associations on the same basis as incorporated employers' associations, so far as Clause 11 immunity is concerned. The result would be that the immunity for all these organisations was limited to, and would apply only to, acts done in connection with industrial relations activities.

1583
Immunity on this scale has, of course, existed since the 1906 Act, which the Liberal Government of the time had the proud responsibility of bringing in to put right the notorious Taff Vale position. This has become part of the warp and Woof of trade union life ever since, and has almost acquired the quality of Holy Writ. I do not think its operation in the past has been conducive to industrial troubles or oppression of the citizen, and I venture to emphasise the importance of the restriction on the broad immunity, which is contained in subsection (2) of Clause 11. If I may say so that has been dismissed perhaps too lightly by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, as being only very slight.
But your Lordships will see that the immunity of trade unions under subsection (1)—I am reading from subsection (2):
"… shall not affect the liability of a trade union or employer's association to be sued in respect of the following, if not arising from an act done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute."
That is where we see the golden words, if that is the right way to describe them:
"(a) any negligence, nuisance or breach of duty (whether imposed on them by any rule of law or by or under any enactment) resulting in personal injury to any person; or
(b) without prejudice to paragraph (a) above, breach of any duty so imposed in connection with the ownership, occupation, possession, control or use of property (whether real or personal or, in Scotland, heritable or moveable)."
So far as the ordinary citizen who may be aflected by the actions of a trade union or an employers' association is concerned, there is that wide range of potential liability which is imposed by the subsection upon the trade unions and the other bodies concerned. In my submission, this substantially qualifies an immunity which I concede on the face of it looks an alarming immunity in extent. I have little doubt that in interpreting subsection (2) the courts will interpret it in accordance with its words, but will seek to use it to give to the citizen who may be affected the protection which it is the intention of subsection (2) to give. I hope that on the strength of that assurance the noble Baroness may feel more ready to accept the terms of the clause.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Before the noble Baroness replies, may I ask whether
1584
I am to understand that the clause really just reflects the position as it was before 1971? The noble and learned Lord nods his head in the affirmative, I think. Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to draw their attention to the recommendations of the Donovan Report. The Report says in paragraph 909:
"In all the circumstances we think it would be right and proper to confine the immunity of trade unions so that it applies as regards torts committed in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute but not as regards any other tort; and we so recommend."
I notice that my noble friends have not tabled an Amendment on this point, and I point this out to the Committee because it shows that we are anxious to maintain the position as it was before 1971, so far as possible, in this Bill. We do not think that it should go further in either direction at the present time—or perhaps I should say that I do not think so.
BARONESS SEEAR: I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his reply. I do not intend to press this Amendment to a Division, but I should like to ask for some further clarification. In the event of a strike which is not a strike in furtherance of a trade dispute but which is a strike to change the law in some regard, and the strike then is the cause of considerable loss to an organisation—as strikes of that kind always are—does the organisation which suffers loss then have an action against the trade union?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The protection which is given, is given in an action in furtherance of a trade dispute. That is the broad conspectus of the law upon this matter. If the injury or the damage complained of, as the clause indicates in subsection (1), arises from an act done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute, then the injured party cannot sue the union. However, in the event of the matter complained of being outside that ambit there would be a remedy. Perhaps I may be given permission to look at that point again between now and Report stage.
BARONESS SEEAR: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.18 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE THE EARL OF GOWRIE moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 10, line 8, leave out from ("following") to ("that") in line 9.
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 21, and with the leave of the Committee I should like to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 22 and 23. These Amendments relate to the exceptions to the immunities—exceptions dealt with under subsection (2). One of the torts that we are worried about, in respect of which there is not now to be immunity, is the tort of negligence. This means that if a union were to send one of its servants or agents on an errand, let us say in a car or a van owned by that union and it ran over somebody because the driver was negligent, the union would not only be liable but would be subject to the ordinary legal processes. We are sure that everybody, including most trade unions, would say that that is right and as it should be. But I suggest to the Committee that that is not so satisfactory. What difference should it make to the injured party whether the servant of the employers' association or the union was going to the bank to deposit money or was engaged on any humdrum daily affair or whether he was hurrying to the picket line in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute—that is to say, nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of the individual who has been knocked over and the employers of the person who has knocked him over?
The other Amendments go to a substantially different point, namely, to the scope of the exception. At the moment it is limited to torts of negligence. Why, we ask, should it be limited to that? What about trespass to the person? Supposing that a union official in the course of his duty assaults somebody or commits assault or battery, or even brings about false imprisonment, in the circumstances why should not the employer be responsible just as any other employer would be? We recognise that the extension of these immunities applies to employers as well. We want to know, why should either an employers' association or a trade union enjoy such immunities in the circumstances to which I am referring?
There is the other case, of defamation. If in the course of his employment and
1586
in circumstances in which his employer, whether it be an employers' association or a trade union, might be liable, someone says something about a third party which is defamatory, why on earth should not the employer be liable as every other employer would be? Why should the question of any furtherance or contemplation of a trade dispute be involved here? The person has been injured just as much as if he had been defamed in an altogether ordinary context. These Amendments would go a long way to bringing into the situation what we feel would be more order and common sense. For these reasons I hope the Government will accept them.
4.20 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am afraid I cannot commend these Amendments to the Committee in spite of the moderate way in which they have been moved. Clause 11 relates to the classic immunity of trade unions and employers' associations to actions in tort. I am not sure whether I made it clear enough in my answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who has left the Chamber for the moment, that the union cannot be sued in tort at all, even in a political strike situation. That was the effect of Section 4 of the 1906 Act, and, subject to Clause 11(2) which we are now discussing, it is repeated. But, of course, union officials can be sued, as we observed in earlier discussions.
The first Amendment which has been moved would enable trade unions and employers' associations to be sued in the circumstances of Clause 11(2), even if the acts were committed in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute. Indeed, that would go much further than the Donovan Commission recommended. It is true that Donovan recommended that immunity should be retained but confined to acts committed in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute. The principle established in 1906 following the Taff Vale case, that trade unions cannot be sued in tort, in the view of the Government must be maintained if unions are to function properly; and while it can be argued that Clause 11 as it stands is kinder to trade unions and employers' associations than Donovan recommended (though by reason of the contents of sub-section (2) I think it is far nearer to Donovan than has been suggested) this

1587
Amendment would make the clause much harsher than was recommended by Donovan. The second and third Amendments, particularly that part of the third which refers to damage to a person, would greatly restrict the immunity conferred by Clause 11. The restriction would be very considerable if the first Amendment was carried as well.
As to the points which arise, first of all as to trespass to the person or to property, which I think is identified in Amendment No. 22 for exclusion, actions for trespass to the person are rare. It is hardly conceivable that a trade union as such would commit a trespass to the person, which means hitting someone under the chin, a tort equivalent to the offence of assault and battery. It would be an unusual trade union that in the course of its business went in for action of that kind. I see nodding approval from distinguished noble Lords behind me who have some experience in the field—not. of course, of committing assault and battery, but of trade union activity. The likely trespasser would be an individual who might claim he was acting on behalf of the union, but as I submit, it seems highly unlikely that a union would have given an official authority to commit assault and battery, either expressed or implied, so as to be liable even apart from the clause. The individual himself in the given hypothetical situation I have instanced would be liable personally to an action and, indeed, to criminal proceedings, whether or not he acted in the circumstances of a trade dispute.
Actions for trespass to property are much more important, because they will arise. This is relevant to the situation for "sit-ins", if that is the right way of describing them, of occupation of factory premises. The Opposition Amendment would make trade unions liable for organising such action if it resulted in trespass to property. Whether taking such steps would be helpful in improving industrial relations is another and very different story.
With reference to defamation in the Amendment, one difficulty of interpretation in the pre-1971 law arose from the question whether a union was protected against an action for defamation otherwise than in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute. Apparently there were conflicting data on this subject. It
1588
is quite true that to a certain extent Clause 11(2) does perpetuate doubts, but it would probably be possible for a union to sue in libel, for example in a trade journal, if the act was done otherwise than in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute, since it could well be argued against the union that the libel would be in breach of subsection (2)(b), that is to say, in breach of a duty connected with the ownership or use of property. I should say that in any event any article in a union journal giving cause for a libel action would, generally speaking, be likely to arise in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute, and that is protection.
When we come to the reference to personal injury and the Amendment proposing to insert "death or damage" after "injury", there is really no need, if I may say so, to add "death". While death shall have no dominion, it is undoubtedly the final impairment of a person's physical or mental condition. I see the noble and learned Lord shakes his head. I may be embarking on a theological discussion, which is the last thing I want to do. But I would have thought that death would be a tragic contingency already covered by the words of the section. To include the word "damage" would open up a wide field of action against trade unions, especially in conjunction with the first Amendment which, as I have said, removes the conditions that make action under Clause 11(2) possible only in respect of acts not in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute. I am afraid it does return to the philosophy of the 1971 Act, a tendency which I commented on at the beginning of the debate to-day as a regrettable sign of regression on the part of the Conservative Party.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: The last charge has been made so many times, and I have tried to rebut it so many times—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry; I promise I shall not make it again.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: In that case, I shall not make my rebuttal again after this. But I must merely say that the Government have taken a great deal of the provision and a lot of the spirit of the 1971 Act on board, because it would be impossible to deal with this whole subject of industrial relations, and of the law in respect of industrial relations, without running into it, without running into

1589
Donovan, without running into In Place of Strife, and all the rest. Certainly a very enlightened and forward-looking Labour Government is rushing back to 1906 here. The 1971 Act wished to restrict the immunity, and it did so even-handedly because employers' associations were involved also. But I recognise that it is old ground and the noble and learned Lord has argued very persuasively. With this point in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE THE EARL OF GOWRIE moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 10, line 18, at end insert:
("(2A) In this section "trade union or employers' association" means any trade union or employers' association for the time being entered on the lists of trade unions or of employers' associations, as the case may be, maintained by the Register of Friendly Societies under Section 5 of this Act.")
The noble Earl said: I think it will now be entirely clear to the Committee that there is a clear difference between us on opposite sides of the House in connection with this Bill. Both sides accept that the Bill represents a major extension of the liberties, rights and immunities of trade unions, something which goes far beyond the mere repeal of the 1971 Act and the situation as it was before. We believe that these liberties, rights and immunities are very precious and that they should go to organisations that, in every sense of the word, qualify for them and justify receiving them. We believe that the Government ought not to accord a substantial extension of liberties, immunities and privileges lightly. They ought to make certain that those who receive them deserve them. What the Bill does, as now drafted—and our Amendment would correct this—is to draw what is, in our view, a quite inadequate distinction between properly organised and constructed trade unions on the one side and ad hoc groups, provisionals, if I may so term them, engaged in industrial disputes on the other. If we on this side accepted the Bill as it stands, we would not accept the lack of a proper distinction on this point. In this Amendment we are concerned with the danger here. We do not think it would happen very often, but we feel it could happen, and the law must be clear on the point. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The traditional immunity corresponding to Clause 11 of the Bill, which is based on Section 4 of the 1906 Act, was not confined to trade unions on the 1871 to 1971 Register, nor to trade unions certified as unions under the Trade Union Act, 1913. Similarly, there is no intention of restricing the Clause 11 immunity or any other immunity to organisations on the list. In the view of the Government, that would be to repeat the mistake of the Industrial Relations Act 1971, which made the Section 96 immunity dependent upon registration. We believe that making such a dependency a necessity in respect of the enjoyment of this immunity would be erroneous, and would result again in a re-opening of potential conflict in the industrial field.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: I must confess that I am a little surprised by the argument of the noble and learned Lord, because it seems to me that in putting down this Amendment we on this side of the House were in some degree trying to protect union officials where disputes were involved. We are always hearing, for instance, of shop stewards, responsible people, who, often in situations of great difficulty and tension, have to try to persuade their members that they ought to remain at work, and when dispute is reasonable they try to contain it, sometimes against the wishes of the members. I accept that altogether, and that is why I am surprised the Government have drafted the Bill in this way. I regret that they will not accept the Amendment, because if shop stewards are in the position of trying to keep industrial peace rather than promote it, it is important, it seems to me, that they should be protected from being outflanked by their extreme wings. I am sure noble Lords opposite will have in mind Lord Donovan's remarks, that there are in our society those who have a vested interest not in industrial peace but in industrial unrest.
Certainly the trade union movement is a major element in the economy and certainly a major element in the formulation of the Government's policy. Therefore, we feel that it is important to provide trade unions with as much authority as they need to protect their officers so far as possible against the incursions of the provisional or ad hoc elements of self-seeking people, irresponsible people or politically motivated

1591
people. We believe that the Amendment before us would strengthen the officers of trade unions in the conduct of their affairs, and we believe that it would be of great assistance in establishing more responsible trade unionism in the country. However, I accept that this ground has been gone over before, here and in another place, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
4.37 p.m.
BARONESS SEEAR BARONESS SEEAR moved Amendment No. 25:
After Clause 11 insert the following new clause:
'11A. Notwithstanding any provision in section 11 above, it shall be unlawful for any trade union or official of any trade union to induce or threaten to induce any person employed in organisations whose principle purpose is the supply of gas, water or electricity to withdraw his labour or engage in other industrial action in concert with others in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute unless at least two weeks prior written notice has been given to the employing organisation."
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment is moved in the hope, perhaps optimistically, that the Government will see fit to accept it. At least it cannot be laid at their door that it goes back to the 1971 Act. It does not even go back only to the 1906 Act. It goes right back to the spirit of 1876, and that must surely meet with the approval of a Government resistant to more recent legislation. This is an attempt to revive a law which was the law of the land for nearly 100 years, in the interests of the general public put at risk by a strike in a personal way. It is nothing to do with the rights of employers vis-á-vis a dispute. It has to do with the position of the ordinary public threatened by a strike which can involve considerable danger as well as hardship, in gas, electricity and water. If they are suddenly cut off, their absence can create chaos and hardship for people far removed in any way from the causes of the dispute. Of course, it is not suggested that this should involve an indefinite curtailment, but merely a notice of two weeks, on the one hand in order to ensure every possible opportunity to get a settlement of the dispute before strike action is taken, and on the other hand, if strike action
1592
is to arise, to give people, such as people on kidney machines, the opportunity to try to make some arrangement to meet the very real personal difficulties which inevitably arise with strikes in these industries. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do wish I could make concessions to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, because she argues her Amendments, if I may say so, so persuasively, but I regret that I must say, No, to this Amendment. Its effect would be to withdraw the legal immunities of trade unions or trade union officials inducing industrial action in the gas, water and electricity industries if two weeks' notice is not given. That, I understand, is the purport of the Amendment.
The first matter I would invite the Committee to consider is that while it is clear that the public generally, of course, suffers when gas, water or electricity are affected, in the supply to the community, it is unlikely that exposing trade unions to legal action in the circumstances would really help. I am afraid that the sombre lesson of 1971 is that that is the conclusion we must arrive at. In the vast majority of the cases where trade unions and their officials call industrial action in this field, notice is in practice given. Inadequate notice is most likely to be given in cases of unofficial action, but this new clause does not deal with unofficial action; it refers only to trade unions and trade union officials who, by and large, act responsibly, particularly in the field of the supply to the public of gas, water, and electricity.
Secondly, there is no irresistible logic in picking out gas, water and electricity. It may well be that the previous Administration recognised this when, in the 1971 Act, they repealed Section 4 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875. That Section, as my noble friend Lord Shepherd knows so well, as extended by the Electricity Supply Act 1919, made it a criminal offence for any person in the gas, water and electricity industries wilfully and maliciously to break a contract of service knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that the probable consequences of his so doing, whether alone or in combination with others, will be to deprive people either wholly or to a great extent of their gas, water and

1593
electricity. But, as the events of the last four years have shown so painfully and vividly, there are other areas of industry and services which are just as essential to the community at large as gas, electricity and water. I have in mind particularly sewerage, hospitals and coalmining.
The Committee should perhaps remember that Section 5 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875 is still on the Statute Book. This provides that where any person wilfully and maliciously breaks a contract of hiring, knowing or having reasonable cause to know that the probable consequences of his so doing will be to endanger human life, or cause serious bodily injury or expose valuable property to destruction or serious injury he commits an offence. That is still part of the law. It is true, and I would be misleading the Committee if I did not confess it, that there has not been a prosecution for an offence under that Section. Perhaps the moral of that situation is that it points again to the unsuitability of legal remedies in this difficult field. The community is also protected by the provisions in the Emergency Powers Acts of 1920 and 1964 in relation to emergencies which may arise and, where appropriate, emergency action can be taken by the various public authorities.
4.43 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: It would seem to my mind that the Amendment is tightly drawn and obviously it would be impractical, as my noble and learned friend has just said or implied, to make special cases—I use the term that has been in common use of late—of gas, water and electricity. As my noble and learned friend said, transport, coal and other matters are essential. Although it may be difficult for the Government to accept the Amendment, as it might not be consistent with the general trend and sentiments of the Bill itself, the sentiments expressed in it appeal very much to my mind. I wonder whether my noble and learned friend might have said that this was a matter that would come under review and receive full consideration when we come to deal with the second part of the package; namely, conciliation and arbitration.
If we are never to improve industrial relations and, what is even more important, bring an end to strikes so far as is
1594
practical—I am not optimistic enough to believe that we can make an end to strikes altogether—and create a civilised society where employers, workpeople and the community generally recognise that to suspend operations can create chaos, inconvenience, hardship and the like, then it seems to me that it is a very poor outlook. I may not have to experience it myself, but I fear for my grand-children and great-grandchildren—and I have a great many of them already. Therefore, I wonder whether my noble and learned friend will tell the Committee that the Government at least have this in mind when they refer to the prospect of conciliation and arbitration.
LORD HANKEY: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, in this matter, and I wish to urge the Government that it needs further consideration. When the 1971 Act was passed this was changed, and now that the 1971 Act is being abandoned we have to look back at it. If your Lordships look at paragraphs 830 to 847 of the Donovan Report, you will see a most careful and illuminating discussion of the whole aspect of Sections 4 and 5 of the 1875 Act. In the light of the events of last winter, I do not think that we are justified in thinking, as we did in 1971—and I was present at most of our debates—that there could never be a damaging strike in gas, electricity and water. If we ever learned anything to our cost, it was last winter. To ask that there should be a fortnight's notice in this matter is really the very minimum that can reasonably be asked for.
We had quite a strong recommendation from the Donovan Royal Commission that the law should not be altered, and we did alter it. I venture to think in retrospect, and taking account of the changes now being made in the law relating to trade unions and labour relations and immunities, that it would be unwise not to think about this a little further. In support of what the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, said, I should like to remind your Lordships of the reservations made by Mr. Andrew Shonfield to the Donovan Report. He pointed out that we have seen a lot of cases where very complex industrial operations involving a great many firms making components, raw materials and other parts have to co-operate together, and a strike

1595
in some of these can cause to the working lives of an enormous number of working people disruption which is quite out of relation to the number of people who may be involved in the strike. We saw this in the Girling brake dispute, and in the case of the men who drove the trucks away from the Leyland factories.
Gas, electricity and water are in rather a special category in this regard, because the whole industry of the country depends on them. Now that we will have our own gas coming from the North Sea, it is clear that it will be much more widely used; that many more enterprises will depend entirely on it. We ought to take their interests into account. I agree entirely with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that, of course, there are other categories of workers who perhaps ought to be considered. One remembers the sewerage workers from the year before last: one remembers the hospital nurses mentioned by Mr. Andrew Shon-field, and various other categories which I shall not enumerate now. But gas, water and electricity are fundamental. We were recommended not to do something by Donovan and it showed how wise that Report was. I press the Government to think further about the Amendment, which does not ask very much and is a wise one.
LORD GORE-BOOTH: Without the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, or the knowledge of the documents of the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, I express sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, said. There is a great deal of feeling among people generally—it was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Douglass of Cleveland—that somewhere in the legislation there should be provision for delay. We have a community that is apprehensive of these major intrusions into their lives. They recognise that the right to strike is there, but there is a feeling of disappointment that there is nothing in the Bill about delay, It is appropriate that the noble Baroness should have brought it to our attention and moved it in the form of an Amendment.
LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE: Perhaps I may intervene very shortly in this debate, because I think there is something that ought to be said. The noble and learned Lord the
1596
Lord Chancellor, with his usual gift for phrase, talked about the sombre lesson of 1971 in connection with the Amendment. On this Amendment I will not go into what the sombre lesson of 1971 was or was not, but I very much question the wisdom of introducing this category of thinking in relation to the Amendment. I wish to put on record why I think it was a mistake for the noble and learned Lord to do so.
As he said, the Amendment bears an obvious historical and family resemblance to Section 4 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875. As the noble and learned Lord rightly pointed out—though he did not give us much credit for it—what we did in the 1971 Act was to repeal that Section. Whatever the lesson of 1971 may or may not have been, it must therefore be that it cannot include the subject matter of the Amendment of the noble Baroness, because the one thing we did in 1971 which can have any bearing on it was to repeal the relevant section of the law.
I think it is extremely important that none of us, neither on this side by inadvertence, or on that side by inadvertence or design, should let it go forth that the real lesson of 1971 was that trade unions did not, in fact, obey the law. The fact is that they usually do obey the law. That is important to remember in connection with the Amendment. The truth is that for 100 years, give or take a year, the law was that you must not break your contract if you belonged to one of the listed industries. That relating to electricity was added later. But three out of the four listed industries related to this question of not breaking your contract, because of the general danger involved. I believe that for more than 100 years the fact was either that there were no strikes in those industries, or that the strikes were absolutely negligible.
I do not know which way tells on the Amendment, but for various reasons which I shall not go into because I am eager to keep yesterday's undertaking not to prolong the matter, in its present form the Amendment will not do. The fact is that there was on the Statute Book a Section saying that you must not do it and even though the sanction was criminal and it may be thought, I think wrcngly for some purposes, that you cannot enforce criminal sanctions against trade unions

1597
—I doubt the truth of that as a proposition—the trade unions concerned observed the law, although other trade unions who were not listed in the Act took the kind of action that would have been prohibited if they had been listed.
As the noble and learned Lord rightly said, I was doubtful about the repeal of that law. Perhaps it is disclosing matters which I should not disclose, but for the reason I have given I was doubtful about its repeal. As the noble and learned Lord rightly said, we kept Section 5 on the Statute Book. That Section says that if there is a danger to life it is still an offence. It may be that the noble and learned Lord is right in saying that Section 5 is a sufficient protection. That is the argument which prevailed and which led the Conservative Cabinet to repeal Section 4. But if it is right it runs counter to the general argument, and it is worth keeping Section 5 on the Statute Book precisely because the listed industries are likely to observe the law, and not because they are likely to break it. People are always abusing me for talking about law and order and its breakdown. I mean every word I say. But one must never forget that in making that kind of criticism of existing society the truth is that the British people like laws, they prefer the rule of law, and whether they are trade unionists or not they, on the whole, keep them.
4.56 p.m.
LORD FEATHER: May I add my voice to those who have addressed the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, to ask her to reflect on the industries to which reference is made in the new clause, gas, water and electricity. I have not the legal background of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, or the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, but the 1875 Act, which we call the "master and servant Act"—it was the same Act—contained a clause that laid it down that gas and water industries must give one week's notice of any strike. Many of us in the trade union movement held that that was dangerous because it was not a safeguard. We wanted much longer than a week to try to engage in negotiations to bring about an atmosphere in which there would be no strike. It seemed to us that the 1875 Act, so long as it stayed as it was with the one week provision in Section (4), was almost guaranteeing that any people who wanted
1598
to be difficult would say: "Let us give a week's notice. Nothing much will happen in a week; we will see to that," and the strike would take place.
I ask your Lordships to reflect on the industries, and on the unions which are associated with them in this clause. In the main, of course, the gas industry functions within the National Union of General and Municipal Workers. I do not think there has been a strike since the 1889 Beckton gas strike. At one time Beckton was in the constituency of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. So far as water is concerned, the National Union of Waterworks Employees have never had a strike in their history. They have now emerged with an equally responsible organisation, the National Union of General and Municipal Workers. So you have the National Union of General and Municipal Workers, which is not notable for its incidence of, or policy on, strikes. It is a highly responsible union; yet these two industries are selected among the others.
Electricity was under the able leadership of Sir Leslie Carron, who took over after a big difficulty in that union involving, as is known, some corruption in the way of ballot-rigging which the trade union movement dealt with. Now, under the leadership of Mr. Frank Chapple, who is a highly responsible individual, it is contributing towards, I would say, a relationship in industry which I hope will develop and will be more conciliatory and perhaps more open to arbitration than it was. But one of the functions of the conciliation and arbitration service which is to be established under the chairmanship of Mr. James Mortimer, who has some considerable experience in the trade union field and also on the management side of industry, will be not just to deal with stoppages or industrial disputes but to look at the procedure agreements that there are in industry, and in that way try to ensure that there are more procedures which do not lead to breakdown than procedures which are perhaps deficient in that respect.
Quite frankly, I should like the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, not to press this Amendment, because I think she is pushing at an open door, in respect of the procedures and the desire to make sure that there are no stoppages which involve either dangers to human life or dangers

1599
at any rate to the secure employment of other people. That is so as far as this list is concerned—gas, water and electricity—in relation to the unions and in relation to the relationship which exists in those industries. The list omits transport, which I should have thought could equally well have been included, but it will include sewage and virtually every industry you can mention which is a public service. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, will have another look at this and will perhaps withdraw this Amendment.
LORD HANKEY: Before the noble Baroness replies, might we ask the Government whether, in the light of this debate, they could give us any assurance such as the noble Lord, Lord Feather, has so wisely suggested?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I can certainly give the assurance that not only is the conciliation and advisory service, the importance of which in this and similar fields my noble friend Lord Feather has just emphasised, going to be set up at the next stage of the legislation in this field but that already administrative steps are being taken to activate it (if that is the right word) and to see that its conciliation and advisory services are available. We are confident that its assistance in this sort of field will be of crucial importance, and may well take on board the point that my noble friend Lord Shinwell was emphasising in his observations.
It is the case that the unions in this field—and the Amendment refers to the unions, and not to unofficial action—happen, as the noble Lord, Lord Feather, has said, to be highly responsible unions; and, if I may say so, I am particularly happy that he has said such favourable things about the Gas Workers' Union, which was born in my old constituency of West Ham, under the leadership of that distiguished trade unionist, Will Thorn, who was a friend of many of your Lordships. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness, having raised this matter and having highlighted the importance of what she said (with which I confess I am in full personal sympathy myself), will feel that in the circumstances, having had the difficulties of its
1600
restrictions pointed out, she need not press it to a Division.
BARONESS SEEAR: In answer to the comments that have been made, of course I fully accept, as the noble Lord, Lord Feather, said, that the unions concerned happen to have an extremely good record, although there have been some breaches in that record so far as the electricity industry is concerned in recent years. It could of course be argued that this has something to do with the 1875 Act; but I will not press that point, which has already been pressed very fully by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. The reason for picking on these three industries, as the noble Lord, Lord Feather, rather implied, has nothing whatever to do with the trade unions and their record which is a very good one, but with the quite specific fact that these are industries of very great importance to the general public, to people affected by a strike but who are in no way a party to or involved in the dispute.
I think it is the greatest pity that in this Trade Union Bill no recognition is given to the fact, which must Le crystal clear for all your Lordships to see and which is known to everybody, that the public is at risk in trade disputes to-day in a way in which, in previous generations, was not at all the case. In all the arguments we have had in your Lordships' Committee, the discussions have centred on the rights of trade unions or on the position of employers, and at no point, either in the discussions or in the Bill, is there any recognition of the fact that the public, the ordinary men and women in the street, are deeply involved in what goes on in relation to industrial relations. I must say that I would have wished that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor could have told us that there would be some reflection at Report stage of the points which have been raised on both sides of the Committee in discussing this Amendment; and I hope that he will give some thought still to this issue of the protection of the public, not parties to the dispute, in matters which are of the very greatest concern to them.
I take the point, of course, that there are other industries. I was tempted to add transport. Those of us who use public transport are only too well aware

1601
of the way in which people who are not parties to a dispute are deeply affected by a breakdown in industrial relations. In view of all that has been said, I do not propose to press this Amendment to a Division, but I very much hope that the Government will consider making some comment on it at Report stage.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am certainly willing to give thought to it and to make comment at Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 [Peaceful picketing]:
5.7 p.m.
LORD HANKEY moved LORD HANKEY moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 10, line 22, after ("trade dispute") insert ("in an industry or undertaking in which they work").
The noble Lord said: With the permission of your Lordships' Committee I will speak to Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 together. These are essentially probing Amendments, because I think we ought to discover what the policy of the Government is as regards the collection of people from many areas in order to make very large picketing displays. I would not have raised these points if in the course of the last two or three years we had not seen one or two rather flagrant cases. I recall the case of the people who came down in trucks to Shrewsbury and who broke up a building site, many of whom were afterwards before the courts. I recall also the affair at Scunthorpe, which began to attain considerable dimensions; and, there again, I think I am right in saying that coachloads of people came from Manchester or Liverpool—I do not quite know which.
I am also thinking of that very unpleasant affair in North London the other day, when a packet of people came together to hold a demonstration in a certain hall and another considerable packet of people was allowed to come together and try to hold a demonstration simultaneously in another part of the hall. The result was that they clashed and a student died. This sort of thing is not fair to the police.
LORD FEATHER: Is this a matter concerning industrial relations?
LORD HANKEY: I submit that this is a matter of how far the law on picketing is to be allowed to go.
LORD SHEPHERD: May I intervene? The case that the noble Lord is referring to had nothing whatsoever to do with an industrial dispute of any sort, and the noble Lord is surely aware of that.
LORD HANKEY: Very well; I will not mention the affair in North London any more. But the others were industrial disputes, and the question is how far we are going in allowing demonstrations in picketing. We live in troublous times and I do not think it fair on the police that the law of picketing should stand in such a way that pickets should be extended to the point where they constitute major demonstrations. I do not think that that ought to be allowed to happen, and I believe that, sooner or later, it will lead to disorder. I do not think that it is necessary for the operation of pickets, although I accept that there should be pickets. I should like to hear how the Government propose to handle this matter and how far they think that this should be allowed to go. I beg to move.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Lord has moved the Amendment with a speech that has no relevance to the Amendments on the Order Paper. The Amendments which are here would presumably restrict secondary picketing—picketing in an industry or an undertaking other than that in which the pickets work. That is the purpose of the noble Lord's Amendment, but what he has sought to do is to speak to clause stand part. The noble Lord has asked what is the position of Her Majesty's Government in regard to picketing. The Government took the view that the present Bill was not the place to change the existing law of picketing, and that any changes which were necessary should be dealt with in more leisurely fashion in the Employment Protection Bill.
The Amendment which the noble Lord has moved perhaps illustrates what may be behind his thinking. These Amendments would, in fact, put the whole trade union movement and the role of picketing back to the beginning of the century so far as peaceful picketing is concerned. The noble Lord referred to a number of episodes which are certainly, in my view,

1603
completely indefensible, but I think that reference has been made in the course of this Committee stage to the coal dispute in 1972, when there were difficulties Many lessons were learnt at that time by the unions, the police and other authorities, and, in 1974, as a consequence to those lessons, agreements were entered into by the National Union of Mine-workers and various authorities to ensure that there was peaceful picketing. Those agreements, if my memory is right, limited the number of pickets to six and even had the official pickets with armbands to note that they were official pickets.
One of the great risks in industrial disputes is that there are many—no, I must qualify that—there are some organisations which will seek to use such a dispute for their own advantage. Many of the problems which arise in picketing and in demonstrations are not the responsibility of the organisers of the picket or the demonstration put of the many people who go into those demonstrations for their own advantage and point of view. How one protects the right of demonstrators to demonstrate is something which is clearly worthy of consideration.
In another Amendment which the official Opposition may be moving after this Amendment, we might perhaps be able to deal with this matter more fully. However, I want to say to the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, that, so far as the Bill is concerned, we are retaining the position exactly as it has been for many years and as it was confirmed in the 1971 Act, with the extra provision which was in the 1971 Act in regard to picketing at a person's private home. So far as the Bill is concerned, the noble Lord can rest assured—or I hope that he will rest assured—that the Bill does not in any way change the position on peaceful picketing.
LORD HANKEY: I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for his observations and to say that there is very great resentment all up and down England at the fact that the miners picketed the electricity works last winter and prevented the electricity supply authorities from getting their own coal stocks. That is carrying picketing very far, and I think that the Government have a duty to protect the community against that kind of extension of a trade dispute. I
1604
hope that the noble Lord will not say that that is not relevant, because one effect of my probing Amendment would be to prevent that happening.
I shall not press these Amendments because I can reveal to the House that similar Amendments were put down by Lord Thorneycroft in 1971, some doubts were expressed about their effect and he did not move them. However, I thought at the time that they were extremely interesting and I am glad that we have had a discussion about this. Reverting also to the Donovan Report, which has been so much quoted in your Lordships' House and in this debate, I recall a sentence by Mr. Andrew Shonfield on page 289, which says:
"But there arc other obligations, notably those which express the duty of trade unions to conduct their industrial relations in such a way as not to hold back improvements in the standard of living of the community as a whole, which need to be spelt out."
I leave your Lordships with that thought and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.18 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE THE EARL OF GOWRIE moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 10, line 29, at end insert—
("(2) The Secretary of State may make regulations governing the manner and circumstances in which the rights of this section referred to may be exercised but nothing in the said regulations shall enlarge or in any way add to the said rights.
(3) Regulations under this section shall not come into force unless approved by resolutions of each House of Parliament.")
The noble Earl said: We now come to picketing. Donovan on picketing came to the conclusion that the law as it stood was broadly satisfactory. The Commission made a minority recommendation that picketing at home—and I think that the reference here is in paragraphs 876 and 877—should be excluded, although the majority of the Donovan Commission thought that such exclusion was unnecessary. We know that it was excluded in the 1971 Act and that exclusion has been carried forward in the present Bill. Both the major political Parties are in favour of going a little beyond Donovan's majority recommendation of that time.
Our Amendment goes even further beyond Donovan, and we do accept that that is so. The Secretary of State has himself given us the idea behind the Amendment

1605
because, on Second Reading in another place, he said that there would be a power to make regulations governing the manner and circumstances in which the right of picketing could be exercised, these being subject to Affirmative Resolution procedure. So the parentage of this Amendment lies firmly with the Secretary of State. He did not rest there, because he said that, in respect of the question of picketing, he had hoped to deal with it partly,
"… under new regulations or by a code to be introduced at the same time as we introduced the Bill, but that has not proved the best way of going about it."—[Official Report, (Commons), 7/5/74; col. 231.]
In other words, he had changed his mind. He went on to say that it was better to spell out the whole matter in the Bill rather than proceed by way of regulation.
So the Secretary of State says that, firstly he believes that to proceed by way of regulation is not possible and, secondly, that the whole thing ought to be spelt out in the Bill. He gave no reasons why he changed his mind from the carefully considered statement which he originally made on March 22. I do not think that he was making an "off the cuff" remark then; it was a considered and written statement. We have now reached the stage when it would seem that the Government had changed their mind and were not proposing any amendment to the Bill along these lines. For these reasons we are picking up the earlier, original suggestion by the Secretary of State, which we believe is sensible, that these matters should be covered by regulation, and our Amendment would give effect to this. I beg to move.
LORD SHEPHERD: Perhaps if I intervene here it may save a little time. We stand firmly behind the provisions in Clause 12 in regard to peaceful picketing. These are, in substance if not in entirety, the law as it has been for a number of years, except for the amendment made by the 1971 Act in regard to picketing at a person's home. Certain changes in the problems of picketing have arisen since Donovan arising from the increased use of motor transport. There was a body of opinion, in which my right honourable friend shared, that one should be able to seek ways and means by which peaceful picketing would allow for vehicles on the road at the entrance of a
1606
factory to be stopped in order that the pickets may explain the position to the particular lorry driver.
My right honourable friend I think has in mind doing this by regulation, primarily, I suspect, because of the difficulty of producing the right formula for the clause. I take the view that regulations are not in themselves a suitable vehicle for making law. Regulations are there to implement what is a view, a decision, of Parliament—giving the Secretary of State the authority to use regulations for the implementation of it. I think I can say that the view of the Government is, that if there is to be any change in this field—I repeat if there is to be any change—it should be done by legislation and that the right place for it would be the Bill we have mentioned on a number of occasions, the Employment Protection Bill, which Parliament would be able to consider in depth and have the opportunity to amend, whereas a regulation has either to be accepted or rejected.
So I would ask the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, to accept, as I believe he does, that Clause 12 is substantially, if not in entirety, that which was in the 1971 Act and that if there is to be any change it ought to be done by legislation which is open to the closest scrutiny by Parliament. I ask him to accept, from my point of view at least, that the use of regulations is not a suitable way of making a change of a major character in the field of industrial relations.
5.24 p.m.
LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE: I do not want to prolong this debate unnecessarily. I found the speech of the noble Lord the Leader of the House a little disappointing, and I was indeed slightly surprised that he should have so explicitly disavowed the attitude towards regulations taken by his right honourable friend. If it is wrong to change the law of picketing by reference to regulations it must have been wrong for his right honourable friend to say he had it in contemplation, whether he had it in contemplation with regard to the particular matter he mentioned or not. I also thought that the noble Lord was a little unkind to the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches on the previous Amendment.

1607
The fact is that this is a very difficult and crucial issue in industrial relations. The right to picket undoubtedly exists; the right to picket is difficult to police; that there must be some limit to it is, I think, universally admitted, and indeed is admitted by the fact of Clause 12. The law with regard to it has evolved over the years, sometimes as a result of quite unhappy episodes, and the need to formulate the rights of pickets is something to which we shall have to revert at some time or other in the near future. We refer again and again in these debates to the lessons of the past few years, and in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, the noble Lord the Leader of the House himself referred to them. I thought that he was perfectly right in the terms in which he did so, because undoubtedly the lessons of the events of, I think, the year before last rather than last year were that there were dangers about certain types of picketing. It was difficult to control; it is difficult for the union to control them; they were, if carried to extreme lengths, almost certain to lead to violence even if the original intention was peaceful, and it put the police in particular in an invidious position.
The noble Lord himself referred to the difficulty of identifying those who legitimately were picketing and distinguishing them by visual test from those who were not legitimately picketing. This is something that I would have thought could be dealt with by regulation and not by Act of Parliament. It would appear that advances have been made privately between larger unions, the police and the authorities of one sort or another. But of course we are not always dealing with the larger unions. We are dealing with all kinds of different people, and unless there be some kind of legal sanction behind the arrangements which are made it is precisely those who do not belong to the larger unions and who do not want to behave in a peaceful manner whom one is seeking by some means to isolate and control.
I am not myself persuaded that regulation is a wrong or improper way of doing this, especially if, as in the case of the present Amendment, the regulation is one of the variety which has to be approved by both Houses of Parliament by way of Affirmative Resolution. However, it would, I think, be perverse on our part
1608
if we were to force on the Government a power which they do not intend to use. The noble Lord, whatever else may have been defective in his speech, has been quite categorical that his right honourable friend would not now intend to use the weapon if it were placed in his hands. Therefore there can be no possibility of a sensible Division about this Amendment. I am a little disappointed about the reply we have had. but unless others wish to speak my noble friend beside me will no doubt wish to withdraw the Amendment at a suitable time.
LORD ROCHESTER: Before the Leader of the House replies or the noble Earl withdraws the Amendment, may I say on behalf of noble Lords on these Benches that we too share the view expressed both by the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, that picketing is indeed an important matter. We too should welcome any early opportunity that it may be possible to provide to discuss this particular aspect of industrial relations.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am quite aware of the questioning that is in many people's minds in the field of picketing. I expressed a personal view as to the method of regulation. That does not mean to say that it would be wrong. I accept that there is a need for this matter to be looked at fully and calmly, and I hope that the Employment Protection Bill, which this Government is obligated to introduce, will be a vehicle in which this can and ought to be considered. Then the matter of whether or not one uses regulations can be considered wholly calmly against the general background that arises from picketing.
One cannot help but feel that we have far too many industrial disputes in this country. If these is an industrial dispute there are bound to be pickets. There is one certainty; that is, that if pickets misbehave it is bound to be reported in the Press or shown on television. There are occasions—and I say this to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, because I think he will probably agree with me—when it is indeed remarkable how the television cameras somehow happen to be there when there are difficulties. How that arises I do not in any way wish to conjecture, but it is indeed remarkable,

1609
taking the few places where there are difficulties between pickets and those who wish to cross the line or otherwise, how the media somehow is able to be there.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: Our debate, though short, has been very clear and helpful, and in eager anticipation of a kind of festival of peaceful picketing on television, as suggested by the noble Lord Leader of the House, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Enforceability of collective agreements]:
LORD SHEPHERD: I beg to move Amendment No. 29. According to my brief the effect of this Amendment is to make Clause 15 subsection (3)(b) more easily read. I commend it to your Lordships' Committee.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 29, leave out from ("contract ") to end of line 37 and insert ("but a part of an agreement which by virtue of this paragraph is not a legally enforceable contract may be referred to for the purpose of interpreting a part of that agreement which is such a contract.")—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.34 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE THE EARL OF GOWRIE moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 11, line 38, leave out subsections (4) and (5).
The noble Earl said: I am glad to be able to move this Amendment because it is designed to avoid the risk of the collapse of current practices in regard to agreements and, therefore, by logical inference, an increase in the risk of worse industrial relations and more strikes. The Committee knows that the Industrial Relations Act 1971 required the assumption of legal enforceability unless otherwise agreed. I still believe that it is right in principle to expect this to be the standard, the norm, rather than the exception in industrial agreements. The law in other fields is not entirely consistent in ruling what constitutes a firm and legally binding undertaking between two parties, nor for instance at what point an agreement is understood to have taken place. In most circumstances, however,
1610
agreements are finally concluded and the parties are encouraged in their determination to keep to what they have agreed by the possibility, however remote, of legal sanctions. Legal sanctions are therefore a kind of useful underpinning to what are generally good practices. An attitude of mind bent on keeping rather than breaking agreements is surely healthy, and I have no doubt that on both sides of the House we should not dissent from that. Therefore, a law which says, in regard to industrial relations agreements, that they shall be assumed to be binding should, in my view, meet with the same general approval.
It was in response to that kind of logic and indeed in an attempt to meet the ideal for all legislation, to combine fairness with public approval and workability, that the Industrial Relations Act required this assumption of enforceability. However, I acknowledge that in this respect, as in others, the 1971 Act may have been ahead of its time—or possibly some people would say too idealistic.
We are not, as the Committee knows, attempting to reintroduce this Act, though at the same time we refuse to deny the principle of agreeability enshrined in it. It is a principle universally agreed that collective agreements should normally be binding. We now accept that we may have to move more slowly towards achieving this ideal. We recognise that there are sometimes advantages in negotiating if the legal enforceability clause is not automatically included. But we also recognise that what has resulted in practice is that virtually no collective agreements are at present being decided. That is a pity and the Amendment seeks to improve the situation. I beg to move.
5.37 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The effect of these Amendments is to nullify that part of Clause 15 which provides that any term in a collective agreement which prohibits or restricts the right of a worker to engage in industrial action shall not form part of any contract with a worker unless certain conditions are satisfied. By virtue of subsection (4) of Clause 15 it will not be possible for the terms of a collective agreement restricting strike or other industrial action—and in practice mainly the "no-strike clause" sometimes found

1611
in procedure agreements—to be incorporated into the individual contract of employment (and so become legally enforceable against the individual worker) unless the collective agreement specifically and in terms allows this.
The extent to which such terms of a collective agreement can become incorporated into an individual contract is a matter of dispute and difficulty and needs clarification which subsection (4) seeks to introduce. If workers are to be legally bound by the terms of a collective agreement negotiated by a union they should, I submit, be aware of that fact, and unions and employers should be clear what is being done when they negotiate the agreement. More specifically, it is right that if those making a collective agreement want to bind individual workers they should specifically agree to do so. If they do not, incorporation should not be possible. I emphasise that the provision does not prevent incorporation, nor does it prevent employers writing "no-strike" obligations into individual contracts even if there are no such obligations in the collective agreement. But in that case, the employee will be aware of the fact and will be made aware of the fact and will be free to disagree if he wants to.
The condition in subsection (4)(d) ensures that unions which are not independent cannot negotiate collective agreements which authorise the incorporation of "no-strike" clauses into individual contracts, and it is thought that it is right that individual workers should have special protection in those circumstances. As to subsection (5), which the Amendment proposes to leave out, this is necessary to override any provision to the contrary in any agreement, including a collective agreement or a contract with any worker. Without the provision of the subsection, subsection (4) could be rendered null and void, for example by a collective agreement itself.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: The noble and learned Lord underestimated a little the usefulness of prior negotiation in this area. It seems to us there is no better way of preventing disputes and reducing the risk of their taking place, than that agreements having been properly negotiated and at some length, should be kept. In the case of procedure agreements there should be no excuse for breaking them
1612
before they have been exhausted. I recognise that trade union leaders are as keen as anyone to observe procedure agreements, and their opposition to what we seek to amend is part of that same and rather sad blanket opposition to the 1971 Act to which I referred earlier. I could tell from the tone of the noble and learned Lord's voice that he was not over-anxious to accept the Amendment. In order to get on with the business I therefore beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clauses 16 and 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Effect of abolition of National Industrial Relations Court on pending proceedings and decisions given]:
5.42 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 15, line 34, after ("and") insert ("subject to subsection (10) below").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment and, with permission, speak to Amendment No. 32. The purpose of these Amendments is first to give a discretionary power to the Secretary of State to authorise the Commission on Industrial Relations to make a report on a question referred to it by the N.I.R.C. which would otherwise not be made because the reference is treated as withdrawn when the Act is passed; and secondly to permit the C.I.R. to include in that report information which was given to it while it was examining the question under the 1971 Act.
When the Bill was debated in another place a number of points were made about the winding up of the C.I.R. Since the 1971 Act was passed the Commission has derived its work from two sources. First, it has carried out at the request of the Secretary of State inquiries into longer term problems relating to procedural agreements and other industrial relations matters in particular firms or industries, or more generally. The Secretary of State for Employment undertook not to wind up the C.I.R. until the Conciliation and Arbitration Service was in a position to undertake these functions.
Secondly, the C.I.R. reports at the request of the N.I.R.C. on statutory questions chiefly about bargaining rights. The Bill provides that these references should

1613
lapse when it becomes law. Concern was expressed in another place lest this meant that valuable work was wasted. In practice this concern was limited to a reference about recognition of unions for the white collar staff of I.C.I, limited. Most of the other references from N.I.R.C. will in fact have been completed by the time the Bill is law. The remainder consist largely of cases on which work has hardly started, some of which are highly controversial.
The I.C.I. reference is in a unique position as a considerable amount of work has been done and the main parties concerned want to see the results. The Secretary of State undertook to consult the C.I.R. to see if they could produce a report for the parties based on the work already done (mainly a survey of the 36,000 staff involved) even if this could not be done before repeal. The C.I.R. have told the Secretary of State that they can do this, but in view of the terms of Clause 18(7)(b), it seems advisable to give the Secretary of State specific power to authorise them to do this.
The C.I.R. should therefore be able in the course of August to complete a report on the results of the survey so as to provide an up to date basis of fact from which the various parties concerned can continue their discussions and negotiation, if necessary with the help of the new Conciliation and Advisory Service when it is established. The provision is couched in general terms, but in fact I understand that the power is only likely to be exercised in this particular case. Accordingly, I commend these Amendments to your Lordships. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: This appears to be a tribute to the work of the C.I.R. and as such we welcome it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHEPHERD: I beg to move Amendment No. 32. Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 8, at end insert—
("(10) Where a reference or a request by the Court to the Commission on Industrial Relations is treated as withdrawn by virtue of subsection (7)(b), the Secretary of State may authorise the Commission to make a report of its findings and recommendations on that reference or request to those persons appearing to the Commission to be directly concerned, and to arrange for the report to be published in such manner as the Commission consider
1614
appropriate, and paragraph 43(1) of Schedule 3 to the 1971 Act (disclosure of information) shall not apply to that report).—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 19 to 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [Meaning of trade dispute]:
5.48 p.m.
LORD HANKEY: Moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 20, line 11, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: This is a probing Amendment. It is designed to find out what are the intentions of the Government in putting in Clause 26(3) in the Bill which says:
"There is a trade dispute for the purposes of this Act even though it relates to matters occurring outside Great Britain."
But can the Committee imagine any provisions which are more likely to multiply trade disputes inside our country? I am all for the trade unions being able to protect their members, but I find it extremely difficult to see why we should have a clause in this Bill which enables some body of people, probably not a trade union—I think trade unions are too responsible—to stage a dispute because of something which happens in Zambia, India or anywhere one can think of, such as the South Pole. One has to look at this in connection with the definition of a trade dispute in Clause 26(1). Your Lordships will see that a number of new provisions have been added, including matters of discipline, the membership or non-membership of a trade union on the part of a worker, facilities for officials of trade unions, and so on.
Would it be reasonable for a trade dispute to be manufactured because of something which happened in Greece, Chile, the Sudan or India? I ask this question because I find it difficult to believe this was the intention of the Government. I should like to know why they have put this in—and I think we are entitled to know. I have heard that it is because of the importance of international companies. If I.B.M. have a strike going on in America, would it be reasonable for them to be immobilised by a strike in some key components factory here on purely sympathetic grounds? I do not think it is. I do

1615
not think it is necessary for the protection of the interests of our workers. I am just as keen on that as anyone. I put down this Amendment to get an adequate explanation from the Government.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Sub-section (3) of Clause 26 provides that
"There is a trade dispute for the purposes of this Act even though it relates to matters occurring outside Great Britain,"
and the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, rightly wants to know why this provision is necessary.
The first justification for it is to be found in the great increase in the number and size of multi-national companies and enterprises in recent years. Multinational companies pose a legal problem in connection with industrial action because the occasions increase on which workers take action in support of workers in another country, very often workers employed by an enterprise integrally related economically with their own employer in Britain. It is felt that it is right that workers taking action in those circumstances should enjoy the legal protections which they would enjoy if they were taking action "in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute" within Britain itself.
I stress that what is coming to be known as "the golden formula", "in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute" still applies and with the exception of the Clause 11 immunity which we debated earlier, the immunities in the Bill hang on this golden formula, "in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute". It is unlikely, for example, that industrial action aimed at another country such as Chile or South Africa would be protected. Moreover, any foreign dispute would have to satisfy the description of a trade dispute in this country to attract the immunities. As I say—and I think it is important to say this as a reassurance to the House—the definition does not cover political disputes.
LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE: May I just say that I am not altogether reassured. But as this is only a probing Amendment, if I may with the permission of the Committee, I will reserve any comments I
1616
wish to make to discussion of a later Amendment.
LORD HANKEY: To facilitate our business, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment. I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for what he said. I hope that he is not being too optimistic, for I think that this matter will need to be watched in future.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.54 p.m.
LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 20, line 12, at end insert—
("so long as the person or persons whose actions in Great Britain are said to be in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute relating to matters occurring outside Great Britain are likely to be affected in respect of one or more of the matters specified in subsection (1) of this section by the outcome of that dispute.")
The noble and learned Lord said: It was this Amendment to which I referred a moment ago when I said that I would comment upon the speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hankey. First, why do we want to know what a trade dispute is? This whole clause, including this Amendment, is devoted to the definition of what a trade dispute is. Why do we want to know? One reason—I think it is the most important and at any rate I shall confine myself to it—is that the immunities which are given to persons acting "in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute" depend upon that definition, and the immunities are attracted, if they are, and they are not attracted if they are not.
"A trade dispute" includes a number of matters contained in subsection (1) of what is now Clause 26. It includes membership or non-membership of a trade union, disputes between workers and workers—that is something else—matters of discipline and so forth. By subsection (3), as we heard in relation to the last Amendment, they include trade disputes which take place outside Great Britain. That is new; it is not part of the Act of 1906. So far as I remember, it was not part of the Act of 1971 and so far as I know it has never been part of the law. So if there is a dispute which may be a

1617
dispute between workers and workers, or a dispute between workers and employers which relates to any of the matters in subsection (1) which takes place outside Great Britain, none the less anybody—I stress anybody, not simply a trade union official, not simply a member of a trade union affiliated to the T.U.C., but anybody—can do this and attract immunity if it is done "in contemplation or furtherance" of the dispute outside Britain.
What is the justification for that change in the law? The only justification put forward on Second Reading and, so far as I can judge, from the remarks made by the noble and learned Lord a moment or two ago in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, has been that we must guard against the activities of multi-national companies. That so far as it goes is something which I understand. Whether or not I wholly agree with it, it is something which this Amendment is intended, and which I think succeeds, to accept in toto.
If, for instance, a company had a branch in France and a branch in Scotland or England, or elsewhere in the United Kingdom—it will not apply to Northern Ireland for that is another consideration—sympathetic action may be legitimate. It may not only be legitimate, but may attract immunity if it is done "in contemplation or furtherance" of the dispute which takes place in France. That is because the companies are either associated companies or multi-national companies as the case may be. That, this Amendment is intended, and I think succeeds in its intention, to concede fully, but of course the law as the Government propose it, whether or not they are aware of it, extends very much further than that.
Let us assume for a moment—and I do not in the least know whether it is a possible case—that the mines in Chile are or become nationalised and the Government of Chile form what is called a house union to which workers must belong if they want to earn their living in the nationalised mines in Chile. I have no knowledge whether that either exists or could exist, but under an authoritarian régime of the Right that is the sort of thing that could happen. A miner in Chile, not unreasonably, says, "I don't want to belong to a house union". It is all very well for the noble
1618
and learned Lord with all his legal know-ledge to say that that is not a political dispute and has no political bearing and if he looks at the text of subsection (1) of Clause 26 he is fully justified in saying that if he swears by the card.
However, the difference between that kind of dispute and a dispute between the régime and the Left is one which is more theoretical and legalistic than real. If, in fact, a battle between the factions in Chile arose and a Chilean corporation had an office or a branch in this country—but more likely an office than a branch for this purpose—it would be quite legitimate for the workers in that branch to say, "We are going on strike, too". That would be perfectly all right. But I do not see why anybody—and I stress that I mean anybody and not the trade union officials of a responsible union—such as a group of workers should be able to take action in contemplation or furtherance of that dispute so as to ruin a third party in Britain, which could quite easily be done, and attract the immunity which is given for internal purposes by this Bill.
Let us suppose, for instance, that a company has a contract with a foreign company which is in dispute and will be sued for damages if it does not supply the goods which are comprised in the contract which it has—damages which, if what it does is to withhold supply altogether, might absolutely drive that company into liquidation, with unpredictable social consequences for the shareholders and their children, wives and widows and any trustees or any pension funds which might have invested their shares in that company. Let us suppose, further, that a Left Wing group of students then said, "We will do certain things in contemplation or furtherance of the Chilean dispute which will cause you to break your contract with the Chilean company". It is not self-evidently right that they should be allowed to do it, with its effects upon our own people.
That may be a matter of argument and it could be that people would take more views than one about it; these things are largely matters of opinion. However, what is beyond dispute is that it is wholly outside the philosophy which the noble and learned Lord has now twice used in this House to justify subsection (3) of the clause; it has nothing whatever to do

1619
with multi-national companies or companies which are associated with one another internationally; and it has nothing whatever to do with the rights or duties of trade unionists as such in this country.
I will not fling around any charges of bad faith about this, because I have no reason to do so, but my view, for what it is worth, is that if you think about what this really means in terms of actual practice, the law is far too widely stated in the Bill as it is. By this Amendment we have sought to take full account of the Government's philosophy of defence, and now that the point has been brought to their attention—and how near to a political strike these foreign disputes may come, according to the nature of the régime that may exist in hundreds of other countries; one has only to think of Cyprus, Uganda, the African countries, Chile, Spain and so on—we cannot help hoping that the Government will reconsider the view that they have taken.
Having regard to the fact that a trade dispute can include work disputes between workers and workers, may I refer the Committee to the extraordinarily wide definition of "worker" which is contained in the other definition clause of this Bill. It is the following clause, now numbered 27. It does not include only people who are actually in work; it includes people who work, or who normally work, or who seek to work
"(a) under a contract of employment; or
(b) under any other contract (whether express or implied, and, if express, whether oral or in writing) whereby he undertakes to do or perform personally any work or services for another party to the contract who is not a professional client of his; or
(c) in employment under or for the purposes of a government department (otherwise than as a member of the naval, military or air forces of the Crown or of any women's service administered by the Defence Council) in so far as any such employment does not fall within paragraph (a) or (b) above, otherwise than in police service ",
If, therefore, you have a student who is working or who seeks to work in the; summer vacation he can, I think, come within that definition.
May I suggest seriously to the Committee that we are not, in fact, discussing a light matter. The Government have deliberately chosen to introduce into this
1620
law, which we have now heard about almost ad nauseam and which was designed to get rid of what they described as the troubles consequent upon the Act of 1971, something which is absolutely new. They have justified it on a ground which is admittedly limited; namely, the desirability of allowing sympathetic action in the case of multinational or associated companies. In fact, of course, it goes much wider. I beg to move.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: May I ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, a question? On the face of it, it sounds very shocking. On the face of it, it sounded rather shocking to me when I first heard it, but let us consider what it really means. Does it not really mean the face of things to come? Does the noble and learned Lord, and do noble Lords in this Committee feel shocked when they hear of trade agreements, and not trade disputes, which have effects on workers in countries all over the world? There may be a trade agreement which affects workers in, let us say, developing countries. Does that shock noble Lords? I do not think that it does. It happens only in the case of a trade dispute. Trade unions are not allowed to show any sympathy to workers in other countries. In some cases, it may be that there will be bad results from this. All the same, I think that the time has come when we should not be so shocked about a clause like this. As I have said, if we looked at trade agreements and not at trade disputes we should find that there were countries which had restrictive practices which harmed us to a very great extent. Therefore, we should perhaps look at it in quite a fresh way.
LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE: I am not sure whether the noble Baroness began by saying that she wanted to ask the noble and learned Lord a question, and I was not quite sure at the end of it what the question was. However, I should like to answer the question if I can divine what the noble Baroness really means. The Government-have justified this unusual clause, which attracts immunities to all and sundry, by the solitary argument that it is necessary for international or multi-national companies, and all I am saying is that there can be no sort of relationship between that kind of justification and what the

1621
noble Baroness has just put to me. I quite agree that there are international repercussions by all sorts of agreements and all sorts of restrictive practices of one kind and another, and I do not think that I am shocked by one or the other. All I am saying is that to give a position above the law to a class of our own citizens in this country—not confined to trade unionists or trade union officials—which can have disastrous effects and will, in many cases, have disastrous effects upon others of our citizens, cannot be justified either on the grounds that the Government have sought to justify it, which I have allowed for in the Amendment, or, so far as I can see, on any other grounds at all.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I have listened with great interest, as everybody does, to the noble Lord, Lord Hailsham, having read carefully sub-section (3) of the clause which states:
"There is a trade dispute for the purposes of this Act even though it relates to matters occurring outside Great Britain".
The noble Lord then suggests that at the end of that we should insert,
"so long as the person or persons whose actions in Great Britain are said to be in contemplation or in furtherance of a trade dispute …"
Then the noble Lord piles Pelion on Ossa by going into a long ramification in semantics dealing with the possibilities abroad of there being trouble in Chile or Timbuktu. In passing, we are told that nothing like this appeared in 1906, which shows the massive imagination of the Tory Party rampant in this noble Chamber. They go back to 1906 and yet they are urging us to join the Common Market!
The international ramifications of the trade union movement are growing. My noble friend referred to the international Confederation of Free Trade Unions which have to deal with possibilities such as this all over the world. We are raising a number of fears. Aunt Sallies have been put up to knock down. All the noble Lord has done is to add a piece of redundant verbiage warning us what will happen if there are political problems. They are defined here. The Lord Chancellor—and both the noble Lords who have spoken from the Front Benches have attained that high Office—has spiked the definition by the words "trade disputes". We have a definition in Clause 26.
1622
Without tiring the Committee, whose perspicacity is known all over Britain, we have the definition of a trade dispute. Why add this to frighten people? Whether or not we like it, we have the free movement of workers under the Common Market. Businessmen in Italy, France, Lichtenstein or Luxembourg can contract for a local government contract here, or vice versa we can put contracts there. Our workers could be moving. Their conditions may not meet conditions which are necessary there, or the conditions of Italian or Greek workers may not meet our conditions. All this is safeguarded by the careful drafting and the careful definition of a trade dispute. I beg noble Lords not to support this Amendment. This debate has been good for the purpose of airing fears, but nothing else. My noble friend hit the nail straight on the head with her short and effective speech.
LORD GORE-BOOTH: I am not rampant regarding this argument, and you might expect, from my former professional position, that I should immediately jump down the throat of (his Bill. However, I recognise that there is a very real problem here that in the world as it is—and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, has said, even more in the world that is coming—there is a reality about the wish of trade unionists to respond to activities by their colleagues in other parts of the world. There may also be a similar desire by people who are not trade unionists.
With the greatest deference to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, I think this is not a very careful piece of drafting. It attempts to be careful but it produces one simple and rather crude proposition which will cover a great deal more ground than it is intended to do. If one was not born yesterday one must realise that this clause as drafted will be interpreted politically. I am trying to think of the situation as it will then look to the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary of the day. Whatever Government he belongs to, he should be using the facilities provided by the trade union network as well as those provided by his own servants. He should be the person who is best informed on a political situation anywhere. This kind of activity will have political results, and he should make his own judgment. I would not think it was right to feel that under this Bill he was

1623
having his hand almost artificially forced by action taken in anticipation of anything that he, or (in the spirit of earlier to-day) she might wish to do.
This draft paragraph ought to be considered in the light of this discussion. At the moment it is too crude and it is a little unrealistic. In default of anything else in the procedural situation I should at this stage prefer the Amendment, although it is not necessarily the best possible way of altering this clause. I am trying to think of the interests of Foreign and Commonwealth Secretaries of the future.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment evidently seeks to restrict the application of Clause 26(3) to multinational companies. But, in fact, it severely restricts the operation of the subsection and, in my submission, does not sufficiently take account of the nature of the multinational problem. The difficulty is the concept in the Amendment of a dispute abroad having an effect on a party to the dispute in this country. Many disputes abroad concerning a multinational company with a plant in Great Britain are unlikely to have any effect on the British plant. Industrial action by the British trade union in that situation—for example, in support of a dispute in another part of a multi-national company involving foreign workers whom the union thought were not being paid enough—would not be protected. The Amendment would deny the possibility of sympathetic strikes in the British part of a multinational company in support of the workers in the non-British part. The Government do not agree with that limitation. Indeed, it would destroy much of the object of Clause 26(3).
The thinking behind the subsection is—multinationals are not the only justification for it and your Lordships will have to take one view or the other about it—that if industrial action in sympathy with a dispute occurring inside this country is to be protected, and it is, similar protection should be available in case of sympathetic action in support of a dispute overseas. With the vast increases over the past decade in international trade and foreign travel, together with the development of international institutions, especially in the economic field, workers are
1624
much more aware of what is happening in other countries.
For instance, reference has been made to the existence of, and the work of, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, for which I have had the privilege of appearing once in a case in Libya. I remember it vividly for one incident that occurred. I was regarded as something of a security risk when I arrived there, and that apprehension was greatly increased because I had sent a message to my clerk asking when the murder trial in which I was due to take part was to take place. A cable was sent to me care of the British Embassy in Libya which read, "Cable received, murder fixed for Wednesday, Eric." That resulted in considerable anxiety for the security police of Libya, and the merciful and timely intervention of Her Britannic Majesty's diplomatic representative to get me out of trouble.
Activities of institutions of that kind are a pointer to the changing world and the interrelation of industrial activity as between the countries of Europe, and indeed the rest of the world. Sympathetic strikes, as such, have always been regarded as lawful and were generally so, also, under the Industrial Relations Act. In our view, there is no essential difference between sympathetic action in support of a dispute within this country, and similar action in support of a dispute overseas. But I stress, lest this be thought to be going excessively wide, that the golden formuli "in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute" still govern the situation. As the noble and learned Lord pointed out in his speech, they indeed cover all the immunities in the Bill except for the Clause 11 immunity. Therefore, I submit that the Amendment excessively restricts what ought to be accepted as action which the law should not prohibit, but to which some protection ought to be given.
LORD HANKEY: I think what the noble and learned Lord has said gives great ground for further concern in this matter. What we are suffering from in this country is the inability of our industry to get on with things. It is always subject to a dispute here or a dispute there. What is to prevent our dockers going on strike, one strike after another, because almost anywhere in this world there is

1625
some sort of dock strike going on—and why should it have to be a dock strike? If this clause stands as we have it in front of us now, our docks can go on strike about anything for an indefinite period and you and I have to pay for it, and our industry has to pay for it. I do not think that is right. In my view, this Amendment is the absolute minimum needed to put the account straight.
LORD ALPORT: If I may, I should like to say one thing before my noble and learned friend makes up his mind. It seems to me that there is a great distinction between the Amendment which is proposed by my noble and learned friend in this case, and the Amendments which we dealt with yesterday which were closely concerned with the rights of trade unionists and of individuals in their relationship with trade unions. The speech which the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, has made is an example to me of a lack of realism in the handling of the whole problem of the trade unions, so far as this country is concerned.
I do not think for one moment that if this Amendment were put into the Bill it would make the slightest difference to the decisions of the trade union leadership, or indeed of the rank and file, in the circumstances envisaged by my noble and learned friend. It seems to me that this is just the sort of provision which tends to render legislation in regard to industrial relations and trade union matters in general ineffective, because it cannot be, and is not, applied in practice. Therefore, I hope my noble and learned friend will withdraw this Amendment because my reading (which is probably wrong) of this subsection is that in fact the real purpose of it is perfectly clear and it fulfils what we want to make certain; namely, that where there is a sympathetic strike in relation to an event overseas it is connected with a trade dispute and not a political dispute.
LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE: If I may just deal with the various speeches which have been made, I am afraid I did not understand, from beginning to end, the drift of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek. He spoke vaguely about the ramifications of redundant verbiage. Whether this was designed as a description of his own rather florid type of
1626
oratory, I do not know, but I both deny and resent the suggestion that I was indulging simply in semantics. I was particularly careful to set out the purpose of the Amendment and the mischief which it was designed to meet.
What I cannot help stressing—and I think this disposes of the point made by my noble friend Lord Alport a moment ago—is this. What this Bill licenses is the ruination of people in this country by sympathetic action in relation to disputes which have arisen outside it, making them break their contracts, or having the contracts to which they are parties broken to their disadvantage by other people. It can lead to bankruptcy, it can lead to liquidation, and the question which we are discussing is whether that ought to be done in contemplation or furtherance of a dispute which takes place outside this country, and in what circumstances.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Will my noble friend forgive me—
LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE: Not at the moment, but I will shortly. What we have to direct our minds to is this. The Amendment says, "Yes, by all means let there be sympathetic action by anybody who can be directly or indirectly personally affected". But simply the desire to do good to some party to a dispute outside this country ought not to attract immunities entitling them to destroy without compensation people who live inside this country. That is the point at which the Amendment is directed. It has nothing whatever to do with semantics, and anybody who thinks that it is just a dry as dust lawyer talking about some legal technicality is, to say the least, wholly at sea. Before I give way to my noble friend I contrast the Amendment which says that, with the effect of the Bill which says, "Yes, in any circumstances at all ruin somebody in this country, make him bankrupt because—
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: Absolute rubbish!
LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE: —because he is not allowed to keep his contract, or because other people are not allowed to keep their contracts with him. Allow it in all circumstances, provided only that the

1627
foreign quarrel can be classified as a trade dispute." That is the point to which the Committee has to direct its attention. I will now give way, not to the noble Lord who speaks from a sedentary position in offensive language which he so often uses, but to my noble friend.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: Will the noble and learned Lord give way?
LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE: No, I will not. I am giving way to my noble friend.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: Absolutely disgusting! Rubbish!
LORD DRUMALBYN: I was going to suggest to my noble and learned friend, and also to the noble Lord opposite, that the words used here, "a trade dispute for the purposes of this Act", relate to matters occurring outside and not to trade disputes only. The words go much wider than just trade disputes.
LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE: My noble friend is of course perfectly right. But I was directing my mind to the limitation which does exist, and to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor rightly drew attention, that although the act relates to matters occurring outside this country—and I accept my noble friend's correction, which was well justified—it must still none the less be done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute in order to attract the immunities to which I was objecting. So I think we have it right now. Having said that quite plainly, I cannot seek leave to withdraw this Amendment. On the contrary, I shall invite noble Lords who are persuaded by my arguments to proceed to a Division.
6.30 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: Somebody must lower the temperature and nobody but myself could undertake that. I must say that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, this afternoon is not at his brilliant best. Yesterday he was fascinating, with that scintillating oratory and wealth of legal argument, 75 per cent. of which noble Lords did not understand—and as for the rest, it really did not matter. Let us examine the arguments of the noble and learned Lord. Of course, I
1628
must say at once that I agree, and I am sure all the Members of your Lordships' House would agree, that it would be regrettable, if as a result of a dispute which occurs in some foreign country, trade unionists in this country enter the lists and engage in the conflict, as a result of which a firm which has entered into a contract with a firm in another country, or with part of a firm in another country, is driven out of business without any prospect of compensation. I am bound to say it seems to be a hypothetical case.
But I go further than that. May I furnish an illustration; I have had little time to think about it, so it may be I am wrong. I am open to correction. Let us suppose there is a firm in South Africa engaged in industrial operations, and there is a branch of that firm in the United Kingdom. In South Africa, for some reason the firm decides to reduce the rates of pay of the workers in its employ, and those who were employed in a United Kingdom branch of the South African firm resent the action, for obvious reasons, because if their fellow workers in South Africa are forced to accept lower rates of pay, it may have a deleterious effect on the rates of pay of those in the United Kingdom. So the conflict begins. Would the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, regard that as detrimental to our national interest?
LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE: If the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, would only read the Amendment, or listen to my speech, he would discover that the Amendment was precisely designed to cover that case in favour of the sympathetic strike.
LORD SHINWELL: I listened intently to the speech of the noble and learned Lord. However, I may have failed to understand him, and that is my misfortune. But it seems to me that the noble and learned Lord is likely to be impaled on both horns of a dilemma, in that he is creating a fantasy. I can understand it. The noble and learned Lord is worried about the prospects of the Labour Party at the next Election. So are we all. It depends on one's point of view. If the noble and learned Lord delves deeply into the mistakes of the Labour Party in the presentation of this piece of legislation, all the better.

1629
In the course of the debates we have had yesterday and this afternoon, the spectre of the Act of 1971 has been resurrected. The only difference is that it is now wearing different garments. I suggest that that is not going to accrue to the advantage of the Opposition. There were Amendments moved yesterday which may well have been justified, and which were carried with enthusiasm, almost with acclamation, by the Opposition. It did not worry me a bit. In the course of a very short observation yesterday, I said that I did not mind a bit if we were defeated. Indeed, the more we are defeated in this House, the happier we shall be. I am satisfied that as a result of the defeats we suffered yesterday, there will be a more militant atmosphere in the trade union movement.
We have been endeavouring to create an atmosphere of moderation. I support that enthusiastically because I am under no illusion. I shall say something now which may be regarded as unpleasant by many of my noble friends, particularly those associated with the trade union movement, but I dislike intensely some of the activities of my trade union friends. Sometimes we are exposed to a militancy which has no justification, which is sometimes inspired by Communist elements, and which sometimes is the result of other sentiments. If I had my way, I would invoke the aid of the law in order to deal with a situation of that kind. I have said this outside this House; I have written about it and, indeed, I have said it in an epilogue in a book I ventured to have published some time ago. I reject the idea that we must never invoke legal action in relation to our industrial affairs. We may go a little too far. In the Act of 1971, the previous Government went too far. The result exceeded their
expectations, and they have now resiled. I think that is a Scottish expression.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, much as I echo many of his sentiments, he is making a Second Reading speech and is not attending to the immediate Amendment.
LORD SHINWELL: The noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, is quite right. I would not dare to correct her. I confess that I was indulging, in the latter part of my observations, in what might be regarded as a repetition of a Second Reading speech which has been delivered on a previous occasion, but it ought to be said. I am trying to say, and I have said it more than once in this House, that I prefer consensus to confrontation. But we must accept the realities of the situation, and if that is a Second Reading observation, I withdraw it at once. It does not worry me in the least if we suffered four defeats yesterday, and it will not worry the Labour Party. It may create more militancy.
This Amendment is an exposition, an exhibition, and an example of the fantasies from which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, occasionally suffers. That such a brilliant genius should suffer from fantasies is a great disappointment. The only way in which he can apologise for his misdemeanours, his almost uncivilised behaviour, which is quite contrary to his innermost sentiments but which I fully understand and applaud, is to withdraw his Amendment like a man.
6.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 34) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 98; Not-Contents, 69.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Cathcart, E.

Deramore, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Chelwood, L.

Derwent, L.

Atholl, D.

Clinton, L.

Digby, L.

Auckland, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Balerno, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Eccles, V.

Belstead, L.

Cowley, E.

Elles, B.

Berkeley, B.

Crathorne, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Ferrers, E.

Boyle of Handsworth, L.

Davcntry, V.

Ferrier, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Davidson, V.

Fortescue, E.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

de Clifford, L.

Gage, V.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

De L'Isle, V.

Gainford, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Glasgow, E.

Gore-Booth, L.

Lyell, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Goschen, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller]

Gowrie, E.

Margadale, L.

Salisbury, M.

Grenfell, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Sandys, L.

Gridley, L.

Mersey, V.

Sempill, Ly.

Hailes, L.

Middleton, L.

Sharples, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Milverton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Monck, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Halsbury, E.

Mountevans, L.

Hankey, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Tenby, V.

Hanworth, V.

Newall, L.

Teviot. L.

Hawke, L.

Northchurch, B.

Thomas, L.

Hereford, V.

Oakshott, L.

Tranmire, L.

Hood, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, B.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Pender, L.

Vivian, L.

Killearn, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Redecliffe-Maud, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Reigate, L.

Windlesham, L

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Robbins, L.

Wolverton, L.

Long, V.

Rothermere, V.

Young, B.

Luke, L.

NOT CONTENTS

Alport, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Platt, L.

Arwyn, L.

Gardiner, L.

Raglan, L.

Bacon, B.

Garnsworthy, L.

Rhodes, L.

Bernstein, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Rochester, L.

Beswick, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Sainsbury, I..

Birk, B.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Segal, L.

Blyton, L.

Hall, V.

Shackleton, L.

Bowden, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Brockway, L.

Henderson, L.

Shinwell, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Henley, L.

Simon, V.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Hirshfield, L.

Slater, L.

Castle, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Snow, L.

Champion, L.

Hoy, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Collison, L.

Leatherland, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller]

Crook, L

Lee of Asheridge, B.

Summerskill, B.

Darling, L,

Lee of Newton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Llewelyn-Davis of Hastoe, B. [Teller]

Wade, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Wigoder, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Willis, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Maelor, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Feather, L.

Melchett, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Fiske, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Wynne-Jones, L,

Fulton, L.

Pannell, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.48 p.m.
LORD HANKEY LORD HANKEY moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 20, line 17, leave out subsection (5)
The noble Lord said: I put down an Amendment on this subsection also because I cannot understand its object. I hope that the Government will explain it with real clarity. As I understand this subsection, its effect is that there could be a request for an increase of wages or an improvement of conditions in some firm or other, and that request might be acceded to, but notwithstanding that there has apparently been action in contemplation of a trade dispute. This, as I understand it, can trigger off action in
1632
any other industry nearly anywhere, under the provisions of the Bill.
I hope I am wrong, but if what I have said is right, then I would think that this subsection is a passport to read trouble. Even if we settle disputes, even if management is as co-operative as they ought to be, even if the trade unions are as reasonable as I think they ought to be and reach agreement with the employers, nevertheless somebody who wants to make trouble seems to me to be able to claim the protection of this subsection in making trouble somewhere else even after the event. I hope I am wrong. I should like to request the noble and learned Lord to explain why this subsection is necessary, why it does not run into the difficulty I have mentioned and exactly what its effect is. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Subsection (5) is intended as a clarification of the law concerning the definition of "trade dispute" and is to deal with the situation where one party (for example, an employer) accedes wholly or in part to any demand or threat made by another party (for example a union)—which if resisted would, have led to a "trade dispute"—and thereby no dispute or indifference arises. The T.U.C. were concerned about the Court of Appeal's decision in the Cory Lighterage case which arose when Mr. Shute was sent home on full pay by the Cory Lighterage Company after deliberately allowing his contributions to his union to lapse and making this known to his fellow workers. The alternative to sending him home would have been a strike of lightermen in London which would have quickly paralysed the port.
In that case, the Court of Appeal found that, contrary to the submissions of the union, there was no industrial dispute. They argued that Cory's had completely acquiesced in the closed shop and there was only a dispute with the employer when legal proceedings were embarked upon. This completely removed any protection given by the Industrial Relations Act 1971 to the union and its authorised officials, despite the fact that the dispute was one with important industrial relations implications. It is felt that that resultant situation was unsatisfactory, so the clarification is to a rather special aspect of the law but it is felt that it would, so far as it goes, be useful.
LORD HANKEY: I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, but I regret to say that he has greatly increased my fears about this clause because it appears that, although in the dispute mentioned the man did not press his claim to be employed, and Cory's agreed to his not working, if this clause had been in operation there would still be a dispute and, so far as I can see, the dockers all over the country would have come out.
I do not mind what the T.U.C. or anybody says, but is it really reasonable that this arrangement should apply in our country? I maintain that this clause is calculated to multiply trade disputes quite unnecessary. It means that our trade
1634
unions can be very reasonable and have good relations with the employers. They can present claims and the employers can be very reasonable and agree with them (and this is the situation which I should like to see obtain throughout our industry, but it does not), and yet, despite everybody being reasonable in any particular case, there is a dispute and anybody can do anything. This really is not reasonable. I should like now to precipitate a discussion on this matter and to hear what your Lordships think.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
6.53 p.m.
LORD HANKEY LORD HANKEY moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 20, leave out lines 28 to 30.
The noble Lord said: I regret that there was no support for the last Amendment, but this Amendment is an attempt to probe the meaning of the word "worker", because it seems to me that the effect of this is that any worker employed by any employer can withdraw his labour on account of absolutely any dispute anywhere with any other employer regardless of the circumstances. Even allowing for sympathetic strikes, is this really a reasonable state of affairs? Reading this Bill, I must say that I have been astonished at the drafting of this clause. I thought that it must have been drafted by somebody who wanted to create the maximum number of occasions for multiplying industrial disputes, and I do not believe that it is in the interests of the country. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The effect of this Amendment would be to limit the definition of "trade dispute" to disputes between an employer and his own employees only. It would go against the whole trend of legislation and policy in this field, and would be wholly disastrous in its consequences.
LORD HANKEY: If no noble Lord is to speak I shall withdraw my Amendment, but I repeat that I think that this is a bad clause, that the trend of policy in our country is a bad one, and we shall go to pot with it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 27 [General provisions as to interpretation]:
6.57 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 22, line 30 (corrigendum), leave out ("or of another appropriate independent trade union").
The noble Lord said: I rise to move this Amendment in the confident hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, will speak in support of it, if only for one reason on which he laid great stress when moving two Amendments in Committee yesterday afternoon. On that occasion he could use the undoubtedly numerical strength of Conservative Peers to ensure that what he had in mind prevailed. On those two Amendments, the noble and learned Lord said that there had been a Division on them, and that there had been a margin of only one between the combined coalition in another place and the Government.
This Amendment seeks to delete from the Bill what I suppose will go down in Parliamentary history as the "Lever Amendments". I am not going to suggest or construe what might have happened in a Division if my right honourable friend had, in fact, been paired, but I think I can say that, if there was any element of doubt in regard to the other two Amendments, there is certainly reasonable doubt as to what the Commons itself had in mind when it supported this part of the Bill that Amendment No. 37 seeks to delete.
The purpose of this Amendment is to restore the definition of the union membership agreement to its original form by leaving out the words added by the Opposition in another place. The original definition accurately described the closed shop as it exists in practice. That is to say, an agreement or arrangement under which employees must, as a condition of their employment, become and remain members of a specified union, or one of a number of specified unions. That is essentially the definition used by Dr. McCarthy in his book on the closed shop and which was adopted, as I am sure the noble and learned Lord will agree, by the Donovan Commission.
The extra words inserted in another place at the instigation of the Party opposite, and with the co-operation of
1636
the coalition Members sitting on the right, produced quite a different effect. The words appear to mean that the only kind of agreement covered by the definition is one which gives employees a free choice between belonging to a union which is party to an agreement, and belonging to any other union which is both appropriate and independent but may not be party to the agreement. I am not certain whether this was the intention of the Party opposite when it moved the Amendment in another place.
I am not going to say that such agreements are non-existent in this country, but they are certainly not common, nor do I believe they are likely to become so. The reason is that the whole purpose of the closed shop is to establish a particular union or unions as fully representative of the employees concerned. I believe that Sir Geoffrey Howe himself, on behalf of his Conservative colleagues, has said that the closed shop has an important role to play in industrial stability. The insertion of the extra words runs counter to that purpose so that the definition in its amended form describes something which does not correspond with the realities of industrial relations.
It is rather like framing a definition of a "motor-car", which describes it as a vehicle which has four wheels and a rudder, and the drawing up traffic regulations based on that definition. The regulations will simply have no practical effect. People will continue to drive motor-cars with four wheels and no rudder, but the regulations will not apply to them. Similarly, what the Conservative Party in another place have done is to ensure that the provision of Schedule I to the Bill, about fair and unfair dismissal in the context of union membership agreements will not apply in a normal closed shop situation.
I cannot help but feel that the Amendment that was moved and accepted in another place does undue damage, not just to the Bill itself but to the concept and understanding of the clause and the closed shop. I have considered whether it is possible to make amendments to the Bill to deal with this matter, but so far I have not found a satisfactory answer. I suggest to your Lordships that in the light of what I have said it would be wise and sensible to accept this Amendment, not only on the basis of what I have already described in some

1637
detail, but also to take up what the noble and learned Lord said yesterday, that it would be right and proper to give another place an opportunity to reconsider the matter. Yesterday, of course, it was clearly an unquestioned one-vote difference. Here we had difficulty as a consequence of the Lever episode. I am suggesting to your Lordships that in a Revising Chamber the Conservative Party should now be consistent with their logic. They should support the Amendment which I have moved, and in so doing provide another place with an opportunity to consider this matter and to come to a clear and firm decision.
LORD BYERS: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him a question? He has made a great deal of play about the coalition in the other House and the narrow margin by which this affair happened. Will he explain to me why out of more than 130 noble Lords under his command in the Labour Party he cannot muster more than 70 in the Division? If he really wants this Amendment, he has a balance of another 60 Peers whom he can call upon to put it through. Why is that not happening? The maximum number of Peers in Opposition to anything the Government have done is just under 100. Why is the noble Lord not keeping such a House that he can get through his own Amendment, and why should he have to make an appeal to the Conservative Party to accept it?
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Lord, Lord Byers, is going a little beyond the point. He rose and said "Before the noble Lord sits down", and it is a custom in your Lordships' House—which I think is true of another place and I look to a previous Father of another place—that if you rise under those circumstances it is to elucidate what has been said. If I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, he has abused this procedure. If he wishes to take me to task about the way in which my noble friends have come to support the Party, I will be happy to debate it later when the Question has been put. I have no apology to make to your Lordships as to the conduct and support of the noble friends who serve me on this side of the House.
LORD BYERS: If I might have the indulgence of the Committee for one moment, the noble Lord has no right
1638
to accuse me of abusing the Rules of this House. As he knows, I am fairly meticulous in upholding the Rules. If I spoke before the Question was put I apologise, but it is perfectly reasonable, when the noble Lord had argued about numbers in another place, for me to ask for elucidation to ascertain what he meant by not keeping such a House. I am entitled to speak as often as I wish on the Committee stage. If that is the way the debate is to be conducted I will do that. But the noble Lord is not right to accuse a colleague who has upheld the dignity of this House of abusing its procedure.
LORD SHEPHERD: I only complained that the noble Lord brought in something completely irrelevant to what I had said in support of the Amendment, by using the device of asking me a question before I sat down. If the noble Lord wishes me to give him a description and an explanation of why we do not vote to a maximum strength, I could ask the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and the noble Lord, Lord Byers, himself, and we could all come to the same view that in your Lordships' House our membership is made up of a large number of men and women, many of them elderly—
A NOBLE LORD: You are the Government.
LORD SHEPHERD: Whether we are the Government or not, our membership is made up in the same way.
LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE: May I pour a little oil on this troubled water, so that we can get on to the Amendment and cool down a bit?
LORD SHEPHERD: I am grateful. It is a unique experience for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, to come and pour oil on troubled water. I only get a little indignant by the irrelevancies of the Liberal Party. If the noble and learned Lord could assist us in his attitude to the Amendment which T moved, I am sure the Committee would be grateful to hear from him.
LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE: The noble Lord might be grateful, but I think the Committee would be astonished! The noble Lord

1639
said at the beginning of his speech that he confidently expected me to support this Amendment, and if I had not known that he was joking he would almost have provoked me to a breach of Order. The other place has had an opportunity. The Bill came here and we were busy debating it. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack was taking copious notes; the Leader of the House had been indulging in his usual courtesies. We sent it back to them and they returned it with the information that the previous copy was not correct. The noble Lord now wants to fly in the face of the elected Chamber. I am not going to help him. I advise the Committee to vote against the Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: All I can say to the noble and learned Lord is that he has many graces and a number of sins. He has added one; that is, lack of consistency. Many of us will look back on what he said yesterday and will refer to what he said to-day. We fully understand the predicament of the noble and learned Lord, and why he will not rise to the Amendment that I have moved. I am now going to give him the joy of voting against this Amendment.
7.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 37) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 56; Not-Contents, 96.

CONTENTS

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Lovell-Davies, L.

Arwyn, L.

Feather, L.

Maelor, L.

Bacon, B.

Gaitskell, B.

Melchett, L.

Balogh, L.

Gardiner, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Bernstein, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Parrett, L.

Birk, B.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Raglan, L.

Blyton, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Rhodes, L.

Bowden, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Brockway, L.

Hale, L.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hall, V.

Shinwell, L.

Burntwood, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Slater, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Henderson, L.

Snow, L.

Castle, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller]

Champion, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Collison, L.

Hoy, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Crook, L.

Jacques, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Darling, L.

Leatherland, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Davies of Leek, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller]

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor)

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Killearn, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Deramore, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Alport, L.

Digby, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Atholl, D.

Drumalbyn, L.

Long, V.

Auckland, L.

Eccles, V.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Balerno, L.

Elles, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Belstead, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mancroft, L.

Berkeley, B.

Ferrier, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Fortescue, E.

Middleton, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Gage, V.

Milverton, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Gainford, L.

Monck, V.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Mountevans, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Glasgow, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Byers, L.

Gowrie, E.

Newall, L.

Chelwood, L.

Grenfell, L.

Northchurch, B.

Clinton, L.

Gridley, L.

Oakshott, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hailes, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cowley, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone L.

Pender, L.

Crathorne, L.

Platt, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Hankey, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Daventry, V.

Hanworth, V.

Reigate, L.

Davidson, V.

Henley, L.

Robbins, L.

de Clifford, L.

Hood, V.

Rochester, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Rothermere, V.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Strathclyde, L.

Wade, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller]

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

St. Davids, V.

Ward of Witley, V.

Salisbury, M.

Tenby, V.

Wigoder, L.

Sandys, L.

Teviot, L.

Windlesham, L.

Seear, B.

Tranmire, L.

Wolverton, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Trefgarne, L.

Wynford, L.

Sharples, B.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, B.

Young, B.

Somers, L.

Vivian, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

7.18 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 27 shall stand part of the Bill?
BARONESS HORNSBY-SMITH: I apologise for intervening at this moment, but I should like to seek some clarification on the Question, Whether this clause shall stand part of the Bill?, on an issue which I regret was not brought to my attention until it was too late for me to put down an Amendment; but I would hope that it could be considered before we reach Report stage. It concerns the position of the small trade union or staff association under the provisions of this clause which are to be found on page 21 at line 13, where we read:
" 'independent trade union' means a trade union which … is";
and then there has been added paragraphs (a) and (b). Now any major union with employee members in hundreds of companies would never be challenged under either paragraph (a) or (b). They are so massive that they would automatically be independent. But there are many small unions and small staff associations registered as trade unions which are confined to a very specialist group or industry, and I should like clarification from the noble Lord as to whether or not they will be put in an impossible position by the provisions of this clause.
It is quite common practice for union meetings to be held on company premises. It is common practice for many companies to collect the trade union dues: all perfectly worthy practices. It is quite often common practice for time to be taken up and work to be done in the company's time and at its expense. A major union will never be challenged under this clause—that is, "financial or material support"—but, in the case of a small trade union, specialist and very much aligned to one company, I believe that under this clause it could be challenged and put out of office because
1642
it could be held that it was materially to their advantage that its dues were collected and it used the typist or even the duplicator for union business. I am only concerned about the position and the independence of small unions which could be so challenged and I hope that the matter may be considered before we reach Report stage.
LORD SHEPHERD: I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me. I had some difficulty in fully understanding all that she was saying. From certain parts of your Lordships' House, the acoustics are not good, but I regret that I did not hear all that the noble Baroness said. Would she agree that I should have a look at what she has said on the Record, and I will get in touch with her and perhaps find a way in which we can deal with the point at Report stage? I apologise to the noble Baroness, but the acoustics are not good. Perhaps I should have intervened to ask her to move, but I thought it would be better to let the noble Baroness continue. I know that what she has said will be on the Record: I will look at it and will get in touch with the noble Baroness and see what we can do.
BARONESS HORNSBY-SMITH: I am grateful to the noble Lord and I accept his undertaking.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Re-enacted provisions of Industrial Relations Act 1971]:
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 38:
Page 27, line 29 (corrigendum), leave out ("or on any reasonable grounds to being a member of a particular trade union ").
The noble Lord said: I had intended to make a long speech dealing with the Amendment moved in another place, in anticipation, perhaps wrongly, that we might have succeeded on a previous

1643
Amendment. However, I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, that he might well look at the consequences to the Amendment which the Liberal Party moved in another place and which is now in the Bill because of the fact that your Lordships' House was not prepared to accept the previous Amendment. I suggest that the consequences should be studied, because I believe that your Lordships have, in fact, nullified the consequences of the Liberal Amendment in another place. With that explanation, unless anyone wishes to intervene, I shall not move the Amendment.
LORD STRABOLGI: It may be for the convenience of the House if we adjourn the Committee for one hour until 8.25 p.m. in order to take other Business, and I therefore beg to move that this House do now resume.
House resumed.

POLICING OF AIRPORTS BILL
7.23 p.m.
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. The Bill that we are considering to-day is designed to make it possible for a local police force to assume in full the policing responsibility at an airport. The Bill therefore represents a considerable departure from the arrangements for the policing of private property—for such is an airport—that we have hitherto followed, and I should like first of all to say a few words about the general situation in which this Bill has been thought necessary.
Acts of violence against civil aviation have, as has become all too apparent, increased over the, last few years. Aircraft have been hijacked and there have been other serious incidents at major airports. As a result the Government and their predecessors have devoted close attention to the general problem of civil aviation security. The Protection of Aircraft Act 1973 confers on the Secretary of State considerable powers to meet the situation that now confronts us. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade is well aware of his responsibilities to review and inspect very closely the security arrangements at airports
1644
which carry an international traffic. And, as has been apparent from recent exercises, the Government in conjunction with the police are ready to respond to threats that may arise—which means in particular in present circumstances at Heathrow. I mention these points not because it is our purpose to-day to discuss aviation security in the widest sense but so as to emphasise the point that this Bill fits into a broad context of measures, some of them executive and some of them statutory.
The measure we have before us now has been prompted by one very precise situation. Heathrow is not only by far the biggest and more important in the United Kingdom. It is also the airport with the busiest international traffic in the world. It has therefore been the subject of very special risks to meet which special measures have proved necessary. At the moment Heathrow is policed by the British Airports Authority Constabulary—the B.A.A.C. This force is set up under aviation legislation and was intended to deal with what might be called the ordinary crime problems of an airport, which in themselves are quite difficult enough. The special circumstances that have arisen over the last few years as the result of the threat of terrorist attack have created a new situation at that airport, and one which it was never anticipated that the B.A.A.C. would have to meet. As the result of this situation members of the Metropolitan Police, some of them armed, have for a number of years been helping the B.A.A.C. at Heathrow and. in addition, the Commissioner has considerably increased the attention that he gives to the areas around the airport. There is also a contingency arrangement for the Metropolitan Police to obtain the assistance of the Armed Services.
The risks that there were judged to be at Heathrow, and the need for special measures to meet them, prompted a thorough review of the policing situation at Heathrow. This review was initiated by the previous Administration, and it made a number of things clear. Not only is there no realistic probability that the threats which now exist would substantially diminish in the foreseeable future, but we would not be right to rely permanently on an ad hoc arrangement to deal with them. At the moment, as I have indicated, the Metropolitan Police

1645
assist the B.A.A.C. in providing the necessary anti-terrorist protection. But this shared responsibility is, frankly, unsatisfactory in a number of ways-Not only is it difficult for two forces to work alongside each other; but there is a need to ensure that the reaction to an incident is prompt and co-ordinated. The contingency plan whereby the Metropolitan Police assume full control in the event of a major incident did not on examination seem to be in the long term the most satisfactory way to deal with this problem.
In the light of this examination, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary decided that the most satisfactory solution was for the Metropolitan Police to assume full responsibility for ail aspects of policing at Heathrow. In reaching this decision he of course bore in mind the views of the Commissioner and those of the British Airports Authority. I have so far largely confined my remarks to the situation at Heathrow. But noble Lords will be aware that this Bill is not confined to Heathrow. It provides for the Secretary of State to transfer the policing responsibility at any aerodrome in the United Kingdom, subject of course to certain conditions and to Parliamentary procedures which I will describe in a moment. We very much hope of course that the difficulties which have arisen at Heathrow will not arise at other airports, whatever their size. But the very fact of exercising these powers at Heathrow creates a fundamentally new situation for the British Airports Authority and its constabulary.
Some four-fifths of the British Airports Authority's force is stationed at Heathrow and the Commissioner hopes that these officers will transfer to the Metropolitan Police, and indeed arrangements are at a fairly advanced stage to bring this about. The remaining part of the B.A.A.C. is stationed at the Authority's four other airports—Gatwick, Stansted, Prestwick and Edinburgh. The Government are aware of the view of the British Airports Authority that the force will no longer be viable after the designation of Heathrow, and I am, of course, well aware of the fears that have been expressed about the opportunities that will be open to these remaining officers in the British Airports Authority Con-
1646
stabulary. The Government are now having consultations with the appropriate authorities at four airports about the use of the powers in this Bill in respect of these establishments. It is not the intention of the Government that these consultations should be allowed to drift, although clearly the Government must be much influenced by the importance of obtaining agreement between the parties concerned.
My Lords, I should now like to turn to the substance of the Bill, having described the broad circumstances in which the Government have thought it necessary to introduce it, and the way in which the Government are considering the use of the powers that it would create at airports other than Heathrow. The essence of the whole Bill is in Clause 1. This clause creates the power by which the responsibility for policing an aerodrome can be transferred to the chief officer of police of the police area in which that aerodrome is wholly or mainly situated. it allows the Secretary of State to make an order in the interests of the preservation of the peace and the prevention of crime. These phrases in some respects overlap each other but they allow the Secretary of State to look at the policing problem in its totality, and therefore allow him to give due weight to both the problems of ordinary crime and the threat of terrorism. The object of these measures would be to create a policing system which was not only efficient and unified, but also capable of integration into the policing of the surrounding area. These criteria will allow the Secretary of State to do this.
In addition to establishing the main power in the Bill, Clause 1 also provides the necessary protection by establishing the Parliamentary procedure to which the orders shall be subject and the formal process of consultation that will be necessary. It must clearly be the intention of any Secretary of State, if he proposes to transfer the policing responsibility at any airport, to obtain the agreement of the chief officer and the authorities concerned. It would be exceedingly difficult to designate an airport against the wishes of one or other of them.
On the assumption that there is agreement, however, there seems to the Government to be clear advantage in ensuring that the designation is smooth and speedy,

1647
and the clause allows for the order to be subject only to annulment. But, conversely, it provides for full protection of the interests of the authorities should there be a difference of view about the proposed designation; an order that did not contain a statement indicating agreement would be subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure and either party would then have the opportunity of having its views aired. I hope that noble Lords will agree that these provisions combine the necessary protection to the interests concerned with the means of making possible prompt action should that be appropriate.
In this context, I should like to say a word about consultations. There would clearly need to be informal consultations with trade unions and representatives of a whole range of officials and employees who might be affected by designation. For example, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has held consultations with employees' representatives in respect of Heathrow, and we would in practice envisage that equivalent steps would be taken should the powers be exercised elsewhere.
Clause 2 deals with one of the matters that I referred to a short while ago; namely, the fact that an airport is private property and that there may be aerodrome constables there in their own right. It therefore confers on the incoming force rights of access and ensures that aerodrome constables may not continue to exercise their powers after designation. The second part of Clause 2 deals with the financial arrangements at an airport, which I should like to take with Clause 7 as I think this forms the basis of a few remarks one would wish to make about the subject. The purpose of this part of Clause 2 is that the airport and police authorities should settle between themselves the financial implications of designation, and that the airport authority should then pay the police authority the figure that they agree. In the event of there being any disagreement between them the Secretary of State would have the power to determine the figure.
It is not the Home Secretary's intention that the designation of an airport should lead overall to any additional expenditure falling on the local police fund and therefore on the local ratepayers.
1648
But just as, to use the example of Heathrow, the Metropolitan Police will not be involved in additional expenditure, so the British Airports Authority will of course save the expenditure it at the moment makes on its own constabulary. Clause 7 allows the Secretary of State to reimburse the aerodrome authority for certain expenditure that it has incurred as a result of designation. Although it is not intended that this power should be exercised in order to reimburse that authority the cost of the ordinary policing at an airport, or expenses that it currently meets, there may well be circumstances on a once-for-all basis, where it is appropriate to subsidise. But these payments are not expected to be large, or to involve an on-going commitment at any particular airport, and clearly the details of them and of the other financial arrangements can only be determined in each individual case.
Clause 3 confers certain powers in relation to the prevention of theft on members of the incoming police force. These powers are identical with those at the moment conferred by aviation legislation on members of the British Airports Authority constabulary. It seems right to the Government to assume that an incoming force should have available to it powers at least as great as those available to the British Airports Authority constabulary. I need not detain noble Lords long over Clauses 4 and 5, which make necessary adjustments in relation to bye-laws and to road traffic provisions at designated airports. In particular. Clause 4 allows the incoming force to have the same authority to enforce bye-laws as the B.A.A.C. does at the moment, and Clause 5 confers on the appropriate chief officer the responsibility for the control of traffic wardens.
Clause 6 empowers the Secretary of State by order to make various supplementary provisions that are necessary to give full effect to the main designation. The clause specifies various provisions which may be made to effect the transfer from the airport authority to the incoming police authority of existing airport constables and supporting civil staff. So far as Heathrow is concerned, the Commissioner has made very clear that he hopes as many as possible will transfer. This is not only desirable from the point of view of allowing people to continue in

1649
their chosen career, but it also makes it possible to avoid the difficult situation already arrived at in London where there is a severe shortage of policemen and it is highly desirable not to increase the already serious manpower problems of the Metropolitan Police.
The remaining clauses of the Bill deal with its application to Scotland and Northern Ireland and with matters of interpretation. In this context, I should just like to make clear that in practice we envisage that it would be the Secretary of State, responsible for policing the area in which the airport is situated, who would exercise the powers under this Bill. But once again he would of course only do so in consultation with the Secretary of State responsible for aviation as well as all the other authorities and people to whom I have already referred. I commend this Bill to your Lordships as a measure necessary to combat the situation which now confronts us. These powers are required urgently and I very much hope that you will agree to the passage of this legislation. This Bill provides us with an important weapon in our struggle against the threat of international terrorism. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot summon up the same enthusiasm for this Bill as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has so eloquently conveyed to us this evening. Having said that, the Bill has been passed by another place and so far as I can understand it—although I have not had access to their Hansard—they did not make any amendments to the Bill. I therefore wonder with what care they were able to look at this measure. There are a few short observations that I should like to make, with your Lordships' permission, and I hope that the points that I raise can be answered by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, in a moment.
The first point I should like to make is this. Why is it that this Bill takes in every single airport in the country? I have been told that there are some legislative reasons for this and, if that is so, I should be glad to hear them. But it seems to me that we are creating a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I am not aware
1650
of any major security problem that exists outside the major airports of Heathrow and perhaps Gatwick. But perhaps the noble Lord will be able to help me with that point. It could be, of course, that it is envisaged that temporary designation will be effected for any airport, even a small one, where, for example, a series of particularly sensitive flights, say to a Middle Eastern country, was arranged and it was thought that there was a particular risk for a specific period of time. It may be that the noble Lord's right honourable friend envisages temporary designation of airports to overcome that problem.
Tied up with that is the question of the financial burdens that will be imposed on these smaller airports if they find themselves designated. I accept what the noble Lord has said that designation will be made only with the approval of these smaller airports, but there is provision in the Bill for designation to be made without their approval. Admittedly, it will need an Affirmative Resolution of both Houses which perhaps in those circumstances would be difficult to obtain. But it may well be that so-called "approval" could be obtained under some pressure from these smaller local airports, thus obviating the necessity for the Affirmative Resolution and imposing a financial burden on these airports which may or may not be covered by a grant from the Home Office. It is a problem which I hope the noble Lord will at least bear in mind, even if he is not able to give any positive assurances.
The attempts in Clause 3 to control theft at airports is very welcome. The thievery that has been going on at London Airport over the last few years is a national scandal and I am glad that the Government are endeavouring to take this in hand and do something about it. But I draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the principal additional controls that the Government have taken under this Bill apply to what they are calling the cargo areas. A great deal of thievery that goes on at London Airport occurs in passengers' baggage which goes nowhere near the cargo area. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to tell us what new steps are being taken to overcome this problem, particularly at Heathrow. Just changing the cap badges of the policemen will not have any great effect.

1651
There is one final problem that arises out of this Bill and that is the present morale of the members of the British Airports Authority Constabulary. The noble Lord has explained that most of them will no doubt transfer to the Metropolitan Police. In that connection, I gather that a great many of them started life in the Metropolitan Police so they are going back. Why they changed in the first place is interesting food for thought. But those who do not transfer to the Metropolitan Police seem to have a very bleak future ahead of them and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give some assurances that very adequate compensation will be paid to those people who, for one reason or another, do not remain either with the Airports Authority Constabulary or transfer to the Metropolitan Police.
Those are the only specific points I have to make on this Bill but I would make this general point to the noble Lord. I do not think that he was a Member of your Lordships' House this time last year when we considered the Protection of Aircraft Bill when we met a similar problem in that the Bill came to us very late in the Session. The noble Lord has said that quite probably if we carry Amendments at the Committee stage next Thursday, then there would be no more Parliamentary time and the Bill would be lost. Quite naturally, his right honourable friend would then be in some difficulty about designating Heathrow in the near future as he intends to do. Perhaps the noble Lord can offer some hope that he will be able to look favourably upon amending legislation, if that proves necessary, and should he find himself on the Government Front Bench in the autumn. Having said that, let us now agree to a Second Reading for this Bill.
7.45 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, will enjoy with all of us many another July in your Lordships' House, because that is really the problem to which my noble friend has just referred. Possibly if we had had a little more time to consider the Rehabilitation of Offenders Bill and one or two other measures currently going through at very high speed indeed, all of us would have been a great deal happier.
1652
I wonder whether my noble friend is really on to a very good point when he refers to all the other airports that could be designated, because it is probable that the policing of them, in so far as it is necessary, is done by the local police force in any event and it is only where one has the special constabulary in the four airports which were mentioned in the noble Lord's speech that one needs to use the designating powers if one has the agreement to do so. It may be, therefore, that we are talking about four airports only.
At any rate, the case that the noble Lord deployed about the need to be able to co-ordinate action in an emergency in the most efficient and speedy fashion is one that I would heartily endorse. I do not want to rake up anything that might be considered to be a mistake of the past, but when there was that horrid bomb at the Old Bailey, there was at the time some discussion as to whether liaison between the Metropolitan Police Force and the City of London police might not be improved, and I think subsequently it was. That was an example where two separately controlled and officered police forces, with separate communications systems, were involved in a series of events taking place over the area of Greater London.
Certainly I should have thought that if we were involved in a major terrorist attack—and I take the context of this Bill in the wider sense that the noble Lord mentioned—we could easily have a variety of forces, police and possibly military, involved in trying to control and contain the situation. If that is so, then there is the need for the closest possible co-ordination. That presumably can best be done if there is only one chain of command, at any rate on the police front. From the general points of view I very much agree with what the noble Lord is proposing in the Bill.
The staff are rightly singled out for a considerable amount of attention. Certainly, one would not wish to do anything whereby those who are currently serving in the British Airports Authority Constabulary decide to give up their jobs. If they transferred to the Metropolitan Police, I suppose that they would probably wish to be based in an area which bears some resemblance to the duties which they have previously been doing.

1653
The Metropolitan Police area is a very large one, and if one has entered the British Airports Constabulary on the basis that one was to be serving at Heathrow and one is then transferred to Romford, or somewhere else, it may possible induce one to resign from the force because one's house is in West London. That is exactly the way in which a wastage of very valuable police power can take place. I hope that everybody will be sufficiently sensible to see that that does not happen. It is one of the factors that, on an amalgamation of police forces, is always uppermost in the minds of senior officers who think they may lose valuable constables and other more senior officers in this way. I hope that there will be no question of that occurring.
I suppose that if the question arose, perhaps, at Prestwick we could have even more difficult problems because the Ayrshire Constabulary—or indeed it may be a larger area still, probably covering the whole of the South-West of Scotland—could be even more afflicted by this type of posting. Therefore no doubt this will be the subject of consultation. I very much approve of the subtle procedural device whereby the Parliamentary Orders may come either under the positive or negative procedure. I do not think I have ever seen this done before. There is no end now (is there?) to the ingenuity whereby one can draft these provisions for subordinate legislation.
If one wants a really recondite point, may I leave the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, with this: I suspect I am right in saying that members of the British Airports Authority escape jury service under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1972 on the grounds that they are a police authority. If all their airports are designated and taken over by local police force, they will no longer be a police authority. I regret to see that there is no power in the order making procedure under Clause 1 to amend the Schedule to the Criminal Justice Act so that all members of the British Airports Authority can in future serve on juries.
7.52 p.m.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, may I ask for clarification about Scotland's airports? In the Bill there is a miner reference to Scottish airports, but what con-
1654
cerns me is the fact that, as I read the Bill, it is an English Secretary of State (who has no writ whatever in Scotland) who will be designating the Scottish airports. There should be an Amendment to ensure that it is the Secretary of State for Scotland who designates the airports in Scotland which come under the Bill. In reference to something which my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross said about policing airports in Scotland, subject to correction by the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, my impression is that the police at Turn-house Airport, Edinburgh, are authority police and operate inside the airport terminal.
7.53 p.m.
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, I will try to deal with the substantial number of points that have been raised by noble Lords. Before doing so, I should like to express my gratitude to all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. I am grateful for their general welcome, even though the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has a few reservations on some of the proposals in the Bill. May I first reassure the noble Lord, Lord Balenno, that, as I tried to indicate in my speech, the Secretary of State for Scotland will, if that situation were to arise, designate the Scottish airports. It would not be the Home Secretary. I hope that meets his point.
The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, raised a number of points. I have tried to take note of them all. He gave me notice of some and he raised some others, and, of course, I make no complaint about those. If by chance I inadvertently miss out one, I will study Hansard or cause it to be studied carefully.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: You will be lucky!
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: Well, I will try to get a proof of Hansard, or look forward to that happy day when we shall see it again!
The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, did slightly less than justice—although I make no complaint about this—to the debate on this matter which took place in another place. Admittedly, there is the same problem for the same reason, we have not been able to see the Hansard from the Standing Committee. It was a considerable Committee stage for what is

1655
a fairly non-controversial measure. A substantial number of points were raised by the noble Lord's honourable friends in another place and some of my honourable friends in another place, particularly concerning the circumstances of the transfer of airports other than Heathrow.
All the pressure to which the Government were subjected in another place was exactly the reverse of the pressure he was applying to us to-day. The point raised by the noble Lord's honourable friends in another place was that there should be more rapid movement in designating airports other than Heathrow, for which there is a perfectly reasonable case to be made; whereas he is rather apprehensive about the powers which the Bill confers on the Secretaries of State for the Home Office and for Scotland. I hope I will be able to reassure him that there is no desire, either by the Home Office or Scottish Office to start empire building with airports all over the country. It would be a formidable undertaking.
I have caused statistics to be obtained, following the noble Lord's speech. There are 126 licensed aerodromes, of which 27 have international services. In addition, there are 500 or more that are unlicensed. Given the present calls on police manpower, there is no likelihood of either the Home Office or the Scottish Office taking steps to pressurise the chief officers of police to take over airports. Frankly, there are not the resources available to do it.
Within the Bill, we want to deal with the central problem of Heathrow and confer upon the Government the power, if this becomes necessary, to take over other major airports. There is a problem for the Parliamentary draftsman of Parliamentary procedure. I do not altogether understand this; the noble Viscount may have a clearer understanding of the difficulties than I do. There is a problem of hybrid legislation involved and that is why the Bill has had to be drafted as it is. The objective of the Government is first to deal with the problem of Heathrow.
Secondly, we are having consultations over the fate of the other four British Airports Authority airports. However, beyond that, although I could give no guarantee that we would never consider
1656
any other airport—obviously it would be foolish to do so—there is no present intention of doing so. As the noble Lord indicated, if there was a disagreement in the matter the Government would have to go through the substantial Affirmative Resolution procedure which might also, incidentally, have some hybrid problems related to it in the event of disagreement. If there was disagreement the problems of doing this would be most formidable. There is no prospect of this Government, or any possible successor Government, ever behaving unreasonably in this matter—quite the reverse.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I understand the problem about hybrid legislation. Are there other private police forces set up by local Acts, for instance at Manchester or somewhere like that, which would otherwise have to be dealt with in the hybrid fashion?
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, there are indeed a number of private police forces in a number of these airfields, special constabularies set up by local Acts. That. I hope, will reassure the noble Lord. The point he raised was basically: Why every airport? Frankly, the answer is that only the airports I have indicated are the ones in which we are contemplating taking any action. Even in the case of the other four British Airports Authority airports we were initially reluctant to go so far as we are now going simply because of the problem of police manpower, which is a serious problem in many areas of the country.
Regarding temporary designation, I do not think it would be desirable to go in for temporary designation. One cannot chop and change. If one moves to a new system of policing, it will be a permanent one. Because of some temporary situation of the kind envisaged by the noble Lord you cannot move to a situation where you temporarily make an airport the responsibility of a chief officer of police and then, a few months later, change the position. Once airports are designated, as in the case of Heathrow and other airports to which I have been referring, they will, for all intents and purposes, be the permanent responsibility of the new police authority.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, can the noble Lord suggest how a small airport may cope with this problem when

1657
they are suddenly faced for a comparatively short period with, say, a series of flights from very sensitive countries?
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, I am sure that in a situation of that sort special arrangements would be made with the local chief officer of police to deal with the problem.
Thirdly, the problem of finance was raised. We have approached this matter reasonably. What we are saying is—and policing at airports costs the British Airports Authority a fair amount of money—this money should now be paid into the appropriate police fund, so that the already rather heavily burdened ratepayers in the area concerned should not have to pay additional monies simply because the local police force has taken over a particular airport. That is the only purpose of this proposal and I think it a reasonable one. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, also discussed the general problem of Heathrow which is a very serious one, as he correctly stated. I know that the Metropolitan Police Commissioner is well aware of this problem and there has been discussion of it. I hope that it will be tackled as a result of the new proposals which we are putting before the House.
I am bound to tell the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, that with his consummate skill he has identified a major flaw with regard to jury service by the British Airports Authority Constabulary. I am sure that the Home Secretary will be mortified when he discovers this error and I shall take the greatest pleasure in drawing it to his attention. Other than that, I think I have answered all of the points which the noble Viscount raised, subject to one point. He raised the issue of security of tenure of an individual member of the British Airports Authority Constabulary at Heathrow and asked whether such a person would be sent to Romford or somewhere like that. The Commissioner has undertaken that if a man has served at Heathrow and wishes to stay there he can do so. I hope that that will solve the problem. If we face the same difficulty in other areas, I hope that the same attitude will be taken by the chief officer of police. On that basis I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK etc. BILL
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments to certain of the Lords Amendments and a Commons consequential Amendment to the Bill be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Baroness Birk.)

LORDS AMENDMENTS
[Page and line references are to Bill 74 as first printed for the Lords.]

LORDS AMENDMENTS
[No. 1]
Clause 1, page 2, line 9, after ("regulations") insert ("and agricultural health and safety regulations ").

COMMONS AMENDMENT CONSEQUENTIAL ON THE ABOVE AMENDMENT
[No. 2]
Page 45, line 44, after ("regulations") insert ("and agricultural health and safety regulations").
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendment No. 2, consequential upon the Lords Amendment No. 1 be agreed to. This is one of a number of consequential Amendments to Lords Amendments which restored the position in regard to agriculture. Clearly, therefore, the Agricultural Health and Safety Regulations must be included with the definition in the statutory provisions in Clause 49 as they were when the Bill was first published.
Moved, That the Commons Amendment No. 2, consequential upon the Lords Amendment No. 1 be agreed to.—(Baroness Birk.)

LORDS AMENDMENT
[No. 3]
Page 9, line 5, at end insert the following new clause:
Agricultural health and safety regulations
(".—(1) Regulations under this section (in this Part referred to as "agricultural health and safety regulations") may be made for any of the relevant agricultural purposes.
(2) Agricultural health and safety regulations may be either regulations applying to Great Britain and made by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State acting jointly, or regulations applying to England and Wales only and made by the said Minister, or regulations applying to Scotland only and made by the Secretary of State.
(3) Where health and safety regulations make provision for any purpose with respect to a matter that relates to (but not exclusively to) agricultural operations—

(a) provision for that purpose shall not be made with respect to that matter by agricultural health and safety regulations so as to have effect while the first-mentioned provision is in force except for the purpose of imposing requirements additional to those imposed by health and safety regulations, being additional requirements which in the opinion of the authority making the agricultural health and safety regulations are necessary or expedient in the special circumstances of agricultural operations; and

(b) in the event of any inconsistency between the first-mentioned provision and any provision made with respect to that matter by agricultural health and safety regulations, the first-mentioned provision shall prevail.

(4) The provisions of section 15(2) to (10) and Schedule 3 shall have effect in relation to agricultural health and safety regulations as they have effect in relation to health and safety regulations subject to the following modifications, that is to say—

(a) references to the relevant statutory provisions shall be read as references to such of the relevant statutory provisions as relate to agriculture;

(b) in section 15(4) the references to the Commission shall be read as references to the appropriate Agriculture Minister;

(c) in section 15(6) and paragraph 23 of Schedule 3, the reference to health and safety regulations shall be read as a reference to agricultural health and safety regulations.

(5) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, agricultural health and safety regulations may, as regards agricultural licences under any of the relevant statutory provisions, make provision for requiring the authority having power to issue, renew, vary, transfer or revoke such licences to notify—

(a) any applicant for the issue, renewal, variation or transfer of such a licence of any proposed decision of the authority to refuse the application; or

(b) the holder of such a licence of any proposed decision of the authority to revoke the licence or to vary any term, condition or restriction on or subject to which the licence is held;

and for enabling persons aggrieved by any such proposed decision to make representations
1660
to, or to a person appointed by, the relevant authority within the period and in the manner prescribed by the regulations.
(6) in relation to any agricultural health and safety regulations made in pursuance of paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 as applied by this section, subsection (2) above shall have effect as if after the words "Great Britain" there were inserted the words "or the United Kingdom").

COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO THE ABOVE AMENDMENT
[No. 4]
In subsection (4), in line 1, leave out ("10") and insert ("11").
[No. 5]
In subsection (4), leave out paragraph (a) and insert ("(a) references to the relevant statutory provisions or the existing statutory provisions shall be read as references to such of those provisions as relate to agriculture;")
[No. 6]
In subsection (4), in paragraph (c), after ("15(6)") insert ("and (11)").
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 6 to the Lords Amendment No. 3 be agreed to. These are purely drafting Amendments to tidy up the agriculture provisions which have been restored to the Bill.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 6 to the Lords Amendment No. 3 be agreed to.—(Baroness Birk.)

LORDS AMENDMENT
[No. 7]
Page 42, line 22, leave out subsection (3) and insert the following subsection—
("(3) Regulations made under this subsection may, in the case of a provision which falls within any of paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (1) above and contains words which refer to units other than metric units, repeal those words if the appropriate Minister is of the opinion that those words could be omitted without altering the effect of that provision.")

COMMONS AMENDMENT TO THE ABOVE AMENDMENT
[No. 8]
Line 1, after ("regulations made") insert ("by the appropriate Minister").
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendment No. 8 to Lords Amendment No. 7 be agreed to.

1661
This is another tidying-up Amendment which ensures that the drafting of subsection (3) matches up with subsection (4) inserted by the Lords Amendment No. 39.
Moved, That the Commons Amendment No. 8 to the Lords Amendment No. 7 be agreed to.—(Baroness Birk.)

LORDS AMENDMENT
[No. 9]
Page 42, line 28, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) In this section the appropriate Minister means—

(a) in relation to any provisions not relating exclusively to agricultural operations the Secretary of State;

(b) in relation to any provisions not relating exclusively to the relevant agricultural purposes that applies to Great Britain or the United Kingdom the Agriculture Ministers;

(c) in relation to any provisions so relating that applies to England and Wales only, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food;

(d) in relation to any provisions so relating that applies to Scotland only, the Secretary of State.")—(Baroness Birk.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT TO THE ABOVE AMENDMENT
[No. 10]
In paragraph (b) of the subsection inserted by the said amendment, leave out ("not").
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendment No. 10 to Lords Amendment No. 9 be agreed to. This is an intriguing Amendment since the word "not" crept in inadvertently and has to be deleted by Amendment.
Moved, That the Commons Amendment No. 10 to Lords Amendment No. 9 be agreed to.—(Baroness Birk.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, does this not prove the need for a Second Chamber consisting of your Lordships to scrutinise Bills?
BARONESS BIRK: Absolutely, my Lords; I have never disputed that, but I would prefer a reformed Chamber.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[No. 11]
Page 45, line 41, at end insert—(" "the relevant agricultural purposes" means the following purposes, that is to say—

(a) securing the health, safety and welfare at work of persons engaged in agricultural operations,

(b) protecting persons other than persons so engaged against risks to health or safety arising out of or in connection with the activities at work of person so engaged; ").

COMMONS AMENDMENT TO THE ABOVE AMENDMENT
[No. 12]
At end insert ("and the reference in paragraph (b) above to the risks there mentioned shall be construed in accordance with section 1(3)").
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendment No. 12 to Lords Amendment No. 11 be agreed to.
This again is another Amendment necessary to tidy up the drafting of special provisions for agriculture which take account of the Amendment made earlier on Clause 1.
Moved, that Commons Amendment No. 12 to Lords Amendment No. 11 be agreed to.—(Baroness Birk.)

LORDS AMENDMENT
[No. 13]
Page 91, line 16, at end insert new Schedule—
("Modifications of Part I in Connection with Agriculture.
Provisions applied
1. Section 13 (1) various powers) and Modifications

(a) Paragraph (b) shall be omitted;

(b) references to the Commission or the Secretary of State shall be read as references to the appropriate Agricultural Minister, so however that references to the Commission's functions shall be read as, references to the functions of that Minister under the relevant statutory provisions in relation to matters relating exclusively to the relevant agricultural purposes.

2. Section 14 (power to direct investigations and inquiries).

(a) References to the Commission shall be read as references to the appropriate Agriculture Minister;

(b) in subsection (1), the reference to the general purposes of Part I shall be read

1663
as a reference to the relevant agricultural purposes;

(c) in subsection (2), for the words from "direct" to "other" in paragraph (a) there shall be substituted the words "authorise any", the words "with the consent of the Secretary of State" shall be omitted, and for the words from "only matters" to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words "matters relating exclusively to the relevant agricultural purposes";

(d) in subsection (6) references to the Secretary of State shall be read as references to the appropriate Agriculture Minister.

3. Section 16 (approval of codes of practice).

(a) In subsection (1), the words from "and except" to "agricultural operations" shall be omitted, but so that the section shall confer power to approve or issue codes of practice for any provision mentioned in section 16(1) only for the purposes of the application of that provision to matters relating exclusively to the relevant agricultural purposes;

(b) a code of practice may either be approved for Great Britain and be so approved by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State acting jointly, or be approved for England and Wales only and be so approved by that Minister or be approved for Scotland only and be so approved by the Secretary of State, and the references to the Commission shall accordingly be read as references to the agriculture Ministers or the said Minister or the Secretary of State as the case may require;

(c) for subsection (2) there shall be substituted—"(2) Before approving a code of practice under subsection (1) above the Minister or Ministers proposing to do so shall consult the Commission and any other body that appears to him or them to be appropriate.";

(d) for subsection (5) there shall be substituted—

"(5) The authority by whom a code of practice has been approved under this section may at any time withdraw approval from that code, but before doing so shall consult the same bodies as the authority would be required to consult under subsection (2) above if the authorities were proposing to approve the code.".

4. Section 17(3) (use of approved codes in criminal proceedings).
The reference to the Commission shall be read as a reference to the Agriculture Ministers or either of them.
5. Section 27 (obtaining of information).

(a) References to the Commission or the Executive shall be read as references to the appropriate Agriculture Minister, so however that reference to the Commission's functions shall be read as references to the functions of that Minister under the relevant statutory provisions in relation to matters relating
1664
exclusively to the relevant agricultural purposes;

(b) references to an enforcing authority's functions shall be read as references to any enforcing authority's functions under the relevant statutory provisions in relation to matters relating exclusively to the relevant agricultural purposes;

(c) in subsection (1), the words "with the consent of the Secretary of State" shall be omitted;

(d) in subsection (2)(b), the reference to the Secretary of State shall be read as a reference to the appropriate Agriculture Minister, and the words "and the recipient of the information" shall be omitted."

COMMONS AMENDMENT TO THE LORDS AMENDMENT
[No. 14]
In paragraph 3(a), after ("In subsection (1)") insert ("the reference to health and safety regulations shall be read as a reference to agricultural health and safety regulations and ").
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendment No. 14 to Lords Amendment No. 13 be agreed to. This is a final tidying-up Amendment which takes account of various drafting Amendments to Clause 15(6).
Moved, That the Commons Amendment No. 14 to Lords Amendment No. 13 be agreed to.—(Baroness Birk.)
BARONESS BIRK: I beg to move that House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.25 p.m.
[The Sitting was suspended at 8.5 p.m. until 8.25 p.m.]

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS BILL
House again in Committee.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
LORD HANKEY LORD HANKEY had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 41:
Page 36, line 26, at end insert:
"Procedural Agreements
20A. No state funds shall be paid to any worker engaged in a strike or other action in furtherance or contemplation of a trade dispute, whether by way of tax refunds or social

1665
security benefits to himself or his family otherwise due by reason of the strike or other action referred to, unless he shall have and produce on demand to the competent authority concerned a certificate from an industrial tribunal certifying that the trade dispute in question is a constitutional one and that all relevant procedural agreements valid in that industry or undertaking have been complied with. The Inland Revenue and social security authorities will be notified of this requirement."
The noble Lord said: I recommend this interesting Amendment to your Lordships kind study but I do not move it.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Miscellaneous amendments]:
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 55, line 39, leave out ("and") and insert ("or")
The noble Lord said: May I speak to Amendments Nos. 42 and 43? These are drafting Amendments. The first Amendment is necessary because the words substituted by the 1971 Act in Section 16(4) of the Industrial Assurance and Friendly Societies Act 1948 were" organisation of workers or organisation of employers."The second Amendment improves the grammar of paragraph (6)(ii) of subsection (3). I beg to move.
LORD SHEPHERD: I beg to move Amendment No. 43:
Amendment moved—
Page 56, line 16, leave out ("in its application ").—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 59, line 26, at end insert:
("The Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971 (c. 62)
( ) Section 13 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971 (which among other things, makes provision for appeals from and the statement of cases by industrial tribunals to the High Court or Court of Session) shall, in its application to industrital tribunals, be taken as referring to those tribunals when exercising any jurisdiction whatsoever notwithstanding the effect of any order which was made under section 114 of the 1971 Act (appeals from Indus-
1666
trial tribunals to the National Industrial Relations Court).").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 44. It is to ensure that there can be no doubt that by the abolition of the National Industrial Relations Court in the enactment of the Bill, appeals from industrial tribunals will go to the High Court. I beg to move.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
Reported with Amendments.
ASHDOWN FOREST BILL
Reported with an Amendment.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
Fifteenth Report from the Joint Committee made on certain Statutory Instruments and the following Statutory Instruments which require Affirmative Resolution:

Legal Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1974;

Legal Aid (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1974;

Draft Regional Employment Premium (Variation of Amounts) Order 1974;

the said Report to be printed.

BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL ORKNEY COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.