Lords Sitting of 11 March 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 Ely.
The Lord Ailwyn—Took the Oath.
The Lord Skelmersdale—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

PEERS AND THE PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE
Lord ROYLE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the fact that Peers are to be permitted to vote in the Referendum on United Kingdom membership of the European Com-munity, they will now introduce legis-lation to enable Peers to vote at General Elections.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, although the analogy with the Referendum is not exact, the Government incline to the view that such a change might be made when legislative opportunity allows.
Lord ROYLE: My Lords, will my noble friend say whether it is a fact that, while there is nothing in legislation which says that Peers must not vote, there is also nothing to say that they can vote? In these circumstances, will the Government push on with this matter instead of waiting for a so-called opportunity to introduce legislation? Can they not introduce a one clause Bill to get it out of the way?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, there was a Resolution of another place in 1802 which related to this matter and that Resolution has since been held to be declaratory of the law of

136
the land. That is the situation and there-fore, in our view, legislation would be necessary.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, is the Minister aware that British citizens in our Mission at the United Nations are not able to vote in our Elections and that some of them are very agitated about this issue? I can give the Minister letters that I have received from some of these civil servants. Is there any possibility of this situation being changed?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, although the question raised by my noble friend is on a rather different matter, the Government are aware of this problem and we shall certainly look at it.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, can my noble friend explain the mystery— because it appears to be a mystery to many people—of why Members of this House are excluded from voting at Parliamentary Elections? Is it not the case that they are permitted to vote in council elections in the districts and the counties? Why is a Parliamentary Election different?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, at the risk of appearing slightly frivolous—and I would not wish to appear so in answering my noble friend—I fear that this is a question which might have been addressed to the House of Com-mons in 1802 when they passed this Resolution. It has since been held to be declaratory by the courts; and that is the situation which now confronts the House.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, what is the penalty attaching to the offence if a Peer casts a vote in a General Election?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am sure that it would be an exceedingly grave matter. I will look into it and let the noble Lord know.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I was on the Register by mistake, and after inquiring I was told that if I voted I should spend the rest of my life in the Tower?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, all Members of this House who are on the Register are entitled to

137
vote in local authority elections. The question is whether we should have this right in Parliamentary Elections.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, might it be wiser not to give Peers a vote in the Referendum, since they are all pro-Marketeers?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, it might conceivably be controversial if I were to answer my noble friend in the precise way in which I should choose to.
Lord BOYLE: My Lords, may I ask a further supplementary question? In view of the fact that, according to the White Paper, Peers are now to be permitted to vote in the Referendum, will not bankrupts, criminals and mental patients also be permitted to do so? Would not many of them not be in jail or not be bankrupt at the time we have decided what shall happen about the Common Market?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I have indicated that the Government feel that the law should be changed when the opportunity occurs, so far as possible in Parliamentary Election constituencies. That being so, I think that the Government recommendation, so far as the Referendum is concerned, is a logical and reasonable one.

EEC: HISTORY OF ENTRY NEGOTIATIONS
2.41 p.m.
Lord WIGG: 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 on what grounds the "30 year rule" is held to apply to the official history of the negotiations leading to the United Kingdom entering the European Community written by Sir Con O'Neill on a special contractual basis for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; and whether they will seek the agreement of the Prime Minister at that time to the publication of that history,
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, the term "official history" is misleading in this context. This document was a confidential report to the then Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and as such it is a Departmental record to which the 30-year rule normally applies. The present Government see no reason for proposing a change in normal practice in respect of this report.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, does the noble Lord not recollect that on the previous occasion when he answered a Question that I put down he then said that it was the custom for one Administration not to see the documents of the previous Administration? Does the noble Lord also recall that I said I thought that was a respectable doctrine which ought to be maintained? Can he explain how it comes about that the Heath Administration must have seen the papers covering the negotiations by the present Prime Minister? How does he square that fact? Furthermore, would he be good enough to refresh his memory, if he has not done so already, on the three previous exchanges—two in 1966, and one in 1969 —which made it perfectly clear that any Administration, in consultation with the Opposition, could publish, if it were thought necessary and in the public interest? Would he not agree—
Several Noble Lords: Order! Too long.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that on this occasion it is of paramount importance, in sup-port of the doctrine, that we should have all the cards on the table, face up, and not merely those which are convenient to either one side or the other?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, it is not the view of Her Majesty's Government that the publication of this document outside the 30-year period would in any way assist in the proper examination by the people of the issues involved in the Referendum. As to the dictum which the noble Lord quite properly put forward, it is the position that a Government do not have access to papers prepared for a previous Govern-

139
ment. I have no knowledge of a proceeding concerning the Government headed by Mr. Heath to which my noble friend has referred; I have no knowledge as to what happened then.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, as Sir Con O'Neill wrote this report while still in official employment, is it not clear that it should be treated as all other Foreign Office confidential documents of that time are treated? Is is not also clear that it is not necessary to read such a detailed report to see what was achieved and to understand the great importance of the success of those negotiations to this country?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, this paper is exactly on a par with any other paper prepared at the request or command of a Minister to which a civil servant accedes. There is no difference at all. The point at issue is whether, if this paper were published out of turn, it would assist in any way. The view of Her Majesty's Government is that it would not. As to the second point raised by the noble Lord, I entirely agree.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, is my noble friend not aware that it is obvious that if the previous Administration, for what-ever purpose, authorised Sir Con O'Neill —not as part of his official duties but on a special contractual basis—to write this history, the papers must have subsequently come back to the Minister, and therefore they must clearly have had access to the detailed negotiations carried on by Mr. Wilson as Prime Minister up to 1970? If the report is so favourable, why should anyone want to hesitate about publishing it? I am supposed to be an anti-Marketeer, but I am all in favour, in one way or the other, of putting all the cards on the table, face upwards. I hope the Minister will accept that what is important to me is not whether we stay in or come out—
Several Noble Lords: Order!
Lord WIGG: My Lords, what is important is that the British public should know all the facts.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I agree it is extremely important that the British public should know all the facts. The question is whether this

140
would help in placing all the relevant facts before the public. I have no knowledge of whether the last Government had access to the papers of the Government previous to them, and I cannot answer the noble Lord on that point. He has made his point that he is in favour of the widest possible publication for the illumination of this question, as no doubt he has always been, especially during his own distinguished tenure of office as head of an equally confidential Department.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, would the Minister be good enough to bring this matter to the notice of the Prime Minister with a view to his having con-versations with Mr. Heath to see whether, on the basis of agreement, this document can be published? This document has been paid for by the public; why should they not have the chance of seeing it?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I have no doubt that the Prime Minister is an assiduous student of Hansard, especially when he knows that the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, contributes to it.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree, with due respect to the noble questioner's long experience in Government service, that compliance with his request would be a very "dis-organising" matter for the public service as a whole?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, such a move would have far-reaching effects, not least on the con-fidentiality of negotiations between one Government and other Governments. This is an aspect about which we must be very careful when we decide whether to take the publication of any confiden-tial document of this kind out of turn.

SECURITY SEARCHES BY GOVERNMENT MESSENGERS
2.49 p.m.
Lord TEVIOT: 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 as from 17th March 1975 Gov-ernment messengers have been instructed by their union not to search the

141
hand baggage or car boots belonging to visitors to Government Departments, and whether this will result in the closure of certain offices to the public, and if so which.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd): My Lords, I understand that the Civil Service Union, which represents messengers employed in Government Departments, has so instructed its members. The Civil Service Department is engaged in talks with the Union with a view to resolving the matter and is also consulting other Departments. I am hopeful that a solution satisfactory to all par-ties will shortly be found.
Lord TEVIOT: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask him whether he is aware that he has not answered the second part of my Question, as to which Departments are concerned regarding possible closure? Would he be good enough to tell me which Departments are likely to be con-cerned?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, at present this question is largely hypothetical. I hope a solution will be found before 17th March, in which case none of these offices will be closed.
Lord TEVIOT: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Public Record Office, which attracts over 2,000 readers weekly, many of them coming from overseas, will be affected unless the situation is resolved by 17th March, and that the Civil Service Union gave notice of their intention to the Department some six months after an interim arrangement had been made in August? Could he personally intervene and meet both sides to stop this closure taking place?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have already expressed the hope that a satisfactory conclusion will be reached and that there will be no question of any of these offices being closed.
Lord HANKEY: My Lords, can the Minister say why the union are not interested in aiding in the promotion of public security?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, if I may say so, the supplementary question

142
of the noble Lord is, as usual, not particularly helpful.
Lord INGLEWOOD: Shame!
Lord SHEPHERD: The messengers of the Civil Service provide a very notable service, not only to your Lordships' House but also in all the Government Departments. They have undertaken special duties in this time of emergency. What they are now seeking is a form of regrading; that is what the negotiations are about. Their threat of a certain withdrawal, I suspect, is a traditional way of seeking to bring a settlement more quickly than perhaps they themselves may have expected. But I hope that no reflection upon the messengers of the Civil Service will be accepted by your Lordships' House.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether he thinks that, if Government messengers did search some of the baggage, they would find the Social Con-tract?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I wel-come the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition back to the Front Bench. Obviously his journey in the sunshine has done him a lot of good. I hope he will keep that colour, too.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that the time has now arrived when the Whitley machinery covering the Civil Service in this country is due for overhaul and that it has become more or less obsolete in many respects? Is he aware that, having had long experience in regard to Whitley machinery governing 420,000-odd people, I am of that opinion and think the time has arrived when there ought to be an overhaul?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, all things concerned with human beings—and this is also to be found in your Lordships' House—can do with some improvement and modernisation; but I should not like it to be thought that the Whitley machinery, which has stood the test of time, is not adequate for present negotiations. This is a matter which both sides need to look at, and no doubt it is being looked at.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that for years the Whitley machine has been a body dealing with dragged-out negotiations, and that at the end of the day the men become frustrated and take unofficial action because the machinery takes too long to take a decision?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, the Whitley machinery provides an opportunity for both sides, the representatives of employers and the representatives of workpeople, to meet in a civilised way to find a solution to their difficulties. On occasions it may be long and protracted, but that is not necessarily the fault of the Whitley machinery.
Lord TEVIOT: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that if action is taken in this instance it will be official?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord is obviously far better aware of the circumstances than I am. I hope that he is not right.
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, will the Minister say whether searching of boots of motor-cars is not a job of some expertise, and whether it is inappropriate that it should be carried out by this par-ticular category of employee? Should it not be done by people specially trained to discover things that are hidden, and to deal with them if they discover them? May this not perhaps quite justifiably explain the problem?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, obviously those who have undertaken these duties feel that there should be recognition of their work. But we are in a difficult period of threats to public buildings, and if we were to rely upon experts to do work of this kind then of course we should not be able to provide the same amount of cover as we have done during the last two or three years. Much should be said in commendation of all our staff who have, as part of an extra duty, carried out the searches which have given protection to our public buildings.

LULWORTH RANGES: MINERAL WORKINGS
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 will investigate the circumstances under which Pike Brothers, Fayle and Co., predecessors of English China Clays, operated for 20 years an open pit, 80 feet in depth, at West Creech, Dorset, within the Lulworth tank ranges, without planning permission from the county council.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPART-MENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, the planning control of mineral workings is a matter for the local planning authority. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is informed that Dorset County Council granted planning permission for the working of ball clay on this site in February 1974 after due consideration of the circumstances of the case. He sees no cause for any further investigation of the matter.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether it does not avoid the Question which I put? Is it not the case that it is only since 1971 that Crown land has been permitted to accept arrangements without the permission of the local authority, and that for 17 years before that excavations were made without any authority at all from the Dorset County Council? During those 17 years were not these actions illegal, and does the matter not justify an inquiry by Her Majesty's Government?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, in answer to the first part of my noble friend's supplementary question, a private firm operating in this way on Crown land requires normal planning permission, and always has done so. On the second part of his question, I agree it is clearly regret-table that the matter was not dealt with at the proper time. But it must be remembered that the planning authority did not have access to the site, which was then used by the War Office, and it is an unfrequented area of the range.

145
Also at the time there was a moratorium on ball clay workings while this matter was being looked into. It was under-stood that the firm was going to put in a detailed planning application. Also at the same time in the same area, which as I think my noble friend is aware is not accessible to the public, there were other workings. In fact there was an error and this is agreed, but in fact the whole matter was looked into and Dorset County Council, which is the planning authority, gave planning permission in 1974.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, is it not the duty of the company to make an application to the planning authority, and is it also the case that no application was made until recently, on the recommendation of the adviser of the English Clay Cross, and that it was not until February last year, after 20 years, that planning permission was given to this company?
Baroness B1RK: No, my Lords, that is not quite so. As I understand it, an application was made in 1953. All the things I have already referred to then happened, which complicated the error. Then, in about 1969 it is true that the firm started operations—as I understand it, under the mistaken belief that they had planning permission. It was then found out this was not so after an aerial Ordnance survey, and then they asked for planning permission. If Dorset County Council had not wanted to give planning permission in 1974 they need not have done so, but in fact they did.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, did the Minister notice that her noble friend said "English Clay Cross" as opposed to "English China Clays"? Perhaps she might advise him to apply the same rules of law to the Clay Cross gentlemen.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I cannot be responsible for any Freudian errors that might be made.
Lord ARWYN: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that neither the present occupiers nor their predecessors have acted otherwise than honourably and legally all the way through, and have never in any way deliberately sought to evade planning obligations?
Baroness BIRK: Yes, my Lords. I think that my noble friend, who has great knowlege of this particular area and the company, is right.
Lord FOOT: My Lords, did I correctly understand the noble Baroness to say that an application for this development was in fact made in 1953? If that is right, may I ask what happened to that application? Was it refused or allowed?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, there seems to have been some confusion because several things happened together. As I explained, there was a moratorium at the time because there was a standing conference on ball clay; the county council evidently expected a more detailed plan; the land was inaccessible and nobody ever got to see it, and I think the company thought they were doing the right thing. I understand why the noble Lord is shaking his head, because it is very complicated. The company thought that they were in the right. The planning authority were not aware of this. When they became aware of it they gave permission. It is in an area where ball clay quarrying is going on.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, provided that no tank fell in, did it much matter?
Viscount MONCK: My Lords, in connection with the question of environment, is the noble Baroness aware that we on the "cheaper" seats at the back are suffering from a very cold draught blowing round our legs? What does the noble Baroness propose to do about it?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I am happy to say that that is a quite different Question, but I myself have taken the precaution of wearing high boots!

DIRECT GRANT SCHOOLS
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House at a convenient moment after 3.30 my noble friend Lord Crowther-Hunt will be repeating a Statement on Direct Grant Schools.
FINANCE BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911; read la, and to be printed.

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL
3.1 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Shepherd)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Earl of Listowel in the Chair.]
Clause 2 [Amendments of the principal Act]:
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD had given Notice of his intention to move Amend-ment No. 11:
Page 3, line 4, at end insert (" and after the word " whatsoever " there shall be inserted the words "or the dismissal is by the publisher of a newspaper or newspaper proprietor or broadcasting organisation and is of a person employed by a newspaper, newspaper proprietor or broadcasting organisation for the purposes of writing or editing any part of the text, drawing any picture or taking or assisting in the taking of any photograph for any newspaper or periodical, or preparing the text of or broadcasting any wireless or television programme that is designed to inform the public as to the news or any comment on the news or on current or political affairs," ")
The noble Lord said: It is my intention to seek your Lordships' leave not to move this Amendment at this moment. There are other interesting Amendments down on the Marshalled List. On behalf of my noble friends on this side of the House, I reserve the right to come back to the matter if things do not turn out as I anticipate that they will. I beg leave not to move the Amendment.
Lord GOODMAN Lord GOODMAN had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 11A:
Page 3, line 9, at end insert—
(" ( ) After section 29(7) of the principal Act (meaning of trade dispute) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(8) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section a dispute over the publication or non-publication of an article (whether for reward or otherwise) shall not be a trade dispute." ").
The noble Lord said: I think it would be convenient if I could present these Amendments with the later Amendments. It would save repeating a number of

148
arguments. With the leave of the House, I should like to do that.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: I wonder whether the noble Lord could speak more loudly. I suspect, from the pained expression of the Lord Chairman, that nobody at this end of the Chamber has heard the remarks of the noble Lord.
Lord GOODMAN: A famous remark was made in the other House by some-body who, when interrupted in similar circumstances, said that he did not think anybody was listening! However, I am sure that that does not apply here.
Lord SHEPHERD: This is an important debate, and I know that the noble Lord has an important speech to make. Unfortunately, some of the microphones are not working and I suspect that the noble Lord may be standing underneath one of them. The size and the acoustics of your Lordships' House will put a great strain upon the noble Lord. May I therefore suggest that, while still remaining on the Cross-Benches, the noble Lord should seek to move his position in order to be under a microphone.
Lord GOODMAN: If the noble Lord remains as helpful as that for the whole of the debate, we shall have a very short debate! I was asking the indulgence of the Committee by suggesting that it would save time if I could move these Amendments with the other Amendments which are down in my name. It has been suggested that I might deal with them all now. Would that be appropriate?
Lord SHEPHERD: If the noble Lord is considering moving his Amendment to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, I do not think that this would be possible. I cannot see how it is possible to move an amending Amendment to an Amendment which has not been moved. In the circum-stances, since this may turn into a general debate, I am wondering whether the noble Lord might consider not moving these Amendments. Then we should have a debate on the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. Then the Amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, could follow immediately and we could have a general debate. I think we are in the difficulty that if the noble

149
Lord wishes to speak to the Amendments it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we did it in an orderly way and tied it to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: I hope I may be for-given for being pedantic, but we have not had the Question, That Clause 1 stand part. We are starting off on the wrong foot until we have it.
Lord FLETCHER: Is the noble Lord the Leader of the House aware that copies of these Amendments are not available in the Vote Office?
Lord SHEPHERD: I apologise if my noble friend has not got the Amendments. Efforts were made this morning to make available to the House a new Marshalled List. However, the Amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and the major Amendments of the noble Lord. Lord Goodman, were on the Marshalled List that was made available to the House yesterday. Therefore, I think that your Lordships' House will be aware of what both noble Lords are proposing. I think that we ought to get into order. Therefore I hope that the clause can be put and that we can then move to Clause 2.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: It was put last night.
Lord SHEPHERD: Then the noble and learned Lord is also wrong!
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: I apologise. I am afraid that I was misinformed.
Lord GOODMAN: It would probably be to the convenience of the Committee if I did not move the Amendments at this stage and attributed the remarks that I wish to make to the main Amend-ment—the Amendment to the Amend-ment of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. With leave, I will not move the Amendment.
3.9 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved manuscript Amendment No. 12A:
Page 3, line 9, at end insert—
(" ( ) In section 30(1) of the principal Act (interpretation) in the definition of "union membership agreement", after

150
paragraph (c) there shall be inserted the following words—
"and
(d) shall not include within its provisions employees of a particular class who are in membership of an independent trade union unless they consent to such inclusion by a two-thirds majority in a secret ballot."").
The noble Lord said: May I first apologise to the Committee for the lack of printing facilities. I am sure that the Committee is aware that my own Amendment is not the sole Amendment to be afflicted by this problem. The Amendment is in the nature of a probing Amendment. It seeks the same kind of protection for all kinds of employees working in an organisation who already belong to an existing association or union. Such employees may well feel that their interest and their particular skills or profession are not adequately represented by another larger union. While the employer may feel that such a minority of employees within the organisation can be, and is, represented to his or their satisfaction by a large union with whom he has an existing agreement, nevertheless this particular class of employee may not share the opinion of the employer.
This Amendment seeks to allow such employees to exercise their choice as to which union will represent them in any negotiations with the employer or, in-deed, with other unions in the organisation. I am advised that the particular class of employee would be a group of employees who carry out an easily identifiable and recognisable function within any organisation. For example, we find specialist professional engineers; we find lawyers; we find accountants belonging to six or seven professional bodies which cover that profession. Also we find surgeons who, I am told, are already being solicited by the Technical Division of the Hospital Employees' Union. I submit that in the case of these latter employees the situation is verging upon lunacy, because here we have a body of professional and highly qualified men or women who perform one or more specialised, skilled functions. This group of professional employees may be a small minority, but they merit the same consideration as any other employees within an organisation.
I hope the Government will consider that they have a right—or, at least,

151
should be allowed a right, if it is decided that they do not already have it— to decide who shall represent them in any dealings with their employer. I believe that the most satisfactory method of discovering the wishes of such employees would be by a secret ballot. This is in the nature of a probing Amendment and seeks to ask the Government to protect this or any other class of employee from involuntary incorporation into a union which they consider does not give them adequate protection, or does not adequately represent their interests. I beg to move.
Lord JACQUES: I think the Commit-tee will appreciate that we have had very short notice of this Amendment. Further-more, we have had considerable difficulty in determining what it means. However, after hearing the noble Lord I feel that its intended effect is that employees, who at the time when a closed shop agreement is made are members of a union which is not specified for the purposes of the closed shop agreement, should not be covered by the agreement and hence should not be compelled to change unions or to join another union, unless two-thirds of the employees agree that they should do so. Is that the position?
Lord LYELL: Yes, that is so.
Several Noble Lords: Order!
Lord JACQUES: I heard what was said, but I must resist this Amendment. I do so because I think it is unnecessary and may even lessen the chances of adequate safeguards being agreed for members of minority unions; not because I do not think that transitional arrangements should be made for employees who are not members of closed shop unions when a closed shop is established. The Amendment relates to the union membership agreement which the Government have defined in Clause 2(3) and (4) of the Bill. It is provided that those negotiating closed shop agreements shall do so with all the flexibility needed to make special transitional arrangements. One of the reasons which encouraged us to make these amendments was a legal doubt as to whether current members of a non-closed shop union could be excluded from the identifiable class by reason of their union membership, without invalidating the agreement. We know that, in practice,

152
those in industry frequently make arrangements of that kind. We do not want the law to prevent their doing so and we are confident that it is not now doing so.
The parties to a closed shop agreement can therefore make transitional arrangements for members of a minority union, even if such unions are not recognised as specified unions for the purpose of the areement as Clause 2(3) makes plain that they may be. I have no doubt that the parties will in practice do so. It is not in an employer's interest to run the risk of having to dismiss some of his employees, particularly scarce professional and managerial staff, because he has agreed to a closed shop which requires them to join a different union. No sane employer would agree to that kind of closed shop arrangement.
I do not think that we need to spell out in a Statute the measures designed to achieve an effect which all sane employers and unions would, in any case, want to achieve. Moreover, there are risks in our doing so. If members of minority unions think they are protected by this kind of statutory provision, which could result in their being eligible for compensation if dismissed for not forming a closed shop union, are they not less likely to seek to negotiate with their employer and to seek more lasting safe-guards for themselves and their union? They all have to negotiate for recognition of their union, for the purposes of a closed shop agreement, as the right union to represent some employees who accept that people in their grades should not, irrespective of their present union mem-bership, come within a closed shop agreement. We do not think that it is realistic or desirable to impose restrictions or dis-incentives in regard to negotiations about closed shop agreements. We are con-vinced that the end results of doing so would be less satisfactory for all con-cerned, including the individuals or minorities which this House is rightly anxious to protect.
I should add that there are certain drafting difficulties about this Amendment. For example, the words "of a particular class" do not appear to add to the meaning, and may cause confusion when compared with the idea of the employees of an identifiable class being covered by a closed shop. Nor is it clear

153
why employees who are members of a specified union for the purposes of a closed shop need to be balloted about the establishment of a closed shop. I suspect that we might also need to say a little more about balloting arrangements and about who is to be balloted. But such drafting difficulties are not the reason why I must resist this Amendment.
Lord LYELL: I should like to thank the noble Lord for his reply, but I must say that it is not totally satisfactory. I admit that there have been difficulties in drafting, and I would seek to apologise to the noble Lord and to the Committee for the short notice which I have given. With regard to the last remarks of the noble Lord, it seems quite clear to me that the balloting procedure to which I was referring should take place within a minority union or association which feels endangered by a larger union, or by both unions within the closed shop. Given that slight point of drafting. I would seek leave to withdraw the Amendment, but I might like to raise it again on Report.
Lord BOWDEN: This matter is very important and I must confess that the elucidation given by my noble friend is not as clear as it might have been. I wonder whether it is possible for the Government to think again about this Amendment. I should like, in particular, to ask how it is possible to protect, for example, members of an engineering union. The professional engineers may not be required to join the ordinary union which covers the rest of the factory. This matter has been raised earlier and I cannot recall how it was settled. It is a matter of great importance which needs further study and I do not think, with the short notice we have had, that we can comment on it in detail at this stage. It is far more important and complicated than the reply which the Government have given would seem to indicate.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: I am particularly interested in the professional engineers, and I very much regret that I have not had an oppor-tunity of talking to the noble Lord who moved the manuscript Amendment. I do not think it would be very useful if I were to go into all the problems faced

154
by the professional engineers some time ago in my part of the world, but I have heard from them because, rightly or wrongly, they considered that I once did them a service and felt that it would be in their interests if some real advocacy to protect their interests as a small association of professional engineers were included in the Bill. I am sure your Lordships will realise that I am not technically equipped to speak on industrial matters of this kind, except that I represented a highly industrial area in another place for very many years and have acquired a great many friends, irrespective of whether they voted for my Party or for the Opposition Parties. At any rate, I received a very happily worded request from the professional engineers, who feel that they want a specific undertaking.
When I raised the matter briefly last night, I did not then go into detail because there are so many aspects which I am not qualified to deal with. But I know from my past contacts with the professional engineers—and I am sure that there are other small bodies of people who are equally concerned, but about whom I could not speak—that this Amendment is absolutely essential for the protection of small trade unions. The professional engineers have a proper trade union of their own and they wish to support trade unionism in its fullest sense. But it must be obvious to noble Lords that in indus-trial life today, as indeed it was in the past, there are always sections which do not fit into the overall plan. I think that must be accepted. Last night the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, kindly suggested that I ought to listen—as indeed I have done —to what is said today, but I am not at all happy about the position and I was very pleased when the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, suggested that the Amendment ought to be looked at again.
I shall be grateful if that can be done, because I do not quite see what I can do to protect the interests of the professional engineers if my noble friend with-draws the Amendment. As noble Lords know, I am not experienced in this House—indeed, I have been in it for only a week—so I do not know what I personally can do, but as there are other noble Lords who think that these people, who are genuine and professional members of trade unions, are not satisfactorily covered, are we to understand from the

155
answer given by the noble Lord that there will be adequate and proper protection, and that what these people want will not depend on the decisions of the larger unions? I do not believe in large numbers of people overruling small bodies of people whose interests though not separate in the trade union sense, include a special interest of their own.
If the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, cannot produce an Amendment to cover the professional engineers, I shall be grateful if he will agree to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, that we should have another occasion—perhaps at Report stage, if we have one —when we can ensure that the professional engineers and others in similar circumstances are adequately and properly protected. I am sorry not to be able to go into more technical details, but I am doing the best I can for people for whose operations in the industrial world I have a great regard. I know that those operations are very necessary to industry and we want the maximum co-operation in all parts of the world, between industrialists of all kinds. There-fore, I want to know that we shall be able to protect their interests at a later stage, if that is the way in which the matter must be dealt with.
Baroness SEEAR: We on these Benches are also extremely interested in this issue, and are most anxious that the small independent unions should receive adequate protection. In the reply given by the Minister, I thought I detected that the Government had in mind some way in which this protection could be adequately ensured. As we have seen the manuscript Amendment only in the last few minutes, may we ask that there should be some consultation on this matter before Report stage so that we may be assured that this extremely important matter is being adequately taken care of?
Lord COOPER of STOCKTON HEATH: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, will resist this Amendment. It was indicated that it would be with-drawn, but this discussion illustrates the difficulty into which this House gets when it strays from the legislative arrangements and gets down to particular cases. This is special pleading for a small organisa-
156
tion. In practice, the matter is settled either by the trade union side with the joint body concerned, or jointly between the trade union side and the employers. The noble Baroness, Lady Ward of North Tyneside, said that she wants to protect the small unions against the big unions, but is this Committee going as far as that? Will it impose upon the trade union movement certain exceptions to their own voluntary arrangements? This leads into all sorts of difficulties, particularly fragmentation and the encouragement of breakaway unions. Therefore, I hope that the Amendment will be resisted.
Lord JACQUES: May I ask noble Lords to hold their horses for just a minute? There are serious drafting difficulties in connection with the Amendment which is before the Committee, and the mover has said that he is willing at this stage to withdraw it. This subject will be fully ventilated when we deal with Amendment No. 13, which is next on the Marshalled List. After noble Lords have heard the debate on that Amendment, they will be free to fire questions at me or to table Amendments for the Report stage, and I suggest that that is the better procedure.
Lord LYELL: With the leave of the Committee, may I correct the noble Lord? As I understand the position, my manuscript Amendment is not covered by Amendment No. 13, and that is the reason why I did not seek to amalgamate my Amendment with Amendment No. 13. I am grateful for the support that this Amendment has generated from the various Benches of the Committee, but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw it and I shall seek to have further discussions and to raise the matter at Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (The Earl of Listowel): Before I call Amendment No. 13,I will read paragraph 3 at the top of page 3 on the Marshalled List, as one whole line is missing from the Xeroxed copy.
Paragraph 3 reads :
'" The Secretary of State may make regulations governing the procedure to be followed on a reference to him under this Schedule and

157
such regulations may contain such supplementary and consequential provisions as appear to him to be necessary or expedient."
3.30 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 13 :
Page 3, line 9, at end insert—
" ( ) After Schedule 4 to the principal Act there shall be inserted the following Schedule—

SCHEDULE 4A
REFERENCES TO SECRETARY OF STATE REGARDING UNION MEMBERSHIP AGREEMENTS

1. Where a union membership agreement has been made as defined in section 30 of this Act and any independent trade union, being neither a party to the agreement nor specified for the purposes of or in relation to the agreement, claims that it should reason- ably have been so specified, then the independent trade union may refer the matter to the Secretary of State in accordance with the subsequent provisions of this Schedule.

2.Upon a reference to the Secretary of State under the preceding paragraph then—

(a)the union membership agreement shall cease to be effective in relation to any employee who is for the time being in membership of the independent trade union which referred the matter to the Secretary of State until the conclusion of the proceedings on the reference ; and

(b)the Secretary of State may after consulting with the parties thereto vary the terms of the union membership agreement and may also specify for the purposes of or in relation to the agreement the independent trade union who referred the matter to him.

3. The Secretary of State may make regulations governing the procedure to be followed on a reference to him under this Schedule and such regulations may contain such supple- mentary and consequential provisions as appear to him to be necessary or expedient.

4. Regulations made under this Schedule may provide for the Secretary of State to refer the matter in dispute or any part thereof to any person or body appointed under any other enactment dealing with industrial relations whether passed before or after this Act on such terms as the Secretary of State considers necessary or expedient and before exercising any power in paragraph 2(b) hereof the Secretary of State shall consider the report of the person or body to whom the matter was so referred ." "

The noble Earl said: According to my understanding, this Amendment is parallel to but, nevertheless, distinct from the manuscript Amendment of my noble friend. This Amendment is yet another attempt to provide safeguards and a protective mechanism for groups of workers belonging either to small unions or unions independent of the TUC, or even for members of a large union with a small
158
number of members in an establishment. Like our other Amendments, it provides protection for the potentially weak against the potentially strong or overbearing. This, I regret to say, is not a point of view which has so far found general acceptance among your Lordships, at least on the Government side of the Committee. Nevertheless, once more we intend to try to make the Government think again.
As I have said, this Amendment relates to an independent trade union which is not a party to a union membership agreement. Such a union may well be concerned to protect its interests. Under such an Amendment the union concerned would have the right to refer the matter to the Secretary of State. He then has the absolute discretion to follow, or not to follow, procedures laid down in the later sub-paragraphs of the Amendment, and, I suggest, to refer the matter to the TUC Review Committee when it is set up —always supposing, as the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal suggested, that eventually that body has some form of Parliamentary blessing.
I do not suppose that the Government will seek to deny that eventually some form of legislation, such as we are pro-posing, will have to be set up, with, indeed, some form of protective mechanism. There are some unions outside the TUC which, for one reason or another, have been either denied membership or have never sought it. In that case, it may not be possible, or even desirable, to deal with the matter internally, as it were. I am sure that noble Lords opposite accept that there are some unions not affiliated to the TUC who are perfectly respectable in this sense, and who do a perfectly reasonable job for their members. Taking the matter briefly, I suggest the advantages of this Amendment are twofold. First, the Amendment pro-vides a solution to those aggrieved, or merely fearful, who wish to resolve what may be a dispute without having to resort to industrial action. Secondly, the Amendment provides a means which does not entail recourse either to the courts, or to those grasping lawyers whom noble Lords opposite so despise.
Before I sit down, there is one matter that I feel will probably be raised, and at this time I should like to answer it.

159
It may be said that the Bill before your Lordships' Committee merely seeks to restore the situation as it applies to closed shops to what I might call the " pre-1971 era ". I suggest that is a perfectly accept-able point of view, even if one may not agree with it. Equally, I would suggest that in fact the position of the trade unions relative to the pre-1971 era is one of infinitely greater strength, as was said yesterday by many noble Lords. It is, perhaps, the reason why those of us on this side of your Lordships' Committee are nervous for the future, and I am not talking about Communists or anything like that at this juncture. Quite obviously, at least to us, the trade union movement is infinitely stronger than it was even five years ago. So, in my submission, the necessity for such an Amendment as this becomes firm. If I may put it this way, to us at least the friendly and rather cosy cart horse of the Low cartoon, representing the trade union move-ment, has suddenly become, to use a racing term, a " flyer"; but while it is a " flyer ", it is of uncertain temperament and, for the sake of all our safety, of necessity requires certain safeguards. I beg to move.
3.36 p.m.
Lord DOUGLASS of CLEVELAND: I find it passing strange to hear recommendations from the Opposition Benches that there shall be a proliferation of trade unions, when over the years they have emphasised the advisability of an industrial trade union in each industry. We in the trade union movement have been dealing with this almost insoluble problem in the best way we could, by getting agreement between the different unions in each industry, and, so far as possible, getting amalgamations between the different unions in each industry in order to get an industrial union. Where it has not been possible to do that, the different unions have set up committees where the inter-union problems are mostly solved without any reference at all to the employers. We take the onus off the employers so that we might get one voice from the trade unions that the employers could understand, one voice instead of a Tower of Babel, as has so often happened.
160
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Salmon, yesterday spoke about infiltration into the trade unions by subversive bodies. I do not treat these subversive bodies lightly as some, even on my own side, attempt to do. I treat them with great seriousness. They are very wise and very well-advised. If we have legislation which not only allows but encourages proliferation of trade unions within one industry, the prospect of the subversive bodies setting up unions for the purpose of causing further disruption is inevitable. I hope that this Amendment will not be pressed from the Opposition Benches. If they are to press it in such a way, it will only add to the chaos that they profess to want to remove.
On a previous Amendment we have discussed smaller unions and have talked about professional engineers. Before dealing further with that, I want to know just what is a professional engineer. Is he a man who has taken a degree in a university? Is he a man who has taken his apprenticeship and gone on to acquire further qualifications between the university degree and the practical qualifications he already has? If we talk about " professional engineers", what do we mean? I ask that question deliberately, because it will need a week of discussion to define. At the end of that discussion, I can promise your Lordships that the phrase will be incapable of definition.
These matters are discussed within the trade union movement. We must give the trade union movement the responsibility for which it is asking if we are to solve the problems of multiple trade unions inside industry. I hope that, having listened to what I have said, noble Lords opposite will do what they are professing to do; that is, trying to make easier the job of the responsible trade unionists. Imposing such legislation as this will make the job not only difficult, but impossible. We come back to the old saying, " Why make things difficult if you can make them impossible? " That is what this Amendment will inevitably do.
Viscount MONCK: I must be feeling very bold today to venture to speak against my very old friend who has just sat down, who has the same Christian name as myself and who will remain a

161
friend even though I disagree with him. There was a certain amount of criticism yesterday that no employer in industry had spoken in favour of this Bill, and previous Bills were mentioned. I must confess that at the present moment I am merely a consultant, unpaid; but I was an employer in industry for 43 years in commodities ranging from paper to coal. The first thing I did when this Bill was produced was to let my industrial friends see it; this Amendment covers that part of the Bill which they were quite deter-mined was the part that should be covered. Therefore, I very strongly support my noble friend who has moved this Amendment.
3.41 p.m.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE-SIDE: May I revert for one moment to what the noble Lord opposite said about the professional engineers. I understand that is a name which has certainly been known about in my part of the world and accepted for a very long time as a trade union within the meaning of the words " trade union ". Even though I have been in another place for very many years and had lots of representations from trade unions of all kinds, the major trade unions, if 1 may put it in that way, have never raised any objection to the existence of the professional engineers. I am quite certain that my noble friend who moved the Amendment which I am now supporting, even though he has withdrawn it, never for one moment took any exception to the professional engineers. The unions never made any representations. The situation was accepted in the industrial world, which is a very large world in the area that I come from. We are not attempting—cer-tanly I am not—to produce a new small union. I should have thought the noble Lord opposite would have been much better able to describe what is recognised as a small trade union, professional engineers; that he would have been much more informed than I of what that union was and what the word " professional" in technical terms means. But we are not asking to increase the number of small unions. All we are saying is that small unions have already been accepted and have worked in a proper trade union manner. They are not professionals like doctors or lawyers, or persons to whom the word " professional " normally applies.
162
I really must assert that this is not an attempt to increase the number of small unions. It has been there, it has been accepted, it has been working within the very big and prestigious industries that we have in the North.
Though I am always ready to hear what the other side has to say, I thought the noble Lord based his speech on an entirely wrong premise, and that is extremely regrettable. I do not know whether he would come and meet the professional engineers in my part of the world. I am sure that if I asked them they would be delighted to explain the full effect of the operation which they cover. I really was very surprised at the attitude the noble Lord took. The professional engineers have been there for years and have been a very responsible body of men working inside the whole industrial scene of the North. I felt I must put this on the Record, because I should hate the professional engineers, who will be reading the debate, to feel that somebody on the opposite side of the Committee has so little knowledge of the body whose services—
Baroness BACON: If I may intervene, perhaps the noble Baroness is not quite aware of the association of my noble friend with the North of England.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: That may well be. I apologise. I wanted to put it absolutely right, that the professional engineers are not a new small union. It is not an attempt on my side of the Committee to increase the small unions in order to try and make it more difficult for the larger unions.
Lord DOUGLASS of CLEVELAND: May I tell the noble Baroness that I took her point a long time ago. I am quite sure she has not got my point. We can both save the time of the Committee if we can meet over tea or something like that and go into the particular problem she has in mind.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: I am delighted. I think I am right in saying, as I have been asked by the professional engineers to put their point of view, that they have just as much right to be heard in the Upper House as anybody else. If I am asked to put forward a view with which I am in

163
sympathy, or even sometimes if I am in disagreement, I put it forward. I think perhaps I will not continue, but I was utterly surprised at the basis of the arguments which were put forward by the noble Lord. I hope that the next time he speaks he will discover something different so that we may perhaps look at another side.
Lord SHEPHERD: I wonder whether my noble friend would allow me to say that I think it might help to cool the atmosphere a little if I were to move that the House be resumed in order that a Statement may be made.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

DIRECT-GRANT SCHOOLS
3.48 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Crowther-Hunt): My Lords, with permission, I will now repeat a Statement made in the other place by the Secretary of State for Education and Science. The Statement is as follows:
" The Government have decided that the time has come to implement the pledge in the Labour Party Election Manifesto to stop the present system of direct grant schools. My right honour-able and learned friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I are making this Statement to indicate the action we propose to take.
" Grants to schools which are un-willing to enter the maintained school system or which it is not practicable to absorb into the system will be phased out, starting in September 1976. Arrangements to safeguard the interests of pupils already in the schools will be made. Meanwhile, I do not propose to make any change in the level of grant.
" This decision follows necessarily from the Government's commitment to end all forms of selection for secondary education. The direct grant schools have made an important contribution to the national system of secondary education while that was organised on selective lines, and some of them pro-
164
vided places needed by the local education authorities. I hope that as many of them as possible will accept that they can best continue to serve the public by making the adjustments necessary to become an integral part of the local system of comprehensive education as maintained schools. I hope also that local education authorities will recognise the advantages of such a solution and will do all they can to facilitate the transition for schools which are willing to make it.
" As a first step we will discuss the future arrangements in greater detail with the representatives of the direct grant schools and of the local education authorities. In particular we shall discuss, in relation to schools willing to become maintained, the problems of capital debt and sub-standard buildings; matters arising from the need to protect the salary and conditions of service of existing staff; and any special issues that might arise because of the existence of a boarding element at some of the schools. We shall also clarify with them the procedure for phasing out the grants and related features of the present system.
" Subsequently the two Departments will get in touch with individual schools, and their local education authorities, to enable decisions to be reached about their future as soon as possible. I believe that it would be generally agreed that from the point of view of all concerned it is now desirable to move as speedily as possible to avoid a protracted period of uncertainty. My aim will be to help the schools reach a decision in principle by the end of the summer term."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, while your Lordships will doubtless wish me to thank the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, for repeating that Statement, I do not think I can do so with any genuine warmth. Indeed I doubt whether noble Lords oppo-site are aware of quite the level of indignation that it will arouse. We are against it in principle because it enshrines a policy which denies freedom of choice of school to yet more parents and there are after all (even noble Lords opposite will admit) some bad maintained schools, and if they

165
are to have catchment areas from which there is no escape other than into the private sector some parents will have children trapped in schools in which they are to be bullied or misled.
It is a feature of this policy that it reduces parental choice and thereby reduces parental involvement in the education process. Secondly, it proposes to destroy the last remaining institutional teaching links between the maintained and the independent systems. It is a feature of this policy that it sets the seal of finality upon the Socialist commitment to abolish both choice and independency in education, and, further, it widens the gap between the less well-off and those coming from more fortunate homes. Further-more, it denies access to schools with high academic traditions to those who otherwise could not afford it, schools in which those children would strive for new goals and reach them, and schools in which a link would be formed with the children of homes of a different sort.
May I remind the noble Lord of what he said in this Chamber on the 31st October?
" It is in the schools that disadvantaged children can be introduced to the possibility of new goals of achievement, and we must be most careful not to perpetuate, still worse to widen, the gap which separates them from those coming from more fortunate homes."— [Official Report, c. 267.]
Therefore if the schools are to disappear they will be disadvantaged and if they are to be changed then the avenues of progress for those children will be diverted and may be closed. Finally, on general principles, it suspends the shadow of the axe over the last remaining source of reason-ably-priced boarding accommodation open to parents of no great wealth who are forced to travel and spend a long time away from home.
That is the general case against this policy but this Statement has two further features to which we cannot agree. The first is that, whereas the Statement says that its aim is to safeguard the interests of pupils already in the schools, in almost the same breath it says that there is no intention to increase the capitation grant, and in a time of galloping inflation freezing of a capitation grant is a sentence to financial starvation. Finally, the last paragraph says that it is thought that we should all agree that we should make progress
166
as fast as possible to this end. My Lords, let us be very wary of haste. I have taught in one of these schools and how it is possible for headmasters to arrive at a reasonable decision on a subject of such complexity and importance as this by the end of this summer term I simply cannot understand.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, on behalf of my Party, I should like to thank the noble Lord for that Statement and to welcome the general decision. We have long realised that, although there may be sentimental and well-deserved regrets about this matter in certain areas, nevertheless one cannot have a fully comprehensive system without phasing out direct grants. But, like the noble Lord, Lord Elton, I am appalled at the last paragraph and the suggestion that decisions about the future of these schools should be made by the end of the summer term. I wish to ask the Government whether they will reconsider this matter. Of course it is essential that people should not be left in uncertainty. By this decision which has been made by the Government uncertainty is really indign as to the general future. But for schools to choose how best they may fit into the comprehensive system, or whether they should go independent, must take far longer than six months. This is a hopelessly ridiculous period. I hope that the Government will not be moved by unworthy political motives in the feeling that they must unscramble these eggs before another Government can get in to scramble them again; to do something which would be against the best interests of schools. This is a worthwhile step, but it must not be done at the expense of the individual schools.
Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: My Lords, I would not be expected to reply in detail to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, particularly since there was not actually a question within the framework of his remarks. However, 1 would make the point that I recognise naturally the indignation which the noble Lord and his colleagues feel at the ending of another area of privilege in our national life. I am grateful also to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. I would merely emphasise that the end of the Statement

167
made by my right honourable friend in another place was intended to help schools reach a decision in principle by the end of the summer term, but obviously there was a certain amount of lee-way within that direction because discussions are under way with that objec-tive in view. I would stress that the whole concept of phasing out direct grant schools is one which will clearly take a period of years and this is in fact envisaged in the Statement.
Baroness BACON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Statement he has made is long overdue and that it puts into operation one of the chief recommendations of the Second Report of the Public Schools Commission which re-ported prior to 1970? Is he further aware that, while the noble Lord opposite has talked about freedom of choice, there never has been freedom of choice for the majority of parents of children of this country? Is he further aware that it is impossible to have a system of comprehensive education and to bring an end to the 11-plus examination at the same time as local authorities would be expected to have a super 11-plus for entry to the direct grant schools?
Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: My Lords, I am grateful for the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon. I should like to assure her that we are all aware of all the points which she has so forcefully made.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that some of us at least who favour the comprehensive idea, and the notable experiments which have been made in comprehensive education in this country, will yet be saddened by the precipitancy of the policy which he has just announced? Speaking as one who has spent his life in education, I detest the 11-plus system. I am enthusiastic about the idea of comprehensive education, but I am not enthusiastic about the proposal to steamroller out ancient education institutions which have given educational opportunity to many people of humble extraction, and the maintenance of whose tradition is a matter of importance while we experiment with other ideas. If, as I
168
believe, the comprehensive idea has much to recommend it and may well be the idea of the future, should not those who believe in it have sufficient courage to allow it to carry on side by side with old and tried institutions before obliterating excellence which we know already to exist?
Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: My Lords, I have noted what the noble Lord has said, but I would emphasise that this is no precipitate announcement. This has been a matter of public discussion for a considerable time now and, though there have been divergent views which I recognise, this cannot be said to be a precipitate decision when a lot of people will regard it as being very over-due.
Lord JAMES of RUSHOLME: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is really aware of the sorrow that springs neither from sentiment nor from love of privilege with which this final death sentence is greeted by a lot of people who have given the best of their lives to the English educational system? Does the noble Lord realise that this is not because we like privilege, but because we see this as forcing into an unwilling independence some of the best schools in England, schools that have hitherto been able to open the doors of opportunity to able boys from poor, working-class homes, as I have in my own life seen happen to hundreds of boys? I see the school that I once served being forced into an unwilling independence which will close those doors of opportunity to precisely the boys whom I went to Manchester to serve.
Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: My Lords, I recognise that a number of people will regret the decision. Equally, however, I recognise that a very large number of people will applaud it.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: But, my Lords, is not the difference that only dedicated members of the Labour Party support this, and that every other decent element in the community detests it?
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, while deploring the Statement, may I ask three questions? First, will time be given to debate the Statement; secondly, does

169
the Statement apply to Scotland ; thirdly, will legislation be required to implement the provisions?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, if I may reply to the noble Lord in regard to the matter of a debate, it seems very clear that this is a subject which we should debate. I shall certainly see, through the usual channels, that the first opportunity is provided for this subject to be debated. With regard to the question of legislation, my understanding is that legislation will not be required. If I am wrong, my noble friend can correct me and inform your Lordships, but I believe that I am right. I wonder whether, on the understanding that a debate will be arranged at an early date—
Several Noble Lords: Scotland!
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, my noble friend says he will write to the noble Lord on this point.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Hughes): My Lords, a separate Statement is being made in another place about the Scottish position and I was informed that, through the usual channels, the other side indicated that it did not wish this Statement to be repeated here.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, if that is so, could the Statement at least be reproduced in Hansard tomorrow, if there is a Hansard?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I will so arrange it.
Following is the Statement referred to :
"With permission I should like to make a statement about my proposals for the future of the grant to the grant-aided secondary schools in Scotland.
"I have decided that in 1975–76 the grant should be of the same amount as for 1974–75, subject, as has always been the case, to limitation to the actual amount of deficit in the case of any particular school. Phasing out will begin in 1976–77 and will extend over a period to be decided in the light of the circumstances revealed by discussion between my Department and the schools and the education authorities concerned.
"The decision to phase grant out represents the implementation of long standing Government policy. By delaying phasing out until the Beginning of the 1976–77 school session we are providing ample opportunity for discussion with the managers of the schools and with the education authorities concerned on the most appropriate arrangements to be made for the future.
170
" Discussions will be put in hand immediately. I expect that it will be necessary for separate meetings to take place with individual schools or groups of schools and that meetings with the schools will precede meetings with individual education authorities. My hope is that it will be found possible for the schools to be fully integrated in the public system of education as comprehensive schools but I have not made up my mind in advance on what the best arrangements might be."

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL
4.5 p.m.
House again in Committee on Amendment No. 13.
Viscount HANWORTH: I am a member of two institutions and one institute and I can say that, in the main, professional engineers have never been very keen on forming themselves into a union of any sort. However, the question has arisen as to whether they can get what they want without that necessity. The Council of Engineering Institutes says the following:
" It is a non-political body and we are not anxious to become involved in any political issue relating to the rights of trade unions or otherwise. The Chartered Institutions in membership of the Council, however, are fully alive to the dangers which might ensue if the obligation of trade union membership were on occasion to be found in conflict with an individual chartered engineer's obligations under his code of professional conduct, and in particular his obligations at all times to safe-guard public health and safety."
The question was raised as to how one was to make a division here. I think myself that if one were to take a chartered engineer as being the criterion, though that would not cover the whole of the profession, it would go a very long way towards establishing what is needed and I believe that it would in any case be true that those institutions which do not have professional status would still benefit to some extent in difficult situations from what has been done for the chartered engineer. May I therefore suggest that there is no great problem in making the definition.
However, I shall not speak to the Amendment except to say that I think it could not be improved. What I want to get across to your Lordships is the object of the exercise, which is not to form a union unless it is necessary for a

171
particular purpose—and I very much doubt whether it really is necessary. There are other possible solutions, and I would earnestly ask those on the other side of the Committee to recognise that there is a problem here and that, if the Amendment is not carried, they should direct their minds to seeing how this important requirement could be met.
Let us not forget that arrangements such as the closed shop—a point upon which I make no comment either way— make life a great deal more difficult for the professional engineer. I would also maintain that the world would be a very much worse place if those engineers were not able to implement their codes of conduct, which are very high. In fact, I do not think that there is very much difference between an engineer and a doctor, who also has his ethics. The point about the professional engineer, however, is that he comes much closer to industry and, whether he likes it or not, the professional engineer will inevitably have some contact with any industrial trouble which may occur. It will inevitably affect professional engineers much more closely than other professions, such as doctors, solicitors and so on. The need is there and I hope that those trade union members who speak on this Amendment will recognise that need, though I realise that to provide for it may have certain inconveniences from their point of view.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: I confess that yesterday I had some doubts on the relation of the individual to his union and on Government policy on that point, but I have no doubts what-ever in supporting my noble friend Lord Douglass in resisting the Amendment. Either one has a union membership agree-ment, or one does not. If one has a union membership agreement, one great advantage is that it removes all the complications of an employer having to conduct separate collective bargaining with a large number of unions, some of which may have very small numbers of members. For that reason, I strongly support my noble friend.
Lord POPPLEWELL: I should like the Committee to become realists in connection with this matter. Having listened to the discussion, I wonder how many of the speeches made from the other side are founded on the realities of life in
172
industry. For quite a long time, we have heard how this country has been bedevilled by small unions, strikes and small groups. It has been pointed out that in Germany and elsewhere there has been less industrial trouble, because of their method of organisation. We have been told that they have been given an advantage as competitors in selling their products in the markets of the world. Yet we repeatedly get special appeals on behalf of small groups of people who feel that they should be given professional status.
I spent many years in the area which the noble Baroness, Lady Ward of North Tyneside, represented in the other place. I think she will agree that this demand for professional status is being made by only a small body of men, and that demands of this type are made regularly in industry. Suddenly people feel that because their work contains a certain additional responsibility that should entitle them to professional status. Those of your Lordships who have been engaged in trade union activities know only too well how frequently requests are made for people to be classed as professionals.
My noble friend Lord Douglass of Cleveland, a practical man, pointed out exactly the sort of trouble noble Lords opposite are asking for if they are sincere about this Amendment. We have just witnessed how members of the union representing railway signalmen have been involved in sporadic strikes, day by day, week by week, and we all condemn that sort of thing. But despite that, we have noble Lords opposite seeking the establishment of even more small organisations and desiring to give them additional power to do what some have described as holding the nation to ransom. It seems that, with one exception, the industrialists have been silent on the Benches opposite, yet I am sure that they appreciate how difficult it is to enter into negotiations when one is dealing with a plethora of small unions. In that situation, as soon as one deals with one, there is an endless chain of differentials to be overcome. With a larger organisation, it has been found possible time and time again to deal with differentials and, at the same time to keep the wheels of industry turning.
I ask your Lordships to be sensible about this matter and not to adopt a

173
theoretical approach. It is all very well to talk about protecting the small man, the individual, but such arguments do not have the same meaning as they did 50 years ago. We are living in a completely different age and many sophisticated developments have taken place on both sides of industry, and both sides have established their own case law, so to speak. If we go along with the type of nonsense we have heard today, and have a proliferation of small unions, because of the desire of some noble Lords to protect the individual, we will be faced with additional problems. There will be more head-aches for management and for the trade unions, which will lead to endless arguments and disputes instead of enabling us to get on with the job and prevent time being lost.
Over the years the unions have realised this and, despite what was said last night by the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, who made a brief appearance and attacked the Bridlington Agreement, the unions have shown how beneficial it is to industry as a whole to have collective bargaining. I hope that noble Lords who do not have practical experience of these issues will drop the sort of arguments they have been using and will let those who have been dealing with the developments on both sides of industry get on with the job.
I remind noble Lords opposite that they had their chance when they were in Government. They put through industrial relations legislation which brought the nation to a standstill, they introduced the three-day working week and they lowered morale in industry. I am tempted to say that they caused hatred between master and man, but I would not go quite so far. Nevertheless, they created a difficult road for us to tread and created many problems between master and man when they were in Office. They should know by now how many of their observations lack wisdom. I appeal to them to let us get on in a way that will help industry and the nation to produce the goods which will give us our fair share of world markets, and lift us higher up the world production ladder.
4.18 p.m.
Lord SLATER: I am pleased to follow my noble friend Lord Popplewell, who
174
made some cogent observations about this Amendment. The greater part of the debate has been about the engineering sector of industry and chief engineers in particular. Indeed, it seems that many contributions have been aimed primarily at one class of engineer. The noble Baroness, Lady Ward of New-castle—
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE-SIDE: North Tyneside, please.
Lord SLATER: I apologise to the noble Baroness. I should have known because we served together for many years in another place. She talked about representing engineers who had asked her to put forward their grievances. I remind the noble Baroness that there are many classes of engineer and I have in mind the mining engineer, who has so far not been mentioned. I knew one well. He had taken a degree, his B.Sc. in mining. I worked in the pits for 30 years and I came to know Newcastle and the area which the noble Baroness represented in another place very well. The man I speak of became the manager of the colliery for which I worked. And what about all the other engineers, including those who work for the highway departments of county authorities? I remember a county surveyor in the engineering sector of one authority who told me that his father had spent a tremendous amount of money to enable him to qualify for that type of employment. I advise noble Lords opposite to be very careful when speaking about setting up new unions.
One has had experience where individuals were members of two unions and on one occasion they went before a local authority body, of which I was a member, and put forward their case on behalf of the chief officials and others for an increase in salaries and wages. We turned them down, and we immediately found to our amazement that they were members not only of the General and Municipal Workers' Union, in the first case, but they were also members of NALGO; NALGO put forward the same case as the General and Municipal Workers' Union had on behalf of those people, and we turned that down as well.
Guidance and advice have emanated— in this respect the noble Baroness, Lady

175
Wootton of Abinger, referred to my noble friend Lord Douglass of Cleveland—in regard to how one determines what is an engineer. You will find that engineering covers a very wide field. This was brought out by the noble Lord from the Cross-Benches. He talked about being attached to forms of association. This is true. We had forms of association in the previous Ministry that I was in; forms of association of up to about 180 members of executive status. The same applies with engineers from various trades and sectors in industry in this country. We ought not to overstate it when we talk about the engineering sector. In many sectors practical experience is the greatest factor one can have, apart from letters after one's name.
On one occasion, we desired to raise from the ranks in a county authority the deputy county surveyor. But, because he did not have letters after his name, and was not attached to, or had not become a member of, an association—the noble Lord who spoke from the Cross-Benches referred to that—the Minister of Transport at that time was not prepared to accept the nomination which we had put forward for this man to take over duties as the chief articled surveyor for the county authority. This kind of thing can happen. Therefore, I sincerely hope that, following the advice, which is most tangible and most effective, from my noble friend Lord Douglass of Cleveland on this matter—which covers, I repeat, a very wide field—we do not fall for this sop; because we would be setting up these little sectors of private, small unions which would have no powers whatever in looking after themselves. It would be left to God and good neighbours to get them out of the valley of despondency into which they would fall because of the action taken.
4.24 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: I do not want to intervene for long, but I wish to try to persuade the Government and their supporters that there are two serious interrelated problems here. One is the relation of the big union to the small union, and I want to say a word about that. The other is the relation of a union to a professional association. The problems are different, but they are both

176
raised by the subject matter of this Amendment. I wish that I could persuade the noble Lord, Lord Douglass of Cleve-land, with whom I have had long and friendly relations dating back for certainly more than 15 years, that it is no part of the philosophy either of my Party, or of this Amendment, to encourage small or splinter unions; it really is not. On the contrary, if I might describe myself as a typical Establishment figure, I have always been in favour of large unions; I have always been against small or splinter unions.
All I need to say to the noble Lord, Lord Douglass of Cleveland, is that I do not share the assumption which appears to be universal on the Benches opposite that because a union or an association is small it does not have rights. It does have rights, and to deny them is always a mistake, because in the end that will bring trouble for oneself. Secondly, because one disapproves of something—in this case I share the preconceptions of the noble Lord, Lord Douglass of Cleveland—it does not mean that one has to destroy it. There are things which one disapproves of which, on the whole, one would protect. That is all I want to say at the moment about small unions.
However, I want to say to him some-thing about professional associations. I probably have a good deal of experience of professional associations, and particularly of the engineering professional associations. Curiously enough, I am a member of almost every one of the chartered engineering associations, having honorary fellowships. The fact of the matter is that the relationship between the union, in the ordinary sense of the word, and the professional association is a matter of increasing importance which cannot be swept aside simply by saying that the professional association has no rights. Whether it is the doctors in the Health Service, or chartered engineers in industry, or those acting as consultants or whether it is the various and increasing number of professional associations, all of these simply cannot be swept aside by people who have experience of ordinary trade unions saying that these groups have no rights. They have rights and the danger of a clash between them and the unions is increasing when there is the kind of

177
assumption which has been coming from the Benches opposite.
The noble Lord, Lord Douglass of Cleveland, thought that it was difficult to define a professional engineer. The noble Lord, Lord Slater, said, quite rightly ,that the word "engineer" has been used to cover everyone from the driver of a motor car—who was always called the "engineer" when I was a boy —to the man who designed Waterloo Bridge. But, in point of fact, I do not believe that the difficulty exists. The professional institutions—the civil, the municipal, the chemical, the structural, the mechanical and the electrical engineers —are perfectly well defined institutions. They have a high professional qualification, which may or may not include a university or polytechnic degree or diploma; but they have very high professional qualifications and they contain quite a different kind of person from the kind of person who would wish to join the AEU, for instance, on the shop floor. They must be allowed to continue to exist and to have their rights.
The noble Lord opposite, who claims to have great practical experience in his own field—and I am absolutely sure that it is a perfectly sound claim—does not, I think, appreciate what my noble friend said in introducing the Amendment. My noble friend made it clear that there are two discretions in the Amendment expressly designed to avoid the dangers which the noble Lord apparently expected. The first is that the Secretary of State has a discretion whether or not to refer the matter at all. He can turn it down flat and I have no doubt that a Secretary of State, properly advised —as a Secretary of State nearly always is—by professional civil servants, would turn down flat any of the frivolous or undesirable objections which come from splinter groups simply designed to make it difficult for a more responsible or serious-minded union.
I say at once, in passing, that I fully accept what the noble Lord, Lord Douglass of Cleveland, recently said about the degree of responsibility which he has devoted to the problem of containing subversive or irresponsible elements in his own field. But a Secretary of State need not refer the matter at all, and if he does refer it, he can refer it to the machinery set up by the TUC.

178
That is designed to cover the kind of problems which the noble Lord has in mind, especially those between the large unions and the small unions. One can-not simply say that a small union has no rights, and one cannot simply say that because a body is not approved of by oneself, it does not have a right to exist. But as regards the problem between the trade unions, properly so called, and the professional associations, I want to urge, with the full power that I can possess, that just as noble Lords opposite have warned us to be very careful about the way we handle organised labour at that level, I warn them to be very careful indeed before they interfere with the independence of the professions; whether it be the medical profession, the engineering profession or the legal profession, they have their rights and standards and their high qualifications. To declare war on them either by inadvertence, as I suspect, or by intention would be to precipitate a class war in this country.
4.30 p.m.
Lord COOPER of STOCKTON HEATH: Following the noble and learned Lord on this very important issue that he has put forward, that they had no rights, I must say that this is not correct at all. In the trade union movement as it is today, there are trade unions for manual workers and for white-collar workers, and there are appropriate trade unions available for professional people. What has happened is that the professional people, who have had their organisations for years and who have done a wonderful job of work in building up the prestige of the professions, an laying down rules of conduct, and so on, are now wondering whether they should switch from their traditional job of being a professional organisation and take upon themselves the function of a trade union.
In local government, in particular, we have had the problem of the professional engineers. NALGO is a body which can cater for them and, as a matter of fact, in the device mentioned, duplication of membership, many of these professional engineers are trying it both ways. They are members of their own professional body and are also members of appropriate trade unions. It is not the fact at all that they are denied rights.

179
The professional engineers, to my knowledge, have presesd for inclusion in the negotiating machinery; they have been turned down by the trade union side on the ground that there already exists an appropriate body catering for them. Let us take local government agreements. They are very involved; but nevertheless they cater for the professional people all the way to the top. There is an agreement to cover every employed person in local government. The professional people are included among them. They have their own agreement and their own negotiating body within the overall negotiating body in local government. It is wrong to say that they have no rights. Nobody is depriving them of rights. What they are saying is that they now want to take upon themselves a job of work that has been done by the white-collar unions for a very long time.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTER-HILL: I hesitate to take part in a debate which obviously has Party political connotations. I have always sought to avoid taking any part in Party political disputes, but I have spent my life trying to ensure that any Bill, Regulation or other document which emerged made administrative sense. I am advised that, so far as local government is concerned, unless there is an Amendment of this kind the Bill will create administrative chaos. This is the considered view not of one but of all the chief officers' associations: the Association of Chief Executives, the Association of Financial Officers and the Society of Education Officers, with which I am particularly concerned. The reason is obvious. I have no experience of industry, but I have experience of local government in which I have worked all my life. The chief officers are a part of management. This is a fundamental fact which has to be accepted. They sit on the management side in negotiations. I negotiated teachers' salaries for 30 years. If the teachers had called a strike the idea that I had either to go on strike or be dismissed without compensation would have seemed to me to be nonsense. This is what can hapen under the Bill unless some provision is made.
I am no legal expert; I am not pre-pared to say that this Amendment is the

180
right answer. I would not express a view on that. I want to make clear what can happen, as I am advised. The principal white-collar union in local government is NALGO. NALGO in any authority may well create a closed shop. The noble Lord may assure me that no employer would allow a closed shop which would create difficulty. I have not as much confidence in every local authority as to assume this could not happen; it could happen. The chief executive officer, the chief officer of the authority, is the man on whom management absolutely depends. The relationship between the chief officer and his chairman is the same as that between the Permanent Secretary and his Minister.
If the chief officers did not go on strike, what could happen? They could be expelled by NALGO; and if they were so expelled they could be dismissed with-out any kind of compensation. If they went on strike, what would they be doing? First, they would be denying the code of conduct of their own professional association; and, secondly, they would, in my opinion, be utterly guilty of dereliction of duty to the local authority and to the public, whom they serve. I am no expert in legal matters. Whether this Amendment provides the right answer I do not know. What I am certain about is that the Bill must make provision which secures that chief officers in local authorities are not put in what would be a totally untenable position. Only in that way could we avoid a situation which could be utterly disruptive of local government. I hope the Government will find the answer to what I believe is a very real problem.
The Earl of ARRAN: May I make it clear that what we have been talking about for the last hour, although no names have been mentioned so far, is the dispute between the NUJ and the IOJ? I happen to belong to the IOJ, which is a substantial organisation, and which the noble Lord insulted when he said it was —what did he say?—an organisation which did not exist at all. He knows as well as I know that it is a very powerful, influential, authoritative and experienced organisation. To say that the NUJ should take it over, which is what he has said by implication, is insulting.
Lord DOUGLAS of CLEVELAND: May I express my appreciation to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, for what he said about our association over the years. When he was Minister for Science I had to meet him as an official from the General Council. I always got a sympathetic hearing and very often came away a better educated man than I was before meeting him. I say that sincerely; and I am sincere now because we are dealing with issues which have been thrown into the middle of politics and where opposition rather than co-operation appears to be the order of the day. I am trying to solve those problems and to prevent us from treading more difficult paths than those which exist now. When the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches said that he accepted the definition of chartered engineer, I appreciated his effort to meet this point. I take his point. It is a problem. It is a problem when you have managers and workmen in the one industry who may belong to the one union. No solution has yet been found to that. The noble Lord on the Cross-Benches spoke about the local government problem. I do not know the details; I am no expert on it, but I know that it exists. It seems to me that we here all know that the problem exists and we are trespassing on the next Amendment that my noble friend Lord, Lord Houghton, is to deal with.
I want the Opposition to accept that when you have a problem of this character, if you can get a code of practice into operation you are on the way to a solution. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, put forward the idea of a code of practice in the 1971 Act. I did not care very much for it because I felt at that time that it was merely stating some-thing that was understood by everybody. Over the last four years my experience has taught me the value of that, because it is stating something which is very rarely understood by anyone, and if the debate this afternoon has shown any-thing it has shown a number of people who are groping towards a solution, each with his own preconceived ideas of what that solution should be, and yet having doubts.
I am speaking partly to the next Amendment we are to deal with, and it refers to the newspaper industry. I want to suggest that the legislation of 1971 led

182
to more ills than it cured, and the legislation of 1974 did not relieve the situation. It did not do so because it attempted to deal by precise legislation with matters which were incapable of being so dealt with, however good the intention—and I believe the intention was good from either side. I pay the Opposition the tribute of believing that they were sincere when they put forward this legislative programme. I think they must have learned that it does not solve the problems involved. When I sat on the arbitration court arising from that legislation, dealing with unfair practices and other things inside industry, I was astonished by the amount of ignorance shown on the part of both employers and employees as to the rights under existing legislation. They had to be helped tremendously by the chairman, a lawyer, to understand just what their situation was. The number of employers who had no idea of what was a sensible code of practice inside an industry was legion. Many of them went away much wiser men than when they came to that arbitration court because they learned something from the Chair-man of what good industrial relations practice was thoughout all industry and throughout the country. I am putting forward the plea today that we should not attempt to solve these problems by legislation which may contain unforeseen mistakes. Not only do they cause troubles in the industry but they give hostages to fortune so far as the subversive elements inside industry are concerned.
I want us to approach all these problems from the point of view of the "child" of the Conservative Party, when in power, when it established a code of practice. I want us to accept the word of the present Secretary of State who has said a code of practice should be set up, and it is set out plainly in the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. But behind the code of practice the legislation shall still exist. There shall be nothing to take away the right of the individual to go to legislation if the code of practice breaks down. Let me tell the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, that nobody has anything over me on the rights of the individual! My trade unionism sprang from non-conformism, when I listened to preachers in the pulpit talking of the evils of the day and what should be done about them. At the centre of that was the

183
rights of the individual, which, let me say, I will defend to the death anywhere for or against any Party in this House. But the rights of the individual will be jeopardised by the legislation which the Opposition are trying to introduce on this occasion. They would not be jeopardised if we had a code of practice as a means of approaching the problems; and if that code is fully investigated all the problems which have been discussed this afternoon can be thoroughly sifted.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hail-sham, said he had no difficulty in defining the professions. I sat on the Monopolies Commission when we had a remit to examine the professions; but we have never yet really discovered what the professions are. The evidence of the noble and learned Lord would have been very welcome to the Monopolies Commission because I do not think they have yet discovered how to define a profession. But there is a profession, there are qualifications and there are different grades to be dealt with. There are types of trade unionism which have to be adapted to different circumstances, and none of us knows all the answers.
If I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, when he comes forward with his Amendments, there is only one sensible solution to these problems if we are to get the co-operation here that we need in industry. If there is no co-operation from your Lordships you will never inculcate it into industry. It will have to get co-operation independently of your Lord-ships, if your Lordships cannot give it. You are discussing the power that you have—and you have the power, because there is so much governmental interfer-ence in industry today that the power is bound to lie with you. So therefore let us approach this in a sensible manner. Let us have the code of practice so that all the different experts in industry on both sides of the table can find out exactly what the problem is and what the solution is, with the safeguard behind it that if the code of practice proves to be no solution the legislation still remains to give the noble and learned Lord what he rightly wants: the right of the small organisation and the small individual to be recognised.
The Earl of COURTOWN: I have tried to intervene once or twice already this afternoon, because I felt that some-

184
one who had had experience of industry should also speak from this side. I would inform the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, that I myself have spent 43 years in industry, right from the shop floor upwards. I wish to support this Amendment. I do not want to delay the Committee, because we have had a long debate about this Amendment; but I should like to emphasise that with the growth of the white collar unions it has become increasingly evident that many managers and specialists, if they are to belong to a union, wish to join a union which is prepared to negotiate on behalf of its specialists. Doctors, scientists of different types, lawyers, accountants and many others belong to this category. I know, too, that senior officers in local government are extremely worried about this situation, as are others in industry. There was an article in the Guardian on 7th March, last Friday, which pointed out very clearly the difficulty in which senior officers in local government might find themselves as a result of this situation.
I should also like to point out that what this Amendment does is not really very earth-shaking. Perhaps I may quote from the principal Act of 1974:
"… has the effect of requiring the terms and conditions of employment of every employee of that class to include a condition that he must be or become a member of the union or one of the unions which is or are parties to the agreement or arrangement, or of an-other appropriate independent trade union."
The Bill before us amends this to be "another specified trade union", which presumably means that the Government intend that certain professional associations, specialist associations or specialist unions of one sort or another may be specified in the union membership agreement made. It seems to me that all this Amendment does is to provide for a special case, if a group of people—per-haps quite a small group of people, or it may be only one person—think that their specialism or position as managers is so different from that of other employees in that particular establishment, if necessary, to be ordered by the Secretary of State. It allows an appeal against the agreement which has been made between the employer and the main union. It does not seem to me that that will mean that you are going to encourage all kinds of breakaway unions of the

185
sort suggested by some noble Lords opposite; and I wish strongly to support this Amendment.
Lord HILL of LUTON: May I refer briefly to a set of circumstances which has arisen in the past and the solution to which will have to be found either in a code of practice or in an Amendment to the Bill. It is that in which the trade union is the minority body and the professional association the majority body. It may be thought immediately that no question of a closed shop could arise because it is hardly likely to be agreed by the employing body with a union which is so obviously a minority union. But it has arisen by the action of the employing body. It was 25 years ago when the Willesden Borough Council decided to impose a closed shop. The deputy matron of the Willesden maternity hospital declined to join a union. She was, as she said, a member of the Royal College of Nursing, the representative body of nurses, and would not join a union. She was sacked from her post. I am not suggesting that this situation has often arisen, but I am saying that in looking at the problem of the professions and the trade unions it is essential to examine the position where the trade union is in a minority and the professional body is in the majority. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Douglass of Cleveland, would not want the trade union treated as some have suggested that minority unions should be treated. It is a problem, and I hope that in searching for a solution that set of circumstances will be borne in mind.
4.53 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: In my view, most of the speeches in this discussion have been based on a misunderstanding. It is largely a matter of definition. In the Amendment is included the term "independent trade union". What is an independent trade union? If by that term is meant a professional organisation, or semi or quasi professional organisation, that is understandable. When Members of your Lordships' Committee have spoken as if we are involved in some great problem, I have wondered about it. Let me offer an illustration. Take the mining industry. In that industry we have the Mineworkers' union which consists of men who work at the coal face, men who

186
work underground, and men who work on the surface. Among the men who work underground are those who do not belong to the mineworkers' union but to the electricians' union, the engineers' union or the carpenters' union, and so on. They work together, but when negotiations take place they often negotiate separately because conditions vary. This is clearly understood. But in addition to those I have mentioned are those who may be described as semi-professional; that is to say, under-managers, mine managers, mining engineers, and I believe even architects are involved—I use the term employed by the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches. There is no difficulty at all. Indeed, there is no conflict whatever.
As to the instance furnished by the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches of what happens in local government, I am surprised that that is a problem at all. Where I have been involved, if a local authority employs, in addition to dust-men, men who are engaged in cleaning the streets and men engaged in sewage disposal, I have found that most of them belong to the union of which my noble friend Lord Cooper of Stockton Heath was for many years the general secretary. But there are many employees associated with local government who do not belong to what is—I hesitate to use the defini-tion—a normal trade union; they belong to professional or semi-professional organisations. They are architects, teachers and the like. I see that the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches assents to what I have just said. Therefore, there is no real problem and it is a matter of definition.
It may well be that in order to clarify the situation in terms of the provisions of this Bill the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Douglass of Cleveland is appropriate. At the same time, I am bound to say that I should like to see the terms of the code of practice. A great deal would depend on that. If there is to be a code of practice which will be fruitful, effective and operative, not one that creates more trouble, it must be negotiated; and that will take time. I do not believe it is possible to undertake a task of that kind voluntarily. It may require to be undertaken by the Secretary of State—but, of course, as a result of consultation. Therefore, having listened to the whole of this debate and being

187
somewhat baffled by many observations. I would say to your Lordships that what is required is to discover an accurate definition, or a series of definitions, which the Secretary of State has to take into consideration.
My advice to my noble friend on the Front Bench—I am not complaining; I have myself been on Front Benches and have acted under instructions and deployed a brief—is not to say, "We resist this Amendment," but to consider its implications, its possible ramifications and complexities. There was a vast difference between the speech of the mover of the Amendment, who did not seem to be very expert, and the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, who is an expert—whatever else might be said about him, he is an expert. He divided the employees, professional and others, into their categories; and indeed this is the normal situation.
Therefore my advice to my noble friend is that the Government should look at this again—it can be dealt with at Report stage—to ascertain whether it is possible for the Government draftsmen to find some kind of definition which would be saitisfactory to all concerned. That is what is wanted. To suggest that there is a problem which is intractable and incapable of solution is political nonsense. I do not believe in political nonsense; we must be realistic. Therefore, with great respect to my noble friend on the Front Bench, I offer to him that advice.
Baroness SEEAR: I think it goes with-out saying that we all agree that we do not want a proliferation of unions. Although I have not had the opportunity to check it, it may be of help to remind your Lordships' Committee that the Donovan Commission did not come out in favour of what is normally regarded as industrial unionism. The term "industrial unionism" was used this afternoon. The Donovan Commission came out in favour of one union for each grade of employee within the organisa-tion. It seems to me that what we are trying to achieve by this Amendment, even though the wording may not be perfect, is in the spirit of the recommendations of the Donovan Commission.
5.3 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: This Amendment is similar to an Amendment which was submitted in the other place and rejected on a Division. On this occasion, I hope that I may be able to persuade the noble Earl to withdraw his Amendment. A union membership agreement is made between employers on the one side and unions on the other. It is a two-sided affair, and we can expect that the employer will wish to protect all of his employees. Particularly will he be seeking to protect those of his employees who are closest to him, those who are in relatively short supply. This applies to managerial and professional staff. They are closest to the employer and very often they are in short supply. It is inevitable that the employer who is a party to the union membership agreement will wish to give protection to that category of his staff. There is no great objection of the unions to that wish.
In winding up the debate on Second Reading, I said that during the whole of my working life I had been in closed shops in different parts of the country. I can also say that for 50 years I have been a member of a union which caters for managerial and professional staffs, and in case there may be any misunderstandings, it is affiliated to the Trades Union Congress. Never on any occasion during those 50 years has there been any difficulty whatever, in the closed shop situation to obtain recognition of the smaller union. Never has there been objection to obtaining recognition from the employer or from the trade unions.
It is not the small unions of professional people to which the larger trade unions object. Their objection is to the splinter groups. Splinter groups are not in the interests of the workers, the management, or the public at large. As the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, has reminded us, recently we have had a very strong lesson, and it is worth while looking for one minute at that lesson. When British Rail and the unions recognised by British Rail failed to come to an agreement on restructuring the wages in the industry, it was eventually referred to arbitration. In due course, the arbitrators made their decision which was not accepted by a handful of signalmen who were in a splinter union. The official

189
trade unions and the management reviewed the situation and improved the signalmen's pay, and they went some way towards meeting their problem.
Despite the arbitration and despite the review, a mere handful of people in a splinter union had been able to hold the public at ransom and cause grave inconvenience, had caused British Rail to lose millions of pounds in revenue and impaired their ability to pay decent wages not merely to the signalmen but to the rest of their staff. They had gravely jeopardised negotiations that were then taking place for the annual wages review —a review which, in fact, included the signalmen in question. Those are smaller unions of the kind to which the larger unions object, not the smaller unions of professional bodies.
The Government line up with the unions in that regard and have taken great care in the preparation of this Bill —which amends the 1974 Act—to give the flexibility which is required. This Bill provides that employees need not belong to a union which is a party to the agreement but may belong to some other specified union. The word "specified" is used for a particular purpose. We did not want to use the word "appropriate", because who was to decide what was appropriate? The word "appropriate" might have let in some of the splinter unions. When using the word "specified", we had in mind the smaller pro-fessional unions. Furthermore, this Bill goes to endless trouble to give flexibility to the union membership agreement so that any identifiable class can be excluded from the agreement, including the members of another union; for example, a small professional union. Therefore we consider that this Amendment is not necessary.
Also, we have certain doubts about the practicability of the Amendment. We submit that it is not the proper function of the Secretary of State, or any agency which may be appointed by him, to decide which unions ought to be specified in a union membership agreement. The entire agreement may have to be revised. Certainly it would have to be examined. Many of the agreements are long and involved. It might mean a complete re-drafting of the union membership agreement. At least, there would have to be

190
a thorough arguing of the case on both sides. We submit that this is not the function of the Secretary of State or of any agency which may be appointed by him.
Much of the lobbying of the smaller unions is part of a running battle for the recognition of unions by employers—an understandable battle. In the White Paper on the Protection of Employment Bill, we have made it very clear that it is our intention to include in that Bill some protection for unions, large and small, which cannot obtain recognition by employers. We have provided in the White Paper, particularly in paragraphs 45 and 46, that where a union feels that it ought to have recognition and that it is not getting recognition, it can use the advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service with a view to obtaining recognition. We believe that that is the nub of the problem. Therefore we say to the noble Earl that this problem is being dealt with in a subsequent Bill. With that assurance, we hope that the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendment.
I could not understand one point on local government which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill. Again, this is a question of recognition by the employer. Our understanding of the position is that the Association of Local Authority Chief Executives and the Joint Committee of Professional Officers' Associations are recognised for negotiating purposes in respect of the Chief Officers' National Joint Council. It would appear, therefore, that the noble Lord is assuming that, as a result of this Bill, the existing negotiating machinery will be completely overthrown. Certainly, the Government do not expect that to happen.
5.10 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: First, may I take up the point which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell. I am the first to admit that my experience in this field is limited. If every Amendment which I move takes as long as the first two Amendments, I think that I shall resume my weekly journeys to and from the European Parliament, although it is not, perhaps, wholly in order for me to say that. I take responsibility for the drafting, and the phrase "independent trade union" means no more and no less than what it says. It is the definition in Section 30(1) of the 1974 Act. It was

191
put there deliberately, and indeed was so phrased in order that there should not be any confusion. If I may say so, that honest attempt has not lessened the con-fusion that there has been in this Committee this afternoon.
May I plead with your Lordships on the basis of what this Amendment does not do. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Douglass of Cleveland, has left the Chamber, but I do not suppose it matters. This Amendment will not proliferate, nor does it seek to proliferate, any splinter groups or small unions, nor do I suggest—and I do not think it has been suggested on behalf of the Government— that it will lead to industrial chaos. Certainly, when the Minister of State dealt with the matter in the other place he did not take that view. He made it perfectly plain that he—speaking, I dare say, for himself—supported smaller unions and unions which were outside the ambit of the TUC. So let us get away from the allegation that this Amendment will pro-vide a vehicle for those within the trade union movement to cause upset and chaos. That it does not do.
Equally, the noble Lord, Lord Douglass, was wrong when he said that this Amendment had something to do with the Amendment which I understand may be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, at a later stage. It may be that it was unfortunate that the noble Earl, Lord Arran, raised the question of the Press, because it immediately made the debate somewhat wider than it need have been. This Amendment does not apply to the Press as such, though I anticipate it could well be used if, for instance, you had a very small local paper with, say, six members of one union and one member of another union on the staff. If the proprietor of the newspaper wished to come to a closed shop agreement, he could, as it were, be prevented for a period from doing so by the application of this Amendment by the single member who would, in effect, have the opportunity to shout, "Help, my rights are affected. I want the matter investigated by the Secretary of State"—not by a court, not in the first instance by a tribu-
nal, not by any person who would be disagreeable to the trade union as a whole and himself in particular. As my noble and learned friend said, one would imagine that, if there were any frivolous application to the Secretary of State, that applicant would soon be 'shot out".
All that this Amendment does is to give a right in certain circumstances to groups of workers to have a grievance ventilated. As I said when I moved it, She whole idea is to stop a potential industrial disagreement. I suggest that there is nothing in the Amendment which will merit the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell—"this sort of non-sense". That is a matter for your Lord-ships to decide.
If I may now turn to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, he, in effect, and I do not blame him, repeated the attitude of the Government in Standing Committee when the Minister of State—I hope I am being fair in paraphrasing—said that this is not a bad idea. There must in the future be some form of arbitration machinery to cover the sort of situations, or some of them, which we have been discussing this afternoon. But—wait for it—we are going to produce another lovely new Bill, the Employment Protection Bill, and all will be revealed. I hope that that is not an unfair way of putting the noble Lord's and indeed the Government's position.
We do not think that is good enough. We think it would be better to set up the machinery now which, as I suggest, is entirely innocuous in character. If at a later stage the Government, as they may well do, think that in a future Bill —whenever in this rather crowded Session it comes before this House or another place—they want to improve upon the position, by all means they can do so. In the meantime, I am not very favourably affected by the noble Lord's argument and I shall seek to persuade my friends to follow me through the Lobby.
5.18 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 13) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 137; Not-Contents, 81.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Allan of Kilmahew, L.

Amory, V.

Alexander of Potterhill, L.

Allerton, L.

Arran, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Ferrers, E.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Ferrier, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Banks, L.

Foot, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Barnby, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Moyne, L.

Barrington, V.

Gisborough, L.

Nairne, Ly.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Glasgow, E.

Newall, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Northchurch, B.

Belstead, L.

Gore-Booth, L.

Norwich, V.

Berkeley, B.

Goschen, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Gray, L.

Ogmore, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Grenfell, L.

Platt, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Gridley, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Robbins, L.

Burnham, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone,

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Byers, L.

L.

Rochester, L.

Caccia, L.

Halsbury, E.

Ruthven of Frecland, Ly.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hankcy, L.

St. Davids, V.

Camrose, V.

Hanworth, V.

St. Helens, L.

Carrington, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

St. Just, L.

Cathcart, E.

Hartwell, L.

Sandys, L. [Tetter.

Chalfont, L.

Harvington, L.

Seear, B.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Henley, L.

Selkirk, E.

Colwyn, L.

Hill of Luton, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Inglewood, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Cottesloe, L.

James of Rusholme, L.

Shannon, E.

Courtown, E.

Killearn, L.

Sharples, B.

Cowley, E.

Kilmany, L.

Somers, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stamp, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Kindersley, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Daventry, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal,

Davidson, V.

Lauderdale, E.

L.

Denbigh, E.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Strathspey, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Long, V.

Swansea, L.

Derwent, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Swaythling, L.

Drogheda, E.

Lyell, L.

Tenby, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lytton, E.

Terrington, L.

Dundonald, E.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Teviot, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Trevelyan, L.

Eccles, V.

Mansfield, E.

Vickers, B.

Effingham, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Vivian, L.

Elton, L.

Merrivale, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Mersey, V.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Essex, E.

Meston, L.

Wigoder, L.

Exeter, M.

Monck, V.

Young, B.

Falmouth, V.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

NON-CONTENTS

Allen of Fallowfield, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Lyons of Brighton, L.

Ardwick, L.

(L. Chancellor.)

Maelor, L.

Arwyn, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Bacon, B.

Gaitskell, B.

Melchett, L.

Balogh, L.

Gardiner, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Bernstein, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Beswick, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Pannell, L.

Birk, B.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Pargiter, L.

Blyton, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Bowden, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Popplewell, L.

Brockway, L.

Hale, L.

Raglan, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hall, V.

Rathcreedan, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Hamnett, L.

Rhodes, L.

Castle, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Champion, L.

Hayter, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Chorley, L.

Henderson, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Crook, L.

Hughes, L.

Slater, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Jacques, L.

Snow, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Kissin, L.

Stewart of Alverchurch, B.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Darwen, L.

Lee of Asheridge, B.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Davies of Leek, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Summerskill, B.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

194

195

Thurlow, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Winterbottom, L. [Teller.]

Wynne-Jones, L.

Wigg, L.

Wise, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
5.27 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY moved Amendment No. 14:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
Code of practice on freedom of the press
" . After section 1 of the principal Act there shall be inserted the following section:
'Code of practice on freedom of the press.
1A.—(1) If, before the end of the period of six months beginning the press. with the passing of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Act 1975, there is agreed among parties including employers of journalists, or employers' associations representing such employers, and trade unions representing journalists, a code of practice containing practical guidance for employers, trade unions, editors and other journalists on matters relating to the freedom of the press, the Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a draft of that code.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, matters relating to the freedom of the press include such matters as the avoidance of improper pressure to distort or suppress news, comment or criticism, and the application of union membership agreements to journalists.
(3) If no such code of practice has been agreed as mentioned in subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State shall, after consultation with the Press Council, and such of the parties referred to in that subsection, such organisations representing workers and such organisations representing employers, as he thinks fit, prepare in draft a code of practice containing such practical guidance as is referred to in that subsection, and shall lay the draft before both Houses of Parliament.
(4) If the draft laid under subsection (1) or (3) above is approved by resolution of each House of Parliament, the Secretary of State shall issue the code of practice in the form of the draft.
(5) A code of practice agreed as mentioned in subsection (1) above may be revised from time to time by agreement between such parties as are referred to

196
in that subsection, and the Secretary of State shall lay a draft of the revised code before both Houses of Parliament.
(6) A code of practice which was prepared by the Secretary of State in accordance with subsection (3) above, may be revised from time to time by the Secretary of State after consultation with the Press Council, and such of the parties referred to in subsection (1) above, such organisations representing workers and such organisations representing employers, as he thinks fit, and the Secretary of State shall lay a draft of the revised code before both Houses of Parliament.
(7) If the draft laid under subsection (5) or (6) above is approved by resolution of each House of Parliament, the Secretary of State shall issue the revised code of practice in the form of the draft.
(8) On issuing a code of practice or a revised code under subsection (4) or (7) above the Secretary of State shall make by statutory instrument an order specifying the date on which the code or revised code is to come into effect.
(9)A failure on the part of any person to observe any provision of a code of practice which is for the time being in force under this section shall not of itself render him liable to any proceedings but in any proceedings for breach of contract in any court between a journalist and his employer or between a member of a trade union representing journalists and that trade union, or in any proceedings before an industrial tribunal under Schedule 1 to this Act—

(a) any such code of practice shall be admissible in evidence, and

(b) any provision of such a code of practice which appears to the court or tribunal to be relevant to any question arising in those proceedings shall be taken into account by the court or tribunal in determining that question." "

The noble Lord said: I beg to move the new clause standing in my name and in the names of my noble friends. This is the proposal which I foreshadowed

197
in the speech that I made to your Lordships' House on 25th February. I need scarcely say that I have no personal interest in the matter under discussion; I am not a journalist, I am not an editor and I am not a newspaper proprietor. From experience as Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party for seven years, I am now by disposition a peace-maker, a finder of the middle way—a sort of minor Lord Goodman. I hope that between us the middle way will be found.
I was encouraged to think along the lines of this new clause by the remarks made by the Secretary of State in another place on the 13th February. I paraphrase what he said, which was to the effect that he hoped that the parties— that is, the editors and proprietors and unions—would pursue the idea of a charter or a code of practice, and if both sides desired an agreed charter or code to be embodied in legislative form the Government would be willing to consider it. I then linked this idea with the existing code of industrial practice which was embodied in the 1971 Act and re-enacted in the 1974 Act. The re-enacted provisions will be found in Part I of Schedule 1 to the 1974 Act. These two ideas combine to suggest a way towards better understanding and the hope that present anxieties, deeply felt and sincerely held, might be allayed.
This new clause relates to the written word; not at present to broadcasting and not to the printing unions. Broadcasting could be brought within the scope of this new clause if it were thought desirable, but at present my judgment is that the problems' of the newspaper industry and of journalists could be distinguished from those of the broadcasting authorities. The new clause contains an implied invitation to the parties concerned to try their best to agree on a code of practice, and to do so within six months of the passing of this Bill. If they do not agree within that period, a draft of the code would have to be laid before both Houses of Parliament by the Secretary of State for approval.
I have seen it suggested that the freedom of the Press is not a matter for negotiation between journalists, editors and proprietors. The freedom of the Press,

198
it is said, belongs to our fundamental liberties and should not be disposed of by agreement between those engaged in the industry. What we are discussing is more the freedom of editors than the freedom of the Press; they are not always the same thing. But if they fail to agree, then the Amendment requires the Secretary of State, after consultation, to deal with this matter himself and to lay his own draft. In both cases the approval of this House is necessary. The public interest is safeguarded by the approval which has to be given by both Houses of Parliament to an agreed code, if there is one, or by the draft of the Secretary of State, if he is required to produce one by the terms of the new clause.
The Amendment says that the code shall include
" practical guidance for employers, trades unions, editors and other journalists on matters relating to the freedom of the press …".
Subsection (2) says that
"… matters relating to the freedom of the press include such matters as the avoidance of improper pressure to distort or suppress news, comment or criticism, and the application of union membership agreements to journalists."
I stress the importance of the latter part of that subsection, which states:
"… the application of union membership agreements to journalists."
and includes the application of union membership agreements to editors, and other matters relevant to what we have recently been talking about in this connection.
The question of the incidence of so-called outside contributors—often described as "freedom of access to the Press"—would be within the scope of the code. I suggest that it is in the reasonable interest of the National Union of Journalists to safeguard the livelihood of its members. What was said by Mr. Ken Morgan, the General Secretary of the National Union of Journalists, in the Observer, and by the Chairman of the National Union of Journalists at a meeting on Saturday, seems to be very reasonable in this connection. It is not an unworthy interest of a union to safeguard the employment of its members.
The only question at issue, then, is whether in so doing, they are harming the public interest or "crabbing" the Press, or putting unnecessary restrictions on the

199
freedom of the editor. The freedom of the Press does not imply complete freedom to ignore the legitimate interests of those employed in it; it is the job of the trade union to look after those interests. The duty of the trade union is to discharge that responsibility with reasonable safeguards, both for its members and for other interests. So I suggest that the code which the Amendment, encourages the parties to negotiate and to try to agree upon, can cover all the points of difficulty and apprehension that we have heard so much about.
The first tentative draft of the kind of code of practice which might be envisaged under this new clause has been put forward by the Editor of the Guardian, Mr. Alastair Hetherington. I think your Lordships should pay tribute to the efforts which the Editor of the Guardian has made to resolve this difficulty, and for the most helpful comments made in one of the leading articles in the Guardian yesterday. Progress on this code on a voluntary basis would have been further advanced today had it not been for the attitude of those representing the newspapers at the joint discussion presided over by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearce. On that occasion, the proprietors and editors made it a condition of discussing the code put forward by Mr. Hetherington that this Bill before the House today should ban the closed shop in the newspaper industry. That was a precondition which they wished to lay down before embarking on the discussions which the NUJ and other unions were prepared to continue. That is a condition which I suggest—
Lord GOODMAN: If the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, will allow me to intervene, we might dispose of this canard immediately. I am authorised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearce, to say that when he asked the various representatives to come to the meeting he fully understood that none of them had any mandate from anyone, that they were coming in order to hear what was said and had no authority to reach any decision. At that precise moment, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, will know, a more significant meeting was taking place, at which the noble Lord and I were present, when I willingly accepted the

200
possibility of discussing a code that had the force of law. To make overmuch of this, as has the noble Lord on three occasions now, is a little unfair.
5.37 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, but I have in my hand the report made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearce, to the Secretary of State, of the conference which took place on 20th February. I will not trouble your Lordships with all its details. It contains a list of all those present. I was not in a position, nor presumably was anyone else, to know whether those present were authorised to speak for the organisations, for the employers or for the interests they represented. But they were all there— the Guild of Newspaper Editors, the Newspaper Society, the Newspaper Publishers' Association, the National Union of Journalists, the Institute of Journalists, the Scottish Daily Newspapers Society, the Scottish Newspaper Proprietors' Association, and Fleet Street editors.
Your Lordships may be aware of the fact that, although the discussion was amicable, it was agreed by 13 votes to 2 that provided the Press and broadcasting were excluded from the provisions of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill, the organisations concerned would be prepared to discuss the framing of a charter to safeguard the freedom of the Press and broadcasting in the widest context, and to prevent improper pressures from any quarter. Surely that bears out the statement I made a few moments ago. With the greatest respect, I am saying that your Lordships' House cannot agree to ban the closed shop from the newspaper industry in order to pave the way for discussions on a code of practice. Certainly, my noble friends and I could never agree to that precondition. We cannot outlaw the closed shop in journalism and the media, and discriminate against one field of employment and one union in this regard.
But we can agree—and the new clause provides for this—to apply a union membership agreement in the newspaper industry with reasonable common sense and understanding of the problems of which those employed in it will be fully aware. The code should ensure that if agreement is reached it can be laid by the

201
Secretary of State before both Houses of Parliament for approval. If that proves possible, very good indeed. If all the difficulties prove negotiable, no one, surely, will be better pleased than your Lordships and Members of another place. But if not, if there is no agreement despite best endeavours, however friendly, then the new clause places upon the Secretary of State a statutory duty to draw up his own code of guidance and lay the draft before both Houses of Parliament. Subsection (3) of the new clause makes provision for the Secretary of State, if he is called upon to do that, to hold consultations over the widest field, as wide as he thinks fit. He could then bring into his consultations the TUC, editors, the CBI; he is required to consult the Press Council by the new clause itself. But there is no limit upon the consultation that he can embark upon before himself laying a draft.
This, therefore, is the distinction that is made between the area of consultation if the Secretary of State has to embark on this task and the area of negotiation, if the code can be agreed, under subsection (2). The editors are not left out in either case. There is no need specifically to bring them in. If a code can be negotiated, the parties concerned can decide upon those who shall be brought into the discussions upon this important matter. That will be for them: proprietors, editors, unions, the lot. But if the Secretary of State is required to discharge his statutory duty, then the area of consultation must be widened, and that is provided for in subsection (3). Subsections (5) to (8) deal with the procedure for revision of the code, whether by agreement or under the responsibility of the Secretary of State.
Now I come to the most difficult question, that of enforcement: whether the code should be given the force of law. It will, of course, be given legislative sanction. But the question is, shall it be enforceable. It will no doubt be said that the code, whether it is agreed or whether it is the work of the Secretary of State, will have no teeth, no real effectiveness, unless it is given the force of law. I do not want to harp again at length on the subject of law enforcement in this difficult field. But where is the evidence, I ask, of the effectiveness of the force of law in industrial relations? I wish we could clear our minds on this. Part of the trouble is that the

202
history of trade unionism is the history of struggle against the law, and the deep suspicion of the law and mistrust of the law. In many quarters in the trade union movement this is very difficult to overcome. Whereas the trade unions in Europe look to the law to establish their rights, the disposition in this country is for the trade union movement to look at the law because they think it will deprive them of their rights; and that is one of the differences in trade union outlook which I submit will have to be considered in relation to our membership of the European Community.
This Bill, and the principal Act before it, repeals the provisions for the force of law which were contained in the 1971 Act, an Act which the Conservative Party, after their own disillusionment and dreadful experience of that Act, have said that they would not wish to reintroduce. It became unworkable. I have no need again to read out the obituary of the Industrial Relations Act 1971. But one thing it did do which has survived in the 1974 Act, and which I am now making use of in putting forward this new clause, is the code of industrial practice which was first put in the early clauses of the 1971 Act and which have been re-enacted in Schedule 1, Part I of the 1974 Act. It was this part of the 1974 Act that I looked at for encouragement in putting forward this new clause.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: If I may interrupt my noble friend for one moment, I think he will have in mind that that code of practice had in fact the force of law.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: The code of practice in the Industrial Relations Act 1971 and in the Act of 1974 does not have the force of law, but I shall be coming later, if I have your Lordships' patience, to what is the legislative significance of the code, if one is agreed or one is approved by both Houses of Parliament on the recommendation of the Secretary of State. I emphasise the fact that the proposed code under the new clause would have exactly the same status as the general industrial code of practice which was re-enacted in 1974, and it would have the same authority of approval by both Houses of Parliament, exactly the same, parallel with but without prejudice to

203
the generality of the industrial code of practice.
But this clause goes a little further. In subsection (9) it provides for the code of practice to be quoted in any proceedings for breach of contract in any court between a journalist and his employer. That is an addition to the provisions of the 1974 code and it is related to the special circumstances of newspaper editors. All in all, what I am asking your Lordships to do is to make a considerable, and I hope a successful, contribution towards achieving our common purpose. I hope that this new clause will prove acceptable in another place. I have no means of knowing for certain whether it will. I am not acting, in bringing forward this new clause, as an agent either for another place or for the Secretary of State. This idea was put by me to the Secretary of State, I freely admit, to see what his reaction to it might be. I was not discouraged from proceeding with the drafting of this new clause, and that is all I can say.
But if we press too hard and too far, by amending this new clause, by mutilating it, by making it unacceptable to another place, then your Lordships will finish up, all of us will finish up, with nothing at all, nothing whatsoever. We are familiar enough with the procedure to realise that if an Amendment goes to another place and is rejected there, it will be impossible to amend that further when it reaches your Lordships' House for final attention. And what is more, in certain circumstance a difference between this House and another place on a matter of this kind might raise difficulties we would wish to avoid. What I think is much worse than that is that there would be no basis upon which we could encourage the newspaper industry to reach this code of practice. We might be doing a grave disservice to the future peace in the newspaper industry. We might be doing grave harm indeed to the freedom of the Press.
Therefore we have a very heavy responsibility. The consequences of overreaching ourselves could be damaging to the very cause we have at heart. I beg of your Lordships to view this new clause favourably. I will not anticipate Amendments to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. We shall see what he wishes to do with the proposed new clause when

204
he comes to that point. We can give his proposals careful consideration along with the contents of the new clause. But with great respect, I hope that I may be permitted to reaffirm my belief that our hope lies substantially in this new clause, and if we keep to that I sincerely believe that we shall properly have made a contribution in this House which proved impossible in another place and which might redound to the credit and to the constructive ability of this House to improve legislation coming from another place. I beg to move.
5.51 p.m.
Lord GOODMAN Lord GOODMAN moved Amendment No. 15 as an Amendment to No. 14:
In subsection (1), line 6, after ("employers") insert (" editors and such editors' organisations ").
The noble Lord said: At the outset may I be permitted to pay a sincere tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. He has worked extraordinarily hard to try to reconcile the differences between his viewpoint and that of my friends and myself in this matter, and no-one could have worked harder. I feel singularly ungracious in saying to him at the outset that, if I am incurring the risk of losing this concession because of asking, Oliver Twist-like, for more, that is a risk which I incur with complete composure. I do not regard what we are offered in this Amendment as having the slightest value for the purposes for which I am urging the Committee to make a change. I must say this at the outset. If I did not say that there would be a large measure of insincerity in what I say next.
The noble Lord said that he had no interest to declare in this matter. I have several professional interests to declare, as chairman of the Newspaper Publishers' Association, who have given me no instructions in this matter, and for whom I am not speaking; I am chairman of the Observer Trust, who have given me no instructions in this matter, and for whom I am not speaking, and I happen to be the chairman of the Jewish Chronicle. I hasten to say that they have given me no instructions in this matter and I do not speak for them either. But. I do speak, I think, for everyone in this Committee who is concerned for such an historic privilege and right that we possess. I think, also, that I speak not only for

205
them in this matter, but for their children and grandchildren. I think we shall deeply deplore and regret it if we allow this situation to pass without making some significant change to the law now suggested.
I hoped, as did the noble Lord, that we should be able to avoid a confrontation in this matter. I hope that my proposals may be seen as an extended olive branch. I and my friends will make ourselves available day and night to see whether we can avoid forcing this matter by the weight of votes in this House. I do not think this ought to be a political matter. It is, I hope, no disparagement of the noble Lords on the Opposition side, but it would be a sad thing if the right to preserve the freedom of the Press were forced upon us by the vote of the Opposition or by any Party vote. Hence I urge the Leader of the House—and I know there is no-one who will respond more readily to such urging—that we continue to consider whether the differences between us can be bridged in a fashion which is acceptable to us.
There are historical issues involved in what we are discussing today. One of the problems with which we have to deal—and we have to admit it—is the fact that we are talking on rather different planes. When we last debated this subject. I heard the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, saying with some asperity that I was an arid intellectual and asking what was the difference between some scribbler who was scribbling and the man who was working on a lathe or repairing a road? The difference is simple: each man who is scribbling is scribbling something different. This is the vital and essential point which I have to commend to your Lordships. You cannot therefore seek to regulate these activities by a common code that applies to everyone.
I wonder whether I might give an example from my own childhood, because it was one of the most formative experiences that I had. I used to bicycle no great distance to a bookshop in the East End of London. It was a surprising shop. One half was full of pulp magazines, from which the bookseller made his living; the other was full of literature of the highest quality and he used to talk to me about the books. I learned more from him about books, and was more

206
influenced towards the way of life I have since developed, by that man than by any other human being. He wrote, and one of the problems with which we have to deal today is that the union says, in union industrial terms: "We cannot allow a non-professional to take a job if there is a professional writer available". But there is no such thing as a professional writer.
I will appeal, if I may venture to do so, to the noble Lord who is sitting alongside me, who is one of the most distinguished novelists living. I wonder whether he will say there is such a thing as a professional writer in the sense that a man can take instruction, a course or an apprenticeship. The man I mentioned became a very important and distinguished dramatist between selling his pulp magazines and selling, or trying to sell, his better literature, which, so far as I know, no-one bought—I alone read it— but he developed a skill as a dramatist which was outstanding, and he had three or four plays produced.
If he had been a journalist, there is no doubt that the National Union of Journalists, with great validity, would have said that he could not be a member because he did not earn enough from his journalistic activities. There is very little doubt that they would have the right, if they sought the right, as they have done already and may well do again, to exclude him from journalistic activities in the future. Is this a situation which we can possibly tolerate in this country at this moment? Is it something for which I ought to be asking? Is it conceivable that 10 years ago the Labour Party would have offered any resistance at all to the suggestion that the four exclusions that I seek to obtain in this Bill should be a matter for debate and discussion in the Houses of Parliament?
I know what has happened. I hope your Lordships will bear with me if I venture to expand on this point—it is nothing bad and nothing sinister. I will say what has happened, and we really must count our blessings. The other day the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, drew attention to the subversive influences in trade unions and elsewhere—and rightly did so—but what he did not draw attention to was the miracle that we are achieving a revolution in this country without a revolution. This is the cause

207
of the difficulties which we are now encountering. People who were deprived of power are obtaining power, and they are obtaining power legitimately through the democratic process. But the taking of power cannot be measured with such nicety that problems of this kind will not arise in the course of it. We have enormous blessings which we have acquired because of it. We have the blessing of changes of a revolutionary nature, the transfer of power from an exclusive group of people to the entire community, without bloodshed, without violence, without the sort of disturbance that other countries have suffered. If, therefore, we have a problem of this sort arising from this historic change, it is something which we should recognise without too much regret and which we should set our minds to solving.
I am not a friend of the Industrial Relations Act of 1971. I have heard the poor Act mauled and murdered, and so many harsh words have been said about it that I have almost felt it necessary to start a society to enable some slight recognition to be given to its better parts, because there were better parts of that measure. There never was a curate's egg of an Act like that one. But the fact remains that, whether or not one supports the Act, what one must not do is allow the process of wiping away, obliterating and washing away the Act with soap and pumice stone, with acid and with every kind of detergent that can be found; to wipe away things that ought to be preserved is the danger.
I refer now to the Secretary of State in the Commons, and I should like to say that I very much regret the attack made on him on this House during the Second Reading debate. I have known him for many years and, whatever one may say about his views on this matter, no-one can question his sincerity and courage. I am in profound disagreement with him today, and no doubt I shall be in profound disagreement with him on many other matters. But I know that he has become obsessed with the trade union aspects of this subject and, sadly, he refuses to recognise the dangers that arise from some of these changes.
Let me say a word about the National Union of Journalists. This is in the main a highly responsible body of men. I

208
doubt whether there is a section of the community which is more concerned with the liberties of the country than are the journalists. Nor is there a body which has, through its membership been more active in preserving those liberties. But we have a situation in which the National Union of Journalists has 27,000 members and it would be unspeakable folly to entrust the right of deciding who is to publish in a newspaper to 27,000 people, if it were 27,000 people who were concerned.
The last thing I want to do is to prolong a quarrel with the National Union of Journalists, but I must draw your Lordships' attention to something that happened in relation to the union's attitude towards registering under the 1971 Act because it is extremely significant so far as concerns the argument about how far we can trust ourselves with a small union of this kind. I shall give the figures. After the 1971 Act had become law, the executive met to recommend that there should be a ballot to determine whether the union should register or deregister. That resolution was passed by 21 votes to 9, but the executive included the recommendation that in sending out the ballot papers it would express its own view that the union ought to deregister. It expressed its view and, as often happens, that view was rejected and, by 6,384 votes saying "Yes" to 3,807 votes saying "No", the union, through its membership, decided to register. Then what happened? The union holds an annual delegate meeting and at that meeting, by 298 votes to 82, the union decided that it would not register. So the ballot was totally ignored. Then there was dissension and upset on the part of the membership and they demanded, as it were, a recount and asked for further discussions and meetings. At the further meeting, the position was maintained by 171 votes to 160. Therefore, if I may say so, we are being invited by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and by the Secretary of State in the House below, to entrust our fortunes to 11 votes or, to be scrupulously fair—though I have no reason to be so —to 171 votes out of the 27,000 members of the Union.
Does that really make sense, and can we really accept all the pious assurances in Mr. Michael Foot's article that we

209
should be wrong to pay attention to the resolutions of the annual delegate meeting and that they all mean nothing and are all froth? Should we believe that the people who are really running the union are the kindly, benevolent souls like Mr. Kenneth Morgan?—and indeed he is kindly and benevolent, and a more honourable man one will not find. I met him last night at the splendid lecture organised by the noble Lord, Lord Bernstein, and I wish that everyone on the Government Benches had attended that lecture because Mr. Roy Jenkins said all that I need to say, and said it with great courage. He made a point that is rarely made: we talk about a free Press as if it were some abstraction plucked out of the air and obtaining some common denominator of freedom that operates all over the newspapers. There is no such thing. A free Press is the right to have enough newspapers to publish everyone's viewpoint. The moment one reduces the number of newspapers, one reduces the freedom of the Press. If the number of papers is reduced to one or two, the freedom of the Press is destroyed. It cannot continue to exist.
There are no rules that can be put into a charter to tell a man how to edit a newspaper so that it expresses total impartiality. There are no such rules. There is no means of putting into a charter what the contents of a newspaper ought to do. What one has to do is to have a sufficient number of newspapers to correct and put to right the faults that one editor may insert into his newspaper. Without that, there is disaster. Mr. Jenkins recognised that fact as few recognise it, unless they happen to be experts in the field and have been watching it and thinking about it for years. I venture to suggest to your Lordships that the necessity is that we should preserve a sufficiency of newspapers by preserving sufficient freedom for sufficient people to publish in them.
How can any union say in relation to professional writers that it is going to choose a professional member—one who has paid up his dues? I touched on this point in my last speech and made a rather dubious joke about it; but the point is, how can any union tell an editor who he is to substitute for the expert writing of a man who has the talent which he has developed, God knows how? Nobody

210
knows how a writer develops, and the skill and genius of writing has nothing to do with political systems and nothing to do with financial rewards. Rich men make good writers and poor men make poor writers, and vice versa. In tyrannies there are great writers. It is a strange thing that in the despotism of the Russian Czarist régime some of the greatest writers in the world existed. In the freedom in many democratic States there is not a word that is readable. No one can explain this except the Almighty. But once one starts regulating writers with trade union regulations one will destroy every glimmer and every spark of genius and creativity that exists.
To address myself specially to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, who made an appeal to me, this is not a trade union matter. This is not a matter where we are concerned in the slightest in restricting any rights in relation to trade unions. I am no enemy to trade unions. Only yesterday, a letter appeared on my desk from a trade union asking me to become their ombudsman. I may say that I should be very chary of accepting the offer, knowing the amount of work that it would involve, but I regarded it as one of the greatest compliments I have ever received. But that trade union would realise quite well the difference that exists in this matter: it would see that, if a man can write and has something to say, nothing is put in the way of his being able to do that. The suggestion that one can deal with this by a code of practice is, if I may say so with the greatest respect, egregious nonsense. It is nothing else, and it has to be so described.
If I may turn to the charter proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, I would point out with no direspect at all that he says that he has a document that will be evolved in agreement between the parties connected with the industry. There is not the remotest chance of any such agreement being achieved. We will sit down and we will try very hard, but I do not believe that the people who are aspiring to have the sort of rights of which they already have a promise and of which they already have an anticipation— they have tasted the heady wine of the power that they will be able to exercise— will release the prospect of that power and return to normal democratic processes. I do not believe that but, in

211
any event, we will negotiate, however, if we have this charter, and assuming that we are able to reach agreement, we are told that it is to have a purely persuasive effect and that in any court or tribunal the charter may be called in aid to influence the court in deciding exactly how all the parties ought to have behaved. But what are the proceedings? What court will be able to be invoked? The Act provides that a man can be expelled from a union with no explanation, no trial, no redress. When is he to invoke this particular right? Supposing it had the slightest value, in to what court is he to call it in aid? Into what procedings is he to call it in aid?
There is the remote possibility that the Common Law—and I do not know if there are any Law Lords present, so I shall be rather circumspect in saying what I am going to say, being about to air a view on the progression of the law, though not in the least offensively—was groping towards something like the right to work. One or two cases emerged in the Common Law; one was the case of a lady trainer who obtained a judgment against the Jockey Club, which had stopped her from working, and there was another case in which the same sort of possibility was beginning to emerge in a groping way. But nobody knows how that will emerge and nobody knows if that right will not have been obliterated and destroyed by this Act. And that is all. That is the only prospect of any attempt to invoke the law on behalf of somebody who has been excluded from a union. What is the use of this persuasive section? On this subject, I should like to hear the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, explain why he thinks it can have the slightest benefit.
Hence, we have ventured to make some amendments which, as I have said, are of the mildest possible character. We have accepted the structure and framework of a charter. We have preferred the word "charter", because that indicates the existence of rights and we have inserted in that charter four matters which will be mandatory. One is the freedom of the editor. Much has been said on this and I do not think it is necessary to say another word, except that unless an editor is free from pressures—union and all

212
other pressures—he cannot be a successful editor. If a proprietor exerts pressures, he pays the inevitable price of having a bad newspaper. Hence it is very rare indeed, over the most recent years, that proprietors have exerted such pressures, because they know that they will lose an editor of quality. We have recently been joined in this House by a very great editor, and I suggest that it would be a brave proprietor indeed who would endeavour to exert pressure on him in these matters. It is not that the proprietor will not have the right to do it. It is simply that if he respects his commercial property, he will have the sense not to do it. In fact, he will have the sense to recognise that that editor will disappear and go next door.
What if anyone else tries to exert these pressures? What about advertising pressures? Nobody will, I think, deny that advertising has some effect and must in some way influence the content of a newspaper, but it would be a very skilful man with a very discerning, microscopic eye who could read a newspaper and say, "That paragraph was dictated by the advertiser." I think it is rare that an advertiser would have the effrontery to suggest any direct influence. I do not say that newspapers are infallible. They are fallible human institutions with human faults and in many personal matters perhaps they do not behave too well, but the Government set up a Press Commission to consider all this.
Why are we racing ahead with a measure which will preempt every possibility of the Press Commission preserving these rights when the Commission has just started its work again under a distinguished new chairman? What is the point of that? I submit that the Amendment which I propose to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, is reasonable, that it should be accepted by the Committee without a Division, and that it is desperately necessary. It is necessary because, for some reason, it has been decided to proceed on the basis of total consistency, and this, I suggest, is another fault of the Secretary of State. This may sound a very excusable fault. I think that what he has said to himself is, " We must have the same treatement for everyone. If we are to have a closed shop, everyone must have a closed shop."
There is a kind of Teutonic thoroughness about this approach which might commend itself to a number of people, except that it is totally demented that one should seek to apply a Teutonic thoroughness to writers which has the same relevance and the same kind of effect as it will have to machine grinders or whatever operation is necessary, important and is carried on in shops under the control and supervision of trade unions. A writer is no better than a working man in some other capacity. A writer makes no such claim. He is just different. I am not making my claim on the ground that he is an intellectually superior person. He may write the utmost rubbish or pornography, or what he writes may be touched with divine inspiration; but whatever he writes, it is totally different from the activity of the people who are concerned with and affected by this measure.
I make a final plea to the Leader of the House. I hope he will respond to the invitation I extend, so that we may still have a further opportunity of considering the implications of this Bill. It will do much more credit in the light of history to the Labour Party and the Government if they accept my Amendment and concede the claim that is being made by honest and anxious voices in all parts of the country than if they inexorably force through this legislation in the belief that, by achieving an improvement in trade union status, they are achieving an improvement in journalistic and literary status. What I have said applies equally to broadcasting, radio, independent broadcasting and to the BBC. It applies to every creative activity. I hope that we may be able to reach a compromise that will leave an issue of this kind happily unresolved by any politicial decision, so that it can never be said in future years that the liberty of the Press was lost or gained by the vote of any section of any political Party in this House or elsewhere. I beg to move.
6.17 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: I think it might be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to intervene at this stage and explain the position of Her Majesty's Government in relation to the two Amendments that are before the Committee. To the noble Lord, Lord Goodman,

214
I say that I count myself fortunate to have been born an optimist, because during the earlier part of his speech I became rather depressed, but I became more hopeful as I listened to the noble Lord's latter remarks. On Second Reading I went to great pains to deal at some length with the problem that has emerged on this Bill regarding the freedom of the Press.
I said then, and I say again, that we are discussing the freedom of the Press in the wrong context, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, mentioned this. I made it clear that the Government were as anxious as anyone not only to maintain the freedom of the communications media but, if possible, to improve it. I have no doubt that that freedom can be maintained and, above all, be accepted by the reader and the listener only when the amount of Government intervention and the application of law are limited to the very minimum.
If one accepts that, one will appreciatae the reluctance of the Government to include in this Bill, which is about labour relations, matters concerning the media. We have, however, said that, should the Royal Commission on the Press give reason, the Government would not hesitate to legislate. But we would then have the advantages of a close investigation, a studied report and time to give thought and consultation for the right kind of legislation based on the principles of the freedom of the Press.
I acknowledge the concern in your Lordships' Committee and I recognise the realities of the situation. Equally, those who hold strong views will, I hope, accept that the Government's reluctance to depart from the views we have expressed here and in another place are for genuine reasons and are firmly based on the freedom of the Press. It seems to me, having studied the debates, the articles written and the conversations I have held, that the basic fear is not about the present but of possible events of the future. If that is so, is there not a case for going more slowly on the firm assurance that if the Royal Commission were to report and legislation were required, then we could legislate specifically for the freedom of the Press and not in the context of a trade union and labour relations measure?

215
That is what I would prefer and would urge on the Committee for consideration. An added reason for delay is the very helpful report of the meeting over the weekend of the executive of the NUJ. I should have thought that there is now enough common ground for the industry to work out their own agreement and I will return to this later in my remarks. If, however, the Committee are not content with that situation, then we must consider the series of proposals before the Committee.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Houghton, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, for letting me have advance sight of their Amendments. The Houghton Amendment, if I may refer to it as such, has been in my possession some days and I can give a considered reply. As regards the Goodman Amendment, again if I may use this shorthand to refer to it as such, I had sight of it officially only late on Friday and, therefore, for obvious reasons, will express a provisional view. I shall also give careful consideration to the speech that the noble Lord, Lord Good-man, has just delivered.
The Government have consistently taken the line that it would be wrong to amend the Bill to make special provision for the Press by way of specifying that certain people, that is, editors, should not be covered by union membership agreements. This view is supported by a number of arguments. First, closed shops are not compulsory. There is no legislation that requires this. Secondly, the history of legislation on closed shops is far from encouraging. The experience of the Indus-trial Relations Act confirmed the judgment of the Donovan Report when it said that prohibition of the closed shop must be rejected. Thirdly, the Bill touches specifically on the closed shop in journal-ism (and "therefore on the freedom of the Press) in only a very limited way, because it had to deal with the question of unfair dismissal in the closed shop situation.
When the Bill was debated at Report stage in another place, the Secretary of State repeated what he had told the editors of the London newspapers—and my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby referred to it—that is, that it would be difficult to deal with the matter by legislation, but that if the parties concerned wished to see
216
an industrial agreement backed by some form of enactment in a code of practice, the Government would be prepared to consider that possibility. He emphasised —and I repeat it—that such a procedure might well add to the authority of such a document. The Government did not have in mind an Amendment to the Bill of the kind which my noble friend Lord Houghton has now proposed in order to achieve this. There might well have been other ways of doing this—for example, by an Amendment to the existing Code of Industrial Relations Practice under the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act.
Nevertheless, there are some advantages in the approach which my noble friend Lord Houghton has adopted. It makes clear—and I should like to stress this— that the responsibility for drawing up a code rests with those concerned in the industry. It gives specific recognition to the importance of Press freedom in the Statute dealing with labour relations, but at the same time puts any code made relating to the Press on the same footing as the existing code; that is, a transgression of the code could not of itself give rise to proceedings before a court or an industrial tribunal, but if the code is relevant to proceedings taken on the basis of another statutory provision the code would be admitted as evidence, and taken into account by the tribunal or court.
Of course the talks within the industry came to an untimely end when a majority of those concerned decided that they would be prepared to discuss the framing of a charter to safeguard the freedom of the Press only if the Press was excluded from the provisions of this Bill and refused, with the exception of the NUJ representatives, to agree to try to formulate a charter irrespective of what went in the Bill.
One reason why I can welcome the main part of my noble friend's Amendment is that it places the emphasis on the need for the industry to come to an agreement acceptable to all sides. The Government's doubt about the Amendment centres on subsection (3). This places the possibility for producing a code on the Secretary of State, if the industry does not produce one in six months. I can appreciate why my noble friend proposes this, but this is not really a task for Government at all as my

217
noble friend Lord Houghton himself recognises in subsection (1) of his Amendment.
The whole question of union membership agreements—once the basic legal definitions have been made as flexible as possible—and the principles which might govern their application in particular industries is a matter best decided by industry. Moreover, it is quite alien to our traditions for the Government to be laying down what has to be done in relation to the freedom of the Press. It may be relevant to point out that the Inter-national Federation of Journalists has taken the view that codes of ethics for journalists are to be encouraged, but it has deplored the possibility of their being imposed by the State because of the risk that this could lead to unwelcome interference. I am sure that my noble friend—
Lord GOODMAN: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but is he saying that the International Federation of Journalists has approved a suggestion that no one can write for a newspaper unless he is a member of a single union?
Lord SHEPHERD: What I said was that the Federation had said that the codes of ethics for journalists are to be encouraged, but it has deplored the pos-sibility of their being imposed by the State because of the risk that this could lead to unwelcome interference. I should have thought that that is clear enough.
Lord GOODMAN: I am very loth to insist upon this, but it is a matter of very great importance: the suggestion that the proposal of the Government is approved by an immensely important international institution. I must ask again, very specifically: is it suggested that it is approved by that institution that no one should write for a newspaper unless he is an accepted member of a single union, from which he can be expelled without reason or trial? Is that approved by that institution, because if it is I should be extremely—
Lord SHEPHERD: I think that the noble Lord is, if I may say so, making a debating point. To the best of my knowledge the codes of ethics of the Federation are similar to those of the NUJ. What I was seeking to establish, in
218
reference to the International Federation of Journalists, is its fear and reluctance to any imposition being put upon the media by legislation of the State, and I should have thought that all those in your Lordships' House would have accepted that—
Lord BROCKWAY: May I interrupt the Minister? I apologise for doing so, but if I may comment on what the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has said, is it not the case that last weekend the executive of the National Union of Journalists declared the right of access to any person, not limited to members of the union?
Lord SHEPHERD: Perhaps I may continue dealing with my noble friend's Amendment. I am sure that he has not made his proposal for any reason other than a desire to see that a sensible code emerges after not too great a lapse in time, and I am certain that he would wish to place the emphasis not on what the Secretary of State might do, but on the need for the industry to build on the useful start which some of those within it have made. I have heard expressed some doubt about my noble friend's Amendment, about whether the six months is in fact too short a time to allow the industry to finalise an agreement. If the Committee felt that this is so, we could consider the point. Personally I should hope, given the existing good will, and putting aside set positions, and led by men of determination, an agreement could be finalised in a short period of time.
Therefore despite the doubts that I have expressed about the desirability of the Secretary of State being involved in the way proposed, we welcome the Amendment as a whole in the hope and expectation that all those concerned in the industry will see their way to playing their part in the creation of a useful agreement.
I now turn to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. For reasons I have already explained, the views I now express can only be provisional. I should at the outset make clear that the Amendment is not acceptable to the Government in its present form. A number of points apparently basic to the noble Lord's Amendment cut completely across the line of approach hitherto taken by the Government. The effect of subsection (2)

219
would make talks within the industry much less meaningful because it lays down the ends to be achieved in advance. This is a very different approach from that hitherto adopted by the Government, and also from that in the Amendment by Lord Houghton. The aim has been to build the maximum flexibility into the law. The Bill legalises closed shops, but does not make them compulsory. It is for industry to work out where closed shops are thought to be appropriate, the conditions on which they should be made, and where employees should be covered.
Lord Goodman's Amendment appears to be designed to exclude editors from any obligation to join a trade union. This is putting editors into a very special position indeed. The Government arc not necessarily in favour of editors joining a union, but are not satisfied that this is a matter which should be prescribed by law. Moreover, noble Lords may notice that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, would give this right to "other persons exercising editorial responsibilities." This could run very wide indeed. I wonder whether the noble Lord, when he winds up, will give some indication as to whom he has in mind.
The Amendment would also give journalists the right to join a trade union of their choice. This is effectively outlawing the closed shop in journalism. The noble Lord shakes his head and indicates that this is not his intention; but that is my view. I wonder whether the noble Lord would consider particularly the implication of paragraph (b) of Amendment No. 17, because it appears to us that this is a legal ban on the closed shop on journalism.
While I would certainly hope and expect that editors will be free to publish articles free from pressure by industrial action, I have to ask whether this is the right way of going about this aim. It seems to me that there are much better ways of doing this than by laying down a right, subject to the legal penalties in Amendment 28. The NUJ made it clear that they are against censorship and the General Secretary has explained that it distinguishes between the blacking of articles written by non-members when there is a dispute, and discrimination against particular articles which are contrary to the union's code of conduct.
220
It seems to me from what they have written to Mr. Frank Owens, the Presi- dent of the Guild of British Newspaper Editors, and to Mr. Hetherington, that we can meet many of the fears of the editors towards the NUJ. There are many other matters in the noble Lord's Amendment which we shall need to examine with very great care.
My initial reading of Lord Goodman's Amendment is that he is, in effect, making a substantive statutory right, be-cause Amendment 28 lays on everybody a clear statutory duty to comply with the provisions of the charter. Breach of the duty seems to be actionable whether or not it arises from industrial action, which is given a very wide meaning in Amendment 29. I would be rash if I now made more than a general comment on what is obviously a very complex piece of drafting, which could well on further examination raise some important legal questions. But I have to ask whether noble Lords, including the movers of the Amendment, are certain that the way to achieve the aim of Press freedom is really to insist on legal provisions of this kind.
I therefore hope very much that Lord Goodman will reconsider his Amendment —and I am willing to have further discussions with him—because it seems to be changing the idea of a Code or Charter into something very different. It is per-haps not unfair to say that it is using the concept of the Code or Charter to make basic changes in the law. I hope that particularly in the light of developments over the week-end, the noble Lord will give further consideration to his Amendment.
What should we do this evening? I have expressed a cordial welcome to the Amendment of my noble friend. It was not one that we had in mind; but it seems to provide a base on which we may be able to build and to extend certain of the provisions of the noble Lord's Amendment at a later stage of the Bill in order to meet some of the points that the noble Lord has in mind. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will agree to accept the Amendment of my noble friend on that basis.
To the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, I would say that he has moved a very complex Amendment. It raises a number of difficult issues; but I want to say

221
this particularly to him. I believe that there is a real possibility in the Press industry and in the media for finding a solution, an agreement and settlement that is satisfactory to all sides. I cannot conceive of anything better in the interests of the freedom of the Press than that all the guardians of the freedom of the Press could agree. I think that agreement is more likely if we use the time between now and the Third Reading of the Bill to explore, examine and negotiate an agreement within the industry.
The noble Lord is a very determined man. I will not call him " Mr. Fixer "— although I gather that to some he is known as such—but he has undoubted ability to bring different sides together to find a solution. If the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, could set his heart and mind to this, then, so far as the Government are concerned, we shall do all we can to help. I hope that the noble Lord and this Committee will believe that the freedom of the Press depends on the guardians of all sections of the Press working towards that agreement. I believe it is possible; I believe we should use Lord Houghton's Amendment as the basis. I am still optimistic that a solution can be found.
6.40 p.m.
Baroness LEE of ASHERIDGE: Many references have been made in this debate to the 1971 Industrial Relations Act. I should like to call the attention of the Committee to some of the problems that the Labour Government of 1964-70 had to face with their industrial disputes legislation. I agree with my Party in many respects, but I never could be convinced" that Mr. Harold Wilson, our Prime Minister in the 1964–70 Parliament, was wise in trying to force certain aspects of industrial legislation down the throats of the trade unions. It seems to me a self-evident truth that if a law is passed in such a form that an individual railwayman, miner or engineer refused to obey it and, in consequence, a fine was imposed that from that follows imprisonment if there is a refusal to pay the fine, then you need only have one railwayman, engineer or miner jailed, and you have the whole industry out. I thought in that 1964–70 Parliament we should have learned the lesson that there are some areas in industrial relations that you cannot deal with by
222
legal methods. It is much more complicated than that.
It seems to me sheer madness for any-one now to think that we can solve the extremely complicated relationships between newspaper proprietors, editors, journalists and the rest by enforcing law over the whole field. It can be done over certain parts, yes—because, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, said, there are historical issues involved. If I may say so, I thought the most eloquent part of his speech came when he talked about the struggle by which the trade union movement had achieved the right to exist at all, and when he talked about the right to have any kind of freedom of the Press. These are great historical issues, and therefore we approach this problem differently on either side of the Committee.
Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, cares passionately about the freedom of the Press. Nothing could seem to him, or to the rest of us, more barbaric than that anyone should be pre-vented from writing or talking freely. But what do we mean by the " freedom of the Press"? Do we mean the freedom of a limited number of newspaper proprietors to have things all their own way? The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, said that they do not get everything their own way nowadays, and that they do not even try. He said that it is now the editor who can fly freely. I hear noises on my left: I do not want to embarrass anyone, but I think that anyone in this Committee who has had the experience of editing a paper knows perfectly well that editors are not self-employed and do not operate in a vacuum. One does not expect, for instance, the editor of the Daily Telegraph to put the Communist point of view very eloquently or adequately, and one does not expect the editor of the Morning Star to put the Conservative point of view very eloquently or adequately.
I agree that one thing we have in this country, which is precious, is a number of different newspapers. Unfortunately, they are becoming fewer. There is no such thing as an abstract and complete freedom of the Press. Of course there will be pressures from the people who give the money; of course there will be pressures, direct or indirect, from newspaper owners. Of course there will be pressures from journalists. All that is

223
happening now is that in journalism, as in everything else, the men and women who are earning their living there are insisting on having a larger say than they have had in the past. Perhaps in an imperfect world the best we can hope for is to have a diversity of newspapers. I should like to see a greater diversity than we have now.
You can be relatively complacent if you are a sound Tory, because you get a very good share of the Press; the Communist Party manages to keep a daily newspaper, but the poor old Labour movement has never been able to keep a newspaper. Perhaps one of the reasons why the Daily Herald went under was that some of the same restrictions, operating in every other newspaper, operated there. And the point of view with which I have been associated with all my life, and which I still hold, never had a very big say in any official Labour journal! So it is just as well to keep in mind that there are differences of view within Parties, as well as between Parties, and the nearest we can get to making this abstract phrase "the freedom of the Press" a reality is by having as much diversity as possible.
Because I think along those lines, I would most certainly not want to see the National Union of Journalists having a monolithic control over the entire Press; and the British public would not stand for that. But there is no indication, so far as I can see, that the National Union of Journalists is so out of touch with reality that it is asking for any such privilege. It is asking that there should not be fragmentation. As my noble friend Lord Douglass of Cleveland, who knows so much about this subject, said, the fellows earning their living nowadays try to put into practice the song we all sang and the slogan on the banners we marched behind—" Solidarity for ever ". Union is strength, and we know the price we have paid in the past; first, when no union at all was allowed, and then when small struggling unions came into existence.
Much admiration has been given to the American system, where there is the industrial union. We did the Germans proud after the Second World War, because we gave them a brand new trade
224
union movement along the lines of industrial unionism. We have a different system in this country. We have a lot of social furniture inherited from the past and any trade union leader has an extremely difficult, complex and sensitive job to do in dealing with the different interests within his union, as well as between unions. Therefore, remembering the experience of the 1964–70 Labour Government, and much as I admire the eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman—and usually he manages to convince me—I am not convinced that we shall promote freedom of the Press by trying to make certain matters in this difficult area compulsory by law.
The most hopeful aspect of the situation is that the National Union of Journalists has moved in the last few days, and I hope that the proprietors are also moving. They realise that they can no longer be complete dictators. It is nonsense to think that editors are going to operate in a vacuum. There has to be some kind of modus vivendi nowa-days and I believe that a code of conduct must be voluntary; we have to play it by ear. I have heard my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment say to others that he would be. prepared to consider the position not just for six months but even for a year, in order to see whether the noble Lords, Lord Goodman, Lord Houghton and others could get together and work out a code of practice which would make it possible for us to have at least the maxi-mum diversity in freedom. The National Union of Journalists said just the other day:
" The Union also want to consider creating a special form of membership for specialists writers and others who at present are not eligible for full union membership."
So I take it that the situation is that if you are earning your living as a journalist you belong to the National Union of Journalists, and if you are a specialist writer and earn only part of your living that way you will not be excluded.
We have very difficult areas here to clarify, but I would say to your Lordships that we ought to have learned from the experience of the 1964–70 Labour Government, when there was an almost permanent divorce between my colleagues on the trade union front and those on the political front. There are certain things

225
which cannot be dealt with by force. I was in America in the Prohibition years, as were many of your Lordships. You may think it is a very good thing and very democratic that the majority of member of a Government decide to do something and then carry it through. But it brings the law into disrepute if, when you are dealing with something which intimiately affects a very large number of people, you try to legislate in a way which will not be implemented.
We all know the difficult problems that have been created in the past by that; we know about the stills, the Mafia and the underground. There is a certain parallel here, and I think that if we were to approach this issue tentatively we would not get a perfect Press. But when you compare what we have with what can be found in any dictatorship, whether it is Fascist or Communist, there is much to be said for our Press, with all its faults. And I wish it would stop giving all those prizes to criminals and brigands and the rest. We need a code of conduct not only for who is to write for the Press but for some of the material that appears in the Press; but perhaps all that can come. However, I am deeply convinced that it will only come tentatively, and it will come only by our feeling our way in those sensitive areas where it is quite clear that something cannot be done by legislation.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: May I make one point to the noble Baroness before she sits down? She wails the demise of the Daily Herald. But is the noble Baroness aware that, so far as I have always been told, the reason why the Daily Herald went out of circulation was that it would not accept any contributions from anyone who was not a member of the National Union of Journalists? That is what I have always understood.
Baroness LEE of ASHERIDGE: The only people from whom it did not accept contributions were those who had my political point of view.
Lord GORDON-WALKER: The Daily Herald often published material from people who were not members of the NUJ. It was a question of whether they belonged to the Labour Party or had its views, but not whether they were
226
members of the NUJ. The noble Viscount has it wrong.
Lord ARDWICK: May I add a line as as editor of the Daily Herald at one time? Our regular weekly columnist was Mr. Michael Foot.
6.53 p.m.
Lord GORDON-WALKER: May I begin by thanking my noble friend the Leader of the House for his broad and generous support of the Amendment to which I am now going to speak. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, made, as he nearly always does, if not always, a very scintillating speech which fascinated me, but which, I must admit, did not wholly convince me. I want to take issue with him on a certain number of matters. He said that the Secretary of State—I think these were his words—was obsessed with the trade union aspect of this matter. But I think it fair to say that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, does not pay nearly enough attention to the trade union aspect of this matter which is, after all, in a trade union Bill. It is natural to think of the trade union aspect of problems in such a Bill. I was interested in the point made by my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal, that we might have special legislation concerning the freedom of the Press in a context separate from this Bill, so that it was not mixed up with trade union matters but could then be thought of in its own right and settled in its own right.
Of course, Lord Goodman is right that there are some aspects of the Press, journalists, broadcasters and so on, which differ from aspects of other work. But there are special aspects of many other industries. One could make something of the same case, or a corresponding case, for many other industries. We cannot discriminate against one or two unions in regard to the closed shop, picking them out from all other unions and all other industries. Certainly we cannot, as Lord Goodman seemed to imply, pick on them because they might have a small majority. That is what the noble Lord said: everything could be settled in the Press by a very small majority because they once had a small majority.
Lord GOODMAN: I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord, but that is not what I said. I said they had a ballot in which there was a vast majority in favour of one

227
course which was set aside by a tiny group of gentlemen by voting with a tiny majority. That is very different. It means that no one is safe to rely on the democratic process of that union, which is a fraud.
Lord GORDON-WALKER: I agree with what the noble Lord said first, but I was concentrating on what he said second, which he seemed gravely to object to and to think very dangerous: that something was settled by a very small majority in the end. If I misunderstand him, I will leave that point. It seemed to me that that was what he said, even when he interrupted me. I thought there was one curious omission in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, in that he did not refer at all to the recent resolutions of the executive council of the National Union of Journalists, who voted for the rights of the editor not to join a union, not to be compelled or pressed to do something he does not want, and on excess for outsiders. I may say that our code does the same.
I of course agree with my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal that, if agreement could be obtained by all the parties, it would be the best thing; but the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, said there was no chance of agreement. And, after all, although Lord Goodman does not speak for anybody, he kept on saying in his speech, "we", not "I". I think he knows well what are the chances of agreement. I am afraid that the chances of getting what the Lord Privy Seal wanted are rather small. The noble Lord also raised in respect of our Amendment the danger of bringing in the State through the Secretary of State's ultimate duty to impose a code. I fully see that there is great danger of bringing the Government into any kind of industrial matter. On the other hand, it seems to me that it is so important to obtain a code of the kind we want that we ought to have in the Bill some kind of guarantee that it would come about one way or another. If it is thought that six months is not long enough, of course we would all agree to have what-ever my noble friend thought was the proper length of time.
I believe the main issue that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, was concerned
228
about was whether a code had the force of law. He objected to ours because it did not, and he wants to amend it in such a way that it would have, at any rate to a greater degree, the force of law. One can also, none the less, criticise his own Amendments in respect of the kind of code that our code would become if these Amendments were carried. There is a limit to what one can do by the force of law in any field, and there is a particular limit to what can be done by the force of law in a trade union field. I do not understand, for instance, how Lord Goodman sees his subsection 17(c) could be enforced. This difficulty applies to the very important Section 28. It seems to me that the only way that a court could enforce its view, if it were defied in respect of an injunction or some such thing, would be to put people in prison. This is always a fatal thing to do. I can-not see how the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has not yet grasped that. If in the last resort one has to put men in prison over an industrial matter—I do not mean other things—it is fatal. It absolutely leads to self-defeat. He would not get what he wanted ; and no one would then ever again take the matter to the court and then this clause—
Lord GOODMAN: I hesitate again to interrupt the noble Lord, but I think we ought to know what he is saying. Is he saying there are no circumstances in which the law should be enforced in order to protect the outraged rights of a citizen by sending somebody to prison? Is that what he is saying?
Lord GORDON-WALKER: No, of course not. If I steal something or if I pickpocket from the noble Lord or if I commit any other such crime, of course I am properly sent to prison, as indeed I am if I drive in a drunken state or do something like that. I am speaking about an industrial trade union matter. It is in that field that we have, by sad experience, learnt that this course does not pay and is not enforceable. Of course, I am not saying—how could he believe I was saying?—what he suggested I was saying. Of course I believe that people should be put in prison when found guilty of offences. I would think the court would have no choice but to put people in prison under the noble Lord's code—it would have no choice if it were defied. But it

229
would not be right; or it would be right in one sense, but highly unwise and imprudent.
As regards the enforcement clause, or the lack of an enforcement clause, in our code, I would point out to noble Lords that the phrase in our code is exactly the same as the phrase in the Code in the 1971 Act. That Act, after all, was the great example of law bursting in upon trade union matters Yet, although the then Government did everything they should not do concerning the Industrial Relations Court and so on, they did not think the code should be given the kind of legal force that the noble Lord. Lord Goodman, wants. May I ask the noble Lord to think about that. Even if the creators of the 1971 Act did not want to give their code enforceability in his sense, it is surely wise not to go in any respect beyond that Act.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, admitted that he is not against the Bill. What he is primarily against is the fact that it does not make special provision for journalists. He is also against the fact that the National Union of Journalists has changed its attitude. Neither of these facts has anything to do with this Bill. In any case, that kind of argument could be applied to all kinds of trade unions. Finally, may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, that it is clear that both of us want a code. The noble Lord wants a different code, but both of us want a code to go into the Bill. If, however, the noble Lord's charter as he prefers to call it, is passed into law —in other words, if his Amendments are carried—there is great danger—
Lord GOODMAN: If these Amendments are carried in this House.
Lord GORDON-WALKER: Yes; I mean what we are now doing. If that happens, there is great danger that we will have no code and no charter. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, realises that and says that he does not mind if that happens. I hope that noble Lords will not agree with him about this. It is extremely important to get a code which, in all probability, will be acceptable to another place and to the Government, rather than that for the sake of some principle we should get no code at all. If the charter of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, is
230
agreed to, there is no hope that the other place will accept it.
Unless a code is put into the Bill in this House, the other place will not be able to discuss any code. This Bill has gone through all the processes that are possible in the other place. Unless, there-fore, we insert a code that is likely to be acceptable to the Government, the other place will be unable to incorporate a code into this Bill. If the charter of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, were agreed to, there would be the same result because they would have no choice but to reject it; then there would not be a code in the Bill which the other place could accept. Of course, our code is a com-promise, and various noble Lords will have different views about it. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has fairly strong views. It is a compromise; therefore, not everybody will agree about it. How-ever, I submit to your Lordships that this is a case where one should consider that four-fifths of a loaf are better than no loaf at all.
7.3 p.m.
Lord SNOW: May I begin by making a small declaration of interest; namely, that occasionally I contribute to news-papers in this country without being a member of a trade union. It is not a very significant matter in my personal affairs, but I thought I should mention it. Although we all pay great tribute to the noble efforts of my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby and my noble friend Lord Gordon-Walker, I must say that they do not remove the fears which I feel and which are felt by many of the people for whom I am speaking tonight. The real problem is one that has been touched upon but which Government spokesmen generally either gloss over or alternatively do not understand—I am never quite sure which; namely, that although it is true what journalists are part of an industry, they are also some-thing entirely different. They are very different from most of the similar examples which we can bring forward.
The general organisation, in the shape of unions, of persons from particular activities leads to some rather curious results. As your Lordships may have noticed, one of those rather curious results is the National Union of Students; they are considerably different from the

231
National Union of Mineworkers. For example, if they go on strike it does not matter. In fact, it is clear and definite that their nominal reason for becoming a union has nothing to do with their function in society. In a certain sense, there is an analogy with the National Union of Journalists. One part of their function, one part of their activity, has no relationship whatever to industrial structure; it depends upon what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has called " the written word ", and the written word really does matter.
Although I do not like the word " freedom ", if we do not safeguard the freedom of the written word, and if we do not safeguard the part that it plays in our lives, it will be very easy to descend to a kind of moral squalor which is not unknown in the world and which could just as easily happen here. That is the reason for the sense of outrage which a number of persons who are known to your Lordships have felt about the treatment of this issue by the Government. It is the strongest single example of dissension from Labour policies which I have known in people who are, by tradition and by experience, wedded to them. I will try to mention to your Lordships some of the people who have felt most strongly this sense of outrage within the last three or four months—who have felt not only the lack of sensitivity, because they are used to living in a rough world, but the lack of even a rudimentary insight into what the problem is.
The first persons who have been professionally concerned are four of the most respected editors in London. All of them are men who are not illiberal; all of them are deeply respected in the profession. Their jobs do not depend upon this; their positions are secure. If necessary, there are many parts of the world where they can practise their vocation. Although the Government never seem to have realised it, they feel this need just as passionately as trade unionists feel their addiction to the closed shop. Unless that is made clear, we are talking like imbeciles.
The second group of people who feel this need just as strongly are the editors of professional journals, who, for various reasons, are almost always Labour sympathisers. The third group of people—
232
here I am closer to my home ground— is the Society of Authors. None of the people who are concerned in the Society of Authors depends upon this for a penny. What they feel is that this is something which just cannot happen. One cannot have unions, however noble, dictating who or who should not be allowed to write in newspapers. It is a fundamental freedom that there must be a chance for Bernard Shaw and Walter Lippmann—people who were always on the periphery of journal-ism—to say their piece.
Lord GORDON-WALKER: Would the noble Lord agree that the National Union of Journalists has said exactly the same things as he is saying now, and that it is a " bogey " which he is trying to put forward?
Lord SNOW: I shall come to that in one minute. When one is making a speech, one does not forget these things. In no circumstances that I can envisage could Walter Lippmann have fitted into any conceivable union structure in this country, yet he was probably the most influential journalist of our time. The fourth group of people are more important still. They are some of the most distinguished pub-licists in this country, and one name that I shall pick out is that of Mr. J. B. Priestley. He has probably done more than any politician in the country to make acceptable Labour Governments of our present type. His influence, of both strength and fundamental good nature, has, from his early books to his wartime broadcasts and so on, been very strong indeed. He is as horrified about this as he is about anything in his political experience.
Hard-baked persons in Government can say, perfectly rightly, that this does not matter at all; this is not a matter of social forces; the number of persons concerned is trivial, and so on. I would say to them that that is a profound misjudgment. People who do not control votes, or mass forces or large organisations often form opinions which filter underground and in the long run have a decisive effect on human activity. I believe this indifference or unawareness of what a very large number of persons whom I will call inde-pendent writers are thinking, has been a quite extraordinary, and to me inexplicable, mistake. I know that the noble

233
Lord, Lord Houghton, is trying to do something to rectify that position which has done great harm. I assure my noble friends on this side of the House that they probably do not realise what harm it has done. I have heard more bitter comments on this than anything since the last War.
Baroness LEE of ASHERIDGE: My noble friend mentioned Walter Lippmann, J. B. Priestley, and others. Was he making an assessment before the statement made by the National Union of Journalists, when, as I said earlier, the union wanted to consider creating a special form of membership for specialist writers and others who at present are not eligible for full union membership? Would not J. B. Priestley, Walter Lippmann and others be eligible for full union membership? Would not J. B. Priestley, Walter Lippmann and others be eligible under that category?
Lord SNOW: That is the question which the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker, has already asked me. It is not something which anybody making this speech would be likely to forget. This is a prospective fear, it is not a present fear. As far as I can judge, Mr. Ken Morgan has behaved throughout with admirable composure, very eloquently and with good sense. Of course, the statements of the National Union of Journalists' Executive have been noticed by everyone concerned. The people con-cerned are used to reading ; that is their life and they read quite carefully. But they know, very much more than Governments, how very rapidly these things can change. Normally they have travelled more and have lived in a number of countries and within ten years have seen perfectly decent societies and professional bodies of writers, and so on, pass into a drug-like sheltered state. It is not the present that we are thinking about; it is what is possible. Again, it is quite likely that this is only a small chance. But sane men do not take small chances about big risks and dangers. That is the problem.
Everyone I know agrees that at the moment the National Union of Journalists has an Executive which, in the main, would agree with most of the points we are making tonight. We all say that perhaps these things will not happen. But we have lived in this world. I have
234
written to at least ten countries in Europe, and, in fact, we have seen with our own eyes how very easily things can slide unless there is one fundamental value, which is the value we are trying to preserve tonight. I have tried to get such comfort as I can—and it is very little—by asking friends from other countries how they manage their affairs. This is not a purely parochial matter but one which is common to every country in the Western World, and. in a backhanded way, to the Eastern World, too. I usually turn for counsel here to my Swedish friends who, on the whole, have developed the most highly articulated industrial organisation in Europe and the one which works the best, and whom no one can accuse of lacking respect for the major literary values. Unfortunately, there is a slight difference, because there is no closed shop in Sweden. Obviously I accept the closed shop as an historical fact, but it means that the Swedish analogy does not vork. They say that such difficulties are quite unthinkable. An editor in Sweden would normally belong to a union, but he has by tradition the kind of power that is, in some ways, rather greater than English editors would have. Since there is no closed shop the right to have out-side contributors does not arise. There is no problem there.
I confess that I can sec no easy comparisons, no easy remedies. But the important point is that we realise that there is a real danger, the final danger. We must not think that everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds, that this country has a sacred dispensation for things always to go right and that in five years we shall all think this is an absurd scare. The matter is so important that I would far rather be over-anxious at this time than under-anxious. If the thing is once really guarded against then it is probably irreversible. We have seen that elsewhere. Therefore, if it comes to a vote, I shall vote for the charter proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, on the grounds not I think that four-fifths of a loaf is better than no bread but that one-tenth of a loaf is better than no bread, which is rather more the correct approximation.
But I confess I feel slightly that the wisdom of Sam Goldwyn enters. He once said that an oral agreement is not

235
worth the paper it is written on. I have something of the same feeling about charters which are, in fact, expressions of good will. So I have no comfort. I am trying to speak for people with no political influence whatever who would, on the whole, be on this side of the Committee rather than on the other, but who feel most deeply on this matter, are really distressed and would work to help if there is the faintest possibility of producing either an agreed solution or one which is gently imposed.
7.18 p.m.
The Earl of DROGHEDA: I shall not make a speech, because I think that most of the remarks I would have made have already been made. I think your Lord-ships should realise the very great depth of feeling on this matter on the part of the editors of virtually all the national and the provincial Press, many periodicals and the editors of the broadcasting media. I have the greatest respect for these people. They do not speak with one voice at all; they have the most diverse political views and this is the first time in my recollection that I have seen a group of people come together feeling so deeply and strongly about anything. It may well be that their fears are ground-less, in which case I cannot see that one is giving very much away by letting them have some kind of legal recognition of their special position. The noble Lord the Leader of the House spoke about the possibility of discussions between now and the next stage of the Bill, and he said that something could be evolved. I very much hope that this will happen without our having to wait for six months, a year or longer for some code to be drawn up.
Finally, I should like to remind your Lordships of the existence of a union which has not been referred to at all; namely, the Institute of Journalists, which was registered in 1890 and is 20 years older than the National Union of Journalists. Although it has quite a number of members, they are few relative to the NUJ. It is certainly a union which would have to be recognised—or whatever the expression is—and be a specified union in the event that we come to that. But this union plays a major role and is registered under the 1974 Act.
Lord PANNELL: The noble Lord, Lord Snow, referred to the Goldwynism that " oral agreements are not worth the paper they are written on ". He cannot have known the history of the fair wages clause which is now quoted up and down the land in every court. But there is no statutory force behind that clause. It is just a statement by George Isaacs in the House as to what fair wages should be. Nobody can plead against the fair wages clause.
I want to refer to only one point which has not so far been mentioned. In a Bill which gives the right of the closed shop to over 10 million trade unionists, one cannot outlaw 30,000 journalists. A great many journalists will see in this Bill a great many things that they desire. The opponents of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, are the kind of people who want to outlaw journalists completely from the benefits of a closed shop—there is no question at all about that.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: If I may interrupt my noble friend, I said specifically that that was not the case. I said that quite specifically and as clearly as I could speak, which is generally quite clearly.
Lord PANNELL: The noble Lord did speak quite clearly but I still say, having studied the Bill, that the effect of the further Amendments is to put the National Union of Journalists outside the benefits of the Bill. There is no question about that, and if it is followed to its logical conclusion, instead of five dockers going to jail there will be five journalists.
Lord SHEPHERD: If I may intervene for a moment, one of the great difficulties in your Lordships' House, because we have no Speaker, is that noble Lords cannot always see who is standing up to speak, but I know that my noble friend Lord Brockway has been struggling to get in for quite some time and I wonder whether—
Lord FLETCHER: I was about to preface my few remarks by saying that I very rarely speak or trouble your Lord-ships, and in this case I intend to speak for only a very few minutes. My own feeling is that it is most unfortunate that in this debate we should be considering

237
two totally different things: one, good industrial (relations and, secondly, the freedom of the Press. I consider both to be important, although personally I happen to think the freedom of the Press is more important. Good industrial relaations affect those who are engaged in that particular industry; the freedom of the Press is one of our greatest national heritages—something of which we are all very proud and which affects not only those engaged in the preparation of newspapers but all citizens of this country; and the reason why considerable concern has been expressed in a great many quarters about this Bill is because it is feared, rightly or wrongly, that the freedom of the Press is in jeopardy.
I think that has been recognised in some of the speeches we have heard today, and in particular by the Secretary of State during the Third Reading in another place when he said that if, contrary to what he thought, the freedom of the Press was jeopardised by this Bill the Government would consider taking some steps to remedy that situation. That seems to me to be a complete fallacy. We are not concerned here today with establishing the freedom of the Press; we are concerned with preserving the freedom of the Press as it is in this country today, imperfect though it may be, and we have to face the fact that a great many people of varying shades of opinion, intelligence, education and outlook are quite genuinely and seriously concerned that if the Bill is enacted in its present form that historic freedom of the Press will be in jeopardy.
It is quite untrue, if I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Pannell, to pose as a question that one cannot deny to a certain number of journalists the closed shop provisions which are being given to 10 million or 12 million other people. That may be one incidental effect of the Bill but it is not its purpose and object. It may be one unfortunate side effect of the Bill, but even so, in my opinion it is much less serious than the fear of a great many people that the freedom of the Press will be jeopardised.
May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that I am not very impressed with either the proposed code or the proposed charter. My own preference
238
would be for the simple Amendment which was moved earlier to exclude journalists and editors from the provisions of this Bill in so far as it is a Bill dealing with industrial relations. Granted that there will be a necessity to deal with them at some time, I would have hoped that common sense would suggest to the Government, in view of the concern felt, that for the time being there should be excluded from this Bill any provisions relating to journalists or a closed shop in journalism, and not attempt, in a hurried, rushed atmosphere to produce either a code or a charter, about either of which it is quite obvious from the speeches that have been made today that a great deal more thought is required than anybody has yet been able to give to it. I hope that such a code or charter can be worked out in some agreed form that is acceptable not only to those intimately con-cerned, but also acceptable to the nation as a whole—the general public—who do not seem to me to be particularly represented in these meetings which are con-templated. If that is worked out satisfactorily, it will not be a difficult matter to have a short Bill (if it is so desired) giving this particular industry the same recognition and the same provisions about the closed shop as the Government are now suggesting on the not very realistic grounds of consistency.
The real justification, as has been put forward in another place and here, and by my noble friend just now, for including journalists and editors in this Bill about industrial relations, with all the damage that may be done to the freedom of the Press, is on the arid doctrinaire ground of consistency. That does not seem to be a good reason. If after a code or charter has been worked out it is still found desirable to amend this Bill by bringing in journalists, so be it, but I hope that the Government will reflect seriously on what has been said in this debate today and will be influenced by the generally sincerely-felt expressions of opinion throughout the country about the editors and the freedom of the Press that are inherent in the Bill as it now stands.
7.29 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: In every speech that has been made during this debate reference has been made to the National

239
Union of Journalists. Indeed, its attitude, its actions and its relation to free-dom of speech has been the dominant theme throughout the whole of the debate. Therefore, I think it appropriate that before the debate ends some expression should be given to this Com-mittee of the views of members of the National Union of Journalists. I must declare an interest. I joined the National Union of Journalists in 1910, and I am still a fully paid-up member.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: They ought to give the noble Lord life membership!
Lord BROCKWAY: I do not wish to address the Committee just to express my own personal views. This morning I discussed with the General Secretary of our union, Mr. Kenneth Morgan, the attitude of the union to the Amendments which we are now discussing. Mr. Morgan pointed out that the National Union of Journalists, like all trade unions, has a philosophic objection to State control, and that the union itself did not desire a State-imposed code of ethics. Never-theless, Mr. Morgan went on to say that in the first paragraph of the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, there is encouragement to the unions and the employers to get together and to work out a code of ethical conduct which both would accept. Mr. Morgan said that that was welcome, and that any State intervention would occur only if there were failure in that agreement between workers and employers. He quite evidently thought that agreement could be reached. He said finally that he regarded the Amend-ment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. as a reasonable Amendment, and one with which the union could live. I think the General Secretary of our union had real grounds for saying that an agreement could be reached between the organisations of the workers and of the employers, to maintain the freedom of the Press.
I had intended to read to the Committee the charter of a code of ethics adopted by our union last weekend. It is a quite remarkable document, not merely declaring in principle for the freedom of the Press, but entering into detail as to how such freedom might be maintained. I am
240
not reading it only because of the lateness of the hour. I hope that Members of this Committee will see the document for themselves. It is one of the most remark-able documents that any trade union has ever issued. The very fact that the NUJ has endorsed such a plea for the freedom of the Press is surely ground for hoping that, as suggested in paragraph (1) of this Amendment, an agreement could be reached with their employers which would guarantee that freedom.
One or two other specific points were raised in the debate. The fear has been expressed by a recent speaker of pressure on editors, perhaps even intimidation. During the last weekend, the executive of our union declared quite clearly that the NUJ accepts free choice to the editor— properly defined as the person having legal responsibility for a publication— on whether he wishes to be a member of the union. The union is no longer insisting that every editor must be a member.
Fear has been expressed that the application of the closed shop to a newspaper would mean that those who are contributing to it would be prohibited from so doing unless they were members of the union. Last weekend our executive made our position quite clear on that. Our executive stated the commitment to
"free access to the Press for any person, con-sonant with the protection of the employment of the NUJ members."
Surely, there are two spheres of contribution here. There is the journalist who is entirely engaged for a livelihood on his newspaper, and there is the specialist who contributes feature articles. The NUJ desires that that situation shall continue.
In the last few weeks, the National Union of Journalists has been very badly misrepresented. There is no one who desires the freedom of the Press more than the working journalists. For that reason, as the General Secretary of our union indicated, the union welcomes the Amend-ment which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has introduced.
Baroness GAITSKELL: I came here today with the express intention of voting for the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby. It is still my intention, although I may say that after listening to many of the speeches I have become more and more worried. I should

241
like to support the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Houghton, because I have great faith in his wisdom. He is a very wise man. I also support it because the Guardian has been particularly good on this question. In yesterday's leader column in the Guardian, it was pro-posed that we should go "softly, softly" on this.
I am in support of this Amendment because I see it as the only possibility for conciliation in this matter, and not because I am not passionately in favour of the freedom of the Press, which I do not understand as having anything very much to do with the industrial relations Bill. The irony of this is that when we were discussing the 1971 Industrial Relations Act, which was very complicated and which we opposed very strongly, there was the code of practice, which was a very small code and was so simple that any child could have under-stood it. I said that any child might have written it, it was so full of good intentions; it certainly had no teeth. It was compared with the Highway Code. These easy comparisons of codes, charters and the Highway Code convince me very little.
When I think of the freedom of the Press, I think of it in both national and international contexts. The freedom of the Press was well expressed by the Guardian today. I do not know whether noble Lords noticed, but the Guardian reported the verdict of a judge with which they greatly disagreed. The judge had reduced compensation to some children from £10,000 to £2,000. Then the judge —and I suppose this is what we call natural justice, or whatever we were talking about yesterday for so long—having reduced the amount from £10,000 to £2,000 added that the Press must not report it. The Guardian reported it. This is what the freedom of the Press means; it means just that. Noble Lords cannot really convince me that anything short of that is freedom.
Of course we do not like everything that newspapers write on the various subjects in which we are passionately interested; of course we disagree with them. All the same, let us consider if we did not have it, but instead we had what they have in Russia, or in Yugo-slavia where recently there occurred the case of a man who has been imprisoned
242
for eight years because he published a small pamphlet. So when noble Lords talk about freedom of the Press as being only part of the Industrial Relations Bill, I really do not know what they are talking about; that is the truth. When the Press exercises freedom in the way that the Guardian exercised it today, against the law, against something that was expressed by a judge, that is the kind of freedom I can understand; not as in the United Nations, when people talk not of freedom of information but development of freedom of information, not of freedom of the Press but development of freedom of the Press. We know what we under-stand by "freedom of the Press". So as I say, I will support my noble friend's Amendment, because I see it as the beginning; it is a hope for some kind of way out of this dilemma which we have got into by mixing up industrial action with freedom of information.
7.45 p.m.
Lord RHODES: I must confess that I am still not satisfied. I have heard practically all that has been said through the two debates. I feel a bit tensed up about it. I feel as much tensed up about it as I did in my 'teens when I was sacked for helping form a union branch at the place where I worked. In those days we were remedying, or trying to remedy, social injustice of a sort that ran deep in some of us in the Colne Valley district of Yorkshire. I ran with papers for Victor Grayson in an Election pre-World War I, when my father was warned that if I ran again he would be sacked. My sincerity about this has been matched by the Minister. I do not previously remember Lord Shepherd expressing what he felt in so sincere a way as he has done tonight, and I am perfectly certain that somewhere behind what he said we are groping for a solu-tion. I was sacked again, for a second time, as an employer, when I came back from World War I, after being two and a half years in hospital after the war was over. There was a slump on. When I went for my old job back they said, " Don't you know there's a slump on? Don't you know about the unemployment? " I did not. For two and a half years I had lived the secluded life in a hospital of a patient suffering from war wounds. I went round for a job on two sticks.

243
I was made a capitalist whether I liked it or not, because I had to start my own business to keep myself going. That is where it all began. But some of us came under the influence of very important people. The important person that I remember was Seebohm Rowntree, and if your Lordships had ever read his Treatise on the poor of York I guarantee that you would have been, like me, moved to take some action. By then I had got a work force. I read his book on a Sunday, and on the Monday morning I called a meeting of my workpeople and said : " How many come under this category? " You will remember, those who have read the Treatise, the different categories related in it, spinsters who had to pay rent for a house and all that sort of thing. I raised my wages that week, and for it I was sacked out of the employers' association. So on one occasion I was sacked for asking for more money and on the second occasion I was sacked for paying more money. You cannot do right, can you?
We have got a kind of consensus coming through now, after we have been immersed in the debate for so long. Two strange things come out of it, as a kind of recurring theme or themes. One was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, during the Second Reading debate, and it has been mentioned, once yesterday and once today, by the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker, and that I would like some comment on, in reply. The feeling that we have, according to what has been said, is that you cannot make a law stick, not so much because it would be a bad law but because it would not be acceptable to a militant minority.
The other thing which comes through was raised by Lord Greene. He went to considerable pains to instruct this House in where the strength of the trade union movement lay, and it was on the shop floor. He said it last week and he said it yesterday. The nub of what we are talking about is that it is possible for a militant minority to grab power. We have seen it everywhere. Have not we seen the power riven away from the Commons by militant minorities? Of course we have, during this last 15 months; during and ever since the miners' strike of the winter of 1973–74 it has gone
244
on. Take notice of what you are doing because this industry is quite different from any other. There is not another industry which moulds public opinion like the newspaper industry.
Some years ago I made a visit to Japan and was asked to speak at the Anglo-Japanese club in Osaka. I sat next to Baron Mitsui. He hissed to me during the lunch: " Why have you come to Japan "? I said, " To find out where power lies, Sir ". He said, " Power is in the hills, but the difficulty is to know which hill to climb ". The old so-and-so! So I said, " All the more important, Sir, that I should have a good guide ". So he hissed through his teeth with pleasure, and I knew it had registered. Nothing happened for a fortnight. Then I was waylaid at Canon Camera Co. The manager went a pale yellow when he knew who was waiting in an office at the side of the lens polishing department. He said, " Five gentlemen wish to speak to you ". I will not mention their names because they are members of the Zaibatsui, great industrial figures. Enough to say that five men sat there like sphynxes and I might just as well have been in a witness box because they said, " We want to ask you a question ". I said "What is it?" They said, " Why is it that we have not got public opinion in Japan like you have in England? "
Now let everybody think about how they would answer such a question. You can go through all the gamut of how we arrived at our democracy and what has been done about it since. You can say that the aristocracy, when they found they were losing out to democracy, allowed their younger sons to stand on the hustings for Parliament. So I had no more wit than to say, " Why not allow your sons to stand for Parliament?" One of them said, " Ah, no! We could not afford to be turned down. You see, 20 years ago, if we had been turned down it would have been considered an insult and we would have had to commit hari-kari ". So I went through the various reasons until we came to this one (I have been reserving this!) and I said, "You own all the newspapers." They said, " Yes, we do ". I said, " How do you expect to have a public opinion if you own all the newspapers and you do not allow controversy in them?" They said,

245
"Is that what creates public opinion, con-troversy? " I told them that was my opinion.
Now they asked me these questions be-cause of something that had happened two years before, when 300 students did the snake dance in front of the Diet and tipped out the Prime Minister of the day. To turn that round the other way, if you stifle controversy then you have the dangerous minority who can come in and usurp authority which has taken hundreds of years to create in this country. I have brought specially from my locker my great, great, great uncle's diary from which I thought would quote. My distant relative was the originator of the first handloom weavers' union. He was a chartist at the same time as Hardy of Tiverton, Fielding of Todmorden and many others. His great principle was that men of scruples should be listened So be-cause by meeting men of scruples half way you can hammer out something that is of benefit to the community as a whole.
I have often said that to create a community takes as long as it does to grow a tree. But it takes a damn sight longer to create a public opinion that is worth anything than growing any tree. Do not let us do anything to undermine it.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COM-MITTEES (Lord Douglas of Barloch): Since Amendment No. 14 was moved, an Amendment to that Amendment has been moved:
"In subsection (1), line 6, after (" em-ployers ") insert (" editors and such editors' organisations ").
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: I do not want to make a speech, but it would help some of us to know what is going on. The noble Lord in the Chair was perfectly right to put the Question, but I should like to know what is going to happen, and only the mover of the Amendment to the Amendment can tell us. So far he has observed an absolutely discreet silence, but perhaps he will say some-thing before we die!
Lord GOODMAN: To prevent a national disaster, I have been provoked to speak. I shall make a few observations on what has been said and then I should like to address a direct inquiry to the Leader of the House. I do not intend to make another speech.
A noble Lord: Hear! Hear!
Lord GOODMAN: Everybody has expressed their views. There are one or two things which I did not deal with in opening. One is the total misapprehension that we are seeking to bring the law into this matter. The law has been brought into this matter by the Government, not by us. The law has been brought in by the simple fact that by the Act there was a change in circum-stances which did not previously obtain, and it is on that account that we are seeking to restore a situation so as to preserve rights that were imperilled by this change in the law. It is important to make that point because, with tears streaming down my cheeks, I notice for the first time ever there might have been some division between myself and my beloved Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge. I hope she will go away tonight and reflect on the fact that she has totally misunderstood the situation. The situation is not that we are bringing the law into the matter, but that the law has been brought into the matter and we are trying to rectify the situation.
The other point I should like to mention is the absolute obsession about not having anything to do with the court. I cannot explain this. I can under-stand the resentments that were aroused by the Industrial Relations Act and I can understand the feelings about the court; whether or not they were justified is irrelevant. But is it really believed that in society today we can continue to live in safety and under the rule of law if we proscribe the courts as the instrument to protect our rights? Can that seriously be put forward as an argument by the major political Party in the country? Are we to be prevented from appealing to the courts? And what other expedient is possible? The suggestion that, if we do appeal to the courts, the ultimate remedy is something so horrible that we have to withdraw from the possibility and have to abdicate everybody's rights, seems to me to be the best formula for anarchy that anyone has yet devised.
I do not hesitate for a moment in saying that, if we have to invoke the courts, we have to invoke the courts. I speak as a lawyer, but if I were not a lawyer I should say exactly the same things in more emphatic terms. If somebody can

247
find a better way to enforce a person's rights than by going to the courts, I shall be glad to hear it. We were told that the courts had done terrible things to the trade unions. I do not believe that that is true. I believe that if one made a study of trade union law one would surprisingly find the reverse to be the case. Over the years, what have the courts done? They have preserved the country from slavery, they have preserved women from bondage, they have secured personal liberty for anyone to walk in the streets. The idea that we, as a Legislature, should exile the courts on the basis that they did something offensive in relation to trade union procedure seems to me not so much preposterous as totally ill-advised and something that we shall withdraw from in no time at all when ordinary, reason-able counsels prevail.
I am completely unapologetic about leaving the courts in, and I would invite those responsible members of the trade union movement to consider whether their attitude is a possible one to continue with and whether they should not make their peace with the courts as early as possible. They might perhaps point out that some change in the method of selecting judges —a matter over which I have had ex-changes in the past with distinguished Lord Chancellors—might be a sensible way of dealing with the thing, but it is not sensible to say that there is no rule of law and that we cannot use it.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, made a spirited defence of the National Union of Journalists. I have never attacked the National Union of Journalists. This is a highly respectable and responsible union and it is full of very worthy people who are doing a good job. What I have said is that it is un-believable that we should entrust to the National Union of Journalists, or any other organisation of that size or a hundred times that size, the right to decide who publishes works in newspapers. That is quite a different matter. It is not a question of an offensive remark about the National Union of Journalists. It shows an utter want of proportion to consider it even possible that any single organisation whatever—be it a trade union, be it the Law Society, be it a proprietors union, be it an association of millionaires, be it whatever your Lordships like—
Lord CASTLE: Would the noble Lord give us chapter and verse for any declara-tion by the National Union of Journalists that it wants to determine what appears in newspapers?
Lord GOODMAN: I gave the noble Lord chapter and verse on my last appearance, if I may so describe it. I gave him plenty of chapter and verse. I will now tell the House the lamentable story of Mr. Robinson of the Financial Times and I shall produce the same exhibit. The story is a very simple one, and I will tell him some other stories too.
Lord CASTLE: The noble Lord made a declaration that the National Union of Journalists wanted to determine—and this is presumably by resolution of its National Conference of its Executive— what appears in the newspapers. It has never done any such thing.
Lord GOODMAN: It is a very late hour and the noble Lord can be forgiven for mishearing. I should never blame him for not listening very carefully to anything I was saying. However, what 1 did say was that it was madness to entrust such a power to a union. I did not say that they were claiming it. I do not necessarily believe that they are asking for it, though there were very significant signs that they were getting a power complex. What the noble Lord, Lord Snow, said was totally and admirably true: even if there is the faintest scintilla of a risk that this might happen, why should we take it? Why should we take it with anything as precious as the right we are debating here tonight? And there is more than a scintilla of a risk. What the noble Lord has done—merci-fully for your Lordships—is to make me forbear from again telling your Lord-ships the story of Mr. Robinson of the Financial Times. May I say that I could tell you a great many other equally horrible stories in relation to the pro-posed exercise of power by the National Union of Journalists, but, as I say, it is not a question of the National Union of Journalists. It is not a question of any particular organisation. It is simply that we must not entrust this particular right to any organisation.
I would again address the noble Baroness, Lady Lee: it is not a question

249
of those who are moving the Amendment wanting to procure legal rights for the first time. It is that we want to pre-serve the status quo and that, in order to do so, we have to deal with the changed situation that has been brought about by this legislation by a pure side issue. 1 do not think that the Secretary of State intended it, but it has happened and it is necessary that we should defend the position and restore it.
My direct question to the Leader of the House is this: I do not want to divide the Committee tonight, if that is avoidable. I do not want the noble Lord to say anything in unduly encouraging terms, and I am not trying to draw anything out of him which will commit him, but if the noble Lord will say that, in his view, and having heard the debate and what I have had to say, he believes that there is a prospect of an arrangement being reached after discussions between us, I would ask for no further commitment than that and I would withdraw my Amendment, reserving the right to restore it on Report or on Third Reading. If the noble Lord says that to me, I shall be very happy to withdraw the Amendment, because I have already said how reluctant I am that this issue should be determined by the power of a political vote.
8.7 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: The noble Lord will remember that in my speech I said that the Amendment before the Committee in its present form was unaccept-able to the Government. I also said that this was a provisional view, as it was a very complex Amendment. I am sure that the noble Lord, on reflection, while he spoke with great strength on the need for this series of Amendments, spent very little time—if any time at all—on the detailed parts of the series of Amendments which he put before us. I do not criticise, but this is a fact. I could not give an undertaking that what the noble Lord is seeking can be achieved and that the Government could accept all that the noble Lord has put forward. But I believe that there is sufficient ground to believe that men of good will who wish to see the freedom of the Press could, if given time, find an agreement. I believe that to be so.
What worries me, and what I said in my speech and what I would ask the
250
noble Lord to consider in deciding whether to withdraw the Amendment, is that much of the series of Amendments, in some way, puts a pre-condition upon discussions. I think that this is nearly always undesirable. I can say to the noble Lord only that, if we can be given time, I believe that an agreement can be found. I hope that it can. Certainly, any good offices that I can use in your Lordships' House I would use, but I could not give the commitment for which the noble Lord is asking. If I did, it would be very unfair to your Lordships' House. I could not give that commitment but this one undertaking I will give: I will do anything I can—and this is a wise House which has many resources and many tentacles going in different directions—to find an agreement, and I am certain that we could find it if we had the leadership of the noble Lord. Lord Goodman.
Lord GOODMAN: This is one of the rare occasions when flattery is unlikely to change my viewpoint. What I will say to the noble Lord the Leader of the House is that I did not ask him for a commitment. I think that he has said what I wanted to hear; that is, that he holds the view that discussions might in the end be fruitful. If he holds that view, it would be ungracious and politically and strategically inept for me not to say that I shall withdraw my Amendment on the basis that we will talk on the matter and that, if we do not reach agreement, I shall restore it on Report or on Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.10 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: I moved the original Amendment and I wish to be guided in this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has with-drawn his Amendment to my proposed new clause. If the Committee has disposed of his Amendment and has there-fore allowed the noble Lord to withdraw it, my new clause is still before the Com-mittee and I want to say something about it.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: I am aware of that. Amendments Nos. 16 to 29 were not moved.
Lord SHEPHERD: Perhaps I can help. The Amendment which is now before the Committee is No. 14 which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: I am getting a little puzzled. As I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn his Amendment to the main Amendment which was originally proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, which means that the Question now before the Committee is that that Amendment be agreed to.
Lord SHEPHERD: And that Amendment is No. 14.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: I hope I am now free to comment briefly on the Motion which is now before the Committee—
Several Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: —which is whether Amendment No. 14 shall be adopted. I will not delay the Committee for long, but although the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has with-drawn his Amendment I am most anxious that the Committee should adopt my new clause.
Lord CHAMPION: Is it not a fact that the Committee has before it a series of Amendments to the one proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton? Will we not have to deal with those before eventually returning to the main Amendment; namely, that in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton?
Lord GOODMAN: May I be permitted—
Several Noble Lords: Order.
Lord CHAMPION: I suggest that the Committee must first dispose of all out-standing Amendments to Amendment No. 14 before returning to that Amendment.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: I have indicated that Amendments Nos. 16 to 29 have not been moved.
Lord GOODMAN: I have a suggestion to make to the Leader of the House. I think it would help us if the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, also withdrew his
252
Amendment, because we are now about to traverse the whole field again to see what possibility of a solution can be found by the exercise of the highest degree of ingenuity and compromise. It would be helpful if we did not have any Amendments in this sphere, so that we could consider the matter entirely afresh. I therefore suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Koughton, withdraws his Amendment pending fresh discussions.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: I could not agree to that. I submit that the new clause is the best on which the discussions can take place and is the basic proposal on which the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, tabled his Amendment. It seems to me that if the Committee will write the new clause into the Bill discussions can take place on how it can be adapted to meet the general views of the Committee; otherwise, after our long consideration of the matter the Committee will have nothing before it, except talks to take place between now and the later stages of the Bill. This, with respect, is not the way to deal with a matter of this importance on which so much work has been done.
My new clause offers the best prospect of being the foundation for reaching an accommodation, and if there is anything else I should like to know what it is. Nobody else has put forward anything to replace the new clause in Amendment No. 14 as the foundation for future action. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, confined himself to tabling an Amend-ment to my new clause. If he had a remedy that was outwith the new clause it would have been open to him to put it down as a separate Amendment, but he did not do that. He has traded wholly on my new clause, I submit, because he recognises that it holds the floor and offers the best hope of eventual agreement.
Therefore, I submit with respect, that it is not fair of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, to ask me to withdraw my new clause simply because he has withdrawn his Amendment. If he had pressed his Amendment and it had been agreed to, my new clause as amended would have been in the gravest peril from the point of view of acceptance by Parliament, and the noble Lord knows that. As I have said, unless my new clause is accepted the

253
Committee will end up with nothing and will have deserted its responsibility to endeavour to find something to overcome the difficulties of this matter. This being so, I ask your Lordships to support the new clause which is Amendment No. 14.
Clause 3 agreed to.
In the Title :
8.18 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: I beg to move Amendment No. 32.
Amendment moved—
Line 4, at end insert (" and to provide for a code of practice on matters relating to the freedom of the press. ")—[Lord Houghton of Sowerby.]
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed : Bill reported with the Amendments.

FISHING VESSELS (ACQUISITION AND IMPROVEMENT) (GRANTS) (AMENDMENT) SCHEME 1975
8.19 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI Lord STRABOLGI rose to move, That the Draft Fishing Vessels (Acquisition and Improvement) (Grants) (Amendment) Scheme 1975, laid before the House on 11th February, be approved. The noble Lord said : My Lords, the purpose of this Order is to extend for the calendar year 1975 the Government's power to pay grant for the construction of new fishing vessels or the improvement of old ones. For many years successive Governments, with the full support of the House, have thought it right to provide an incentive for this kind of investment in an industry which, by its very nature, is likely to suffer sharp fluctuations in cash returns. The level of the grant has fluctuated from time to time depending on both the level of incentive the Government thought appropriate at the time, and on the view they have to take as to considerations of public expenditure. It is important that investment in the industry should continue, given that technical advances are continuously being made and that in the course of time we may have to look increasingly to the multi-
254
purpose vessel as an important element in the constitution of the fleet.
The principal difference which we have made in the Order now before the House is that the rates of grant for vessels below 80 feet have been unified with those for vessels of 80 feet and over at 25 per cent. It has been held in the fishing industry for some time that the differential of 5 per cent. between grants for inshore vessels and others has been a source of structural distortion. The number of vessels constructed at 79 feet or 79·9 feet over the last five years—they were actually 28 in number—certainly bears out this view. A further consideration is that the future for fisheries may be one where we shall wish to preserve the maximum flexibility in vessel construction. We do not know what will be the outcome of the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference to be held later this month, but 200 mile fisheries limits may well be agreed. Whether we are in or out of the European Economic Community, such an outcome will mean that we may well come to depend more on the multi-purpose type of vessel and, perhaps, on new kinds of distant water vessel. This being so, we should ensure that operational considerations alone govern the design and construction of vessels. The unification of grant rates will remove an obstacle to this end.
Of course the statutory authorities and the industry would have preferred unification of grants to be at the higher rate of 30 per cent. But here consideration of public expenditure intervenes. In the autumn of 1973 it was seen that approvals issued by the statutory authorities would lead to expenditure out-running provision. In December 1973 it was decided to impose a moratorium on approvals which was not lifted until June 1974. We did not wish to contemplate the possibility of imposing a further moratorium so disturb-ing vessel construction programmes once more. It therefore seemed prudent both in the interests of construction programmes and of the need to contain the levels of public expenditure to unify the rates of grant at the lower, rather than the higher, level. The cost of these grants which the House will appreciate is quite separate from the special aid announced on 27th February, is estimated to be of the order of £6 million in the current financial year. This would represent an

255
investment of some £24 million in new and improved vessels. Clearly, the grant incentive is an important element in keeping investment in the industry going at a healthy rate and the Government have no hesitation therefore in asking the House to approve the Order. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Fishing Vessels (Acquisition and Improvement) (Grants) (Amendment) Scheme 1975, laid before the House on 1lth February, be approved. —(Lord Strabolgi.)
8.26 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, from this side we very much agree with the Government's policy of supporting our fishing industry in what will clearly be a very difficult period. I should like to start by saying that Government support in fiscal terms has been increasing over a period of years. One simply cannot take two years together, but from the previous record it is very interesting to note that in 1970–71 Government support in fiscal terms was £2·7 million, rising to £3·5 million in 1971–72, and to £6 million in 1972–73. The question which I should like to address to Her Majesty's Government is this. Has this support been eroded by inflation, or can it be expressed as in-creased support in real terms? The year 1973–74 started with commitments and, as the noble Lord will recall, up to 13th December 1973, when a moratorium was imposed, there was a further £5·8 million of new commitments. Can we know from Her Majesty's Government what has happened to the moratorium?
It is only just over 12 months since my noble friend Lord Ferrers laid a some-what similar Order which was approved in your Lordships' House. Since then the difficulties of the fishing industry have been very marked in one particular field; that is in regard to oil fuel. Here the oil fuel situation has been exceptionally difficult in so far as smaller vessels are concerned, and I should like to draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, to the fact that the inshore vessels, the small vessels in the industry, are under some considerable difficulty in this regard. With the rising cost of oil it is no longer possible to say that the small inshore vessels will be well provided for,

256
because boats over 100 feet—those of middle water—get a grant of £90; boats of 40 to 50 feet get a grant of £5 per day; and the small ones, to which I referred only a few minutes ago, get nothing. This is of great significance when considering the importance of the inshore fishing industry.
My Lords, the noble Lord has made a reference to the Law of the Sea Conference. It would be idle to speculate at present on the position of the inshore fishing industry. Nevertheless, the noble Lord has alluded to the middle water vessels and has drawn our attention to the fact that the medium-sized vessels will benefit particularly from the present scale of grants. I should like to ask whether the oil subsidy will apply to that range at the present rate of £5 a day, or will be varied. Secondly, in regard to oil, it seems that there is a somewhat curious situation in the same Ministry, although in a different industry—that is, the horticultural industry—in that the glasshouse oil subsidy has only recently stopped. It was a subsidy of great importance to that industry, and it has been curtailed. Yet it is intended to proceed with the subsidy in the fishing industry. I wonder whether the noble Lord is in a position to relate the situation regarding oil for glasshouses to the fishing boat subsidy? It would also be very helpful, in regard to the position of the industry as a whole, if the noble Lord would tell us how the Government see the position on catches, because the two relate very closely. Is there evidence in the hands of Her Majesty's Government in regard to the prosperity of the middle water and inshore fishing industry, which is sufficient to justify the Government's present intention of both grants and subsidies on oil?
8.29 p.m.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his lucid explanation of the Scheme, and I wish to say that we formally support the Order which he is proposing to make. Incentives of the kind evisaged are very important to encourage investment of the nature explained and described by the noble Lord. These incentives are particularly important in view of the great technological improvements which are being made, and which to many of us are known to be envisaged, particularly in

257
regard to multi-purpose fishing vessels. I should also like to ask a question in relation to the oil fuel situation as it affects inshore vessels. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether the Government have it in mind to make any supplement to grants for inshore vessels in view of the increase in the price of oil.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, and the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, for the general welcome they have given to this Order. I shall do my best to answer the various questions that they have asked. First, the questions asked by Lord Sandys on the moratorium. These schemes have existed since 1953. Approvals and payments of grant under successive schemes have been delegated by Statute to the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board. The present rates of grants which are 30 per cent. of approved cost for vessels of less than 80 feet in length and 25 per cent. for larger vessels, have obtained since 27th October 1970, when they were reduced from 40 per cent. and 35 per cent. respectively.
The present Order provides for one rate of grant for all vessels; namely, 25 per cent. In the autumn of 1973, during the last period of the Conservative Government, it was noticed that grants and loans were being approved by the statutory bodies at a rate which was causing money to be committed in excess of provision. The then Conservative Government were obliged to impose a moratorium on 13th December 1973. At that time the industry was apparently re-investing some 18 per cent. of its earnings. The moratorium was lifted on 27th June 1974.
The noble Lord also talked about the different aids to the industry and he quoted figures. I do not think he quoted up to 1973. In 1973–74 the figure had gone up to £76 million; and since the schemes began the sums involved have totalled £47 million. The noble Lord also asked about other aids to the industry. As announced by my right honourable friend on 27th February, we are now giving a general grant to fishing vessels. The grant is to the value of £6¼ million and is payable as a gradu-ated daily rate according to vessel size for days at sea related to voyages under-

258
taken during the period 1st January to 30th June 1975, for the purpose of catches of white fish and herring; but shell fish are not included. These will be subject to a further Order which will be submitted to your Lordships later, when we shall be able to go into it in more detail. I can say now that the aid is intended as a temporary prop to assist the industry to maintain roughly the pre-sent level of activity during a period when costs have risen far ahead of market returns. Without such help which will assist certain sectors to adjust more rationally to future situations of marketing and higher fuel costs and, in particular, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandys mentioned, of oil, there is a risk of a rapid run-down leading to permanent structural damage.
My Lords, the noble Lord asked about the different vessels which will benefit from this grant. He directed our attention to the fact that this is a decreasing rate and is payable at £5 for 40 feet to 50 feet and there is a cut-off there. He asked why the special aid excludes vessels of less than 40 feet. I thought that this was a very fair point. This is quite separate from the main matter under discussion tonight. We shall discuss this later when the Order comes before the House. I can say now that the Government fully recognise that all sectors of the fleet are experiencing higher costs which, under present conditions are not always recoverable from market returns. These unavoidable operating costs include fuel, gear and repairs; but they undoubtedly bear most heavily upon the larger types of vessel which necessarily travel further for their catches. The cost pressures that face the operators of these vessels are such that, without some aid now, an unacceptably large number of vessels may shortly be taken out of fishing, with associated problems—not only of making up catch deficiencies, but the valuable sea-going and shore-based expertise will be dispersed and lost to the industry. The Government do not consider, despite the acknowledged cost increases borne by that sector, that com-parable structural problems will arise in respect of vessels of less than 40 feet; and believe that the best use of the limited resources that can be made avail-able now will be achieved by applying them in the manner announced.

259
Basically, small boats do not have costs of the same order as the larger vessels.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, and the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, tried to compare these to the other subsidies on the horticultural industry. But this aid is not a general subsidy; it is a particular form of aid to help the fishing industry over its present operational difficulties, and I submit that it cannot be compared with the general subsidies to the agricultural industry which have been the policy of the last Government and continue to be the policy of this one. I hope I have answered all the points raised.

COMMUNITY RELATIONS (AMEND -MENT) (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1975
8.37 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge)The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge) rose to move, That the Draft Community Relations (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, laid before the House on 13th February, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Order is to make changes in the statutory machinery for helping to improve community relations in Northern Ireland. It proposes to amalgamate the Department of Community Relations with the Department of Education; to dissolve the Northern Ireland Community Relations Commission and to transfer certain functions of; the Commission to the Department of Education. The former Northern Ireland Executive announced in April 1974 that in the context of a power-sharing Gov-ernment there was no continuing need for an independent Community Relations Commission, and proposed the abolition of the Commission and the absorption of its functions by the Department of Community Relations. Before going further, I should like to pay tribute to those men and women who served as members and as chairmen of the Community Relations Commission throughout a very difficult period. Their work deserves our respect and our gratitude,

260
and I am sure that noble Lords will join me in this tribute to their efforts.
After the fall of the Executive, the Government considered the position of the Department of Community Relations and decided that it was too slender to continue as a separate entity and would be more efficient if its functions were transferred under the umbrella of a larger Department. The purpose of this Draft Order is to give effect to these proposals. Article 3 abolishes both the Department of Community Relations and the Community Relations Commission and pro-vides that any residual property, rights or liabilities of these bodies shall be inherited by the Department of Education. Article 4 transfers to the Department of Education all the statutory responsibilities of the Department of Community Relations and also the principal responsibilities of the Community Relations Commission.
The Department of Education was considered to be the most appropriate recipient of these responsibilities. Community development work is part educational and part a social service; the work of promoting better understanding between Catholics and Protestants is in the broadest sense educational in nature; but it involves, and indeed to a larger extent depends on, the provision of social facilities such as community centres and facilities for sport and recreation. The latter were the responsibility of the Department of Education until 1st January 1974. It is therefore natural that they should return there. Accordingly, Article 4(1) transfers to the Department of Education the responsibilities of the Department of Community Relations in respect of social need and of sport and recreation. Article 4(2) gives to the Department of Education the function of "formulating and sponsoring policies for the improvement of community relations in Northern Ireland". This general duty was the original statutory function of the Department of Community Relations. It is re-enacted here in order to make it clear that the Department of Education will continue to pursue the same overall ends and objectives as the Department of Community Relations.
We intend that in future there should be a much greater emphasis than before on involving local government in

261
Northern Ireland in the solution of the social problems which have exacerbated community relations problems. District councils are already deeply involved in the provision of sporting and recreational facilities for their localities. The Government intend to give encouragement to district councils to extend the scope of this work, in improving social life in their districts and in supporting community activities in the broadest sense. In recent years there has been a remarkable growth of active community groups in Northern Ireland, often stimulated and guided by the Community Relations Commission. The general objective of these associations is to act as pressure groups on behalf of the needs of their area, and to work with the statutory agencies in meeting these needs. I believe that the Government's proposals will be of great help in cementing good social relationships in Northern Ireland, and I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Community Relations (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, laid before the House on 13th February, be aproved— (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)
8.43 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, for explaining the reasons for this Order, because under its dedicated Permanent Secretary and staff the Department of Community Relations in Northern Ireland has undoubtedly brought a great deal of help to many parts of the Province. It has done so promptly and effectively. May I also join with the Government in paying a tribute to the Community Relations Commission.
I should like to give a particular welcome to three aspects of the Order. First, that the Department of Education is henceforward to exercise the functions under the Social Need (Grants) Act 1970; secondly, that under paragraph 4(2) the Department of Education will be responsible for policy; and, thirdly, that recreation and youth services are to be returned to Education. My reason for welcoming the first two provisions is that, as the noble Lord said, it is the intention that the work of improving community relations should continue unabated, and this

262
is the prime point on which to satisfy oneself in looking at this Order.
May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, whether any staff are being transferred to the Department of Education from either the Department of Community Relations or the Commission, for it is surely important that staff who have been working closely in the field of community relations should be transferred to afford an element of continuity in the new Department. May I also ask what other arrangements are being made in respect of staff whose positions cease under the Order, and who are not being transferred; in other words, those who will lose their jobs.
Regarding the third fact which I particularly welcome, that the recreation and youth services are to be transferred to the Education Department, these functions have historically come under Education and I know that the Department has their interests very much at heart. With those few questions and observations, I warmly support this Order.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his welcome of this Order. He really asked me only one question, which is very easily answered. The staff of the Department of Community Relations has moved over into the Department of Education, I think without exception. The position of the Community Relations Commission is rather different. The staff were given notice quite a long time ago and all except three have now accepted the situation happily, or at least without complaint. We have three "unsatisfied customers" and we are hoping to achieve a settlement in those cases. Many of the 16 outside workers and the 10 inside workers are still doing the same kind of work but in different areas, having been taken on by area boards and other people. We have only three who are not yet fully accepted. I think I have answered the only question which the noble Lord asked. I am glad that he approves of our choice of the Department of Education—a Department in which I know he has a special interest—to undertake these important duties.

SELECTIVE EMPLOYMENT PREMIUM (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1975
8.45 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE rose to move, That the Draft Selective Employment Premium (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, laid before the House on 13th February, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the main purpose of the Draft Order is to provide a basis for continuing to pay selective employment premium in Northern Ireland after 6th April 1975. Selective employment premium is paid to employers in Northern Ireland's manufacturing industry on the same basis and at the same rates as regional employment premium in development areas in Great Britain. This Order is required on tech-nical grounds. It makes no change in the amounts of premium payable weekly (which are £3 for men and £1·50 for women and boys); nor does it otherwise alter the main features of the scheme which operates in parity with the arrangements in Great Britain.
The Order is required because one of the existing conditions of entitlement to premium is payment of an employer's flat rate National Insurance contribution. Under the Social Security Act 1973 the flat rate contribution will disappear on 6th April 1975, with the introduction of a wholly earnings-related system of contributions. It is therefore necessary to stipulate a new condition for eligible employers. The Draft Order proposes to do this on a simple basis, which is very close to the existing condition and which is in line with recent Westminster legislation which has similarly provided for the continued payment of Regional Employment Premium in Great Britain. Article 2, together with Schedule I, has the effect of entitling an employer whose establishment satisfies the required con-ditions, to receive selective employment premium in respect of any week in which he employs an employee for eight hours or more and pays him for his employment.
If approved, the Draft Order will allow this important regional incentive to continue to be paid to manufacturing industry in Northern Ireland, where, as in our . other hard pressed regions, it helps to

264
preserve jobs and industrial capacity. I commend it to the House, and I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Selective Employment Premium (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, laid before the House on 13th February, be approved.—(Lord Donald-son of Kingsbridge.)

APPROPRIATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1975
8.48 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE rose to move, That the Draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, laid before the House on 25th February, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1975 be approved. It is customary in relation to Northern Ireland expenditure to present three such Orders, the first and main one being in June or July; the second, dealing with the Autumn Supplementary Estimates, generally in December; and the third, the Spring Supplementary Estimates, at about this time of the year. This is the third Order of the series, and it does two things. First, it appropriates the Spring Supplementary Estimates and the Further Spring Supplementary Estimates which cover the additional provision required for the expenditure of Northern Ireland Departments in the current financial year. This is covered by Article 3(1). Secondly, it appropriates the sums required on account of expenditure in 1975–76 so as to ensure that money is available for public services in the opening months of that year. That is covered by Article 3(2).
The Spring Supplementary Estimates and the Further Spring Supplementary Estimates amount to about £75 million and bring total estimates provision for 1974/75 to some £725 million. More than half of the additional provision is ac-counted for by pay and price increases. The more significant items making up the balance are a £21 million grant to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to enable it to wipe out cumulative deficits in its accounts; a £2·6 million grant to the same body by way of compensation

265
for the national policy of freezing rents, and a grant of £3·1 million to the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation. Where the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation has assisted an undertaking by making a loan or giving a guarantee for borrowing and the undertaking is unable to repay, the Corporation has to write off the loan or meet the guarantee as the case may be. In either event the necessary funds are provided by the Department of Commerce by way of grant.
The total of the sums required on ac-count for 1975–76 is £316 million and is calculated broadly on the basis of 45 per cent. of the total Estimates provision for 1974–75. It is not related to the total of the Main Estimates for the incoming financial year which have not yet been finalised.
My Lords, this Order will be considered in another place this week. It is a Bill concerned with finance and is usually not something that your Lordships' House feels it should go into in great detail. The privilege of doing this is reserved to another place, but I shall of course be happy to answer any questions any Member likes to ask. These few words are intended only to provide a brief summary of the contents of the Bill. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, laid be-fore the House on 25th February, be ap-proved.—(Lord Donaldson of Kings-bridge.)
8.52 p.m.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, having heard the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kings-bridge, and as he must no doubt be anxious for his dinner, I will be fairly short; but we are considering the Appropriations Bill for Northern Ireland, and under the Temporary Provisions Act by which Northern Ireland is governed this House has the right to examine the performance of Government, both future and past, in this light. While in general the consideration of financial matters may not be the duty of this House, under the Temporary Provisions Act and the conditions prevailing in Northern Ireland I should like to welcome the noble Lord's agreement to answering questions in this way. It is a late hour,

266
but in the circumstances which exist in Northern Ireland Parliament has decided that we shall have to deal with these problems in this Chamber. It may be quite useful if we realise the advantages of devolved government, in that if devolved government were working in Northern Ireland we should not now have to be watching the clock to see when we were going to leave. It should be an incentive to everybody to get devolved government as soon as possible. When one looks at the number of people who are involved in this debate today on what, to people in Northern Ireland, is a most important matter, it seems that we are not able to examine this matter in the detail we should.
I think it would be right to say that we in the North of Ireland feel that we are to a large extent being kept in the dark as to what is happening on the governmental field with regard to expenditure. I would appeal to the Government to deal with the situation by being more open in their total explanation about what is going on. I realise of course that the Government have problems due to the fall of the Executive and the way they have to govern. I certainly understand that, but I feel that a greater effort should be made to explain exactly what is happening in terms of not only pounds, shillings and pence but the actual activities that are being curtailed and expanded.
One of the duties which we have under this temporary Government—I am not meaning that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, is temporary ; I am meaning the method by which we are governed—is to reemphasise that Government under these conditions should not be doctrinaire; that is, we should go ahead and govern on the basis of good government and not go either to the Right or to the Left. Successive Unionist Governments in the North of Ireland have always in the past, whether it be that a Socialist Government or a Conservative Government were in power here, adopted and adapted all legislation in order to make it suit Northern Ire-land's needs. Indeed, there are many cases when we think that our adaptation has produced much better government than happened here. For instance, we did not accept the Industrial Relations Act and, as a result, in my view, our

267
labour relations have been quite out-standing. There are other factors which make it right that that should not be done; but that is one policy we did not accept in toto, and there are many others.
The reason I am saying that is that at the present moment many of us are very fearful that under the present Government we may be being used as a Socialist experiment. I should like Lord Donaldson to make is absolutely clear that there will not be doctrinaire operations within the industrial field, because this would be alien to the total electorate of Northern Ireland without its being modified by their own Government. The social and economic activities of the Government of Northern Ireland may not seem very important in the context of Westminister, but they are absolutely vital in terms of Northern Ireland in its present state; that is, we must have progressive, good government when we are suffering from the riot conditions which we are enduring at the moment—it is absolutely vital.
In what one might term as the first period of direct rule under my right honourable friend Willie Whitelaw, the Administration were held together by straight, good government and very energetic government. I realise that conditions are not exactly the same, and the present Government have difficulties which did not confront their predecessors. But I must make it clear that many of us feel at the present moment government is in fact grinding to a halt and there is a tremendous lack of decisions which inevitably leads to bad government—
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, we are supposed to be discussing Supplementary Estimates. It would be to the benefit of the House if we could do so.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, I beg your Lordships' pardon. I am just coming to the Supplementary Estimates. The question that arises is how the Estimates are arrived at; whether they are coming out of what was called the block grant. It is a new method of financing expenditure in Northern Ireland. From everything I hear, all the expenditure, and cuts in expenditure, are related,

268
or appear to be related, to the financing of Harland and Wolff. I should like to know how much education is being cut because of the support that is necessary to Harland & Wolff. How much is the road programme being cut? I cannot find that out from the Estimates. I wonder, if it came to a point, whether in this country for instance the support for Meriden would result in some effect on education. It is an extremely difficult matter to which to find a comprehensive answer. If we could have an answer to that I believe it would satisfy a great number of people in the North of Ireland.
Next I should like to criticise regarding the commerce grant, where I can find no trace of expenditure for Ministers to go abroad. During the whole period of Northern Ireland government from Westminster, including the period of the Conservative Administration, the Ministers responsible for commerce—my honourable friend David Howell and the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham—went abroad to tout for industry or to act as salesmen for industry in this country. I can find no sign of that in the Estimates. We have had success in Northern Ireland in attracting new industry; after all, we have 100,000 new jobs. During the short period of life of the Northern Ireland Executive, the then Member for Commerce went abroad and produced new industry.
The next question which I should like to ask concerns the expenditure on Alder-grove airport. In two months' time we shall have the TriStar aeroplane. I gather that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, came over to this country today in a very nice aero-plane. I came over in a Trident; I thought that it was his aeroplane which was ahead of mine! At the present moment, there is no preparation at Aldergrove whatsoever for taking the TriStar. I can find no more than a very small amount of expenditure which is due to be spent upon Aldergrove airport, which will have to deal with 300 people at a time. Early this morning I waited outside the car park for a quarter of an hour before I could even get into it. What will happen when we have 300 people trying to get in?
We have spent a lot of money upon Aldergrove airport. We have a runway

269
which will take the TriStar, but the taxi-ways are not fit to carry it, and we have spent half of the money on the aerodrome. Thirty per cent. of extra time will be spent in that aeroplane, due to the fact that the TriStar will have to turn around and taxi back along the runway in order to disgorge its passengers—and "dis-gorge" is the right word. Therefore, I appeal to the Government to deal with Aldergrove airport in this appropriation and in next year's appropriation so as to make it fit to take the TriStar aeroplane. I feel that British Airways have bought their aeroplanes too soon. When they cannot find anything else to do with them, they appear to put them on the Belfast route.
The next subject that I should like to raise is tourism, since we are in a period of temporary ceasefire. I should like to know what provisions have been made for reactivating the "selling" of tourism in Northern Ireland, if this ceasefire holds. Where will this money come from? Will the Government make provision for reactivating the "selling" of tourism in Northern Ireland? It is my honour to have had something to do with tourism. The sum of £300,000 is needed in order to reactivate the tourist board which has run down its staff and is no longer selling Ulster in a hard way.
May I go into a few details? Bangor Pier and the whole of Bangor Harbour have been neglected for years—admit-tedly, by a Unionist Government. I should like to feel that money will be provided in the appropriation to make safe this very unsafe pier. And, my Lords, when can we have the by-pass around Dungannon? I am very sad that the Gov-ernment should have decided to abandon that project. But what worries me is that, having abandoned it, they have decided to go ahead with the high bridge in Lon-donderry. The area around County Fer-managh does not riot, but the areas which do so get extra finance.
The noble Lord has mentioned the pro-vision of extra finance for the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation. It is being provided mainly to deal with a textile firm in Londonderry, because it is almost impossible to make it viable. Therefore, my Lords, I should like to be told how this matter is being dealt with on a block grant basis, because—to return to Harland and Wolff—any previous industrial project was

270
dealt with on its merits. It had no effect in reducing a social service. If it produced new industry, it produced only new industry. If it produced new employment, it produced only new employment. Never before this time did the grant have any effect upon roads, education, or any other subject.
9.6 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, the noble Viscount has made a Second Reading speech on the state of the nation which is worthy of | a debate in a place quite different from this. He has managed not to offend the susceptibilities of the other place, because he has not talked about financial affairs. He has talked about Bangor Pier, tourism, Ministers going abroad and various matters of that kind. I think he has stretched very far the privilege of this House. How-ever, he is a very old friend and a very keen supporter of that part of the United Kingdom which I am concerned in trying to run. Therefore, I shall do my best to answer some of his questions. However, I have to confess that I do not think they arise under the Motion in any way whatsoever.
First, may I deal with two of the generalities. The idea that the public in Northern Ireland is kept in the dark over finance is rather fantastic when, within the last three months, the most elaborate and complete pamphlet describing the entire financial position has been published. It is probably more detailed than anything which has been published in any other part of the United Kingdom at any time in our history. Therefore I reject utterly the suggestion that they are kept in the dark regarding finance. I can assure the noble Viscount that if it is a vast Socialist experiment that is taking place, it has been concealed from me—and I am one of the administrators. We get a number of firms which are in very serious trouble asking to be taken over. That is very different from a Socialist experiment. In many cases my right honourable friend Stan Orme has to say that he cannot do it. Where he can, he does so. It is extremely important to the prosperity of Northern Ireland that attention should be paid to pre-serving jobs where this is economically viable. This we are doing as hard as we can.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, I am certainly not criticising the support to Harland and Wolff, or any-thing like that. I am really criticising the cuts to the other projects and finding out where they come from and on what basis they are made.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: Let me come to the cuts. In the first place we do not admit cuts. There is a certain redistribution. But take, for example, the education programme: in 1974–75 the expenditure was expected to be £60 million, £48 million for current expenses and £12 million for capital costs. In the following year it is expected to be £70½ million of which £56 million will be current expenses and £14½ million for new capital development. An increase of £2½ million, even in the estimation of the noble Viscount, cannot be regarded as a cut. I hear him say "inflation". Of course, there is an inflationary element, but, if you work out the proportion of 2½ to 12, it should cover any immediate inflation; it is about 25 per cent. This could hardly be regarded as a cut, nor should it be.
Regarding the Dungannon By-Pass and the Foyle Bridge, the noble Viscount spoke as if we were rejecting one in favour of the other. This is not the case; both are going ahead. The Foyle Bridge is going ahead as originally planned. The Dungannon By-Pass has been reduced from a motorway to an all-purpose road. This has been done because, under the new Westminster Department of the Environment rules for road construction, the traffic fore-casts on the Dungannon By-Pass do not justify the cost of motorway construction. This is a reduction in standard which makes sense in relation to the forecast of use, and I should have thought that everybody would welcome this as a reasonable and satisfactory economy. It is not being abandoned.
Regarding the Bangor pier, this is falling down and has been doing so for many years. It became rather dangerous for prowling fishermen so the local council very properly put a barbed wire fence on top to stop people going on it, and that is the position which will remain. If small boys or large men like to climb over the barbed wire—which is quite

272
difficult to do—and fall off, this will be at their own risk. So much for the Bangor pier.
As regards tourism, the tourist board is an excellent organisation. In my opinion it is in good nick at the moment. A great deal of very important forestry work is being done by the Tourist Board together with the Department of Agriculture for which I am responsible. Things are being made ready. The minute the ceasefire turns into something which is reliable and more permanent it is rearing to go and I am not the least worried that we will be happy to provide the money to do so and that we will have the personnel and the technique. We are not a bit worried. The tourist industry is all right, but it would be a great mistake to start developing it at this stage.
I shall go through the noble Viscount's speech and if there is anything I have missed I shall write to him. Lastly, I should like to deal with this question of Ministers going abroad. I should like to assure him that it is not necessary to provide an entry in the Supplementary Estimates, the main Estimates or any other Estimates for a Minister to go abroad. We are quite able to do so. I have only to be sent by the Secretary of State and the money will be found, probably for a tourist seat, which is very un-comfortable—the kind of thing the noble Viscount had to travel in today.
My Lords, I appreciate the steady application which the noble Viscount gives to the problems of Northern Ire-land and his relentless bringing one back to the general problem however particular the Order one is supposed to be considering. I shall always be happy to answer him. I hope I have answered the greater part of his questions and I shall write if there is anything outstanding.
9.13 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, just before the Question is put, may I thank the noble Lord for that long answer. I have not spoken in the debate and I do not intend to, but I have listened carefully to what has been said. I rise simply to say, with respect, that perhaps we should be a little careful before we start saying that Orders to this House from Northern Ireland cannot, even if they are financial

273
ones, be looked at closely. I am no authority on the procedure of this House, but I think I am right in saying that when the Finance Bill comes to us from another place we have a general debate. But, of course, the noble Lord is quite right in saying that it would be totally improper for this House to take a decision.
So when we have an Appropriation Order I know that my noble friend and I would entirely accept that it would be improper for us to try to take a contrary decision; but it is valuable that my noble friend, himself living in Northern Ireland —as the noble Lord has said in his closing words—should ask some of these detailed questions. Of course there is the theme to which I am afraid I keep reverting in your Lordships' House: namely, that the only way in which we in this House can get information is by raising a fairly detailed debate on these Orders.
I hope the noble Lord will not mind if I detain the House for one last moment, to say that I was glad that my noble friend raised these points and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, for the detailed answers that he has given. Perhaps on the subject of Aldergrove the noble Lord will write to my noble friend. It will be a letter which, if I am allowed to see it, I also shall be interested to read.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, just before we finish, I can give a quick answer in regard to Aldergrove. The position is that the provision of the TriStar service is a matter for British Airways and it is for them to make certain that the facilities are available to deal with it. Complaints can come to us after things have gone wrong, but not before. We are in a position to sanction a further develop-ment at Aldergrove and this is under consideraton, but no decision has been made at this stage. The decision is based not on the TriStar but on the whole future of Aldergrove.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, I really think that the noble Lord is wrong on the subject of Aldergrove. There are no buildings which can deal with 300 people. Aldergrove is already

274
taking over 40 per cent. more than its planned population. To deal with the TriStar there has to be a major construction scheme—or rather a destruction scheme because a whole lot of walls have to be knocked down. In two months' time we shall be going into this enormous aeroplane and there is no room to do it. There are not the car parks available and it is not a matter for British Airways.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, the proper course is for the noble Viscount to talk to British Airways, who are responsible.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, the airports are run by the Gov-ernment, by the Northern Ireland Air-ports Authority. The provision of build-ings and facilities is a matter for the Government, not for the airways.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I will look at this point. I know that we are examining the whole question of what expenditure is available for the development of Alder-grove, and it is a very difficult problem. The noble Viscount is speaking of some-thing on a much smaller scale devoted to the reception of one kind of large aeroplane, which is purely a matter for British Airways. In any case, I will write to the noble Viscount. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that it is desirable for us to discuss these matters. I congratulated the noble Viscount on not getting too involved in finance and I enjoyed replying to him as much as he enjoyed making his speech.

QUEEN'S ROAD BRIGHTON BURIAL GROUND BILL [H.L.]
Reported with Amendments.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVI-SIONAL ORDER (FISHGUARD AND GOODWICK HARBOUR) BILL
Reported without Amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.