Lords Sitting of 17 June 1975

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

EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN PART-TIME
Baroness FISHER of REDNAL: 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 when they expect to make regulations prescribing national conditions and arrangements governing part-time employment of children.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, no timetable has been decided for making and introducing the regulations: this is being considered in the light of the resources available to implement them.
Baroness FISHER of REDNAL: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that anomalies have arisen and have caused conflict between the local by-laws and the effect of the Education (Work Experience) Act 1973? Does the noble Lord consider that it would be a waste of time, energy and effort by the local authorities to amend their own by-laws when these will be superseded by Government regulations when the decision is finally made to bring the regulations into operation?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the Government agree with my noble friend in her comments and observations. We are alive to the difficulties and the fact that different local authorities are viewing matters in different ways. An effort has been made to consult a large number of organisations as to the best way to implement these matters. Perhaps I ought to say that the Government are
762
also consulting the Department of Education and Science and the Secretaries of State for the Scottish and Welsh Offices with a view to coming to some agreement, taking into account the resources which will need to be available to implement this, in order that something can be done without too much delay.
Baroness FISHER of REDNAL: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that a considerable time has elapsed since the implementation of the Employment of Children Act? That Act was placed on the Statute Book in 1973. Would he agree with me that there is an urgency regarding the issue of the regulations as they really have a serious effect upon the workings of local authorities?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government recognise the urgency, but, as I pointed out, it will require a great deal more from the school health service and local authority staff to implement their regulations. That does not mean that we do not recognise the urgency; we are trying to do something, in the light of those difficulties, as quickly as possible.
Lord POPPLEWELL: My Lords, can my noble friend say—in view of the very long list of people and organisations who have been consulted—how many years it will be before the Government introduce the regulations?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, there is abundant evidence that this Government move quickly.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he will tell his right honourable friend not to over-pamper the youngsters when these measures are introduced? Is he aware of the fact that many of them do much more good for themselves, and others, if they are working on a paper round, or in a similar occupation, at the age of 12 or 13 years than if they are playing around the streets with gangs of hooligans?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, it is not working on a paper round that we are worried about; it is the other types of employment extending over long periods of time, not only at weekends but during school days.

WIMBLEDON COMMON WINDMILL
2.40 p.m.
Lord AMULREE: 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 contribute to the cost of restoring the windmill on Wimbledon Common.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, my right honourable friend has considered two applications for grant under the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953 and each time was obliged to refuse, as the windmill had lost most of its machinery, and was not of outstanding historic or architectural interest and therefore ineligible for grant.
Lord AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness for that not very satisfactory reply. Would it be possible for Her Majesty's Government to give some token contribution which might tempt the people of Wimbledon to put their hands in their pockets and restore the mill themselves?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I should very much like to be able to say, "Yes" to the noble Lord, but I am afraid that the answer must be, "No", because the Historic Buildings Council has limited funds, and has to deal with buildings which have a higher priority. I hope that what the noble Lord said will be noted, and that those to whom it refers will take cognisance and donate some money.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that it is important to provide the Opposition with something to tilt at?
Baroness BIRK: Yes, my Lords; I wish I had thought of that!
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, would the noble Baroness agree that the windmill is worth preserving as a Wimbledon landmark?
Baroness BIRK: Yes, my Lords, it is. It is a landmark in Wimbledon. But the
764
point at issue is whether the Government can give funds to retain it, and on the criteria I have spelled out it is impossible for the Government to make a grant. We hope that, as the noble Lord mentioned, the local people will themselves do so.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, will the Government consider approaching the Wombles for a contribution in this matter?

BRITISH RAILWAYS BOARD APPOINTMENTS
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are of the opinion that there is no woman of appropriate qualities and experience who would be eligible for appointment to the British Railways Board.
Baroness BIRK: No, my Lords; my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is not of that opinion.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she would agree that if a competent and suitable woman were appointed to the British Railways Board more attention would be paid to cleaning up the stations—which is very necessary; that porters would be available to help mothers with children and luggage, and that they would also be available to help the elderly and those who are not too well? Would the noble Baroness agree with me that, if a woman were appointed to the British Railways Board, there is a great deal of good work she could do to make the railways more efficient and more attractive to the community?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, without answering the specific points raised by the noble Baroness, I would certainly agree that it is desirable to have a woman on the British Railways Board. Unfortunately, there has been a great gap between the intentions stated by many Ministers and their actions. I only hope that this gap will close, and I will undertake to speak to my right honourable

765
friend and also to the new Minister of Transport to see whether something can be done in this direction.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, may I thank the noble Baroness very much indeed for the best and most satisfactory reply that I have had on this point.
Lord CLITHEROE: My Lords, as one of the few surviving people who was once a director of a railway company, may I ask the noble Baroness whether the members of the present Railways Board themselves travel?
Baroness BIRK: I do not know, my Lords. I shall be speaking to them later; but I can only say that recently I have done something which is rather unusual for me, in that I have travelled many times on the railways and have been very pleasantly surprised at the service and punctuality.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, as we seem to be speaking about sex discrimination on the railways, may I ask my noble friend whether it is true that there are still railway carriages labelled "Ladies only"?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I am not sure whether that is so. My noble friend here murmurs, "Yes", but I will check on that point and let my noble friend know the answer.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she is aware that I recently met a Member of your Lordships' House who is a member of the British Railways Board, and I met him travelling by air?
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: Seriously, my Lords, as men have a monopoly on most public boards, can the noble Baroness explain how it is that the senior civil servants who advise Ministers on these matters appear to forget that there are two sexes?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, in answer to that, all I can say, from my limited experience, is that I am always reminding them that there are two sexes.

INCITEMENT TO DISAFFECTION ACT: REVIEW
2.46 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: 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 propose to amend the Incitement to Disaffection Act 1934.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the Incitement to Disaffection Act comes within a review which is now being undertaken by the Law Commission of treason and other offences involving sedition or incitement to mutiny or disaffection. My right honourable friend will consider the position when their Report is received.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether he would ask the Commission, when they meet, to consider the fact that many eminent jurists criticise this Act for its imprecision and also for its infringement of civil rights, unnecessarily limiting the right to free speech? For example, it applies not only to the distribution of literature but also to the possession of such literature in a person's house. I might be guilty of such a thing myself.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, it is because of the concern which has been expressed about this particular matter that it has been referred to the Law Commission. They are looking into it. I will convey to my right honourable friend the comments and observations of my noble friend.
Lord BALNIEL: My Lords, while there may indeed be an argument for amending the Act to bring it into line with modern circumstances, would not the noble Lord agree that incitement to those in the military services to disaffect or to mutiny is a very serious offence indeed and should be treated as such?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I do not think there is any question at all about that; but I imagine the Law Commission will give the matter very careful and deep consideration and will advise your Lordships of their views.

BRITISH LEYLAND BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.
MILFORD HAVEN CONSERVANCY BILL
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES COMMITTEE
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (The Earl of Listowel): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, on behalf 4 the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Pritchard be added to the Select Committee on the European Communities in the place of the Lord Bethell.— (The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HEARING AID COUNCIL (EXTENSION) BILL
Lord RAGLAN: My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lords have indicated a wish to move Manuscript Amendments or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Lord Raglan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FAIR EMPLOYMENT (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
2.50 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
768
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Constitution and general duties of the Agency]:
Lord BELSTEAD Lord BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 10, after ("appointed") insert ("after consultation with the Northern Ireland Regional Council of the Confederation of British Industry, the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry ").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, and, with the permission of the Committee, I would speak also to Amendment No. 34. The effect of Amendment No. 1 is to require the head of the department of the Northern Ireland Department of Manpower Servies, before appointing members of the Fair Employment Agency, to be the main body under this Bill, to consult with the three organisations which took part in the Working Party on discrimination in the private sector of employment on whose Report this Bill is based. The powers and duties of the Fair Employment Agency are to be quite wide. There is the educational function which is to be found under Clause 2 of the Bill; there is the whole broadly constructive approach, found in Part II, which provides for the Agency to try to promote equality of opportunity; and there is the Agency's duty to prevent discrimination under Part III. In fulfilling, these powers and duties I submit that it is of the utmost importance that the members of the Agency should have the confidence of industry and commerce upon whom the provisions of the Bill will mainly fall.
Also, the provisions of the Bill will give the Agency every opportunity to try to approach its work by way of conciliation—trying to carry people with it. To succeed in this the members of the Agency must be tactful and persuasive and must have first-hand experience of industry and commerce. These qualifications will be specially necessary when surveys into employment patterns are undertaken under Clause 11 and when

769
investigations are instituted under Clause 12. I support these two clauses because I do not believe that Part II will work without them. But if the Agency is to take the initiative under this Bill, and does so insensitively, considerable damage could be done to good industrial relations in Northern Ireland. Industrial relations there are a great deal better than often we believe. I am trying to make the point that the Agency will need to exercise restraint in the use of its powers. After all, rigid lines of demarcation which are to be found in the housing areas of Northern Ireland are not necessarily repeated when people go out of their housing areas to mix in sport or work or vocational organisations. Of course, it is true that the problem is to get people out of their housing areas in which they feel no longer threatened. It would be a disservice to the objectives of this Bill to exaggerate the problem of discrimination in employment in Northern Ireland.
I apologise for taking up the time of the Committee, but I thought that perhaps under Amendment No. 1 it was reasonable to say just a word or two about the general nature of the Agency. If my brief analysis of some of the responsibilities is correct, or even if it is not, the point is that members of this Agency must have knowledge and experience in order to understand how to use the powers which the Bill provides. The Report of the Working Party recommended that both management and trade unions ought to be represented on the Agency, which ought to be a composite body drawing on a wide range of experience, understanding and skill. To try to achieve this, surely the three organisations which were represented on the Working Party ought to be consulted about appointments to the Agency. It is for this situation that Amendment No. 1 provides. Once the Agency is in being members will presumably come and go, and to ensure that the original intention of this Amendment is not lost in the passage of time Amendment No. 34 also provides that consultation shall be repeated for future appointments. I beg to move.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: I support the Amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Belstead. I would ask the Government to consider a further
770
addition, and that is the Chamber of Trade. The distributive trades in the United Kingdom are first of all larger in numbers of employers, and secondly they employ more people than any other part of our trade. Therefore, when this Bill—which comes into force in two stages; first for the larger firms and secondly for the smaller firms—is implemented we must involve the Chamber of Trade, which has the maximum number of employers, even if they are individually employing a small number. In the Government's consideration of this matter before Report stage, I should like them to consider the Chamber of Trade and maybe other organisations.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: I should have liked to begin the afternoon by conceding everything the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has asked for in this Amendment. I cannot go the whole way but can go a very long way with him. It is perfectly evident, as both noble Lords have implied, that to appoint a Fair Employment Agency without consultation with the parties mentioned would be simply ridiculous. We have no intention of such a thing happening. The difficulty is that it is never wise to tie down administrators too tightly. It is also technically defective to name non-statutory bodies in a Bill because their names may change. I wonder whether it would meet the noble Lord's intention if I gave an undertaking now, which my right honourable friend will repeat in another place, that the Department of Manpower will normally consult with representatives of employers and employees in making these appointments. I think this is everybody's intention; it is certainly ours, and if that assurance will satisfy the noble Lord perhaps he will withdraw the Amendment.
Lord BELSTEAD: I am grateful to the noble Lord. In fact, the Amendment is even more technically defective than he was good enough to say, because already the expression "the Northern Ireland Regional Council of the Confederation of British Industry" is, I gather, wrong because its name has changed since the Working Party's Report was produced; it is no longer a Regional Council but the Northern Ireland CBI. I am afraid I got that point wrong in tabling the Amendment. At

771
first sight the noble Lord's undertaking is extremely welcome. I should, however, like to think about it, but at this stage of the Bill I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment and thank the noble Lord for going what is I think a long way towards meeting my point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Meaning of "equality of opportunity"]:
2.59 p.m.
Baroness BACON Baroness BACON moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 23, after ("different") insert ("or no").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List. I do so not because of my own beliefs, but because of representations I have received from people I know well in Northern Ireland. Clause 3(1) defines, "equality of opportunity" as,
"equality of opportunity between persons of different religious beliefs".
What, then, of those who have no religious beliefs? Are they protected against discrimination? When one noble friend of mine saw this Amendment down he asked: "Are there any people in Northern Ireland without any religious beliefs?" Strange as it may seem, the answer to that is, Yes, although when we see what religion has done to Northern Ireland I am amazed that there are not more people over there without any religious beliefs.
The purpose of my Amendment—to insert the words, "or no"—is to make it quite clear that those with no religious beliefs are protected against discrimination. Its effect would be that Clause 3(1) would read:
"In this Act 'equality of opportunity' means equality of opportunity between persons of different or no religious beliefs".
I know that in his reply my noble friend will refer me to the interpretation clause, which is Clause 53 on page 35.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: That is quite right.
Baroness BACON: It was my intention also to seek to amend Clause 53(2) on page 35, which reads:
"In this Act references to a person's religious belief or political opinion include references to this supposed belief or opinion and to the absence of any particular belief or opinion".
I know that my noble friend will argue that this subsection makes it unnecessary for my Amendment to be passed, but it is the word "particular" in this definition which is worrying some of the people whom I know in Northern Ireland. One person who has made representations to me is a lawyer, and if it is not clear to him I am sure that it will not be clear to those who will have to administer the Bill.
Clause 53(2) ought to read:
"… the absence of any or any particular belief or opinion".
By leaving the interpretation clause as it is, it seems that there is a difference between those who believe but who belong to no particular Church, and those who do not believe at all. Therefore, I think that my noble friend ought either to accept my Amendment or to change the interpretation clause, Clause 53.
Another point that we must bear in mind is that the terms that we use and understand here are not necessarily understood in the same way in Northern Ireland. That reminds me of the experience of a friend of mine in another place who was very interested in Northern Ireland affairs and visited Northern Ireland from time to time. On the first occasion when he went there some years ago, he was talking to a group of people and a man said to him before a meeting started: "Let's get it clear. Are you a Catholic or a Protestant?" The Member of Parliament replied, "I'm a Jew". There was a long silence and then the man said, "Ah, yes, but are you a Protestant Jew or a Catholic Jew?" It seems to me, since the interpretation clause does not appear to be clear, that my Amendment to Clause 3 would put the matter beyond question. I hope that it will not be resisted. It cannot harm the Bill in any way to insert the words "or no", and it would make the position perfectly clear in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Lord BROCKWAY: I hope that the Minister will give a sympathetic reply

773
to the plea which my noble friend Lady Bacon has made. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, will be aware of the contribution which those who do not accept the theology of either Catholicism or the Protestant Church are making in Northern Ireland. They are independent and neutral in the struggle between the Catholic and Protestant populations, and the Humanists in Northern Ireland are now making a very great contribution indeed towards conciliation between the opposite sides in Northern Ireland.
My noble friend has pointed out that this clause may be interpreted as referring only to Protestants and Catholics. There are many others in Northern Ireland, even if they be a minority, to whom no discrimination should apply. As the noble Baroness has indicated, there are those of the Jewish race, and there are those like myself who are Humanists who do not accept the theology of the Churches, although I would not deny that we have a religious background. When any measure for no discrimination is brought before this House, it is very desirable that it should include those who are not Catholics and not Protestants. Particularly because of the very great contribution which they are making at the present time towards conciliation in Northern Ireland, I hope that the Minister will give a very favourable reply to the appeal which my noble friend has made.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: I should like to say a word in support of my noble friend's Amendment. There may be persons who are of a particular religious belief or Christian sect, but there may also be others who are genuine agnostics and are not members of any religious sect—Christian, Jewish or other—who are also not convinced atheists. It seems to me that as it now stands the clause assumes that everybody has a religious belief of some kind or another, and does not allow for the genuine agnostic. On those grounds, I should like strongly to support my noble friend's Amendment.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: May I suggest to my noble friend that there is much to be said for this Amendment in another context? Religion and politics have become so closely intertwined in Northern Ireland that we tend to think
774
in terms of religion when a person wishes to argue a political case. I tried not to do so at meetings over there in the days when I had something to do with it, but almost inevitably one came back to the question whether one said one's prayers in Latin or in English. It has almost reached the stage, as in Glasgow, where a person who is a supporter of neither Rangers nor Celtic gets the rejoinder, "Well, you're an atheist".
If we are to achieve a more peaceful approach to political matters in Northern Ireland, it would be very good if those people of very strong religious beliefs did not express their political opinions from a religious point of view. I am aware of people in Northern Ireland who are quite devout Christians of one kind or another, and who detest the thought that they cannot speak in public without being deemed to be carrying the flag on the religious grounds that we know so much about. If we could make it quite clear that in the politics of Northern Ireland we would welcome greater concentration on their economic problems in the way that we on the mainland are used to, it would be a great advantage. We could then begin to focus our thoughts on those very difficult economic and industrial matters which have been the curse of Northern Ireland for so long, and which at the moment do not seem to be capable of solution. If the Minister could accept my noble friend's Amendment, it would do much to ensure that the political issues become more closely related to those matters to which we would like to see them related, rather than to the background of religion.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: May I ask the noble Lord whether he can explain something which seems to me to be peculiar, in that Part II of the Bill uses religion throughout whereas Part III uses religion and political beliefs? May I add to what the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Newton, has brought out so very clearly—that this is not a war between people holding one religion against people holding another religion. It has nothing to do with that. Religion operates in a terrorist situation. But there is no war between Protestants and Catholics as such. It is a war between a small minority of gangsters who may or may not have the political beliefs of their parents.
Lord GARDINER: I, too, hope that my noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge will give sympathetic consideration to this point. Indeed, I am sure he will. I have known that for a very long time there have been agnostics in Northern Ireland. I remember when I was Lord Chancellor and went to Belfast where the Bar, as in Edinburgh, do not practice from Chambers but from the Library, I was told then that normally all the Protestant barristers sat at one end of the Library and the Catholic barristers sat at the other end; but latterly this practice was rather breaking down because of the increase in the number of young barristers who were agnostics.
Lord JANNER: I should like to add one point. As our law stands at present a person can affirm; consequently, if we adopt the same principle in so far as this matter is concerned, obviously something in the nature, if not in the actual terms, of my noble friend's proposed Amendment should be clear in the Bill.
Lord KILBRACKEN: While completely agreeing with the thought behind this Amendment I should like to point out that its acceptance would lead to considerable difficulties in the re-drafting that would be necessary in subsection (2), because this would need to read:
"any person of any or no religious belief has equality of opportunity with a person of any other or no religious belief".
It would be almost impossible to word it. Therefore, I wonder whether it might be more appropriate to substitute "conviction" for "belief". This would have the same effect. It would mean that a person had no belief but had a religious conviction; namely, that he was an agnostic or a Humanist.
While I am speaking I should like to say how much I agree—and that does not happen very often—with the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, in his surprise that difference of political opinion is not included in equality of opportunity, whereas it is included later on in questions of discrimination. I should like subsection (1) to end with the words "between persons of different religious convictions or political beliefs".
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: When the noble Lord considers this point
776
I hope he will look at it all round. I feel that the suggestion just made by my noble friend would hardly meet the case, because a person who is an agnostic has no religious conviction either for or against. I do not think the drafting difficulties would be insuperable.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: A lot of ammunition has been used on this point, and if I had been asked to speak at the beginning I could have saved a good deal of time because the Government are absolutely clear that they totally agree with this Amendment. Of course the intention of this Bill is that a conscientious agnostic—or he need not be conscientious—or an athiest is subject to the Bill in exactly the same way as a member of any religion. My advisers, who are pernickety on this sort of thing, do not like tautology and they say that this Amendment would in fact be tautologous. I think they say that it is perfectly clear that a religious belief includes a belief in nothing or a doubt about belief, and it is certainly clear that Charles Bradlaw was excluded from the House of Commons for many years because of his religious beliefs.
Lord PANNELL: If I may interrupt my noble friend, he has indulged in an historical inaccuracy. Charles Bradlaw was not excluded from the House of Commons because of his religious beliefs; he was excluded because the Conservative Party refused to accept his beliefs. As a matter of fact, Mr. Bradlaw never refused to take the Oath; he was prevented from taking it.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I am most grateful to my noble friend. Shall I say that Charles Bradlaw was excluded as a result of his religious beliefs? Would that perhaps meet the case more accurately? I do not wish to mislead the Committtee in an historical question. However, there is a perfectly easy way of dealing with this, which was hinted at by my noble friend in her discussion of the Amendment which was to deal with the definition in Clause 53(2). As my noble friend said that reads:
"In this Act references to a person's religious beliefs or political opinion include references to his supposed belief or opinion and to the absence of any particular belief or opinion."

777
I am quite prepared to modify that, if my noble friend would be satisfied, by adding the words:
"and the absence of any, or any particular, belief or opinion".
My advisers tell me that it does not make any difference, but the noble Baroness is entitled to her view and in order to satisfy her I will on Report—the Amendment not having been made in this form—undertake to bring in something along those lines.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: I am a little worried at finding political opinion and religious belief apparently being equated in subsection (2) of the interpretation clause. While clearly it would be wrong to discriminate in any job on religious grounds or on the absence of religion, surely there is a number of security jobs in which one would wish to discriminate against communists, or it may be, in certain instances, fascists? I should have thought that to employ communists might be very difficult indeed.
Lord LEATHERLAND: I do not want to pile one difficulty on top of another, but in Ulster one difficulty is that there are Catholic newspapers and Protestant newspapers. If I were a Protestant going for a job on a Catholic newspaper perhaps I should not be very welcome and I might be told that I am unsuitable. How will that situation be affected, either in the Bill as it stands at the moment or in the Amendment moved by my noble friend?
Lord BELSTEAD: Before the noble Lord replies to that—and I rather think there is a convincing reply to that question—may I just remind him that he has not replied to a question put by my noble friend Lord Brookeborough, and repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken? I think at this stage of the Bill it is important that the noble Lord should explain to the Committee why it is that Part II refers only to religious discrimination, whereas Part III refers to both religious and political discrimination.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I was not trying to dodge that question, but it clearly does not arise out of this Amendment. I naturally thought we might deal with it in its proper place.
Baroness BACON: I should first like to thank all those noble Lords who have supported this Amendment, and particularly my noble friend for the reply he has given and for his willingness to change Clause 53(2), because that would suit me admirably. To be quite honest, after I had tabled this Amendment and when it was too late to table an Amendment to Clause 53, I realised that my wish might have been better accomplished in Clause 53 rather than in Clause 2. I am very grateful to my noble friend for his assurance and wish to thank him for it, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord BELSTEAD: I think that now is the time when the noble Lord might answer.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: If the two noble Lords who raised this point had been able to attend the Second Reading debate, they would have heard my answer, but I am happy to give it again. The position is that Part II of the Bill deals with the positive duty to provide equality of opportunity. Part III of the Bill deals with the negative fact of discrimination in giving people jobs. As I think my noble friend pointed out, the former is a position where it would be wrong to insist, in a blanket way, on political opinions being ignored.
On the other hand, in the specific cases of discrimination, where it is alleged that an employer refuses a man because that man is a member of the Party, it is a case where political opinions, in our view, should be taken into consideration. One has a positive and a negative conception. They are different. When we come to the clauses later on, noble Lords will note that the root of appeal is different. We have an Amendment about this under the next clause which I will leave until then. Under Part II there is a non-judicial appellate body. Under Part III of the Bill, appeals go to the courts. One is a question of general behaviour and morals, the other is a legal question. I do not know whether that answers the noble Lord, Lord Belstead.
Lord BELSTEAD: I must press the noble Lord a little more, not because I am deliberately trying to be difficult for the sake of it, but because this is a chance to elucidate a Bill, not very easy to understand, at least, if one is not a lawyer. I agree with every single remark the noble Lord has made, with the exception of one phrase which caused me some apprehension. The noble Lord said, as his noble friend had said—and this was one of the noble Lords who had spoken—that it would not be right to ignore political opinions. As I understand the wording of Clause 3(1), this is precisely what will happen. Equality of opportunity will be decided on the question of religious belief, or lack of it, but not on the question of political opinion. I genuinely wonder why the phrase "political opinion" has been left out of Clause 2.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: This follows the van Straubenzee Report exactly. It was their exact recommendation, and we agreed with them. The arguments are fully set out. The noble Lord may want to go through them again; I do not know. This Bill follows the van Straubenzee Report with which the noble Lord's Party, and mine, and the various people concerned, such as the TUC and the CBI, have all agreed. This is a subtle point—
Lord BELSTEAD: Very.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: —but one which seems to be valid. I do not think by restating it one makes it any clearer. One is a positive duty, and the other is an active breach of the law which is suggested. These are two quite different things. I really do not think I can take it any further.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: Surely we would say that on this side of the water there was equality of opportunity, quite apart from political opinion. But it is also true that if a noble Lord on the Benches opposite were to apply for the appointment of Secretary of the Labour Party, it is unlikely he would have an equal chance of getting the job with someone already in the Labour Party. This is on a totally different footing from discrimination on grounds of race or religious belief. All jobs are not all
780
equally open to all people, because they require certain qualifications. One of the qualifications for political jobs is to hold certain political opinions.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger.
Lord MONSON: I should like to raise a point on the Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill? I do so now because I do not think my point fell within the ambit of Amendment No. 2. I ventured to suggest on Second Reading that it might be preferable for the term religious affiliation" to be substituted for the term "religious belief". After all, the religious discrimination with which we are trying to deal, to the extent that it still exists in purely religious form, is based on affiliation and not on doctrine. A great many people have pointed this out over the years, notably Mr. Harold Jackson, former correspondent of the Guardian in Belfast, in an excellent pamphlet published by the Minority Rights Group. Nobody throws stones at another person in Northern Ireland because of their belief or non-belief in the 39 Articles, or the doctrine of Trans-substantiation. It is basically a question of religious affiliation, which is thought to be connected with political affiliation.
The second point is that "affiliation" is surely a more precise and objective term than "belief", which is inherently a subjective and vague term. Retention of the word "belief" can lead to undesirable and unforeseen anomalies, as I tried to point out on Second Reading. Have the Government been able to give any further thought to that point?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: It seems to me that "affiliation" would not stand up to the Amendment we have just accepted from my noble friend. The agnostic is not affiliated as a rule; some belong to certain bodies, but most are just ordinary people who do not agree with one. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is making a helpful suggestion. I do not believe this would make it either more clear or easier to operate. "Belief" is a clear word; we all know what we mean by it. It does not take a lawyer to confuse it, and it would be a great mistake to bring

781
in a different word which has another connotation.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [The Fair Employment Appeals Board]:
3.28 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD Lord BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 24, at end insert ("who shall be legally qualified").
The noble Lord said: There is a great deal to be said in Part II of this Bill for making every effort to try to avoid recourse to law, and to promote equality of opportunity by agreement, not by going to the courts. But the fact is that if agreement ultimately cannot be reached under Part II then it will be necessary to have the final decision by way of appeal under Clause 14, and enforcement by way of injunction from the county court under Clause 15.
I think I am right in saying that the Working Party did not recommend an Appeals Board. This is something which appears in the Bill, but which did not appear in the Report. The Working Party only recorded that there ought to be a right of appeal for judicial review—those were the words used in the van Straubenzee Report—of the Agency's directions. Because this is to be the function of the Appeals Board in so far as Part II is concerned, then I should have thought it was a logical conclusion that the chairman at least of the three-man Appeals Board ought to be a lawyer. I should have thought this would fit in with a recommendation for a judicial review. As such, he would hold an independent position. He would provide the legal knowledge which surely must be necessary, especially as Schedule 4, paragraph 3 provides that both the appellant and the Agency can be represented by solicitor or counsel at the hearing of an appeal. I would hope that this Amendment would leave the way open for the other two members of the Board to represent possibly the various sides of industry and commerce. I beg to move.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: This is not a point on which the Government feel very strongly. On the whole, our view is that because Part II deals with the positive moral duty
782
rather than the legal breach, it is better not to insist on a judicial chairman, even though if the right person who had a judicial capacity seemed to turn up there would be no objection. If one looks around your Lordships' Committee, I can pick out half a dozen people—I look not only in front of me; I know who is behind me—who would be eminently suitable to be chairman of a Board of this kind, and who are not legally qualified. Therefore, I should be sorry to accept the Amendment, simply on the grounds that it is tying the hands of the people who have to appoint for this very difficult job in a way not really necessary. If the noble Lord and his friends feel very strongly about it I will look at it further, but I believe it would be a mistake. I think it is better simply to choose the best person, man or woman, lawyer or layman, whom you can find. I hope the noble Lord will not find it necessary to press this Amendment.
Lord BELSTEAD: There is no question at all of pressing anything at this stage. So far as I am concerned, we are here in the Committee stage to find out as much as we can about a Bill which I am not finding easy to follow. Possibly some decisions—I hope by agreement—can be reached at a later stage. May I just make one point? The noble Lord says there is a positive moral duty under Part II. I hope I have made it clear that this is something with which I absolutely agree; I think it is right. But there is a difficulty. If an employer is hauled up for breach of this positive moral duty, it will be very serious indeed for the employer, it will be widely known that he has fallen foul of these perfectly correct provisions, as I consider them, in Part II. Noble Lords may say that such an employer has his desserts, but none the less it will be important and possibly even tragic for an employer if things go wrong. For that reason not only should justice be done but it should be seen to be done. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would think about it again before we get to the next stage.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: I will certainly do that. The noble Lord said, "If he was hauled up for a breach". Being hauled up for a

783
breach would be under Part III and therefore there would be legal recourse to the court.
Lord LEATHERLAND: This position of Chairman of the Fair Employment Appeals Board will be a very important one, because we have already recognised in the preceding clauses of the Bill that differences and disputes are likely to arise over the employment or non-employment of Catholics on the one hand, and Protestants on the other. Therefore, may I ask: how is the impartiality of this Chairman of the Board to be viewed, if he happens to be a Catholic, on the one hand, or if he happens to be a Protestant, on the other, and he has to adjudicate between an aggrieved Catholic employer and a Protestant, or the other way round? I recall that over 30 years ago, in my newspaper days, we had a staff reporter in Belfast. We recognised the great difficulty of having either a Catholic or a Protestant, so we had a Jew and he did his job very well indeed.
Lord BELSTEAD: May I just ask the noble Lord, before he replies to that point, about a point on which I may be misled? I used the off-hand expression about being hauled up. My reading of the Bill is that if, after directions have been given—and the word is "directions"—for remedying certain practices where an employer has not provided equality of opportunity, there is no conciliation and it is quite clear that the employer will not comply with those directions, then we come to Clauses 14 and 15, which are still under Part II and not under Part III, when we come to the court. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could say whether I have got that right. He said I was mixing up Part II with Part III.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: May I first deal with my noble friend's point? The choice of Chairman for a Board of this kind will be based on his integrity, in the same way as the choice of our Chief Constable—recently knighted, I am delighted to see—and of the Lord Chief Justice as Chairman of the Convention. One is a Catholic, the other is a Protestant. We still have a number of individuals in Northern Ireland whose integrity is beyond reproach, and that will be the
784
basis of the choice. As to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, I think I should explain. It may be that an employer is doing something which the Agency thinks gives less than fair employment. The Agency approaches the employer, discusses it with him, makes suggestions as to what he should do, and the employer after long discussion refuses. That is the crunch position. The Agency then gives him a direction to do something, but cannot enforce it; it can enforce it only by going to the court if the employer refuses to do something. That is the final situation, and it is true to say that in that final situation—which normally should not arise, because there are so many steps between the first discussion and the final disagreement—the noble Lord is right in saying that this goes to the court in the end. So to that extent I modify what I said.
Lord BELSTFAD: I thank the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Guide to manpower policy and practice]:
3.37 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD Lord BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 34, after ("Agency") insert ("the Northern Ireland Regional Council of the Confederation of British Industry, the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, and as this deals with consulting various bodies in the drafting of the guide to good manpower policy and practice under this Bill, and the noble Lord has already been good enough to say that in principle this is something that will be done, I think the Committee can reasonably conclude that I shall not press the Amendment. But I should like to say a word for a rather different reason, of which I think the noble Lord is aware. The guide to good manpower policy and practice for which this Bill makes provision is central to the whole importance of Part II of the Bill. If anyone doubts the need for having Part II in this Bill, although I may have sounded critical

785
so far, I should just like to ask a simple question. How can it be hoped to legislate for people's actions if the legislation does not first try to create good intentions among those concerned?
On Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, answered a possible criticism, that an Act of Parliament does not alter how people behave. I remember the noble Lord quoted from the Working Party's Report, which in broad terms showed that a law can create a general climate of improvement, and he concluded that this Bill seeks to afford fair employment, "by adopting a mixed approach combining the voluntary with the compulsory". Surely it is the voluntary part of this Bill, Part II, which has to do with the mixed approach. In that sense, therefore, Part II is an absolutely vital ingredient in the provisions of this Bill. The guide to which this Amendment refers is the cornerstone of Part II, which is why I begged indulgence to be allowed to speak on it for a moment.
Although Clause 5(4) provides that in carrying out its functions the Agency "may have regard" to recommendations which will be in this guide, I believe that that document is bound to become the book of reference for both the Agency and the Appeals Board. It was for those reasons that in tabling this Amendment I felt it was important that all sides of industry and commerce should be consulted when the guide is being prepared. For the reasons I gave, I am certainly not going to press at any stage that this should be written into the Bill, but I should like to ask the noble Lord for an undertaking that the Department will ask individually for the views of the CBI, the trade unions, the Chamber of Commerce and Trade, while the guide is in draft, not as part of the operation under Clause 5(2), which covers publication of the guide, but as part of the compilation of the guide.
While I am still speaking to this Amendment, may I ask the noble Lord about two other points? In Chapter 8 of the Working Party's Report, Mr. van Straubenzee set out in detail points which they thought could be included in this guide. At this very early stage of the Bill, do the Government envisage any major departure from, or addition to, what the Working Party recommended? Secondly, will the Government undertake
786
by some means to bring the contents of the guide, when finally prepared, to the notice of Parliament? Otherwise I can foresee this part of the Bill, which is the cornerstone of Part II, once this Bill has passed, never being seen again by this House or another place.
3.40 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: The noble Lord is quite right. It would be ridiculous to draw up a guide of this kind without consulting the people concerned, and there is no intention to do so. I can deal with that part of his speech and his Amendment by giving the same assurance that I gave before. I will give the assurance—and my right honourable friend will repeat it in another place—that the representatives of employers and employees will be consulted by the Department in preparing the guide. That is specifically and clearly elementary. As to what is in the guide, as your Lordships will probably remember the Working Party laid down a certain number of points, and as a result of their suggestions the Government undertook to have a firm of consultants draw up a guide taking these points into consideration and also looking at other guides of an equivalent kind; we have some in the industrial relations field, and so on.
The job of drawing up the guide is, under Clause 5, that of the Department of Manpower Services which has taken over that part of the Department of Health and Social Services which was, in the Working Party, given the duty, but for all intents and purposes it will be more or less the same people. There will be extensive consultations. Without knowing exactly in what form, I am happy to give an undertaking that the contents will be shown to Parliament. Whether it will be put in the Offices, or whether by that time there will be an Assembly and it will be done over there, I do not know. But, in principle, when the guide is drawn up and agreed on it must be made clear and open to Parliament.
Lord BELSTEAD: I am grateful to the noble Lord. If the Assembly is sitting again, under a later provision of the Bill they presumably will see the details of what we are talking about because they are to receive an annual report. My worry was that, if that was the case,

787
Parliament would probably never see the details of the guide. But the noble Lord has given me a full answer, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [The Register of Equal Opportunity Employers and Organisations]:
3.43 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 5, line 12, at end insert—
("( ) Where a name is removed from the register under subsection (2)(b) (iii), the notice under subsection (3) shall inform the employer or organisation of the right of appeal conferred by section 8.")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is a purely drafting Amendment. Its objective is to achieve consistency with other provisions of the Bill. It is a question of giving notice of the right to appeal, and it is given in Clauses 13(4) and 22(3) but not here. We think that it should be given here. It is giving the employer extra advice of his rights. I do not think that I need say more about it, though I shall be happy to do so if your Lordships want further details.
Lord BELSTEAD: I think that most of the noble Lord's Amendments are of a drafting nature, and I shall certainly not keep on interrupting. However, on this one point may I welcome it. I am not sure whether it would not be right to at least consider whether there should be a right of appeal before someone is struck off. The noble Lord may say to me that that would not be consistent with Clause 13, because under Clause 13 if somebody is found not to be offering equality of opportunity then there is no appeal; the appeal is against the remedies, the directions, to put the matter right. If you cannot appeal under Clause 13 against the finding, then presumably it would not be right to appeal against the finding that one ought to be struck off the register.
Are we right in having no appeal either under Clause 13 against findings, or under this clause against the decision that somebody should be struck off the register?
788
Your Lordships will realise why I raise the point. For somebody to be struck off will be a traumatic experience. Goodness knows what it will mean to some employers, and particularly when this Bill comes into operation and smaller employers come within its scope!
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: I am a little at sea because this has nothing to do with the appeal beyond informing the offender of his right of appeal. Surely we cannot object to that.
Lord BELSTEAD: I have used the opportunity of the Amendment to put a point to the noble Lord which is not part of his Amendment.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: The problem here is that you cannot do both. At the moment we give the right of appeal to the man who is struck off the register. Surely this is sound. I am not quite sure what else the noble Lord is asking should be done.
Lord BELSTEAD: Appeal before he is struck off.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: Appeal before he is struck off? Against what?
Lord BELSTEAD: Over the intention.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: This would be very elaborate and unusual. I do not think that you can appeal against an intention. If you are being pursued by a body who suggest you are breaking the agreement and not giving fair employment, I do not think that you can appeal until that body has done something about it.
Lord BELSTEAD: I hope that the noble Lord does not mind my raising this because appeal does come up later on, and I shall bring it up under Part III. If the noble Lord would glance again at Clause 7, which is the clause we are on, subsection (2)(b)(iii), he will see that the decision to strike off includes the occasion when there has been an investigation. The point, in essence. I am putting is that if the Agency conducts an investigation it is not always to be assumed that it will reach the right conclusion. As this is Committee, I am probing the matter. At least it is reasonable to probe whether if, after an investigation, the Agency

789
reaches the conclusion that this employer ought to be struck off the register, it might be fair to say, before the act of striking off is carried out, that there shall be the possibility of an appeal.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: I am quite prepared to look at this. On the face of it, it does not seem to me to be right. It has not been suggested before by anybody. It is an additional insertion. I have not thought about it. I should have thought that it was unnecessary. One has to visualise that this is being done, one hopes, in a civilised way. You have a company making its living, you have an Agency that is trying to ensure something which everybody says they believe in, and the Agency comes to the company and says, "I think that this is not a very sound way of recruiting your men. I think it is unfair." Surely they then discuss that, and it is only when it gets to the next stage that the trouble really arises. I do not think that the Fair Employment Agency would say, "We have now decided to strike you off", and that between then and when they did strike them off there would be a period during which that appeal would be relevant. I do not get the point. I am not hostile to it. I shall look at it again.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Offences in relation to Section 7]:
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 6, line 36, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) Where an individual or a body corporate is required by a notice under section 7(3) to return a certificate to the Agency and fails without reasonable excuse to do so, he or it shall be guilty of an offence.")
The noble Lord said: This again is not exactly a drafting but a clarifying Amendment. Its object is to distinguish between incorporated bodies which can be dealt with as individuals, and unincorporated bodies which have to have an individual nominated before you can put a duty on them. It is as simple as that. This appears three times: on page 6, lines 36, 39 and 41. These are three different Amendments but I hope that
790
noble Lords will find each of them acceptable. I beg to move Amendment No. 6.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: I beg to move Amendment No. 7.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 39, leave out ("organisation") and insert (" unincorporated body")—(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: I beg to move Amendment No. 8.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 41, leave out ("organisation") and insert ("body")—(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 11 and 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Undertaking or directions for remedying of certain practices]:
3.55 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD Lord BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 8, line 41, leave out ("either generally or")
The noble Lord said: With Amendment No. 9 I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 10 and 18. The effect of these Amendments would be to prohibit the imposition of employment quotas to which the Agency might resort in order to try to achieve a theoretical balance of denominations at a place of employment. On Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kings-bridge, speaking for the Government, acknowledged the danger of concluding that a study of employment trends which comes in Clause 11 (to which we have now agreed) might lead to a system of quotas. The noble Lord recorded the Working Party's rejection of such a conclusion, and then declared that the Government would have nothing at all to do with employment quotas.
Why, then, have I tabled these Amendments? It is because, although I accept absolutely the assurance given by the noble Lord, I believe that the Bill as drafted could encourage the view, and

791
I certainly believe it could allow a future Government to conclude, that quotas could be a natural consequence of surveys and investigations. Clause 11 provides for surveys of employment patterns. I accept this provision because I do not see how the Agency can be properly prepared to undertake more specific investigations under Clause 12.
Clause 12(1) provides for those investigations. Again I accept that. We all hope that these investigations will lead to conciliation about which the noble Lord spoke on an earlier Amendment. That surely is a primary purpose of this Part of the Bill. I also accept Clause 12(2), which gives wide powers of investigation, including investigation of previous employment practices which is a necessary ingredient in order to protect the existing position of the employer.
It is the wording of Clause 13, which prescribes the remedies if an investigation reveals failure to provide equality of opportunity, which I think could lead to the Agency imposing employment quotas. Clause 13(1) reads:
"Where … the person concerned has failed to provide equality of opportunity, either generally or in relation to any class of persons, the Agency shall use its best endeavours—
(a) to secure that he takes such action to ensure equality of oportunity as is, in all the circumstances, reasonable and appropriate,"
and then (b) provides for a written undertaking to he given.
On reading subsection (1), surely one is driven to the conclusion that if a person fails to provide equality of opportunity generally then the only action which the Agency can logically take is to give general directions that the position ought to be balanced, and I should have thought that this meant a quota. That is the reason for the first Amendment. It is not really a probing Amendment. In fact I should think that the words "either generally or", are in themselves misleading and ought to be omitted.
The second, rather longer, Amendment clarifies the matter. I will not embark on the reasons for resisting the idea of quotas. The case was very fully developed in Chapter 5 of the Working Party's Report, and this I know the Government accept. My sole objective is to ensure that the Bill does not inadvertently encourage or even allow quotas, and I
792
hope that the Amendments achieve that aim. I beg to move.
Lord KILBRACKEN: The question of employment quotas has been raised May I ask my noble friend precisely how is it intended that equality of opportunity is to be achieved? I want to give a particular example of the kind of difficulty I foresee. There is a Catholic enclave on the East Bank of the Lagan, Short Strand, with which I have recently become rather intimately acquainted. There is an unemployment rate amongst employable males of over 50 per cent. In the middle of the Short Strand there is a factory—which I will not name unless pressed—which employs nearly 2,000 people. Of these 2,000 people in a wholly Catholic area—99·9 per cent. Catholic—all but six are Protestants. They come in each morning, sometimes under military escort, and they march out each evening. It seems to me clear that equality of opportunity cannot be said to exist in these circumstances. But what precisely is the Agency going to try to do? Is it going to say, "This is a wholly Catholic area and therefore the workers should be wholly Catholic"? Or is it going to say, "Two-thirds of the inhabitants of the Six Counties are Protestants and therefore two-thirds of the workers should be Protestants?" On what basis is it going to work, and where you have a situation where there is a large and thriving factory with an entirely Protestant workforce, how can you change that situation so that equality of opportunity exists? It is not something that can be done in a couple of weeks. I wish we could have some guidance as to how it can be hoped to achieve equality of opportunity.
Another example is the Harland and Wolff shipyards which will be State owned, so that the State will be the employer. It is all very well to talk about this wonderful ideal and the ideal of doing away with discrimination, but I should like to know more about the principles that the Agency will follow.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: First, I should like to tell the noble Lord that the reason why I was not here at Second Reading—although I have read the report of his speeches—was that his right honourable friend in another place determined that I had to stand for election.

793
The Second Reading was during the election and I apologise for not being here. After listening to the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, may I say that the question of discrimination is not by any manner of means the sole property of any one side, and in areas which I know extremely well there is just as vicious discrimination in employment as anywhere else. But one must realise that where a company is making money and has a contented labour force it is very dangerous and difficult to interfere. I feel that the whole tone of this debate and of the Bill indicates that this subject will be very delicately handled indeed. One should remember—and we shall refer to this on a later clause—that in some of the areas where the problem exists it is the employees who make for the discrimination, by making it impossible for somebody else to be employed. The responsibility lies there, and later we will be referring to this.
In my view, this question of discrimination is very much exaggerated. We all heard before the Ombudsman came in what the likely outcome would be. Many people in Great Britain imagined that there would have to be five Ombudsmen working absolutely flat out, but in the end the total number of cases with which the Ombudsman had to deal was very small and he found that the level of administration in Northern Ireland was very good. Thus, I do not see that this will be a very big problem, because in my view the whole approach will be gradual for, despite the difficulties, industrial relations in Northern Ireland have been quite outstanding and the small amount of time lost through strikes has been a great factor. We must be careful—it is on this point that I particularly support the remarks of my noble friend Lord Belstead—on this question of quotas, because what area is one to use? Is one to use a ward, a county, or what? It is absolutely vital, therefore, that this question of quotas is completely outlawed and every possible Amendment that will secure that should be accepted.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: I find this a rather difficult matter. I do not think there are many employers in England, who are employing on a fairly large scale, who have the slightest idea of
794
the religion of their employees. Indeed, in my view they would consider it an impertinence to ask. I am bound to say that if I were preparing the guide which we are discussing, the first thing I should be inclined to put into it are words to make it illegal to ask anybody what is his religion. Unless one has inquiries and registers, which would seem to put people into two camps anyway, how is this report to be prepared and how does one work out whether or not there is fairness?
Lord MONSON: I strongly support this series of Amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. There are two main objections to a quota system. The first and, I suppose, most important is that it accentuates religious consciousness rather than diminishes it, which is exactly the opposite of what we are trying to achieve. The second is that in the event of the Government retaining the word "beliefs" in Clause 3, as they obviously intend to do, then to achieve any balanced quota to cover every permutation and combination of religious beliefs would be the work of several years. For those two reasons alone this Amendment should be given the most serious consideration.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: We have swung away from the Amendment to a number of Second Reading speeches, although I do not object to that. This is a very important Bill and it is the meat rather than the nuts and bolts with which people are concerned. But it would be helpful if we could deal with the Amendments as they arise and have the more general discussion on the Question, Whether the clause shall stand part; that would certainly help me.
When I first read the Amendment, I did not know what was its object. Now I know that it is to make sure that there is no truck with quotas, I would only say that the Government are absolutely determined that there should not be; it is an essential part of the Bill that there should not be and there is nothing in the Bill to the contrary, despite what the noble Lord said to suggest that there will be. If the phrase, "either generally or" is taken out and one is left with "or", one will have the Agency confined to the examination of specific trades. In other words, the Agency could not say about a

795
factory as a whole, "There are 20 different trades here and there is discrimination throughout the factory." It could say only, "There is discrimination among the transport drivers" or something of that sort. This would be limiting the powers of the Agency and would be doing nothing to further what we are all trying to do.
On the question of quotas, these would be directly contrary to the Bill. There cannot be any doubt about it. The Agency must deal with all failures to provide equality of opportunity. The Amendment to Clause 24 would have a similar effect, in that if the Agency found a failure to provide equality of opportunity during investigation under Clause 12, it could act only under Clause 13 to seek a remedy if the failure related to a class of employees, as opposed to employees generally. This is not the point at which the Amendment is directed, but it is what it would achieve. As I see it, the Amendment would not help us over quotas, but it would tie the hands of the Agency in a way which I do not think any of us want to do.
I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not press the Amendment. I think the subject of quotas will arise again a little later and I am prepared to discuss that at length, because it is absolutely fundamental to our whole attitude. If one said, "You must appoint this man but you must not appoint that man, because one is a Catholic and the other is a Protestant", then that is discrimination on account of religion in the clearest possible way. I really believe that noble Lords are pursuing a will-o'-the-wisp here. The Government are absolutely sure that this is not the way to proceed, and the Bill does not suggest for one moment that it is. I respect the noble Lord's fear that something might be read into this clause, but I assure the Committee that it is a figment of his imagination and I therefore hope that he will not find it necessary to press this Amendment, because it will achieve almost exactly the opposite of what he wants to achieve.
Lord BELSTEAD: There is nothing between the two sides of the Committee and the noble Lord has made quite clear what it is we want to achieve. Certainly, all noble Lords who have spoken would not want quotas imposed
796
and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, gave two good reasons why not. I hesitate to cross swords with the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, when he is so well advised and when any drafting which is necessary is in much better hands than it could be in mine. Nevertheless, I ask him to look at the Bill before the next state to ensure that he is absolutely right in saying that my Amendment would tie the hands of the Agency and would, by its wording, confine it to investigating only particular trades.
I ask this because when I look at subsection (2) of Clause 12 I find it quite clearly said that the investigations which the Agency will carry out shall be,
"(a) into the composition, by reference to religious beliefs, of—"
and then it says,
"(i) the general body of employees …"
Resting on that wording, I felt that I was absolutely safe in tabling this Amendment, because I have moved front the investigation which is contained in Clause 12 to the undertaking of directions for the remedying of certain practices, which is contained in Clause 13, and there I brought down my Amendment. Quite deliberately, I sought there to constrict the Agency by making it impossible, as I thought, for it to impose quotas. Possibly there is no need for the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, to reply, because I still feel that at this stage he will not agree with me. But I hope he will read what I have said and perhaps I will have the opportunity to look at what he has said, and possibly we can return to this issue at the next stage of the Bill.
Lord SHINWELL: Would my noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge respond to the appeal made by my noble friend Lord Kilbracken and define what is meant by "equality of opportunity"? The last thing I wish to do is to throw a spanner into the works and to impede the passage of the Bill. However innocuous it may be in implementation, everybody hopes it will ease the situation in Northern Ireland to a limited degree. However, the term "equality of opportunity" has been much bandied about in the course of this discussion and I join with my noble friend Lord Kilbracken, in wishing to ascertain whether it is possible to define it.

797
As I understand it, it was first enunciated by John Stuart Mill or it may have been Jeremy Bentham. We frequently use the term and I am certain that it is acceptable to every Member of this House, but how is it to be implemented? How are we to give it the necessary force of action which will justify its existence? It seems to me that to use a term of that kind in connection with Northern Ireland, or, for that matter, with the United Kingdom or any part of the civilised or uncivilised world, is to use a term that has no meaning at all. However, it may be that my noble friend Lord Donaldson has the intellectual capacity to be able to define it and I am glad to await his reply.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: I was hoping to reply when discussing whether the clause shall stand part, but we are still dealing with the Amendment so I shall carry on on the Amendment. Also, I had intended to reply to my noble friend Lord Paget of Northampton, but he has gone, so I need not. I was also to reply to my noble friend Lord Kilbracken and that would involve replying to my noble friend Lord Shinwell because it is the same question. The answer to that question is, first, that it is very difficult and, second, that it is clear that nothing which we put in a Bill of this kind will solve the question.
Nobody ever thought it would. We take the view that there is an evil to be corrected. Some people think that it is greater than others, as we have already heard. We believe that there is such an evil and that we must do our best to define it and to lay down rules which will not be oppressive to the people operating businesses in Northern Ireland but which will meet with the general approval of everybody whom one meets in Northern Ireland all of whom, without exception, disapprove of discrimination on grounds of religion. Whatever they may do, if one asks them over breakfast or dinner, they will say that it is, of course, absolutely wrong.
We are trying to make it difficult for them to go on doing what is absolutely wrong without being aware that they are doing it. That is the first thing. In order to do that, we have set up—and this is really my Second Reading speech, but I am only too happy to give it again—an independent body, carefully
798
appointed and with a chairman of integrity who is acceptable to both sides. As I said earlier this afternoon, such people can still be found in fair numbers in Northern Ireland. This body, the Agency, is given a definition of equality of opportunity. Clearly that definition is, like all such definitions, inadequate but it is a guide. It is laid down in Clause 3, which we have already discussed. The Agency is told to look round to see whether it can observe any cases, such as have been quoted by my noble friend Lord Kilbracken and by the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, in which it seems that this rather uncertain definition is not being observed. Having done that, the Agency's business is to get in touch with the employer and to discuss the matter with him. It is perfectly clear that, in the Short Strand case quoted by my noble friend—and I have no idea what are the facts—the sort of answer which would be perfectly satisfactory would be that the labour force needed a certain kind of training and the local population did not have that. There may be an answer of that kind.
The answer then is not to make that man employ people who cannot do the work but, possibly, to look at training. Indeed, that is happening with Harland and Wolff, where we are pinning our hopes on the training arrangements. There is no discrimination as to who is trained and we hope that there will be no discrimination as to who gets the jobs. That is Part II. Part III lays down that, if somebody thinks he has been discriminated against, he can go to the Fair Employment Agency and make a complaint. The Agency can then pursue the complaint with ultimate recourse to the courts.
Putting it very briefly, that is what we are trying to do. It will not work 100 per cent., but if it works 60 or 65 per cent. there will be nobody who will not be extremely pleased and matters in Northern Ireland will be very much better straight away. We are not claiming a great deal. We are saying that we have a situation which we regard as wrong and that we have attempted to set up machinery with a view to correcting that situation gradually and over the years.
In the absence of my noble friend Lord Paget of Northampton I shall still answer

799
his point. He said he thought it wrong to try to find out—in England, at any rate—the religion of one's employees. I should be rather annoyed if I were asked my religion by my employer, but in Northern Ireland it is a matter of the deepest interest to everybody and, whatever the employer may know, there is not a single employee who does not know the religion of every single individual. So it is no good talking like that. It is a different world. If we are to deal with this, I believe we must accept the fact that there are differences which are delineated by the religious denomination.
Lord KILBRACKEN: As my noble friend has twice referred to the fact that I was not present during the Second Reading debate, I should like to say that, unfortunately, I simply cannot afford to attend your Lordships' House as frequently as I should like. Secondly, in relation to his remarks about how distasteful it would be to be asked his religion, I should like to say that, when I was in the Short Strand, I was stopped three times by members of the Army who asked me my name, my address, my age and my religion. That is a normal practice which I find deplorable, but I thought it better to reply so I gave the answer that I was an Agnostic. The questioner said, "A what?" I repeated it and he wrote it down in his notebook.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My noble friend should use the ordinary Forces' formula which is "C of E".
Lord KILBRACKEN: I am not "C of E" and I never have been. I should also like to point out that the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, was perfectly correct in saying that the same thing happens the other way round and that, in Catholic areas, there are factories or businesses which employ only Catholic workers. Of course, one would not expect to find a business which had many Protestant employees in the Falls. But I think that it is a bit different when, as in the case of the engineering works in the Short Strand—and I see that the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, is present, and that business was in his constituency—
Lord O'NEILL of the MAINE: No, it is nowhere near.
Lord KILBRACKEN: Am I wrong? I thought that the noble Lord had been Member for East Belfast, but I see that I made a mistake. I am sorry. Certainly, though, he has been electioneering in the Short Strand. That fact is still remembered and appreciated. He is one of the few Unionist politicians to have been into that area. I feel that it is quite different when one has a factory in an area such as the Short Strand. There are six Protestants in the Short Strand apart from the nearly 2,000 who go in each day from the Protestant areas around about to work in a wholly Catholic area. I think that that is a deplorable situation.
Lord BELSTEAD: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 9, line 7, leave out from ("appropriate") to the end of line 9 and insert—

("(i) where paragraph (a) applies, shall serve on the person concerned a notice containing directions such as are mentioned in subsection (3), or

(ii) where paragraph (b) applies, shall either serve on him such a notice or make an application to the county court under section 15 for enforcement of the undertaking.")

The noble Lord said: This is a purely drafting Amendment to cure an inconsistency between two clauses. These are concerned with steps to be taken following the finding by the Agency of a failure to provide equality of opportunity. The Amendment is intended to secure that when an undertaking has been given but not complied with, the Agency may give directions under Clause 13, or proceed without giving such directions, to apply in the county court for enforcement of the undertaking. It is a slender point, and I hope the Committee will accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 13, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
4.21 p.m.
Lord KILBRACKEN Lord KILBRACKEN: Subsection (2) reads:
"Where the Agency asks the person concerned for an undertaking such as is mentioned in subsection (1)(b), but—

"(a) the undertaking is not given, or

(b) the undertaking, although given, is not complied with"

the Agency, unless it decides that no further action by it is appropriate, shall serve on him a notice containing directions …".
Could my noble friend explain why the words: "… unless it decides that no further action by it is appropriate," are necessary? An undertaking has been asked for and has not been given, or, if it has, it has not been complied with. I cannot imagine any circumstances under which the Agency could then decide that no further action is appropriate. I wonder whether my noble friend would consider at a later stage—and I regret the short notice of the question—deleting that conditional clause from the Bill.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: I do not know whether the noble Lord has caught up with the drafting Amendments, but we have just agreed that this clause should be altered. However, it is not altered in the words to which the noble Lord objects. The Bill reads:
"Where the Agency asks the person concerned for an undertaking … and the undertaking is not given, or … although given, is not complied with, the Agency, unless it decides that no further action by it is appropriate shall"—
then the Amendment we have just passed takes over.
There will not be very many cases where this could happen; but there might easily be a case where the employer comes along with new evidence or something of that sort. I see no difficulty in these words; there is nothing sinister about this, and I think it is better to leave it as it is.
Lord KILBRACKEN: In view of what my noble friend has said, I am prepared to leave it at that.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 14 and 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Meaning of "discrimination" and "unlawful discrimination."]:
On Question, Whether Clause 16 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord KILBRACKEN: The point I wish to raise concerns subsection (3) This is a definition of "discrimination." It states:
"… a person discriminates against another person … by way of victimisation if he treats that other person less favourably in any
802
circumstances than he treats or would treat any other person in those circumstances, …".
Perhaps this means more than it is intended to mean. I feel it should read:
"… if he treats that other person less favourably in any circumstances than he treats or would treat any other person having the same skills and qualifications in those circumstances."
Secondly, in the next line there is the very curious phrase:
… and does so by reason that the person victimised has—
(a) made a complaint …"
This is a phrase I have not previously come across in the English language, and I do not know what it means. It is repeated in the third line of the next page. Perhaps it would be clearer and better English to have it read:
"… in those circumstances, if the person victimised has (a) made a complaint …".
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: Taking the second point first, my understanding is that the legal phrase "by reason that" means "because". I am prepared to look at this. If it only means "because" I am prepared to alter it. If it has some other overtones, it is probably not desirable to do that. I should like also to look at the first point again. This is covered by earlier definitions, because earlier in the Bill we go into some detail about equal qualities and abilities, but just how this subsection to which the noble Lord refers relates back to this, I do not know. If it does not relate back it ought to. My belief is it probably does, but I am not able at the moment to tell him exactly how.
Lord KILBRACKEN: I looked into that matter carefully because I know in a Bill one always has to look forwards and backwards several times before finding out what the clause is trying to say. It is true that discrimination is described as discriminating by virtue of religious opinion or belief:
"A person discriminates against another person … if he treats that other person less favourably in any circumstances than he treats or would treat any other person in those circumstances."
But surely qualification is required here, which I think my noble friend will find is not already implied through what has gone before, by the words, "having the same skills and qualifications"—or

803
"having equal physical and mental aptitudes", which was the phrase my noble friend used in his Second Reading speech, which I read three times? He may find it desirable to include something along those lines.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: I have said I will look at this point. If what my noble friend says is correct, some alteration is required. But I have a feeling that there will be an answer to this.
The Earl of ONSLOW: Is the noble Lord aware that while I find Bills extremely complicated to understand, on this particular occasion the wording is crystal clear? This is bogging down in the minutiae of the English language. We all know that the Irish write English better than the English, but do not let us try to get it into Acts of Parliament. For once, what is set out here is crystal clear.
Lord BELSTEAD: May I put a different point? We have come to Part III of the Bill. It is in many ways the absolute centre of the Bill and it is my apprehension that I—and other noble Lords will not fall into this trap—will find myself raising small points. There are things in the clauses to which we are now coming which are a worry in practical terms; and for my own consumption, if not for that of other noble Lords, one ought to bear in the forefront of one's mind the main purpose of the Bill now that we have got to Part III, namely, to counter religious and political discrimination. Those were the terms of reference for the Working Party over two years ago, and it was something which they reported was widely supported by people whenever they asked questions about it in Northern Ireland.
Having said that, there is a practical difficulty I should like to raise which I sought to refer to on Second Reading. I can raise it only under Clause 16. It is the problem of what happens to an absolutely reputable employer, one who is on the register, who receives an application from a person whom he suspects of deliberately seeking employment in order to cause trouble. Such a situation could arise in several ways. An employer may be warned that the appli-
804
cant for the job is a person around whom trouble or even violence has previously centred; or the employer may sense that certain people are curiously eager to see this person employed and, putting two and two together, he may conclude that behind this application stand other people who have an interest in seeing that trouble is created at that place of work. What is the employer to do?
The noble Lord was good enough to write to me on this subject between the last stage of the Bill and this; and broadly speaking he made two points. The first was that, if the ill-disposed person or anyone else made a complaint as a result of a situation of this sort the matter could then be investigated and the employer could be cleared, if indeed he was in a situation where he should be cleared. Secondly, it would presumably be possible for the Agency to advise the employer of the general lines on which the Agency is going to operate, so that the employer could then decide for himself how he ought to act. It is the second line of procedure mentioned in the noble Lord's letter that I should very much like to see written into this Bill, because I believe that a complaint of unlawful discrimination will be a reflection on a respondent and will certainly be a great cause for worry to an employer who has never had such a thing happen to him before. I should also like to see unnecessary complaints prevented, and I believe it could be the only way out of this very difficult situation which I have sought to describe to the Committee.
I have not tabled an Amendment because I hoped I might better get the views of other noble Lords, and particularly of the Government. May I say that the noble Lord's letter, expressing the Government's views, was a considerable encouragement to me on this point, but I should like to explore the matter further to see whether something could be written into the Bill on a point which I find extremely difficult.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: I should like to support my noble friend over the problem he has raised. This Bill is all about people, whether employers or employees, and for this reason I should like to go a little further and tell your Lordships from personal experience about some actual problems which can arise. My real worry at the

805
present moment is that the Bill will come into force at a time when there is still a great deal of unrest and violence in Northern Ireland. I should like to know whether the Government have discussed with the Security Forces the implications of this as it affects employers at this juncture. If not, I should like to ask whether the Government would do so and let us know their view. I feel that we must have some security advice on this situation. How does an employer, assuming this Bill becomes law, deal with an applicant whom he has good reason to believe to be a man of violence? I am going to use the phrase "IRA man", but my remarks really relate to any violent man—and I would stress that there is no difference between violent men: they are all evil and very violent.
I would ask your Lordships to put yourselves in this employer's position. A man applies to him and he turns him down because he knows in his own heart that the man is involved in violence. That employer, who has previously enjoyed a very good record, is then verbally pilloried—because that is the object of it—and is accused of unfair practices. If the man of violence had a previous conviction, no doubt the Agency would support him and he would be perfectly all right. If he had been interned, then I am sure the Agency would support him; but the level at which people are involved in violence, convicted and interned, is something which is very difficult to define. There are many people outside who cannot be convicted but who are involved in violence, and the level at which they are interned, convicted or detained varies according to the Secretary of State's advice as to the level of violence at that particular moment. So one is faced with a number of people who are evil men, trying to get into situations from which they can do evil. The IRA, especially, have carried out their operations always as a result of very careful planning, and that is why one gets people "planted" in those situations.
As an employer, I have a prime duty to look after my life and the lives of my family. It would be a very difficult situation if you had to employ any person who had any connection at all with the IRA. The only way at the present moment by which one can tell whether a man is likely to be put under pressure
806
of violence is first of all by his religion and where he lives; because it is on the pressure—or, if you like, intimidation—that others are able to place on him that gives guidance on what one's judgment should be. This applies to both areas: one is no worse than the other.
I should like to give your Lordships several instances I know of from my own knowledge. Someone applied to come into my own employment: he was a young boy of 17 and came from a long way away. I carried out investigations about his background and so on, and I was very strongly advised not to employ him because the area from which he came was such that he would be put under pressure to provide information about my comings and goings. Noble Lords know that members of the Judiciary have been murdered because people knew of their regular comings and goings. I can think of three who were murdered because they were regular in their movements, in taking their children to school and so on. The information which is gathered by men of violence is very detailed and it is most important that people who are likely to be targets—and many are—should not have information given about their movements. Under this Bill what would my position be if I turned down that person, and a complaint was made? I personally would not take the risk involved for myself and my family.
The next case was that of an officer in the Ulster Defence Regiment who tried to employ two men who were Roman Catholics from a building contractor who was also a Roman Catholic. The UDR officer asked the contractor whether he would lend him these two men to do a bricking job. The contractor said he thought that would be very ill-advised, because those men, although highly-skilled craftsmen, unfortunately lived in an area with a very strong IRA cell. He said: "You should not do it: you are being unfair to those men. Further, if they did put pressure on them, you yourself could end up being murdered as a result of information that would be squeezed out of them." I wonder what the position of that man would be in such a case.
Lastly, I should like to tell your Lordships about a contractor who was building a UDR centre in our area. We all knew that the contractor had a gang which included a number of fairly active

807
IRA people. They were not convicted and they had not even been questioned by the police, but it was well known that their associations were bad. In fact, the contractor did absolutely nothing about it—whether or not he knew this I do not know, but we all did—and at the appropriate time when the building was nearly finished it was blown sky-high. Had that contractor taken the advice which certainly might have been given to him, though I have no knowledge about that, and sacked those men—in other words, discriminated against them—what would his position have been? I feel that it is most important that we should look at it with the security advice in view, because it is people we are talking about and unless there is some way of dealing with this subject we are going to put men's lives at risk. Certainly this is what we should not do.
Lord MONSON: May I support what the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, has said about Clause 16. The noble Viscount has cited three very thought-provoking examples from his own experience which must merit the very close attention of the Government. However, leaving aside those political groups which are engaged in violence and are peculiar to the Northern Ireland situation, I am wondering whether the Minister can seriously defend a situation in which it will be perfectly legal for an employer in England, Scotland or Wales to refuse to employ a man who is a Communist, a Fascist, a Nazi, an International Socialist, or whatever, but in which it will be illegal for an employer in Northern Ireland to do so.
The Earl of ONSLOW: I completely and utterly understand what the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, is saying on this issue. However, in this case there is a danger of unsubstantiated evidence. I do not live in Northern Ireland—and I regret that I have to say, "Thank God!" However, we could get ourselves into a position where, to take the case of the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, we say, "We don't want to employ 'X' because we all know that he is an IRA man and that so-and-so is a hard core 'Loyalist'—a violent man". How do we get ourselves off the horns of the dilemma of the Agency saying, "Yes, we see your point. You are not discriminat-
808
ing on the grounds of religion." Alternatively, you cannot sack a man on the basis of religion. It is a terrible dilemma. For the benefit of your Lordships, all I am trying to do, having completely understood both sides of the question, is to underline my own doubts.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: This is, of course, the most difficult part of the Bill. Are we to allow the kind of wholesale discrimination on religious grounds which is alleged to exist today? Are we to do nothing about it because we have run into a certain number of hard cases? My answer, and the Government's answer, is No, we must go ahead and we must set up machinery which is flexible enough to deal with difficult cases.
Let us take, for example, the case cited by the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, of an IRA man, or a group of IRA men. In the first place, no employer will be accused of discriminating on religious or political grounds if he says. "I think that this man is going to cause trouble in my factory". This is a fact which has nothing to do with religion or politics. It may be due to religion or politics, but it is a fact in itself and nobody who had had the advice of the Security Forces that three or four people were dangerous IRA men would fail to convince a sensible Fair Employment Agency that they had good reason not to employ them. This is simply a question of how the Fair Employment Agency works.
The Earl of ONSLOW: I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, but I should like the noble Lord to clarify a point which has just come into my mind. If an employer says to the Agency, "I have reason to believe that this man is a dangerous IRA man" and that man is not a dangerous IRA man—or even if he is. or even if, as I say, he is a "Loyalist" and, therefore, a dangerous man—can that man, if he hears about it, then sue for libel?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: You can always sue for libel if you think that it is libellous to be called a member of the IRA. Most of them do not think that it is libellous! Of course, you can sue for libel if somebody tells what you think is a lie about you. However, the man who is sacked,

809
ostensibly because he is a troublemaker—in fact, he says, because of his politics—can go to the Fair Employment Agency and make a complaint. The Agency then takes it up with the firm and the matter is openly and honestly discussed. If the Fair Employment Agency is any good—and if it is not the whole thing is no good—in most cases it will come to a sensible answer.
I think it would have been legitimate to refuse to employ Marx but not Engels. There are differences between them. One was a pure theoretician; the other was a theoretician who was actually provoking activity in the people to whom he was expounding theory. This may not be a very good example. If you have a tiny man who has never done any harm but who believes passionately in something which is affected by this Bill, he may be perfectly harmless. If, however, there is a man who is known to have associated with men of violence, or who is likely to be subverted, as the noble Viscount suggested, by men of violence, I can say only that if I were the chairman of the Fair Employment Agency I should say, "This is a good reason for not employing him". I cannot say that everybody will. In my opinion, you simply cannot lay this down in a firmer way.
What we must do is get this moving. We are aiming at the ordinary man who is discriminated against, and according to the reports he is very widely discriminated against. Noble Lords on both sides of the House have said that this is the case in both fields, and that is what we are trying to deal with. There will be difficult cases. If the Fair Employment Agency is well run, as it has to be, these difficult cases will be dealt with sensibly. The fact that one must hang on to is that to be a troublemaker is a reason for not employing a man, irrespective of whether he is a Papist troublemaker, or a Presbyterian, or a Communist, or a Fascist troublemaker. To be a troublemaker is a good reason for not employing a man.
I do not think that we can take it any further. It is the most difficult part of the Bill. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, regards it as putting the Bill out of court. I do not agree with him, but I am not going to pretend that there are not very serious difficulties here. If we pass the Bill in more or less
810
the form in which it is now, I believe that in about two years' time there will have been one or two difficult cases but that most of them will have been dealt with quite well. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, asked me whether we had discussed this matter with the Security Forces. We have discussed it with the Ministry of Defence which is the correct thing for us to do.
4.48 p.m.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: A little earlier people were saying, with justice, how good the industrial relations in Northern Ireland are, but in this clause the question of who is or who is not employed seems to be left entirely to the employer. Would it not be the case that when doubt of this type arose, the employer might be hauled over the coals for refusing to employ somebody because he believed, rightly or wrongly, that that person was dangerous? If I was in that employer's position, I would consult my employees before I made any move at all. It seems to me that on the question of who is to be employed and whom one refuses to employ, certainly in the industry that I know something about, not many employers nowadays would take it on their own shoulders to make such a determination. Especially where there is a large factory in which many people are employed, there is almost bound to be consultation with the employees concerned. Would it not be safer for the employer to say: "Possibly I could be hauled up for discrimination. So I should like to feel that on matters such as this we have regular consultations before any decision is made."
That would achieve a number of objects and it would assist. A lot of employees may well know the background of the person under discussion; in other words, it would not be confined to a general belief by the employer that he was a dangerous person. Especially in a trade or craft one tends to know many people in the same job and to know their background. Therefore, I should have thought that from the employer's point of view it would be far and away safer for him to consult with his employees on such a matter. In that event, if at the end of the day it was decided that a person was dangerous and not employable, the fact that the employer had consulted his employees would stand him in good stead

811
when it came to the issue of whether or not he was prejudiced against someone.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: May I answer that contribution now, as one becomes so confused if too many questions are raised?
The Earl of ONSLOW: May I first make a point on what the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Newton, has said. I am not trying to make the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, sit down unnecessarily. I should have thought that in this context the noble Lord, Lord Lee, was arguing as a sensible English employer would, but in this case we are dealing with Ireland. For 800 years the English have made the fatal mistake of assuming that the Irish are English. Thank God for both of us, they are not!
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: I accept without the slightest reservation that they are not. My noble friend's point is of course valid in fact, but should it be included in the Bill? I think not. It seems to me that if the Fair Employment Agency is examining a complaint against a firm which has never taken its employees into consideration at all and whose relationships are distant, it will think twice before it believes what the firm says. The point is absolutely valid and I agree with every word of it, but it does not persuade me to make any alteration in the Bill, and I do not think my noble friend meant it to do so.
Lord KILBRACKEN: Before we leave this absolutely essential part of the Bill, I would revert to what the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, said and say that in my opinion he is striking at the heart of the Bill by what he has said. After all, if a man is a member of a proscribed organisation, let it be on one side or the other, then of course he will be arrested—
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: No.
Lord KILBRACKEN: —if he is known to be, and can be proved to be, a member of a proscribed organisation. The noble Viscount shakes his head. What are the security forces doing about it? The noble Viscount laughs. But if the security forces know that a man—they do not have to be able to prove it—is
812
suspected of being a member of the IRA, they may take action. In the case of a Loyalist organisation they may well do nothing, but if he is known to be a member of the IRA he will be arrested and detained. It may be said of a man, "He comes from an area where he may come under IRA influence." After all, any Catholic, for example, will come from a Catholic area and it will be possible to say of him, "He may come under IRA influence", just as if a man comes from the Shankhill, it will be possible to say of him that he may come under UDA influence. If on a merest suspicion of that kind an employer is to be justified in refusing employment, then the whole Bill will break down. Surely the remedy lies in watching that man after he has been taken on.
If a Protestant firm—I do not like using a religious tag; it is a shorthand phrase—take on a number of Catholics it is up to them to take whatever steps they can, or feel necessary in surveilling them, to make sure that they are not subversive. If they are subversive or causing trouble, those would be perfectly good grounds for dismissing them. If there is a loophole, simply because an employer believes that someone who applies for a job may come under the influence of one of the extremist Parties on either side, then the whole purpose of this Bill will fall to the ground.
4.56 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: The noble Lord is perhaps being a little severe in the interpretation he has put on what was said by my noble friend Lord Brooke-borough. I find myself leaning towards my noble friend a great deal more than the noble Lord does, and for two reasons. One is that this Bill will be applying to small employers within a period of three years. If I remember Clause 34 correctly—the noble Lord is nodding his head—it will apply to those employing not more than 25 employees within two years of the Bill's coming into effect, and to those employing not more than 10 employees within three years of the Bill's coming into effect. So within three years quite small employers will be within the scope of the Bill. One can imagine, particularly in a rural community—which is one of the great delights of Northern Ireland—a rather small employer who may be quite frightened by

813
an applicant. It may be a woman employer, it may be a widow who is carrying on her husband's business and who, when an applicant arrives, is genuinely worried about what on earth she should do because she has reason, perhaps, to feel, or even only an intuition, that she is approaching disaster if she employs that person. That is one reason why I agreed with my noble friend.
The other reason was that I think it was a valid point about an applicant for a job being liable to subversion. I was interested that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, included this reason in one of the two examples he gave. I think he was speaking "off the cuff" when he said that he thought the Agency would be acting in a reasonable way if it could be absolutely sure that an applicant for a job—in that job and in that locality—would be liable to pressures which he could not resist. For those reasons I feel myself leaning towards what my noble friend said.
The Committee may be tempted to feel that, owing to a point which I originally raised, noble Lords and I myself in particular, have been deliberately attempting to raise reasons for trying to avoid the provisions of this Bill. I tried to refer to this matter in my opening words. I remember that my honourable friend Mr. van Straubenzee's Working Party referred to this point; they gave it as a warning in their Report. All I can say is that that was not my purpose in raising this point. My purpose was to try to meet the position of an employer who felt that he or she was being put on the spot. To do this I hoped that we might be able to write into the Bill the encouragement to talk to the Agency which the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, says will be quite in order.
Before I finish may I make two further points? The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, drew two points out of the air; one was about subversion, the other was about somebody whom the employer knew would cause trouble. He said, speaking "off the cuff", that he felt that the Agency would advise an employer that it would be perfectly proper to turn down an application if it was clearly obvious that this would happen. If this is the case it certainly meets many of my fears, although I still wish we could write into the Bill something to encourage the
814
employer to talk to the Agency. My last point I hesitate to raise, but, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, is here and, obviously, he has very wide knowledge of these matters, as has the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, who is speaking for the Government. So may I simply ask a question?
Despite all the obvious reasons for trying to take on in employment, wherever one lives, anyone who has served a prison sentence is it going to be possible under this Bill to say, if it is a little old lady in an inaccessible part of the country, that she is frightened to take on someone who has either been a detainee or a convicted prisoner? Just to give the point a twist, shall we find ourselves running into difficulty when we have a special category prisoner who has been serving a term of imprisonment because he has been given special category status and his misdemeanour has been connected with politics? I simply put that question; I do not expect a reply to it but I do not think it would do any harm to think about it before the next stage of the Bill.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: I certainly cannot resist replying to that. My position over discharged prisoners, whether they are political prisoners or otherwise, has always been the same; when they come out they must be treated as ordinary citizens. I do not think the fact that a man has been in prison for a political crime is a reason for not employing him, except as evidence of his likelihood to continue with political crime. The thing which matters about the man is whether he is associating with men of violence, whether he is known to be or suspected of being mixed up with violence, and this would be true whether or not he has been in prison. I do not admit that past imprisonment or detention is relevant, except as evidence of his state of mind today which may be quite different. So in every case I think the Fair Employment Agency would excuse an employer from his duty to employ, or not to sack, a man who was known to be mixed up in affairs of violence, whether political or otherwise. I think the fact that he had been in prison would be only a piece of evidence leading one to look further, and by itself would certainly not be sufficient reason.
Lord STRANGE: Something has to be done; some Bill has to go through. This Bill has been very carefully thought out so let us put it through.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Discrimination against applicants for employment and employees]:
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 12, line 31, at end insert—
("(2) It shall be unlawful for a person who is empowered by virtue of an enactment to select or nominate another person for employment by a third person to discriminate against a person, in relation to employment in Northern Ireland—

(a) by refusing or deliberately omitting to select or nominate him for employment, or

(b) where candidates are selected or nominated in order of preference, by selecting or nominating him lower in order than any other who is selected or nominated.")

The noble Lord said: The point about this Amendment is a simple one. There are some institutions, not only in Northern Ireland, but I think everywhere else, where selection is made by a professional or expert body and the appointments are made by the employer. In other words, a selection is made, not by the employer but by a body which is advising him. I can think of various instances, but undoubtedly your Lordships can do it as well as I can. The object of this Amendment is to make certain that discrimination is just as much discrimination if all the doctors suggested for the local area boards are drawn from one side or from the other by an expert body, as if the Department of Health and Social Services was selecting them. It is a simple point, but a particularly important one and I hope your Lordships will agree to it. I beg to move.
Lord KILBRACKEN: I completely agree with the spirit of this Amendment, but it seems to me—and I think this is the correct moment to raise this point rather than on the Question, Whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill?—that it does not go far enough, because as Clause 17 stands it goes only as far as making it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against a person. Of course it happens in many cases, especially in
816
big factories or when the State is the employer, that the employer himself has nothing whatsoever to do with either the hiring or the firing of employees, and I do not think this point is covered by my noble friend's Amendment.
It seems to me essential that after the words, "unlawful for an employer" there should be inserted the words, "or person acting on behalf of an employer". If your Lordships will turn to page 6 of the Bill, it will be seen in Clause 10(1)(b) that there it is found necessary to specify not only art employer but also a person acting on behalf of such an employer. The Bill as it stands at present means that if an employer has a man, one of whose duties it is to select and employ or dismiss employees, he is not bound by Clause 17. The clause refers only to the employer himself and, as I have said, the employer may have no say in the matter. If it is a State-owned concern, I suppose the employer is the Queen, although I am not quite clear about that. Surely there has to be an Amendment, and I hope my noble friend will consider putting it in at a later stage, to make sure that not only the employer but also the employee—and possibly this is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, is getting at in his next Amendment, although I am not certain—who is responsible for employing a man is covered by the clause.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: This is fully covered by Clause 32, which makes employers or principals liable for acts carried out by their agents or employees. I think that entirely covers the point raised by the noble Lord, which is a valid one.
Lord KILBRACKEN: I have not had time to read Clause 32, but I am sure my noble friend is right; he nearly always is and I am prepared to accept what he has said.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
5.9 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD Lord BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 13:
After Clause 17 insert the following new clause
Discrimination on grounds of religious belief or political opinion
"( ) It shall be unlawful for an employee to discriminate against a person in relation to

817
employment in Northern Ireland on the ground of religious belief or political opinion".
The noble Lord said: There is a practical reason for this Amendment and I sought to mention it on Second Reading. What will be the answer under the Bill as drafted if employees at a place of employment refuse to work with other employees for reasons which could lead to a complaint being made under Clause 21, if the person being complained against were an employer, a vocational organisation or a person who could confer authorisations, qualifications or recognition?
In the Irish Times on 11th June, there was an article headed, "Loyalist Workers down tools as student priest gets factory job". This is the sort of story which could happen in a different context. I simply picked it out because it was in the paper very recently. It would be wholly improper for me to draw any conclusions from reading a newspaper report, particularly as the strikers, so the Irish Times reported, who were the Loyalist workers' committee of that factory, insist that the strike was called not for denominational reasons but for other reasons. However, I make two assertions; first, that a situation of that sort could be grounds for a possible complaint under Part III of the Bill. I assert also that such a strike places the employer in an impossible position.
Clause 32, to which the noble Lord has just referred, makes an employer responsible for an employee's actions whether or not done with the employer's knowledge or approval, with the defence that the employer took such steps as were reasonably practical to prevent the employee doing what he had done. In writing to me on the subject, the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has been so good as to draw my attention to Clause 31 which provides that any person who induces another to do an unlawful act shall be treated under this Bill as if he had done the act himself. The noble Lord has concluded in writing to me that therefore where employees apply pressure within the meaning of Clause 31, they could be cited as respondents as well as the employer.
But what if, as I have said, the employer has nothing whatever to do with the unlawful act which is going on? Let us say that the employer is an equal
818
opportunity employer, he is on the register, he has made it clear frequently that he will not have any form of discrimination at his place of work and when an incident occurs he condemns it and calls for reconciliation and a return to work. What is to happen then, under the Bill as it is drafted? Surely the employer could not be found to have discriminated unlawfully because he is wholly covered by Clause 32(3) which deal with taking such steps as were reasonably practicable. I would hope that what I have suggested the employer would be doing would certainly be taking such reasonably practicable steps. If the employer cannot be proceeded against then neither, presumably, can the employees; because I should have thought that under Clause 31 on the grounds that they induced, there could be no grounds and they had so induced. We are therefore left with a most unsatisfactory and, what is most worrying, a totally unresolved problem.
I hope that I have got this wrong. If I have not, then I would hope that the Bill, which is gravely deficient on this problem, could be put right. I beg to move.
5.13 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: I do not think the noble Lord has got it entirely wrong. I think his drafting of this new clause is much too wide and I think we should have to look at it. But I think he has put his finger on a problem which I am not sure that legislation can deal with at all. We have two bits of this problem dealt with. The first is under Clause 31(1) where, if the employees force the employer to get rid of a man, to victimise a man, they can be caught for victimisation in that way. Equally, if they victimise a man themselves they can be caught under Common Law. What is difficult is to prevent a work force from behaving in this way if it is absolutely determined to do so. We have come across this in other areas of the world and usually, when legislation is passed to say that a thousand men should not do something, if they want to do so they will do it. It is rather unwise to go further in this Bill. In the case that the noble Lord quoted, it is clear that there was victimisation and the Common Law is available.
I am aware that there is a problem here. My advice is—and I have thought

819
about it carefully and discussed it with my colleagues—that if we try to introduce some, as it were, industrial relations law into this Bill about how workers must behave, as workers, we shall be running into trouble. Possibly this could come into some industrial relations legislation later on. But we think that the two forms of victimisation: one, forcing the employer to victimise; or two, victimisation directly by themselves, are covered. I do not think that we can go further.
I am prepared to look at this again. We are aware that there is a real problem and that we have not found out how to deal with it. If we can make any progress, I will make some suggestions at Report stage; but I am inclined to think that we shall end by feeling and that it is best to leave ill alone.
The Earl of ONSLOW: While being totally sympathetic to the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Belstead because it seems just and reasonable, I should like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has said. We have had experience of the Industrial Relations Act in this country which, however good its intentions, did not always work in the way its authors wanted it to work. We have had experience in Ulster of the Protestant workers' strike where I believe what they quaintly call the Imperial Government was left slightly powerless in the situation. I am sorry to get up and speak; except that one is worried and one must express one's doubts. One cannot understand these two elements of justice. People should not be allowed to discriminate against their fellow employees because they are "Prots" or because they are "Micks", or whatever they call them over there. How can a reasonable, just and sensible Imperial Government "enforce that law? This is the difficulty. I wanted to say this because I think these doubts must be aired in this House—however much I agree with both my noble friend Lord Belstead and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.
Lord BELSTEAD: I am inclined to think my noble friend's advice is good. I did not think that this Amendment would be accepted, but I did think, and I still think, that it was putting its finger
820
on a point which really is a worry. May I say two things only. The first is that, of course, the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions were most influential, helpful, and energetic members of the Working Party which produced the Report. I do not know whether, while this Bill goes through both Houses of Parliament, this would be something on which the Government would see fit to talk again to the NICTU about. I should have absolute confidence that under the leadership of Dr. Blease of NICTU good advice and a good response would be given if the Government felt it helpful to discuss this point again. Secondly, if nothing of this sort is to be done, then possibly the Government might just glance, between this stage and the next, at Clause 31. If the employer is going to be placed in the position that there is trouble at his place of employment, and if the employer is perhaps not the strongest of characters, he is going to be caught under Clause 31(1)(a) "knowingly aiding" when, in fact, the unfortunate man may not have had the backbone to have got up and said: "I condemn what is being done". In other words, I am gently suggesting the possibility of some quid pro quo on this. This is a little one-sided for the employer who is not perhaps the bravest of persons. For the good employer who is perhaps able to stand up and say that he will have nothing to do with it, there is nothing to worry about; except that it creates an anomolous situation, the situation which I sought to set out in my opening words. If the noble Lord will look at this point and anything else I have sought to say between now and the next stage, I shall be grateful.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: Certainly; and in particular we will have further discussions with Dr. Blease and his boys; but these things arise usually not with union support of any kind; so that it has little to do with it.
Lord BELSTEAD: I agree with the last words the noble Lord said.
Lord KILBRACKEN: If Clause 32, which I have now had time to read, is to remain part of the Bill, as I am sure it will, then Lord Belstead's Amendment is not extremely important; because if

821
any employee indulges in discrimination, automatically under Clause 32(1) that discrimination is treated as having been done by the employer himself. Therefore, he is guilty of an offence of illegal discrimination and will take good care that none of his employees behaves in that way.
Lord BELSTEAD: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 18 to 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Investigation of complaint of unlawful discrimination]:
5.20 p.m.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 14, line 2, leave out ("has died or").
The noble Viscount said: I beg leave to move the Amendment which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Belstead. I believe that a victim who has died should no longer have any claim to compensation for loss or hurt feelings. His right to complain should end on his death. This would be in keeping with the Race Relations Act and the Sex Discrimination Bill. I do not believe in this situation we should depart from the principles there laid down.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: I am not inclined to accept this Amendment although it is not a question of fundamental philosophy. In a genuine case of discrimination it seems to me quite wrong that if the man concerned dies following the loss of his job, a remedy should not lie with his wife and family. It is a simple point, and noble Lords can take it either way. The Government take the view that it should remain. Damages have to be proved, and if they are proved why should they not go to the family? I should like to suggest to the Committee that this Amendment be rejected.
The Earl of ONSLOW: May I be allowed to ask the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, two questions? First, if you sue someone for libel and then drop down dead, can you go on getting the libel damages? Secondly, in support of the Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, surely the Irish have such
822
appallingly long historical memories that you do not want to allow them to go on sueing people after they are dead. I am sorry if this is a flippant way of putting it, but their enormously long historical memory has been a fundamental root cause of the Irish problem. If we accept the Amendment of the noble Viscount, it will go just one very small step towards not allowing them to take advantage of their historical memories.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: Obviously there is a point in time when compensation has been decided on; that must go to the family. But if the case is being examined how can the employee who allegedly has been discriminated against give evidence if he is dead? However, I withdraw the Amendment.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: In spite of that encouraging remark, it seems to me quite obvious that the case cannot be made if there is insufficient evidence. If the evidence is there and has been taken, it is reasonable that the wife and family who have been deprived should get the benefit. I am grateful to the noble Viscount for withdrawing the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.25 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD Lord BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 14, line 11, leave out ("six") and insert ("three").
The noble Lord said: I think it is reasonable to look at other legislation with regard to time limits for a complaint to be made. The two-month limit in subsection (3)(a) is to be found in the Race Relations Act, but that Act does not include the six-month limit to which this Amendment refers, nor does the drafting of the Sex Discrimination Bill which has a three-month limit, which is the effect of this Amendment.
In moving to shorten this period, it is worth noting that under subsection (3)(b) the Agency may investigate a complaint after the time limit if it so wishes. There is one practical problem here. This Bill deals with cases of discrimination, not only in employment but in recruitment for employment. As employers may well receive hundreds of applicants for several different jobs—in some cases the applicants may just be personal inquirers—to

823
ask for records to be kept of all the applicants so that the reasons for refusing employment might he read is to ask a great deal, even if the complaint period is to be three months, which is the effect of my Amendment. I hope that the noble Lord might look with some favour on the Amendment. In addition, I hope that the Government might consider whether, in cases referring to recruitment rather than employment, the complaint period should be even only one month. I beg to move.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: Once again, I am not inclined to accept this Amendment. It is not a very fundamental point and it would not break the Government's heart if, in the end, we had to change our minds. When the noble Lord said that it is a good thing to keep in line with other legislation, the question is, "Which legislation?" The legislation with which we are keeping in line here is the Commissioner for Complaints Act (Northern Ireland) 1969, which is the legislation most parallel to this kind of problem. We have diverged a good deal from the two other measures quoted by the noble Lord. Lord Belstead—the Race Relations Act and the Sex Discrimination Bill. There are many differences between them and this Bill. We thought it better to keep to this period, which is the period during which one can make a complaint under the Commissioner for Complaints Act (Northern Ireland) 1969.
It is worth pointing out that the six-months period for making a complaint is not always to be allowed to a complainant. He has to make his complaint within two months from the day on which he first had knowledge, or might reasonably be expected to have had knowledge, of the act complained of, or six months from the day it was done, whichever first occurs. This is a considerable modification of the six months figure, and, as it is quite possible to modify it at a later stage, the Government feel inclined to start off with it. It need not be for ever if it is found unsatisfactory. However, my view is that this is the best way of doing it. In normal cases, people will know of the act of which they are complaining, and that they have to complain within two months. The six months is
824
only for cases where there is obscurity which may take some time to sort out. I ask noble Lords not to support the Amendment, unless I can persuade the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, to withdraw it.
Lord BELSTEAD: I should like to have a look at what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, has said. One of my worries, and I believe it is something which worries all noble Lords, is that in all legislation at this moment, whether in Northern Ireland, the United Kingdom, or anywhere, we must avoid putting extra burdens or expenses on industry and commerce. I see the noble Lord nodding his head, and know that he will agree with this. I should like to look carefully at what he has said, but for the moment I withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Further attempts at conciliation: recommendations]:
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 15, line 33, leave out ("claimant") and insert ("complainant")
The noble Lord said: The word chosen by the draftsman was wrong, and it is here corrected. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 15, line 41, leave out ("award of") and insert ("affording of access to")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is to substitute the words "affording of access to" for the words "award of". This is technical, because it applies to a clause elsewhere. The definition of "affording of access to" is the one to which we wish this clause to apply, but the words "award of" mean exactly the same thing. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 23, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
5.30 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: May I raise one point which I think is fairly fundamental. There is no provision in Clause 23 for appeal against recommendations which

825
the Agency may make. At this stage think there ought to be a right of appeal. It is interesting to notice that paragraph 125 of the Working Party's Report said:
"The right of appeal after judicial review of the Agency's decisions should also be provided. While the Working Party has not examined the question specifically, its disposition would be to confine review to the remedies prescribed by the Agency rather than its findings".
The Bill does exactly the opposite. Clauses 24 and 25 will provide for appeal to the county court against the Agency's findings after a complaint of unlawful discrimination, but there is no provision here for appeal against the Agency's recommendations.
It is not self-evident that the recommendations will always necessarily be the right recommendations. One has only to glance at the clause to see the sort of things it is suggested the Agency might recommend: that there should be reinstatement, that there should be the removal of any detriment from the complainant or conferment of any authorisation or qualification on the complainant. It may be that the Agency will get the right answer, or it may not. What is absolutely certain is that if the Agency does not get the right answer, woe betide the firm which has to put the recommendations into effect. If I may say so, this is even more curious in that under Part which we have already agreed, there is a right to appeal to the Appeals Board against the Agency's directions in equal opportunity cases, but no appeal, against the Agency's findings, the exact opposite of the provisions which I am complaining about now. I have not put down an Amendment and I do not think I gave the noble Lord notice of this, but if he would look at it I should be very grateful.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: The noble Lord did give me notice and I am prepared to give a full reply. The main reason is that this Bill differs from the van Straubenzee Report in this particular point. The Committee envisaged that where the Agency investigated a complaint of unlawful discrimination and found that it had occurred, it
826
would issue an administrative enforcement order providing for remedies. The Committee preferred direct enforcement by the Agency rather than enforcement through the court as a way of giving the public more confidence.
Because the administrative enforcement order gave such wide powers to the Agency, the Committee thought it particularly desirable that an appeal to the court should lie against the recommendations. Her Majesty's Government decided, however, that it was more appropriate that the practice of the Race Relations Act should be followed in this case, and it would be wrong in principle to give the Agency such wide powers. Thus the Bill does not provide for the Agency to make enforcement orders but rather recommendations as to remedial action to be taken. Enforcement action will derive from an action for tort in the courts, and, therefore, a separate appeal against recommendations which are not formally binding is unnecessary.
The finding of unlawful discrimination is, however, a judicial finding and forms the basis of the enforcement proceedings. We do not believe that it would be right not to provide for appeal against such a finding by the Agency. The Bill provides, therefore, that a respondent against whom the Agency alleges unlawful discrimination shall have a right of appeal against that finding in the county court. I hope the noble Lord will accept the desirability of providing for appeals to the county court against a finding by the Agency for unlawful discrimination, and that enforcement of remedies should lie with the courts rather than an administrative body. It is our view that these changes do not detract from the aims of the van Straubenzee Committee but provide a full legal protection for both respondent and complainant.
Lord BELSTEAD: I think that meets my point, and indeed the noble Lord has given information about which was not aware. I am most grateful.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Appeal to county court against Agency's finding on complaint of unlawful discrimination]:
5.35 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD Lord BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 17, line 12, leave out ("21 days") and insert ("6 weeks").
The noble Lord said: The effect of this Amendment would be to extend the time limit for making an appeal under this clause from 21 days to 6 weeks. The Sex Discrimination Bill I think provides a six week period for making an appeal against a non-discrimination notice, and I cannot see any reason why the provisions of this Bill should not be the same. Just one word of warning, if I may. I realise that once the Agency has found that there is unlawful discrimination in a particular case, it is in everyone's interest to get the matter concluded. The Agency will not be a judicial body. This will be an appeal to the county court. It would be wrong to so curtail the time allowed for appeal that the process of appeal could be weighted against the appellant. I beg to move.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: Once again I do not feel helpful over this Amendment. In the first place—I think this is the most important thing—the standard period for appeal in Northern Ireland is 21 days. The Northern Ireland County Court Rules 1965 allow 21 days for appeal from a tribunal to the county court, and in some other statutory provisions the periods are as short as 14 days. We think it important that the matter should be dealt with quickly and not dragged out. We feel that as 21 days is the normal period to which people are accustomed in this sort of case in Northern Ireland it would be better to leave it. It is not a point of principle between us. It is a question of which is the more convenient. I hope the noble Lord will be prepared to accept that.
Lord BELSTEAD: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE moved Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 17, line 14, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
828
("(5) In an appeal under subsection (2) the parties shall be the respondent and the Agency and in an appeal under subsection (3) the parties shall be the complainant and the respondent.")
The noble Lord said: This is again a drafting Amendment to Clause 25(5), and its purpose it to ensure that when a complainant appeals to the county court against a finding that no unlawful discrimination was committed, the other party to the appeal will be the respondent to the complaint. At present the Bill provides that the parties are to be the complainant and the Agency. I do not know whether noble Lords get the point. Normally the parties do not act; it is the Agency which acts. But when there is an appeal against a finding it is thought better that the respondent should be given a chance to answer. It is an Amendment which I think improves the Bill. It is not entirely technical, but I think it is entirely desirable. I hope noble Lords will accept it. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 26 and 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 [Powers of court as to damages and injunction]:
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 19, line 6, leave out ("act complained of") and insert ("unlawful discrimination").
The noble Lord said: This again is a purely drafting Amendment to Clause 28(1) which sets out the county's powers to award damages or an injunction, and to achieve consistency in the wording of the Bill. I do not know whether noble Lords want me to take it further. I could if required. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.41 p.m.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 19, line 7, leave out paragraph (c).
The noble Viscount said: I feel that this subsection is going a bit too far. There are adequate means of compensation for any actual loss to an employee who has been discriminated against either in his job or else in his promotion for a job. These two items are quite easily

829
assessable so far as damages are concerned, and if it is going before a county court I would have confidence that reasonable compensation would apply. To put it into the Statute, instructing the court to take into consideration compensation for feelings will, in my view, make it difficult for the courts to assess accurately the amount of damages that should be there, and the fact that it is in the Statute will make them feel that automatically they ought to be looking for some method of compensation. My experience of courts in Northern Ireland when dealing with either damages or insurance cases or matters like that, leads me to believe that damages are nearly always of a very high order. I believe that there are sufficient means of compensation existing without this. I beg to move.
Lord HAWKE: The participants in this Bill have had their eyes on Protestants and Catholics all the time, but I have been thinking wider and considering how this clause would affect the Sikhs who are employed in Northern Ireland. If they want to travel on buses and keep their turbans on, it may be that the local authority will say, No, and then they will be able to claim compensation in the court. I do not think that this is right, in the same way as with practitioners of any other religions who may feel that they have been injured in their feelings by an act of some employer, or of course under this extraordinary Clause 32 by some fellow employee for whose actions the employer takes the blame. This is an extraordinary Bill, and it contains some of the worst clauses of the Race Relations Bill, which I think we made a great mistake in passing. This certainly needs looking at.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: I think that it is about time that I gave way to another Amendment, and I am happy to accept this one. I must, in passing, say that I do not at all agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, about the Race Relations Act.
Lord HAWKE: I did not expect that the noble Lord would.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: I did not think he would, but there is no harm in underlining the fact. I would however point out a subtlety of
830
some interest which is that although the deletion of this paragraph removes the instruction that damages for injury to feelings can be given, of course in actions for tort the court is always able to take this into consideration and the omission of this will not remove that possibility. Even though we have agreed to take the clause out, there will still be cases which the judge may think deserve special treatment, and they can still get it.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: I should like to thank the noble Lord. It was because it became almost a mandatory instruction rather than an option that I wanted it taken out.
Lord MONSON: I should like to thank the Minister and the Government for acceding to our point of view on this matter; first, because it will make the Bill a very much better Bill; secondly, because it will avoid a slap in the face for all those people throughout the United Kingdom who are suffering very real grief and distress, perhaps as a result of their child being knocked down by a motor car, and who are denied any financial compensation for the very much more severely injured feelings that they suffer.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 29 and 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Accessories and incitement]:
5.46 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 21, line 19, leave out from ("threat") to the end of line 21 and insert ("was not made directly to the person in question").
The noble Lord said: The point of this Amendment is simply to tidy up. Clause 31(3) was rather clumsily put, and this puts it more shortly, more accurately, and loses nothing in the process. I hope noble Lords will accept that.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 32 [Liability of employers and principals]:
On Question, Whether Clause 32 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord HAWKE: This is the clause to which I referred a minute or two ago.

831
To a dispassionate observer I should have thought that it was grossly iniquitous in the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland to hold the employer responsible for acts of discrimination by his employees. Admittedly he has a defence in subsection (3), but if his employees definitely refuse to work with somebody he has been forced to take on against his will in order to avoid an act of victimisation, I do not see what he can possibly do. They of course will be had up for an offence. Is the court going to award damages against them? In that case, what are they to do? It is the most impossible situation. It is the Race Relations Act all over again.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: I think that the noble Lord is making rather a fuss about this. The whole object of the Bill—with which I do not think the noble Lord agrees, but this is hardly the moment to bring that up—is to prevent employers discriminating in engaging their employees on grounds of religion. Any employer who employs a number of men and who leaves it to one of his employees to do that must take responsibility. If he has someone who says, "I would not employ a Catholic if you paid me to," he should not be in that job. It must be the employer's fault.
There can be no doubt that if you are to have a Bill of this kind the employer must be responsible for the people he engages himself, and, equally, for those people who are engaged by his proper agents or nominees. This is the normal legal practice in matters of contract or tort. There is nothing new about it. It is always the case that you are responsible for your agent's actions, and nothing other than that is said here. I really think that the noble Lord must let this go.
Lord HAWKE: I do not disagree with the noble Lord. That is, of course, subsection (2), but I was talking more of subsection (1) where the wretched employer is treated as having performed this illegal act because his employees have. In the circumstances that prevail the situation might become quite impossible.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: Only if the employer gives authority to the employee to engage
832
labour. If he does not do that, it does not arise.
Lord BELSTEAD: It is not only in that situation. The point which I thought to make earlier, and which comes under the matter which I think my noble friend is quite rightly raising at this stage, is that there may be a situation in which the employer is held to be aiding or inciting when in fact he is rather spineless and has not gone out on a limb and said "This shall not happen". This is something which the noble Lord has promised to look at, so that also comes under the point which my noble friend is making.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: The employer is described by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, as "wretched" and by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, as "spineless". I suppose in those conditions if you have a Fair Employment Agency chairman who is any good, he will know where to make allowances. One speaks as if there will be no intelligent application of this Bill. In any case, we have discussed it and we must probably agree to differ. I hope that your Lordships will let the clause stand part.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 [Excepted employments, etc. ]:
On Question, Whether Clause 34 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord MONSON: I should like to say a word on this clause. I wonder whether the Government think it wise for the provisions of this Bill to apply to really small firms. I am looking at subsection (4) of Clause 34, which provides that after three years the provisions of the Bill will apply to firms employing fewer than 10 people. I am not suggesting for a moment that small firms ought to be given carte blanche to discriminate against people, or that they habitually do so. I am suggesting that when hiring staff the small employer often has to have regard to different considerations from the larger employers. Paper qualifications become less important, and how a person will slot into the firm becomes more important. If a small employer—perhaps not the man who employs 10

833
people but the man employing five or fewer—disregards paper qualifications and employs people for their ability to get on with him or with his family, it may be that over the course of the years most such people will be found belonging to a particular political group or having a certain religious affiliation. In this case, he could be got at by the Fair Employment Agency. I wonder whether the noble Lord will say what he thinks about this point.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: The point which the noble Lord is making is a perfectly serious one. I would say in reply that we have three years to look at this provision. If experience shows that this kind of restriction is likely to arise from the necessity to advertise widely for workers, and if this appears to create some difficulty in the medium-sized firms, we can think again about the small firms. My own view is that it is just as necessary in small firms, but that there will be more cases where the wise Fair Employment Agency will not insist too stringently on certain changes. I think the point is a sensible one, but we cannot deal with it better than we have done now, and we should leave it for the three years.
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clauses 35 and 36 agreed to.
Clause 37 [Charities]:
On Question, Whether Clause 37 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord BELSTEAD: I merely want to ask whether Clause 37 covers charities which are registered with the Charity Commissioners in London. As I read it, the clause excludes from the provisions of this Bill charities, "which are exclusively charitable according to the law of Northern Ireland". I am wondering whether this covers a charity such as the Save the Children Fund, which I assume is registered with the Charity Commissioners in London. As I have not given the noble Lord notice of this question I am sure he will not be able to give me an answer off the cuff, but if he would be so good as to look at it so that I could have a reply at the next stage of the Bill I should be most grateful.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: The noble Lord shall have the reply then.
Clause 37 agreed to.
Clauses 38 to 44 agreed to.
5.55 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE moved Amendment No. 24:
After Clause 44.
insert the following new clause
Appeal from county court.
"44A. Without prejudice to section 2 of the County Courts Appeals Act (Northern Ireland) 1964 (appeal to Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland on point of law) and section 7 of that Act (different modes of appeal to be exclusive), the Agency or the respondent, if dissatisfied with a decree of the county court in an action under section 27, may appeal from that decree, notwithstanding that damages have been claimed or awarded apart from section 28(4), as if the decree had been made in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by Part III of the County Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 and the appeal were brought under section 1 of that Act of 1964."
The noble Lord said: This, again, is a highly technical Amendment. It concerns the appeal from the county court. It is rather long so I will not read it out. The point of it is to attract the provisions of the County Courts Appeals Act (Northern Ireland) 1964 relating to appeals in respect of proceedings brought by the Agency under Clause 27. Once again, if your Lordships want to hear it, I can tell you much more about it, but if that is enough for our purposes I should just like to move the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 45 to 48 agreed to.
Clause 49 [Application of Act to the police]:
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 29, line 36, leave out ("claim made") and insert ("complaint made or action brought").
The noble Lord said: This, again, is a drafting Amendment to clarify the effect of Clause 49(2)(b) which deals with the application of the Bill to the police. The Amendment will ensure that a chief officer of police who, with the approval of the relevant police authority, makes a

835
payment to settle a complaint of unlawful discrimination or an action in respect of it, may have the sum defrayed as an expense of that police authority. Clause 49(2)(b) refers to a claim made under the Bill. It is not clear whether this covers both the complainant of unlawful discrimination before court proceedings are brought, and the court proceedings themselves. This Amendment is to clarify that point. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 49, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 50 agreed to.
Clause 51 [Service of documents]:
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 31, line 39, at end insert—
(", be served on the body.").
The noble Lord said: Once again this, too, is a drafting Amendment. Noble Lords will observe that this point has been referred to earlier. Under Clause 51(1) notice can be served on a person and 51(1) (b) refers to a body corporate or unincorporate and does not state that the notice or any other documents should be served on that body. This puts right that omission. I hope your Lordships will accept that as a reasonable addition to the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 51, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 [General interpretation]:
6.0 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 33, line 10, after ("(a)") insert ("subject to paragraph (aa) below").
The noble Lord said: There are other Amendments to follow Amendment No. 27, in particular Amendment No. 28, to which I should like to speak at the same time because they cover the same point. They are technical Amendments to that part of the definition of "complainant" in Clause 53(1) which relates to complaints made on behalf of a person who has died or is otherwise unable to act for himself. The Amendment is rele-
836
vent to Clause 21(3). For the making of a complaint that subsection provides a limitation period of two months from the date when the complainant knew or might have been expected to have known of the act complained of. This is clearly a desirable addition which I hope your Lordships will accept.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 33, line 12, at end insert—
("(aa) in relation to the complainant's having, or being expected to have had, knowledge of anything, the person making the complaint or the person against whom the unlawful discrimination is alleged to have been committed, whichever of them first had, or might reasonably be expected to have had, that knowledge; and")
The noble Lord said: This is another drafting Amendment. It is a technical Amendment designed to remove unnecessary words from the definition of "employer" in Clause 53(1). I do not think I need say more to recommend it to the Committee.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 33, line 36, leave out from ("has") to the end of line 37 and insert ("employment available")
The noble Lord said: This is a consequential Amendment. We discussed earlier the question of "organisation or other body", and instead of saying that we are saying "body corporate or body unincorporate". This deals with the same point. Perhaps I might add that Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 are made necessary by the Amendments which we made to Clause 10.
Lord BELSTEAD: I have a clock at home and when it is one o'clock it strikes two, and when it is two o'clock it strikes three. The Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, actually moved is Amendment No. 29 but the one to which he has spoken is No. 30. Just before that the Amendment moved was Amendment No. 29, but the noble Lord spoke to Amendment No. 28. It is fun to follow the noble Lord in this way, but it is a little misleading.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: I am not at all sure that the

837
noble Lord is being fair. My recollection is of speaking to Amendments Nos. 27 and 28, and I recollect speaking to No. 29. If the noble Lord would like me to go through any of them again I shall be happy to do so.
Lord BELSTEAD: That will not be necessary.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: I am not sure where that leaves us. I am speaking to Amendment No. 29, which is a technical Amendment designed to remove unnecessary words from the definition of "employer". That is what I said. I am rather confused by what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said. I do not think he is correct.
The Earl of ONSLOW: I distinctly remember hearing the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, talk about a body corporate or unincorporate, and that I read as concerning Amendment No. 30. I thought that perhaps the noble Lord in the Chair had got it wrong, but certainly we seem to be in a muddle. Are we dealing with Amendment No. 30?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My understanding was that the Committee had accepted Amendment No. 29 and that I had moved Amendment No. 30.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Derwent): I have not got it wrong. We are discussing Amendment No. 29 and the Question I now have to put is whether the Committee agrees to that Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 35, line 11, leave out ("organisation or other body") and insert ("body corporate or unincorporate").
The noble Lord said: May I repeat what I said earlier, that Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 are consequential on the Amendments to Clause 10 and they are concerned with the change from "organisation or other body" to "body corporate or body unincorporate". I therefore beg to move Amendment No. 30.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 35, line 14, leave out ("organisation or").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is designed to leave out the words "organisation or" for the same reason I gave when moving the last Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.7 p.m.
Lord MONSON Lord MONSON moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 35, line 40, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: This Amendment provides for the deletion of subsection (3) of Clause 53. There are two specific objections to this subsection. The first might best be illustrated by citing the hypothetical case of an employer who would be highly regarded by the noble Lord, Lord Paget—someone who has never discriminated on the grounds of religion, who does not know what the religious composition of his employees is and who has never bothered to ask; in effect, a benign and tolerant employer. One day a friend, who has studied these things comes to him and says, "You realise, Jim, that 34·1 per cent. of the people in this area are Roman Catholics; yet you are employing only 29·7 per cent. If you are not careful the Fair Employment Agency will be down on your neck." To the small employer, who has all sorts of troubles to contend with nowadays—high National Insurance contributions, multi-rate VAT and so on—this would be the last straw. I am not a lawyer, as will be glaringly obvious, but I do not see how in equity a person who conducts his business in good faith, and without bigotry or discrimination can be held unintentionally to have contravened the law.
There is one proviso, and with the leave of the Committee I will go on to speak to my next Amendment, No. 33, which deals with the deletion of the following provision, subsection (4) of Clause 53. It would seem to me that the effect of these two subsections taken together would make it extremely dangerous for any employer to offer a job to a friend or relation by word of mouth, because if he were to do so, particularly in a small family firm, the chances are that

839
the friends or relations would tend to be of the same religious faith or political affiliation as himself and he might therefore come gradually to contravene the provisions of subsection (3); and if he were to offer these jobs by word of mouth to his properly qualified son-in-law, cousin or whoever it might be, rather than by notifying the Labour Exchange or by advertising in the Press, a person who was equally well qualified would not be aware of the existence of an opportunity of a particular employment under subsection (4), and therefore the employer would be in contravention of that subsection as well. I hope the Minister can assure me that this will not be the case and that there is a way round the problem.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: I think it very important that we should resist the Amendment. The point in both these Amendments is the unintentional aspect. The point of the Bill is that a man who wants work should not be discriminated against because of his religion. If an employer advertises only in Catholic papers and that man is a Protestant, that is a clear case of unintentional discrimination. There may be no harm in doing it but he will not know that there is a job available so he will not be able to apply. Nobody will get the employer who does this into trouble, but what they will do is to go to him and discuss the point with him and say that he ought to advertise more widely. If he does so, the thing will be over. It will be only if he says, No, he will not employ a Protestant in any circumstances, that the point will arise. We are set to catch exactly that situation, so I cannot give way on this.
Very much the same applies to the second Amendment. For example, one might advertise—I am sorry, I believe that I have got these Amendments the wrong way round. What I have just said applies to the second Amendment; an example of what would happen under the first Amendment is that an employer might notify vacancies only to schools of one religious denomination. Pupils at other schools would clearly suffer from this limitation on their opportunity for employment. The provision which the noble Lord is seeking to omit enables
840
the Fair Employment Agency to consider and deal with such cases. I feel that we must reject both Amendments, as both subsections are fundamental to the whole point of the Bill.
The Earl of ONSLOW: Surely, if somebody advertises a post in a paper of one denomination only, that would be understood by most people to imply discrimination. At least, it would to me. That is one point which we should bear in mind. The second point is that there is some force in what the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is trying to do. It is very difficult to prosecute a person for something which is totally unintentional. I am back in exactly the same position as I have been with a number of Amendments today; that is, I understand both points of view with crystal clarity. How shall we get round the genuinely unintentional discrimination as well as catching the employer who advertises in only one paper, which is to me straightforward discrimination? Perhaps the noble Lord could enlighten us?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: There is no problem at all. The job of the Fair Employment Agency is—and this is repeated again and again in the Bill—to proceed by conciliation. If the discrimination is genuinely unintentional and it is pointed out, presumably the employer will correct it. It is only if he is recalcitrant about correcting the error that one gets into the position where one would go to the county court.
Lord MONSON: I am not entirely happy about that reply. There are parts of Northern Ireland where most of the population tends to read one paper only. One is simply adding to the financial burdens of small employers by obliging them to spend more money on advertising where the number of people who are likely to see the advertisement is really very small. However, that is not my main point. My main point was that this would preclude people from offering jobs by word of mouth to friends and relations. That seems to me to be entirely wrong. Why should people not offer jobs to members of their family or to friends without having to advertise them?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-moment. We have the Fair Employment BRIDGE: I do not accept that for one

841
Agency. They are supposed to be sensible people and they will investigate whether or not an employer is providing equal opportunities for employment. Clearly, it is a perfectly normal thing to employ friends. There is nothing wrong with that. If one had 80 friends all from the same proscribed organisation, I suppose that eyebrows might be raised, but if one has four or five friends who are of one persuasion or the other this will not be something which any sensible body will say is wrong. If one is out to increase one's staff and there is a Catholic group within the same sort of distance as a Protestant group, I feel that the Agency would say, "These people can just as easily work for you; we think you should advertise for both." I believe that most normal employers would be quite happy to do so.
I believe that the noble Lord is chasing a will-o'-the-wisp. I certainly should not think it satisfactory if the Bill were to stop people employing their own friends. There is no intention to do that. There is no mention of it. I really do not believe that that is the conclusion to be drawn. On the other hand, the unintentional aspect of these two subsections is very important. If an unemployed man does not know of a job, he cannot apply for it. If a child leaving school does not hear about a job, she cannot apply for it, either. These are the things we are trying to get at. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will see how it goes. I do not believe that it will produce what he fears and, in any case, I urge the House to resist the Amendments.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: The whole matter really surrounds the small firms. I should be very afraid that, if we gear the whole provision to small firms without having it on an Order in Council, rather than new legislation, we should be in trouble. It is in small firms where this will arise and with small employers.
Lord HAWKE: If the noble Lord takes the newspaper analogy a little further, he will discover that the employer in Northern Ireland has to advertise in Catholic, Protestant, Punjabi and Hindu papers, because the Catholics and Protestants are not the only religious communities which may be discriminated
842
against if they were not aware that a job was available.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: I believe that, if there were a large Sikh population within reach of a factory which provided the sort of work that Sikhs were good at doing, this would apply. It happens not to be the case in most areas in Northern Ireland but, if it were, I believe that the noble Lord would be quite right.
Lord MONSON: I wish I could be as confident as the Minister that the Fair Employment Agency would always behave sensibly. After all, we all know the case of the Race Relations Board and the Scottish cook. It is by no means impossible that this will arise again. I am more worried about subsection (4) than about subsection (3). However, I should like to consider the point further before Report stage and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 53 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord HAWKE: I wonder whether victimisation ought to be included in the interpretation clause. I cannot see it there.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: May I look at this? There is probably a good reason or perhaps it is defined somewhere else, but I shall certainly reply to the noble Lord about that.
Clause 53 agreed to.
Clauses 54 and 55 agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedules 2 and 3 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Conduct of appeals by the Appeals Board]:
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 43, line 20, leave out ("investigation") and insert ("appeal").
The noble Lord said: This is the last drafting Amendment. It relates to appeals before the Appeals Board. The Schedule is concerned with appeals and not investigations, and the reference to

843
an investigation is therefore inappropriate. We are correcting the word from "investigation" to "appeal".
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

NEW TOWNS BILL
6.21 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is the responsibility of the Government of the day to bring before Parliament from time to time Bills to meet the borrowing requirements of new town development corporations throughout the country, and of the Commission for the New Towns, for the ensuing years.
The immediate increase being sought at this time is some £250 million raising the overall limit on advances to new town corporations and the Commission from £1,500 million to £1,750 million. This sum will be committed virtually in full during the 1975–76 financial year, but the Bill also includes provision for further increases to a total of £2,250 million, which can be made by order of the Secretary of State and subject to an Affirmative Resolution in another place. The use of Affirmative Orders is not the only change in procedure provided for in this Bill. Clause 1 also ensures that only the net debt outstanding at any one time should count towards whatever overall limit in advances may be set by Parliament. This will do away with the present situation in which any advance made since 1946 must count towards that limit, regardless of whether or not it has been repaid. Our new proposal will be more logical in that it makes allowance for the repayment of debt and, furthermore, brings the arrangements relating to new towns into line with the arrangements for most other public bodies which are financed by borrowing from Exchequer sources.
The other chief provisions of the Bill are contained in Clause 2. This clause provides for pensions to be paid in certain circumstances to the chairmen of
844
development corporations, and also for the payment of members of local committees appointed by the Commission for the new towns to look after their interests in towns where the Commission have taken over assets from development corporations. There are three such committees at the moment; for Crawley, Hemel Hempstead, and jointly for Hatfield and Welwyn Garden City. Noble Lords may welcome some further information on how these provisions are likely to be applied in practice.
A pension under the terms of this Bill can be paid only with the approval of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and of the Minister for the Civil Service. It is my right honourable friend's intention in general, subject to the agreement of the Minister for the Civil Service, to look favourably upon any case where a chairman expresses an interest in pension arrangements being made for her or him. In common with arrangements throughout much of the public service, these pensions would be on a contributory basis, with a contribution amounting to some 6 per cent. of a chairman's salary. Because of this, it would not generally be possible to award pensions for all service prior to the enactment of this measure, although, of course, it would be open to any chairman to enhance whatever pension she or he might become entitled to by buying-in previous years of service. This particularly applies to those years prior to 1st April 1973, from which date it was decided to make, subject to the necessary legislation, pensions available for part-time service on public boards provided the people concerned are required to work at least two days a week and carry executive functions.
The provision in Clause 2 for the payment of the Commission's committee members is a measure designed to remove an anomaly. At the moment both members of development corporations and members of the Commission itself are paid for their services, and the chairmen of these local committees also receive an allowance in respect of their service on these committees. What we propose in this Bill is to put the members of these committees on an equivalent footing to those who serve on the Commission and on the development corporations. I cannot, at this stage, be precise about the rate of remuneration the Committee

845
members are likely to receive; it will fall to the Secretary of State, in agreement with the Minister for the Civil Service, to determine the appropriate figure. Whatever figure is eventually settled will, of course, have to take account of the sum paid to members of the Commission, at present £1,000 a year, and of the sum paid to the members of development corporations, at present £700 a year.
My Lords, I am sure that there is agreement on all sides of your Lordships' House that the funds we are seeking are an exceptionally worthwhile use of public money. New towns are not merely a means of providing new houses and jobs for people. They attempt to provide an environment and social system in which people are happy to spend their lives. In this they have been spectacularly successful. Against the ever present background of the need for public expenditure restraint, some of our hopes for the future may take longer to realise than all of us would wish. But the success of new towns so far is such that I have no hesitation in commending this Bill to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Melchett.)
6.27 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for introducing this Bill, and for the clarity of his explanation of it. Although it is a short Bill of only three clauses, nevertheless it is an important one. It is important for two reasons: first, for the proposals about the limits on borrowing by New Town Corporations and the proposals for pensions to certain chairmen and, secondly, because it gives us an opportunity to look at new towns and particularly the consultation document issued by the Department of the Environment last December. Indeed, the two must, to a certain extent, be taken in conjunction, for paragraph 4.17 of the consultation document states:
"This Paper makes no firm proposals with regard to finance or to the terms on which any transfer of assets might take place."
The Bill says something about finance. In this Bill new towns are to be given power to borrow sums of money for this year up to £250 million, with further provision for subsequent years.
846
We must therefore ask, at a time when resources are short and are likely to become more so, whether this increased borrowing requirement is justified. It will mean that the new towns will incur ever heavier debt charges and, ultimately, far higher rates on the cost of the consequent revenue expenditure which will flow from the capital costs. I understand from what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said, that the extra amount of borrowing for 1975–76 is already expected to be taken up completely. Perhaps he will confirm that I have interpreted this correctly. The question therefore is whether this increase is in fact necessary. I accept all the arguments about inflation and what that does for local authorities and New Town Corporations alike.
I think it is worth looking at the consultation document. I do not wish in any way to denigrate new towns, which are places of interest, even of envy, to foreigners. Many incorporate most interesting architectural features and, as they are planned as an entity, they ought to meet foreseeable demands and problems. However, as is so often the case, housing is a major weakness. I understand that owner-occupation in new towns is only about 25 per cent. of the houses. This compares with the average of about 52 per cent. for the population as a whole and, as all the evidence shows that most people want to own their own homes, it seems that the Government's policy of not allowing new towns to sell off their council houses to sitting tenants, is both doctrinaire and against the wishes of the people. However, their failure to do so makes the borrowing requirements for new towns the greater, because they cannot raise any capital that they may have done by selling their houses.
I should have thought it not unreasonable in the present financial circumstances that the same proportion of owner-occupation ought to be encouraged in new towns as in other parts of the country. Apart from the desire of people to own their own homes and the money that such sales would raise in these difficult economic times, the fact is that the owner-occupier is the only mobile member of society. At a time when we are trying to encourage the maximum economic growth, the policy of encouraging yet more council tenants means that the

847
country becomes an increasingly immobile and static society. The fact is that it is almost impossible to move from one council house to another, unless by publishing an advertisement you are fortunate enough to find somebody in a council house in another area who wishes to make a direct exchange with you.
My Lords, now we are being asked to approve extra borrowing for new towns, it is all the more important that the evidence of the local authority associations on the consultation document should be borne in mind. I am bound to say that I agree very much with the memorandum from the Association of County Councils, which states that it really is not good enough, in the consultation document, to commend to new towns the principle of partnership with the local authorities in whose area they happen to be placed. There seems to me to be a need for the closest possible working relationship both with county councils and with districts. We cannot afford costly overlapping of responsibilities of staff so that the resources of manpower are wasted. It seems to me right that new towns must be integrated into the structure plans of the counties (and to their transport plans) in which they are situated. Furthermore, new towns lay a heavy stress on the education and social service functions of counties. It seems clearly wrong that we should have set up by local government reorganisation new, larger and more powerful local authorities and then not see that they work in an integrated and coherent way with the new towns. I think this is particularly important against the economic background that confronts local authorities and the new towns themselves. I urge the Government to look at this matter very seriously and see if they can find some way of making a better system of working together than is proposed in the consultation document.
I have no quarrel with the principle of paying pensions to some chairmen of new town corporations, except that it is an added commitment at a time of acute economic difficulty for local government generally; although I appreciate that there is a contributory pension scheme. There is only one general comment that I wish to make and that is how very few women there are on new town corporations. I will leave it to the noble Lord's noble
848
friend Lady Stedman to elaborate the point in detail; but when we see that there are 17 new town corporations with 110 men members and 21 women members, we realise that this is a matter that I should raise under the Sex Discrimination Bill.
My Lords, we on this side of the House will not oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, although I do not think it is true to say that we are entirely happy about the proposals in it. We hope that as it proceeds through this House the Government will be able to give us the assurance that the money that they expect to be borrowed by the new towns will be well used.
6.35 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, it is not often that we take time to consider how the new towns are developing or how they are financied. I accept the Bill as it is now before us, but I want to take the opportunity of this Second Reading to draw attention to the financial problems of the areas which contain new towns, in the hope that my noble friend might he able to influence his right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I speak as a member of the board of the Peterborough Development Corporation, and also as vice-chairman of my own county council of Cambridgeshire. The consultation document produced by the Department inevitably concentrates on the provision of houses and jobs, but just as "men not walls make a town" so do those men, women and children in the new towns require health centres, schools, community centres, recreational facilities and so on in order to enable them to live a full and happy life.
In the present economic climate, my county council of Cambridgeshire, like many other counties, has decided that the current capital programme should provide only for new schemes determined by population growth. This means that over the next four years a disproportionate share of my county's resources will have to be spent in the new town area of Peterborough, since over 60 per cent. of the capital expenditure that we have forecast will be in the designated area of this new town. The presence of a new town within a county of itself generates demand for other provisions within the other parts of the county. Because of economic pressures, my county council has already this

849
year cut out from its capital programme £5 million worth of schemes of which £4¾ million came from that part of the county outside the designated area, and only some £300,000 was within the area of the new town of Peterborough. This aggravates our problem considerably.
All counties with new towns within their boundaries are facing the same problems. We have been meeting together to try to prepare and present a case which we hope the Department might accept. From these meetings, it is evident that we all believe that we should be able to look to Central Government for assistance to enable county councils to keep within Government growth targets—especially when the growth in population, which leads to these irresistible demands for more services, has been brought about by decisions of central Government to designate new town areas.
Many of us are becoming increasingly convinced that if the necessary services are to be provided and developed in line with the growth of population in the new town areas, there ought to be a capital allocation from central Government for the services which the counties have to provide to meet the expansion of their new towns. If I may quote from the paper giving the views of the chairman of new town development corporations on the consultation document, they refer to the provision of statutory services, of schools, health centres, social and recreational facilities, roads, transport, policing and fire protection and their paper reads,
"These call for separate capital allocations by the Government for the expansion of local authority services in pace with each new town's planned population and housing growth; and provision for development corporations to contribute to the costs of advance provision so as to prevent any undue burden on the ratepayers as such."
Peterborough was one of the first of the new "partnership" new towns, and the old Huntingdon and Peterborough County Council prepared a case, which was accepted by the then-Minister of Housing and Local Government, that special financial arrangements were necessary; and an agreement was drawn up specifically related to the cost of county roads and the provision of education within the new town areas. With the advent of local government reorganisation, this agreement is now under review
850
but any less favourable terms to the new county of Cambridgeshire will have to be resisted and could lead to a slowing down in the housing and expansion in Peterborough.
The remit that the Peterborough development corporation had was to carry through the expansion of Peterborough in partnership with the county and city councils. By fortunate chance, the Minister over the years has appointed the Leader of the City Council and the Leader of the Opposition, together with the chairman of the county council and his vice-chairman, also from the two major Parties, with the result that a spirit of joint endeavour pervades all our joint working arrangements and our partnership is a reality in every sense of the word. We have extended those joint working arrangements to include the area health authority and, so far as programming purposes go, the Anglian Water Authority. This, too, is proving of real value to our area. The health authority is now involved in detailed discussions about pooling limited resources to secure joint planning and provision of educational, health, social and recreational facilities at the lowest possible cost. We hope this will help us to reach the standards that we want to maintain without having to pay too dearly for it.
Another valuable point is that this experience of working together has highlighted the incongruity of separate budgeting and financial allocations by Government Departments for essential services. For services within the Environment Department's responsibility, arrangements are made for a direct additional allocation to the Anglian Water Authority for any works they have to carry out in the new town area and resources for transport, water and sewerage for the new town as such; and therefore allocations for these services to other parts of the county are not being depleted. I could only wish that other Departments would adopt the same attitude as the Department of the Environment and that we might have the same kind of grants, outside the support grant, for the services of the new town from the Social Services, Health, and Education Departments.
Either Government Departments must make special allocations to new town

851
development corporations or the development corporations must have more flexibility within their budgets to enable them to contribute much more towards advance provision for the newcomers. In the fields of education, health and social services, something more has to be done to ensure that these services are available to the incoming population. My county is £700,000 short this year in our school-building programme for roofs over heads in our new town area, and unless some immediate help is given we shall be in serious difficulties over school places by September 1976—so much so that we may be driven into the ludicrous position of being able to take children into nursery schools at three and then have to tell them at five years old that there is no place for them in the primary schools. That is absolute nonsense.
Next month the Peterborough Development Corporation will be putting forward its proposals for its third and final township of Castor before the county planning committee. I have a very real fear that my county council may well say: "We are pleased to support and accept the plans that you have for 30,000 people to come into a new township of Castor, but we must advise the Development Corporation and the Government that the county cannot undertake the provision of any statutory services without additional resources being made available by Central Government to enable us to do that."
Our detailed budget forecasts for next year are now being worked out and local authorities are being put in an impossible position. They are being urged not to spend, in real terms, anything above 1¼ per cent. If we keep to the Chancellor's guidelines and try to provide even a comparable service in the new town area, it can be done only at the expense of the rest of the county, whose services will have to be cut back—and I mean really cut back, my Lords. We are taking in the population from overcrowded areas and trying to provide them with a good environment and good services.
I believe the New Towns Act was an imaginative piece of legislation. I have seen partnership authorities working together in a heartening way. I have seen elected representatives from the rest of the county outside the new town area, up to this point of time, accepting that ser-
852
vices have to be provided for the newcomers. But the rest of the county is beginning to ask for better social provisions, for more road improvements, for their old schools to be replaced or modernised, for a better library and museum service, and so on. Yet, with the 2½ per cent. inbuilt growth for loan charges and commitments we have already undertaken, counties just cannot cope without more specific help towards the provision of education, health and social services in our new towns.
This Government have rightly put the provision of decent housing as a first priority. The county councils are now caught between the restrictions imposed by the Treasury on the development corporation's freedom to contribute towards the expenditure of local authorities and the avowed and worthy intention of the Department of the Environment that the housing programme should continue unchecked. The objectives of the two Departments appear to be irreconcilable at the moment, and the county council is the body which is trapped between the two.
The Peterborough Development Corporation has an all-in building target from the city council, from private builders and the development corporation, of 2,600 houses a year for the next eight years. It is no good building houses at that rate and moving in families at that rate without the necessary services and facilities also being available. Several counties have accepted, perhaps with varying degrees of enthusiasm, the planned population growth. My county accepted it willingly, but unless some of these financial problems are ironed out, and quickly, there will be a reaction from the rest of my county area against anything in the foreseeable future going into the new town. They can see everything at the moment coming into the new town area at Peterborough, and there are no crumbs falling from the table to help the rest of the county. In short, what counties like mine are now saying to the Government is that population growth which is planned by the Government must be paid for, to some extent, by Government funds.
6.48 p.m.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, we have in some way got wrong the

853
whole conception of the purpose of new towns. I listened with the greatest interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, whose town and area I know so well, as she does. Incidentally, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Young, on reading her brief, of which she clearly did not understand a word so well that some day she should be elevated to the position of a Minister on these Benches.
The point about the new towns is that we were trying to break out of the straitjacket of there being too many people in the so-called "golden triangle", and we were going to take work with them and, therefore, services with them, and develop the entire country. If the noble Baroness, Lady Young, had known anything about the problem, this is what she should have attacked; and this is what the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, was referring to.
In the conception of creating new towns, we are falling behind, creating the idea of a country where we relocate people, we relocate industry arid we develop the services in a different direction. This is what I think in a way is wrong with this Bill. It almost identifies new towns as two dirty words. New towns are not to be taken and dumped down in Peterborough, Cambridgeshire or the Isle of Ely, with an attempt to mix them in with the folk who already live there. The whole intention was that we were trying to make this country one entity. When I had the honour to be the Minister responsible for economic development in this country in 1965 that was the great idea we all had. We have here a large island and we should use it. It is not a question of treating a place as if it were a Tasmania where people were trans-shipped. One opened up and developed an area that was not developed before.
I want to say to the Minister answering this debate that this is what we are not doing. We are not—I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, came near to saying otherwise, and therefore I should have had to dissociate myself from her at least on this point—asking for more money from the Department of the Environment. I know as well as everybody else in this House tonight, I trust, that it is not available. Indeed, I am one of those who say we have to
854
stop now. But what we are asking for is that we develop the whole of our island and encourage people from the South and the South-East to go to the North and North-East, or it may be to go to those bleak lands from which Lady Stedman comes, the Fenlands. They can be awfully bleak, but they can be very friendly too. What we are trying to do—this is what the whole purpose was about—is to people the whole land. All we have to do is to ensure that wherever in these lands we go the services will be available. Then there would not be a problem, as Lady Stedman said, with what she called "her county council" as against "the" new town. This is the situation we must above all try to avoid. We are trying to develop the land and there is a lot of land here to develop, with a lot of opportunities. It costs us the earth to try to use the South-Eastern triangle. It is so much cheaper to use East Anglia, which is in any event much nearer the Continent; it is so much cheaper to use the North-East or the North-West.
I wanted to intervene only because I did not think the noble Baroness, Lady Young, got the point of what it is all about, and I had a little hit of worry about my noble friend Lady Stedman. It is not a question of giving special facilities to something called the new town; it is question of relocating our people so that the whole island is used, so that the culture is spread everywhere, and so that we can do what I once hoped as Minister of Economic Affairs to do: to develop this country regionally. If we spread 50-odd million people across this island regionally it will be so much less expensive; it will be so much better culturally, and we shall get industry there. In giving my personal support to the Bill I want to say to my noble friend the Minister in charge of it: please see it that way. You are not doing good to somebody. You are not asking for money from somebody—I know what the Seccretary of State, who was once my Minister of State, is thinking of. We are trying to develop the whole of Britain in what will be a much less expensive way.
6.57 p.m.
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, I was not quite sure whether the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, was attacking my noble friend Lady Young or paying a

855
tribute to her, but in either case I want to say the same thing, which is, first of all, to claim in the first alternative case, and to confirm in the second alternative case, that my noble friend Lady Young knows a very great deal indeed about this subject; and secondly to say how much I personally would like to be associated with what she said just now. Also I would say how much I should like to be associated with the very practical points raised in the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman. I thought that the point she made about the importance of the finance of these towns now it is very essential indeed to make because it all runs into very big figures.
The story of the new towns is a success story. A great deal of credit must go to the development corporations over the years. My noble friend Lady Young raised the question of the proportion of women. As a very timid bachelor I would hesitate to say what is precisely the right proportion. We might work out what is the proportion in this House, to start with, and see what that looks like. But there is, according to my calculations, either, at worst, one statutory woman per corporation or, at best one and a quarter statutory women per corporation. I will not follow that.
This is not the occasion for us, I realise, to discuss the consultation document. If it had been there are some things I think many of us in local government or associated with local government would have liked to say. That document rightly appeals for co-operation and partnership with the elected authorities. At some point that co-operation and partnership will need spelling out. There is an inclination in the document to talk as if the district councils only were interested; but of course the county councils are very interested in the new towns, with their planning and transportation responsibilities. In general, I think the view of many people in the elected local authorities would be that now, in view of the reform of local government, the integration with the elected authorities could be, and ought to be, closer and to take place more quickly, perhaps, than the consultation document has made out. I hope we shall have an opportunity on some other occasion to discuss the consultation document more fully.
856
Finally, I should like to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that an engagement that I have to depart for will make it impossible for me to listen to his reply, unless it is very brief, but I promise that I will read it with great interest. I propose to listen to the first seven minutes of it with the very greatest interest.
7.0 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, we have had a fairly long and certainly very interesting debate on this short Bill. My noble friend Lord George-Brown may not be asking for any more money for new towns, but as he will know from this Bill the Government are doing so. I can confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that we estimate that the immediate increase being sought, the sum of £250 million, will be virtually committed during the 1975–76 financial year, but as she knows the Bill provides for a further £500 million to be made available.
Reverting to what my noble friend Lord George-Brown said, if I may say so my impression of the development of new towns is rather different from his. My impression is that some of the older new towns were located in what he referred to as the "golden triangle"—I am thinking particularly of Stevenage and Welwyn Garden City—but that many of the newer new towns, particularly Runcorn which I visited recently, are located in the area of the country where he particularly wants to see new towns being built. They are not relieving the pressure so much on the South-East, for which a great deal has been done and where the standards of life are a great deal higher than in other areas of the country. In Runcorn, for example, a great many people who lived in appalling housing conditions in Liverpool have been rehoused in really marvellous modern housing in that new town. I am very grateful to my noble friend for his support of the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, questioned our policies about the disposal of rented housing to sitting tenants. The reasons why my right honourable friend decided to stop the sale of rented homes in new towns pending the general review of new town policy which he put in hand when taking office from us, were emphasised again and again in the debate

857
on Second Reading in another place. I am sorry that the noble Baroness has thought fit to raise it again. This Government could not tolerate a situation in which houses for sale in new towns were standing empty, as they were when we took office, but some of those houses were originally built for rent and the waiting period for renting houses was growing all the time.
I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that our concern for those in greatest housing needs dictates our action in this respect. This Government are certainly not against home ownership, but we must maintain the provision of housing for rent to ensure that the right degree of priority is given to meeting the demand for rented housing from those who cannot afford to buy their own houses. In most new towns there are still waiting periods for rented housing. We have not ruled out a further look at our present policies once the waiting period for rented houses is at what we regard as an acceptable level. We believe that it is wrong to allow a reduction in the stock of rented housing in the public sector which would inevitably lead to a greater shortage of such housing than that shortage which already exists.
The consultation document to which the noble Baroness referred made it clear that the present ban on sales need not be regarded as a permanent prohibition. It is in any event obvious that we are not against owner-occupation in new towns. The bulk of the demand for houses for purchase, as I am sure the noble Baroness will agree, will rightly continue to be met by the private sector although the development corporation will be able to build a proportion of houses for sale themselves. I might add as well that we see no reason why the principles of the licensing system, which will be recommended to local authorities as part of the community land scheme, might not be applied in new town areas and the development corporations encouraged to license private builders to build houses on development corporation land. The freehold of the land could be retained for direct conveyance to eventual owner occupiers. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, also raised some questions that were, in effect, questions about the cost effectiveness of new towns.
858
The Government have been in power for only 15 months, and in that time we have recognised that insufficient work has been undertaken to establish the comparative cost of new towns compared with the cost of other forms of urban development. Accordingly, work has been commissioned in this area and has been undertaken by the Urban Planning Division of the Building Research Establishment. It is not easy to recruit the right kind of expertise but a start is being made. Furthermore, we are attempting to assess the significance in this context of the fact that the population in some parts of the region—in London in particular—is declining, possibly therefore leaving some capacity under-utilised. But I think it is vital to recognise that the policy on new towns is not governed, and never has been governed, wholly by cost considerations. We have to have regard to the social implications about which my noble friend Lord George-Brown spoke at some length, and try to judge the results in terms of the quality of life of the people who live in them and relate that to the quality of their lives if the opportunities provided by new towns had never been there.
The noble Baroness and the noble Viscount, Lord Amory—whom I am glad to see is still here, and I am speaking as fast as I can—both raised the question of county councils. This is a point which has been made strongly to the Government and which is certainly accepted by my right honourable friend. I am sure that in considering partnership arrangements the local authorities may suggest that my right honourable friend should look favourably upon the idea of including county councils.
The noble Baroness raised the contentious issue of sex discrimination: may I say how delighted I am that this Government's Bill will give her the opportunity of questioning us further on this. She will have heard the excellent reply given by my noble friend Lady Birk at Question Time today on a very similar point. As my noble friend said then, we must all accept that not enough has been done in the past and we must hope for better things in the future. As the subject has been raised and I have been given the opportunity, may I say that my personal

859
view is that appointing women to boards is undoubtedly very important but it is really starting at the wrong end of the stick. What is far more important is to get some children's books written where the "mum" instead of being a housewife, is the chairwoman of a development corporation.
My noble friend Lady Stedman said that my Department's aspirations were irreconcilable with the Treasury restraints on public expenditure, and I think we have that in common with every Government Department which spends any public money. To some extent the views of the two noble Baronesses who spoke were irreconcilable. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, queried the fact that we were asking for more money, while my noble friend said that we were not giving local authorities enough. As my noble friend will know, six county councils, led by Northamptonshire, have recently submitted to my right honourable friend a study of local authority finance with regard to the burdens placed on local authorities by new towns in their areas. I understand that in this Report they have argued that the size, speed and mix of development in new towns imposes a burden upon them that is not met either by the rate support grant system or from special help from the development corporations. These counties also feel that the restrictions on the growth of public expenditure will affect them adversely, particularly in 1976–77. My right honourable friend has agreed in principle to meet a deputation from these six counties and has suggested that in the first instance there should be a meeting at official level to probe the detailed calculations in their fairly detailed report.
The main points for consideration with the counties will be the possibility of financial contributions by New Town Corporations. These can be made under Section 3(3) of the New Towns Act 1965 subject to the approval of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and the Treasury. Indeed, the Northampton County Council have already been paid £716,000 by the Northampton Development Corporation in respect of the undue burden on their finances created by the development of the new town. There is also an agreement which my noble friend mentioned, under which Cam-
860
bridgeshire County Council is likely to receive a contribution from Peterborough Development Corporation this year, and the Department have already accepted the principle of contributions by Telford Development Corporation to the Shropshire County Council if it can be proved that an undue burden exists in that case. Meanwhile, proposals for sharing county road construction costs in new towns generally are being discussed with the local authority associations. If accepted, these new arrangements should materially benefit county council finance over the next few years.
I should like to thank my noble friend for her kind remarks about the Department of the Environment. We shall certainly undertake to pass on to them her comments about other Government Departments—not just because she was polite about the Department of the Environment.
In spite of the doubts of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, which I hope I have now laid at rest, the Bill has been given a general welcome by your Lordships' House and I hope that it will be given a speedy passage through its remaining stages.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1975
7.11 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I beg to move, That the Draft Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, laid before the House on 6th May, be approved. The purpose of this draft Order is to amend and extend several Acts dealing with various agricultural matters and to provide powers to enable the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture to introduce a Carcase Classification Scheme. This authority is the only new substantive legislation incorporated in the draft Order. The other proposed amendments are of a relatively minor nature, concerned mainly with correcting defects and clarifying ambiguities in interpretation which have become apparent as a result

861
of the Department's experience in the administration of the Acts concerned. All interested parties were consulted about the provisions of the draft Order before it was laid and no objections have been raised.
The provisions for a Carcase Classification Scheme are contained in Article 2 and correspond to provisions contained in the Agriculture Act 1967 under which the Meat and Livestock Commission in Great Britain have introduced a classification scheme. Northern Ireland's main market for meat is Great Britain and it is highly desirable to provide for a similar Classification Scheme as is operated in Great Britain. The article makes provisions regarding the characteristics and origins of carcases to which the scheme applies, the obligations of those involved in operating the Scheme, the collection of fees, the obtaining of information by authorised persons, and the offences and penalties in respect of various contraventions of the Scheme.
Article 3 provides for the amendment of the Agricultural Returns Act (Northern Ireland) 1939 (Reprint to 1967) in two respects. It will enable the Department to collect census returns in either metric or imperial measurement. It will also allow the Department to make available to the Department of Manpower Services statistics in relation to employment on farms. The Department has not got this rower at present in view of the very limited disclosure provisions of the Agricultural Returns Act. The Department of Manpower Services have at present powers to collect statistics of employment which include employment in agriculture, but it is clearly preferable that these should be obtained from an existing source and so relieve the farmer from the necessity of making two returns on the same matter to different Departments and at the same time save administration time and cost.
The Amendment in Article 4 to the Agricultural Wages (Regulations) Act (Northern Ireland) 1939 is designed to extend the definition of agriculture used in the Act to ensure that workers employed in intensive livestock units are covered by the wages legislation. These types of unit have developed since the orginal legislation was enacted, and it is proposed to replace the present definition of agriculture by that used in the
862
Agriculture Act (Northern Ireland) 1949, which covers intensive units. Article 5 provides for the increase of the maximum fines for offences under the Agriculture (Poisonous Substances) Act (Northern Ireland) 1954, the Agriculture (Safety, Health and Welfare Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 and the Horticulture Act (Northern Ireland) 1966. In each case the fines have not been altered since the Acts became law, and due to the decreased value of the pound the deterrent value has sharply decreased in the intervening period. The increases correspond to similar increases already in force in the equivalent Great Britain legislation.
The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments have drawn the attention of the House to the use in Article 5(2) of the words
"a person guilty of an offence under any of the provisions of the Horticulture Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 other than under Section 31(1) of that Act",
and point out that Section 31(1) does not create offences but merely refers to offences under other sections of the Act and provides for the penalties and mode of trial of those offences. The two subsections of Section 31 are mutually exclusive. This Article amends the penalties provided by subsection (2) but not those provided by subsection (1), and it is the introductory words of paragraph 2, excluding the offences referred to in subsection (1), which refers to "offences other than offences under subsection (1)". It may be that the Committee would have preferred the wording to be something like, "offences other than those mentioned in section 31(1)", but the existing wording is to my mind clear and not open to misinterpretation. It also has the advantage of being more concise. While the introductory words are, as I say, unequivocal, the Article goes on to effect the amendments by textual amendment of Section 31(2) of the Act of 1966, thus making doubly sure that the effect of the paragraph is beyond doubt.
A further amendment to the Agriculture (Safety, Health and Welfare Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 is contained in Article 6. The minimum age at which a child may legally drive or ride on prescribed agricultural machinery is 13 at present. The amendment will enable the Department of Agriculture to

863
exercise some discretion in making regulations, particularly in view of the more sophisticated and powerful machines now used on farms. It is likely that although a minimum age of 13 for tractors is probably sensible, something rather higher for a very large combine would be desirable.
The purpose of the amendments in Article 7 is to make clear that the inspection of potatoes when required under the Marketing of Potatoes Act (Northern Ireland) 1964 may be by sample. This was not specifically stated in the original Act, although in fact it has been standard and accepted practice to carry out inspections in this way. Accordingly, inspection by sample could have been challenged in the courts. The amendment proposed puts the matter beyond doubt. A consequence of the sample inspection procedure is that at second or check inspections the consignment may be rejected on the grounds that it does not conform to the standard, rather than that it has ceased to conform. Again it is a matter of proper legal expression of the position.
Article 8 contains six amendments to the Agricultural Marketing Act (Northern Ireland) 1964 which forms the legislative basis for all Northern Ireland Marketing Schemes. Some of these amendments deal purely with drafting. In addition, provision is made for the extension of the powers available for Marketing Boards in Northern Ireland, as is already the case in Great Britain, to permit them to delegate duties to other persons without being required to co-operate directly with them. Article 8 also provides for the treatment of offences against regulations under Section 6 of the Act, should such regulations be considered necessary in the future, and for the extension of the powers of authorised officers in connection with the inspection of premises under Section 19 of the Act so that these officers are able to remain on the premises and observe continuous processes over a period of time.
Article 9 provides for a minor amendment to the Horticulture Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 by substituting metric for imperial measurement, to take account of impending metrication in the horticultural processing industry. Since the weight mentioned is a minimum one below which
864
licences are not required for the purposes of using premises for the processing of horticultural produce, it is not considered necessary to provide for both metric tonne and imperial ton.
Article 10 provides for amendment of the Schedule to the Agricultural Trust Act (Northern Ireland) 1966. Before entering into any contract for the supply of goods or the execution of any works to the value of £500 upwards, the Trust must give at least 10 days public notice. It is now proposed to empower the Department of Agriculture to determine the limit in the light of prevailing circumstances. This will not of course absolve the Agricultural Trust from the necessity to follow the standard procedure for all public bodies of asking for a suitable number of tenders in order to ensure that the cost in every case is reasonable.
The proposed extension to Section 2 of the Plant Health Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 contained in Article 11 will permit the Department of Agriculture to prosecute offenders against the regulations made under Section 2 directly under its own legislation. At present the Department must operate under the Customs and Excise Act 1952, and it is doubtful whether this Act would cover movement of plant material between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The amendment will strengthen the Department's powers to ensure that Northern Ireland maintains its high standard of plant health. This Article also empowers the Department to include in its regulations under this Act provision for the recovery of expenses incurred by the Department or a local authority as a result of a person failing to carry out the requirements of the regulations.
Finally, Article 12 widens the powers of the Department under the Development Loans (Agriculture and Fisheries) Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 to make loans for the purchase of land for agricultural purposes by new entrants to farming. At present the Department is empowered to make loans for land purchase only in respect of approved amalgamations. Loans will be restricted to those applicants who can satisfy the Department that, by their training or previous experience, they are likely to become efficient farmers. My Lords, I beg to move.

865
Moved, That the Draft Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, laid before the House on 6th May, be approved.—(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DEFECTIVE PREMISES (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1975
7.21 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE rose to move, That the Draft Defective Premises (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, laid before the House on 13th May, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move, that the Defective Premises (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, a draft of which was laid before this House on 13th May 1975, be approved.
The Defective Premises Act of 1972 implemented a number of proposals in the Law Commission's Report on Civil Liability of Vendors and Lessors for Defective Premises, but that Act does not apply to Northern Ireland, and this Order now largely brings the law on defective premises in Northern Ireland into line with that in England and Wales. The only departure is that one Article has been omitted because of the different circumstances pertaining to Northern Ireland at present. This Article, had it been included, would have extended the liability of landlords for injuries to third parties caused by defects in premises which they are required to keep in repair, or which they have a right to repair. In Northern Ireland, because there are many buildings either derelict or bomb-damaged, such a provision could lead to injustice to landlords.
My Lords, the order is necessary because a citizen, when buying or renting premises, has no Common Law "guarantee". The onus is on him to take the necessary precautions, and he may have no redress against shoddy workmanship unless he can prove false representation or breach of an expressed warranty. The commencement date of the Order, 1st January 1976, should allow sufficient time for interested parties to become aware of its provisions. Article 2 contains defini-
866
tions, and paragraph 4 makes it impossible to "contract out" of the duties laid down in the Order. Article 3 imposes a duty on those who undertake work for or in connection with the provision of a dwelling to ensure that it is fit for habitation. It applies to all those involved in the design and construction but not to estate agents and solicitors.
My Lords, the effect of Article 4 is that, where a dwelling is built, or first disposed of, with the benefit of rights under an "approved scheme", no action can be brought for breach of the duty under Article 3. Schemes will be approved by the Northern Ireland Department of Housing, Local Government and Planning, who will ensure that the benefits of the scheme are adequate before doing so. The corresponding provision in the Defective Premises Act 1972 was framed with the structure of the National House Building Council scheme in mind. In Northern Ireland, there is a Committee of that Council, whose scheme I am sure would be acceptable to the Northern Ireland Department of Housing, Local Government and Planning.
Article 5 has the effect of abolishing the vendor's and lessor's immunity from liability for injuries sustained through defects in the state of the premises, even if the vendor or lessor created those defects himself. Paragraph (2) excludes the operation of this Article where the disposal of the premises occurs before the commencement of the Order. The continuing liability for negligence is a matter which might have affected the price agreed for the disposal. Article 6 makes the Order binding on the Crown in right of Her Majesty's Government in Northern Ireland, subject to the general provisions of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 as to the Crown's liability in tort.
My Lords, this is a brief, but useful, piece of legislation and I beg to move that the Order be approved.
Moved, that the Draft Defective Premises (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, laid before the House on 13th May, be approved.—(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ROADS (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1975
7.25 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE rose to move, That the Draft Roads (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, laid before the House on 13th May, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Order is intended to remedy deficiencies in existing Northern Ireland roads legislation. Its main object is to estabish procedures under which statutory authorisation may be obtained by subordinate order for the construction of bridges over or tunnels under navigable waters, and for the extinguishment of certain public rights over the foreshore and navigable waters where it is deemed necessary or desirable to do so for roads purposes. The Order also restores the power to abandon unnecessary roads, which was inadvertently revoked in legislation at the time of the reorganisation of local government in Northern Ireland.
Articles 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Order and its Schedule follow as closely as possible the equivalent Great Britain legislation. Articles 3 and 4 deal with procedures for the making of orders authorising any interference with public rights of navigation necessarily caused by the construction of brides or tunnels, or by the diversion of navigable watercourses in connection with road schemes. It is clearly desirable that the Department should have the same powers as are available in Great Britain, and this Order provides those powers. Articles 3 and 4 also permit the inclusion of those powers in an order dealing with other aspects of the road scheme, so as to avoid unnecessary duplication of subordinate orders.
In Article 5 there are certain procedural requirements, including important safeguards for navigation in that reasonable requirements must receive careful consideration before an order is made. Indeed, should a formal objection be made by a body responsible for navigation, pilotage or fisheries, the Schedule requires that a local inquiry be held before the matter is determined. Article 5 also contains additional compensation powers for certain circumstances where the existing compensation entitlements do not apply.
I now turn to Article 6. This Article introduces powers which are not available in Great Britain but which are nevertheless essential to allow interference with, or extinguishment of, any public right which exists over a part of the foreshore or over a specified part of navigable waters. However, should a relevant statutory body lodge an objection, the Schedule requires, as with Articles 3 and 4, that a local inquiry be held before the matter is determined.
The supplementary provisions in Article 7 include the requirement that any order made under this Order must be laid before the Assembly and be subject to Negative Resolution of that body. Article 8 of the Order restores the power, inadvertently removed at the time of reorganisation of local government in Northern Ireland, to abandon unnecessary lengths of classified road. Finally, the Schedule sets out the procedures to be followed where an Order is proposed to be made under Articles 3, 4 or 6, and lays down the detailed requirements of publicity, of right of objection and of local inquiry. It also enables the Northern Ireland Department of Environment to make an order with or without modification after consideration of any objections and the report of the inspector if there had been a local inquiry.
My Lords, this Order is an important addition to Northern Ireland roads legislation in that it enables necessary projects to be authorised, and at the same time gives a formal basis for the protection of affected interests. I may add that the Draft Order has received the consent of the Department of Trade regarding its reference to navigation, and of the Crown Estates Commissioners regarding the foreshore. I beg to move that the Order be approved.
Moved, That the Draft Roads (Northern Ireland) Order 1975 laid before the House on 13th May, be approved.—(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)
7.29 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, may I just say a word or two on these Orders. I have been following what the noble Lord has said, and these are obviously improvements to existing legislation. However, I remember very well the occasion in one of the border towns in Northern Ireland when, on security grounds, local people—this did not come

869
from the local authority—very much wanted to stop up one of the roads. Tragically, bombs had been hurled in this particular town; and they have been hurled again in this town while the noble Lord has been serving in Northern Ireland. On that occasion the getaway had been easily effected.
It was put to the Government that this could possibly be stopped if only one particular road was stopped up, and those who put the case had a perfectly good plan for re-routing the traffic. So far as I can remember, there was no power at that time to stop up the road, because, as the noble Lord said, of the inadvertent taking away of this power by local government reorganisation. As I understand the noble Lord, this Order brings the power back, and if I have followed him correctly may I say that I welcome it, because I very well remember that occasion and it seems to me that this is an important power. I thank the noble Lord for his explanation of these three Orders, and I am very pleased to support the passing of this, the third one.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL
Examiners' Certificate that no further Standing Order is applicable: Ordered, to lie on the Table.
LONDON TRANSPORT BILL
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.