Lords Sitting of 31 July 1975

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

POST OFFICE: CHRISTMAS STAMP
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are in a position to make a Statement on the suggestion now being considered by the Post Office that there should be a cheap rate for Christmas cards provided these are posted by a certain date.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Lord Beswick): My Lords, as I promised in my reply to my noble friend on 17th July, I have ensured that this proposal for a concessionary Christmas postal rate has again been fully considered. The Post Office, with whom the decision rests, have concluded, reluctantly, that they cannot accept the cost penalty involved.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, while believing that the Minister would have wished to give a more favourable reply, might I ask him whether he realises that people will feel that such an attitude from a Corporation which have just declared a record deficit of some £306 million is quite incredible? Does he further realise that it appears to people that the Post Office are not prepared to consider constructive suggestions from anyone, and are the Government able to do anything about this?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, as for the readiness of the Post Office to consider constructive suggestions, I am bound to say that on this occasion they did consider it because I insisted that they should do so. My noble friend is wrong when she says that this should be granted because of the deficit. The fact of the matter
1172
is that it would add to their deficit, and because they have such a deficit it is impossible to suggest that they should make this concession.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, might I just ask my noble friend whether he is aware that I would not agree that the deficit would be added to? Does he not feel that if the millions of people who wish to send Christmas cards could do so, and if these could be sent in the month of November, this would be a great help to the Post Office?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I have myself argued the case that it would be possible to get the same revenue at a lower unit cost, but the research which the Post Office have done—and, after all, they are professionals in this matter—
Several Noble Lords: Oh?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I wish that some noble Lords opposite who grin so loudly would themselves try to run this sort of business. As I was saying, they are professionals in this business and they have gone into this matter very carefully, and the Post Office Users' National Council has also been concerned to spur on these researches. But the fact is that last year they lost on each unit of Christmas mail at the price then charged, and we cannot complain that they have a deficit and demand that it be brought down if, at the same time, we demand that they reduce their charges.
Lord GRENFELL: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his Answer will cause great disappointment to many old age pensioners and the disabled, many of whom communicate with each other only at Christmas time? Is he aware that they will be very unhappy at not receiving Christmas cards? Is he further aware that the charities which look after these people have already bought their Christmas cards, and that they bought them thinking at the time that the postal price would be such-and-such an amount, but they are now being told that that amount will go up, so they will have millions of cards on their hands?
Lord BESWICK: Yes, my Lords. It is a fact that there will be disappointment and no one is more disappointed than I, because I thought there was merit in the suggestion put forward. However,

1173
the truth is that we have established the Post Office and we have demanded—nobody more than noble Lords opposite—that this institution should be run at a profit. They have been running at a deficit, partly because when noble Lords opposite were in power they would not allow the Post Office to recoup their costs properly, and it is impossible to charge them with running a profitable service and at the same time demand that they charge unprofitable rates.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in the last fortnight I have sent two letters to my home town, posted in the House of Commons Library on Monday night, and that they were not received until the following Saturday, and people have asked why I have not written to them? I have received a message this week that the letters have now been received. I wrote to Sir William Ryland about this and pointed out that if letters are taking that long to arrive it is obviously cheaper, in terms of time and money, to use a 5½p stamp rather than a 7p one.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I am sorry for my noble friend's experience but I am afraid it does not change the arithmetic put to me about this concession.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, is this not an occasion for a special stamp to be issued, which could be sold to stamp collectors all over the world, bringing in money virtually for nothing for the hard-pressed Post Office?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, there are all sorts of possibilities, but if one gets down to the detailed figures one sees that the fact is that to make this concession the Post Office estimate that they would increase their deficit, and we have demanded that they reduce it. I am told that if there was a ½p concession—and a ½p concession is not the sort of figure that would make a difference in terms of the total traffic—they would need 42 million extra units of Christmas mail before they even recouped that concession.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, might I ask my noble friend to be kind enough to ask his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Social Services whether at Christmas time, when bonuses are given to old age pensioners,
1174
this issue could be taken into consideration and perhaps a concession made for old age pensioners by means of a bonus?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, there is no bonus this year, because there will be a general increase in the social service rates. But, again, it is impossible to demand on the one hand that public expenditure should be cut, and to ask on the other hand for extra concessions.
The LORD BISHOP of COVENTRY: My Lords, at a time of great and rapidly increasing unemployment, might this scheme not give worth while work for a period of up to two months to quite a large number of otherwise unemployed people? Further, if it were to run at a loss, might that not be amply compensated for by the enormous enjoyment of the vast numbers of people who were able to communicate with each other at Christmas?
Lord BESWICK: Yes, my Lords. There is great merit in this idea of increasing the total amount of community enjoyment, but we did not establish the Post Office for that purpose. They have to pay their way, and unless there is agreement by way of a special subsidy for this sort of concession, it is impossible to criticise the Post Office.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, I am not trying to be offensive, but does my noble friend realise that many of us are not impressed with the researches of the Post Office, for they have been too wrong too often? Would it be possible, seeing that we have the sympathy of my noble friend, to ask the Post Office whether this could be reconsidered and whether the Christmas cards affected by the scheme could be posted in November, so that they would not add to the Christmas rush?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, the point about my noble friend's original concession which appealed to me was that it would be possible to demand that the cards were posted in good time before the Christmas period, so enabling the Post Office to even out their delivery costs. However, I am told that one difficulty here is the degree to which the Post Office are geared to a two-tier post. It would be almost impossible in places where there is mechanisation to have a three-tier post,

1175
so, anyhow, there would be the extra cost in the sorting. The second point, so far as November is concerned, is that I should have thought it would be unacceptable to the majority of people to demand that they should post for Christmas by the end of November. However, since the discussions which I have had were on the basis of a month-period ending on 18th December, I will see whether there is any difference in the arithmetic when it is applied to the month of November.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there are some national charities which derive more than half their annual income from the sale of Christmas cards, and that this is a decision which many of them will greatly regret and may make all the difference in plunging them into insolvency?
Lord BESWICK: Yes, my Lords, I know that. I also know that the Christmas card manufacturers themselves have strenously pressed their case, but the fact is that the Post Office were not established as a charitable organisation.
Several Noble Lords: Next Question!
Lord MAELOR: My Lords, I have been on my feet eight times. Will my noble friend tell me why Christmas cards for this year have not been displayed in the Library? Is it because it is known that none of them will be sold?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I should have to have notice of that question directed to the proper person.

IMMIGRATION STATISTICS
3.18 p.m.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will state—

(a) the total immigration for permanent residence from all origins for the last four six-months' periods;

(b) the proportion of this total representing "European" stock;

(c) the proportion of this total comprising "dependants".

MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): The total numbers of Commonwealth citizens and foreign nationals accepted for settlement on arrival or by revocation of conditions in the four six-monthly periods commencing with April 1973 and ending with March 1975, the latest date to which figures are available, were, respectively: 28,436; 26,277; 34,652; and 39,796. Records are not kept of the ethnic origins of immigrants. The propotions of the total numbers who were dependants were, respectively: 59 per cent.; 58 per cent.; 47 per cent.; and 46 per cent.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, arising out of that reply, which gives much information and which will require a little study to remember the figures, may I ask whether the noble Lord is aware that it would appear that the tendency is definitely upwards and that the proportions also give that indication, and could I ask the Minister to reply to the third part of the Question?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right in saying that there is an increase. Clearly, there has been. The figures show this. There are a number of reasons. There has been an increase in the quota of United Kingdom passport-holders admitted from East Africa; there has been an increase in the entry clearances to dependants from the Indian sub-Continent, and there has also been an increase resulting from allowing husbands to join wives settled here—a decision which was warmly welcomed in this House.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. That raises a different supplementary question on the matter. But in view of the widespread concern about this, surely under the existing economic conditions it would have been helpful had he been able to announce some revision of the programme with regard to immigration, because the arrangement whereby the—
Several Noble Lords: Question!
Lord BARNBY: The real position has therefore been masked. Under present conditions cannot the noble Lord give some hope that this concern may be alleviated and the fear of a further inflow

1177
from different quarters of possibly rightful claims for entrance—
Several Noble Lords: Speech!
Lord BARNBY:—can be minimised or reduced from what it appears to be at present?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: No, my Lords; I am afraid that I cannot give any indication that there will be a change of policy in this matter. The present Government, like their predecessors, accept that they have a number of clear responsibilities; first, for United Kingdom passport-holders in East Africa, and, secondly, for dependants. I think that it would be quite wrong to deny these people entry to this country.
Earl COWLEY: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether there has been any alteration in the procedure for examining applications from dependants in the Indian sub-Continent?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Yes, my Lords; following the visit of my noble friend the Minister of State at the Home Office there has been some change in the procedure, and we hope to cut down the waiting period which has affected dependants from the Indian sub-Continent.
Viscount ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, to help us get some balance in this matter, can the noble Lord say how the emigration figures compare with this figure for immigrants?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, if the noble Lord would like any further statistical information, it would be helpful if he could put down a Question and I shall do my best to answer it.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, I do not want to press the Minister unduly, but does it not seem that under present conditions, with such high unemployment and the economic difficulties with regard to hospitals, there is now a call for revision of the programme which may have been compassionately allowed some time ago?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: No, my Lords; I am well aware of the noble Lord's position in this matter, but for the reasons I have indicated there will
1178
not be any change in Government policy in this matter.

ALCOHOL IN DRUGS
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are disturbed by recent reports that some proprietary drugs contain a considerable alcoholic content.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, her Majesty's Government are concerned about any possible abuse of medicines. However, in the case of the products containing alcohol, its presence may be essential, I am told, for pharmaceutical purposes; for example, to ensure that the product has a satisfactory shelf-life. The Committee on Safety of Medicines, when advising on applications for licences for products containing alcohol, considers whether its inclusion is appropriate and whether it should be declared on the label. No doubt the Committee on Review of Medicines will deal similarly with products already on the market.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. I should like to know whether his attention has been drawn to the current publication of the Medical Council on alcoholism. I understand that his Department makes a grant to this organisation. Is he aware that although I have read it very carefully I cannot find any excuse given, such as he has given in the House today, for alcohol being added to these products? Does my noble friend still support his argument when he thinks of all the gripe waters which are consumed by small children and which have a high alcoholic content?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am aware of the article to which my noble friend refers. I say to my noble friend and to your Lordships that the Government take a very serious view of this matter, which recently had a good deal of publicity. It is receiving attention, and I can say that the Medicines Commission met as recently as Wednesday of this week when this matter will have

1179
received consideration. I cannot tell your Lordships what was the outcome of the meeting or what the Commission decided, but if my noble friend would like to know I will certainly find out and communicate with her.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I have always wanted to know what it was which made my babies enjoy gripe water so much. Can the noble Lord tell us whether there has been any harm proved to have attached to any child from drinking the stuff? It always seemed to me to do them good.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am in a difficult situation in the sense that I have no medical knowledge, but my information is that it is regarded as being a very exceptional occurrence.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, can the Minister see any valid reason why literature issued to the medical profession should not clearly state the alcoholic content of each preparation? Furthermore, could not the percentage content of alcohol be stated on the individual container so as to alert the pharmacist supplying the medicine, in order that he could issue a verbal warning of the potential hazards of a certain medicine? Lastly, would the Minister agree that the time is long overdue, with regard to the advertising or presenting for sale of patent medicines containing alcohol—
Several Noble Lords: Reading, reading!
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, your Lordships will know that when a matter of this kind suddenly rears its ugly head attention is given to it. I am quite certain in my own mind that the various matters raised by the noble Earl will eventually—perhaps not immediately—be taken into account, and if something needs to be done it will be done.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, should it not be made obligatory upon every chemist prescribing such bottles of medicine to have an additional label, stating in bold red letters that it is dangerous to exceed the maximum dose?

FORCE REDUCTIONS IN CENTRAL EUROPE
3.27 p.m.
Lord CHELWOOD: 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 progress has been made in the Conference on Mutual Force Reductions in Central Europe; how long the discussions are expected to continue; and what indications the Soviet Union have given of their willingness to accept a reliable system of verification of any agreed Forces and arms reductions.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, although the negotiations have made very little substantive progress I think it true to say that each side now has a much clearer understanding of the position of the other. I do not expect rapid progress, but I very much hope that the successful conclusion of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe will give a new impetus to the talks. We and our Allies naturally expect any reductions made as a result of an MBFR agreement to be adequately verified. But I cannot at present comment on the Soviet attitude to this issue as both sides have agreed not to disclose details of the talks.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, why did Her Majesty's Government absolutely insist that the Conference on Mutual Force Reductions must be held at the same time as the Conference on Security and Co-operation, unless they were determined that some progress at least must be made with verified disarmament before they would be willing to attend a Summit meeting? Is it not clear from two years of discussion in Vienna that the Warsaw Pact countries have shown themselves unwilling to reduce their over-large forces by one single man or one single weapon? What, therefore, is the explanation of Her Majesty's Government's complete turnabout in policy in this respect?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I do not think that there has been a turnabout in policy. I think it was

1181
agreed at the inception of these two important conferences—somewhat before the time of this Administration—that they should proceed separately. There were very strong practical and technical reasons why this should be. We hope and I put it no higher than that—that the substantial advance in the CSCE Conference and the signatures in Helsinki will give a new impetus to these talks. Once more I want to assure the noble Lord and the House—as my right honourable friends and I have repeatedly done in this House and in the other place—that we shall insist on a proper procedure of verification; and moreover, that we shall not in any way lower our guard in Europe until there is a satisfactory outcome to these talks.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that very many people will be pleased that the Government are to insist on verification and be firm about it, but that as things stand now there is a feeling, as regards the propaganda value of these conferences at this stage, that the Western World is losing out?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I cannot accept that view. I respect the noble Lord's views and opinions, but I do not think it will be found, on balance, that the Western World have lost out in the results of either conference. We should wait a little before we come to any generalised conclusions about the impact of the CSCE, and certainly we should persist in Vienna in these talks. The fact that they are complex and difficult and have not as yet yielded substantive progress is, I think, an argument why we should persist, always bearing in mind the reservations that the noble Lord and I have expressed this afternoon.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, may I ask whether the mutual aid balanced reduction of so-called tactical nuclear missiles has so far been discussed in the Conference and, if not, whether it is going to be?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we and our allies have taken the view so far that the purpose of this Conference is to discuss the reduction of ground forces in Central Europe. If we can make a success of those negotiations, it may well be possible to move on to higher and even more complex matters.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, in confirmation of what the noble Lord has said, have not Mr. Callaghan, Mr. Ford and Mr. Brezhnev all indicated that if Helsinki results in a great sphere of agreement the climate will have been created for success at the Vienna Conference on armaments?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Of course, my Lords, if the decisions to which 35 countries have acceded are carried out in practice there is very great hope indeed for Europe and for the world.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, will the noble Lord please take account of the sincere and widely-held view that holding a Summit meeting in these circumstances may result in jubilation in the Kremlin, in depression behind the Iron Curtain and in wishful thinking in the democracies?

BUSINESS: SUMMER RECESS
3.32 p.m.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd): My Lords, may I inform the House that, subject to the progress of Business, it is now proposed that the House should rise for the Summer Recess on Thursday, 7th August and that the House will sit at 11 a.m. on that day.
It is also proposed, following consultations through the usual channels, that the House should return for one week beginning Monday, 22nd September, to take the Committee stage of the Employment Protection Bill and part of the Committee stage of the Petroleum Bill. The House will then adjourn until Monday, 13th October.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am really very sorry for the noble Lord, the Leader of the House. He knows the House well and he knows the sort of thing he is asking the House to do. Here we are on the 31st July and the noble Lord has to come to confess to your Lordships that the Government have got themselves into an appalling muddle over their own legislation. Three of their major Bills have not yet received their Second Reading in this House; yet they intend, come what may, to get them on the Statute Book before the end of the Session. Not content with an unprecedented spill-over, as I understand it of

1183
four weeks, they now ask your Lordships to come back in September. I wonder what would happen if the House of Commons were asked to come back in September because of mismanagement of the Government timetable. As my noble friend says, they would probably ask for some more money. Next Session I have a good mind to put down a Motion suggesting that this House adjourns on 1st June and reassembles on 1st September. It would be a very much better way of doing things; it would be very much more agreeable for us: we should have June and July off and we should not have to sit in this intolerable heat. It would enable us to work exactly the same number of weeks; and even more to the point, it would let the Government get their business right in the House of Commons and not keep us waiting as they have done this year.
One of the main purposes of this House is and always has been that of a Revising Chamber. It affords the Government the opportunity of remedying mistakes that they have made in the House of Commons and of having second thoughts, and at the same time of listening to arguments in a House where political passions do not run so high. If that is not our main function, I do not know what is.
Here we are, faced with three Bills only half digested in the House of Commons. Great sections of them have never been discussed in the House of Commons because of the guillotine. Two of them are of the utmost importance in their own spheres, pushed through this House on a basis which, I think, is little short of disgraceful. At the same time, we have not yet finished the Industry Bill and we have two major unresolved problems with another place which are still to be settled. The Community Land Bill, which is one of them, is the most complex, controversial and, in my opinion, most foolish Bill the Government have introduced and we are supposed to dispose of it without enough time for the Government even to reflect about what we have to say.
They intend to force these measures through and so they ask us to sit in September. I am sure that your Lordships will not refuse. It is obviously our duty to spend as much time as the Government are prepared to give us in seek
1184
ing to improve these important and tendentious Bills. The Government should remember that although we are willing horses, or may seem to be, we are both voluntary and elderly. They should remember too—and I warn the noble Lord—that even elderly horses can kick quite hard in tender places.
My Lords, if during the passage of these three Bills through this House the Government show that they are not prepared to listen to what we have to say and are not prepared to consider with sympathy reasonable Amendments which are put forward; and if we find that they are not prepared to accept any single Amendment that we propose and are treating the House as a rubber stamp, an inconvenient constitutional difficulty which can be disregarded, then I must tell the noble Lord that those who sit on these Benches will use every Parliamentary means at our disposal to make life very difficult indeed for noble Lords opposite. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, does not need me to spell out what I mean by that.
It is not the duty of an Opposition in this place to obstruct the passage of Bills which the House of Commons have passed, but equally it is not the duty of the Opposition in this place to facilitate their passage undigested, unamended and undiscussed in order to make life easy for a Socialist Government who are so incompetent that they cannot even run their own timetable.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord the Leader of the House will appreciate the very strong feelings, certainly in my Party, at the way Government business has been managed or mismanaged in the last few months. It is quite intolerable that we should destroy our function as a Revising Chamber because of the overloading of the Parliamentary timetable. Some of this legislation coming up from another place is bad enough to begin with; but if we are not going to have sufficient time to revise it and to put it in proper shape, then the people who are going to suffer will be the ordinary citizens of this country. That is where we have a responsibility which we must discharge.
Lord PANNELL: My Lords—
Several Noble Lords: Order!
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, it is customary that when we have had a Business statement the Leader of the House should have the opportunity to reply immediately to the points made by the Leader of the Opposition and of the Liberal Party before they escape his memory. I must say I was rather reassured by Lord Carrington's reference to this House as free from political controversy and heat; because I had been warned that perhaps his noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham might well be indulging in one of these speeches which we always enjoy in a Bill that is shortly to be considered before this House.
I accept, as I did last Monday, that the business is particularly heavy. Whether it is mismanagement is a question of weighing the facts or of opinion. Many problems have arisen in another place because the Government have sought to meet the requests of the Opposition, both Conservative and Liberal Parties, in the conduct and examination of legislation that is now before the Commons. Therefore the Government have sought to give more time there but, unfortunately, this has created pressures at this end. I hope that having had this experience, one which I know the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has experienced on previous occasions—plural in his case as opposed to my singular—we will seek to avoid it next year. I will do my best to avoid it, but I cannot promise.
We will seek to examine this legislation in the spirit in which we have conducted legislation since February 1974. I do not think your Lordships' House could complain, taking all the legislation as a whole, that Ministers on this Bench have been unmindful of the case which has been made, and we have sought on very many occasions to meet the genuine cases that have been made throughout the House. If the Conservative Government of the past had reacted in the way in which my noble friends have done, some of the difficulties of their legislation might have been avoided.
I am fully conscious that this is a revising Chamber and we need time to consider our legislation. It was for that reason that I entered into consultation through the usual channels, regarding meeting in September. This extra week creates a little more flexibility, it allows
1186
more time between the stages of the Bills, and I believe we should be able to do what we think we ought to do on this legislation in the time available. I am sorry to bring the House back in September, but I have had a feeling over many years in discussions with noble Lords from all sides that the Summer Recess often proves a little too long, and that noble Lords are happy to be back.
Lord PANNELL: My Lords, will my noble friend consider that these difficulties—which have taken place over the past 25 years during which I have been concerned with Parliament—have sprung from the fact that we are almost the only country in the civilised world which runs its affairs on a sessional basis; other people have five-year plans and things like that. Would it be a good idea to consider whether the Session should have an arbitrary time limit? Our affairs are now run on the basis of an agrarian society, the springtime, the harvest and the rotation of crops. Is it not time we moved on and allowed unexpended legislation to be carried through into a new Session?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Lord President of the Council in another place has suggested that there should be a good and radical look at the procedures of Parliament. This is obviously a matter which should be considered.
Lord ALPORT: My Lords, following that answer, may I ask whether the noble Lord would agree that this problem is created in some degree by the way in which we take the Committee stages of the legislation which comes before us? Would the noble Lord agree that we should reconsider proposals which have been made on previous occasions, that some of the less controversial legislation should be taken in a Select Committee of your Lordships' House?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, we had a Committee which examined the Lotteries Bill, and it has been a successful procedure. I hope your Lordships will proceed to deal with many more Bills off the Floor of the House. I believe that we may be forced to do it because of our numbers, the pressure of business, the need to look at European Economic Community measures, and a vast number

1187
of interests that come before your Lordships' House. Many of these matters are now being taken relatively late in the evening, but they should be dealt with early in the afternoon. None of this can be done, we cannot get the flexibiilty that we need, unless we look at the way in which our procedures can be adapted. This is a matter for the House. If it is the wish of the House that this should be considered by the Procedure Committee—not to establish yet another Procedure Committee for procedure, but to see how we can improve the procedures—I would give it my support.
Lord ALPORT: My Lords, in the interim between when the House rises at the end of next week and when we meet in September, could the noble Lord consider, through the usual channels, whether some arrangement which would be for the convenience and effectiveness of this House could be reached?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I might be mischievous and suggest that the Community Land Bill should be sent to the Moses Room, but I do not think I would have much success with that! I will look at the suggestion of the noble Lord.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, has my noble friend the Leader of the House noticed that the week which has been chosen for the re-assembly of your Lordships' House is the one when the North Atlantic Assembly is meeting in Copenhagen? Several Members of your Lordships' House are members of that body.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am very sorry. I will not seek in any way, through the Chief Whip, to dissuade my noble friend from going to Copenhagen. The real difficulty is that at this time of the year we have the three major Party political conferences, and this is the one week during which the conferences are not held. I therefore suggest that this date ought to stand.
Lord COLERAINE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether part of the difficulty is that not only this Government but successive Governments have imposed upon Parliament burdens which it was never designed to bear? Would it not be better to lessen the programme of
1188
legislation, rather than try to squeeze it into a close timetable?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, there is undoubted truth in what the noble Lord has said. There is a great need for legislation; matters have to be dealt with and these require legislation. We speak of difficulties, we speak of this and that. I hope that your Lordships' House will agree to the proposals which I have made; that we will overcome these immediate difficulties, and that we will do what we are required to do. I will certainly see what I can do, so that in the next Session we are not confronted with the same difficulties.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENT
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord Shepherd will repeat a Statement on the motor-cycle industry.
GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
Standing Order No. 147 having been suspended, Bill read 3a with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
LONDON TRANSPORT BILL
Standing Order No. 147 having been suspended, Bill read 3a with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
DUNDEE HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a, and passed.
DUNDEE PORT AUTHORITY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

IRON AND STEEL BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Report received accordingly.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.

REMUNERATION, CHARGES AND GRANTS BILL
3.51 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Remuneration under existing agreements]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: I gave notice to omit Clause 1, although for reasons which I w ill be developing I am not going to ask noble Lords to divide against it. But I explained last night—when, out of necessity, we passed this undesirable piece of legislation on the nod—that it would be necessary for me to explain to the House today, on the Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill, that what is being done is contrary to the Constitution and contrary to the rule of law.
Yesterday, we were examining the policy of the White Paper. I made it clear that I do not believe that that policy will work because it is not adequate to the situation with which this country is confronted. Indeed, I venture to prophesy, as I did over the so-called Social Contract, that it would be dead and buried before long, and so this voluntary, or non-voluntary voluntary policy will be dead and buried before long because it will not work.
What I did not say, but what I say now, is that it is better than no policy at all; and no policy at all was what we were being served with up to and including the referendum and for a week or two after it. Just as this Government, hopeless and incompetent as they are, are better
1190
than no Government at all—and that is what we were given while Cabinet responsibility was shelved during the referendum campaign—it is a good deal better than Government by the Tribune Group would be. If therefore this were simply a debating society I would have voted against the package last night and I would be voting against the Bill today; but this House is not a debating society, nor is Parliament a debating society. Because this policy is better than no policy at all, and this Government are better than the Tribune Group or no Government at all, we do not propose to obstruct the policy and we do not propose to obstruct the Bill. However, I feel it my duty to analyse some of the constitutional outrages which particularly Clause 1 of the Bill commits. I did so last night at the end of a long debate in which there was no Division. It was perhaps pardonable that the House was not quite so full as it is at the moment, and I will therefore crave indulgence if something of what I say is the same as I said last night, although not even this morning is available in print.
This is a Bill, the avowed purpose of which is to deprive a class of employees or workpeople of their legal contractual rights. Clause 1 has no other purpose at all; it is to deprive a class of workpeople of their contractual rights at the option of the employer. That is the only thing it does. The employer need not deprive them of their rights. He can observe his contract as he is legally bound to do, but in certain circumstances he is entitled, without remedy for the workmen, to deprive them of their contractual rights at his option. A strange Bill, one might think, for a Labour Government to be introducing at the end of a Summer sitting.
One rather peculiar fact about Clause 1 which I did not mention last night, but which I owe to the diligence of a noble and learned Peer on the Cross-Benches who drew it to my attention, is that it applies only to contracts entered into before the commencement of this Act. I will assume for this purpose that the commencement of the Act and Royal Assent will be at some time within the next 24 hours. That means that if a contract was entered into today, or before today, the employer at his option can deprive the workman of his contractual

1191
rights under the contract, but if he forms a new contract tomorrow, even though it be in defiance of the White Paper, he will be bound in law to keep his contract and Clause 1 will have no application to it. I am not surprised that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is not present during the discussion of this particular piece of legal anomaly. I expect his silence on the subject of this outrage against the rule of law will be as deafening as his silence and absence on the subject of the "Clay Cross" Bill. That is what Clause 1 does.
Now let us look for a moment at the principle on which it does it. Acts of Parliament in this country, Statutes, are normally passed through three readings in each House, and in each House they can be amended in Committee and on Report. But a White Paper cannot be amended in Committee or on Report and has no legal effect whatever even though it has had the approbation by Resolution of one of the two Houses of Parliament. Now, according to Clause 1, we are to deprive workpeople of their legal rights—and here I quote it—
"Where an employer limits the remuneration paid by him to any person for any period…and the limitation is no greater than necessary to keep the remuneration within the limits imposed by the policy set out in the document…(Cmnd. 6151) he shall not be liable for breach of contract by reason only that the remuneration is less than would, apart from this section, be payable under any agreement entered into before the commencement of this Act."
In other words, what is depriving the workman of his contractual rights is a document which is not an Act of Parliament. It has not even had the approval of both Houses of Parliament. It has not gone through three readings. It has never been capable of amendment and it has no legal force at all. I ventured to call this another nail in the coffin in the rule of law, and that is what it is. I am going to discuss shortly the fact that it is not the only nail in the coffin of the rule of law which has been driven in by this Government.
When he spoke on the "Clay Cross" Bill, the noble Lord the Leader of the House said that we all believe in the rule of law. That is what he said, and I have no doubt that when he said it he was being perfectly sincere; but it is being
1192
borne in upon me in one piece of legislation after another that we are not all agreed on the rule of law. We are not all agreed about what we mean by the rule of law, We are not all agreed about Clay Cross as being a breach of the rule of law; we are not all agreed on the "Trade Union" Bill as being in accordance with the rule of law. We are not, as a vote in another place yesterday showed only too plainly, in agreement as to how pickets should behave in accordance with the rule of law. We are not all agreed, as has been shown by prominent Ministers, on the way that the Judiciary should be treated in accordance with the rule of law.
The rule of law, according to my belief, demands that the law should be changed only by Act of Parliament. The effect of Clause 1 of the Bill is to change it by Resolution of one House only, in accordance with the terms of a White Paper which is in principle unamendable. I should have thought that was enough to damn it in the eyes of any constitutional lawyer. But it is in fact much worse than that, because I now move from subsection (1) to subsection (2). I said that the object of the Bill was to deprive workmen of their legal rights at the option of the employer in respect of pre-existing contracts but not subsequently-made contracts, in accordance with the limits of a document which has never had Parliamentary approval in the ordinary or proper way. But I greatly underestimated and understated the case against this clause, because at that earlier stage I was looking only at subsection (1) and not at subsection (2).
This is not even a document which has the support of a Resolution of one House only; it is not even the White Paper which is to deprive the workmen of their legal rights, if this Bill becomes law, because, if I may quote from subsection (2), it reads:
"If Her Majesty at any time causes a document to be laid before Parliament which sets out limits in addition to or in substitution for those so imposed the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument add or substitute in subsection (1) above a reference to the limits set out in that document, and that subsection shall then have effect accordingly; and similarly with any further such document laid before Parliament by command of Her Majesty."
Let us just look at what that means. It means that under Clause 1 of the Bill a

1193
workman is to be deprived at the option of his employer of his legal contractual rights, not merely in accordance with the document which we have seen, but in accordance with an unspecified number of subsequent documents which not only have we not seen but which have not even been drafted or been made. And at the option of whom?—at the option of the Secretary of State for Employment in the Labour Government. This is what we are reduced to passing—a Second Reading "on the nod" last night and in the course of 24 hours today a document which deprives people of their legal rights in accordance with a document which we have not seen and cannot see because it has not been made, and in accordance with any subsequent series of documents which the Secretary of State may lay before Parliament at some subsequent stage. And even they cannot be amended and even they can be discussed only if somebody thinks to put down a Prayer against them when the Negative Resolution procedure applies, as we see from a subsequent section.
Even that does not conclude the matter, because we now look at subsection (5). One would think, of course, that if we really believed in the Constitution and if we had the same common ground rules about the rule of law as the noble Lord the Leader of the House suggests that we have, even if we were committing the outrages which I have outlined, we should at least allow the courts to decide what the document meant. It is not very easy to understand. Of course, the appendix to the document was drafted by the TUC and says that the £6 is a fiat rate of universal application, in the body of the document—I believe it occurs somewhere in the first six paragraphs—it is said that the £6 is a maximum which is subject to negotiation.
It would take a very great number of judges to reconcile these totally inconsistent statements. Perhaps that is why we are served up with subsection (5), because that subsection takes the business away from the courts. The courts must not be allowed to decide what this document means at all. Of course, we do not like the courts, do we? We do not like them so we ought not to bring the courts into industrial relations, ought we? And so we are taking away the rights of workmen under their contract by virtue of a docu
1194
ment which is not a Statute, and by virtue of any substitute document which, subject to the Negative Resolution procedure, the Secretary of State may at some future date decide to lay before Parliament. We are taking rights away from them, and the courts shall not even be allowed to say what the document means.
Who is to be allowed to say this? Need I say that it is the Secretary of State himself? It is Government not of the people by the people for the people, but Government of the people by Humpty Dumpty for Humpty Dumpty, who makes words mean what he says they mean—a habit which led him, I must say, in the book to a terrible fall
"And all the King's horses and all the King's men Could never put Humpty Dumpty together again."
And why is all this necessary? Of course, it would have been perfectly simple to annexe, by way of Schedule, the White Paper to the Act, in which case it could have been amended. That would have been a very bad precedent, but it is a precedent which the Labour Government and, on one unhappy occasion the Conservative Government, have followed. But they have not even done that. Humpty Dumpty is the author of the document; Humpty Dumpty will be the author of an indefinite series of documents; and Humpty Dumpty is to say what the words mean. And this is called the rule of law in which, as the noble Lord the Leader of the House says, we all believe so sincerely, do we not?
We dislike the courts, and so they are being left out of the matter altogether, and no doubt the courts will be very grateful for this small mercy. But if we think that we are doing this with any good intention, I can say only that it would have been very easy to spell out the policy in the Statute, in which case it could have been debated, it could have been amended and it could have been passed in the proper way as a Statute. But then, of course, it would have been a statutory policy, would it not? And Mr. Foot, Humpty Dumpty himself, would have left the Cabinet, and so would Mr. Benn have left the Cabinet. So we are made to enact this degrading piece of legislation in order to keep Mr. Foot and Mr. Benn in the Cabinet and not because it is necessary for the Government policy. That is all I have to say.

1195
It is a contemptible Bill. It is an unnecessary Bill, even on the assumption that this unworkable policy would work. I leave it to your Lordships to say whether I am right or whether I am pusillanimous in my desire not to obstruct the Government or their policy because I am not going to divide against it.
Lord SHEPHERD: I beg to move that the House do now resume for the purpose of taking a Statement.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

THE MOTOR-CYCLE INDUSTRY
4.11 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, with permission, I will now repeat a Statement that has just been made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Industry about the motor-cycle industry:
"In July 1973 the previous Administration was instrumental in the creation of Norton Villiers Triumph, which absorbed the motor-cycle activities of the earlier BSA company.
"£4·87 million assistance was provided under Section 8 of the Industry Act 1972.
"Subsequently NVT decided to close their Meriden factory.
"My predecessor announced in July 1974 that the Government would be prepared to make available £4·95 million towards the formation of a co-operative at Meriden subject to certain conditions, including the necessary agreements being negotiated with NVT for the purchase of assets and marketing.
"Last March the House of Commons approved export credit guarantees on a long-term basis for NVT under Section 8 of the Industry Act for £8 million, to which an additional facility would be available of £4 million from ECGD under their normal commercial arrangements.
"In addition a special guarantee facility of £6 million was authorised for the Meriden output.
1196
"However, NVT's sales abroad have fallen dramatically.
"The export guarantee provided against their long-term needs has in the course of the past three months almost been used up.
"Substantial stocks of unsold motorcycles have accumulated.
"In these circumstances, the Export Credit Guarantee Department concluded that it would not be justified in guaranteeing further finance to increase stocks which are unlikely to be sold for some time.
"This situation has nothing whatsoever to do with the setting up of the Meriden Co-operative, which has not yet entered the North American export market.
"Even after this guarantee had been withdrawn nearly £24 million of public money has been spent or committed to the motor-cycle industry in the past two years.
"To enable the Government to form a view of the long-term prospects for the industry, my predecessor commissioned a study by the Boston Consulting Group.
"I have now received their report and have considered its conclusions, together with representatives of management and workforce in the industry.
"I have decided that, apart from commercially confidential material, the full report should be published"—
copies are now available in our Printed Paper Office.
"The Consultants were not asked to make a specific recommendation but to evaluate possible development strategies.
"The Consultants characterised the history of the industry during the 1960s as one of a progressive loss of market share, a failure to introduce competitive new models and a concentration on the largest motor-cycles through a managerial pre-occupation with short-term profits.
"In the event this policy turned out to be mistaken and contributed to the financial difficulties of BSA.
"The main market for our motorcycles is now in North America.

1197
"Total sales there increased at a rate of 15 per cent. a year from 1968 to 1974, but our share fell dramatically during that period.
"After full consideration of possible future courses, the Consultants identified three which appeared to hold the best prospect.
"One was for a much smaller industry.
"The second was for an industry employing about the same workforce as at present.
"The third was an intermediate strategy.
"Additional Government funds required range from a minimum of £15 million for the first strategy to £50 million and more if the workforce directly employed on motor-cycles were maintained at its present size of about 3,000—without provision for contingencies.
"All three courses called for the rapid development of new models, the installation of new equipment, and concentration of production in at most two factories.
"All would involve high risks, and at best employment on making motorcycles would be no higher than at present—if everything worked out right.
"Even if everything did go right and all the risks could be surmounted, the Consultants' report indicates that the industry would have cash flow deficits which would not be recovered at the very best until the late 1980s.
"In addition to the options identified by the Consultants, the Government has weighed very carefully other proposals and possibilities for a further investment in the industry, enabling it to recapture markets from which it has successively withdrawn.
"In view of the importance of the subject, I have consulted the Industrial Development Advisory Board as recently enlarged.
"In their opinion, none of the strategies identified by the Consultants offered an adequate prospect of viability.
"The Board looked for an alternative option but were unable to recommend one.
1198
"One of the factors that the Government had to take into account when considering the large scale of support that would be required under the options identified by the Consultants was the many other calls on Government money in other spheres of economic and social policy, and the need to ensure that our limited resources are used to the best advantage."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord ABERDARE: Does it, my Lords? I have another two pages.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am in difficulties. This is all I have. If the noble Lord will give me a copy—this is what is known as co-operation. I do apologise. The Statement continues:
"I want to make clear that we have given full weight to the skill and enthusiasm of the workforce and the employment situation in the Midlands.
"My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment will be asking the Manpower Services Commission to do everything they can to help those workers affected to find new jobs.
"We have not taken our decision lightly, and if we had felt that any more favourable decision was a practical proposition we would of course have chosen it.
"The management of NVT have pressed me for an urgent decision about the provision of further funds.
"In the light of our most thorough consideration of all possibilities the Government have concluded that this request for funds must be refused."
My Lords, I hope that that is the end of the Statement.
4.20 p.m.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord who, with our assistance, has been able to repeat that Statement, although I am afraid he got the last two pages the wrong way round. We will overlook that. However, it is a lamentable Statement. Much of it depends on the report of the Boston Consulting Group and the various alternatives that were put forward by that Group, and naturally we shall have to study that report. On the face of it, in the

1199
present circumstances reluctantly I do not quarrel with the final decision to refuse further funds to Norton Villiers Triumph. I say that in view of the need to curb Government expenditure and the evidently high risks involved in the three alternatives put forward by the Boston Consulting Group. However, it is quite clear that the affair has been very badly mishandled by the Government. On this occasion, happily, they have accepted the advice of the Industrial Development Advisory Board—and all praise to the Secretary of State for having done so.
If only his predecessor had accepted the advice of the Industrial Development Advisory Board on the subject of the closure of the Meriden factory, a great deal of public money would have been saved. The Statement reveals the folly of the Government in backing the Meriden Co-operative against the advice both of Norton Villiers Triumph itself and of their own Industrial Development Advisory Board. Surely the money that has been wasted at Meriden could well have enabled Norton Villiers Triumph to reorganise itself on a two-factory basis, to have saved the company as a whole and to have made progress in the future as part of a much smaller industry—one of the three proposals put forward by the Boston Consulting Group. It is a tragic example of the folly of Governments in general attempting to interfere with economic facts for political purposes, and I hope that this Government have now learned their lesson.
4.23 p.m.
Lord ROCHESTER: My Lords, we on these Benches would also like to thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for having repeated this Statement. I am glad that the Statement to which I am responding seems to be more or less the Statement which the noble Lord read. Certainly we, like the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and his colleagues do not think much, to put it mildly, of the way in which this matter was handled in the past. However, we think that the decision which Her Majesty's Government have now reached is the right one. On the face of it at least, it seems to us that further investment in Norton Villiers Triumph would be unprofitable and further employment unproductive. We
1200
realise that the effect of this decision will be that even more people in the country as a whole will be out of work. However, we are glad to note from the Statement that consideration is being given to other employment which those who will be thrown out of work may undertake, for which they could receive training. We accept that any such retraining would involve additional Government expenditure at a time when we as a nation can ill afford it. Perhaps I could put in interrogative form what we on these Benches feel about that. In doing so I am not trying to make a Party point. Is the noble Lord aware that in advocating additional expenditure of the kind to which I have referred, we consider also that the Government should think very seriously about how they can effect economies in other directions, particularly by forgoing further nationalisation schemes such as those concerning the aircraft and shipbuilding and ship repairing industries?
4.25 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I agree in one respect with the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. It is a sad Statement. It is indeed sad that this country, which was once the leading manufacturer of motorcycles in the world, should have seen its market eroded not only in this country but throughout the world, and that it should have been progressively eroded over the past 10 to 20 years. The market reached such a sorry state that the predecessor of this Government went to the rescue of this company. Before the noble Lord talks about Government mismanagement, I suggest to him that he should read the report; then he will sec where the mismanagement lies. It is indeed regrettable that as a consequence of this decision Britain—once the leader of the market—will not have an industry. However, the responsibility for that does not lie on this Government but on those who were responsible for that industry.
In regard to Meriden, the noble Lord will see from the report that since it became a co-operative its workforce has been reduced to half and that it is now producing more motor-cycles than it did under the previous ownership. This is a consequence of a co-operative effort for which the men who work there should take great credit. All I hope is that that co-operative will be able to survive.

1201
I listened to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. Certainly economies have got to be made, and because of our limited resources we must be careful about granting assistance to those industries which need it, and in what way. Without criticising the Secretary of State or the officials who work under him, I share the view that decisions of this nature are often better taken by men from industry with deep knowledge of all the circumstances that surround a decision. For that reason I, and I believe many noble Lords on the other side of the House, deeply regret that the previous Administration abolished the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation. That is one of the reasons why I have begged the Opposition, whatever their feelings may be about the Industry Bill, to get the Bill through the House before the Summer Recess and to forgo a few more days of the Recess so that the National Enterprise Board can be created. This will be made up of men of experience of industry who, during the short period that is available, will be there to make these decisions and to advise the Government. However my pleas to the noble Lords opposite have been rejected. Let the burden of that responsibility fall upon them.
It is a sad Statement. I shall be happy to debate this matter with the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, once be has fully read the report. I suspect that when he has done so his statement will be different from that which he has just made.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, can my noble friend tell us what will happen to the three factories—that is to say, to the two Norton Villiers Triumph factories at Birmingham and Wolverhampton and the co-operative at Meriden? Will the decision rest with Norton Villiers Triumph and have the board yet come to a decision?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, the board have not yet come to a decision so far as the two Norton Villiers Triumph factories are concerned. It will be for the board of the co-operative at Meriden to decide their own future.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the Government are satisfied that the same or similar costly decisions are not now being made in the field of energy?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am prepared to debate that question another day. Let us deal with one problem at a time.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, that is all very well. The noble Lord has asked us to read the report, and that is a very fair request. I was just getting through the Court Line Report which was rejected in its principal finding today. There have been not only Meriden and Court Line but Beagles and Upper Clyde Shipbuilders. When are the Government, if they are not going to be absolutely Bourbon-like in their inability to learn or in their inability to forget, going to hoist in the fact that we cannot afford Mr. Benn?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I suggest to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, that we could not afford that Rolls-Royce should go to bankruptcy, as it was allowed to do. If there is any failing on the part of this Government, it is that they are seeking to keep good industries and companies in being which may not have had such a good prospect during these difficult times. If we err at all, we err on the right side.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, is it not a fact that Rolls-Royce was totally different, as was the Mersey Harbour Board? We dealt with it on commercial lines. Unfortunately, it was the shareholders who suffered, but the workers have retained their jobs. What has happened in all the cases that I mentioned is that either members of the public as in the Court Line case, or the workers as in Meriden, or the workers as in Upper Clyde Shipbuilders, all of which are Mr. Benn's way of dealing with the problem. have been led up the garden path and have lost their jobs as a result of being given over-optimistic statements, and great sums of money were wasted by Mr. Benn?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord excels himself, if that is the right phrase. There is no degree of truth in what he has said. This is a matter which I am very happy to debate with the noble and learned Lord because, when he reads this Statement, he will

1203
see what is at the heart of much of our industrial difficulty in this country.
Lord ALPORT: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether he realises that for some of us this is not an occasion for mutual Party political recrimination. We know the background very well, not only of this incident but of a number of others which have taken place, or will take place later on. What is now important in the interests of our country is to find some sort of unity, both in and out of Parliament, to enable us to put the whole of our resources of intellect, courage and material resource towards the rescuing of this country from what, if this goes on, will be a very undesirable future, whatever Party we belong to.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I heartily agree. It was not I who started the asperity in this debate, or that of yesterday.
Lord POPPLEWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the whole House will share his view of the motorcycle industry having to go out of existence? Is he further aware that it is not the fault of the Government that this has developed? The seeds of this trouble were sown by the failure of management in private enterprise days. The motorcycle market in this country is being swamped by Japanese and other foreign motorcycles. Although in the past we were the leading nation in the manufacture of motorcycles, under private enterprise we failed miserably to carry out market research, and so we lost the market. The Government are to be complimented in their effort to save something from the wreck that took place under private enterprise. It is very sad indeed that our efforts have not been more successful in this direction. Would my noble friend press the Secretary of State to continue efforts to try to secure once again for this country the motorcycle market which is now being saturated in the way I have indicated?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, with regard to the latter suggestion of my noble friend Lord Popplewell, clearly this is a matter which the Government must look at, because it is not only a moment of sadness for the men who work in the
1204
industry, it must have a profound effect upon our balance of trade. Motorcycles are very much a coming means of transport. It is indeed a very great tragedy that over this period we should see the increase particularly of Japanese motorcycles which, over weeks and months, year after year, has pushed us so far back that we cannot even retain our own home market. It is a tragedy, but it is the direct consequence of the failure to invest, failure to design, failure to fight in markets where there is clearly a market for British knowledge and expertise, if we would only exercise it.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, since the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, in the course of his exchanges with my noble friend the Leader of the House, referred to an alleged rejection of the Court Line inquiry findings, will my noble friend take steps through the usual channels to ensure that the House has facilities to discuss these reports so that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, may expand on the allegations he has made?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, certainly until the next Session there is not time to debate even matters of importance such as this. But this is something we ought to take into account when we have the Queen's Speech, because we will be debating economic measures and also, no doubt, on the Employment Bill we will be discussing ways and means by which workers can have a greater degree of consultation and information. I wonder whether there might not have been a different story at Norton Villiers Triumph if the amount of information had been available to the workforce. We might have had a different story then.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, as a result of the generosity of the noble Lord the Leader of the House this matter seems to have developed into a wide debate on employment. The noble Lord emphasised the effect of imports on unemployment which will develop as a result of this decision. May I respectfully ask the noble Lord in that connection whether he will give consideration to appealing to the Government as a whole and to the Cabinet with regard to the textile industry, which had a report of its own

1205
just last week? A large number of workers are threatened if the inflow of foreign goods is permitted to continue.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, one of the difficulties as Leader of the House is how and when one should seek to bring a discussion of this kind to an end. The noble Lord, Lord Barnby, in seeking to bring in the question of the textile industry, has given me a fairly good reason to suggest that we have gone rather far in our debate. There is other Business, and I think we should now move on to it.

REMUNERATION, CHARGES AND GRANTS BILL
4.38 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Hughes): I was waiting to see to what extent the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, was stimulating his friends to join in. If they are content that I should speak now, I am happy to do so. I do not propose to follow the comments of the noble and learned Lord with regard to the constitutional position. I regret the extent to which, in doing so, he found it necessary to suggest that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor had deliberately absented himself from the Chamber because of this. I made inquiries, and understand that no indication was given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, to my noble and learned friend that he was to be pursuing a constitutional point.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: I am sorry, but the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was on the Woolsack last night when I outlined the exact argument that I was to make.
Lord HUGHES: Yes. My noble and learned friend assures me that he understood that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, was to follow the political line which he took yesterday, and while he undoubtedly did follow a political line—that was quite obvious in the earliest part of his speech—he then went on to the constitutional points. I think perhaps the noble and learned Lord took the matter so very far away from this
1206
Bill in referring to a whole lot of other things which he thought were constitutionally undesirable, that he has perhaps provided the Committee with another occasion on which we may have a major debate on points he has raised, such as those we have just had on the Statement
In any event, it will not surprise the noble and learned Lord that I do not find myself qualified to argue those fine constitutional points. I have a strong impression that those whose co-operation we are going to need in getting an incomes policy worked out in this country will be more concerned with the effects on them of the policy, rather than with the finer legal ways in which it may be brought about.
The noble and learned Lord started off by referring to the fact that the only purpose of Clause 1 was to deprive certain work people of their contractual rights. If I accept that that is the only purpose of Clause 1, then the noble and learned Lord was certainly in danger of misleading the Committee if he was suggesting that this is the first time it has ever been done, because exactly the same thing was done in 1972 under the policies of the Government of which he was a member. The difference then was that they not only took away the opportunity of applying these rights, but they amended them in the Bill; they deprived them of these rights in the form in which the Bill appeared. That may be a point of interest to the noble and learned Lord, but I suggest it will neither help nor hinder us in getting our policies accepted by the country.
There is already the clearest possible evidence that the attempt to get this policy into operation is meeting with success at this stage, which certainly was not obvious in 1972. What is obvious is that our fight against inflationary tendencies, to get inflation down in the way in which the Government are talking, to 10 per cent. within a year and to single figures by the end of next year, will succeed only to the extent to which we carry the people of this country with us.
Incidentally, I would point this out. I do not blame the noble and learned Lord for this; he has been concerning himself with many of these matters during the last 48 hours, and I cannot blame him for not having seen the final form of the Bill as it emerged from the Commons.

1207
Otherwise, he would not have made so much a part of his case the fact that the regulations to be made in regard to future documents were subject to the Negative Resolution procedure. That was amended. That takes away a very large part of his criticism about the future position, because Parliament is not at this stage being asked to agree to some vague unknown future document with only the opportunity of praying against it. This vague future document will come into operation only if, Parliament having seen it, it approves it in both Houses by the Affirmative Resolution procedure. That takes the future document into a completely different category.
The noble and learned Lord said that his attention had been drawn to the fact that the contracts which were being interfered with were only contracts entered into before the date which he mentioned in July. That is perfectly true, but the clause is deliberately drafted to affect only those contracts. Therefore, the provision makes it possible for employers to comply with the voluntary policy. Without this provision, employers contracted to give pay increases above the pay limits would be unable to comply with the policy without becoming liable to proceedings for breach of contract. The Government think it right to make provision for employers who put themselves into this position unknowingly, because they did not know when they entered into the contract that a policy of this kind would be necessary at the end of July and the beginning of August.
But if a future contract is entered into and an employer voluntarily and knowingly takes on obligations which will put him outside the limits laid down, then, of course, he must be prepared to bear the consequences of his action. If he does it knowingly, he cannot expect to have legislative provisions made to take him out of the contract he has entered into. But it is reasonable that he should be given safeguards when he complies with policies which the country want carried out, with a restraint on wages.
The noble and learned Lord then referred to subsection (5) which he criticised. He said that it was a deliberate attempt to keep the courts out of the situation; it was because we disliked the
1208
courts and we did not want the judges to have anything to do with it. In another place, it was said that it was almost a form of Star Chamber being brought in. What is the situation? Under the legislation of the previous Government, Parliament had nothing to say about it. They set up a Pay Board whose decisions were not open to question or challenge in this or the other House of Parliament. But in the provisions which are being laid down here the Secretary of State can be challenged in Parliament, in this House or in another House, on the actions he may take. Therefore, far from this being a removal of control in the matter, it is an extension of it; and, after all, if we are to have regard to the old terminology, the way in which we have prayed Sunday by Sunday in church, this is the High Court of Parliament. Therefore, it is at least laying down that the Secretary of State, in taking action under subsection (5) of Clause 1, as it will be, is at least answerable to the High Court of Parliament for what he may do.
It was obvious that, whatever the intentions of the previous Government, the attempt to lay down rules precisely, word by word, line by line, law by law, did not work. Let us recall the experience with the Pay Code and find out whether we would have been better doing something like that, rather than adopting the method in this Bill. The previous Administration started off with a White Paper on stage 1, which ran to one and a half pages of print. By stage 2 this had become nine pages of print in the Pay Code, and six months later they added another eight pages of print, and that was only stage 3. Indeed, even the existence of 17 pages of the stage 3 Pay Code did not relieve the Opposition of the need to have Pay Board officials advising daily on numerous inquiries.
The inquiries which have been coming into the Government at this stage have shown that what people are anxious to do is to find ways of making it work. They are not asking questions to find ways of getting through it. The degree of co-operation from the trade unions and from the employers is at this stage a good augury for the success of the policy. I suggest that it will be much more acceptable to the people outside this House if we put on the Statute Book a Bill which will work, even though it is

1209
not in a form which would most commend itself to lawyers.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I wonder whether I could have an answer to a question I asked last night. The noble Lord the Leader of the House said he would get an answer to it today. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has said, very properly, that everybody is interested in how this works and what is its effect. My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham has explained the difficulties of the structure. Of course, one of the curious things is that this is rather like an international treaty which you homologate by an Act of Parliament; it is an agreement between two parties which is placed here. Its working is something about which we are entitled to have some explanation. May I explain what I mean? Today is the last day of July. Tomorrow the Act comes into force. There are people who have to make decisions on wages and so on, tomorrow.
Lord HUGHES: I am very sorry. There must have been some slip up. I was not there during the later stages when the noble Earl spoke, and I have not seen what he said, so I do not know the question that I am supposed to answer. If the noble Earl would be good enough to let me know what it was and then go on to elaborate, that might give me time to find the answer.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I am not very good at that practice normally, but the question I am asking is: what decisions do people make tomorrow? May I put a very simple question? What about teachers? There has been a recent recommendation for teachers. I am not certain on what date it came out, but the Paper refers to recommendations made before the publication of this Paper. What was the date of publication of this Paper? I do not know. I am asking a purely practical question. What do people do? One of the rules is that there cannot be two rises in 12 months. We know that there was an award by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, last December. Are teachers excluded from the second award this year?
May I add a more difficult problem. There are a number of places where teachers' awards are not on the Burnham scale but are based on the Burnham scale. They have to be worked out at a much
1210
later date. I asked this question last night. I knew it would not be answered then, but I asked it deliberately because I hoped that it would be answered today, and I am sorry that the noble Lord has not been informed of it. Clause 1—and this is important—uses the words, "imposed by the policy". That means to say that it is imposed by this White Paper. There are two documents. One is the Government policy and the other the TUC policy. In this field the wording is different. I suppose one has to assume, though one does not know for certain, that the Government's view is more important than the TUC's. I do not know whether it is, but what the Government say is that in the immediate application there may arise inequity. It then goes on:
"…they accept that Wages Council proposals and the awards from formal arbitration references made before this White Paper"—
as I have no date I do not know what is "before this White Paper" and what is not—
"should be implemented…
Then it goes on:
"…provided that they have had no principal increase under the existing TUC guidelines within the last twelve months."
This affects teachers and, probably, many other people as well.
The emphasis the noble Lord rightly laid on the effect of this is that people want to know. Whatever one may say about the rule of law, I believe that the great body of people in this country want to follow the rule of law. There are some who do not, but the great body of people do, and it is therefore fair that the Government should tell them what the position is. These are decisions which people have to make in the very near future; they have to decide how they stand in this matter. They want to follow it as best they can, but they have equally to be fair to their employees. It is no good one person taking a tough line on this when somebody else takes a weaker line. They want to carry out as far as possible what is considered to be a fair interpretation of the Bill. I should be glad if the noble Lord—if he has had sufficient time to get the information from those who know what is happening—could answer this question, because it is important and many people would like to know the answer.

1211
If the noble Lord can answer, I should be very grateful.
4.53 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: If I may respectfully say so, I think that the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, is asking too much of my noble friends. They do not know the answers.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: They promised one last night.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: In the circumstances in which his policy has been put together, it is quite obvious that many of the answers to the questions which are now being asked will have to be found in the course of discussions between trade unions and employers, and between both of them and the Secretary of State's Department. These are the facts of the situation. There are an enormous number of questions which are going to be asked and many anomalies which will emerge, but at any rate the policy in principle and in general has been approved by the Trades Union Congress. They have said that they will oppose any claims which breach the general principles of this White Paper.
So far, so good. That is the fundamental starting point to this policy. I ask a question which, so far as I am aware, has not been satisfactorily resolved in the debates in another place, and that is the problem of incremental progression, and other automatic steps in wages and salary scales which have become conventional in the structure of payment, especially in white collar occupations and in the public sector. I believe that an answer has been given to the question of pensions. Where increases in pensions are to be given under existing arrangements reflecting increases in the cost of living, I believe that an assurance has been given that these pension increases will go on and will not be limited to the £6 which applies to pay. I understand, however, that there are some doubts as to whether improvements in pension schemes now undertaken to provide additional benefits may be caught by the £6 limit. I am afraid that these are problems, complicated and full of controversy, which will have to be settled in the course of the next few weeks and months. We had
1212
these problems following other attempts to apply some firm limitation to pay Increases on earlier occasions. These are inescapable from the application of this kind of policy.
These are dramatic measures to arrest inflation quickly with an immediate response, free of long-drawn out discussions and negotiations of new pay structures which might be involved in any permanent attempt to scale down remuneration in the interests of the fight against inflation. I think we have to face the fact that if this policy is to be implemented quickly, if we are to achieve its main purpose, which is to stop pay increases in general at the present time, we shall have to leave many of these anomalies and difficulties to be sorted out.
The noble Earl mentioned teachers. As I understand it, the recent award by the arbitration tribunal in the case of teachers in England and Wales will not be caught by the White Paper. They had their award from an arbitration tribunal before the White Paper. Also, I think that changes in salary scales in those grades which flow from Burnham improvements may be exempted, too, but I am not at all sure about that. This bristles with difficulties in the field of relativities, of comparative treatment, equity, inequity. Goodness me! One knows, as does anyone who has been in the trade union movement for five minutes, the kind of problems which will arise from the implementation of this policy—but it is either this, or inflation goes on.
This is the best policy we have, from the best Government we have, and if anyone has an alternative, then we ought to know what it is. The noble Earl, Lord Hailsham, said that this policy is better than no policy at all, and this is the policy that we have. In the circumstances, and within the hours when something has to be done, surely for the time being we have to accept this policy and all that may flow from it and hope that it can be held. This is the important thing; that it can be held both on the Government side and on the trade union side. If this policy will stick for 12 months only, it will make a very big difference to the whole situation. I say no more about the predictions which the noble Earl, Lord Hailsham made about policies of this kind breaking down, but—
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: I am not an Earl.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: I am sorry to bestow on the noble and learned Lord a distinction which he does not have.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: And does not deserve?
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: One finds the different degrees of nobility in your Lordships' Committee difficult to assess and sometimes difficult to distinguish. My main point is there, and I hope we can get this Bill through in the quickest possible time and leave those who have agreed to it in principle to deal with the problems that arise from it.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTER-HILL: May I ask my noble friend Lord Hughes a question for clarification? I accept the statement by my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby that, as far as teachers in the maintained schools are concerned, there is no major problem; I do not think they are affected by this, unless they may be in terms of incremental credit. It is, however, a fact that there are a considerable number of schools which follow Burnham, but not on date; a great many schools make their adjustments with effect from 1st September, whereas the Burnham Agreement is from 1st April. In many cases they may have made their decisions to do so on 1st September, which would be 12 months after their previous decision, following the same pattern. I should be grateful if an indication could be given that agreements so reached, to be effective on 1st September following Burnham, would not be affected by this Bill.
Lord HUGHES: If I have not been able to lay my hands on all the answers to all the questions put by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, I cannot blame my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby, who gave me ample opportunity to look for them, and fortunately I was able to find them. My difficulty on this issue was not getting the answer but knowing the question because I had not heard it, it had not been communicated to me and it had not been printed; nor am I clairvoyant. The basic features of the policy which we have laid down are clear and simple. The policy is designed to
1214
limit pay awards during the period to a maximum of £6 a week, and that policy is directed to voluntary compliance. Without broad acceptance, no policy will work.
In the vast majority of situations, those determining agreements should have no difficulty in seeing how it should be applied and we believe that this is already evident, but if individual employers or unions are uncertain about the application of the policy in particular cases, the employers' associations, including the CBI and the TUC, are able to give advice and guidance; that is their customary role. The Department of Employment is also ready to give advice to any inquirer and is already doing so. There is every indication, as I said, that people seeking for that advice are seeking for the ways in which they can make the policy work, and we are not getting inquiries along the lines of finding how to drive a coach and horses through the policy.
Obviously, if noble Lords wished to put me into difficulties, I have no doubt they could ask a series of individual questions to which I could not furnish the answers this afternoon. I might be able to furnish those answers this evening or tomorrow or next week, but most of these are capable of being answered within the policy when one looks at the individual details of the cases. I ask your Lordships to consider the one to which the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, referred, and my noble friend Lord Houghton gave the correct position. The White Paper lays down in paragraph 8 that the Government accept:
"…that Wages Council proposals and the awards from formal arbitration references made before this White Paper should be implemented; and that settlements may also be implemented for groups which, before the date of publication of this White Paper, have reached agreements for annual settlement dates not later than 1 September, provided that they have had no principal increase under the existing TUC guidelines within the last 12 months."
Provided such an agreement has been made before the date of the White Paper—and the date is 11th July—then that can be implemented from 1st September in the cases to which my noble friend Lord Alexander of Potterhill referred. But if there is no such agreement to implement the arbitration award given generally to the teachers, then it will be caught by the terms of the policy.

1215
The Government have felt that obviously, when bringing in a policy in which one says that after a certain period increases should not exceed a particular figure, there are bound to be difficulties and it seemed to the Government that the best way of dealing with this was to say that where there was a procedure under way—an arbitration award or a wages council reference—before the date of the White Paper, then that should be allowed to stand, and the teachers present as good a case as exists. I have no doubt that in the next few weeks there will be many references to the CBI, the TUC and the Department of Employment, but the position which has emerged does not seem to indicate that there will be difficulty in implementing the policy in any of the cases which are likely to be referred to them for guidance.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for giving me that information and it is important that people should know about it. I am bound to say that I do not think the matter is very clear, but I note what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, said about the teachers getting their award because it was made before the White Paper was published. It is laid down clearly by the Government and the TUC that no two awards can be made in 12 months, and I mention that because it is a difficulty. I am not creating difficulties but trying to clarify what is not as clear as it should be, but the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has helped a lot.
Lord HUGHES: If one looks at the terms of the Houghton Award—and who am I to say this in the presence of its principal author?—one sees that what happened as a result of the arbitration award was never to be regarded as a second increase within the period. I am of course paraphrasing here, but the first one was, in fact, a restructuring of the scale and the award which came as a result of the arbitration was the pay award for the period of the year before.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for his kindness to my noble friend in answering the question about which a promise was made in the latter part of last night, and of
1216
course I appreciate his difficulty in identifying the question in that he was not actually here himself and had not heard the promise made. I certainly did not want to complain that the noble Lord should answer me, but I must tell him that I said nothing this afternoon—although I said it in greater detail, as I told the House I would—which I had not said last night when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was on the Woolsack, and as he was taking copious notes I had assumed that we should hear him in answer to the argument I was presenting today. But the last thing I wanted to do was to offer the noble Lord who has answered any discourtesy at all, and I hope he will accept that from me
Lord HUGHES: I certainly did not take it that I had been offered any discourtesy. As the noble and learned Lord is aware, I am the spokesman here for the Department of Employment and I have come into this not as a constitutional expert but as the number two in this field.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: The noble Lord is holding his own very well but the point I was making last night and this afternoon—and I made it both times—was a constitutional point and that point has, I am bound to say, through no fault of the noble Lord personally, not been answered. I must apologise to him for having got the Negative Resolution point wrong. That was entirely my fault, and he is right in saying that I have been under rather considerable pressure in the last 48 hours, through I think no fault of my own. However, I should apologise to the Committee. I was wrong about it and anything which depends on the Negative Resolution point is of course undeservedly withdrawn because it was a wrong one. Nevertheless, the basic point has not been answered.
It is of course perfectly true that, when one has any sort of a wage freeze—and I use the term generically—one must deal with pre-existing contracts which continue to require performance after the wage freeze comes into force. One can allow them to continue to have validity or one can deprive the worker of his rights. Alternatively, one can arrive at some halfway house. It is true that in 1972 we chose the second of those

1217
options and the worker was not entitled to the benefit of a pre-existing contract. However, we did it by Statute. That is the point that I was making. The point I was making was that it is fundamentally subversive of the rule of law and of Statute to do it by White Paper while not even incorporating the White Paper in the Statute, because Parliament has never approved it in that sense. It has not gone through three Readings, it has not been capable of amendment and it has in this case, been approved by only one House of Parliament. That is not a constitutional way of behaving, whatever the noble Lord may say.
Secondly, the worker has not been deprived of his rights per se. The worker has been deprived of his legal rights at the option of the employer, and that is also a constitutional point to which no answer has been made. The employer can continue to observe the contract and will not, presumably, suffer from industrial relations trouble if he does, but he is not bound to do so. That is what the clause provides. To deprive workers of their contractual rights at the option of the employer is not a constitutional way of proceeding.
Thirdly, I made the point that if the contract was made before the date of commencement of the Act—we will say before today—the employer has an option, but, if he makes a contract tomorrow or the next day, assuming Royal Assent today or tomorrow, he is bound in spite of the fact that he does not limit himself to the White Paper limitations. That cannot be right, I submit, but it is what the clause does. There has been no answer to that either.
At the end of the day, we have the Secretary of State proposing to construe the Act itself. It is no kind of answer by the noble Lord to say that we had an independent arbitral board, because we did and no doubt that arbitral board was arguably better than the courts. The truth is that it is quite a different thing to make the Secretary of State judge in his own cause than to make the Secretary of State's construction of the meaning of his documents subject either to decision in the courts or impartial construction by the arbitral board. It is really not good enough to try to run away
1218
and talk about the High Court of Parliament as if this were a court of law For certain purposes, it is a court of law, but everybody knows that it is a legislative body which in its Lower Chamber is very largely dominated by the Executive. Therefore, it does not exercise judicial functions except in a very limited and, for this purpose, totally irrelevant sense.
The truth is that the Bill is not necessary to carry out this policy. The Government could have carried out their policy by another Bill. The difficulty they were in is that if they proceed in a constitutional manner by passing an Act of Parliament—albeit in a hurry—which defined the rights of the worker in the Statute and which did not leave it to the option of the employer in the Statute, or which did not deprive the courts or an independent arbitral body of their jurisdiction, they could have done so. I still believe that the policy would not work, but it could have been done in that way. The reason why it has been done as it has is to provide the purely specious excuse that this is not a statutory policy. As a result, the statutory policy is made statutory by something which is not a Statute, but is referred to as one, and is made voluntary without really being voluntary and is being made in accordance with a document which has not had Parliamentary approval. The fact remains that that is a constitutional outrage.
Lord HUGHES: I do not want to prolong matters unduly. The noble Lord has said that certain of these constitutional points have not been answered, but I do not completely accept that. I thought that I had given a layman's answer to what was said. Just as in the question of what people get paid—the rate of wages, the amount of deductions for income tax and national insurance—the vast majority of people regard their pay as what is in the pay packet at the end of the day, not the gross figure before the deductions, I suggest that what the great majority of people in this country are interested in in relation to the policy which is being carried out by the Government is not the method by which the Government arrived at it but the way in which it will affect their pay packet at the end of the day, and whether that policy will result in that wage

1219
packet's value being protected. I suggest that the great majority of people are much more interested in seeing a policy which will work. They are not interested in any other policy.
I have no doubt that the noble and learned Lord is quite correct about the constitutional points, but I doubt very much whether the great majority of people will be worried if the policy works through the wrong method rather than if it goes wrong through the right method.
Clause 1 agreed to.
5.18 p.m.
Lord BYERS Lord BYERS moved the following Amendment:
After Clause 1 insert the following new clause:
Employers' contributions to secure benefits under approved schemes by way of pensions etc.
". The document laid before Parliament by command of Her Majesty in July 1975 (Cmnd. 6151) shall not apply so as to impose restrictions on ordinary annual contributions by an employer to secure new or improved benefits under a scheme approved, or provisionally approved, by the Board of Inland Revenue by way of pensions on retirement, pensions for dependants, lump sum payments on death in service or pensions payable in the event of illness or disability:
Provided that such new or improved benefits apply in the case of existing schemes to all members who are not already eligible for such benefits and in the case of new schemes to all employees or to all employees except those under an age not exceeding 26 or who have completed a period of service not exceeding 5 years.".
The noble Lord said: The object of this new clause is to seek to exempt from the £6 limit an employer who wishes to make contributions to secure new or improved benefits in pension schemes. It is important that we should take this in view of the fact that the Social Security Pensions Bill will, I suspect, receive the Royal Assent next week.
I ought to begin by making it clear that the new clause follows exactly the wording of a new clause moved in another place on Tuesday night. In the ordinary way, I should not have raised the matter in this House after a new clause had been rejected by a vote in another place, but millions of people are likely to be affected by the issue and I feel that it is an issue which, as a result of the legisla
1220
tion having been so hastily prepared, has perhaps not been fully appreciated by the Departments and the Ministers concerned.
I tried to raise the matter in yesterday's debate and, indeed, I spoke to it at some length, but I had no reply last night from the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, to the points which I made. However, in an interjection, he made two points. The first was that it could be unfair to give deferred pay—which is what a pension is—to some people and not to others. This unfairness exists at the moment and it is a fact of life, but if the noble Lord will carefully consider the wording of my new clause, he will see that there are explicit provisions to prevent discrimination or any further unfairness. The new clause is designed only to permit a levelling-up. It will not perpetrate any further unfairness and it will reduce some of the unfairness which exists at present, to which I referred in examples yesterday.
Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, yesterday feared what he called a phoney deferred pay system to get round the £6 limit. There is nothing phoney about an improvement in pensions which benefits one of the poorest sections of the community and the one which is worst hit by inflation. There is nothing phoney in reducing future dependance on supplementary benefit, which is what we have all been trying to do through the new Social Security Pensions Bill. I do not deny that there could be a phoney pensions scheme, but the wording of the new clause exempts only those schemes approved by the Inland Revenue.
As anyone who has tried to negotiate the approval of a pensions scheme with the Inland Revenue will know, it is necessary to comply with very strict requirements on many points of principle and of detail. Indeed, this new clause goes even further: it requires that exempt schemes should be approved by the Inland Revenue, and it contains a further provision to avoid unfairness, as I mentioned earlier. When the new clause was moved in another place, a number of points were put forward in its favour from all sides of the House, but when the Secretary of State for Employment replied he did not take up those points in detail. One can only conclude that the Government had already decided on their policy statement on pensions before the debate took place on Tuesday night

1221
because of the pressing nature of the legislation. In fact, their policy statements leave pension schemes and the implementation of the new Pensions Act in a far worse predicament than was even anticipated. Apart from schemes under negotiation in the period prior to the publication of a White Paper, there can be no new or no improved schemes for the next 12 months.
What I find profoundly disturbing is that new schemes and improved schemes after the next 12 months will be permitted to do, as the Secretary of State said, no more than meet the minimum statutory requirements for contracting out under the Social Security Pensions Bill. The minimum requirements—that is all that one can negotiate. Let me make it plain what this means. Nothing can be done for a year, and at the end of 12 months an employer will be permitted to provide a new or improved earnings-related pension but only in respect of service after the new State scheme begins and only in respect of that slice of earnings which qualifies for the new State scheme.
The result is that anyone close to retirement has no chance to build up an earnings-related pension for the greater part of his service. I do not believe that this was ever intended by the Government. I want to make it clear just who will suffer from this policy. Higher paid employees are, at the moment, very often in good pensions schemes providing generous benefits. They are not the ones who will suffer. It will be the manual workers and the female employees who will suffer because they are the two main categories excluded from pension schemes at the moment. These are the categories we were all hoping would be brought into good occupational schemes as quickly as possible after the Act was on the Statute Book.
I do not believe that it is the Government's intention to exclude such categories as that. I cannot believe that it is TUC policy, and it certainly has not got the backing of progressive trade union leaders whom I meet in the course of my work in the Pensions Information Centre from time to time. When Mrs. Castle announced the new State pension scheme some months ago, she laid great stress on the need for a partnership between
1222
State and occupational pensions, and she made it clear that the contracting out standards would be the minimum acceptable to the Government if the employer was to be allowed to provide benefits under his own scheme as an alternative to the new, earnings-related State scheme. What we are now being told is that the minimum is also the maximum. Under this policy to contract out, a scheme must provide no less than the minimum required but it must also provide no more than the minimum; and I do not believe that this is what the Government intend.
The Secretary of State for Employment said in another place that he hoped that employers and unions would continue to negotiate. But there is nothing to negotiate about. If there can be no greater benefits than those provided by the State scheme, which is what we are talking about—because the minimum requirements are just about the same as in a State scheme—and if there is to be no more flexibility than can be had in the State scheme, which by nature is inflexible, what initiative, what incentive, is there for an employer to negotiate and to contract out? From Mr. Michael Foot's remarks, I cannot tell whether the Government have failed to understand the problem or whether they are really content to accept this real set-back to the hopes and expectations of many hundreds of thousands of people. That is why I am moving for the introduction of this new clause today.
On 14th July I wrote to the Prime Minister, merely for clarification. I could not believe that this was the Government's intention. Today, in his absence, I have received a very courteous letter from the Private Secretary, in which he says, speaking for the Prime Minister—and this is what worries me, because I think that the Government really do think that they have done the right thing—
"With pensions, as with many other issues, the Government are faced with the problem of reconciling the long-term policies they wish to pursue with the short-term need to beat inflation. The Government believe that the Secretary of State's statement provides the necessary encouragement to both employers and unions to continue to negotiate improvements in occupational pension schemes."
But it is to negotiate on the minimum required for contracting out—negotiations

1223
just will not take place! Again, the letter says:
"He has now made clear on Report stage that improvements negotiated in the next twelve months to meet the minimum requirements for contracting out under the Social Security Pensions Bill will be allowed to go ahead from dates from 31st July 1976 outside the pay limits."
That does not make sense. It is a case of, "Thank you for nothing", and the Government must think again on this.
I appreciate that there must be restrictions, but there is already in existence an elaborate code of restrictions to prevent improved pension schemes from providing excessive benefits. The new clause would permit improvements only up to that ceiling; and even then there are further safeguards. These further safeguards prevent discrimination, and in the case of new schemes the only discrimination permitted would be to allow employers to exclude those people who are younger than 26 or those who have been in the job for less than five years. I have chosen those two categories because they are already embodied in existing pensions legislation. They are the two categories which are exempt from the requirements of the 1973 Act that a preserved pension must be provided on withdrawal.
I quite see that there must be restrictions on new and improved schemes in relation both to the level of benefit and the categories of those entitled to benefit. It is for that reason that I have worded the new clause in such a way as to provide these very safeguards. But my final point concerns the fear expressed by the Secretary of State for Employment when he said that to abandon the proposition that improvements in non-wage benefits should be counted against the £6 would destroy the credibility of the £6 limit.
This is the key to the whole problem. I am moving this new clause to exempt pension schemes which meet certain conditions, because I am convinced that such exemption is not only consistent with the Government's intention of solving our economic problems, with which I agree, but that it will actually assist them to achieve the desired result. Pensions have always been recognised as being quite different from other non-wage benefits. They are a major source of the invest
1224
ment funds which our economy so desperately needs. As such they need to be encouraged, not to be restricted.
The case for occupational pension schemes has been very well made by someone I should like to quote:
"Occupational schemes provide their men hers with additional income in retirements, generally related to earnings. They may also be geared to the needs of and agreements in particular industries or occupations, and they make a valuable contribution to the economy through their encouragement to private savings "—
which is what we all want—
"by which employees put aside some of their current pay to provide for retirement."
Those words are not mine. They were not spoken by anyone in the pensions industry. They were the words which Mrs. Castle used in the White Paper when she launched her new pension scheme. The point is that pension contributions which go into savings are anti-inflation; they take money out of consumption. Let us face it—the bigger the benefits, the better the benefits, the more costly, and therefore the more money which is removed in the immediate future for use in retirement at a much later stage.
The background to this Bill is the appalling state of our economy. I do not deny that the Government must take drastic action to restrict disposable incomes and consumption and to encourage savings and investment. I said that yesterday. It is because, and only because, new and improved pensions fulfil these objectives, and these objectives are essential to the solution of our economic problems, that I am moving this new clause. I hope that the Government really will give serious consideration to this matter. If they do not, a very big mistake will be made on social and economic grounds. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord ABERDARE: I have the benefit of advice from my noble and learned friend that this clause is not particularly happy in this Bill. Therefore I should not be able to follow the noble Lord, Lord Byers, into trying to insert the clause into the Bill. But, short of the reservation of not walking through the Lobby with him, I give him all the support that I can in the points he made. He has put them with such force and clarity, both in the debate yesterday and again

1225
today, that it would be merely a waste of time if I were to rehearse them all again. Certainly, as he made them, I found myself in the fullest possible agreement with what he was saying. It seems to me that pensions, above all else, are counter-inflationary and we should be doing everything we can to encourage new pension schemes, to create real savings, to increase the amount of money available for investment—which is what we all require—and to transfer money from consumption to savings.
As the noble Lord, Lord Byers, has said, we have only just parted with the Social Security Pensions Bill in which many of us have been desperately struggling to encourage occupational pension schemes. We got a long way, and were hopeful that the final Bill would go even further, in producing partnership between private occupational schemes and public schemes. It seems a disaster at this particular moment if that energy and initiative, coming we believe from the occupational pensions industry, is to be inhibited as a result of this incomes policy, especially when, in our view, it is irrelevant to the £6 limit.
I cannot see how it can be maintained that it would affect the credibility of the £6 limit. Certainly, in our own counter-inflation policies, in Phases 1 and 2, which were far stricter—Phase I was a complete freeze—than the £6 limit, there was no question of limiting new pension proposals. As the noble Lord said, what we would be doing is preventing employers from putting forward proposals—because these are long-term proposals—above the sheer minimum basic for the future for their own employees, mainly manual workers, widows and other people who hitherto have not had as good schemes as they should.
Lord BYERS: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him to reconsider his attitude to the possibility of accompanying me through the Lobbies. I have great respect for the noble and learned Lord sitting on his left, but this Amendment was dealt with in another place. It was discussed for several hours and no objection was made to the fact that it had no place in the Bill. While I much respect the legal qualifications of the noble and learned Lord, I should have
1226
thought that on this occasion he was not right.
5.33 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: When my noble friend comes to reply he might, I think, deal with the question whether what the noble Lord, Lord Byers, has been talking about is covered by this Bill at all and, indeed, whether it is covered by the policy at all. That is, up to now at any rate, a voluntary policy. Unless it is caught by a statutory limitation under the Bill, it seems to me that no action of the kind that the noble Lord, Lord Byers, described, is prohibited. The clause that we are now considering, and which has been fully explained by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, precludes a worker from getting increases in pay in accordance with an existing contract beyond a certain point. Clause 1 relieves the employer of any legal liability to honour his contract. That is what Clause 1 does. I do not see therefore that in the matter of pension schemes there is anything, either in the White Paper or in the Bill, which will prevent an employer from negotiating an improved superannuation scheme.
I know that reference was made to this matter in another place and that there was some obiter dictum from a Minister; but that has no effect, it seems to me, either under the White Paper or under this Bill, unless something is laid down which can be enforced at a subsequent stage by the Secretary of State. What are we talking about? It seems to me that we are talking about negotiating improved superannuation arrangements which involve, at least initially, increased contributions. Not until the improvement which is carried out qualifies for improved benefits can any money be paid out. It will have been paid by the employee into a fund, or by the employer and the employee combined into a fund, which is financing an occupational pension scheme.
I think it may be that we are getting unnecessarily concerned about something which may not be impeded either by the policy or by the law. I hope that my noble friend will be able to shed some light on it. I do not think the Government are entitled to press this policy beyond what has been agreed with the TUC and what has been put forward as a

1227
policy for pay and incomes. If pension increases in accordance with existing arrangements are to be granted notwithstanding the £6 a week limit on pay, it seems to me strange indeed if there is to be some obstacle put in the way of the negotiating of an improved pension scheme arising from which contingent benefits may be paid at some date in the future. I should be glad on my own behalf, apart from what the noble Lord, Lord Byers, said, to have an explanation of what may be a difficulty in the minds of noble Lords but which does not exist in the policy itself.
5.37 p.m.
Lord HUGHES: I fervently wish that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, was right; but the fact is that, as Lord Byers well knows in putting forward his Amendment, the Bill does cover pensions. After all, the first word in the title is "Remuneration". That will cover the various conditions attached to employment: pensions, actual rate of pay and so on. If something were to be done it would have to be done in terms of an Amendment such as the noble Lord, Lord Byers, has suggested. I had the benefit of hearing what Lord Byers had to say yesterday in relation to this. He then declared an interest in the matter. I did not think it was necessary for him to do so; but at least it was quite clear during his remarks yesterday and from what he said today, that this is a subject on which he is an acknowledged expert and that he was not talking merely on his own behalf but on behalf of other people.
The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said that while he agreed with a lot of what Lord Byers had said, the advice he had got about the validity of the Amendment itself was such that it could not lead him into the Lobbies. I find myself in a position to look almost as far as Lord Aberdare; except I would suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, that at this stage in the proceedings, given what was already said by my noble friend the Secretary of State for Employment and what I will myself say, I doubt whether it would serve a useful purpose to insert this Amendment—which the Government cannot accept—and to go through the motions of sending it back to another
1228
place, unless there were reasons to believe that the Government were in a position to advise another place that the Amendment could be acceptable. The Government are not in that position.
I do not think the past record of the noble Lord, Lord Byers, would lead anyone to believe that he is willing to go through an exercise merely for the sake of carrying it out rather than for what the end result is likely to be. I have an added difficulty that the brief I have been given is largely a repetition of what was said by the Secretary of State in another place, and as the noble Lord, Lord Byers, read out almost everything the Secretary of State said in another place, there is not much point in my saying it again. In everything he quoted my noble friend as saying, he was absolutely factual except in the following.
First, he was not right in saying that the answer which had been given by my right honourable friend must have been because the Government did not take into account what was in the Amendment before another place—this clause—and he did not blame them for that. As the noble Lord said, he wrote to the Prime Minister on 14th July, and the Statement that was made by my right honourable friend on 29th July was made after the Government had given careful consideration to the points which the noble Lord, Lord Byers, put forward.
Obviously, given the policy which the Government will ultimately want to apply in full to pensions, what is being done in this Bill cuts across that. We would never accept as a permanent part of policy that the people to be hit regarding pensions are the ones at the bottom of the scale. We would not accept it as desirable that those widows who do not have the benefit of a pension scheme should be permanently deprived of that. But this is one of the inevitable results of the situation compelling us to apply a policy which, in normal times, would be totally unacceptable.
For the purposes of this discussion, I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Byers, said about the unfairness to these classes of people. But it is no more unfair than saying to certain people, in industries where wages are low, that their wage increase should be limited to a maximum

1229
of £6 in existing circumstances. I can think of many people who have a cast iron case now for an increase of a great deal more than £6. Restricting these people to £6 a week is obviously a very much greater hardship than restricting somebody who is on a higher level. The Government have accepted that this is part of the unfortunate effects of a policy of this kind.
Lord BYERS: The noble Lord is still not accepting that a wage increase goes straight into consumption and is inflationary, whereas withdrawing or putting aside, as Mrs. Castle said, the contributions for future pensions is counter-inflationary. This is the biggest difference which the Government must now accept: it is helping their policy.
Lord HUGHES: That aspect of it is. That was one of the reasons why I found myself so much in agreement with a great deal of what the noble Lord said. But there is another aspect to that. In so far as this money is taken aside and put into a pension fund and invested, then, as the noble Lord says, it helps investment in the country. Pension funds have to earn their keep if the pensions are to be paid. The noble Lord emphasised this yesterday. But there is another side to it. The improvements in pensions cannot be made without charges being incurred.
Before I came back into Government last year, I was on the board of a company which had spent a considerable time working out a scheme because of the intended implementation on, I think, 1st April last year of the pensions policy of the previous Administration. The scheme which was worked out by that company did a lot of the things which the noble Lord talked about—giving widows' pensions, giving much greater pension rights to those on the factory floor, bringing the pensions of those on the shop floor much more into line with those of the executives and office staff. But it was at considerable cost to the company and this is something from which we cannot get away. The cost of pensions means an increase in labour costs and, at a time when the policies of this Bill are related to cutting the costs, hitting at cost inflation, it would be wrong to accept from these operations a situation which could add appreciably to costs.
1230
We have gone as far as we think we reasonably can go.
The noble Lord referred to what can be done from 31st July 1976 and said, "Thank you for nothing" because the maximum has become the same as the minimum. We have given the go-ahead and encouragement for negotiations to take place on improvements of schemes. But the limitation is not on negotiating what will be the scheme for the future; the limitation is only on what can be applied as from 31st July 1976. I hope the opportunity will be taken during this period to carry on negotiations about any satisfactory pension scheme which can be put into operation in its entirety when the situation in the country permits it. There is no reason why that should not be done. The Government have given the undertaking in advance of discussions with TUC and CBI about what will follow after the 31st July 1976, to encourage the negotiators to continue to negotiate, and the policy which will apply will be formulated after further discussions take place.
The Government would like to be able to go along with what the noble Lord, Lord Byers, has said. I do not dissent from what my noble friend said yesterday about the possibility of phoney schemes, but I do not think that can be regarded as the major factor. I accept that what the noble Lord, Lord Byers, said goes a long way to preventing phoney schemes from being brought into operation.
Lord BYERS: Inland Revenue!
Lord HUGHES: We know how the Inland Revenue tends to catch up a year later with the ingenious people who find ways through the legislation. For this purpose, we cannot afford to lose the time for the Inland Revenue then to produce the new legislation necessary to catch up with the smart Alecs.
The main objection is that we are permitting something to go through which is not contracted for at the present time, which is bound to add to the costs of industry and is therefore adding to cost inflation at a time when we want to get it down. It is for this reason that I cannot advise your Lordships to accept the Amendment. I hope that the noble Lord, having impressed upon the Government the desirability of not departing from

1231
their objectives in this matter, will consider this is as much as he can reasonably expect to get carried through now, because I can give no undertaking that the Government can accept a change of policy at the present time. I think it would be a waste of time to send this back to another place so that the Government have to ask them to take it out again.
5.49 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: Before the noble Lord, Lord Byers, replies, I must intervene again. I must dissent from what my noble friend has said. Pensions have never been remuneration; I cannot sit here and listen to remuneration being applied to pensions. Pensions do not qualify for National Insurance contributions which relate to remuneration and earnings. I know it is frequently argued that pensions are deferred pay; but that is only an argument. It is a term of art; it has not been established as a legal point. Neither the White Paper nor the Bill say a word about pensions, nor about labour costs.
We are dealing with Clause 1, which relates to contractual improvements in pay from which employers are relieved. I entirely agree with my noble friend that this clause proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, has no place as an addition to Clause 1 or, indeed, in this Bill. The Bill does not deal with the question with which the noble Lord, Lord Byers, has dealt. It seems to me that by far the best course is to test this out in the practical application of the Government's policy, which any interests concerned are entitled to do. There is going to be no law and no White Paper, and until an order is made for the approval of both Houses of Parliament there will be no legislative prohibition against any employer negotiating with a trade union or the staff concerned for an improvement in a superannuation scheme.
I am surprised that this has been yanked into this Bill, or within the scope of what is proposed. I am really astonished that the argument has been pursued that this is an addition to labour costs and, therefore, must be discouraged under the Government's policy. Had that been in the minds of the Government or the TUC, surely they could have said
1232
so. It is an important aspect—if it is an aspect at all—of the adjustment of conditions of service. What about additional holidays with pay, or other facilities which are given to employees by employers to make conditions of work more agreeable and acceptable? We are dealing with remuneration, and pensions are not remuneration. I think they are outside the Bill and outside the White Paper and my advice to anybody concerned is to go in and see.
Lord HUGHES: My noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby is not right in this matter. The TUC have accepted the fact that pensions are included. I would refer him to the Annex to the document, The Attack on Inflation, "Extract from the TUC Document" paragraph 7, which reads:
"Negotiators will be expected to offset any improvement in non-wage benefits against the pay figure. In this period of high unemployment, negotiators should of course continue to give priority to improving job security."
I would draw his attention to the definition of "remuneration" in Clause 7 of the Bill which states, "any benefit…whether in money or otherwise…" which, therefore, covers pensions contributions. It was for that reason that, while I could not advise your Lordships to accept the Amendment, I had to agree that the noble Lord, Lord Byers, was dealing with a subject which was properly within the terms of the Bill.
Lord PEDDLE: I think my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby is splitting hairs when he indicates that pension is not remuneration. To be precise, that may be correct, but without any shadow of doubt, the extent of the pension has a bearing on the degree of benefit which a person secures from pursuing certain employment. It is part of the measurement by the person who is offered employment of whether or not it pays him to accept it. I support the point of view expressed by my noble friend on the Front Bench that the attitude is unquestionably right, and I do so for this reason. If the Amendment were accepted it would be tantamount to increasing the inequity of operation, if a necessary restriction were imposed on the degree of benefit the person expected to secure, and it would be one area whereby it would be possible by another route to increase the benefits, even though they may not

1233
be described as wages or remuneration. Without any doubt, in terms of equity alone I would give support to those who oppose this Amendment.
Lord BYERS: I am deeply disappointed that what I hoped was not Government policy has turned out to be the policy. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, who has had tremendous experience in these matters. I cannot help feeling that, in the long run, he is more likely to be proved right than the Government. If this is the Government's policy, then I can only say that I am deeply disappointed. I have no intention of wasting the time of this House or another place, particularly as I do not appear to be getting the support which I thought I might get. I feel that the Government should offer to meet those who are interested in the pension movement—and that includes trade unions, pensions negotiators, people like Mr. Lucas of the Municipal and General Workers' Union and others. This need take place not next week or the week after, but in the very near future, so that representations can be made. We can then see whether it is possible within this anti-inflationary context—because we all want to defeat inflation—to deal with labour costs. If it does not mean an increase in prices and comes out of profits, it is something which might be discussed and might become an exemption.
I would say to the noble Lord that I feel that the Government are on the wrong track. I do not want to go through a time-consuming exercise tonight, but I should like to feel that this is not the end of the road and that we could perhaps have meaningful discussions, particularly with the three Departments concerned. Three Departments, which have not been co-ordinated properly have been concerned, and a pension matter is being dealt with by the Department of Employment when the expertise is in the Department of Health and Social Security. The Treasury also has a very great interest in this matter. This is what happens when you have hasty legislation. I am not blaming the Government for the haste. For a long time we have been asking them to do something. When things have died down, it will be helpful to have the three Departments at a Ministerial level to talk over this matter.
Lord HUGHES: Before the noble Lord withdraws the Amendment, as I suspect he is now going to do, may I say that while I have no authority to commit my right honourable friends in the matter I will certainly draw their attention specifically to what the noble Lord, Lord Byers, has just said. So that whatever may or may not be possible during the counter-inflationary policy there should be no obstacles placed in the way of getting pension schemes on to a proper basis at the earliest opportunity. It may well be that that would be served in the way which the noble Lord has said, by having these discussions even at this time.
Lord BYERS: Before the noble Lord changes his mind, may I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 2 to 6 agreed to
Clause 7 [Interpretation]:
On Question, Whether Clause 7 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: To my noble friends who commented on the meaning of the term "remuneration", I would say only that this Bill relieves employers of certain contractual obligations and Clause 7 seeks to define the range of those obligations. That is all that this Bill does. I would venture the opinion that it does not stop employers from negotiating with their staff or their unions improved benefits which were not contractual rights before. However, we will see what happens. The argument as to what is or is not within the scope of the Government's policy, and the rules that may be laid down under this Bll and under the White Paper, has already begun. It is the first of a thousand arguments that will take place in the next 12 months.
Lord HUGHES: The noble Lord may be right. I do not know whether or not the advice which was given on this matter by the noble and learned Lord opposite put him on my side, but I was not prepared to argue with his law when he was against me, and certainly I am not prepared to argue with his law when he appears to be with me.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: I do not want to take

1235
up the time of the Committee. I could not have gone into the Lobby with the Liberal Amendment, partly because of the reasons of time which were explained by the noble Lord. We cannot obstruct this Bill, bad as the policy is and rotten as the means taken to adopt it may be. We have no desire to obstruct this matter, and that would be the effect.
I thought the Amendment was also inapposite in a Bill of this kind, because the only peg upon which it could have been hung was the peg of Clause 1; and though I fully agreed with the construction of that clause which the noble Lord gave to the Committee, namely, that remuneration must include pensions because of Clause 7, it seemed to me that something which permitted the employer to break his contractual engagements under Clause 1 could hardly be a suitable peg to use to define the scope of the White Paper under which he was to be permitted to break his contractual engagements. For that reason I advised my noble friend, although I had great sympathy with the policy, that this was not an appropriate Amendment to support on its merits.
Lord HUGHES: I have learned another lesson, rather late in the proceedings: I ought not to do anything which would bring in either my noble friend Lord Houghton or the noble and learned Lord Lord Hailsham.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment. Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, in moving that this Bill do now pass, may I on behalf of the Government express deep appreciation to your Lordships, and in particular to the noble and learned Lord, for the way in which the Bill has been expedited. We are very grateful indeed. We hope that the fears of the noble and learned Lord will not be realised, but that the confidence of the Government in this Bill will be fulfilled. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Shepherd.)
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for his courtesy and for what he has said. I have spoken harsh words about the Bill and I meant every one of them; but I have also lived up to my promise not to obstruct the business of the Government in carrying their policy through. On the whole, I think that is very much better than saying you agree with something when you do not. This is not a debating society. We are responsible for our actions and we have facilitated the business without agreeing with it; I think that is a very honourable course to have taken.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I fully agree with what the noble and learned Lord has said.
On Question, Bill passed.

SEX DISCRIMINATION BILL
6.3 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved manuscript Amendment No. 12A:
Page 8, line 16, leave out ("female") and insert ("woman who is a").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this manuscript Amendment, which is available to your Lordships, I should perhaps refer to a further manuscript Amendment which will be moved later. When I saw this morning's Marshalled List I saw Amendment No. 60 was dealing with the transitional arrangements proposed by the Government concerning both single-sex teachers' unions and midwives. It clearly seems desirable to take these two issues separately, and that will be done when we come to that particular Government Amendment.
Amendment No. 12A has been tabled because of representations received from my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, to whom we are indebted in this matter. My noble and learned friend raised a point on Report stage on new

1237
Clause 7A about the use in Clause 22 of the word "female" instead of "woman". He suggested that though Clause 2 allowed one to read "man" for "woman" it did not allow "female" to be read as "male", with the result that Clause 22 permitted discrimination against men in the field of education. His analysis is equally relevant to Clause 9, which speaks of "female contract workers". There is certainly no intention in either clause to permit discrimination against men. Though we do not ourselves believe that there is any doubt that Clauses 9 and 22 operate to the benefit of both sexes, the views of my noble and learned friend demand respect, and it is right to put the matter beyond doubt. Accordingly, I beg to move and I commend these Amendments to the House.
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for having taken this course. I was never really concerned over Clause 9, because there the word "female" is used as an adjective, but in Clause 22—this being the only other place in the Bill where we do not refer to "man", "woman", "men" or "women"—the word "female" suddenly appears. I can see no possible disadvantage in that being changed to "women", because I think the idea at one time was that in the field of education one is dealing with very young people and "woman" might be appropriate. But I cannot think that is right or would ever have occurred to a judge, because in education one is dealing not only with young people but also with teachers, university staff, professors and so on; indeed, in my own university the average age of students is 30.
As Clause 5 expressly says that the word "woman" shall include "a female of any age", I see no possible disadvantage in using the word "woman". What I foresaw was that some judge some day would be struck by the fact that everywhere else one finds the word "woman" and suddenly in the field of education the Bill says in substance that in future it will be unlawful to discriminate against a female. If you are dealing with "woman", Clause 2 provides that wherever in the Bill you see the word "woman", the same thing applies to a man. There is nothing in the Bill which says that where you find the word
1238
"female" the same thing applies to a male. I am sure that any judge would have said to himself, "I am sure there must have been some reason for this, and it is up to me to find out what was meant and give effect to it. Obviously it cannot simply be because a lot of young people are concerned with education. There must be some object in using the word 'female' to produce some result which would not have occurred if the word 'woman' was used; and the only thing I can think of—and I must not look in Hansard—is that, whether because there are more men teachers, or for whatever reason, Parliament decided that when it came to the field of education they would not trouble to make it unlawful to discriminate against men. Then 'female' would exactly fit that. It would not apply to men. It would simply apply to women in that clause". I am very grateful to my noble friend for having taken this course. It has cleared up what might well have been a cause of trouble.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Qualifying bodies]:
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Lord Derwent): My Lords, I must point out to your Lordships that if Amendment No. 13 is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 14.
6.10 p.m.
Lord MONSON Lord MONSON moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 11, line 5, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 13 and, with the leave of the House, I will speak at the same time to Amendment No. 14 which, as your Lordships will have gathered, is very much a second-best alternative to Amendment No. 13. In Committee I asked the Minister whether he could quote any precedent for a Government seeking to dictate to an independent autonomous professional body the grounds on which they were obliged to judge whether an applicant for admission to the profession was of good character or otherwise. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, was kind enough to write to me citing as the sole example Clause 35(2) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, which roughly speaking, obliges the Director General of Fair Trading to take into

1239
account the conduct of an applicant, including whether or not he has practised sex discrimination when deciding whether to grant a licence to carry on consumer credit business.
With all respect, I submit that the two instances are in no way comparable. The Director General of Fair Trading is a Government appointee. Clearly, therefore, Parliament has every right to lay down the kind of terms which he must require from an applicant before granting a licence. Independent professional bodies, in contrast, have for many decades—I suppose in some cases, perhaps, centuries—formed their own judgments entirely as to what constitutes good character. Furthermore, although this is very much a secondary consideration, I think it would be agreed that for a person who has studied for many years to enter a profession, to be turned down at the last moment would cause him grievous financial loss as well as being a considerable social stigma. The same does not apply to nearly the same extent to somebody refused a licence to carry on consumer credit business.
Let us take the hypothetical case of a man who is perhaps site manager with a construction firm, who decides in mid-career that he would like to obtain professional qualifications and become a surveyor. He attends night school, spends many years studying, passes all his examinations and finally goes to the professional institution concerned for his interview. Suppose that the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors learns that in the course of his career he has refused to employ women to operate pneumatic drills on digging up roads, or whatever, on the grounds that this is unfeminine and unseemly—a proposition with which I think most people in this country of both sexes would agree. If the professional organisation concerned take the obligations under subsection (2) seriously they will be obliged to refuse him admission to the profession, to his great loss. I would submit that that is most unfair.
There is also the thin edge of the wedge argument. Just suppose—and I do not say for a moment that this is likely to happen—that Mr. Tony Kelly of Newham, North-East or somebody with the philosophy of Mr. Tony Kelly were to
1240
achieve great prominence in the Labour Party and rise to achieve a Ministerial post. Is it not conceivable that in a few years time some Bill might be introduced which obliged the General Medical Council to deem that any doctor or medical student who spoke out too vociferously in favour of private hospital beds or private medicine generally was an unsound character, with the implication that they ought to be struck off or refused admission to the profession? It may seem fanciful today, certainly, but stranger things have happened in the course of five years or so.
I have discussed this subsection with a very senior member of one of the professional organisations concerned not unconnected with the legal profession, and his feeling about the subsection is that it is probably unenforceable in practice and therefore one need not worry about it overmuch. But I prefer to stick to principles and forget about practice. For that reason, I should like to see the deletion of this subsection. However, if the House does not support me in this Amendment I hope that your Lordships will look favourably upon Amendment No. 14 which seeks to make a very much more minor change. My contact pointed out that to include associates as well as employees and agents is taking the doctrine of vicarious liability to the most extraordinary lengths. Furthermore, it does not tie up in any way with Clause 41 of the Bill which refers specifically to the liability of employers and principals and specifies particularly employees and agents but says absolutely nothing about associates. It is true that somewhere in the Bill associated employers are mentioned, but this is not the same as associates. I hope, therefore, that if your Lordships cannot for any reason support Amendment No. 13 the Government will support Amendment No. 14.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I can say at the outset that the Government cannot accept Amendment No. 13 but they would be prepared to accept Amendment No. 14. In the circumstances, does the noble Lord wish to withdraw Amendment No. 13?
Lord MONSON: My Lords, as nobody else has spoken in support of Amendment No. 13, I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 14.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 12, leave out (", agents or associates ") and insert ("or agents ").—(Lord Monson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 [Ministers of religion etc.]:
6.15 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 14, line 41, leave out ("any") and insert ("a significant number").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 16 standing in my name. This Amendment meets a point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, when we were in Committee. It ensures that in so far as ordination to the ministry—
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: No, my Lords; the noble Lord has the wrong Amendment.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I apologise, my Lords.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: This Amendment meets the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, this is a point which was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who unhappily cannot be with us today. It will not totally satisfy the point she made during the Committee stage of the Bill but it goes in the direction of meeting her point. I hope it will be conceded by those who took part in the previous debate that this is an improvement on the previous form of words, and on that basis I recommend this Amendment to the House. I beg to move.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, in the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that we are grateful that some concessions have been made and we should like to place our gratitude on record.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 14, line 41, at end insert—
"(2) Nothing in section 13 applies to an authorisation or qualification (as defined in that section) for the purposes of an organised religion where the authorisation or qualification is limited to one sex so as to comply with the doctrines of the religion or avoid offending the religious susceptibilities of a significant number of its followers.".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the explanation for the slight confusion on my part is my own numbering system. If I had only left the matter to my excellent officials, I should not have been in the position of trying to move the wrong Amendment. However, here I can come back on the second occasion and congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, for having moved the Government in this way. The point he made when we were discussing this range of issues on the last occasion was that, in so far as ordination to the ministry or its equivalent for non-Christian Churches amounts to conferring a professional qualification under Clause 13, then the Clause 19 exception will apply to such ordination as well as to employment under Clause 6. On that basis I propose the Amendment in my name.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, this is the first occasion when I have to thank the noble Lord for meeting some of my points. This is a substantial improvement, because otherwise the whole point of the exemption in Clause 19, where it will really bite, which was at the ordination stage, was not covered at all. Now it is, and I think that this situation is entirely satisfactory. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, and I warmly welcome this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22 [Discrimination by bodies in charge of educational establishments]:
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Crowther-Hunt): My Lords, I beg leave to move Manuscript Amendment No. 18A. The reasons for it were mentioned earlier by my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 29, leave out ("female") and insert ("woman").—(Lord Crowther-Hunt.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 26 [Exception for single-sex establishments]:
6.22 p.m.
Lord MONSON Lord MONSON moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 18, line 34, at end insert—
"( ) For the purposes of subsection (1) the admission of pupils of the opposite sex to a single-sex establishment shall be deemed exceptional if their numbers do not exceed 10 per cent. of the total number of pupils."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 19. This Amendment is designed to meet the problems of independent schools to which I drew attention in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, was kind enough to write to me setting out his view that any Amendment was unnecessary, on the ground that single-sex schools which took members of the opposite sex normally took them into the sixth form only and that therefore this would be deemed exceptional under Clause 26(1), either under paragraph (a) or possibly paragraph (b). However, the independent educational sector is in a state of great flux and it is not necessarily the case that single-sex schools will continue to take sixth formers only. There are prep schools which have started to take girls of nine and ten. Also, there are girls' schools which are admitting boys. I do not see the point of having any restrictions so far as primary and secondary education is concerned, because there has never been any lack of opportunity for members of either sex in the primary and secondary sector. It may well be the case that there is some justification for imposing restrictions so far as higher education is concerned so as to give equality of opportunity, but I do not think there has ever been a complaint of boys and girls under the age of 18 being deprived of the education which is their due.
The other somewhat worrying point which I must admit this Amendment will not in itself cure, is this. During the debate on Tuesday when the earlier part of the Report stage of this Bill was taken, I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Kahn, speak about King's College, Cambridge, where they have admitted 116 girls, forming roughly 35 per cent. of the total enrolment. I am afraid that I cannot find the passage in Hansard, but if I may paraphrase the noble Lord he said, "We
1244
think the proportion of women is about right". Subsequently, however, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said—again I must paraphrase him because I cannot find in Hansard the column in question, since we have arrived at this Amendment more quickly than I expected—"We think that co-education ought to mean roughly 50:50—not exactly 50:50 but nearly so". As this is the case, it appears that the noble Lord, Lord Kahn, is under a misapprehension and that to conform entirely with the Bill they would have to admit more women and get rid of a number of men if they could not increase the total size of their enrolment. However, that is slightly off the Amendment.
I suggest that this Amendment is a simple one, and I cannot see that it will do any harm. In the third line of the Amendment I have used the word "if" rather than "provided that" so that a line is not drawn at 10 per cent. All it means is that if a single-sex school has 10 per cent. of pupils of the opposite sex, it is automatically free from any worry, but that if it has over 10 per cent. it may have to prove its case. I beg to move.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I hope that we shall be very careful before the House decides to accept this Amendment. It seems to me that Clause 26 has been drawn in a particularly subtle way so that a good deal of flexibility and latitude of interpretation is given to the tribunal concerned to ascertain the facts in any case. I should be very loth to see a formula like 10 per cent. written into this Bill. It may be perfectly apt in a number of cases, but I am fairly certain that in the course of time some establishment will be found where 10 per cent. is exactly the wrong figure to take and will produce the wrong result. I never like things like 10 per cent. or formulae of this kind.
Perhaps the law is always supposed to be very silly, but one gets on quite well with words like "significant", "reasonable", "exceptional", "comparatively small", or whatever it may be. I should have thought—and I should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, could confirm this—that he is not expecting perfectly genuine cases of children of the opposite sex to that of the majority of the pupils in the school

1245
being taken into the school for a particular purpose, whether it is into the sixth form or as a small number who do this or that, to get into any kind of difficulties.
I was hoping that in moving his Amendment the noble Lord, Lord Monson, would be able, if he was going to do anything at all, to justify it by giving examples. He has not done so. Therefore, I am very hesitant indeed to support any attempt to remove what I believe to be a very good degree of flexibility in the drafting as it stands.
6.27 p.m.
Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: My Lords, if I may reply to the points which have been made by both noble Lords, the Government's policy on single-sex educational institutions was set out quite clearly in the White Paper Equality for Women. The Government consider that legislation should not make unlawful existing or future single-sex schools or other educational institutions, whether in the public or the private sector. The White Paper goes on to say that there would therefore be an exception for single-sex educational institutions, including those which are predominantly single-sex, to admit pupils of the other sex to a part of the institution—for example, sixth forms.
Clause 26 is designed to give effect to the Government's policy. It excludes from the educational provisions of the Bill single-sex educational establishments which admit pupils of one sex only. Also it excludes those establishments whose single-sex character is essentially unchanged by the fact that they admit small numbers of pupils of the opposite sex. Subsection (1)(a) is intended to cover institutions which as an exception to their general rule—and I stress that it is as an exception to their general rule—admit persons of the opposite sex under arrangements made in individual cases. An example would be the admission by a women's college of education of mature men students who lived locally who would otherwise have to leave home to attend the course at a men's or a mixed college elsewhere. Subsection (1)(b) covers establishments which regularly admit members of the opposite sex to particular courses or classes. Examples would be the admission of girls to the sixth
1246
forms of boys' schools or the admission of boys to the infant classes of girls' schools.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, expressed concern about the impact of this clause on individual schools, although he did not mention individual schools today and I have already been able to assure him that Marlborough, which restricts entry of girls to the sixth form, will be covered by Clause 26(1)(b). The same is true of a number of other schools which I will not mention but which follow the same principle, where the intention is to admit girls and boys respectively to the sixth form only or to another particular course or part of the school. My understanding is that all the independent schools which at present admit pupils of the opposite sex are covered, because admission is restricted either to the sixth form or to infant classes. Therefore, I suggest to the noble Lord that his Amendment is unnecessary because the schools he has in mind and certainly has talked to me about are covered by Clause 26.
I must make it clear that the Government cannot in any case commend the Amendment to your Lordships because it would involve an unacceptable extension of the definition of a single-sex institution. Here I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. We have excepted single-sex schools and other educational establishments from the Bill, but have deliberately drawn a reasonable but tight definition of what is meant by a single-sex institution. This definition covers existing establishments which are essentially single-sex, though they admit small numbers of the opposite sex. But the effect of the Amendment of the noble Lord would be to permit continuing discrimination by schools and other establishments admitting pupils of both sexes to all classes and courses.
It is difficult to argue that schools with such an admissions policy are really single-sex institutions, and the Government cannot accept that they are made so by imposing an artificial limit of 10 per cent, on the admission of pupils of one sex. What is really being proposed here is that schools whose admissions policy is co-educational should be allowed, nevertheless, to continue to discriminate on grounds of sex. This would be completely against the spirit of a Bill which

1247
is concerned with the removal of sex discrimination. In view of what I have said, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, by leave of the House, I should like to pick up certain points made by both noble Lords. It is not the case that the schools I was referring to are essentially co-educational schools. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, made the point that I have not given many examples. I did not do so because the whole independent education sector is in a state of flux at the moment. Hardly a day goes by without there being an announcement of a girls' school taking boys, or a boys' school taking girls, right down to prep. school level. A great deal of the sector is hard up financially, particularly prep. schools. I am trying to cater for the case where a prep. school normally taking 100 boys, may, in order to make ends meet, temporarily take 10 girls or so.
I admit I was a little thrown by what the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, said about the law. I was under the impression that lawyers generally, and judges in particular, were extremely dissatisfied at the imprecision and lack of clarity of recent Acts of Parliament; but the noble Viscount seems to suggest that in certain cases imprecision is a good thing, and that it works out. I am prepared to accept his judgment on that, because he is legally qualified and I am not. In view of the fact that I have not received any support for this Amendment from any quarter of the House, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 35 [Further exceptions from ss. 29(1) and 30]:
6.34 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg leave to move Amendment No 20, which deals with exactly the point dealt with under Amendment No. 16.
Amendment moved
Page 23, line 26, leave out ("any") and insert ("a significant number").—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord CROWTHER-HUNT Lord CROWTHER-HUNT moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 24, line 12, column 2, leave out ("paragraph 1") and insert ("paragraphs I and IA")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment to Clause 35 is consequential on Amendment No. 60A to Schedule 4. It is the new Amendment which has been divided into two parts. I suggest it will be for the convenience of the House if these two Amendments are considered now.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I do not think this Amendment is paving on Amendment No. 60A. I think it is paving on Amendment No. 60.
Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross; it is Amendment No. 60, of course. It is the first part of the Amendment which has been divided into two parts. On Committee stage we had a long discussion about the Amendment to Clause 12 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhiil, and the new Clause proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, both of which sought to preserve the status of unions in teaching professions organised on a single-sex basis, but which have counterpart organisations for members of the other sex. At a later stage, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, moved an Amendment which sought to allow these unions a transitional period of two years before the provisions of Clause 12 relating to union membership came into effect in their case. The noble Lord and, I believe, all noble Lords, recognised that the Amendment as drafted was too wide, but I undertook to move an Amendment on Report stage which would have the effect the noble Lord wished to achieve. That is the purpose of the proposed new provision to Schedule 4.
This provision allows those four unions known as the Joint Four to preserve their single-sex status until 1st January 1978, if they wish so to do. I can tell your Lordships that this new provision has been welcomed by the Joint Four. At the expiry of the two-year period, each of these unions must open their membership and any ensuing benefits to both sexes. A male teacher may apply to join a female union, and vice versa, and it will

1249
be unlawful for these unions to refuse the application on grounds of sex.
I must make it clear, however, and this is a point about which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, was particularly concerned, that the continuing existence of these unions will be lawful after the end of the transitional period is no question about that. All they will be required to do at that time is to admit members of the opposite sex if the case arises in the same way as for other Clause 12 bodies. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, may I express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, for having met the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, and myself.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTER-HILL: My Lords, may I add my thanks I am pleased with this result, not because of the problem, but because of the problem which it avoids. A period of two years will enable the organisations to come to amicable arrangements, and to avoid difficulties which otherwise might be experienced.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, it would be right for me to join in this chorus of praise and gratitude. Certainly there will be one solicitor to whom I have spoken who will, I think deservedly, derive some little satisfaction from the way in which the Amendment has come out in this clause, because it seems to have a strong family resemblance to one seen before, which was mainly his work.
As on a number of other occasions, we see here the result of a sensible compromise. We are providing for a reasonable transitional period. This is as a result of sensible arguments produced by people who have been able to state their case and to show why they need a little time in order to get the thing straight, and in order to get a situation where equality can really work. The Government have listened, have met the case, and are now doing something about it. This is a most admirable approach to the problem we are facing in the Bill. It is exactly the sort of thing that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has been preaching, when he has said that we should take things gently, sensibly, and
1250
that we should take account of people's susceptibilities. If I may say so, it is very satisfactory to see the Government moving this paving Amendment to Amendment No. 60. From this side of the House, we are all very grateful.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 38 [Discriminatory advertisement]:
Lord JACQUES moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 25, line 37, after ("publication") insert ("of the advertisement").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 22 and the following Amendment, No. 23, are drafting Amendments. They arise from Amendments submitted on Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. We have since discussed the whole question with the noble Lord and, as a result, we have put forward these Amendments. We are grateful to the noble Lord for having raised the issue.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I just thank the noble Lord. Lord Jacques, for moving these Amendments, which meet some of the points already made. I should also like to take this opportunity of thanking the noble Lord for the assistance he has given to me in the interpretation of this clause and how it is likely to work out in practice.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 23.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 38, leave out ("it was effected") and insert ("the advertisement was published").—(Lord Jacques.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 47 [Discriminatory training by certain bodies]:
Lord JACQUES Lord JACQUES moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 30, line 4, after ("regular") insert("full time").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at Committee stage I moved an Amendment which would allow discrimination in respect of the provision of training to people who are in special need of training by reason of the period for which

1251
they had been discharging domestic or family responsibilities to the exclusion of regular employment. We have since discovered that there are cases where the woman is not wholly out of regular employment but has been working part-time. We think the House would agree that she also should be covered, and that is what this Amendment does. I beg to move.
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
Lord CROWTHER-HUNT Lord CROWTHER-HUNT moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 30, line 11, leave out ("person") to ("being") in line 12.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, during the discussion in Committee of Amendment No. 45, which now appears in the present draft of the Bill as Clause 47, the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, spoke of the role which polytechnics and other further education colleges could play in the provision of courses for married women, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, asked why educational institutions as set out in Clause 22 were excluded from being a training body under Clause 47. We have considered the position in the light of the discussions in Committee and have come to the conclusion that it is right to omit the words "other than a body mentioned in Section 22".
The effect of this Amendment will be that if a polytechnic or further education college or any other educational institution wishes to provide discriminatory training within the terms of the clause, it will be able to apply to the Secretary of State to make an order designating it as a training body for the purpose of Clause 47. I hope that this Amendment will be acceptable. I beg to move.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I do not know whether I do the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, an injustice, but I do not think that she came that day from Birmingham in order to make that comment about polytechnics. It is merciful that she happened to be in the Chamber at the moment that this was being discussed, because I think it was an impromptu remark. I put an impromptu interpretation, and the result is that the Government have found something that could be improved. I suspect
1252
that she will be very pleased about this, because she was plainly right. It shows how the experience of noble Lords in all parts of this House can be brought to bear. I think we have made what is probably a significant improvement by this Amendment, which looks very small but will have a formidable effect in producing courses for the retraining of those who have been out of regular full-time employment for some time.
Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for what he has just said. I think the point is that we believe it would have been possible for the sort of training we have in mind in this clause to have taken place anyway. But to remove all possible doubt on the subject, we thought it better to move in this direction.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY Lord AVEBURY moved Amendment No. 26:
After Clause 52 insert the following new clause:
Certificates of exemption
". The Secretary of State shall have power to issue to any person or body a certificate of exemption for a given period of time from the requirements of Parts II to IV or any part thereof, if it should seem desirable to him for the more orderly elimination of discrimination and the promotion of equality of opportunity: provided only that no such certificate shall have effect after the expiration of five years from the passing of this Act."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, may I make it clear once again that we are not in favour of discrimination of any kind whatsoever, whether positive or negative? In this Amendment we are not trying to hold up the beneficial purposes of this Bill. Nevertheless, the more one looks at the Bill, the more it becomes clear that in a number of cases common sense would indicate the need for some kind of transitional provisions. Examples have already been identified, such as political Parties, trade unions, elected bodies of trade unions, teachers unions, and people in schools going co-educational, all of which have been allowed for in the Bill.
Then there was the case discussed the other day of the Oxford and Cambridge Colleges, where the Government did not consider it necessary to make any Amendment as proposed. One of the

1253
reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, for rejecting that Amendment on the Oxford and Cambridge Colleges was that in logic, if one were to permit reverse discrimination in the Colleges, where would the process end and what other cases might be discovered where equally good arguments could be made out in favour of positive discrimination? I think similar points were also made in the debate by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell. That is precisely the case for the new clause which we are proposing here, because we believe that it is impossible in the nature of things to foresee all the cases where positive discrimination might be considered desirable. This is the reason why we are proposing that the Secretary of State should be given this power to grant an exemption certificate in appropriate cases.
It might well be argued that we are making this power too broad, and if that is the objection I would invite the attention of your Lordships to Clause 80, where the Secretary of State is going to be given powers to amend parts of the Bill itself by order, a power which is, I think, very nearly unprecedented but nevertheless may be considered necessary by your Lordships, bearing in mind that we are moving in virtually unchartered waters in this Bill. On the other hand, it might be said that no circumstances could ever be envisaged in which the Secretary of State would feel it necessary to use the kind of powers we are proposing to confer on him here, so in that case the new clause is redundant. I would point out that one cannot use both arguments, because the two possible objections are mutually contradictory, and the Government would have to make up their mind which of the two is their case. If it is the latter, then of course the Government have to say that, apart from those instances already identified in the Bill, they do not believe any positive discrimination will be necessary, even for a transitional period.
Under the Colleges Amendment, it was for the Equal Opportunities Commission to decide how long the exemption order should run. The noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, suggested, very reasonably, that to have an indeterminate length of transition was objectionable in itself. He said one could not tell whether it would run 15 or 20 years, if one had
1254
to wait for natural wastage in the teaching posts for the positive discrimination to result in a reasonable balance of the sexes in those institutions. There may well be some cases where positive discrimination is theoretically necessary over a longer period than the five years allowed in this new clause. But I think we must agree with the noble Lord that there is an overwhelming argument for certainty, and that is why we have put in this five-year period in the new clause, and also had regard to the fact that the general opinion of your Lordships is that discrimination of all kinds must be eliminated as soon as possible.
Other things being equal, I would also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, that a candidate should be appointed to a position on his or her merits and that the best candidate should get the job, invariably irrespective of sex. But that assumes that the choice is always a clear-cut one, but one knows that in practice it frequently happens that two or more candidates who are of equal merit present themselves. If in those circumstances one were always to pick the woman, then there would be, I suggest, a prima facie case that discrimination had taken place, and in the absence of the new clause, which gives the employing authority power to discriminate in that way, it would be illegal.
In conclusion. I should say that my noble friends who drafted this Amendment recognise that if the principle were accepted it would require to be considerably tidied up: in particular, I do not think they would wish to give the Secretary of State such sweeping powers as these without coming hack to Parliament. I personally think, supposing the Minister felt disposed to accept it, that it should be made subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure in a similiar manner to other clauses in the Bill. I beg to move.
6.50 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has defined the intention of this Amendment. It is that during, a transitional period of five years the Secretary of State would have power to issue certificates of exemption from its provisions making discrimination unlawful. Certificates would he given to the recipient, a person or a body, and they would be excluded from the provisions of this Bill if the

1255
Secretary of State gave such a certificate. The noble Lord said that he thought his noble friends who drafted this Amendment would be rather anxious to reconsider its precise terms. I think that that is right, because it is a most remarkable, sweeping series of powers that the noble Lord is going to give to a Secretary of State. Quite apart from these fundamental objections of principle, which I shall come to in a moment, I should like to begin by discussing some of the practical problems which would be involved were an Amendment on these lines to be passed by the House.
The Secretary of State's powers would he unlimited, yet there are no criteria laid down for either giving or not giving of a certificate. No clear rule is laid down in this Amendment, no definition of why he should decide to give a certificate to a body, or an individual, or decline to give it. It is a remarkable power to give to a Minister, and I shall come hack to it in a moment, but I think for that reason alone it is objectionable. Secondly, I should like to come to the practical problems. How would the new clause deal with the situation during the period in which the application had been made by a body, or by an individual, but not yet processed so that no decision had been arrived at? What would happen? If the logic of the provision contained in the noble Lord's Amendment is to enable people to move towards non-discrimination in an orderly way—and I am sure that it is—the Bill would have to provide that they would not have to take any action against discriminatory practices in their own area until the Secretary of State had made a decision. This would create a massive loophole in the Bill. There could be thousands of applications, some of them frivolous, some of them from people who knew that they stood no chance whatever of obtaining a certificate, but while that certificate was being processed, for a period of many months, they would be excluded from the provisions of the Bill.
However, as the noble Lord will no doubt point out, there is an alternative course; that is, that the Bill bites at once, but then the application will be processed and at some stage what is un
1256
lawful one day in the terms of this Bill will mysteriously become lawful as soon as the Secretary of State has adjudicated upon an application. A case may be before a court and the action may take two days. At the end of the first day somebody might say, "We now have a certificate from the Secretary of State, so there is no cause of action." I know that the noble Lord has a most distinguished reputation in the field of civil liberties and civil rights, but that does not seem a particularly sensible provision to write into this Bill.
Thirdly, and this is the most fundamental objection of all, it seems to be clear that this Amendment is in violation of the Bill of Rights. It was established at the time of the Glorious Revolution that the pretended power of suspending the laws, or the execution of laws, by regal authority without the consent of Parliament is illegal. It is clear that there is no consent of Parliament involved in this; it is entirely at the discretion of the Secretary of State. He, and he alone, would decide whether an act was lawful or unlawful in relation to an individual or a body. There might be a wholly inconsistent series of decisions. We would make an absolute nonsense of this Bill, and create an extremely disagreeable situation, to put it mildly, for any Secretary of State. As the noble Lord will by now realise, I fear that we are not completely enthusiastic about this Amendment and I hope that he will decide not to press it.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I do not know what my noble friend Lady Vickers thinks about this, but it seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has made out a formidable case. May I suggest in passing that he makes quite certain that the Law Commission knows that the Government still find it necessary from time to time to rely on the Bill of Rights, because I heard a nasty rumour a little while ago that in one of those Statute Law Repeal Bills they were going to do away with it as being otiose or obsolete. I always thought that that was wrong, and I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Harris, with all the weight of the Home Office behind him, saying that it is still useful in order to resist Amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and therefore

1257
we must keep it on the Statute Book for as long as possible.
I do not base my argument entirely on that. What occurs to me is to see whether there is any practical solution to the problem that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has in mind. We have dealt in this Bill with all the transitional problems that anybody has been able to think of, and I suggest to the House that we have dealt with them fairly satisfactorily. The noble Lord said that more will turn up which nobody so far has been able to put a finger on. I wonder, therefore, whether the House might apply itself—and I am thinking aloud in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has said—to the way in which the conciliation procedure is to work.
If we have a case that goes to the industrial tribunals, we have built into the Bill the procedure that the Conciliation Service shall have a look at it and try to settle the matter. I wonder whether I am right in thinking—and I should be genuinely grateful for help on this, and I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, is not here but perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Harris, could say a word by leave on this—that it will be possible, if a real, practical difficulty arises, for the Conciliation Service to see whether it can solve the problem not by excluding the discrimination instantly, but by seeking to arrange for it to be phased out, because this may be the sort of way in which one gets over the unforeseen problems that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and my noble friend had in mind.
Similarly, when we get to the part of the Bill where the conciliation is not written in but will be dealt with by the lawyers—and I am delighted to see in a later Amendment that legal aid will enable them to carry out this sort of work within its terms—will they be able to try to arrange a solution which allows a period of time over which a probably very firmly entrenched, and perhaps not fully realised, act or practice of discrimination can be gradually got rid of, so that we shall not, in practice have violent overnight changes in acts which people have been used to?
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has a genuine point here. But since there are plainly defects in this
1258
Amendment, and we do not have a great deal of time to get them right, we shall be told that there will be a row whether a Statutory Instrument is subject to the Affirmative or Negative Resolution procedure, the Bill has to go back to the Commons tonight, and one thing and another, I should be rather glad if one of the noble Lords opposite could tell us that we can achieve very much the same thing within the machinery already built into the Bill. As I have gone on for a little while and the message has come back, I think that I can now sit down.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, I felt very sympathetic to this Amendment until I heard my noble friend Lord Harris and also the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, give their explanations. This Amendment touches a core among people who feel that there is a danger that if this, the most far-reaching Sex Discrimination Bill, or Act, that has so far been produced will have to obliterate centuries of prejudice, unless something like this Amendment is somehow incorporated, then while I am no lawyer and I do not understand the absolute legal niceties of drafting a Bill, we feel that unless something of this kind, a conciliation procedure, is incorporated in the measure, the country will have an avalanche of litigation. We cannot overturn centuries of prejudice all at once, but some of us would like to see the sentiment expressed in this Amendment incorporated somewhere in the Bill.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I entirely accept the criticisms made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, about the drafting of the Amendment, and indeed I said at the conclusion of my remarks that my noble friends did not pretend that it was perfect. One of the major points made by the noble Lord was that this Amendment, if passed in its present form, would be an infringement of the Bill of Rights. I thought I had taken care of that by suggesting that if the principle were accepted, my noble friends would of course like to have added to this Amendment the Affirmative Resolution procedure, and that would have avoided the danger of our usurping the power of Parliament by giving the Minister certain powers to do things without the consent of either House.

1259
I will address myself to the practical points which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, made. First, he said that it was a remarkable power to give the Minister. I am afraid this is the trouble one has in looking at the problem; since we are not able to define in advance by definition the circumstances in which the power might be required to be used, we have to make it as general as possible, and I do not think that either the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, or the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, disputed the need for a provision of this nature. If we are not to confer such a power on the Minister, subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure, we must think of some other way of dealing with the issue, otherwise there will be, as the noble Baroness said, a constant stream of cases, which nobody had anticipated, coming before the courts and perhaps requiring amendments to the legislation, and that may absorb valuable Parliamentary time. I am sure that if the noble Lord, Lord Harris, could avoid that, he would be only too happy to do so.
As to the noble Lord's comments about the interim period while an application was being processed, I would say that it was fairly obvious that until a person or body had made an application and a certificate had been issued, then obviously they would have to comply with the law as it stood, and afterwards if such an order were granted any cases that were at that moment before the courts would fall to the ground. However, if the noble Lord thinks that this is a practical difficulty, then I suggest that we turn our minds to some alternative, I do not want to prolong the proceedings on this Bill, because I am as anxious as anyone to get it on the Statute Book, but I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give the matter some further consideration before it is too late. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
Clause 62 [No further sanctions for breach of Act]:
7.4 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 38, line 12, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
"(2) In subsection (1) "sanction" includes the granting of an injunction or declaration, but does not include the making of an order of certiorari, mandamus or prohibition.
"(3) Subsection (2) does not affect the remedies available under section 63(2), notwithstanding that subsection (2) would prevent those remedies being obtainable in the High Court.
(4)In relation to Scotland in subsection (1) "sanction" includes the granting of an interdict or of a declarator or a decree ad factum praestandum, but otherwise nothing in this Act shall affect any right to bring any proceedings, whether civil or criminal, which might have been brought if this Act had not been passed."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is designed to put right two defects in Clause 62. First, the clause as drafted does not ensure a proper demarcation between the tribunal and the court in the case of an injunction or a declaration. Secondly, as drafted it would be possible for an aggrieved party to bypass the county court and go direct to the High Court for a declaratory judgment. That is obviously undesirable and that is why we have tabled this Amendment.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I have been looking at this Amendment and I regret to say that I have been looking at it for the first time because I thought that it was perfectly straightforward. However, I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has explained the Scottish provision. I am not one who readily recognises a decree of reduction when I see it, nor do I know what a decree ad factum praestandum is, but I imagine that one of them is probably quite similar to what we know in England as one of the prerogative orders; it may be something like mandamus or prohibition. We have in fact a change of substance in the Scottish provision, because as the Bill stands, Clause 62(3) allows a decree of reduction to be sought and the Amendment, the new subsection (4), does not mention this, so I therefore wonder what the situation is. It may be that the decree of reduction is still comprised in the last limb of subsection (4), which continues to allow the bringing of
"…any proceedings, whether civil or criminal, which might have been brought if this Act had not been passed."
Could the noble Lord tell me why there is this change, and could he also tell me

1261
what are the other civil or criminal proceedings which do not fall within the definition of the word "sanction" and are therefore forbidden under the new subsection (4)? This does not seem to be clear, and I ask this question not because I am trying to be tiresome but because somebody is going to wish to avail themselves of this Bill in Scotland and I am not at all certain, without further explanation, that they will know what it is they are entitled to do. They will have to try some cases out in the sheriff court to see what their rights are and what are the sort of proceedings they are entitled to bring. I suspect that the noble Lord will have been given a rather fuller explanation than he has so far given us, and I think it would be for everyone's convenience if he would tell us about the Scottish provision and the change which I think I have spotted in the new subsection.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I think this is dealt with in the last part of subsection (4), but I am bound to say that at the moment I am not sufficiently well acquainted with that precise Scottish point and I will, if I may, deal with it on Third Reading.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 74 [Help for aggrieved persons in obtaining information etc.]:
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 46, line 10, leave out from ("manner") to ("omitted") in line 25 and insert ("the Secretary of State shall by order prescribe—

(a) forms by which the person aggrieved may question the respondent on his reasons for doing any relevant act, or on any other matter which is or may be relevant;

(b) forms by which the respondent may it he so wishes reply to any questions.

(2) Where the person aggrieved questions the respondent (whether in accordance with an order under subsection (1) or not)—

(a) the question, and any reply by the respondent, whether in accordance with such an order or not, shall, subject to the following provisions of this section, be admissible as evidence in the proceedings;

(b) if it appears to the court or tribunal that the respondent deliberately, and without reasonable excuse".

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if we deal with Amendments Nos. 28 to 34 inclusive. These Amendments modify
1262
the clause to take account of a series of points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, at an earlier stage of the Bill. As Clause 74 stands, the problem is that it renders otherwise inadmissible evidence admissible in proceedings under the Bill. The noble Viscount drew attention to the fact that this was undesirable. The drafting was at best ambiguous and could lead to a highly disagreeable situation for a number of innocent parties and therefore we thought it right to table these Amendments. The second point is that the recipient of questions should not have adverse inferences drawn from a failure on his part to reply or to reply properly because the questions were served otherwise than on forms. The noble Viscount made this point with some vigour at an earlier stage of the Bill. We looked into it and these Amendments are the result.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, again, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for this series of Amendments. I believe that I can spare the House, as the noble Lord has done, any detailed discussion of the Amendments, but I entirely agreed when he said that the clause was not exactly right as it stood. I admire the ingenuity with which we have now subdivided this matter so that, in the first place, the forms upon which the question and answer are to be based are to be dealt with by a Statutory Instrument which can be perfectly happily ignored without having any effect, whereas the question of admissibility in evidence of the result of that procedure by way of the use of the forms or otherwise can be tested in the courts in the ordinary way.
This seems to me to be a satisfactory way of dealing with what was previously a problem whereby the rules of court could apparently be flouted with impunity. I hope that it will have the desired result and will enable people to get the necessary information for them to be able to bring actions, if it gets to that, but more particularly I hope that the use of these forms will enable discriminatory practices to be looked at, examined and brought to the attention of the employer or other person concerned. He will have to think before he fills in the answer and this may draw to his attention matters of discrimination which

1263
had not previously occurred to him. Therefore, in the end, we may actually be avoiding litigation by the use of this expedient. I always thought that it was a good idea, and I am sure that it will be a much more satisfactory way of doing it under this series of Amendments. I repeat that I am most grateful to the noble Lord for the Amendments.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 29 to 34 en bloc.
Amendments moved—
Page 46, line 30, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) The Secretary of State may by order—

(a) prescribe the period within which questions must be duly served in order to be admissible under subsection (2)(a), and

(b) prescribe the manner in which a question, and any reply by the respondent, may he duly served.

(4) Rules may enable the court entertaining a claim under section 66 to determine, before the date fixed for the hearing of the claim, whether a question or reply is admissible under this section or not.").
Page 46, line 35, leave out ("or the admissibility of evidence").
Page 46, line 36, at end insert ("and has effect subject to any enactment or rule of law regulating the admissibility of evidence in such proceedings.").
Page 46, line 37, leave out ("and section 75").
Page 46, line 38, leave out ("or regulations").
Page 47, line 1, leave out paragraph (c).—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 75 [Assistance by Commission]:
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 47, line 22, leave out from ("of") to end of line 26 and insert ("advice or assistance by a solicitor or counsel").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to take also Amendment No. 36. These two Amendments are designed to cure the clause of some obscurity and of the "disease" of legislation by reference. It is especially important that the clause, which specifies the kinds of assistance which the Commission will give to indi
1264
viduals should be as self-contained and comprehensible as possible. The Amendments make no change whatever to the substance of the clause; they clarify the position. I beg, to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 36.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 27, leave out from ("person") to end of line 30 and insert—
"including all such assistance as is usually given by a solicitor or counsel in the steps preliminary or incidental to any proceedings, or in arriving at or giving effect to a compromise to avoid or bring to an end any proceedings,
but paragraph (d) shall not affect the law and practice regulating the descriptions of persons who may appear in, conduct, defend, and address the court in, any proceedings."—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 47, line 35, leave out from ("Commission") to end of line 41 and insert—
"—

(a) on any costs or expenses which (whether by virtue of a judgment or order of a court or tribunal or an agreement or otherwise) are payable to the applicant by any other person in respect of the matter in connection with which the assistance is given, and

(b) so far as relates to any costs or expenses, on his rights under any compromise or settlement arrived at in connection with that matter to avoid or bring to an end any proceedings.

(4) The charge conferred by subsection (3) is subject to any charge under the Legal Aid Act 1974, or any charge or obligation for payment in priority to other debts tinder the Legal Aid and Advice (Scotland) Acts 1967 and 1972, and is subject to any provision in any of those Acts for payment of any sum into the legal aid fund.
(5) In this section "respondent" includes a prospective respondent and "rules or regulations"—

(a) in relation to county court proceedings, means county court rules;

(b) in relation to sheriff court proceedings, means sheriff court rules;

(c) in relation to industrial tribunal proceedings, means regulations made under paragraph 21 of Schedule 1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment deals with two quite separate points, and it may be convenient to deal

1265
first with the proposed new subsection (5), the addition of which to the clause is purely consequential on the amendments to Clause 74.
Turning now to the effect of the Amendment on subsection (3), the purpose is two-fold. In the first place, we again think it desirable to avoid, so far as possible, legislation by cross-reference. Accordingly, the Amendment substitutes for the references to certain sections of the Legal Aid Acts a description of the subject matter of the EOCs charge. Apart from one exception which will help the applicant, there is no change in the policy behind this subsection. The exception—and this fulfils the second purpose of the Amendment—is the removal of a reference to "property", which is inappropriate in the Bill as drafted. Accordingly, I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 77 [Validity and revision of contracts]:
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 49, line 25, at end insert—
"(4A) An order under subsection (4) may include provision as respects any period before the making of the order."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is entirely a clarificatory Amendment. Subsection (2) of Clause 77 provides that a term in a contract which is discriminatory against a party to the contract shall be unenforceable against that party; and subsection (4) that such terms are to be capable of revision by a county or sheriff court on the application of either party to the contract. There will be cases where justice and equity require that an order revising a term should make provision for the period between the time when the term became unenforceable and the date of the making of the order. The first part of the Amendment achieves this clarification. The second part simply adjusts the order of subsections. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 39.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 26, transpose subsection (5) to after subsection (3).—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 80 [Power to amend certain provisions of Act]:
7.18 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 51, line 31, leave out ("32 to") and insert ("32, 34").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the House will recall that we spent a certain amount of time on this Amendment in Committee. It refers to political Parties and trade unions and, essentially, to the situation of the reserved seats for women. The House will recall that this question was not dealt with in the Bill when it was first produced by the Government and introduced in another place. It was raised by the right honourable gentleman who leads for the Opposition on Home Office affairs and a Back-Bench Labour Party Amendment was put down in Committee in another place to exclude political Parties from the Bill so that reserved seats could continue. The matter then came to this House and objection was taken to this provision which was said to be inconsistent with one of the purposes of the Bill.
There has been some discussion of this general question and it has been felt right in the circumstances to deal with trade unions and political Parties in the same way by adding a provision to the Bill giving a power to put down an Affirmative Order at some stage to remove the exemption for political Parties and trade unions. This seems right. It is clearly difficult to get this matter precisely right, but the Government feel that the proper way of proceeding is that, when the time comes when it is clearly unnecessary to continue the provision any longer, resolutions would simply be put to both Houses and, from that day, political Parties and trade unions would have the exemption withdrawn. I beg to move.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, without making a speech on this, may I ask whether we should not consider Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 together with this Amendment? Perhaps this would be the opportunity for the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and for my noble friend to discuss their Amendment to Amendment No. 42 because it is about the political Parties and the

1267
trade unions and the period of time for the transition. If nobody else wants to make a speech about this, and if the noble Lord, Lord Avebury does not intend to speak—
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I was going to move this, but I had not had the nod from the noble Lord opposite that he was not going to propose Amendments Nos. 41 and 42. I hope that he will accept Amendment No. 43 because I thing it very important that political Parties should not be exempt. The noble Lord said it was precisely right. I believe that it is precisely wrong that they should be put in this order.
I should be grateful if the noble Lord would convey my gratitude to his noble friend Lord Jacques for the letter I have received saying that one piece of discrimination had been removed and that we can have married women ambassadors. I should like to put it on record that I am very grateful.
I cannot see why it should be left to the Home Secretary to decide on this point. It would be extremely difficult for any Home Secretary to make up his mind on this matter. If we have had an acceptance regarding the teachers' associations I cannot see why we should not have the same in regard to political associations. I do not at all understand why these associations should be tied up with trade unions, because all these associations are independent bodies, all with their own different regulations. Therefore, we suggest a period of 10 years, because we thought it would be advantageous to them and would enable them to make up their minds. As I said in the original debate, I cannot see that there will be any progress so far as women getting into Parliament are concerned, if they are to remain completely separate in all these political sections.
I was interested in a debate in the House of Commons on 29th July, on the Royal Palace of Westminster (Appropriation) Bill. I shall not say that I am in favour of the entire Bill, but it showed that there are many anomalies or loopholes in this matter. I should like to quote from column 1518 of the report of the debate on the Royal Palace of Westminster (Appropriation) Bill:
1268
"One can list a whole series of Acts under which the legislation we pass to provide benefit for the working population of 20 million does not apply"—
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, is my noble friend quoting from the Official Report of another place a speech by a Member other than a Minister? If she is, it is out of order in this House.
Baroness VICKERS: I am sorry, but one has to learn the procedures of this House. I am not quoting a Minister, I am quoting a Private Member—
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: In that case, my noble friend is out of order.
Baroness VICKERS: Therefore, I shall not continue to quote, but I shall point out that there are a number of Acts, such as the Public Health Acts, the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act, as well as the Sex Discrimination Bill which do not apply to people who work in this House. I understand that, for instance, they cannot get maternity leave, and I gather there is a section in this House where women do not come under this Sex Discrimination Bill.
Naturally, one is very wary that the matter which we have been discussing should he left entirely to a Home Secretary. Therefore, I wonder why we could not have a period of 10 years from the passing of this Bill. This could give everybody a considerable time to advance. It is a great mistake to have political Parties which are sexually divided. I understand that for the younger generation, in the Young Liberals, the Young Conservatives and the Young Socialists, there are mixed organisations, and that is proceeding in the right direction. I do not think there will be progress until people can be admitted to the various political organisations regardless of their sex. That is not to say that we should not have women's luncheon clubs or women's meetings, but men could be invited to these and could become members.
The other day I was speaking at a luncheon club in one of the London districts, and there were quite a number of men there. It was called a women's luncheon club, but men had joined as members. There will not be much

1269
progress in terms of co-operation and working together in politics until men and women get together in organisations. As I have previously stated, I think it is the women in all political Parties who do the majority of the work and the canvassing, and who raise most of the money for the various organisations. This is left to them because they are in separate sections. It may be said that in the past women had more time to go to meetings which were specially for them and in the afternoons, because in those days women did not work. But conditions have completely changed and now most women are working, and the best time for a considerable number of them to meet—except the more elderly—is in the evenings. I can see no reason why the men's and women's sections should not come together.
I hope that the noble Lord will be gracious enough to reconsider this point, because I cannot see on what basis he can justify allowing the teachers a definite period while not making the same provisions for the political Parties. Unless this is done the situation will remain at the whim of the Home Secretary, and this would be a great mistake. I hope that the noble Lord will consider the matter and will accept what I propose.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with the Amendment. I criticised the exception for political Parties in Clause 33, and if I did not I intended to criticise the provision regarding trade unions in Clause 49. It is obvious that these clauses were inserted in the Bill by the conservatives in the Labour Party. What seems to me so strange is the aggressive way in which this Bill pursues discrimination in so many different directions, and then apparently blesses discrimination in areas so close to the heart of the movement. This is what I find ambivalent. I know all the arguments—most of them out of date—for retaining those women's sections and reserved places for women on executive councils and so forth. But the Amendment proposes that they shall be dispensed with within 10 years from now. It would be foolish for any of us to predict what will happen within 10 years from now. The whole structure of society may change in the next decade. I think that events will
1270
move with alarming rapidity in the next 10 years in more directions than perhaps we realise. Certainly, if we go on as we are now we shall not see the kind of society which we are clinging on to at the present moment.
Indeed, the great army of women may have swamped all the places where men held sway in the past and, indeed, where they hold sway at present. The ruthless pursuit of equality by the women's liberation movement—with which I mainly agree—may sweep away the decadent and complacent elements in the male community who seem quite unable to solve the nation's difficulties, or indeed, to justify their place in positions of power and responsibility. One can sec this great sweep coming if only because we have not tried women before, after all the centuries of having men in positions of power and responsibility. After all, a nation in despair may try anything once, and this may be what the nation will choose to have. There is great merit in thinking in terms of 10 years from now. Not all of us will then be here to witness the great event, but I hope to be here myself. I am sure that all the excitement of the occasion will bring us great joy. At least, if your Lordships pass this Amendment there will be an additional reason for striving on for another decade.
Baroness BACON: My Lords, at times we are getting into difficulties with this Bill, because it attempts to go too, far and to legislate on matters which probably are not suitable subjects for legislation. As I said when speaking to an Amendment at a previous sitting, I am not quite as happy with some Parts of this Bill as are some of my colleagues. Quite a lot of exceptions are to be made, and we are getting into difficulties because the Bill has been drawn much too widely. We wanted some type of Bill, but it is getting out of hand and has gone wide of what some of us intended a year or two ago. Perhaps I ought to declare an interest here in that, with my noble friend Lady Summerskill, I sat in one of the reserved places for women on the National Executive of the Labour Party for many years—indeed, for 30 years. I shall not go into the various reasons why those places were reserved. I do not think that it could always be said that they were reserved out of a desire to see women sitting on the National Executive of the

1271
Labour Party; there were other reasons as well.
The Amendment of my noble friend Lord Harris seeks to leave this matter to the Secretary of State who could do it in three, four, 15 or 20 years—and, as my noble friend Lord Houghton said, who knows what will happen precisely in 10 years' time? We are being asked to decide between a definite time of 10 years, and leaving it to the Secretary of State. Because of that, I think it will be better to leave it to the Secretary of State than to have an arbitrary 10-year period.
Lord AVEBURY: If this matter is left to the Secretary of State it could, as the noble Baroness herself recognises, continue for an indefinite period. We would then be in the situation which the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, complained of when he was talking about the Amendment relating to colleges; that the indeterminate nature of the change was in itself objectionable. While we welcome the move that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, made towards the case made out in Committee, I would not agree that he has gone far enough; because I think that if the Amendment standing in my name and in that of the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, were accepted the House would at least have the opportunity of looking at the case within the period of ten years; during which time, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton asked: "Who can say what changes will be effected in the face of society?" Trade unions and political Parties might within that period have relinquished these provisions voluntarily; they might have come forward to the Equal Opportunities Commission and to the Secretary of State and said: "We have no objection to your exercising the powers you gave yourself on Report stage." But they might, if they knew that there was no time limit at all, continue to drag their feet.
If I might refer to the situation in the political Parties, about which I may claim to know a little, one finds that the women's sections are always given the mundane jobs to do. Any noble Lord who has been involved in a constituency organisation will agree that what I say is true. The women, as the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, said, do the majority of the canvassing; the women
1272
are made to do a great part of the money raising; and one always finds whenever some social function is proposed that the women are compelled to make tea and carry out the catering arrangements. It does not seem to be realised by any of the political Parties that men should have a role to play here as well. These are trivial matters, but the end result is that we get too few women coming forward and taking a prominent part in political activities.
It is no accident that one compares the treatment given to women at constituency organisations, and the subservient role that they are forced to play, with the failure of the political Parties to bring forward enough women to their national leadership. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, when the matter was discussed in Committee, that the only immediate result of eliminating the clause relating to trade unions would be that you would get fewer women serving on the Labour Party National Executive. I would regret that, particularly if it meant that women of the calibre of the noble Baroness who has just spoken would not be serving on that body. If we are giving them 10 years to make the adjustments, I cannot see that this imposes too great a difficulty on the Labour Party to make provision for adequate representation of women without these special provisions which I think are degrading: to have to reserve places on the National Executive because people would not elect them in any other circumstances. You are going to force women on to the National Executive who would not get there by merit, when in other circumstances—
Baroness BACON: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord here because evidently he does not know the constitution of the Labour Party. The whole of the National Executive is sectionalised. It is not just women; places are reserved for trade unionists, for the Co-operative and other societies and others.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I am grateful to be reminded of that; but the trade unionists themselves could be women, and the Co-op representatives could be women. It is foreign to the purpose of this Bill to say that, apart from these various sections which are

1273
represented on the National Executive, there will be one particular series of places exclusively reserved for women. You are thereby confessing that inadequate representation of women would be obtained through other channels.
I am sure that in a period of 10 years those matters can be taken care of. Supposing that they were not; and that everyone agreed at the end of the 10 years that it was reasonable for the trade unions and the political Parties to continue this discrimination and to continue with special sections for women, all that the Government have to do then is to vote down the draft Order that they have laid before Parliament. It would not be the first time that that has happened. I am not suggesting that it is a practice widely to be encouraged, and I think that the Government in fact would be unhappy about bringing forward a draft Order and having to advise their supporters to vote against it. But that could be done if, in the last resort, people agreed unanimously that it was not the time to make such a change. I believe that we will all look back on this debate and say: "How could we ever have thought that these discriminatory provisions could last as long as 10 years?" I hope that that is so; and I should like to place a time limit on it now.
Lord PANNELL: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just spoken does not understand anything about the federal constitution of the Labour Party which goes back a long way. If you take the constituency organisation of the women's section, they are people in their own right. In the main, they meet at times when their husbands cannot meet. They are people apart. The women's section, as such, are people apart. It is all very well for the noble Lord to say, with no knowledge at all, that women can get on to the trade union section of the Labour Party. They can; but they are not so normally nominated because it is a federal constitution. People have got on to the constituency section; but I have a great fear that, with the academic enthusiasm of the noble Lord, women are going to find themselves in a far worse position at the end of the Bill than they were at the beginning.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, although I am a little hazy about the constitution of the Labour Party, I should like to come out entirely in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers. I do so not because I think the Government have not gone some way to meet this point; but I think it would be a terrific education to men trade unionists. We say we have some women trade unionists but there are very few of them there. Generally, this Bill is very far-reaching. Why does it stop at this point? That is all I want to say on it.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, at the beginning may I say that there is one point on which we are all agreed. This was the point made by Lord Avebury when he said there are far too few women active in public life and in the political Parties and the trade unions. That is true. We must endeavour to ensure that that situation is improved. I should like to come to one point made once or twice during this debate. It is right to say the Government have made a fairly significant move since we last considered this Bill. We have brought forward an Amendment which says that the power to maintain the reserved seats in political Parties and trade unions can be brought to an end by an Affirmative Resolution of both Houses. That is a significant move from the position we adopted when this matter came before your Lordships in Committee.
The choice before us today is whether we are going to leave the timing of that Affirmative Order to the Government of the day, the Secretary of State, or whether we are going to impose a rigid 10-year time limit. I see no reason why 10 years is chosen and, with respect to the noble Lord, I feel the improvement we have made, and which I recommended to the House today, is in itself a fairly major departure from our previous position. I hope that the House will accept this, and reject any attempt to impose this rigid time-scale upon us.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, having listened to the arguments, on balance I am in favour of leaving things as they are. This is probably because I, and a number of other people who are equally keen on not seeing sex discrimination, think that this Bill is a ghastly mistake in trying to legislate in detail.

1275
I would have preferred a two-line Act simply saying:
"Thou shalt not unreasonably discriminate on grounds of sex."
The further we go and the more we tie this down, the less useful it is going to be, because in the end it is going to depend on how people react in trying to remove sex discrimination. It is not something that is going to be improved by cases in the courts. I am frightened of the side effects of this Bill. If you get a man and a woman applying for a job and the woman has superior qualifications, there will be trouble. If either of them have adequate qualifications, what you select on is personality. Right the way down the line I do not believe that this legislation in detail is useful. It is even worse on this Amendment if we start to get down to a period of 10 years when a period of two years is much more appropriate.
Lord AUCKLAND: My Lords, I served as chairman of the young organisation within a political Party (it shall be nameless!) for some time in the 1950s. My first two years of service was under a woman chairman—and extremely able she was too. I have no objection to serving in those circumstances. Several years later a very great friend of my wife and I, a lady, stood for a marginal constituency in London. When the vote was taken as to whom should be short-listed, the men on the executive voted exclusively for our friend, and the women voted exclusively against, and she lost out to the majority of two. So I am bound to say with respect that this Amendment does not hold water. Of course the answer to any political Party—I will not comment on the trade union side because I have had no experience of it—even if it is an oversimplification, is to get the best person, whether a man or woman, to take on the post. An arbitrary period of 10 years, whichever political Party or other organisation may be chosen, will lead to insoluble difficulties.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I was surprised at one or two things that the noble Lord, Lord Pannell, said. He said that women were a people apart. We are not a people apart, we are trying to take our equal share in the organisation.
Lord PANNELL: My Lords, the noble Baroness does me an injustice. I have been on her side so many times in these sex affairs, she should not throw those things about—
Several Noble Lords: Order, order!
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I gave way, as I was used to doing in another place. But the noble Lord did say that and I wrote that down at the time. I am surprised that the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, talked about politics because he is an Independent and has no Party organisation behind him.
I was interested in what my noble friend Lord Auckland said, although it was not a conclusive argument. Clause 33 says:
"…it has as its main object, or one of its main objects, the promotion of parliamentary candidatures for the Parliament of the United Kingdom…"
This was one of the reasons why I put down my Amendment, because so long as we keep the sexes divided, there is going to be no particular wish to have more women Members of Parliament. Once, when I applied for a constituency, they regrettably mistook my application and offered it to my brother—a slip in my handwriting perhaps. He had some fun with them when, on the telephone, they offered the constituency to him in the "old boy" way. Eventually he said: "I am sorry, it is not for myself, but for my sister". There was a long pause at the other end of the telephone, a clearing of the throat and the chap said: "I am not going to see any man over 45 years of age, any Roman Catholics or any women." Frankly, he did not have the courage to say: "I am not going to see any women." I want to get rid of this kind of situation.
I do not seem to be getting much support for my Amendment. I think the subject has been well aired and I hope that many people will read what has been said. All we can do now is to put down plenty of Parliamentary Questions to try and get the Home Secretary to make a change within the 10 years.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
7.42 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 41.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 31, leave out ("49") and insert ("48").—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HARR IS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 42.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 33, at end insert—
"(aa) amend or repeal any of the following provisions, namely, sections 11(4), 12(4), 33 and 49 (including any such provision as amended by a previous order under this subsection)".—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 81 [Orders]:
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 44 which is simply a correction to Government Amendments made in Committee.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 10, leave out from ("80(1)") to ("shall") in line 11.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 83 [Transitional and commencement provisions, amendments and repeals]:
7.48 p.m.
Lord JACQUES Lord JACQUES moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 56, line 19, at end insert—
"(5) An order under this section may make such transitional provision as appears to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient in connection with the provisions thereby brought into operation, including such adaptations of those provisions, or of any provisions of this Act then in operation, as appear to the Secretary of State necessary or expedient in consequence of the partial operation of this Act."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment relates to the Secretary of State's powers to bring in the Sex Discrimination Act by commencement order, and seeks to empower him to make transitional adaptations of provisions in the Bill. This power is desired because of amendments made to Section 6 of the Equal Pay Act by the Committee in connection with the equal access of occupational pension schemes. It is intended that the Equal Pay Act, including all other amendments made to it by this Bill and
1278
most of the rest of this Bill, will come into operation on 29th December 1975. The provision relating to equal access to occupational pension schemes is intended to come into operation at the same time as the corresponding provisions of the Social Security Act in 1977 or 1978.
I regret that I mistakenly informed the Committee on 17th July that the provisions relating to equal access to occupational pension schemes now incorporated in Section 6(1A) of the Equal Pay Act would come into force at the end of this year. However, the new subsection (1A) of Section 6 of the Equal Pay Act does not contain the equal access provisions, but contains the exclusion of other matters relating to death or retirement from the operation of the Equal Pay Act. It is necessary that these other provisions of the subsection should be brought into operation at the same time as the commencement of the remainder of the Equal Pay Act without bringing in the equal access provisions. A transitional Amendment will therefore be needed to be made to Section 6 of the Equal Pay Act to provide for the Act to operate as intended between 29th December 1975, and the date from which the equal access provisions come into force. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 85 [Application to Crown]:
7.50 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendments Nos. 46–54:
Page 56, line 31, leave out ("Subject to section 17")
Page 56, line 34, leave out from ("a") to end of line 36 and insert ("statutory body, or a person holding a statutory office")
Page 56, line 37, at end insert—
("(1A) Parts II and IV apply to—

(a) service for purposes of a Minister of the Crown or government department, other than service of a person holding a statutory office; or

(b) service on behalf of the Crown for purposes of a person holding a statutory office or purposes of a statutory body,

as they apply to employment by a private person, and shall so apply as if references to a contract of employment included references to the terms of service.
(1B) Subsections (1) and (1A) have effect subject to section 17.")
Page 56, line 38, leave out ("Subsection (1) does") and insert ("Subsections (1) and (1A) do")
Page 57, line 1, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) Nothing in this Act shall render unlawful discrimination in admission to the Army Cadet Force, Air Training Corps, Sea Cadet Corps or Combined Cadet Force, or any other cadet training corps for the time being administered by the Ministry of Defence.")
Page 56, line 30, at end insert—
("(8) In this section "statutory body" means a body set up by or in pursuance of an enactment, and "statutory office" means an office so set up; and service "for purposes of" a Minister of the Crown or government department does not include service in any office in Schedule 2 (Ministerial offices) to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 as for the time being in force.")
After Clause 85, insert the following new clause—

GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS OUTSIDE SECTION 6
"—.(1) This section applies to any appointment by a Minister of the Crown or government department to an office or post where section 6 does not apply in relation to the appointment.
(2) In making the appointment, and in making the arrangements for determining who should be offered the office or post, the Minister of the Crown or government department shall not do an act which would be unlawful under section 6 if the Crown were the employer for the purposes of this Act.")
Schedule 1, page 58, line 15, leave out from ("to") to end of line 22 and insert—
("(a) service for purposes of a Minister of the Crown or government department, other than service of a person holding a statutory office, or
(b) service on behalf of the Crown for purposes of a person holding a statutory office or purposes of a statutory body.")
Schedule 1, page 58, line 25, at end insert—
("(9) Subsection (8) does not apply in relation to service in—

(a) the naval, military or air forces of the Crown, or

(b) any women's service administered by the Defence Council.

(10) In this section "statutory body" means a body set up by or in pursuance of an enactment, and "statutory office" means an office so set up; and service "for purposes of" a Minister of the Crown or government department does not include service in any office in Schedule 2 (Ministerial offices) to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 as for the time being in force.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be convenient if I explain the object of this group of Amendments, and also speak to Nos. 56 and 57. They arise from a point made by my noble and learned friend, Lord Gardiner, who dealt with the position of public appointments. They spring from our desire to include
1280
in the Bill a clause creating a duty on Ministers and Government Departments not to discriminate in considering persons for public appointments. My noble and learned friend raised this point after an Amendment had been moved by my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby, not with his accustomed vigour on that occasion, but with some hesitation, which indicated to the Committee where he was suggesting there could in some circumstances be some form of quota for public appointments. He told the Committee that he was not an enthusiast for this proposition and he did not press his Amendment.
But in response to my noble and learned friend, we have thought it right to introduce an Amendment of this character and I hope it will do something to deal with the problem of the statutory woman. For far too long, a totally inadequate number of women have been appointed to boards and committees by Ministers of all Governments, and I very much hope that, as a result of this new provision in the Bill, there will be greater likelihood that Governments of all political Parties will take their responsibilities in this matter a great deal more seriously.
Secondly, this group of Amendments deals with a rather different point, that is, the position of cadet forces. The purpose is to permit discrimination to be exercised in regard to the number of girls who might in future be admitted to the Armed Services cadet forces. Clause 34 would permit the Air Training Corps, the Army Cadet Force, the Sea Cadet Corps and the Combined Cadet Force to retain their single sex character, but consideration is now being given to permitting a limited number of girls to enter the Combined Cadet Force. Because of the contribution which the cadet forces make to male recruitment to the Regular Forces of the Crown, the Ministry of Defence would not think it right to open the Combined Cadet Force to girls without some control over numbers. It is on that basis that we are proposing this group of Amendments. I beg to move.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, may wish to say something on these Amendments. If he would forgive my coming in at this stage, I

1281
should like him to apply his mind to a point that concerns me a little. Also, if I might, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, what is the Government's intention. Is the new clause, put in here as Amendment No. 52, supposed to be enforceable? I am entirely in favour of this clause being in the Bill, but if it is put in after Clause 85 in Part VIII of the Bill, it will not be enforceable because it does not appear in Part II or Part III, and the effect of Clause 62 is to prevent anybody doing anything about it. It seems to me odd that if we lay a duty on a Government Department in the terms of this new clause then, if there is a breach of it, it may be that it should be the subject of proceedings, or the subject of investigation by the Equal Opportunities Commission, or that there should be some other remedy. At the present time, I think there is no remedy at all.
While I welcome this group of Amendments, both on this subject and on the subject of the cadet forces, I should not like this point to leave the House without some consideration about enforcement. Although we are short of time, there is always the possibility that when these Amendments go back to another place they can be altered there by a procedure which is sometimes used. I suggest that it is not entirely satisfactory, when we are applying the rest of this Bill to the Crown as an employer and in other capacities, that the duty to make appointments should be wholly unenforceable in any forum at all. It may be that the noble Lord is going to tell me that the Parliamentary forum is the right way to do it and, if so, that will be fine. But at the moment it is most obscure and I should be grateful for guidance on it from the noble Lord, or from any other of your Lordships.
Lord GARDINER: I warmly welcome these Amendments. Many of us have thought for a long time that Ministers—though I am sure they have not done so deliberately—have sadly neglected the quota of women appointed to Government boards and I hope that these Amendments will enable that situation to be ended. I do not know the position about enforcement. Ordinarily, I should have thought that a Minister was answerable to Parliament and that one did not need to start impeachment or any other legal proceedings.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My noble and learned friend is quite right. In our view, this kind of duty is not capable of enforcement under Part II of the Bill, but there is a possibility of enforcement by prerogative writ under Clause 62. As my noble and learned friend rightly says, this matter will have to be dealt with in the Parliamentary forum. On this basis most Governments, I am sure, will take their responsibility in this matter seriously—not least some Ministers who are less progressive in matters of this sort—because they know they will be brought to account in Parliament if they do not take their responsibilities in this way.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
7.57 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY Lord AVEBURY moved Amendments Nos. 55 and 58:
Page 59, line 12, at end insert—
("2A. In section 3 after "women only" there is inserted "such provision shall be unlawful; but".")
Page 63, line 5, after ("women only") insert ("such provision shall be unlawful; but").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 58 refers to paragraph 3 of Schedule 1, on page 63,
"Where a collective agreement made before or after the commencement of this Act, contains any provision applying specifically to men only or to women only…"
and the situation at the moment in such collective agreement may be referred by the Secretary of State to Industrial Arbitration Board, constituted under Part I of the 1919 Act.
In this Amendment we are suggesting that, in addition, such collective agreements as are mentioned will become unlawful after the passing of the Bill. When this matter was dealt with in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, said that the collective agreement had no legal status until its provisions were incorporated in a contract of employment with an individual employee, but if after that the collective agreement itself was unlawful, any contract of employment based on it would obviously be unenforceable. I am not sure whether the noble Lord wants to stick by that explanation. Lawyers whom I have consulted do not take the same view. They believe that a woman would be able not only to enforce all the other terms of the contract, but also to claim

1283
amendment of the terms of the contract in her favour, where it can be shown that those terms are inferior by reason of the fact that they follow an unlawful provision in the collective agreement.
As my noble friend pointed out, the Government's proposal requires the Secretary of State to refer collective agreements to the Arbitration Board and for the Board to amend the agreement if it is found to be discriminatory. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, appeared to accept my noble friend's contention that this might be a very long-winded process, when he remarked that direction in this Bill is far more important than speed. In other words, contrary to the general impression, women are not going to get equal pay on 29th December 1975, as has been imagined up to now; that is to say, not all women will have equal pay if their collective agreement does not already provide for that, because then they will have to wait until the matter is drawn to the attention of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State in turn has referred it to the Arbitration Board, who have considered whether or not discrimination has taken place. My noble friend, with her wide experience in these matters, does not believe that all the smaller agreements which are discriminatory in character will be dealt with automatically. Meanwhile, the employers concerned will be entitled to pay less to women than to men in the same occupation.
In conclusion, I should like to say that collective agreements must have a legal status after these provisions have been incorporated into the contract of employment, if one follows the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, who says that they do not have legal status until that point in time. But unless we say plainly that they are unlawful, collective agreements which have been made before the passing of the Act and which contain some provision which is contrary to the Act may continue in being notwithstanding the fact that the contracts of employment which are based on those collective agreements may be referred to the courts. Therefore, one could have the ridiculous situation of a contract of employment with a woman being found to be wrong in law, and yet the collective agreement on which the contract of employment is based continues to be lawful. Therefore I believe
1284
that the addition of these words is a necessary protection and will ensure that these collective agreements do not persist long after the passing of the Act, thus enabling discrimination in pay to continue. I beg to move.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, this is an Amendment with which we have the greatest sympathy. I can assure the noble Lord that it was very carefully considered when the Bill was being drafted, and if we had thought that a draft which included the Amendment would have done more good than harm, the Bill would have been drafted in that way. We are absolutely satisfied that this Amendment would do more harm than good and thus it is for me to show how that occurs. Quite clearly, if a collective agreement is made unlawful, then clearly any woman's contract of employment which relates to that unlawful agreement, so far as that part of the agreement is concerned, is also unlawful. That, at the very least, would make the woman's employment agreement uncertain. She would certainly not be able to enforce her contract in those terms; that is to say, in the terms of the unlawful agreement; and because it would create that element of uncertainty, we believe that it would do considerable harm to the woman's cause.
Let me turn now to the good that the Amendment would do. It does not propose any sanction or any remedy. Therefore there is no penalty, as it were, for enforcing it; and we think it could do very little good. I am not criticising the Amendment because it does not propose some method of enforcement, since I happen to believe that to insert an enforcement—something in the nature of a fine, for example—would do more harm than good to labour relations. Consequently, we feel that this would do some harm and no good.
Let us look at the Bill itself. It provides that the agreement can be referred by the Secretary of State to the tribunal for correction, in order that it may be made non-discriminatory. We believe that that is a positive thing and the best way of dealing with this. I would also point out that considerable progress has been made since the passing of the original Act; that is, the Equal Pay Act. Perhaps I may give some figures here to show what progress has been made. In 1970, discriminatory agreements which

1285
were monitored by the Department showed that only 6 per cent. of them were within 10 per cent. of the difference between men and women; that is, that there was 10 per cent. difference between the lowest male rate and the lowest female rate. Yet five years later in 1975, 90 per cent. of the agreements came within the 10 per cent. as against the original 6 per cent.
Therefore, it will be seen that considerable progress has been made over the last five years in bringing men's and women's rates together. Furthermore, even the Bill we considered earlier today, the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Bill, contained one exception. That concerned the fact that progress could be made with equal pay despite the £6 maximum increase. We are reasonably confident, therefore, that discrimination will be removed from all these discriminatory agreements by the end of this year. We feel that the method we have adopted is a sound and positive one, and is the method most likely to give the best results. I hope, with that explanation, that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I am very happy to hear of the progress which has been made at arriving at equal pay in collective agreements, but the fact is that in 1975, according to these figures, there are still 10 per cent. of agreements where the lowest rate for women is outside the margin of 10 per cent. from the lowest rate for men. One must assume that even with the remaining 90 per cent. there is still some differential and the women have not come up entirely to the men's rates.
I wish I could share the noble Lord's confidence that discrimination in collective agreements will be entirely eliminated by the 29th December 1975; but I wonder how the Government will react if they find after 29th December that discriminatory provisions still exist in collective agreements. In such an event, there will be no weapons to be deployed other than the reference of such agreements to the Arbitration Board and their subsequent amendment by the Board following consideration of all the facts. However, there will be no remedy then for all the women whose wages or salaries have been lower than the corresponding rate for men for the period between 29th December 1975
1286
and the putting into effect of the findings of the Arbitration Board.
I should like to have seen—and the noble Lord rightly pointed out that there are no sanctions in the Amendment—some provision whereby, if the Board discovered a discriminatory clause in a collective agreement, any adjustment of that collective agreement could be back-dated to 29th December 1975 when, as he says, the vast majority of women will have obtained equal pay. It is only in a fairly small number of minor agreements (which may nevertheless be of great significance to the women concerned) that some adjustment may be made later on. I realise it is very late in the passage of this Bill to discuss that, and perhaps the noble Lord may not be able to think of a way round it. Otherwise, there will be an element of inequity here, in that women are not covered by non-discriminatory collective agreements in the period between 29th December next and the discovery of that discrimination by the Secretary of State and its amendment by the Board. This would be most unfair and inequitable on the women concerned, and I hope that the noble Lord and his Department will think of some way around it. In the meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendments.
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Viscount Hood): Amendments Nos. 56 and 57 have already been spoken to. I shall put them together to the House.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 56 and 57.
Amendments moved—
Page 61, line 39, leave out from ("to") to end of line 45 and insert—
("(a) service for purposes of a Minister of the Crown or government department, other than service of a person holding a statutory office, or
(b) service on behalf of the Crown for purposes of a person holding a statutory office or purposes of a statutory body.")
Page 61, line 48, at end insert—
("(9) Subsection (8) does not apply in relation to service in—

(a) the naval, military or air forces of the Crown, or

(b) any women's service administered by the Defence Council.

(10) In this section "statutory body" means a body set up by or in pursuance of an enactment, and "statutory office" means an office so set up; and service "for purposes of" a Minister of the Crown or government department does not include service in any office in Schedule 2 (Ministerial offices) to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 as for the time being in force.")
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Equal Opportunities Commission]:
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, Amendment No. 59 arose from one which was tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, in Committee. It has exactly the same effect as that tabled by the noble Viscount. It enables the Commission to set up committees and, with the approval of the Secretary of State, to delegate functions to them. Previously the Bill was silent on this point. This Amendment effects an improvement in the Bill and I am grateful to the noble Viscount for having drawn it to our attention, and I commend it to the House. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 71, line 24, at end insert—
("Proceedings and business
10A.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Commission may make arrangements for the regulation of their proceedings and business, and may vary or revoke those arrangements.
(2) The arrangements may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, provide for the discharge under the general direction of the Commission of any of the Commission's functions by a committee of the Commission, or by two or more Commissioners.
(3) Anything done by or in relation to a committee, or Commissioners, in the discharge of the Commission's functions shall have the same effect as if done by or in relation to the Commission.")—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. The other advantage of his Amendment is that it is about half as long as mine was.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Transitional provisions]:
Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 60A which I covered when I spoke to Amendment No. 21 for which I have
1288
already had fulsome thanks from all parts of the House. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 24, at end insert—
("1A. Until 1st January 1978, section 12(2) does not apply to any organisation of members of the teaching profession where at the passing of this Act—

(a) the organisation is an incorporated company with articles of association, and

(b) the articles of association restrict membership to persons of one sex (disregarding any minor exceptions), and

(c) there exists another organisation within paragraphs (a) and (b) which is for persons of the opposite sex and has objects, as set out in the memorandum of association, which are substantially the same as those of the first mentioned organisation, subject only to differences consequential on the difference of sex.")—(Lord Crowther-Hunt.)

Lord MONSON: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister a question on this Amendment as I did not have a chance to speak to Amendment No. 21. Would he not agree that this Amendment, which effectively makes single-sex unions in the teaching profession illegal after 1st January 1978, has everything to do with social engineering—that is to say, forcing people to mingle together, whether they wish to do so or not—and absolutely nothing to do with equality of opportunity which exists already?
Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: My Lords, I do not think that is true. The purpose of the Amendment is to provide a transitional period so far as these four single-sex unions are concerned, and after that they will have to admit men or women, as the case may be, to membership. This is part of the purpose of the Bill: to prevent discrimination against people of either sex.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
8.13 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 60B:
Page 72, line 24, at end insert—
("1B.—(1) Until a date specified by order made by the Secretary of State the courses of training to be undergone by men as a condition of the issue of certificates to them under the Midwives Act 1951 or the Midwives (Scotland) Act 1951 (as amended by section 20) must be courses approved in writing by or on behalf of the Secretary of State for the purposes of this paragraph.
(2) Until the date specified under subparagraph (1), section 9 of the Midwives Act 1951 and section 10 of the Midwives (Scotland)

1289
Act 1951 (regulation of persons other than certified midwives attending women in childbirth) shall have effect as if for the words from the beginning to (but not including) "attends a woman in childbirth" where they first occur there were substituted the words—
"If a person other than—

(a) a woman who is a certified midwife, or

(b) in a place approved in writing by or on behalf of the Secretary of State, a man who is a certified midwife".

The amendment made by this sub-paragraph shall be read without regard to the sections 35A and 37A inserted in the said Acts of 1951 by section 20(4) and (5).
(3) On and after the said date the words to be substituted for those, in the said sections 9 and 10, mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) are—
"If a person who is not a certified midwife".
(4) An order under this paragraph shall be laid in draft before each House of Parliament, and section 6(1) of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 (Parliamentary control by negative resolution of draft instruments) shall apply accordingly.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are once again concerned with the problem of the opening of the midwifery profession to men. I would say at the beginning that the Amendment which I am moving on behalf of the Government is proposed as a result of a promise I made to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, when we were considering this matter in Committee. It would be fair for me to say that, although he was good enough to withdraw his Amendment on that occasion, there was not much between us. The Amendment I am moving now is more to the credit of the noble Viscount than, perhaps, to the Government. Again, it is fair to say that since the Committee stage the noble Viscount and I have spent a number of hours pursuing this matter. I am hoping that the noble Viscount will feel able to say that the Amendment which I am moving is one with which he can agree. I would take this opportunity, even if there is an attendant risk, of thanking him for his help, because it has been very real help, and his courtesy and understanding which has resulted in this Amendment.
Perhaps I ought to say a little more about the Amendment. As I said, there is a great deal of common ground here, despite the differences of opinion which have appeared in our debates and elsewhere. The Government are now proposing what we hope will be generally an
1290
acceptable solution. There appears to be general acceptance that in principle this aspect of discrimination against men should some day be removed. I understand that the Royal College of Midwives accept this, although they argue—I think I must say this in fairness to them—that the time is not yet quite ripe. There is also a broad measure of agreement that it is essential to provide adequate safeguards for patients, in particular to ensure that there is freedom of choice for the patient who wishes to be attended by a female midwife.
One of the problems we have all faced on this matter is the lack of hard evidence, as distinct from opinion, as to what exactly will be the problems in admitting men to midwifery while providing full safeguards for the patients concerned; and the question how patients and their husbands will react to male midwives, as distinct from how they say they will react in a hypothetical situation.
May I explain, without taking up too much time, what the Amendment seeks to do. The Government propose to obtain such evidence by making a transitional provision for a limited entry of men into midwifery under carefully controlled conditions—I want to emphasise this point—before a more general relaxation of the present barriers to men entering the profession. The purpose of the present Amendments is to enable this to be done. Briefly, the effect of these Amendments is to allow the present legal barriers to male midwives to be removed on the coming into force of the Statute, but at the same time to impose fresh transitional restrictions which could be removed only by a Statutory Instrument which would be laid before Parliament in draft. The effect of the transitional restrictions would be to confine training of men to courses approved for that purpose by the Secretary of State; and secondly, to continue the present restrictions on men attending women in childbirth, other than in an emergency, to places approved by the Secretary of State.
The intention is to approve courses initially at only two midwifery training schools—which point I want to emphasise. These would be selected for the purpose in consultation with the Central Midwives Board and the health authorities concerned wherever it was decided to establish those two training schools.

1291
Approval would be given to the employment of male midwives once they had qualified at hospitals associated only with the training schools. I want to make that point clear, too. Progress would be carefully monitored to ensure that the needs of training and the rights of patients were properly reconciled, and to ascertain what provision is needed by way of chaperonage and additional staff in order to provide firm evidence on which to base decisions for the more general removal of the restrictions in time.
As I have said, the intention is to start with only two centres, and not until experience was gained of the problems involved at these centres would there be any extension whatsoever. This would not, however, preclude a possible decision that, in the light of this experience, an extension to additional centres still under the same controlled conditions might be desirable before more general removal of restrictions by Statutory Instrument is made. The Government are proposing to move into this field with all due caution and I hope that your Lordships will agree that it is reasonable to proceed in this way. I do not think I need to say any more because I am hoping that the noble Viscount himself will cross my t's and dot my i's. May I conclude where I began by thanking him very warmly for his help and co-operation in this matter. My Lords, I beg to move.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has been extraordinarily generous. I do not think that the House should overlook the very considerable degree of trouble to which he himself has gone to reach what is in my view an extremely happy outcome. On the face of it, this was a comparatively insignificant point, but it has created a very great deal of trouble and a lot of heat in the course of the passage of this Bill through both Houses. We have now reached what seems to me to be a wholly acceptable compromise. It allows the principle which I always supported to be incorporated in the Bill; it allows the transition to be as long as turns out to be required; it allows Parliament to exercise a certain amount of control; and it also allows some experiments to be made upon which we can all base our future opinions of this matter.
1292
In accepting and welcoming all this I think I need not make another speech, because it seems to me that if one casts one's mind back to what was said by everybody in Committee, there cannot be a single point which has been left uncovered by this Amendment. I should have thought that everybody would have been happy. I certainly am. I consider this to be an extraordinarily fruitful piece of negotiation which will pave the way to a satisfactory and sensible solution to what everybody thought was going to be a very tiresome problem.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I put down this Amendment No. 61, because when we discussed it in Committee I made various remarks to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, and he wrote to me a highly satisfactory letter. I can see no method of getting it on to the public record other than by again putting down the Amendment so that for the purposes of the Official Record and anybody who chooses to read it, he can explain why it is that we do not need the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 73, line 5, at end insert—
"1A. In section 20 (Cleaning of machinery by women and young persons) the words "woman or" shall be omitted in both places in which they occur."—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, in Committee I explained that the Government would prefer a "root and branch" amendment to Section 20 of the Factories Act which would extend the protection to men but which would avoid any unfortunate consequences and would also take into account any consequential amendment to other sections of the Factories Act. I was asked whether the Government had power to do this by order rather than by Statute. I can now tell the House that the Secretary of State has this power under Section 15 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
In conclusion, I will repeat the declaration which I made earlier; namely, that it is the Government's intention to request the Health and Safety Commission to arrange for an early review of Section 20

1293
of the Factories Act so that what we have in mind can be achieved. I beg to move.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, in fact the noble Lord does not beg to move. What I do is beg leave to withdraw!
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 6—[Further repeals]:
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 63A and 63B are consequential Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 73, line 25, column 3, leave out from beginning to end of line 26.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 63B.
Amendment moved—
Page 73, line 29, leave out from beginning to end of line 30.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution):
8.28 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. It is appropriate that I should end the proceedings of the Bill in almost as great a state of confusion as I began by dealing with the wrong Amendment! However, in moving the Third Reading, I express on my own behalf and that of my colleagues our gratitude to the House as a whole for the work they have done on this Bill. It is a notable example of inter-Party and inter-Member co-operation in this House, and the Bill emerges from our proceedings as a substantially more effective tool in our struggle to remove discriminatory practices in this country.
In thanking the House, it would be inappropriate to mention too many names, but I think it is only right to mention a few. I am particularly grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner who throughout has played a most significant part in this entire campaign, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers. I
1294
never succeeded in persuading her of the merits of a number of the arguments that I did my best to address to her. In particular, may I thank the noble Viscount who, if he will forgive me for saying so, has played a central role in the proceedings. A number of the Amendments which the Government have accepted arose from his own close consideration of the Bill. I think it is right to say this today, and to thank him on behalf of the entire membership of the House. In conclusion, may I thank my colleagues who have also clone a great deal of work on this Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I want to take up only a moment of your Lordships' time. In response to what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said so generously just now, it is worth saying that most of us would have picked out this Bill, in the same way as he has, as a particularly notable piece of co-operation. All three of the other noble Lords who have taken part in this Bill have been just as helpful as he has. He and his colleagues have taken away the points we have made and looked at them on their merits. I am glad that the noble Lord agrees, as do I, that the Bill has been substantially improved in this place.
I have one regret—that my beautiful new Schedule has had to be abandoned. Never before having drafted a complete Schedule like that, I was very proud of it; but I am comforted because to me the experience has been unique in that every single point that I have raised on this Bill has been met either by Government Amendment or by an entirely satisfactory answer showing why the Amendment was not necessary. It has never happened to me before and I strongly suspect that it will never happen again, but I am enormously grateful for its having happened this time. Therefore, I echo the welcome to this Bill.
Finally, I hope that the sensible remarks which have been made in various quarters of this House by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, about how we want to use a common sense,

1295
rational and fairly quiet approach to this subject without missing our opportunities to get rid of discrimination, and about how we wish to approach this matter with care, subtlety and tact, will be borne in mind by everybody who has anything to do with the operation of this Statute when it reaches the Statute Book. With those remarks I very much welcome the Bill. I hope that it will become law before we rise for the Summer Recess, and that subsequently it will be found to work just as satisfactorily as everybody wishes.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

ELECTIONS (WELSH FORMS) REGULATIONS 1975
8.30 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH rose to move, That the Elections (Welsh Forms) Regulations 1975, laid before the House on 22nd July, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, these Regulations replace and revoke the Elections (Welsh Forms) Regulations 1974 which were approved by your Lordships' House on the 16th December last year, but which were not approved in another place. When I commended the previous Regulations to your Lordships' House, I thought I could safely say that they were uncontroversial. So far as the sub stance of them went, that was undoubtedly true, but when the quality of the Welsh translation was weighed in another place, it was thought in some respects to be lacking in that grace and justness of language with which the Celtic tongue can endow even the most official
1296
forms, As a result, all these Welsh versions have been most carefully vetted by a panel of eminent Welsh scholars who were advising my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales, and in their revised form they are regarded as being in language as good as it is possible to achieve, given the admitted difficulty of translating the rather specialised language of prescribed electoral forms acceptably as well as accurately.
These Regulations differ only as regards the wording of the Welsh versions from those which were approved by your Lordships' House last year. No fresh amendment of substance has been incorporated. They provide the Welsh versions of approved forms, all of which have been previously prescribed for use in connection with electoral registration and Parliamentary elections. I beg to move.
Moved. That the Elections (Welsh Forms) Regulations 1975, laid before the House on 22nd July, be approved.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for that explanation and admire the speed with which he has turned his attention from sex discrimination to this complicated set of Orders. I have checked all the numbers, but I have not been able to check the text, and I take the noble Lord's word for it that it is in perfect Welsh. May I say that we on this side of the House welcome the Regulations.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before nine o'clock.