Lords Sitting of 4 December 1975

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

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN
Lord MACLEAN: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a Message from Her Majesty the Queen, signed by her own hand. The Message is as follows:
"I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament."

NHS HOSPITALS AND TREATMENT CONTRIBUTIONS
Lord AYLESTONE: 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 what is their estimate of revenue which would be received if patients resident in National Health Service hospitals for periods of 7 days or more, and between the ages of 18 and 65 years made a contribution of £5 per week towards their hospital treatment and maintenance.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the estimated gross revenue would be about £40 million in England. The net yield, allowing for overlap with existing provisions, necessary exemptions and administrative costs would be very much less.
Lord AYLESTONE: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that even
748
£40 million would be a considerable help to the National Health Service these days and that, while I appreciate that it would make every bed into a pay bed, the cost would perhaps fall less hardly on the patient than a direct increase in prescription charges or charges for dentures or spectacles? Is it a matter which the Royal Commission could look at?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, in reply to the first part of my noble friend's supplementary question, we should have to take into account the overlap between the proposed contribution and existing provisions for abatement of National Insurance and other Social Security benefits when people are admitted to hospital. That would considerably reduce the yield because, at the moment, no reduction is made during the first eight weeks but, thereafter, people in receipt of National Insurance and other Social Security benefits lose £2.65 a week if they have one dependant and £5.30 if they have no dependant. With regard to the second part of my noble friend's question, the terms of reference of the Royal Commission would not preclude examination of an in-patient charge.
Lord TRANMIRE: My Lords, would the noble Lord consider the anomaly under which patients of all ages are admitted to hospital free, whereas the old and frail must, on admission to a hostel, pay for accommodation according to their means?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, that is a matter I shall have to look into because I am not aware that that is the case.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me whether the real reason for not charging for maintenance is because the Government and the medical profession believe that it might deter people who are suffering from a serious complaint from obtaining treatment in hospital?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, that is part of the reason. The other part is the fact that we regard the National Health Service as a free service, taking into account the fact that people pay by virtue of their contributions every week.

COMMUNITY LAND ACT AND DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS
3.0 p.m.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: 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 in operating the Community Land Act steps will be taken to ensure that, where financial arrangements approved by the court in divorce proceedings are based on real estate only, those arrangements will not be disturbed.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, an order in divorce proceedings for the transfer of real property only—which is the situation referred to in the noble Baroness's Question—would not be at all common except in the case when the parties' only asset was the matrimonial home, which I trust would be a rare event. The Community Land Act is primarily concerned with land which is needed for development and would not, I think, affect the situation which the noble Baroness may be envisaging.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, while thanking the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for that Answer, I hope that he will excuse me for saying that he has not quite got this right. I know of cases in which the court has decided that real property should go to the husband and to the wife. In some cases, the wife has both land and a matrimonial house, so may I ask the noble and learned Lord to reconsider the matter? I feel it is terribly important to a few people in whom I understand both our Party and that of the noble and learned Lord are genuinely interested.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am sorry I do not seem to have the Question right. I am bound to say that its purport has not come to me with a blinding flash of clarity, but the noble Baroness is absolutely right in indicating that more and more the law has adjusted itself in the matter of property towards a state of equality of treatment as
750
between husband and wife. However, if there is any aspect of the matter which concerns the noble Baroness, I shall be delighted to discuss it with her.

NATO: PARLIAMENTARY VISITS
3.13 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: 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 facilities could be made available for a few Members of this House who are interested in Defence to meet NATO representatives with the object of obtaining information on defence against possible aggression.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, if the noble Lord would care to write to me with the names of those who would like to visit Brussels to meet NATO representatives, and a broad idea of the dates he has in mind, I will make every effort to see what can be arranged.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I am very grateful for that satisfactory Answer so far as it goes. But in view of the fact that I may have some difficulty in organising this, is it not possible to so arrange it that any noble Lord who cares to apply could do so either to my noble friend or to myself; and if a submission is made to me I could transfer it to my noble friend? Could that not be arranged?
Lord WINTER BOTTOM: My Lords, I have only one caveat to make: this will cost money. If the noble Lord could keep his troop of friends to a small number we could be more likely to get a really satisfactory visit.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I note the advice of my noble friend, but I cannot understand why it should cost money. I do not suggest that we should go to Headquarters in Paris or to any part of Europe, but that we might perhaps be able to meet some military superiors in London. Obviously this would not involve a very large number; but only those who are intensely interested in the subject of standardisation, the use of proper weapons, strategy and so on.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I say to the noble Lord that the advice I have is that a visit to Brussels would be the most valuable, because very often it is not the "top brass" but the middle levels who can give the sort of details which my noble friend might wish to have. If he would care to communicate with me I shall do my best to make satisfactory arrangements.
Lord BALNIEL: My Lords, I agree that it is desirable that a few Members of the House should have the opportunity of meeting representatives of NATO, but will the noble Lord take this opportunity of informing the whole House, and indeed another place, as to the truth of the rumours that there are further defence cuts coming? Would not the noble Lord recollect that the over-whelming body of opinion expressed in the last Defence debate was that we had already reached a limit of defence cuts?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, that is another Question, and I thought that I covered it very fully in the Defence debate last week.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that it is extremely important that there should be a proper flow of communication between NATO and Parliament? Would he not agree also that at the present time there is still amazing ignorance inside Parliament about the proper function of NATO; and that the Question put by my noble friend and the Answer given on behalf of the Government would, if carried still further, help enormously to improve these relations?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, if the offer that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made is treated temperately and sensibly, I think that much good can come from it in the area involved.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that perhaps the explanation by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, of what was behind this Question does not fit into what I would call the Parliamentary level of responsibility? While weapons and all that sort of thing is of interest to those interested in that aspect of the matter, Parliament's responsibility is to see that
752
our contribution to defence under NATO is correct. Surely the point made by my noble friend Lord Balniel is the one that ought to be concerning Parliamentarians? Are we playing our part properly according to the regulations and promises we made in the past?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the regulations made in the past have not quite covered what my noble friend Lord Shinwell has wanted. As your Lordships know, we have regular visits; I have myself been responsible for organising them. But in my view your Lordships' House has not been represented to the same degree as has another place, and perhaps we have an expertise here which we should like to keep up to date.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I can give an assurance that if I happen to meet any of the generals and air marshals I shall treat them in precisely the same fashion as I did when I was at the War Office and the Ministry of Defence? I shall "talk turkey" to them—and no nonsense.
Viscount ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, if the vast mountain of noble Lords who wish to know something more about this subject was too large to go to Mohammed, would it be possible to persuade Mohammed to come here and address us?

EEC HEADS OF GOVERNMENT: ROME MEETING
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to ask a Question of which I have given Her Majesty's Government Private Notice; namely:
" To ask Her Majesty's Government what conclusions were reached at the meeting of European Community Heads of Government in Rome on 1st and 2nd December."
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall answer this Question in the form of a Statement after 3.30 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I thank the Minister, but may I ask him, on a matter of procedure, whether the

753
Prime Minister's Statement in another place is to be at the end of Questions in the normal way, so that it would be repeated here, or is it to be in answer to a Question in another place?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I understand that the Statement will be in answer to a Question put down to the Prime Minister. In any case, I hope it will be proper and convenient to the House if I repeat that Statement and cope as well as I can with supplementary questions, after the Statement has been made in another place.

GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS
3.18 p.m.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I expect that it is out of Order, but we on this side of the House would not allow an occasion when we have lost a Deputy Leader of the House and gained another one—apart from some other promotions —to pass without some words from us. We thank the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, very much for all he has done in his job as Deputy Leader of the House, and we wish him well in his new appointment, should that appointment ever materialise, since the Bill relating to the job which he has now accepted has not yet gone through your Lordships' House. We do not know that we hope it does, but, never mind, if he ever gets there we wish him well.
We wish the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, a very warm welcome. In a short time he has already made a reputation for himself in this House, and I am glad to be able to say that because I shall say some very rude things to him later in the afternoon on a different subject. We also wish well other noble Lords who have been promoted and who have been given different jobs, and congratulate them on their new appointments.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, I should like to endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has said. We on these Benches view with very mixed feelings the departure of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. We shall miss him at the Dispatch Box, where he has done an outstanding job, even though we have disagreed vigorously on occasions. I am not sure whether his new appointment is
754
preferment or punishment, but if ever a noble Lord has made a rod for his own back the noble Lord has done it himself. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, retires, having reached the age of 70. I had no idea he was anywhere near that danger point, and I think this must be one of the few occasions when this age limit rule has been invoked in this House. But we wish him well in his retirement from his North Sea responsibilities.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd): My Lords, perhaps I may respond to the kindliness and the generosity of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the noble Lord, Lord Byers, in what they have said about my noble friend Lord Beswick. I shall not speculate as to the future behaviour of your Lordships' House in regard to a certain piece of legislation, but of one thing I am fairly certain; that is, that I have the whole House with me in expressing appreciation to my noble friend Lord Beswick, not only for what he has done as a Minister and as Deputy Leader but for the service that he rendered the House —I mean service—as Chief Whip in Government from 1967 to 1970 and, perhaps in a harder way, when he was Chief Whip in Opposition. To be Chief Whip in Opposition when facing a majority Party like that of the noble Lords opposite requires three characteristics. One is guile, one is firmness and one is, on occasions, just downright obstinancy. My noble friend has all those characteristics, though fortunately the latter did not have to show itself very frequently. But, as I have said on other occasions—and I should like to repeat it now—this House depends fundamentally, if not entirely, upon the way in which the Chief Whips of the three political Parties work together, for without them I do not know how we would conduct our business.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Byers: it is hard to believe that my noble friend Lord Balogh is 70. However, he did make it clear that when 70 arrived he would leave, though I suspect, knowing my noble friend, it will not be long before he is entertaining us in this House and also taking up new positions in the national interest. One of the other changes, of course, has produced yet another lady on the Front Bench.

755
Heaven knows how we are going to cope with it, but here I must be careful or I shall have my noble friend Lady Summerskill on my back. But, my Lords, we warmly welcome my noble friend Lady Stedman to the ranks of the Whips, upon whom, I say again, the Government Front Bench very much depends.
In regard to the other two Ministers, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, they have many characteristics. One, to which I attach the greatest importance, is that they are young and will be able to assume the burdens of your Lordships' House for many years ahead. But, my Lords, particularly I agree with my noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington—I will say "my noble friend Lord Carrington"—in expressing a great welcome and great satisfaction that my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts has not only got back his old Ministerial rank in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office but has also been appointed Deputy Leader. I cannot help but remember the day on which he was introduced to your Lord ships' House. He took off his robes, ran through the passageway to the Despatch Box and dealt with two Questions. As a friend said to me, "He was born to be a Lord". There is a great deal of truth in that observation, and I am delighted that he is now my deputy in leading your Lordships' House.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I wonder whether it would be in order to acknowledge the generosity of the personal remarks made about me. I have learned to respect this House. As in all true respect, there is an element of affection, and I shall miss my place on the Front Bench. My Lords, controversy without malice, blessed with opinions but not cursed with prejudice, are qualities which I think this House has contributed to public life, and I hope it will continue to do so. If I can be associated with it, I shall be most grateful; and if I can think that I carry some good will with me in any other work I am called upon to do, then that will strengthen me. I thank your Lordships very much.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for the generous words he spoke about me, because it shows that my being on the
756
Front Bench was not unremarked by the Tories! I thank the noble Lord, Lord Byers, very much indeed for his generous words. We have crossed swords, but I hope that I behaved with due respect to him and to other noble Lords. While I enjoyed thoroughly my role as a Minister, I hope my return to academic life will be a great solace to me in my old age.

STATUTE LAW (REPEALS) BILL [H.L.]
3.27 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I bee to introduce a Bill to promote the reform of the statute law by the repeal, in accordance with recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission, of certain enactments which (except in so far as their effect is preserved) are no longer of practical utility, and to make other provision in connection with the repeal of those enactments. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

INCURABLE PATIENTS BILL [H.L.]
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to enlarge and declare the rights of patients to be delivered from incurable suffering. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la.—(Baroness Wootton of Abinger.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

NORTHERN IRELAND (LOANS) BILL
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911; read la, and to be printed.

STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BILLS)
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (The Earl of Listowel): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee on the Standing Orders be appointed, and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:—

Lord Chancellor (L. Elwyn-Jones).

E. Lauderdale.

V. Brentford.

L. Airedale.

L. Alport.

B. Bacon.

L. Derwent.

L. Thurlow.

—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PRIVILEGES
The Earl of LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That in accordance with Standing Order 71, a Select Committee for Privileges be appointed, and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords, together with the Chairman of Committees and any four Lords of Appeal, be named of the Committee:—

Lord Privy Seal (L. Shepherd).

E. St. Aldwyn.

L. Aberdare.

L. Amulree.

L. Beswick.

L. Byers.

L. Carrington.

L. Champion.

L. Erskine of Rerrick.

L. Greenwood of Rossendale.

B. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe.

L. Molson.

L. Rea.

L. Shackleton.

L. Windlesham.

—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

INSOLVENCY BILL [H.L.]
3.29 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Beswick, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. My Lords, this Bill is concerned with bankruptcy, winding-up of companies and also sequestration in Scotland. Its most important object is to bring certain monetary limits into line with present day values. An expected result will be that the work-load of the Insolvency Service is brought more into line with available resources. Your Lordships will be. doubt have been pleased to note that in its Explanatory Memorandum it states that the Bill is expected to result in a reduction of 100 to 150 staff over the next three years, at a total saving of up to £750,000 a year. The Bill also gives effect to a number of other urgently needed changes in insolvency law.
The present system of bankruptcy law in England and Wales was settled in 1883. Since then, three different Committees have considered the relevant legislation. Two resulted in the passing of Bankruptcy Acts in 1914 and 1926. The third Committee reported in 1957 and said:
" We are satisfied that the basic structure of the Bankruptcy Law, apart from that relating to discharge, is generally sound and well suited to its purpose."
It continued:
" Our suggested Amendments are designed to remove, so far as possible, administrative difficulties and irregularities, some of which have been inherent in a system of law which has to service a two-fold purpose, on the one hand of protecting a bankrupt from anything in the nature of persecution by his creditors, and on the other, protecting creditors from the dishonest or fraudulent financial dealings of their debtor."
It is a sad fact that successive Governments since 1957 have not found time to introduce the legislation to give effect to these suggested Amendments.
In Scotland, the term "bankruptcy" is often used indiscriminately to mean insolvency, not our bankruptcy and the judicial process of sequestration. I hesitate to enter into the mysteries of the law of Scotland, but I understand that not our bankruptcy originally designated the condition of a man who, to avoid imprisonment for debt, had retired

759
to the sanctuary of the Abbey of Holy-rood. Such a means of avoidance is no longer open to him, I understand. His insolvency thereby became notorious or "notour." So far as this Bill is concerned, however, such of its provisions as will apply to Scotland relate only to sequestration. This judicial process has been developed since it was first introduced in 1772, and the basis of the present system was, and still is, enacted in the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1913.
A Working Party under the chairman, ship of Lord Kilbrandon was appointed in November 1968 by the Scottish Law Commission, "to examine the law relating to Insolvency, Bankruptcy and Liquidation in Scotland." The Report of this Working Party, published in November 1971, concluded that the 1913 Act operated satisfactorily, but recommended certain simplifications and improvements. Although there is some similarity between bankruptcy in England and Wales and sequestration in Scotland, there are significant differences in both law and practice but, in so far as the provisions of this Bill are appropriate for Scotland, they will take effect in Scotland as well as in England and Wales.
Bankruptcy applies only to individuals and partnerships. Companies are wound up under the provisions of the Companies Act 1948. A Companies Bill to implement a number of the recommendations of the Jenkins Committee which reviewed the 1948 Act and reported in 1962 was Introduced in your Lordships' House in December 1973, but it was not proceeded with following the change of Administration in February 1974. Some of the non-controversial measures contained in that Bill have now been included in this Insolvency Bill. The Department of Trade is conscious of the need for major changes in insolvency law and work is starting on a review to achieve this end. It will prove to be a major task.
My Lords, the monetary limit for the minimum debt required to found a creditor's petition in bankruptcy, which is at present £50, was fixed before 1914: it is now completely out of date. Today, a creditor can bring bankruptcy proceedings against his debtor even though he is only owed this comparatively trivial
760
sum. By increasing monetary limits as this Bill does, there will be a considerable reduction in the number of the more trivial domestic and consumer credit cases made subject to bankruptcy proceedings. These cases do not usually involve a wide circle of trade creditors or the general public. There are few or no assets from which to recoup costs and the proceedings, which require a good many skilled officials, are expensive to the public purse.
The work of the Insolvency Service Division has been growing for a number of years, particularly as a result of the slide in real value of monetary limits set out in the relevant Statutes. This workload must be brought more nearly into line with specialised staff resources and the most ready way of doing this is to restore the value of these limits. The restoration of the value of limits will also raise the amount of wages or salary allowed as a preferential debt to employees, as I shall explain shortly. Also it will affect the amount of necessary goods a bankrupt may retain and the minimum amount necessary to constitute the offence of obtaining credit whilst an undischarged bankrupt.
These, then, are the primary reasons for introducing this Bill. But the opportunity has also been taken to effect other urgently needed reforms of insolvency law. The Bill can be summarised as follows: first, it will bring up to date the monetary limits relating to bankruptcy and winding-up, and give power to the Secretary of State further to increase them by regulation; secondly, it will simplify certain statutory accounting and auditing procedures, and bring them into line with modern practice; thirdly, it will simplify the procedure for a credit or submitting his claim in bankruptcy and winding-up procedures; fourthly, it will enable the court in certain circumstances to dispense with the public examination of a debtor in bankruptcy; fifthly, it will provide a special procedure for speeding up discharges from bankruptcy. This will be additional to the present discharge procedure. Sixthly, it will enable the court to disqualify a person from acting as a director or manager of a company where his conduct justifies that restraint; and, lastly, it will extend and strengthen the administration order procedure in the county court.

761
The increase in the monetary limits, the simplified procedure for the lodging of creditors' claims, and the additional power to disqualify a person from acting as a director or manager of a company, will apply also to Scotland. Clause 1 and Schedule 1 increase a number of monetary limits, broadly so as to restore the value which they had when fixed in 1914. They are arrived at, generally speaking, by multiplying the 1914 figure by 12. If the limits were fixed or amended after 1914, the new amount is intended to correspond with the real value they had at that later date. For example, the maximum amount for which a worker can claim preferential rights in bankruptcy and winding-up procedures for arrears of wages or salary was increased in 1947 to £200: the figure of £800 in column 3 of Schedule 1 for this limit restores the value to what it was in 1947, by multiplying by four.
There is however one important exception to this general rule. It concerns the minimum debt required to support a bankruptcy petition by a creditor. To restore the 1914 value of this limit, at present £50. would require an increase to £600. The Government feel that this is too large an increase in this particular case. There are now greater opportunities for the wage earner or self-employed person to obtain credit; and the latter is more likely to become indebted to the revenue-collecting departments of the Crown for taxes and social security contributions. An increase above £300 would, I am advised, unduly restrict bankruptcy proceedings as the best means of collecting fairly substantial debts. So the figure rests in the Bill at £300.
Clause 1 also gives the Secretary of State power to increase further the monetary limits by Regulation so as to enable them to be kept up to date in future without the need for primary legislation. Clauses 2 and 3 bring existing accounting procedures up to date and provide for a more economical and efficient service. Every trustee in bankruptcy and liquidator of a company being wound up by the court is required to send to the Department of Trade, not less than twice a year, an account of his receipts and payments. At present each separate account has to be audited in detail. All monies received by trustees in bankruptcy and company liquidators have to
762
be paid into special accounts kept by the Secretary of State at the Bank of England, bankruptcy monies into the Bankruptcy Estates Account and liquidation monies into the Companies Liquidation Account.
Under Clause 3 these two procedures will be changed, so that the audit of accounts of trustees in bankruptcy and liquidators will be brought into line with modern auditing practice. The two special bank accounts at the Bank of England will be replaced by a single account called "The Insolvency Services Account". This will enable more efficient use to be made of the day-to-day balances not immediately required. Clause 4 will substantially reduce the formalities required to be observed by a creditor submitting his claim in bankruptcy, sequestration or companies liquidation. At present, creditors must prove their debts by completing a complicated document which then has to be verified by formal affidavit. The procedure is also relatively expensive. The clause will enable creditors to submit their claims on a simple form without the need for it to be sworn, unless the circumstances are such that the Official Receiver or trustee requires an affidavit.
Clause 5 will empower the court to dispense with the public examination of a debtor in bankruptcy on an application by the Official Receiver. At present every debtor must undergo public examination unless he is excused on grounds of unfitness, but in many cases the public examination is of little concern to the public or to the creditors and does not warrant a formal court hearing. It is in cases of that kind the Official Receiver might make an application to have the public examination dispensed with. Clause 6 provides that adjudication in bankruptcy be reviewed by the court after five years, for the purpose of considering whether or not the bankrupt should then be given a discharge. I would stress that the new review procedure is additional to the existing discharge procedure which will continue. A bankrupt will still be able to apply for his discharge, but if he fails to do so within the five years after adjudication the new review procedure will come into operation.
The main defect of the present law is that the bankrupt himself must apply to the court if he wishes to be discharged.

763
Many never trouble to do so, and there is an increasing population of undischarged bankrupts (estimated at present at upwards of 60,000) at risk of acting, perhaps inadvertently, in breach of bankruptcy law with potentially serious consequences. Under the new review procedure bankruptcies will be considered by the court without the need for an application by the bankrupt. It is expected that, as five years will have elapsed in each case since the adjudication order, the majority of bankrupts will be granted their discharge. I must mention that the new review procedure will not apply to any bankruptcy occurring more than five years before the date when this clause comes into force. Neither the Insolvency Service nor the courts have the resources to deal with the entire population of undischarged bankrupts.
Clause 7 deals with the disqualification of directors of insolvent companies. Section 188 of the Companies Act 1948 gives the court power to restrain certain persons, who have been concerned in the management of companies, from so acting for a period of up to five years. This clause introduces a further ground upon which the court may make a disqualification order; namely, the conduct of the person concerned in his dealings as a director of two or more insolvent companies which have gone into liquidation within a period of five years. Where the court considers the person's conduct as a director of those companies to be such as to make him unfit to manage a company, it may disqualify him for a period up to five years. This seems a very prudent provision for the protection of the public.
Clauses 8 and 9 both make changes to the county court administration order procedure. The broad effect of an administration order is to prevent further proceedings by creditors to enforce outstanding debts, and to arrange for the settlement of the debtor's liabilities under the supervision of the court. The debtor is usually required to make regular payments into court, which are used to pay off his debts by instalments, either in full or to such extent as the court may direct. Under the law as it now stands a county court can make an administration order against a judgment debtor if he himself applies for such an order and his total
764
debts do not exceed a prescribed amount, at present £1,000. The court can also make an administration order against a debtor where a creditor applies for an attachment of earnings order, and the court is of the opinion that it is more appropriate instead to make an administration order. Again the debtor's total debts must not exceed the prescribed amount.
The present system has two main weaknesses. First, since the earnings of a self-employed person cannot be attached he cannot be the subject of an administration order unless he himself applies for it. Following the abolition of imprisonment for refusing to pay ordinary civil debts, the power of the court to enforce a judgment debt against a self-employed person has been somewhat eroded. Clause 8 will strengthen the position by empowering the court of its own motion to make an administration order against any judgment debtor if his total liabilities do not exceed the prescribed amount.
I turn now to Clause 9. The only sanction which the court can apply if a debtor fails to keep up his payments under an administration order is to revoke the order, thereby leaving creditors free to pursue their normal legal remedies. Clause 9 will give a much more effective sanction by enabling the court, if the debtor defaults, to revoke the administration order and instead to make a receiving order in bankruptcy against him. He will then be subject to normal bank-rutcy proceedings.
My Lords, there are many other areas of insolvency law which I am bound to admit are in need of reform. I am afraid that Governments and Parliaments have been remiss in not doing something about it. I have already referred to the wide-ranging review of insolvency law which is being conducted by the Department of Trade. This also takes account of our EEC commitments and, in particular, the draft EEC Bankruptcy Convention which is at present under general consideration by Member-States. This Bill is restricted to those matters that need and can receive immediate legislative treatment. It is I believe a very useful and necessary measure. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.50 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I have no doubt that your Lordships will give a general welcome to this Bill, which appears not over the name of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, but over the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. I confess that this change of role, so to speak, has shortened my speech to some extent in that I have prepared a few remarks which I, at least, regarded as witty in connection with the passing of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, from the Despatch Box and in connection with this Bill.
In view of the tortuous and somewhat laboured way in which we in this country —and I include for these purposes the whole of the United Kingdom, or at least England and Scotland—deal with bankruptcy, it is right that where there has been a personal or corporate financial failure the processes should be examined and brought up to date. There is no need for me to go down all the paths which have been trodden by the noble and learned Lord, and I do not seek to do so. I hope I may be forgiven if I do not get right all the legal terms which are correct in Scotland but not in England. I have to take the legal language as I have always found it.
It is sensible that the monetary limits relating to bankruptcy and winding up in Part I of Schedule 1 should be greatly increased, as we have been told will be done. It is, however, probably worthy of comment that this is a symptom of the present appalling situation so far as inflation is concerned, that Section 155(a) of the Bankruptcy Act 1914, which regulates the amount of credit to be obtained by an undischarged bankrupt without disclosure, has been amended from £10 to £120. With certain exceptions, as the noble and learned Lord has told us, all the limits have been raised by no less than 12 times the original amount considered to be proper.
Again referring to Section 155(a), an offence is now committed only where the value of the credit obtained exceeds the sum of £120. It is perhaps worth mentioning—and I do not say this in any carping sense—that I believe the business community feel a certain anxiety over those sections mentioned in Schedule 1 relating to preferential debts. I refer of course to Section 33(1)(b) of the Bank-ruptcy
766
Act 1914 and Section 319(2) of the Companies Act 1948. I intentionally leave out that section of the Scottish Act of 1913, relating to that country. Be that as it may, the maximum sum in respect of wages or salaries ranking as preferential debt in winding up has been raised to £800.
I do not think for one moment that your Lordships will accuse me of going into contentious realms so far as salaries and wages are concerned if I venture to make a mild criticism of this provision. As I understand it, in many cases the banks are perfectly happy to have a subjugation in respect of these wages and salaries, so that the effect of this provision will be that many firms or businesses which should really be brought to an end because they cannot succeed are going to be maintained for just that little longer by the banks, in the hope that when an upturn in the economy comes or better times arise they may see their money back. There cannot he many cases where a sum of £800 is owed in respect of wages or salaries. I should have thought that the pre-preferential debts which were embraced in the 1973 Bill—which lapsed on the change of Government, as mentioned by the noble and learned Lord—would have been a better way of dealing with this matter.
So far as the other individual clauses are concerned, Clause 4, as we have been told, eases the burden of the proof of debts in bankruptcy. I am tempted to ask—indeed I am going to ask—why the same procedure could not have been adopted in the winding up. It seems eminently sensible, so why should the one not apply to the other? Clause 6, relating to the automatic review of bankruptcy, I am sure will be generally welcomed by your Lordships' House. It is difficult to know why the Government in fact have not embraced the Blagden Report, as opposed to Clause 6 as it stands, although I think I understand the reason why. It seems to me that subsection (5) of the clause directs that the court reviews the adjudication in the absence of the bankrupt, if I may use that phrase, and the trustee and any creditor may be heard and any evidence may be put before the court. An order may be made under subsection (6) of Clause 6, presumably still in the absence of the bankrupt—indeed that must be so,

767
because where an order for payment is made under subsection (6) there can be relief ordered under subsection (8). I raise that only because it seems to me that injustice could be caused if there is an order for payment under subsection (6) which has been made in the absence of the bankrupt. It may be that something should be written into the Bill to the effect that where the court is minded to make any such order the presence of the bankrupt should be required.
I have a slight anxiety with regard to Clause 7, because it deals with disqualification of directors of insolvent companies. I am sure that this is a measure which will be generally welcomed by your Lordships. Clause 7(1)(a) is the part which on two occasions provides for a director of insolvent companies in certain circumstances to be made, later in the subsection, the subject of an order by the court. It seems to me that as the wording stands at present there could be an element of retrospection about that part -of it. Perhaps the Government would wish to say that where a company director has failed in this way he may well not be allowed to take part in the management of the company. That is something on which the Government may care to reflect. In any event, one realises that there is a safeguard in Clause 7(1)(b), in that the court, I assume, has to be satisfied that his conduct as a director makes him unfit to be concerned.
It seems to me that if somebody is going to be put in the position where his livelihood, or his chances of gaining a livelihood, may be taken away, both the courts and Parliament must be absolutely certain that what they are doing will be fair and just, before a provision of this sort is made. In Clause 7 I cannot see any form of appeal or safeguard against the decision of what I might term an over-enthusiastic court. Certainly in my experience, if a court is in the throes of hearing a case it possibly becomes over-enthusiastic in its condemnation of somebody who has appeared in front of it; and it might be unfortunate, and indeed unfair, if someone who had been made the subject of a Clause 7 order then had no right of appeal.
As I have said, apart from those points I welcome this Bill. One ventures to
768
hope that the Government, by their manipulation of our economic and fiscal policies, will try to ensure that the very large volume of bankruptcies and insolvencies will diminish. If I have the figures aright—and they may well be suspect—bankruptcies and insolvencies generally are running at 60percent.higher than in the last financial year, and this is something which anybody who believes in private enterprise or even in the mixed economy will deplore. One has to admit that, unfortunately, however good an economy is, there will be failures, and I commend the Government for bringing this part of the law up to date.
4.1 p.m.
Lord WADE: My Lords, on behalf of my Liberal colleagues, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for outlining the contents of this Bill. At the same time, I should like to join in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, on his appointment designate to a very important position. Until a few hours ago, I had anticipated that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, would be outlining this Bill, but no one in your Lordships' House would for one moment doubt the complete ability of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to deal with a Bill of this nature, or indeed with any other Bill.
Turning to the Bill there is a certain sad irony and appropriateness in the fact that we should be discussing insolvency at a time when, owing to the economic climate and the direct and indirect effects of inflation, there has been, and is, a considerable increase in the number of insolvencies. As your Lordships are aware, there are various reasons for this situation. There are the firms which relied on a bank for working capital, and then found that the securities held by the bank suddenly fell in value while the cost of raw materials doubled, thus creating difficulties. There are the firms affected by sudden changes in our tax laws. There are the firms affected by unexpected fierce competition and, for one reason or another, they have failed. Therefore, we must recognise that in solvency is not necessarily the consequence of inefficient management or rash decisions.
There has always been some stigma about becoming insolvent, whether it be

769
a firm or an individual. But this is especially so in the case of an individual, and if one looks back into history one finds that the treatment of those who became bankrupt was very harsh indeed. Today, insolvency may not be due to action that is in itself discreditable, and therefore it is only reasonable that our law relating to insolvency should be as enlightened as possible. However, the public must be protected, so there must be a dual aim; on the one hand, to ensure that our laws are not unduly harsh and, on the other hand, to see that the public is protected. When I use the word "public", I intend to include a number of small creditors to which I shall refer in a few moments. As regards the protection of the public, Clause 7, to which the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, has al-already referred, is very important. It is the clause which deals with the person who is, or has been, a director of two or more companies which have become insolvent. But, first, may I make a few comments on the other clauses?
The Bill contains some sensible and modest reforms. Clause 4 removes the requirement for the creditor to make a proof of debt by affidavit sworn before a commissioner for oaths. In my legal practice, from which I have now retired, I was a commissioner for oaths for about 40 years. I am not suggesting that the fees of a commissioner for oaths enable one to wax very fat and I do not think there is any indication that that has been so in my case. But I have seen a number of these affidavits in bankruptcy, from time to time being paid the appropriate fee, and I have sometimes felt rather sorry for the creditor for having to be put to this additional trouble and cost. I do not think any great harm would be done by dispensing with the affidavit. In most cases, it would suffice if the creditor made a statement showing what was his claim and that he had evidence to support it, especially when there is a proviso, as in this case, that the Official Receiver may ask for an affidavit if he deems it necessary.
Under Clause 5, the court can dispense with the public examination on the application of the Official Receiver. The question which I should like to ask is: by what criteria will this decision be made? It should not be related solely to the amount of the assets, or the number of creditors. To illustrate that, there may be
770
a case where a considerable sum is involved, but it is well understood that there has been no discreditable action by the individual who has become bankrupt; there is no dispute about the amount of the claims. In such a case, it may be unnecessary to have a public examination. On the other hand, there may be a small bankruptcy, in the sense that the amount of the assets is negligible, and there are many creditors with only small claims. But there may be something rather shady about the business, and innocent and gullible people may have been taken in. It may even be that, following adjudication, a bankrupt is not unduly concerned because the business is to start up again in the name of his wife or that of another relative; or perhaps the debtor is a little difficult to trace. It would be very tempting and understandable, in those circumstances, for the Official Receiver not to bother with a public examination and to take the appropriate steps to suggest to the court that there be no such examination. But I suggest that in that type of case a public examination is necessary, and very searching questions should be asked for the protection of the public.
Before turning to Clause 7, I wonder whether the idea contained in that clause; namely, the ban on a director of an insolvent company from being concerned with the management of another company for a maximum period of five years, could be applied to the individual bankrupt who has been carrying on a shady business. However, that idea would require careful consideration.
If I may now turn to Clause 7, we read in the Explanatory Memorandum that:
"Clause 7 provides that in certain circumstances the court may order that a person who has been a director of two or more insolvent companies which have been wound up shall be disqualified from taking part in the management of a company for a specified period … ".
I am wondering whether there will be any difficulty over the interpretation of the phrase in Clause 7(1):
" …be concerned or take part in the management of a company …".
The wording is rather loose. It may be that it has been taken from an earlier Act of which I am unaware, but I am still of the opinion that controversy might arise over the interpretation of those words.

771
There are other proposals. Clause 6 provides for an automatic review of adjudication of bankruptcy after five years and that is a very reasonable proposal. Clause 8 gives power to the county court to make an administration order. That proposal should also he supported. There may well be detailed points which should be considered in Committee.
There is one other point which is not a matter of detail. As your Lordships are aware, it has been stated by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that due to changes in money values, the minimum debt to support a bankruptcy petition has been increased to£300 in Schedule 1. Similarly, the minimum debt for winding up an unregistered company on the grounds of insolvency has been increased to £300 and I noted what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had to say about this. However, it was put to me very strongly this morning by a barrister practising in bankruptcy law that this increase, although understandable, would have the effect of ruling out a considerable number of small creditors, particularly of the kind to which I have already referred. Therefore, it has some bearing on the problem of the small creditors who arc taken in by the shady business.
It is undoubtedly true that the threat of bankruptcy may often be the only effective remedy for the small creditor. Other proceedings may be open to him but they are lengthy and expensive and there arc occasions when the threat of bankruptcy is the best course. For anybody with a debt owing to him of less than £300, that threat would no longer be open, and the barrister to whom I have referred expressed the view that the position of the small creditor might be greatly weakened. Subject to those few observations, it is clear that the Bill contains a number of useful provisions and that it should be supported on Second Reading.

EEC HEADS OF GOVERNMENT: ROME MEETING
4.15 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will answer a Question that was put to me by my noble friend Lord Brockway by repeating a Statement which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now answer Questions 7 and 9 together.
"As the House knows, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and I met our European Community colleagues at the European Council in Rome on the 1st and 2nd December.
" We reviewed first the world economic situation, in the light of the summit meeting at Rambouillet on the 15th and 16th November. I found my colleagues in broad agreement with the conclusions reached at that meeting on which I have reported to the House. The European Council also dealt with a number of items of Community business and made satisfactory progress with the arrangements for the Conference on International Economic Co-operation (CIEC). Copies of the working documents agreed at the meeting are being placed in the Library of the House.
" There was general agreement with the proposals on financial control in the Community, on which I drew from our experience of the working of our own Public Accounts Committee and the Accounting Officer system, which I had put forward, and which will be published shortly as a White Paper. I believe that this represents an important step towards ensuring effective control over expenditure in the Community.
" The European Council agreed that Direct Elections to the European Parliament shall take place in May or June 1978; but that any country which at that date is unable to hold Direct Elections shall be allowed to appoint its representatives, as is done at present. I made it clear that we accept in principle the committment to Direct

773
Elections in the Treaty of Rome, since this issue was decided by the referendum, since Article 138(3) of the Treaty of Rome is mandatory here. But 1 added that we required a further period for consultations with political parties in this House and for consideration of the matter by Parliament before we could adopt a final position about holding Direct Elections ourselves as early as1978. The Council will now continue its examination of the matters to be decided at the Community level, such as the number and distribution of seats, and will prepare a draft Convention for submission to the next European Council.
" The European Council agreed on the introduction of a uniform passport which may be issued as from 1978. As far as Passport Union is concerned, I made it clear that, for our part, the timing would depend on progress with revision of our own nationality legislation, and I could give no assurances about the timing of that legislation. The European Council also adopted a British proposal that Community Ministers responsible for law and order should meet to discuss matters coming within their competence.
" Finally, the European Council discussed at great length the arrangements for the CIEC and a compromise agreement was reached which fully safeguards Britain's interests.
" On substance, agreement was reached for the first time in the Community on two important elements which have already been agreed by eight Member-States in the IEA including the United Kingdom; namely, emergency oil sharing and the principle of a minimum safeguard price mechanism.
" The latter point is particularly important. In the words agreed in Rome, ' the Council will decide as soon as possible appropriate mechanisms to protect existing supplies and ensure the development of alternative sources of Community energy, on reasonable economic terms, and to encourage conservation in the use of energy '.
" My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and
774
Commonwealth Affairs and I had made it clear as long ago as October, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs publicly and myself directly to the Federal German Chancellor, that we were concerned to get a viable agreed Community position on energy before the Conference. As I put it then, it seemed to us reasonable that the nine Member-States should be represented through the Community where there was a common policy, but that there was every reason why the United Kingdom should be present in its own right, as one of the eight industrialised country representatives at a conference of such far-reaching importance, so that we could put forward our own views where these were not covered by a Community mandate. What was important was that we should have a much more far-reaching, agreed mandate for the Community as a whole.
" I believe that the agreement which my right honourable friend and I were able to secure after lengthy discussion in Rome, namely for the United Kingdom to have a separate voice both at the Ministerial Conference and in the four Commissions which will subsequently be meeting at official level, has, as I will demonstrate, achieved our purpose. The Community will be represented by a single delegation and the spokesman will be the President of the Council with the Commission. But during the Ministerial Conference the United Kingdom and Luxembourg, the latter in her capacity as the next President, will, in the words agreed in Rome, ' be invited to present additional statements 'throughout the meeting. And in the four Commissions representatives of Member-States who will form part of the Community delegation will also be able to comment on specific questions. Both at the Ministerial Conference and in the Commissions our statements will be consistent with whatever Community position or mandate has been agreed by us. But in our interventions, both by my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary at the Ministerial Conference and by our officials in the Commissions, we shall be able to draw attention to particular problems and be

775
able to make a United Kingdom contribution which reflects our own very different situation and experience."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
4.23 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, for repeating that Answer to a Question here. In doing so may I just say how glad so many of us are that he has become our deputy spokesman on the Front Bench. I have known him for many years and have never known anyone more sincere or more selfless in serving the causes in which he believes. My Lords, I tabled a Private Notice Question today because I wanted to ensure that we would have this Statement read to us. In the normal way when in another place a Minister takes the initiative to make a Statement after Questions it is repeated here if it is of sufficient importance, but when a statement is made in answer to a Question at Question Time in another place it does not necessarily come before this House, and because I felt this Statement was so important I took the course of tabling a Private Notice Question.
I imagine that this reply to a Question at Question Time in another place is almost unique in its length. It has shown that the two-day Conference at Rome covered an enormous sphere of issues. If we were to believe the Press we should believe that it was concerned only with an angry exchange regarding British representation at the Paris Conference. On that I just want to say that it seems to me to be a sensible compromise that there should be a spokesman of the European Community and at the same time an opportunity for the representative of Luxembourg to speak specially for consumers and for a British representative to speak specially for a potential oil producer.
I will just ask the Minister this. I notice that in the Statement the representatives of Luxembourg and of the United Kingdom must speak within the European Community mandate. Does that mean that they must not speak outside the consensus which has been reached by the European Community? As the Statement
776
which has been repeated by my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts has indicated, the Conference at Paris will be concerned with much more than oil. One-third of the delegates will be raising the whole issue of the economic arrangements between the Third World and the industrialised nations.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, if I may interrupt my noble friend for a second, it is agreed that brief comments and questions are allowed on a Statement but this should not be an occasion for an immediate debate and I hope my noble friend will bear that in mind.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I will bear it in mind and I apologise if I was speaking at too great a length. I will satisfy myself by asking this. At Paris the whole question of the relations of the Third World to the industrialised nations and their proposal for a new international economic order will be discussed. Has the Community yet reached decisions as to what their answer is to be to those requests, or is this to be left over until the meeting of Foreign Ministers at Brussels next week? Lastly, is there not a danger of these issues being discussed by too many organisations—the Paris Conference, the United Nations, UNCTAD, UNESCO, the Commonwealth Prime Ministers—and are any steps being taken by which their activities can be co-ordinated?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: On the last point, my noble friend will be aware that the United Nations are looking at the question of rationalising the agencies of discussion and therefore of activity in the field of aid in its various aspects. I must thank my noble friend for his kindly remarks to me and also for the phrase he has used with regard to the agreement that we have achieved in Rome, that it is a sensible compromise. It is in fact a workable compromise which takes into account proper British interests and also the need for unity among the Members of the Community.
The noble Lord asked whether we and the representative of Luxembourg—who, by the way, will have a special voice because of the fact of a transition period between one six months' presidency and another—will have to speak within the European mandate. Of course that will

777
be so, in so far as that mandate (or whatever parts of it have been arrived at) is a fact. We have never objected to there being an agreed European mandate, and having agreed to a European mandate of course we shall keep within it. This does not mean that even then, having agreed to a mandate in regard to certain aspects of these questions, we shall not have special things to say. I am quite sure that our friends and allies in the Community will expect us to do so, as they, at certain times in regard to certain vital interests of their own, are not by any means chary of doing.
4.30 p.m.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I say this more in sorrow than in anger, but the whole tenor of that Statement and, I think, the actions of the Government over the last few weeks, seem to me to give the impression of a Government dragging their feet in Europe, which is almost an unwilling partner, and which concentrates purely on the difficulties. I think it is time the Government decided once and for all to be an active and constructive member of the European Economic Community. It seems to me that my impression has been compounded by the dispute about representation at the Energy Conference. I made plain what I thought about it in the debate we had on foreign affairs the other day, but I confess I did not really think it would be quite as bad as it has turned out.
My Lords, we have a situation which has generated the maximum amount of ill will. I believe it has reduced the standing of this country in Europe, and it has created suspicions about us which I believe will last for a very long time. All this for nothing, because even if I thought it were really necessary to achieve the compromise the Prime Minister has achieved—and I am not sure it is—I believe it would have been possible to have done that without all the fuss and bother of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary making the statements we have read about in the newspapers.
If I may say so, it has been a ham-fisted performance, and there is only one thing I hope; that is, that the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Government have learned their lesson, and that they will recollect in the future the damage they did to themselves and to the country on this occasion.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am most grateful for those observations. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, warned us that he was going to be very rude. I do not think that comes easily to him, with the result that he has indulged not in rudeness, but in perfectly proper and debatable criticisms. I profoundly disagree with him. He called this exercise ham-fisted, but if it was, it has certainly brought home the bacon! It is a fact that we have shown to the British people—and they are our first audience—that we are concerned about their vital interests, just as our partners in the Community are always ready to say that they are willing to fight for their vital interests; so why should Britain be the odd man out in that exercise?
4.33 p.m.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, for repeating the Statement made in another place, I should like to say that we on these Benches feel, with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that it was simply not worth while to create so much ill will within the Community in order to arrive at this rather limited compromise over representation at the International Economic Conference. We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that it is a great pity that the impression has been created in recent weeks that the Government are less than enthusiastic about Community solidarity.
My Lords, I should like to ask whether the noble Lord would agree that the development of a united standpoint by the Community on energy and on other similar matters is a vital British interest? We on these Benches also felt a great disappointment that the Government have rejected the target date of 1978 as the date for British participation in direct elections to the European Parliament. I wonder whether the noble Lord could give us a little further indication of what will be the timetable about consultations. Can he tell us whether it is proposed to deal entirely with the devolution issue before we come to the question of direct elections, or whether they will be dealt with together, at the same time? Finally, I welcome the reference in the Statement to stricter financial control in the Community and also the proposal for a uniform passport.
4.35 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, it is not a limited restricted gain to have persuaded our partners of the need, so far as we are concerned, for a minimum safeguard price for oil. This is a very big achievement indeed. If it is not, why was it resisted for so long? It is not a limited achievement to have got agreement in principle on the organisation and dispersal of emergency supplies. This is a very big question, and bears very closely on the future of the economy of this country and, therefore, of Western Europe.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, was good enough to say that he welcomes certain aspects of this Statement. I would ask him to examine it more closely, particularly that section of it which shows that now our partners accept the British view, and it was a British view and a British initiative, calling for proper control over expenditure in the Community, based on the well-tested and proven Parliamentary practice in this country, the Public Accounts Committee.
4.36 p.m.
Lord HOME of the HIRSEL: My Lords, I wonder whether the House would allow me to associate myself with the tributes paid to the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts. He and I have sat opposite each other in the other place for 10 years, and on every occasion he dealt with the matters within his portfolio with the greatest courtesy and care, and for that all of us are grateful. Despite the Statement to which I listened with close attention, and the persuasiveness of the noble Lord, I am bound to say that the negotiations in Rome, and that part dealing with oil, left me, and still does, with a rathernasty taste in my mouth. Does the noble Lord recognise that our partners in the European Economic Community have lately leant over backwards to help us in our economic difficulties? Does he recognise, too, that although it is right that British Ministers should stand up for British interests—and North Sea Oil is British oil—in this matter of fuel for power, if we are to maintain our industrial standards, we shall need all the coal, oil, gas and nuclear fuel that can be mobilised? Although we have a temporary advantage as a producer, are we not essentially in Europe therefore,
780
and indeed, in the North Atlantic area, all in the same boat? All I am asking is that in future negotiations—I do not think this was observed last time—his right honourable friend should take that into account.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, it would be quite impossible to resist the tone and content of that contribution. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, for what he has said. On the question of the importance of energy in the productive as well as the internal economy of this country, it is of significance that by 1980 we shall be producing 90 per cent. of the oil produced in Western Europe. Surely, this gives to this country a reason for looking at this point with very great care to see that whatever mandate we agree to takes into account that very large and important fact. Moreover, by that time we shall be producing 45 per cent. of the entire energy produced in the Community, if we count the four sources mentioned by the noble Lord—coal, gas, nuclear energy and oil. Of course, these things change. In the meantime, it is reasonable that the British Government should establish a position of reasonable security for its people and for its economy, pending the agreed mandate on a Community basis that this Government, as much as the Opposition, have worked for and hopes to achieve.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, if all that was required by the Government was that we should be able to express a view at the Conference on International Economic Co-operation where matters that did not come within the Community mandate were concerned, why did not the Prime Minister ask for that in the first place?—thus avoiding all the argument. Is there not a danger that, by adopting these tactics and asking for much more than one expects to receive in the end, in future our partners in the Community will think we are prepared to bargain downwards from something we originally asked for?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I do not expect in the foreseeable future that relations between friends and allies will not be relations of give-and-take and indeed of bargaining. This is well understood. As to the methods by which this excellent result has been

781
achieved, that is a matter for judgment, not for outright denunciation.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, "Yes, but" having been said on Community direct elections to Parliament, are the elections going to be run on the same system throughout the Community, and if so are we going to have to change our methods of election or are the whole of the Continent going to change theirs?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: No, my Lords, not necessarily. As to how these elections should be conducted—and we are wholeheartedly with the principle of achieving direct elections, if possible, by a given date—although the principle is accepted, there must be a wide area of detail left to the nation States. We believe that there is a general consensus among the members of the Community that this is inevitable, and indeed best.
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that ever since 1949, when the Council of Europe was established, we in this country have contrived to give the impression that we are basically anti-European and that the events of the last few days show that, despite the referendum, that impression still prevails on the Continent of Europe?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am quite sure that if that impression prevails it will be dispelled in the very near future. We recall a time when the whole world was aware, as they thought, of an anti-Commonwealth feeling in this country. That has been dispelled in the last 18 months or so. There was a time, about two years ago or less, when there was an impression abroad that this country was anti-American. That impression, too, has been dispelled by this Government.

INSOLVENCY BILL [H.L.]
4.43 p.m.
Debate resumed.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may we now return to the less attractive topic of insolvency. I am most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, and the noble Lord, Lord Wade, for their welcome to the Bill. The noble Earl explained to me his reason for being unable to remain till the end, and I fully understand, of course. I should add that my noble friend Lord Hale was also obliged to leave, and he has reminded me of the valuable contribution of the Committee of Mr. Justice Payne in regard to the enforcement of debts, the Committee upon which he played so distinguished a part for three or four years. I fully recognise the value of the work of that Committee, and indeed his work, particularly in regard to administration orders.
Several points were raised, some of them of a Committee character. The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, raised points under Clauses4, 6 and 7, which I will deal with briefly. As to Clause 4, the form of proof of debt of companies winding up is laid down in the winding-up rules and these can be amended under existing powers. It is intended to amend the rules accordingly to keep bankruptcy and company winding-up forms of creditors' claims in line. As to Clause 6, we understand the court would not make a money order in the absence of the bankrupt. On the point raised under Clause 7, I understand that an appeal does lie against an order under Section 188.
The noble Lord, Lord Wade, asked me what would be the criteria for the dispensing of public examinations under Clause 5. As he pointed out, the relevant facts and degrees of culpability of the debtor vary considerably from bankruptcy to bankruptcy. The debtor's failure, for example, may, as he suggested, be due to misfortune or may be due to his own conduct, which might vary from the merely improvident to the positively criminal, and it would be difficult, therefore, to lay down fixed criteria which would determine whether or not a public examination should be held in any particular case. The Bill leaves the decision to the court so that it can make an order

783
dispensing with public examination if it thinks fit. But it is intended, by guidance, to ensure that no application for an order dispensing with public examination shall be made unless the debtor has already made a full disclosure of his affairs to the satisfaction of the Official Receiver and the failure does not affect a wide circle of trade creditors and is of little public interest. For that reason the Bill provides that only the Official Receiver may make such an application, so that the court's discretion will be exercised on the facts of each particular case.
Then the noble Lord asked me a question about the language of Clause 7 regarding the disabilities which will be imposed on a person as a result of a disqualification order under that clause. The language is exactly the same as that to be found in Section 188 of the Companies Act. In practice the court has taken the view that for the purposes of Section 188 —and the same will apply here—a person is concerned or takes part in the management of a company where he is performing duties consistent with those of a director; that is to say, where he is taking a leading part in the company's overall management. On the other hand, a person who is merely managing a part of the company's activities, for example, a sales manager, would not be concerned or taking part in the management of the company within the meaning of Section 188, nor indeed of Clause 7 of the Bill. The effects of the clause, therefore, arc not to deprive a person from earning his living but to deprive him from acting in connection with a company in an overall managerial capacity. There are a number of decided cases which have given that interpretation to the words which are presently found in the Bill.
In my opening observations I referred to the aim of the Bill to reduce the number of trivial cases, and it is right in that connection that I should add that it is also proposed, under powers conferred by the 1914 Act, to increase substantially the fees payable on deposits for petitions, and that will play its part in reducing the number of trivial cases.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ROAD TRAFFIC (DRIVERS' AGES AND HOURS OF WORK) BILL [H.L.]
4.49 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Lord Melchett): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a short, technical and, I hope, uncontroversial Bill. It makes certain changes in our minimum driving ages, and gives the Secretary of State wider powers to make regulations about drivers' hours. In both cases the Bill is needed because of an EEC Regulation concerning these matters. Under the Treaty of Accession these provisions have been in force in this country for international journeys since April 1973, and are due to come into force for internal journeys on 1st January 1976. The changes in minimum driving ages and related driver licensing provisions are contained in Clause 1 and Schedules 1 and 2. I hope, incidentally, to show that any changes will be considerably less extensive than might be supposed from the amount of detail contained in the rather lengthy Schedules. Perhaps before explaining what these changes are, I should say a word about why any changes are necessary at all.
To put it as simply as I can, the reason is that the EEC Regulation—it is No. 543 of 1969—operates on some vehicles but not on all, depending on the type of vehicle and, in some cases, on the purpose for which a vehicle is being used. In the case of goods vehicles, its minimum age provisions are governed by the criterion of permissible maximum weight, and in the case of passenger vehicles by seating capacity. These are the criteria used generally in Europe. At the moment our criterion—which dates back a long time—is unladen weight. Since these EEC provisions will take direct effect on 1st January, this would mean—if we did nothing—that we should be in a situation in which minimum driving ages would be governed by the EEC Regulation in relation to those vehicles to which it applies, and by the existing provisions of Section 4 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 where it does not apply. This would be an impossible situation in administrative and enforcement terms, not least because minimum age restrictions have to be evidenced on

785
our driving licences. It would be quite impossible to do this if we had a mixture of criteria—related not only to unladen weight and permissible weight for goods vehicles, for example, but also according to the use to which a particular vehicle was being put.
The previous Administration considered this matter and, after full consultation with all interested organisations, decided that the best solution was to realign our minimum age criteria with those used in the EEC Regulation and—as I have said —generally in the rest of Europe. The then Minister for Transport announced this in a Press notice issued on 19th February 1973. The Government endorse this conclusion. Permissible maximum weight is really a more sensible criterion of vehicle size for driver licensing purposes than unladen weight.
For technical reasons, the Bill replaces the present minimum age criteria contained in Section 4 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 by an amendment to Section 96, the effect of which is that a person will be disqualified from holding a driving licence for the various categories of vehicle unless she or he has attained the specified minimum age. As I have said, these categories are redefined in European terms. The practical effect of these changes will, however, be small. No one over 21 will be affected at all. And Schedule 2 secures that no driver, of whatever age, with an existing entitlement, will be affected. In the case of goods vehicles, people between 18 and 21 applying for a licence for the first time on or after 1st January will be restricted to vehicles not exceeding 7.5 metric tons maximum permissible weight instead of being restricted to those not exceeding 3 tons unladen weight. The main effect will be on 17 year olds who, on first licensing, will be restricted to a goods vehicle not exceeding 3.5 metric tons—that is, about 30 cwt. unladen—instead of one not exceeding 3 tons unladen as at present.
So far as passenger vehicles are concerned, new drivers under 21 will be limited to nine-seaters. This is the only effect that the Regulation and the Bill will have in entitlements to drive passenger vehicles. I stress this because a certain amount of misunderstanding has arisen over the provisions in Article
786
5(2)(c) of the Regulation. This requires anyone driving a passenger vehicle with more than nine seats to hold a certificate of professional competence to drive passenger vehicles. May I state quite clearly that it is our intention to regard an ordinary driving licence as satisfying this requirement.
Very briefly, then, these are the practical effects of Clause 1 and the related Schedules. The opportunity has also been taken to make a corresponding change in the threshold at which the requirement for a heavy goods vehicle driver's vocational licence applies, changing it from 3 tons unladen to 7.5 metric tons permissible maximum weight. Again however, Schedule 2 contains suitable transitional provisions to ensure that existing drivers are not disadvantaged.
Before leaving this aspect of the Bill, I should perhaps call your Lordships' attention to Clause 4(2), in which provision is made for Clause 1 and the related Schedules to come into force on 1st January next. This reflects the hope at the time the Bill was prepared. It is a hope that is now, of course, most unlikely to be realised. The Government will propose a suitable amendment at a later stage to reflect a later Royal Assent.
My Lords, what I have said so far concerns only Article 5 of Regulation 543 of 1969. The remainder of the Regulation deals with driving periods and rest periods for road transport crews. My honourable friend the Minister for Transport has received representations from employers' associations and unions in the road transport industry that the implementation of these provisions in present circumstances would impose heavy financial burdens on the industry and would cause dislocation to vital services owing to the shortage of crews. This is because the Regulation is more restrictive than the drivers' hours requirements in force here under the Transport Act 1968. In addition, the Regulation is currently under review and it would clearly be undesirable to introduce changes in drivers' hours twice in quick succession, as we would have to should the Regulation be altered.
For these reasons, my honourable friend has requested that the coming into force for internal journeys be

787
deferred to allow for a period of adjustment. This request is due to be considered by the Council of Ministers of Transport on the 10th and 11th December, together with a similar request from the Republic of Ireland. At the same time my honourable friend is seeking to have amendments made to the Regulation which he considers would make it more acceptable to those concerned in this country. He is not alone in this, for several Member-States have found parts of the Regulation to be unrealistic, and are also in favour of making it more flexible.
Having said that, I should make it clear that the principles of the driving and rest provisions, which have arisen from concern with road safety and social conditions, are perfectly acceptable to the Government, and are indeed principles which have been recognised in road transport legislation in Great Britain for more than 40 years. Our own legal requirements, however, have developed in a different way from those in the EEC Regulation, and our own requirements will continue to apply to some types of transport operation that are not covered by the EEC Regulation. So we foresee that when the EEC Regulation is implemented problems will arise from the simultaneous operation side by side of two different codes. These problems will be particularly acute for drivers whose work brings them first under one Code, then under the other, possibly in the same day. To remove, or at least limit, these problems will require a fairly radical change in Part VI of the Transport Act 1968, under which existing drivers' hours rules are laid down, as well as supplementation of Regulation 543/69.
The opportunity of this Bill has, therefore, been taken to seek the necessary enabling powers so that, when the time comes to implement Regulation 543, it can be fitted smoothly into a compatible legal framework and so that those who work in the road transport industry can operate within a properly integrated system of control. The power to implement Regulation 543 is already given by Section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972, but this power is not wide enough for all that ought to be done when the Regulation extends to internal transport as well as international journeys.
788
Clause 2 of the Bill effects the changes, and is intended to do two things: first, to provide a power for the Secretary of State by Regulation to adapt Part VI of the 1968 Act to ensure compatibility of operation with the EEC Regulation. This adaptation could include the substitution in Part VI of the entire framework of the EEC Regulation, the actual hours provisions in that framework being adjusted to what is required for drivers outside the scope of the Regulation. The power would also extend to enable Part VI to be adapted to take account of the operation of any other relevant Community provisions, whether directly applicable or not. Secondly, Clause 2 would extend the enforcement provisions of the 1968 Act to any directly applicable Community provisions relevant to drivers' hours and records. This would be achieved by extending to internal journeys the enforcement provisions of the 1968 Act which were applied by Schedule 4 to the European Communities Act to international journeys. Clause 2 also makes provision for supplementary and consequential provisions, particularly in relation to record-keeping.
Clause 4(2) makes provision for Clause 2 to come into force on such days as the Secretary of State may appoint, and different days may be appointed for different provisions. This is in the hope that deferment of Regulation 543 will be granted and in order that the powers of adaptation of the 1968 Act can await the amendment of the Regulation.
Clause 3 clarifies the provision in Part VI of the 1968 Act which confers jurisdiction on magistrates' courts to try summary cases for the contravention of the drivers' hours and records requirements. Section 103(7) of that Part at present provides that proceedings for a drivers' hours offence may be commenced in any court having jurisdiction "in the place where the person charged with the offence is for the time being ". As amended, the section would make it clear that proceedings could be instigated in a court with jurisdiction for the place where the person charged was driving when evidence of the offence first came to light, the place where the offender is or where he resides when proceedings are commenced, or the place where the offender normally operates. This Bill enables Her Majesty's Government to meet their obligations under the Treaty of Accession in relation

789
to minimum driving ages and drivers' hours. I hope your Lordships will give the Bill a smooth and speedy ride. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Melchett.)
Lord LYELL: My Lords, it falls to me to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, on his new appointment to another and equally important Department, and if he is able to present his future briefs with such clarity and force as he has presented this very complicated measure today, then all of us will look forward to hearing from him increasingly in the future. I am sure that it is the wish of the House, also, to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, and other members of the Government on their new appointments and to wish them all good fortune in their new posts, wherever these may take them.
It must be quite rare for a Bill to arrive in this House and to receive such a warm welcome from noble Lords—certainly it will receive a very warm welcome from these Benches—and from all sections of this industry, the road haulage and transport industry, and, I understand, from the passenger-carrying industry as well as from other interested organisations outside the industry, in the form of the road safety organisations, to which the noble Lord referred.
The harmonisation of our legislation with EEC regulations can often provide complication, delay and dispute, but happily today there is to be no dispute and I hope that there will be only the minimum delay. I think, however, that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will agree that this Bill is, in parts, and particularly in the Schedules, which amend past legislation and define new terms and phrases, an immensely complicated Bill. Sadly, it is necessary to have this complication in these definitions, but the noble Lord has explained the Bill's purpose and, thanks to his excellent and clear analysis, the measures contained in it are not after all so fearsome. The industry feels that the age regulations are entirely reasonable, being either merely new wording or new definitions. I understand that there have been a few problems over vehicle weights but that the Department and the industry have reached an acceptable compromise, certainly of two of the minor problems which arose. As the noble Lord pointed
790
out, the driver's age limits will not mean that any person who wishes to make a career in road haulage will be precluded from holding a licence after 1st January 1976; this is due in great measure to the industry's new apprentice scheme, which allows young drivers over the age of 18 to learn to drive heavy goods vehicles and, as soon as they are 21, to acquire a heavy goods vehicle licence.
As we have heard, the Bill is necessary so that the Road Traffic Act 1972 may comply with EEC Regulation 543/69. There is one aspect of the Regulations which has given rise to concern in the industry. As I understand them, the Community rules lay down that on any international or internal journey there is a time and distance limit. It seems that no driver may drive for more than eight hours or 450 kilometres in any one day—I understand that the British or Anglo-Saxon measurements are approximately 280 miles—whereas on a journey wholly within the United Kingdom there is a time limit, already laid down, of 10 hours, but there is no distance limit. This worries the industry and, as the Minister in another place is next week to take part in negotiations in Brussels, all of us hope that a new compromise agreement can be reached, since the continuing firm adherence to Regulation 543/69 has already given rise to concern in the Community; the industry here sees some serious additional costs arising should the Minister not manage to find an acceptable solution. A two-year deferment of the application of Regulation 543/69 to the Act would be most acceptable, and I believe that this is what the Minister is likely to seek. Certainly we shall be very grateful if he can find a solution to this problem, which is becoming more evident every day.
As the noble Lord pointed out, this Bill is the result of the United Kingdom's accession to the European Economic Community. Any harmonisation measure can be complicated, but it need not necessarily be so. This Bill, however, defines, amends and explains the Road Traffic Act, in so far as it covers this Regulation 543/69. All of us here, and I believe the whole of the industry, wish the Minister success at his meetings next week in Brussels. We support and applaud the measures contained in the Bill, subject to the possible deferment of some aspects

791
of the hours and distances. We on these Benches will do our best to give the Bill a speedy passage.
5.7 p.m.
The Earl of DENBIGH: My Lords, I wish to reiterate what the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, said about the new appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. I, too, wish him well in his new Department. We on these Benches do not see any really major problems with this Bill, although I feel that the measure is concerned mainly with two aspects of the EEC Regulation: the limitation of drivers' hours and the compulsory fitting of the tachograph, which was due to be implemented I understand on 1st January, but what the noble Lord said about the talks taking place on 11th December may to some extent resolve this problem. The reduction in hours from 10 to 8 per day will cause certain problems, and the restriction of vehicles to 450 kilometres a day will inevitably lead to an increase in costs.
It has been pointed out by the North of Scotland Transport Association that there will be certain problems in the Highlands of Scotland, since under the 1968 Act special exemptions were made because of the traffic conditions there: in terms of bad roads, tourist traffic and, in the winter, on account of the weather. As there has been no real improvement either in the road situation or in the weather, perhaps special consideration should be given to the North of Scotland, and the Highlands in particular. The North of Scotland Transport Association estimates that by complying with these EEC measures there could be an increase in costs of between 20 per cent. and 30 per cent.
The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, referred to the question of distance restrictions to 450 kilometres, which in my mathematics is 281 miles, but I am sure we will not quibble over one mile. Certain motorway journeys will be made to look a little ridiculous by this restriction. For example, in the case of a heavy goods vehicle travelling from Glasgow to London on what is virtually all dual carriageway and motorway there will be an enormous wastage in time and stopping. I understand that the timber industry is also likely to be hard hit by these new
792
Regulations because, with the specialised timber trucks which they use for carryinguncut wood, they are on a one-way journey pay load only. The Freight Transport Association has claimed that these EEC measures are likely to result in an increase to the overall hauliers' bill of some £650 million. Nearly everybody I have talked to seems to think this figure excessively high, but it will give a considerable increase in the cost of freight.
I should like to say a few words about the tachograph, which records speed, time, distance, non-driving time and rest periods and, with certain optional extras, can also record engine speed and other event data. The tachograph has been in use in Germany since the early 1950s and it has been used in the original six Member countries of the EEC since 1970. None of the unions of those countries has regarded the introduction of the tachograph as being a "spy in the cab", as it has been dubbed by the media in this country. It is looked on as a help in stopping "cowboy" hauliers. Also, if it is fitted with certain options, it can be a help in fleet maintenance and preventive maintenance, with possible by-products in the safety line. However, Mr. James, of the Transport and General Workers' Union, said last July that the union would continue to maintain its opposition to the tachograph, no matter what the EEC Regulations laid down.
As matters stand, I feel that there is likely to be fairly strong resistance because already, in 1967–68, the union has forced the Government to drop this measure. In a way, the road hauliers, too, are likely to be against the measure, as the cost promises to be of the order of £100 a vehicle. In addition, being specialised machinery, the tachograph will require skilled maintenance and people to interpret the data. More expense will therefore be incurred in training that staff. Also, no date has at yet been fixed for when this is likely to be required.
I would point out that these Regulations and the requirement to comply with them have been known about for a considerable number of years, yet we are only now, less than a month before the Regulations were due to be implemented, discussing a Bill. It is quite clear that a long period will elapse before implementation will be possible. Add to that the

793
active hostility to the measure of the Transport and General Workers' Union and also a fear of loss of earnings resulting from shortened hours (which may not be well founded) and there could be a considerable amount of conflict over the whole question of complying with the EEC Regulations. I think it possible that the only way in which we can influence the other EEC Members—and there are other countries which are keen to see the hours driven and the mileage restrictions changed—is to comply with the Regulations as soon as possible and to try to bring about a change from within by complying with the Regulations.
Finally, in regard to the driving age limits, I have already mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, in the debate on urban transport, that I should like to see the freeing of single gear mopeds from licensing restrictions. I did not receive a very warm reply on that occasion and I have no doubt that I shall do no better this evening, but I should like to bring it to his attention because the moped is an extremely convenient method of transport, particularly in rural areas where public transport is totally inadequate. Such action would be of great help to many people.
5.14 p.m.
Lord TEVIOT: My Lords, I felt that I could not let this Bill go through without saying a very few words, as it was on this subject that I made my maiden speech on the Second Reading of the Transport Bill in 1968. When the appropriate part of the Bill dealing with drivers' hours came before your Lordships, the then Government expected it to go through in a couple of hours. I am afraid that, with my controversial Amendments, it lasted three days. I note with surprise that I am the only Peer who took part on that Bill who is speaking this afternoon.
The Regulations as drafted at that time for the Transport Bill were made at the instigation of the then Minister of Transport, Mrs. Castle. I believe I am right in saying that, despite many forebodings, she had taken them out of the then proposed draft EEC Regulations. Many people warned that the restrictions on drivers' hours were unworkable but, in her own inimitable way, Mrs. Castle brushed aside those warnings and carried on regardless. Happily,
794
succeeding Ministers of Transport took a more moderate and practical view by not implementing the Statute as laid down by issuing modification orders, Since then, EEC Regulation 543/69 has become law and has proved unworkable and unenforceable in the original six Member-States, where it has been in operation for the past five years. Indeed it is known that at least one Government has recently publicly proclaimed that it will not enforce the regulation as it now stands, but will apply less restrictive limits. The European Commission is already working on a revision of the Regulations.
It is accepted by both sides of the House that, as it stands, this Regulation would be extremely damaging to the entire road transport industry in its efforts to serve the public need and, furthermore, the national economy. The right honourable gentleman, the Minister of Transport, is to be warmly congratulated on his forthright stand in Brussels to prevent the holocaust and the chaos that would have ensued had the Regulation been enforced at this time. It would equally have been rather absurd to change the present British law in January, as it would have had to be altered again when the revision was made, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has rightly said. Deferment as sought by the Minister is the only logical solution, and I should like to join with the other speakers in wishing the Minister well at the meeting of the Council of Ministers in a few days' time. Should anything untoward happen and he is not successful, the EEC Regulations will become law in 28 days' time. Unless the present Bill is enacted, there will be a legal vacuum, in that there will be no penalties for contravention of the Regulations' requirements.
As no date is fixed for the commencement of Clause 2, it is hoped that the Minister will not be placed in the unhappy situation of having to introduce Clause 2 at the same time as the other clauses. It would be encouraging to think that the Bill represented only a fall-back and gave no cause for concern, but Clause 2(1)(c) raises certain queries and I may find it necessary to introduce Amendments in Committee.
Meanwhile, I should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, could

795
explain the Government's intentions in respect of the following points. First, in lines 9 and 10 of page 3, why has it been necessary to include the words in brackets, "whether directly applicable or not", and why is it necessary to seek power to amend provisions to which the Community Regulations do not apply? That would be possible under subparagraph (a) on line 12. In either case, the Minister has the power under Sections 96 and 101 of the Transport Act 1968 and this would he an unnecessary duplication.
I should have liked to follow up the question of the tachograph and other matters raised by the noble Earl, Lord Denbigh, but I feel that that might be a little controversial and that it would not serve any really useful purpose. However, I should like to make the point that I gather that the unions are in agreement on the passenger side with tachographs. So they are not absolutely "agin" them. Subject to the queries which I have raised, while the Bill cannot be welcomed, I recognise that it must be accepted.
5.19 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, first, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, and the noble Earl, for their kind remarks. I suppose that this may be my swan song so far as DOE legislation is concerned. It has not been quite as controversial a debate as some I have had, particularly those on the Community Land Act and other matters. I suppose that this is a good note on which to go out. I am extremely glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, that industry is happy over the ages and weights limits. I know that very full consultations have been carried out both under the previous Administration and by my honourable friend and the officials of the Department. I am pleased to hear from the noble Lord that this is now felt to be satisfactory. With regard to the time and distance limits, I accept, as all noble Lords have said, that these would impose very heavy financial burdens. I am not sure that I go all the way with the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, and accept that it would be a holocaust and chaos. But certainly it would be expensive. My honourable friend accepts that, and I acknowledged that in my speech—
Lord TEVIOT: My Lords, I am very tempted to follow the noble Lord. The noble Lord referred to the 1968 Act. The regulations were not as he said, but were brought in by the modification orders. As has been repeatedly said in the past years, it would be a disaster. I am afraid I can only reiterate the word "holocaust". I am so sorry.
Lord MELCHETT: Well, I am sorry, too, my Lords; but at least we all agree that it would be expensive. My honourable friend is well seized of this point, and I am extremely grateful for the support which has been expressed by all noble Lords for my honourable friend's stand over this matter. I join with everyone in hoping that he will be successful on 10th and 11th December. It is for the reasons which noble Lords have stated that my honourable friend is doing his best for the British road transport industry.
The noble Earl, Lord Denbigh, raised the question of tachographs. In fact Clause 2 is not concerned with the implementation of the EEC tachograph regulation. The definition of Community rules in the enforcement provisions in Clause 2 is wide enough technically to refer to the tachograph regulation, but the enforcement powers, with one minor exception, refer only to drivers' written records. This exception concerns the powers of enforcement officers to inspect records. Even these general powers would not at present apply to inspection of tachograph records, because this was specifically excluded under the terms of the relevant commencement order for Part VI of the Transport Act 1968. The tachograph regulation itself can be implemented by regulations under Section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972. Therefore I very much hope that this Bill successfully avoids that particular hot potato.
The noble Earl also asked me about Scotland. I am advised that this provision which we were discussing is concerned with driving limits. The 1968 Act concessions are for certain industries and relate to duty and spread-over limits. An implicit 13-hour limit may have some marginal effect so far as Scotland is concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, asked me about the regulation-making power

797
in Clause 2(1)(c). The powers in Section 96(12) of the Transport Act 1968 to modify the drivers' hours provisions would not enable the Secretary of State to make the kind of structural changes in Part VI of the 1968 Act which would be necessary to ensure complete compatibility with Regulation 543. The provisions in Clause 2(1)(c) were modelled on those in Section 4 and Schedule 4, paragraph 9(3) of the European Communities Act 1972, which enabled the Secretary of State to adapt Part VI of the 1958 Act by regulations in order to ensure compatibility of operation between Section 96 and the EEC Rules as they applied to international journeys. The regulation-making powers are simply to ensure that if and when these provisions come into force in this country, industry will be operating under a sensible and uniform system of rules, or, at least, as sensible and uniform as it is possible to make them.
The noble Earl, Lord Denbigh, also mentioned in passing the matter of a Bill being introduced rather late. Of course it has been introduced as soon as we possibly could introduce it at the start of this Session. I have a feeling that had it been introduced in the last Session there would have been complaints, certainly from all noble Lords opposite, and possibly from a great many of my noble friends as well. We had quite a lot to do in the last Session. It is unfortunate because part of the subject matter with which the Bill deals will come into force on 1st January, and it is for that reason, as I have said, that Amendments will be proposed by the Government at a later stage.
The noble Earl then touched on a subject close to my heart—that of mopeds. As a moped driver, I entirely agree with him that anything that can be done to encourage this useful and sensible form of transport is highly desirable. However, one must acknowledge that—I dare-say because of the stupidity of all other road users and pedestrians—the accident rates for us poor moped drivers are rather high. The injuries per mile are considerably higher for two-wheeled vehicles than they are for cars and other vehicles, and accidents to people of a younger age tend to be rather higher than those to older people. Therefore, I do not think it would
798
necessarily be advisable to alter the age limits for this excellent form of transport.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FAIR EMPLOYMENT (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
5.26 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. Your Lordships will remember that I introduced this Bill last May and that all stages of the Bill had been completed by the end of June in your Lordships' House. The Bill was then introduced in another place, but the pressure of Parliamentary business was such that it had to be withdrawn, so I am now presenting it to the House for a second time. In June we discussed the rather complex and not always easy principles and details of the Bill meticulously. We spent an hour and a half on the Second Reading, three and a half hours in Committee, and an hour and a quarter at the Report stage. We made some real improvements to the Bill and sent it forward in a form which we hoped would be acceptable to another place.
I do not know to what extent your Lordships want to go into detail at this second presentation of the Bill. It seemed to me that the best thing I could do on a Second Reading would be to introduce the Bill very briefly and to be prepared, in winding up the debate, to go into any problems or details that your Lordships might have raised. So few speakers have put down their names that I am inclined to think this will be an acceptable course. I do not want to floga dead horse, but on the other hand I do not want to steamroller the Bill past your Lordships. I hope this course will meet with approval.
As to the Bill itself, as your Lordships will remember, it is based on the most excellent Report of the Working Party under the chairmanship of Mr. van Straubenzee, the then Minister of State for Northern Ireland. Its purpose is to promote equality of opportunity in employment and occupation in Northern Ireland between people of differing religious beliefs and to work to the

799
elimination of discrimination which the Bill makes unlawful. Since the Bill was last before your Lordships some minor and technical Amendments have been made, but these in no way alter its principles. There have been more significant Amendments, however, in Clauses 3, 12, 20, 22 and 42, and I will refer to these later.
Part I (Clauses 1 and 2, and Schedule 1) deals with the establishment of a Fair Employment Agency for Northern Ireland, is concerned with its functions and operation, and provides for the members of the Agency to be appointed by the Head of the Department of Manpower Services. I should like to repeat here the assurance that I gave last time, that the Department will normally consult with representatives of employers and employees in making these appointments.
Part II (Clauses 3 to 15, with Schedules 2 to 5) is concerned with the promotion and provision of equality of opportunity. This is the cornerstone of the Bill. It is defined in Clause 3 and has been widened since its last appearance to take into account the activities of employment agencies and persons providing training services. The main job of the Agency will be to encourage employers to adopt employment practices which provide equality of opportunity. Because legal action is unlikely to alter attitudes, it is only as a last resort that cases should be referred to the courts. The first function of the Agency must be to explain, to help and to conciliate. Clause 5 requires the Department to prepare and publish, A Guide to Manpower Policy and Practice, and once again may I repeat the assurance given in the last Session that representatives of employers and employees will be consulted in its preparation.
Clauses 6 to 10 deal with the Declaration of Principle and Intent which we hope employers and vocational organisations will sign as a voluntary declaration of commitment to the principle of full equality of employment opportunity and the rejection of discrimination. A register will be kept; failure to keep to the spirit of the declaration will lead to removal from it; the register will be available for inspection to the public. The remaining clauses of Part II relate to further positive functions of the
800
Agency in inquiring into the existence or otherwise of equality of opportunity. It will be able to investigate the employment practices of any employer in order to discover whether such opportunity is being provided by an individual employer or in an area of employment. The Agency is required to remedy any faults it may find by conciliation but, failing this, may issue directions to correct any offending practice. Provision is made for a Fair Employment Appeals Board for hearing appeals against directions. The Agency will, in the last resort, be able to obtain an order from the court to enforce its directions.
I turn now to Part III, Clauses 16 to 32 and Schedule 5, which deal with unlawful discrimination. As I said before, an amendment has been made to Clauses 20 and 22 to make discrimination unlawful also for employment agencies and persons providing training. The Agency is required to investigate complaints made by individuals and to take action on their behalf by conciliatory action or, ultimately, through the courts. The individual cannot himself take legal action. Part IV deals with other unlawful acts, in particular the publication of advertisements which could reasonably be understood to indicate the intention to do an act which is unlawful under Part III.
Part V of the Bill specifies a number of exceptions to the scope of Part II. They include employment as a clergyman or priest, cases where a person's religious belief or political opinion is a genuine occupational requirement for a particular job, and employment in a private household. Clause 42 has been modified after further consideration and taking into account views expressed here and elsewhere. The position in this clause now is that the Secretary of State has power to disapply the Bill to particular acts after they have been done, but only if their purpose was to safeguard national security or to protect public safety or public order. In this Part exception is made of small firms. Firms employing 25 or fewer people will be exempted for the first two years, and firms employing 10 or fewer will be excepted for a further year after the Bill comes into force. Part VI deals with miscellaneous matters, including the Bill's application to the Crown, Her Majesty's Forces, the police and other public bodies. Clause

801
59 enables different parts of the Bill to be brought into operation at different times.
My Lords, this is a long and complex Bill—but one that is, we believe, com-prehensive—designed to deal with a very difficult and complicated problem in the unique context of Northern Ireland. It is tiresome, after our thorough discussions last time, that I have had to bring it once again before your Lordships. It would be foolish to expect that on its own it will produce equality of opportunity for all in Northern Ireland, but we hope and believe that this piece of legislation will provide both a lead and guide for a sustained voluntary effort, together with a solid framework of administration and legal support where it is needed. It will in the Government's view play a constructive and far-reaching part in the achievement of full equality of employment opportunity in Northern Ireland, to which objective your Lordships have already given assent.
We all hope, I am sure, that one day the change in attitudes, which is really more important than a change in actions, may grow, and perhaps this Bill will provide one element in that growth. I hope that my shorthand explanation of the Bill will satisfy noble Lords, but as I have already said I shall be happy to go into any further detail required in my winding-up speech. I commend the Bill to tile House and beg to move that it be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)
5.35 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, this Bill was introduced into your Lordships' House in the previous Session. As the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has reminded us, there was a full Committee and Report stage, and the Bill is now being introduced again with very little alteration to the drafting. If I may say so, I do not think the noble Lord is guilty of the crime of either flogging or steam-rollering; I think he has given us enough information to remind us exactly of the terms of the Bill and, as he has said very fairly, if noble Lords wish to take matters further we have every right to do so and he will, as I understand it, be there to try to answer the debate.
802
My Lords, the original decision to bring forward legislation was prompted, as the noble Lord has said, by the Report of the Working Party on Discrimination in the Private Sector, which was under the chairmanship of my honourable friend Mr. van Straubenzee; it was a unanimous Report from a committee representing all sides of industry in Northern Ireland. My Lords, I support the main principle and the intentions of the Bill.
The main criticism of the effects of the Bill, as put forward from these Benches in the last Session, was that under Part III an employer in Northern Ireland could be placed in a very difficult position if some of his employees were to try to force him to discriminate against other employees. However, that matter was debated in some detail, and I do not think it would be right to return to the same point yet again in this House. Another point which was, I think, of considerable importance was the matter of small firms, which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and other noble Lords would have liked to have taken further than the van Straubenzee Committee recommended. I have no doubt the noble Lord will be referring to this subject in the speech which he will be making on this Second Reading, and I hope that this is a subject which might be looked at again in another place.
I should like to thank the Government for the revised drafting of Clause 4(2), which now requires one of the three members of the Appeals Board to be legally qualified, a matter which, I think, on Third Reading in the last Session was accepted by the Government. I am sure, also, that Clause 8 has been improved by making it permissible now for the Appeals Board to have regard to the Guide to Manpower Policy and Practice when an appeal is being considered against the removal of a name from the register. Before this debate I had hoped that the undertakings which the noble Lord was good enough to give in the previous Session would hold good, and it is clear from his speech that this is so. The noble Lord may remember that there was complete agreement between both sides of the House that quotas are no solution to the problem of fair employment in Northern Ireland, but we did not agree as to how this

803
should best be provided for in the Bill. On Report, the noble Lord undertook that the objection to quotas should be recorded in the Guide, and I would be grateful if this could still be done. The noble Lord has been good enough to repeat today the undertakings given, also, about consultations before the Guide is drafted and before the Agency is appointed.
I have one question, my Lords, which perhaps ought to wait until Committee stage, but perhaps it will be to the convenience of the House if I put it now. Clause 42 provides exemption from the provisions of the Bill on grounds of national security. But the revised wording omits the provision which was in the first drafting of the Bill; that is, that the Secretary of State can give any general authorisation. This is, of course, a tighter constraint than was formerly envisaged, and I am rather concerned about its possible effect. If a company commander, for instance, serving in Northern Ireland is appointing a civilian to carry out domestic duties within the quarters in which his company is billeted, will the officer concerned really have to get a specific written authorisation in order to be allowed to take into account considerations which could be essential from a security point of view in appointing someone, but which could perhaps amount to unfair discrimination under this Bill?
It would be possible for this Bill to be handled by a Northern Ireland Legislature. However, in the circumstances, I am sure that it is right for the Bill to be introduced again now by the Government. Discrimination in Northern Ireland is—.I think I am right in saying—by no means as widespread as it is sometimes assumed. Indeed, by and large, the Province has reason to be proud of its industrial relations record. For the problems which exist this Bill will not provide every answer; but it is a step in the right direction.
5.42 p.m.
Lord MONSON: My Lords. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, like the rest of your Lordships, for his concise summing-up of the Bill and the changes made since last May. The noble Lord will not be surprised that my enthusiasm for Bills of this nature in
804
general and this one in particular is no greater than it was six months ago. I do not intend to repeat the arguments which I deployed on the occasion of the Second Reading of the Bill on the 19th May this year, although in my submission they remain as valid as ever. But I should like your Lordships to consider this. The key theme of the Bill purports to be fairness. The word "fair" appears naturally enough in the Title and frequently throughout the various clauses of the Bill. I have always liked to think that what is or what is not fair should be fairly easily assessed objectively, in contrast to such pseudo-concepts as "social justice" which can only be evaluated subjectively.
As I think I have mentioned before, "social justice" means a thousand different things to a thousand different people. But given that we can all agree more or less on what is fair most of us, and indeed the public at large, would find no difficulty in agreeing that job discrimination on the grounds of religion alone is nearly always wrong. I say "nearly always wrong" because one can think of certain situations where people's religious attitude, for instance towards divorce, birth control, contraception, Sunday observance, the consumption of alcoholic drinks and so on, may influence consciously or unconsciously their attitudes to their work. In this connection it is true that Clause 37 makes a few exceptions, but only partial ones.
However, I would contend that discrimination on purely religious grounds, that is to say grounds unconnected with actual or assumed political opinions, has gradually eroded of its own accord year by year over the past 40 years and particularly over the past 15 years, and today it is scarcely a problem as such. I should have preferred what I think the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson. referred to as "changing attitudes" to take their course rather than to introduce the heavy hand of bureaucracy into this; but in one or two isolated instances this Bill, in so far as purely religious discrimination goes, may push things on a little, and I have no inherent objection to this aspect as such.
My Lords, the sticking point seems to be political discrimination. Is it really self-evident that this is also always, in every case, immoral? In the rest of the

805
United Kingdom politics do not loom very large in the life of the average man in the street. On a local level issues such as sewerage rates, provision of nursery school places, et cetera, may occasionally come to the fore, and in General Election terms there is a little excitement once every five years or so, but politics generally is very much at the back of most people's minds—except of course for your Lordships and those in another place. However, things are not this way and never have been this way in Northern Ireland where politics mean far more. Long before the present troubles started politics devolved round the issue of national identity. What is more fundamental than one's nationality, or one's national identity? In the recent seven years or so things have gone much further than that, so that issues of life or death are now inextricably bound up with politics.
Is it fair that an employer, or a man working on the factory bench, in London, Glasgow, Cardiff, Birmingham, Aldershot or Guildford could legally be reluctant to employ, or refuse to work alongside, somebody who has expressed verbal sympathy for the IRA, or for any of the other terrorist organisations; and yet those in Northern Ireland who have suffered far worse from the activities of bombers and terrorists should be denied the right to do so? It is not only passive sympathy that one thinks about. I think that we established in Committee in June that men who were released from prison after committing terrible crimes would nevertheless have to be employed if they were suitably qualified. In ideal, peaceful, tranquil, well-ordered, liberal society it is a fine and charitable thing to give employment to ex-convicts however great their crimes might have been. Indeed in Northern Ireland people do and have done. One thinks of the case of Joe Cahill who was convicted of murdering a policeman, reprieved, released and then given a job in that alleged bastion of bigoted Protestant trade unionism, the Harland and Wolff shipyards: but that was done voluntarily. Is it right that people should be forced, rather than simply encouraged, to employ such people? It seems to me that for a devolved Assembly to enact differential legislation of this sort is one thing; but for Westminster to impose coercive, restrictive legislation on one part of the
806
United Kingdom and not impose it on people in the rest of the United Kingdom seems insensitive, to say the least.
My Lords, from the general briefly to the particular: I would be a super-optimist to have supposed this Bill would contain many of the Amendments that I should have liked to see when it left this House last time. I am glad that Clause 42 (which was Clause 39 previously) has been amended. That is an improvement. I hope, as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has said, that we may be able to do something in Committee about the smaller employers.
5.49 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their friendly acceptance of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, I think has very little criticism of it. Over the question of employees we took up the matter with the Northern Ireland Council of Trade Unions, as the noble Lord asked us, over the Larne case. I do not know whether I wrote to the noble Lord on this but the result was rather negative; they thought it better to do nothing about it. The noble Lord has not raised the matter again; but that was the answer that I got.
Over the small firms—a matter which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, also raised —I do not think we can go further than we have gone. I explained last time that out of 30,000 firms, 24,000 are small by this definition. If you cut out the small firms you cut out the Bill. It seems to me that what we have done—which is to have a phased introduction; first of all, the big firms and then, after two years, the small firms and then, after three years, the firms which are smaller still—is a reasonable way of proceeding. It gives us every opportunity to look at the situation again in the light of experience, and I shall be disappointed if noble Lords press in Committee for alteration, because the present situation is flexible enough to meet anything which may arise.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, confirmed what we have said repeatedly in past debates. Whatever else we want to see, we do not think quotas are the answer. The Government are absolutely clear on that. The van Straubenzee

807
Report was clear and the House is, too. The answer that firms must employ so many Catholics and Protestants is not a starter, and is not the view of the Government or the effect of the Bill. The explanation for Clause 42, which has been changed, and about which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, asked, is that when the Bill left the House last, Clause 39 (which is now Clause 42) provided that the Secretary of State could authorise that the Bill would not apply to acts done for the purpose of safeguarding national security, protecting public safety or public order, either in respect of specific acts of discrimination or on the basis of a general authorisation which would apply to a complete area of employment.
What was in mind was that the Ministry of Defence in Northern Ireland might obtain an authorisation for the disapplication of the Bill to all its employment practices. During the summer we have consulted with a number of people and reflected about it further. We have come to the conclusion that to allow general disapplication of this kind would be contrary to the spirit of the Government's intention to apply the Bill across the board, and in particular its disapplication should be more properly exercised post facto. This is a point the noble Lord, Lord Monson, raised last time, and I tried to shoot him down on it. But I am now taking his view more carefully. Under Clause 42, as now drafted, the Bill will not apply in cases where the employer can prove he discriminated for the purpose of safeguarding national security or protecting public safety or public order.
It will not be necessary to obtain the Secretary of State's authority for disapplication of the Bill in individual cases before the act of discrimination in such cases is committed. Therefore general disapplication of the Bill will not be possible. The Secretary of State will be able to issue his authorisation for the Bill not to apply after the event. For example, if the Army were to discriminate against a Left-Wing or Right-Wing anarchist who applied for a post as tele-phonist in a secure headquarters, it would not be unreasonable for the Secretary of State then to authorise disapplication of the Bill, and thus prevent its investigation by the Agency. Another
808
example would be where an applicant for a job with a firm building highly secret naval equipment was a member of a seditious political organisation, and was refused employment on that account. The Secretary of State would no doubt wish to authorise the disapplication of the Bill, should the Fair Employment Agency seek to investigate that case. The object is always to protect sources of information, which is obvious to noble Lords, and I hope that they will find this modification reasonably satisfactory.
I did not expect the noble Lord, Lord Monson, to turn into an admirer of the Bill; but I am pleased the long, hard summer has not made him more hostile. His attitude towards it, on the whole, was very friendly. The matter of religious discrimination, he said, is scarcely a problem. Frankly, this is not the case in Northern Ireland. It is not true in any sense to say it is scarcely a problem. It is a very large problem indeed, and let nobody think otherwise.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, may I explain? I referred to religious discrimination divorced from any political context; religious discrimination pure and simple without any political connotations.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, if the noble Lord is able to effect this divorce, he is cleverer than most of us. The two things are inextricably mixed. This is a real evil; the two factors in the Community evaluate it differently. The minority think it is worse than the majority and that is what you would expect. I do not think anybody denies that it exists. But I take the noble Lord's point.
Political discrimination has to come in because otherwise if you found that a man employed only Protestants in an area which had a number of skilled Catholic workers, he could get out of it by saying, "They all belong to the SDLP; you do not expect me to employ them." So we have to have political discrimination. The danger of this can be enormously exaggerated. If, for example—I think the noble Lord gave this example last time —you have a Jew having to employ a member of the National Front, the answer to that is that it is a very extreme case. The chances of a member of the

809
National Front not having some disagreeable affiliations which could be quoted as a good reason for not employing him are very small. On the other hand, people like Engels and philosophical anarchists all through history have been employed, and have not turned against their firms.
One must not say that the mere holding of a belief is a reason for not employing somebody. It is a fairly tricky point, but I am prepared to stand on that. If a hundred years ago a man said, "I am an atheist ", it was regarded as an argument for not employing him. But it is not now. If a man today says," I am a Communist", I want to know, first of all, whether he is a Party member. If he is, then I want to know whether he accepts orders from the Party because, if so, this may not be convenient for me. If he says that he never goes to meetings and has no connection with them, but that he holds a theoretical belief, then one can employ him. This is a subtle and difficult point; of course I appreciate the difficulty in the noble Lord's mind. I do not think that we can burke it. We cannot legislate against religious discrimination in Northern Ireland if we allow the getaway of saying that it was only political so it does not count. We have to deal with this with the difficulties involved.
I would only repeat what I said several times in our previous discussion; that is, that the effectiveness of this Bill depends
810
on whether or not the Agency is any good. If the noble Lords, Lord Monson and Lord Belstead, and I were the three people concerned, we should have no difficulty in deciding which was a case where the employer could not reasonably be asked to take a man up, and which was a case where a man had extreme views but had never shown the faintest sign of doing anything about them. He may be a perfectly innocent man with a wife and seven children, and the whole thing may be all right. One has to hope that the Agency will do the same.
I do not think there is anything more that I want to say, except to thank your Lordships for allowing me to go so far as I have towards putting this Bill through again. The reason why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State took it out of the Parliamentary process in the summer was that he thought it was extremely important that the Northern Ireland Members in the other place should have plenty of time to discuss it, and he could not get the necessary time. Now they will have the time to discuss it. We have prepared it in a serviceable form, and I am grateful to noble Lords for their help.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at six o'clock