Lords Sitting of 11 November 1975

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Wakefield):
LORD CHANCELLORThe LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

THE LORD BISHOP OF BLACKBURN
Robert Arnold Schurhoff, Lord Bishop of Blackburn—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Ely and the Lord Bishop of Wakefield.

THE LORD BISHOP OF BRADFORD
Ross Sydney, Lord Bishop of Bradford —Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Rochester and the Lord Bishop of Wakefield.
The Lord Marley—Took the Oath.
The Viscount Ullswater—Took the Oath.

EAST GERMANY AND CSCE AGREEMENT
2.44 p.m.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the new treaty of friendship between the Soviet Union and the German Democratic Republic is consistent with the letter and spirit of the agreement reached in the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe in recognising East Germany's unfettered right to self-determination and the pursuit of independent domestic and foreign policies; and whether it conflicts in any way with four-Power rights and responsibilities in Germany as a whole.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, the Soviet Union and the German Democratic Republic are signatories to the Final Act of the CSCE. It is the task of each individual participating State to ensure that its bilateral treaties and agreements are compatible with that Final Act and, as the Act itself makes clear, to respect and put into practice the principles guiding their mutual relations with all other participating States, irrespective of their political, economic or social systems. As for quadripartite rights and responsibilities, the three Powers made it clear in a statement issued in Bonn on 14th October by the British, United States and French Embassies that these can in no way be affected by any treaty concluded by any of the Four Powers with a third State. I am arranging for a copy of that statement to be made available in the Library of this House.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, with respect, I very much regret that the noble Lord has not answered the main part of my Question, so may I please put it to him in another way? Is it not disturbing to Her Majesty's Government that, so hard on the heels of the signature of the Final Act of the Helsinki Conference, the Soviet Union should not only cynically reiterate the Brezhnev doctrine, but should even go quite a long way beyond the position which they took up in 1968, when they sought to justify the invasion of Czechoslovakia?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, with all due respect to the noble Lord, who always speaks with knowledge and great thoughtfulness on these rather sensitive matters, I am bound to say that perhaps that is an exparte judgment. I suggest that we wait a little longer to see how the implementation of the CSCE, in this particular as in others, proceeds. I need not remind the noble Lord and the House that we are watching the situation very closely indeed. I repeat that we expect all signatories of the Helsinki agreements to honour their signatures ill practice. We shall seek proof of genuine implementation by the 35 countries, without exception, who affixed their signatures to this hopeful agreement.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware, after the 30 years that this State has been in existence, of the impracticability in German

1667
politics of ever having a united Germany? Is it not nonsense now to refuse to recognise Eastern Germany as a State, and bring it within the community of nations?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we have in fact recognised the German Democratic Republic, as we have recognised the Federal Republic of Germany. We have taken the sensible and practical view that my noble friend, as I would expect, has supported. Beyond that, we make no exception among all the other 35 signatories of this agreement as to implementation. We are examining how much more we need to do than is our historic practice to implement these agreements, and we therefore have every right, historically and perspectively, to expect all the other signatories to live up to their signatures.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, while taking note of the Minister's interesting information regarding the note of the three Powers the other day, can he kindly inform the House whether or not this Treaty is in conflict with the quadripartite agreement of 1971 concerning Berlin?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we do not see that it is. It makes no reference to the quadripartite agreement and we assume, because of that lack of reference, that the Soviet Union and the German Democratic Republic accept the position in regard to the rights and responsibilities which emanated from the conditions at the end of the Second World War applying to all four Powers engaged in the quadripartite agreement. Put more concisely, we do not see in this Treaty an assertion of change in the quadripartite agreement and, if there were, we should most strongly resist it.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, if words have not lost their meaning, may I ask the noble Lord what possible interpretation can be put on the preamble to the treaty and on articles 1, 4 and 9, other than that the Soviet Union is still claiming the right to intervene, by force if necessary, to keep their minions in power in the
1668
formerly independent countries of Eastern and Central Europe?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, that is an interpretation, as I have said, for which I have every respect. However, if one examines the terms of this treaty closely one sees that, while it refers to other countries within the Eastern Zone, it also explicitly refers to agreements between the Soviet Union and the GDR. It is early days to decide whether this treaty is incompatible with CSCE. I think I ought to add that CSCE, as has been abundantly pointed out from all quarters of the House, is not a legal instrument; it is a political agreement. For that reason, the question of implementation and of retrospective revision as to performance is all-important. I would caution a little less haste in assessing the relationship of this treaty and the terms of CSCE at the present time.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is there not a contradiction in the assertion which we have just heard from my noble friend? Is it not a principle well established in the United Kingdom, a principle that has been in operation for many years and a principle that remains, that we do not recognise the use of force by one country over another or, if force is not actually used, control over another country established by virtue of the force that can be utilised as and when it is regarded as necessary? Therefore, are we not violating the principle by not asking the United Nations to express an opinion on the relationship between the Soviet Union and the GDR?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we are not violating any principle that has been laid down in CSCE, because we arc implementing CSCE. It remains to be seen whether all countries will, like us, implement CSCE to the fullest possible extent. As to referring this matter to the United Nations, I doubt very much whether it could effectually be so referred, in view of the fact that one is faced with the ostensible fact of two willing partners reaching an agreement.

CYPRUS: COMMONWEALTH COMMITTEE
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 what progress has been made in preparing a report on the situation in Cyprus by the Committee appointed by the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference at Kingston.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the Commonwealth Committee on Cyprus has met on two occasions, 30th July and 22nd September. It has of course made reports to Commonwealth Heads of Government and, in line with its mandate of maintaining close liaison with the United Nations' Secretary-General, has kept closely in touch with him.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him this question: In view of the tragic situation in Cyprus, is it not desirable that this Committee should rather speed up its proceedings? Can the Minister tell me who is its convener and whether the British Government are represented on it?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we are certainly represented on this Commonwealth Committee. I should need to have notice of the question as to who is the Committee's convener. It has an ad hoc secretariat, which I imagine convenes the Committee. As to whether it is desirable that it should speed up its deliberations and recommendations—certainly. We are not the only member of this Committee. I have no reason to believe that it has not proceeded with due and appropriate expedition in its study and recommendations both to Heads of Government and to the United Nations' Secretary-General. I think the spirit as well as the content of my noble friend's supplementary will be very much borne in mind by those responsible for this Committee.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, would not we be in a better position on this Committee if we had not
1670
welshed on our responsibilities in Cyprus long ago?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, while not an uninterrupted admirer of my noble friend's prose style, I will take exception with him on another basis. Our policy in regard to Cyprus has been explained so many times in this House and in the other place that I should think that noble Lords and everybody else are well aware of it. First, we seek a grass-roots agreement without which no overlaying agreement in Geneva or otherwise will last very long. Secondly, we hope that it will be possible on that basis to move to Geneva or some other cognate international venue under the auspices of the United Nations and with the immediate promotion of the United Nations' Secretary-General. Bilaterally we are doing everything we can, day by day, week by week, to promote that policy. One of the ways in which we are trying to help that along is by active participation in the Commonwealth Committee to which my noble friend drew notice in his Question.

HOSPITAL CLOSURES
2.57 p.m.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government which hospitals it is proposed to close in Northumberland, Durham and Cumberland.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the Area Health Authorities concerned are currently undertaking local consultations with community health councils and other bodies in regard to the possible closure of Leazes Hospital, Wolsingham, which is temporarily closed because of staff shortages. This is the only proposal at present being considered with local interests, but the noble Baroness will appreciate it is the duty of the Health Authorities continually to review the use of all premises for which they are responsible, and this may lead to further proposals.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, I thank the

1671
noble Lord for that rather restricted Answer. In view of the fact that the Sanderson Home, so far as crippled children are concerned, is already being closed down, may I ask the noble Lord this? Where hospitals are being closed down which have been provided in the past by generous people, who have given the hospitals and endowed them, what guidance has been given about what is to happen to the money which was originally given? I have in mind local hospitals such as the Sanderson Home in Gosforth, Newcastle-on-Tyne. What will happen to the money that was given, when the children in that home are transferred to another hospital?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I have no information as to the treatment by the National Health Service of hospitals which formerly were charities. I will write to the noble Baroness when I have discovered the position.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that answer, may I ask whether it is not very odd that no guidance has been given about private money given to endow private hospitals which have since been absorbed into the National Health Service? Since it is most important, would he not think that that decision would be taken?
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, at this time when there is a need for controlling Government expenditure, will the noble Lord bear in mind how important it is to think in terms of keeping going the hospitals which we have, rather than engaging in vast new building projects?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am certain that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is fully aware of this point. Indeed, that is the reason why only a single decision to close a hospital is being considered in the three areas mentioned by the noble Baroness.

SCOTTISH GRANT-AIDED SCHOOLS
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, who cannot be present, and at his request, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in his name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have given each of the independent grant-aided schools in Scotland the information necessary to enable them to choose whether to remain independent or to become comprehensive public schools; and which of these schools have so far reached a decision.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill): My Lords, the managers of the Scottish grant-aided secondary schools are fully informed of the Government's intentions as to the phasing out of grant. They have been asked to discuss with the appropriate education authorities whether, and, if so, on what conditions, their schools might be integrated into the public system of education and to inform the Secretary of State of their decision as between integration and independence. Fourteen boards of managers representing the interests of 18 schools have so far responded, all of them opting for independence. In the remaining cases discussions are continuing. It is known that the intention of the Edinburgh Company of Merchants is that their schools should become independent, but that one of their school buildings should be acquired by the education authority concerned.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. However, the Government having afforded this choice, and a large proportion of the schools having opted to become independent, will the Minister now give an absolute assurance that a Labour Government in the future will not be a threat to abolish independent schools and so nullify the decisions just taken by these schools?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, is aware, the decision in Scotland to move

1673
to a system, where possible, of all-through or two-tier comprehensive schools is one which expresses the political philosophy of the Party to which I adhere. Within that framework, unquestionably a great deal of negotiation and complete frankness on the part of the Government was made available to each board of management.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, again may I ask the Minister whether or not he can give an assurance? Does this not make a mockery of the choice which has been given to the schools?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, the Government believe that to move to a system of comprehensive education means that the educational door of opportunity is held open for a greater length of time in the hope that those who presently are somewhat disadvantaged may indeed enjoy the full benefit of every educational opportunity that is available. Within that framework, therefore, it seems to us that the selective school end of the scheme works disadvantageously against the comprehensive ethos.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether it would not be wise for noble Lords opposite to wait until the debate tomorrow on direct grant schools?
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to answer that question? May I also point out that direct grant schools in England and Wales are quite different from grant-aided schols in Scotland?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, it is not for me to respond to a question that has been put to the other side of the House by one of my noble friends. I can confirm that the system in Scotland is quite disparate from that in England.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether the wholesale decision of these distinguished educational bodies and very distinguished schools in Scotland to opt for the private system makes him think that the comprehensive system may have something wrong with it?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, this comes to the very nub of the problem on
1674
the Scottish scene. On the other hand, the pupils represented by these schools form a very small percentage of the total school population in Scotland. Certainly where the all-through comprehensive system is already in being, as it is in Aberdeen, some outstanding results are now available.

BUSINESS
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I make a Statement about a change in the timing of Business for tomorrow? As the House will be aware, we shall be sitting at 11 o'clock. It is proposed, following agreement through the usual channels, that we should begin with the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, on direct grant schools. We shall take the Commons Message on the Community Land Bill after that debate.

STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS)
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (The Earl of Listowel): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Standing Orders relating to Private Business be amended as follows:—
Leave out Standing Order 121 and insert—
121.—(1) There shall be committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee—

(a) every Private Bill against which no Petition has been presented, or if presented has been withdrawn, or which has become unopposed by reason of any of the provisions of Standing Order 113, except any Bill as respects which the Chairman of Committees has in pursuance of Standing Order 92 reported to the House that in his opinion it should be proceeded with as an Opposed Bill;

(b) on recommitment, every Opposed Private Bill in respect of which a report has been made from a Select Committee that the Bill should be allowed to proceed, provided that no decision taken by such

1675
a Select Committee may be varied by an Unopposed Bill Committee.

(2) Each Unopposed Bill Committee shall consist of the Chairman of Committees and such Lords as think fit to attend.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LOCAL LAND CHARGES BILL [H.L.]
3.5 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill [208] as first printed for the Commons]
[No. 1]
Clause 1, page 2, line 28, leave out ("by a local authority")
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. This Amendment is consequential upon Clause 1(1)(a). It ensures that the charges referred to in Clause 1(2)—which is intended to apply to all charges arising under Clause 1(1)(a) —are not confined to charges recoverable by a local authority, but include charges acquired by water authorities or New Town Development Corporations arising under Clause 1(1)(a). My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 2]
Clause 2, page 3, line 3, leave out from ("was") to ("deemed") in line 4 and insert ("granted at any time before the commencement of this Act or was or is (at any time)")
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2. By removing future planning conditions from the categories in
1676
Clause 2 of the matters which are not local land charges, this Amendment makes these conditions local land charges. The categories in Clause 2 negative or qualify the categories of local land charge in Clause 1. Under the Amendment, future planning conditions will be local land charges within Clause 1(1)(b) or (c), the words of which are wide enough to include planning conditions. Under the Bill as it stands, planning conditions are excluded from Clause 1(1)(b) and (c) by the special words in Clause 2(e).
The purposes of the Amendment which were urged on both sides of the House in another place are these: first, to bring planning conditions within the statutory provisions in Clause 10 for compensation for loss resulting from the nondisclosure of local land charges; secondly, to give statutory force to the present practice whereby planning conditions imposed by local authorities are usually recorded in the registers of local land charges, so that the information provided on the registers about these conditions is provided in pursuance of a statutory duty. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 3 and 4]
Clause 10, page 7, line 10, leave out ("as registered in it").
Clause 10, Page 7, line 11, at end insert ("as registered in that register").
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 3 and 4. These are purely drafting Amendments designed to make the wording at the end of Clause 10(1) consistent with the wording at the end of Clause 10(1)(b).
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, this is a purely technical matter. Your Lordships will see that Amendment No. 3 reads:
page 7, line 10, leave out ("as registered in 17").

1677
That is a misprint. It was Amendment No. 17 in the Committee proceedings in another place. It may be that there will now have to be a manuscript Amendment to rectify the position.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for drawing my attention to that matter.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, so far as it goes, and subject to my undertaking, if what the noble Earl has said is true, I will see that the matter is rectified.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 5]
Clause 10, page 7, line 41, leave out ("making") and insert ("the effect of which is to make").
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5. This is a drafting Amendment for the purposes of clarification. Its explanation is lengthy and elaborate, and in view of other business which your Lordships have to deal with I hope it will suffice to take it from me that it is merely a drafting Amendment for the purposes of clarification. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 6]
Clause 10, page 8, line 37, at end insert ("or on grounds of fraud").
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6. This Amendment is for the avoidance of doubt. It makes it clear that Clause 10(6) (which restricts the right of registering and originating authorities to recover from third parties compensation paid under the clause) does
1678
not preclude the right of those authorities to recover by way of damages for fraud any amounts paid by way of compensation. The Amendment meets a point which was raised by Mr. Graham Page in another place. Although it is considered that Clause 10(6) as it stands would not preclude proceedings for fraud, the Amendment makes this abundantly clear. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 7]
Clause 14, page 10, line 35, at end insert ("which shall be subject to annulment by resolution of either House of Parliament").
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7. This Amendment is designed to render the rules under Clause 14 subject to Negative Resolution procedure.
The Amendment (which was moved by Mr. Graham Page in another place and accepted by the Government) is unfortunately defective, for it provides for annulment "by resolution of either House of Parliament" If interpreted literally, this would mean that on a Prayer against the rules the Negative Resolution would of itself annul them. That is an unprecedented provision and departs from the usual formula "in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament", which follows the wording of Section 5(1) of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946. Under that subsection a Prayer for annulment is followed by an Order in Council revoking the instrument, and under that procedure there is time to prepare new rules to come into force immediately after revocation of the old.
Accordingly, it becomes necessary to move Amendment No. 7A to leave out ("by") and insert ("in pursuance of a") which corrects the defect in the Commons Amendment No. 7. It provides that the rules under Clause 14, instead of being subject to annulment by resolution, are to be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution and it is upon these fine refinements that the Parliamentary system appears to work. The Amendment

1679
adopts the usual formula used in innumerable Acts and enables the provisions of Section 5(1) of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 to apply.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 7A, to amend the Amendment to which I have just spoken.
Amendment moved—
[No. 7A]
Leave out ("by") and insert ("in pursuance of a")
On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Motion, as amended, agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 8]
Schedule 1, page 22, line 14, leave out from ("section 126") to end of line 40 and insert ("omit the words from "and the instrument is registered" to the end of the subsection in subsection (1) and after subsection (4) insert—
'(4A) In relation to a covenant falling within subsection (2) above, section 1(1)(d) of the Local Land Charges Act 1975 shall have effect as if the reference to the commencement of that Act were a reference to the coming into operation of this section.'")
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8. This Amendment aligns covenants made under Section 126 of the Housing Act 1974 with the general regime of the Bill, by making them local land charges falling under Clause 1(1)(d). The Amendment also inserts a new subsection (4A), providing that these covenants, even where made before the coming into operation of the Bill are local land charges under Clause 1(1)(d). I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 9]
Schedule 2, page 24, line 30, column 3, at beginning insert—
1680
("In section 18(3), the words "Subject to subsection (4) below" ").
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9. There is a long chapter of agreement which I have invited your Lordships to consider, which may be in some contrast to the subsequent proceedings in the House. This Amendment effects a minor consequential repeal which I do not think needs elaboration. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LEGAL ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE (FINANCIAL CONDITIONS) (No. 4) REGULATIONS 1975
3.17 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House approves the Legal Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (No. 4) Regulations 1975. With the leave of the House I should like at the same time to deal with the Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (No. 2) Regulations 1975, and also the two corresponding Scottish Regulations standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Kirkhill. They are in similar terms to the English ones, and my remarks apply equally to both.
These Regulations increase the income limits for legal aid advice and assistance. The background to the regulations is that when the income limits for legal aid were raised towards the end of 1973, with effect from 1st January 1974, the then Government announced that in future they would be reviewed annually to take account of increases in supplementary benefits which were themselves reviewed annually. This was a considerable improvement in the legal aid field because it meant that the income limits would not be eroded by inflation as would happen if they were reviewed only at irregular intervals, as had been the practice previously.
However, since that announcement inflation itself has resulted in supplementary benefits being increased more than once a year. The increases in the legal aid income limits last June reflected

1681
increases in supplementary benefit in the previous month, and the Regulations now before your Lordships follow increases in supplementary benefit which will come into effect on the 17th November as a result of the Supplementary Benefit (Determination of Requirements) (No. 2) Regulations 1975. These include a rise of just under 14 per cent., from £9.60 to £10.90, in the ordinary weekly rate for short-term supplementary benefit. The Regulations before the House make similar increases in the income limits for legal aid advice and assistance.
I now come to the actual provisions of the Regulations. The Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (No. 2) Regulations 1975 raise from £1,580 to £1,790 the disposable income limit above which a person ceases to qualify for legal aid and from £500 to £570 the disposable income limit below which a person is eligible for legal aid without payment of a contribution. The disposable income is a person's net income after certain deductions have been made for various living expenses, such as rates, rent, dependants, income tax and so on.
The Legal Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (No. 4) Regulations 1975 raise from £29 to £30 the disposable income limit above which a person is not entitled to legal advice and assistance. The increase is not as high as for legal aid, as the financial limits for advice and assistance are calculated on a slightly different basis from that for legal aid. These Regulations must be read in conjunction with a third set of Regulations, not before the House today since they are not subject to Affirmative Resolution, which come into force at the same time as the other Regulations. These raise from £15 to £16 the disposable income limit above which a person in receipt of legal advice and assistance is required to pay a contribution, and also make consequential amendments to the scale of contributions for advice and assistance.
I commend these increases to your Lordships. While they are by no means remarkable, they are important in keeping step with inflation following the principle of annual reviews, accepted in 1973. They must also be considered in the light of two important studies currently being carried out by my Office and others. The
1682
first is a general study into legal aid financial limits, which my Legal Aid Advisory Committee asked the Law Society and the Supplementary Benefits Commission to undertake. This is a complex subject, and it may be some time before suggestions are formulated, but I look forward to receiving the recommendations of my Advisory Committee in due course. The other study is one which I myself commissioned last year into the nature and extent of the need for legal services which is not being met at present. This study will also be dealing with financial priorities, and I hope to receive advice on it from my officials early next year. When I have been able carefully to consider the results of both studies, I shall be in a much better position to judge whether the current principles for reviewing the legal aid limits are the best that can be devised, and, indeed, whether there should be any radical changes in any or all of these financial conditions. I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the Legal Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (No. 4) Regulations 1975, laid before the House on 27th October, be approved. (The Lord Chancellor.)
3.22 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will welcome both these Motions, and the other two to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has spoken, coming as they do from the other side of the Border. Anything that I say about them should not be taken as carping criticism, but really mainly as taking the opportunity to remind your Lordships as to the present state of legal aid and, indeed, legal advice and assistance in the financial sense, and possibly as an invitation to the Government to say what they are going to do in the future so far as increase of benefit is concerned.
My Lords, the 25th Legal Aid Annual Report shows, if nothing else, the appalling effects of inflation even on this part of our economy. For instance, if one looks at legal advice and assistance, which is the subject of the No. 4 Regulations, if I may so call them, in April 1973 the upper disposable income limit —that is to say, above which legal advice and assistance was not available—was £20. On 1st January 1974 it went up to £24.50 on 1st September 1974 it went

1683
to £28; on 1st June last it rose to £29, and now, indeed, the figure is going up again to £30, so that the criteria by which these reviews were made are becoming out of date.
My first objection, if it can be called an objection, is concerned with whether the Government consider that these increases are at all adequate. It is fair to say that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor's Committee and, indeed, the Law Society's Report, bear out that they do not. Furthermore, if one takes the position so far as legal aid is concerned with a similar illustration, the upper disposable income limit above which legal aid was not available was, in 1970, £950; in January 1974, £1,175; in September 1974. it had gone up to £1,380; 1st June 1975 fixed the upper limit at £1.580—and that, too, has gone up, as we have heard, to £1,790.
That may seem to be quite a lot of money, but the position is pointed out with considerable clarity in Appendix B of the second part of the Report which illustrates in a table the net incomes of persons entitled to legal aid either free or on payment of contribution as at 1st June 1975. So far as the single person is concerned, taking into account income from all sources after deduction of income tax, National Insurance contributions and rent, the maximum permitted free legal aid was £604 or £11.61p per week, and the minimum which makes the applicant ineligible for legal aid, was £1,685. Perhaps rather more starkly, if one takes the case of a single parent with two children aged 4 and 8 years, and an income which includes £1.50p a week family allowance, there the maximum 'permitted free legal aid is £919, or £17.67p per week; and the minimum which makes the applicant ineligible for legal aid goes up to £2,000, or £38.46p per week. These figures, which in a sense are rather technical, show that although the Government are doing what they contracted to do—and other Governments beforehand have sought to do—in my submission the time is fast coming when the whole of these legal aid limits and conditions should be reviewed. If we really are to allow people the benefit of the legal rights which they are entitled to claim. I would suggest these limits will have to be greatly increased.
1684
My Lords, the other matter I would raise—and I hope it is not out of order to do so, because we are having what might be called a mini-debate on legal aid—concerns capital limits. The position, as I understand it, is that those limits were last raised in December 1972, and the limit above which legal aid may be refused is £1,200; the limit below which legal aid is available without a contribution from capital is £250. The disposable capital limit for the availability of legal advice and assistance is also £250. I have no doubt that all noble Lords will agree that these limits are much too low. To my mind, there really cannot be any excuse, since we are nearly three years in time from the period when they were last raised. In fact, this recommendation has been made each year since 1972. Even to keep step with inflation, to put such an applicant in the same position as he would have been in December 1972, according to the Report the limits would now need to be raised to £378 and £1,819 respectively.
My Lords, as I have said, this really is a matter which shows the evils of inflation. Nevertheless, the people who depend on legal aid for civil matters are those who in many ways are the least able to cope with inflation, and the least able to arrange their affairs so that they can enforce their rights without the help which this otherwise excellent scheme gives.
3.30 p.m.
Lord HALE: My Lords, I had intended to say only a couple of words on the second of the two Regulations, but the extension of the debate by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack beyond the Tweed I find rather embarrassing, because I have not studied with care matters so far from Oldham. I think that the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, has made an important contribution, some of which I would have hoped to make. Another place has recently received a report on the processes of legislation and I have not yet been able to obtain a copy of this. I understand it deals rather sensibly with some of the very odd features of these two Regulations.
At first sight noble Lords might think they were non-identical twins, because

1685
they are inspired by the same Act, they are made on the same day, they are laid on the same day and they come into operation on the same day. I confess I started under that impression. But, No, under an Act passed last year I find we have now got at least six statutory Amendments. We are running a whole series of statutory Amendments under one section and a whole series of statutory Amendments under the other, and the reference in the No. 2 Act to the Legal Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (No. 2) Regulations 1975 is nothing whatever to do with the Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1975. No doubt a Member of the House should have realised that at once.
I sometimes look back at my old profession. They are, I believe, prosperous; I believe they are very overworked. When I go to the Law Society's hall now I very rarely receive a smile. They are endeavouring to understand at one and the same time the whole of the Statutory Instruments, the whole of the EEC secondary legislation, as well as taking an interest in the statutory laws of this country. It is a very heavy burden.
The one point I had intended to raise (and I will not pursue it) was No. 4 of the No. 2 Regulations being debated today. I read that several times without understanding it. So I turned to the explanatory note and found that it does not mention it. I turned up the report of the Joint Committee and found that they have no observation to make. I therefore listened with the utmost care and attention to the learned and lucid statement from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and noted that this was the one question to which he referred. So far as I know, there is nothing sinister. I think it is regrettable that one should introduce into an Act passed last year a new system of computation, which is stated in terms not clearly intelligible to a Life Peer of 73 suffering from premature senile decay, and which I think would not easily be readily intelligible to quite a number of people and to busy solicitors.
Therefore, I intended to concentrate my remarks on the other Regulation No. 4, because there is an exceptionally clear explanation of precisely what it means in about two lines of 10 words:
1686
"These Regulations increase the disposable income limit for the availability of legal advice and assistance from £29 a week to £30 a week."
There is no question about that. I do not know why it needs a Statutory Instrument. Some 22,500 solicitors and 2,500 banisters will have to know about this in order to advise their clients, and law libraries will need to have them. It would be very indecorous of me not to thank the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, not for a step in the right direction but for a slight shuffle in the right direction. But I should like to add that clearly we are not advancing, in Napoleon's phrase, "à pas de charge".
3.35 p.m.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, not being a lawyer, I have listened with interest to my noble friend on the Woolsack. Reflecting upon the introduction of this measure of legal aid for the unfortunate people in the country who are in need of such aid because of their financial circumstances, I recall that during my Parliamentary career many people came to me, as they have come to other people of such standing, for advice on these matters. It was most pleasing to me to listen to the observations and comments made by my noble and learned friend who sits on the Woolsack, and also those of the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield. I sincerely hope that the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, will not forget the observations that he has made in regard to this measure and the recommendations that have come from the Government through my noble friend who sits on the Woolsack.
I reflect that many things have been introduced since we were children before the Second World War, and are costing this nation a tremendous amount of money when we need as much positive help as possible. I, like many others, should like to see a much greater increase, as tangible evidence to those unfortunate people who have to apply for this financial aid when they find themselves in dire circumstances. I sincerely hope and trust that the House will not forget the observations that have been passed on to us by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, and also those of the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield.
3.38 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful for the muted

1687
approval which has been given to these Statutory Instruments which I moved. Their purpose is to keep pace with the rate of inflation. That has been linked to the changes in supplementary benefit payments. Those changes are linked to the inflationary rate. I think that the proposals in these Regulations also faithfully keep pace with inflation. It is, of course, the great enemy that we as a community now face; it challenges every aspect of our lives, voluntary work, assistance to the needy in this way. Everything is under challenge and under threat as long as the inflation rate continues to rise.
Certainly I wish we could have said that we could pay more. This year £40 million is about the figure paid out of the public exchequer for legal aid, advice and assistance. It is a substantial sum, and at this time he would indeed be a very bold man who called for greater increases. At any rate, in this important field we are keeping the limits in line with the increase in inflation. On the capital limits, I am waiting for recommendations. In regard to the observations of the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, as I have said, an inquiry has been commissioned into the whole question of financial limits, and I have no doubt we shall be returning to this important problem in due course.
I am sorry that my noble friend has purported to find difficulty in understanding the Statutory Instruments. I would have hoped that the explanatory memoranda, at any rate, are self-explanatory. It is necessary to produce this flood of Statutory Instruments because the basis of the financial limits for legal aid and advice and assistance have to be set down. We tried to enable those limits to keep in touch with the inflationary changes. So what is being done, while it results in, I am afraid, an accumulation of Statutory Instrument, at any rate fulfils the duty the Government have to ensure that those needing legal advice and assistance do not suffer because of the inflationary position. Therefore, in the light of those explanations—I am grateful for the observations of my noble friend Lord Slater—I hope that the House will be disposed to approve the relevant Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LEGAL AID (FINANCIAL CONDITIONS) (No. 2) REGULATIONS 1975
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (No. 2) Regulations 1975, laid before the House on 27th October, be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LEGAL AID (SCOTLAND) (FINANCIAL CONDITIONS) (No. 2) REGULATIONS 1975
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Legal Aid (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) (No. 2) Regulations 1975, laid before the House on 30th October, be approved.—(Lord Kirkhill.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LEGAL ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE (SCOTLAND) (FINANCIAL CONDITIONS) (No. 4) REGULATIONS 1975
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Legal Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) (No. 4) Regulations 1975, laid before the House on 30th October, be approved.—(Lord Kirkhill.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS BILL
3.42 p.m.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reasons for disagreeing to the Lords Amendments, the Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments, and Commons Amendments in lieu be considered forthwith.
Moved, That the Commons Reasons for disagreeing to the Lords Amendments, the Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments, and Commons Amendments in lieu be considered forthwith. —(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO LORDS AMENDMENTS, COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO LORDS AMENDMENTS AND COMMONS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU.
[References are to Bill (82) as first printed for the Lords. The Lords Amendments are printed in italics; the Commons Amendments are printed in ordinary type and the Commons Reasons and further amendments are printed in italics underlined.]

LORDS AMENDMENT
(as amended by Commons Amendments to which the Lords have agreed)
[Nos. 1–4]
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
Freedom of the press
("After section 1 of the principal Act there shall be inserted the following section:—
"Charter on freedom of the press
1A.— (1) If, before the end of the period of twelve months beginning 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, editors or editors' organisations, and trade unions representing journalists, a charter 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 charter.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (I) above, matters relating to the freedom of the press include

(a) The rights of editors and other persons exercising editorial responsibilities to discharge their duties free from any obligation to join a trade union;

(b) the rights of journalists to join a trade union of their choice;

(c) the rights of editors to commission, publish or not to publish any article free from pressure by industrial action;

(d) the rights of journalists not to be arbitrarily or unreasonably excluded or expelled from membership of a trade union.

(3) If no such charter has been agreed as mentioned in subsection (I) 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 charter containing rules of conduct designed to secure the rights mentioned in subsection (2) above together with such other matters as may have been agreed among the parties mentioned in subsection (1) hereof, and shall lay the draft before both Houses of Parliament.
(4) If a draft laid under subsection (1) or (3) above is approved by resolution of
1690
each House of Parliament, the Secretary of State shall issue the charter in the form of the draft.
(5) A charter agreed as mentioned in subsection (1) above, or prepared by the Secretary of State in accordance with subsection (3) above, may be revised from time to time by agreement between such parties as are referred to in subsection (I) above, and the Secretary of State shall lay a draft of the revised chatter before both Houses of Parliament.
(6) If a draft laid under subsection (5)above is approved by resolution of each House of Parliament, the Secretary of State shall issue the revised charter in the form of the draft.
(7) On issuing a charter or revised charter under subsection (4) or (6)above the Secretary of State shall make by statutory instrument an order specifying the date on which the charter or revised charter is to come into effect.
(8) No criminal proceedings shall lie against any person on account of a contravention of the charter but the obligation to comply with the charter is a duty owed to any person who may be affected by a contravention of it and any breach of that duty by industrial action or otherwise is actionable accordingly subject to the defences and other incidents applying to actions for breach of statutory duty.
(9) In this section—
"article" means any matter printed or intended for printing or broadcast or intended for broadcasting by television or radio;
"industrial action" means—

(a) a concerted stoppage of work by a group of workers, whether (in the case of all or any of those workers) the stoppage is or is not in breach of their terms and conditions of employment and whether it is carried on during or on the termination of their employment, or

(b) any concerted course of conduct whoch—

(i)is carried on by a group of workers with the intention of preventing, reducing or otherwise interfering with the production of goods or the provision of services, and

(ii) in the case of some or all of then:, is carried on in breach of their contracts of employment or (where they are not employees) in breach of their terms and conditions of service.".")

COMMONS AMENDMENT TO THE LORDS AMENDMENT
In subsection (2), leave out paragraphs (a) to (d) and insert ("such matters as the avoidance of improper pressure to distort or suppress news, comment, or criticism, the application of union membership agreements to journalists (and in particular the right of editors to discharge their duties and to commission and

1691
publish any article) and the question of access for contributors.").

LORDS AMENDMENT IN LIEU
In subsection (2) leave out paragraphs (a) to (d) and insert—

(" (a) the avoidance of improper pressure to distort or suppress news, comment or criticism;

(b) the application of union membership agreements to journalists including the right of journalists not to be unreasonably excluded or expelled from trade unions and to belong to the union of their choice and the right of editors to discharge their duties free from any obligation to join a trade union;

(c) the right of editors to commission and to publish or refuse to publish any material;

(d>) the assurance (subject only to editorial discretion) and access to the press of all contributors at all times.")

The Commons disagree to the Amendment numbered 3 proposed by the Lords in lieu of the Commons Amendment numbered 2 to the Lords Amendment numbered 1; and they insist on their Amendment numbered 2 for the following Reason:
Because the Amendment deals appropriately with the contents of the charter.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 3 in lieu of Commons Amendment No. 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 4, and doth not insist on their disagreement to the Commons Amendment No. 2. The Reason is that the Amendment deals appropriately with the contents of the charter. We may have a rather complicated procedure to undergo this afternoon in considering this matter, but since the issue is the same, the question of the Press, I wonder whether it would be for the convenience of the House if we were to discuss all the matters together.
Listening to political commentators on television and radio and reading articles in the Press, one could well imagine that this was a piece of legislation dealing with matters of direct consequence to the Press and the media. But this is a Bill about industrial relations. Its primary object, if not its sole object, is to repeal the remaining parts of the Industrial Relations Act 1971, and I suspect that there will be few who are sorry about its complete repeal. The repeal was an essential part of the Labour Party Manifestos
1692
in the two Elections in 1974. All the contents of the Bill have been approved, somewhat reluctantly I admit, with the exception of this one remaining clause dealing with the freedom of the Press. Noble Lords opposite have agreed to measures making a closed shop agreement lawful, as it was prior to 1971, but say that for special, perhaps remote. reasons special provisions should be included for the Press.
If I may say so, I do not believe that Mrs. Thatcher's intervention on Friday was entirely helpful regarding the claim of the independence of your Lordships' House within Parliament as a whole. Perhaps I might ask some noble Lord opposite to remind the right honourable lady that Czechoslovakia lost its independence in 1938 not through the failure of the Press or the journalists, but because the democracies did not feel it opportune to fulfil their treaty obligations to that country in its moment of dire trouble. The right honourable lady said:
"It is not that we doubt the good faith of the overwhelming majority of journalists. The case made by the Opposition in another place was that there was no immediate danger, but one had to guard against a remote possibility that because of a closed shop for journalists the freedom of the Press could be imperilled."
I repeat, "a remote possibility".
The position of the Government has been made clear by words and deeds, with their determination to maintain the independence of the Press and the media. This is an essential factor to democratic Government in a free society. But this Bill, as I have said before, is a general approach to industrial relations. We do not think that it is right to select one group of workers for special provision; that a principle for industry generally should be withheld from one group of workers, or from one industry.
On the belief that putting the law back to what it was prior to 1971 creates a threat to the independence of the Press, I can only say that the real threat to the Press, and to its service to our democratic society, is not the activities of journalists but the very structure and the financial weakness of many, if not all, of our newspapers. We have said that we would act if there was a threat to the independence of the Press. Such legislation would i require most careful consideration, and

1693
I suspect that it would be more substantial in detail than the Amendments moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, which, in my view, are obscure and ill-defined. As drafted, these Amendments could cause grave consequences to the Press, and their very presence might cause reactions which, in the interests of the Press, we should seek to avoid.
I have no doubt that the freedom of the Press depends on a large number of papers, national and local, and, apart from economic viability, freedom depends on the determination of all within the industry to ensure its independence. In my view owners and editors, if embattled by hostile journalists, even supported by the law, could not ensure that freedom. Let us remember—and most forget—that, apart from the journalists, there was a right to closed shop agreements on the production side of this industry for many years prior to 1971. One did not hear then, and certainly one did not hear when we were discussing the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act in 1974, of a possible threat to the freedom of the Press. In fact, in regard to the production side, owners and editors many years ago positively encouraged closed shop agreements.
There are three sets of Amendments before us and the Government see objections to all of them. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor explained these when the House considered them last. These Amendments have been rejected by another place, and I will briefly explain to the House why I ask your Lordships not to press them further. There is the group of Amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, which sets out in great detail what, in his view, should be included in the charter. As a consequence of an Amendment made in another place, at least three of those provisions have been included in a Government Amendment. However, we believe that whatever may be the merits of the rights that should be put into the charter, these are matters which should be freely negotiated by industry, which brings me back to a principle which I have mentioned; namely, that if this charter is to have any value at all, it must be freely entered into and, as a consequence
1694
of that, an obligation is placed on all sides to comply with it.
I come to Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone. These would build on the Government's own proposals for a supervisory body which could hear complaints of breaches of the charter, and issue and publish declarations. They would also enable that body to award compensation for financial loss, and would give to its decisions, declarations and awards the legal effect of decisions, declarations and awards of the High Court. And noble Lords should take note that there is no right of appeal at all in regard to the decisions of this supervisory board. The noble and learned Lord seems to me to be making two mistakes. First, he assumes that without the force of the law nothing will happen as a consequence of the supervisory board and, secondly, he assumes that what ought to happen is that the plaintiffs should be able to pursue a claim for financial compensation.
On the first point, the Government propose a body to which all concerned in the Press will look as the guardian of the charter which they themselves will have drawn up. Their own involvement is what will ensure that the results are not ignored, and if some particular interest wishes to ignore the results in a certain case, then I suggest we have seen enough of this subject to know that public and Parliamentary attention will not overlook it. On the second point, it is argued that what the body does to supervise the work of the charter will not be affected by the addition of compensation where the body finds that there is a breach of the charter. The Government believe, and our experience of the impact of the law in industrial relations indicates, not that this provision will interfere directly with the supervisory body, but that the nature of that body, its procedures and attitudes to cases will change. Its primary aim should be to provide a forum and focus for conciliation in those matters which adversely affect the freedom of the Press, and not to act as a court for those seeking compensation.
Apart from these general considerations, we believe that this Amendment has particular and serious defects. I recognise that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone,

1695
concentrated on compensation partly because he thought it would be less far-reaching than some other courses, although I shall explain shortly that the Amendment has very wide implications which I do not think he foresaw. No amount of compensation will safeguard the freedom of the Press. What we want to do is to prevent breaches in that freedom, not to ensure that they are paid for, and employers will pay to avoid trouble. Nothing is clearer on that than our lessons over the Industrial Relations Act.
I turn to another defect. The noble and learned Lord seemed to imply that his Amendment would operate only in cases where an individual had lost his livelihood or had suffered damage or had suffered materially in his pocket, but his Amendment goes much wider than that. Employers and others could sue, as well as an individual who had lost his job or who had an article commissioned but not published.
I ask your Lordships to suppose that there was a complicated dispute, essentially about something else— overtime conditions, perhaps—which led to action involving a breach of the charter (and I remind your Lordships that we do not yet know for certain what that charter will contain) and that there was a loss of production. Suppose, also, that the action taken did not have the support of the trade union concerned; indeed, that the trade union, as soon as it learned of the situation, did all it could to resolve the problem and did so quickly. I must remind the House that these are cases where the freedom of the Press has previously been thought to be threatened, and that they have generally had these two characteristics. They took place in the context of an industrial dispute about another issue, and they were often not supported by the union officially. The noble and learned Lord's Amendment could lead to a case where there might be substantial compensation to the employer for loss of production, perhaps even for a drop in circulation thereafter; he might have to be paid by the union, by a union official or by an individual employee, and this inevitable obscurity hardly makes the effect more acceptable.
This is an issue of such importance that I will give yet another illustration. Let us suppose that the charter adopts
1696
the rights already spelt out in the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, in subsection (2); the NUJ instructs its members to withdraw their labour in support of a pay claim—a tactic considered legitimate in every other industry —and, as a result, a newspaper cannot appear. The proprietor may have a consequential case against the union, if it is held that the strike action amounted to improper pressure to suppress news. An advertiser might have a claim to compensation, and so, for that matter, might any other contributor, because they had been denied access at the relevant time. An editor might have a case in that he had been unable to exercise his right to publish.
The sums of compensation involved to all the parties potentially aggrieved by anything other than legitimate strike action could be absolutely enormous. A union or an individual union member might be unable to pay; the aggrieved parties could go to court to enforce payment, with the possibility, at the end of the road, that the union's funds and resources were sequestrated. That is a fact; it is not in any way precluded by any of the Amendments before this House. I have indicated some of the particular effects that this Amendment could have. The short point is that it would take us right back to all the sorry experiences of the Industrial Relations Act, and I have to tell your Lordships' House that we are not prepared to accept that position.
Turning to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, in my view that has received too little attention by your Lordships, with the notable exception of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman has been extremely coy about it. He has been most forward in explaining why something needs to be done, but rather backward in telling the House why the Amendment could be helpful. He seems to think—and I would not wish in any way to be offensive, because we have been sitting with him for a number of hours in the past few days—that he is to be congratulated on his Amendment because of its ambiguity, because it is obscure. Moreover, he seems to think —and I have in mind his remarks of 3rd November at column 927—that ambiguity and obscurity in drafting will discourage

1697
litigation. I should have thought that it ill-behoves this House, which rightly prides itself on its role as a revising Chamber, deliberately to insert ambiguities and obscurities in the law. Moreover, since when have ambiguities and obscurities reduced the likelihood of litigation? Surely the experience of solicitors points to the opposite conclusion.
I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has really worked out what he is seeking to do. He has described his Amendment as mild and moderate. Apparently it reasserts Common Law rights such as they exist. This is, of course, not particularly helpful. If a Common Law right exists at the moment—such as the right to go to court to complain of a breach of contract—there is no need to repeat it. If the right exists at present, not only will the Bill not take it away, but it will add to it by requiring the charter to be taken into account in any of its proceedings. There is a great deal of confusion in this matter. It declaring the charter to be public policy meant that the courts merely had to take it into account when deciding cases, the provision would be pointless. The Government's proposals go that far. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, must intend some new cases to be taken to the courts, and it is the Government's belief that that is what is intended and that that would be the effect.
Moreover, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, said, public policy is a difficult horse to ride. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor confirmed that view, particularly when taken in conjunction with the charter, the contents of which we are unaware. May I give an example of the difficulties that we foresee in regard to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman? Let us suppose that the proprietors and the NUJ reach an agreement, as they have done in the past, limiting the use of non-journalists to report on sports events. In consequence a contributor might find that he is able to get only a certain amount of material published and he may feel that the rights of access, apparently guaranteed to him by the charter, are infringed. He may consider that his case—his
1698
chance of some income on the side and of establishing his name as a sports correspondent—suffers.
A possible consequence of the Amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman—I must admit that we cannot be sure about this; but neither can we with certainty discount the possibility—is that, because the agreement between the proprietors and the NUJ will be rendered void as contrary to public policy, a contributor could take the proprietor and the NUJ to court, on the grounds that a void agreement which was contrary to public policy was being used against him and was damaging his interests by restricting the contributions he could make. Not only would this be a new development of Common Law, but there could possibly be many unforeseen complications and ramifications. It would also be a fairly sizeable interference with collective bargaining between proprietors and journalists, about matters affecting terms and conditions of employment, and a sizeable interference with a legitimate aim of any union to negotiate agreements to safeguard the position of its members.
My Lords, we have repealed legislation which sought to outlaw the closed shop. It is the Government's hope and expectation that the charter will lay down guidance on the application of union membership agreements to journalism in a way which will avoid any threat to Press freedom. Earlier Amendments made to this Bill meant that they could be drawn up in a flexible manner designed to take account of the circumstances of the newspaper in question. I cannot think that the right to resolve problems relating to the closed shop should enable the courts to restrain an action in pursuance of agreements relating to them, if such agreements are contrary to the charter. The unions concerned will be party to the charter, and if there are problems at a local level surely it is better for the unions, rather than the courts, to resolve them.
There really is considerable uncertainty about the effect of this Amendment, even in the form originally proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. We would be leaving the matter very much in the hands of the parties who would be responsible for the charter, and the courts would be given very little guidance on

1699
what they could do about it. Clearly, in these circumstances agreements could be declared void. But precisely how much further they could go is very uncertain. Moreover, what kind of rules and agreements are affected? There are trade union rules, certainly; agreements with proprietors and editors on a paper's policy, perhaps; agreements between proprietors and unions, no doubt, on a number of subjects. But what is more, the Amendment refers not only to rules and agreements but also to acts and conduct.
My noble friend Lord Lloyd of Hampstead seemed to think that even with this inclusion in the Amendment there was introduced no new statutory course of action and no new statutory right of any kind. It simply makes a resounding declaration in favour of certain developments in the Common Law which have been going on during the past 20 years or so, and it gives the courts encouragement to pursue the line.
I do not wish to debate whether the rights should be statutory or Common Law. But it seems to me that we would in a Statute be declaring that any acts or conduct contrary to the charter would be contrary to public policy and that this would give the courts a right to intervene where, generally speaking, they do not at present. Acts and conduct go very wide indeed; they can cover actions of individuals in a way which rules and agreements cannot; they cover fields of activity where rules and agreements are less likely to do so; for example, the question of access by outside contributors. The result is that it is much more likely that any contravention of the charter could be the subject of appeals to the courts.
In this House we accepted an Amendment from my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sower by establishing a charter; it was originally a thought in the mind of Mr. Hetherington, who was then editor of the Guardian. We now attach very great importance to the charter and, as I said a few moments ago, we believe a charter that has been entered into voluntarily, through co-operation and negotiation by both sides, will be the one that will have a true value, and there will go with it an obligation by both sides to honour not only the words but also the spirit.
1700
We have to take into account the fact that, if the bodies could not agree, the Secretary of State would himself have to produce a charter after 12 months. I think the general view then was that that would be a very great tragedy indeed; it would be far better for the Government not to interfere in matters of the Press. It should be only a last resort, and, if possible, there should be an agreement freely entered into by both sides. But does any noble Lord really believe, bearing in mind all the lessons of the Industrial Relations Act and the present climate, that union leaders would or could sit down with the owners and editors and work out a charter in which they had to have regard to such matters as the rights included in the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, but which were to be followed by sanctions in the courts which could in themselves lead to the sequestration of their union funds? My Lords, let us be realists. The charter, to which we attach the greatest importance, depends upon cooperation from all sides. Setting down those terms and conditions with sanctions at the end would, in my view, preclude any chance of an agreed charter.
My Lords—I say this with a degree of hesitation, but I think it needs to be said—the campaign has been led in your Lordships' House by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and others who have been very close to (shall I call them?) the Press management; certainly, those influential in the Press field. How will It be seen by employees in the industry as a whole? They are being asked to sit down and work out a charter with sanctions already provided for as a consequence of the pressure and leadership of management in this House. It will be seen as an owners' and editors' charter —in no other way.
I have to say that, in these circumstances, the position of the Secretary of State will be quite impossible. With whom will he consult?—perhaps the management alone. There could be only one answer to all this, my Lords. We would be back in the Industrial Relations Act situation, with court cases, sequestration of funds, bitterness and lack of that co-operation on which, in my view, the Press so desperately depends. I cannot myself imagine a more effective recipe for

1701
a further weakening of the Press and the certain loss of more papers. The Government firmly believe that a charter agreed by both sides, with a supervisory body to examine complaints should the charter appear to have been infringed, and with the power and the duty to report, is the best and only way forward. This is a constructive approach; and, to use the phrase of my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, "For Heaven's sake let us give the industry a chance."
My Lords, as to the Government's intentions, as I said earlier this Bill is a part of our Manifesto commitment. Our intentions have always been clear, and there is no avoiding the commitment that we should repeal the Industrial Relations Act. This Bill is the final stage. Its passage is essential, not just because it is part of our Manifesto, but because it is essential for the general improvement in industrial relations throughout the country, in all industries. I cannot anticipate the Queen's Speech, but I have to tell the House that we shall take any necessary steps in the next Session to ensure the passage of this Bill. It is required under the Parliament Act 1949 that the Bill should be introduced in this House in the state in which it was originally introduced, although there is a procedure under which, by a Speaker's Certificate, any Lords Amendment that has been agreed by the Commons could be included. There is just a chance that a Bill could come to your Lordships' House without containing any provisions regarding the Press. However, recognising the concern which has been expressed on both sides of this House and also in another place, it would be the Government's intention to suggest Amendments that have already been agreed to by both Houses, wherever they may have been moved originally.
The Parliament Act procedure has not been used for many years—not since 1949. Most, I believe, could have foreseen its use only in a supreme clash of principle; a step to be avoided except in exceptional circumstances. During my period in Office, I have seen a number of Bills which have raised great matters of principle that have divided the Parties. There have been moments of deep anxiety, anger and, sometimes, bitterness. Noble Lords opposite have fought hard,
1702
but in the end they have been content to acquiesce to the Commons' view. They have been content that they have made the Commons think again. On this Bill, we have made them think more than once.
My Lords, here we have a disagreement, not on principle or on purpose, but solely on method. Is this a matter on which the two Houses should come into conflict? I doubt it, for reasons I shall give in a moment. But it seems to me that there are two immediate consequences, and I beg your Lordships' not to brush either of them lightly aside. Today, as I think we can all agree, the country is faced with a critical economic situation. Great sacrifices will be called for from all our organisations and our people. This is a time of reconciliation, my Lords, and not of confrontation. We are seeing emerging a new sense of cooperation within industry. The unions, with great courage, are parties to an incomes policy which is vital to this country. Their co-operation and support are essential. We have seen, too, the cooperation, the new hope, emerging from the meetings of the three—the CBI, the TUC and the Government—at Chequers. What will be the consequences if this House now fails to pass this Bill, to which supreme importance is attached?
I would ask the House to stand back for a moment to answer this question. On the maintenance of the independence of the Press, we arc not divided. The issue between us is solely a question of means. It can be only a matter of months before this Bill is passed into law. It is accepted that the danger is not immediate; it is even considered remote. Again, I would ask the House not to brush this lightly aside. How would the trade union movement react to the rejection of this Bill this afternoon? True, there will be only delay, but will a few months' delay he a sensible mice to demand, hearing in mind the damage to relations within the newspaper industry itself, and within industry generally? I ask your Lordships not to forget the provisions of this Bill. It concerns not only matters of the Press, but very many matters which the whole trade union and Labour movement has dedicated itself to repeal. Co-operation at any time, and perhaps at this time more particularly, depends on a general spirit of understanding.

1703
I have to say to your Lordships' House that to reject this Bill this afternoon would have grave consequences indeed. I would not wish to speculate on what might be the final outcome to your Lordships' House of the rejection of this Bill, but there is an immediate consequence to which I think I should draw your Lordships' attention. This House, despite its critics, has provided an essential role as a revising Chamber. It has some notable achievements to its credit. Some have been achieved after great heart searching by some of my colleagues; and this Bill is, in itself, no exception. We chipped away at the problems within the constraint of rejecting legal sanctions except where they now exist. We have seen substantial progress. I do not believe that anyone would accuse the Government of having maintained a closed mind except on the legal sanctions and allowing the two sides to be free to agree on the charter. To force a clash between the two Houses could well place in the gravest jeopardy the growing co-operation which a number of us have noticed between the two Houses.
So, my Lords, I pose this question again. Is a few months' delay a proper price in itself to pay for placing in jeopardy the increasing co-operation and understanding between the two Houses? I am nearly at an end. I hope your Lordships will forgive me for having spoken at such length, but this is a matter of considerable gravity to this House. If, despite the publicity and the comments surrounding this issue, the House, for the reasons I have indicated, were now to decide not to press the position, I would not see that as a victory for any one side. If it were a victory at all, it would be a victory for Parliament as a whole. The House will know of the Government's deep commitments to the freedom of the Press—not only in words but also in deeds. I repeat that should there be a threat to the freedom of the Press from whatever source we should not hesitate to legislate. But concerning the Press, and recognising its role within the democratic society, such legislation ought in my view to arise from and be the consequence of agreement and support by all Parties within Parliament. In my view that is essential.
As to deeds, I would refer the House to the Royal Commission on the Press. I will not repeat all the terms of reference but all the matters that we have been
1704
debating anxiously over these months are covered by those terms of reference. I understand, and I think the noble and learned Lord himself referred to this, that the Commission have not felt able to consider these matters while legislation is pending. Once we have put this Bill aside then, of course, the Royal Commission are completely free within their terms of reference to consider all these matters. It is clear that we could not anticipate their Report; but if the Report raised matters (especially in regard to the matters we have discussed on this Bill) for which there is all-Party support, and legislation was required, is it conceivable that any Government would fail to legislate?
My Lords, this Bill, in whatever form it eventually emerges as an Act, may not perhaps be the end of the road. I have given at some length the reasons why I would ask this House to agree with the Commons. I would ask your Lordships to remember one last thing. The Press is not just the owners; the Press is not just the editors; the Press is not just the journalists, the compositors, the printers, the packers and those who deliver. The Press is made up of all of them. The independence of the Press, in my view, cannot be protected solely by the law. The law may give it minimal protection; but the independence of the Press as a whole in our democratic society depends on the living body that is within it. Those who spoke in another place did not recognise that there was an immediate threat; they foresaw only the remote possibility. In those circumstances, may I humbly suggest that we should allow both sides of the industry to get together and work out the charter; because that charter, if it is entered into voluntarily and by agreement, has a far greater chance of providing for the independence of the Press than any Act of Parliament or any Amendment to a Bill which is primarily concerned with industrial relations.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 3 in lieu of the Commons Amendment No. 2 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason numbered 4; and do not insist on their disagreement to the Commons Amendment No. 2.—(Lord Shepherd.)
4.26 p.m.
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, we have listened to a speech of great eloquence and I venture to say of great

1705
sincerity. I do not doubt for a moment the sincerity of the expressions of opinion made by the noble Lord, but I regret to have to say that it was also a speech of positively Himalayan irrelevance to the matters that we have to consider. If a prize were to be given for a speech of eloquence and sincerity that in no way related to the matters that we are concerned with, then I think we should award that prize with every kind of distinction to the speaker who has just spoken.
I think it is necessary to tell your Lordships what has happened since we last adjourned. The notion that we have driven this matter to an issue is totally unfair. May I also say, although I do not intend to make a point of it, that I resent the innuendo in the speech that I was in some way speaking on behalf of the proprietors and of other Press interests that had some secondary concern in this matter. That was the innuendo; it was said on that account and it should not have been said. It is a total untruth. I say that here and now in the clearest and most public fashion. Since we last met, I have made every conceivable effort to see whether an accommodation could be reached. My colleagues concerned with me in the matter have made every conceivable effort. The Government have not budged an inch, not a millimetre. The suggestion that this will affront trade union leaders—and they are concerned in the matter—may be true, but the notion that there arc hundreds of thousands of other people, not trade union leaders, who are deeply concerned in this matter, towards whom the Government have not made the slightest gesture, is something that seems to have missed the attention of the noble Lord in making his eloquent speech. Not a whisper or suggestion has been made that their anxiety or concern should be deferred to by any kind of concession.
My Lords, since we last met there has been a debate in the other place. That took place last Thursday. I expected, consequential upon that debate, when there were suggestions that we ought to reach an accord and that accommodation should be come to between us, that some approach would be made to me or my colleagues. No approach of any kind was made, but it reached my ear that there
1706
might be an approach made by some devious means. I do not stand on dignity or pride or anything else. I did not want this matter to reach a constitutional issue, and I do not believe it is anywhere near a constitutional issue. I think this is a wild, exaggerated conception that is done, like the fat boy in Pickwick Papers—whose role I would better play than the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd—to curdle the blood. There is no constitutional issue. Anything we are doing here today, we are doing in deference to the rights that we possess in an entirely constitutional fashion. This, if I may say so, is not open to argument.
I sought out the Government to see whether there were any proposals. If I am not in splendid form it is because we were negotiating until well into the early hours of this morning. We had, in my belief, reached agreement in relation to the legal matters that arose. A suggestion was made—and I at once acknowledge that no one said that it was put forward as an official proposal—which was designed to "test the water", but it was a suggestion which emanated from the Government and we totally accepted it in principle. We said, that, subject to a slight revision of the wording to clarify something, we would agree with it. That suggestion, having been put forward at 2 a.m. this morning, was withdrawn at 9 a.m. The idea that the Government are making desperate efforts to conciliate us and to reach an accord is not correct. The suggestion was withdrawn because of the obstinacy of certain persons. I do not wish to attach a stigma to any individuals nor to criticise any individual people. They are all old friends. I would only say that the idea that a united Government are moving forward in the belief that they are doing something for the benefit of mankind is as remote from reality as any conception which has ever been put forward in this House.
I do not wish to arouse laughter, if I may venture to say so to those who are most likely to support me. Nor am I seeking anyone's support. If we have to divide today, I want everyone to divide on the basis of his own conscience. If nobody follows me into that Lobby, I shall be happy to go there on my own. But the notion that this is a situation in which there is a genuine, ingrained belief on the part of the Government that they

1707
are doing something which is right cannot be supported if they will question their own consciences and question their own colleagues.
What we are doing is to defer to a view that the only consideration worth having in mind is a trade union consideration. Time and again, I have heard the proposition that this is an assault on the National Union of Journalists. It has nothing to do with the National Union of Journalists and, when I heard the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, detailing the horrible consequences that might ensue if either my Amendment or that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, were accepted, I felt that, though it may be that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shepherd, is quite right, he should have come forward with Amendments. All I want to do is something very simple. I want to provide a situation in which a man who is engaged in a creative process cannot be prevented from exercising that creative process because he has been expelled, arbitrarily, without cause and without justification, from a union. If that happens, I want him to have some effective remedy.
That is all I want. If the legal methods which I have proposed are inappropriate or likely to cause the earth to tumble, why do the Government, possessing the resources of legal draftsmanship and all the skill and knowledge man could wish for, not produce a means of doing it without the awful consequences which will follow my Amendment? I, in my humility, know that I am quite capable of producing legal Amendments of the most terrible character. But I have done the best I could and it has been open to the Government, with the utmost simplicity, to use their resources and to say that they accepted the fact that a man must not be expelled from his union without redress, without justification, without appeal and without compensation, and that they would provide some sort of remedy together with a legal means of enforcement. It would have taken the Government half an hour to do that.
As it is, we have had an immense debate instancing the awful things that might happen if the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, were accepted. I might say that the noble and learned Lord had to draft his
1708
Amendment in half an hour. If people realised the speed at which these matters are being tossed back to us, they would understand that what happens at Wimbledon is slow in comparison. It is positively in slow motion. We had a debate in the other place on Thursday and we are debating the matter again today after a most complicated set of Amendments on a Monday. We have to produce Amendments to deal with that situation and then they are analysed, subjected to strictures and it is suggested that they have been drafted with some ulterior motive in mind.
That is all we want. We want nothing else. In relation to this Bill, I wish it to be inserted that a man who writes—a creative man, a journalist—may not be expelled by his fellows without cause, without justification and without some means of redress. There is no means of redress. What has been put into the Bill is a suggestion that an unofficial, informal tribunal should adjudicate in these matters and that that should be the only remedy. I am not saying that that may not well have a substantial moral effect. I am only saying that responsible people, concerned for the welfare of the profession, would not regard that as an adequate redress or an adequate protection.
Some most astonishing things have been said. We were told that if one set up a domestic tribunal and if subsequently one had a right of appeal from its deliberations, that would make it impossible for the tribunal to do its work. I do not know anyone who can say such a thing. There are innumerable domestic tribunals working very successfully and efficiently. Take the General Medical Council, where there is a right of appeal to the courts if something outrageous is done. I could spend an hour listing the domestic tribunals in which this happens. Why is it impossible only in this instance to have one? If I were prone to suspect motivation, I should say that the speech we have just heard might, had it come from a less honourable man, have been exposed to the risk of being wholly disingenuous. That it was not wholly disingenuous I accept in view of the source from which it came. But the notion that one has to rely on a domestic tribunal because it cannot operate if there is an occasional right of appeal is, if I may say so, pure nonsense.

1709
I have made every effort arid every suggestion. I want to tell the House, if we have to fix the responsibility for what ultimately happens, that I have had discussions with the NUJ and with every side, and that I have, for instance, made the proposal that the domestic tribunals should be resorted to before there is any resort to the courts. This is done in Canada, where one has to exhaust the rights in a domestic tribunal before one can go to the courts. What is wrong with that? Anyone who wants to can appeal to the domestic tribunal and if he thinks that he has not obtained justice there he can go to the courts.
Another matter which I have to point out is that all the appalling consequences of my Amendment and that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, can only arise after a finding on the facts by one of Her Majesty's judges. It is only if a man is found to have been wronged, victimised or affronted that there will be any judgment in his favour. It is only then that the question arises as to what sort of law applies. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, appeared to suggest that these Amendments would create factual situations and that they could give a man who was not wronged a right to a remedy which did not arise because his behaviour had not entitled him to it and that he would become entitled to it because of some such Amendment. We are concerned only with the situation in which a man has been plainly and patently wronged and where the courts, having established that fact, apply some law.
There was some difference between the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and myself—and I may say that it was a most honourable difference—about the nature of the legal remedy that ought to arise. I accept that there are doubts about his remedy, as there are doubts about my own. I am sorry that, in the event, I did not adhere to the original proposal I had down, which was a simple one to insert a statutory right to protect rights under the charter. It was simple and uncomplicated. I abandoned it because I was given strong encouragement from certain quarters not immensely remote from the Government that if we pursued the Common Law remedy and pursued the remedy of public policy it was likely that this would find acceptance.
1710
I did not want a constitutional confrontation. I wanted to follow any course that was likely to be most acceptable. Hence, I abandoned something clear and simple in favour of something which was unquestionably uncertain, unquestionably obscure and unquestionably open to argument. I did so in the hope that it at least provided the glimmer of a candle that the liberty in this case could be preserved. We kept a candle alight. That is ail we are seeking to do. If a candle is kept alight in a country where liberty thrives, or has thrived, it will not be long before a blazing light ensues because other people will follow in its wake. What we do not want to do is to snuff out that candle.
Heaven forbid! that we should have a constitutional crisis. If we divide today, we shall be exercising the rights we have. No sort of threat will move me in the slightest because I take a view—which may not be shared by others—that a House which is incapable of exercising any sort of influence is a House which might just as well be abolished.
Several Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, I see no possible reason for apprehension about the dark forebodings uttered by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. All I can say to him is this: we shall do what is constitutionally right. We shall raise no levies in the courtyards. We shall not arm the people in Yorkshire or Cornwall or anywhere else. We shall not march on anyone. We shall exercise constitutional rights given to us by the other place and we shall exercise them to a point where we shall have exhausted the legal remedies available to us and shall have demonstrated to the people of this country that we believe this to be a bad and evil law. Having succeeded in demonstrating that to them, we shall make no further efforts to hold anything up. We shall not engage in childish play about whether or not we can hold things up for a week or a fortnight. We shall merely have declared our intentions.
I regret the time that I am taking, but this is a very serious matter and I feel it important to explain to the House what are the differences between us. They are very simple. If there is to be a charter—and at this moment there is no charter and all the prating about the

1711
charter is the most unrealistic part of the whole of this unreal discussion, for no charter exists, no discussions or meetings have taken place and there is no reason necessarily to suppose that any charter will be brought into being—it will not be discouraged by anyone, but the likelihood of an agreed charter must be regarded as speculative. There is no charter of any kind, and nothing anyone has said has discouraged anyone trying to achieve a charter. But what we have said is this: if there is to be a charter, there are a few fundamental matters: they do not constitute a charter, they do not constitute the beginning of a charter, they constitute the essential safeguards that are requisite if a charter makes any sense. The one to which I particularly draw attention is the one on which the negotiations have broken down:
"The rights of journalists not to be arbitrarily or unreasonably excluded or expelled from membership of a trade union."
All I have asked is that that should be inserted in the framework and structure of this charter as one of the matters that gets included in some tangible form. That is the major difference between myself and the Government; that is the major difference that justified that splendid oration by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in which he informed us of the dangers with which we are confronted. Forget the remedy, my Lords; do not think anything about the question of whether or not it is legally enforced. I want this charter—whether it be on a voluntary or a legal basis—to contain a provision that journalists should not be unreasonably excluded or unreasonably expelled. That is the major difference between myself and my friends in the Government; that and nothing else, except on the question of what form of legal remedy should exist, upon which I will say something in a moment.
If the noble Lord will rise now to say that he will accept that that is inserted in the charter, we shall be three-quarters of the way home. If he will say, on behalf of the Secretary of State, that he is prepared to have that put into the charter, there is no real issue between us. But what I will say to him is this: if he will not say it, then the suspicions that we entertain about why he will not say it, and why his friend the Secretary of State will not say it, seem to be very well founded. Why will he not say it? Would
1712
he like me to sit down in order that he may explain why? That is what I am asking him. He talks darkly about constitutional issues; he talks darkly about people who are associated with Press proprietors, and he refers to other mammoth irrelevancies. What he will not say is why we cannot make that provision, as one of the matters that is to be fixed there for all time when they come to create the charter.
Is he telling me that that will inhibit the negotiators, when the time comes, in their free negotiations and that with petulance they will have a little tantrum and say, "We cannot negotiate a charter; look what the terrible Lords have done; they have required us to accept that as part of this charter we shall not throw a man out of the union without reason, without justice, without excuse."? Is he seriously saying that the National Union of Journalists will raise any such childish suggestion? I challenge him on it because I do not believe it is true. I will ask him something else: does he really believe that this is discrimination against the NUJ? I heard on the radio the other Sunday the Secretary of State say that what we were doing was extraordinary, discriminatory legislation against the NUJ. Reflect, please, what is the extraordinary discrimination? The extraordinary discrimination is that we are bestowing on every member of the NUJ—which means on the NUJ as a whole, because the union is its membership, and its membership is the union—a right of appeal if any of them are flung out of the Union wrongly, improperly and without redress. That is the discrimination that the NUJ are suffering. I venture to think that it is a discrimination which most people would suffer with alacrity and great willingness. There is no other form of discrimination against that Union.
If he is saying that we are discriminating against the people who might want to throw them out without excuse and without justification, then I am prepared to say that this is discrimination about which I have a total composure; this is a discrimination which the House will accept without any sense of guilt. But to suggest that there is a discrimination against that union because they are being given that right! I should like to invite the noble Lord to invite his friends in the NUJ to hold a ballot of the entire union and ask themselves whether they

1713
regard themselves as discriminated against if they have bestowed on them a right of appeal, a right of redress, if they are thrown out of the union unjustly and without cause. I should like to see the result of that ballot. I would be prepared to wager a substantial part of my own very modest fortune that the result would not vindicate the view expressed by the noble Lord. We would find an overwhelming number of people who would say, "What is all this about? We are being told those monsters in the Lords, those capitalists, those bloated proprietors, are seeking to do us some injury and to damage our cause. What they appear to be wanting to do is to give us a right of action, a right of appeal, if arbitrarily and unjustly a man who writes is thrown out of the Union".
Consider one of the observations made by the noble Lord when he referred to "one group of workers". May I venture to say this is an absurdity. This is not a group of workers in any sense in which that phrase can be used. The people assembled on the shop-floor—working side-by-side in fraternity, doing the same job—are a group of people, some of whom work at home, some of whom work in Washington, some of whom are climbing the Himalayas, some of whom are in bed deciding what to write. The notion that you can impose an industrial discipline on this disparate collection of human beings can be entertained only by someone who is seeking to persuade us of the total unreality of the Government's case.
What is the other Amendment? The other Amendment we want is a faint flicker of a suggestion that the law has not been expelled from human transaction. There are two issues on which this matter ought to be considered by the country. One is whether people can be expelled from a union or any other organisation where their right to work is involved without any appeal and any redress. The second issue is whether it is appropriate for the legislature to say that there are circumstances in which the rule of law should be totally outlawed. I know that the trade unions were seriously affronted by the operation of the 1971 Act. I would point out—and I do not wish to make debating points—that we are not concerned with the repeal of
1714
the 1971 Act. We are concerned with the repeal of a section in an Act passed by Her Majesty's Government—the 1974 Act.
Section 5 says in the clearest terms that if a man is thrown out of a union or excluded from a union, he has a right of redress. That is what we arc being asked to amend; we are being asked to amend it on the footing that, having been inserted by Her Majesty's Government, they have now found that that provision is inconvenient to certain people who do not want to abide by it. I can only say this: that the day we set our seal on a refusal to allow the courts to redress a wrong of this kind, after the utmost discouragement to the people who are seeking to bring litigation—litigation will be slow to be brought by journalists, and, in certain circumstances, they will resort to this tribunal, and they will go to the courts only when there is no other remedy to enable them to work—that we should deny them that remedy, seems to me wholly inappropriate and wholly wrong.
My friends and I have made every effort to compose this matter; I hope that it is not the end of the day. I have explained what there is between us: there is between us that we want in the charter, an explicit statement that in some form the expulsion of journalists from a union, or their exclusion from the union, will not be permitted without cause and without redress. We want that in the charter, and we want some form of legal remedy to enable them to enforce those rights in the event of their being excluded from justice by circumstances we cannot envisage, since we are not prepared to assume that all bodies of men act like communities of angels. That is what we want. If the Government decide to make a constitutional issue on this matter, the fault is theirs and not ours.
4.49 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I must first apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and to the House for the fact that I was absent for the first moments of his speech. I was performing a public duty at the request of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, one of which he is fully aware. Therefore, I hope I may be excused. I have had the

1715
advantage of reading a fairly full note made by my noble friend at my side.
I do not want to spend very much time in this debate; indeed, in spite of the appropriately full length of the first two speeches, I hope that our debate may be reasonably short, since much that would properly be said on an occasion of this kind has been said more than once during the passage of this Bill. Least of all do I wish to spend much time myself, since I found myself addressing your Lordships' House on the main issues only a few days ago, within the recollection of your Lordships.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, spoke as if there was general agreement between the two sides of the House on everything except minor matters of procedure and methods, and as if there was no difference of aim but only of method between us, and no question of principle. I regret that I part company from the noble Lord there and I will tell him what I think are the questions of principle upon which we differ— because I think they are questions of principle and not of method.
The first is that the Government have appeared from first to last to take the stance that this charter, upon whose desirability we are now agreed, with different degrees of enthusiasm, should be left entirely to the industry as something which it is their business to decide, and nobody else's. We believe, and certainly I believe, most sincerely that if we are to have a charter of this kind the minimal requirements of it are something with which the people, and therefore Parliament, are intimately concerned, because the freedom of the Press, which is the subject matter of the charter, is not a private matter to be debated between the various organs within the industry enumerated by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. It is something which concerns us all.
The availability of the Press, access to outside contributors, the freedom of editors from pressure to suppress or distort news, the independence of editors, the continued existence of more than one professional body, so long as there are substantial numbers of journalists who support them—these are not matters which are purely private concerns of the various parties within the Press. We think that the minimal requirements
1716
should be stated in the charter. That, I think, is more than a question of means or method; it is a question of principle. If we are wrong about that, then of course we are wrong about the merits. But if we are right about that, then we can hardly be wrong to express our view in accordance with our deeply and sincerely held conviction.
The second point of principle which I think exists is that where there is a wrong, a proven wrong, by which an individual has suffered, this would not be a civilised society, nor one in conformity either with the European Convention or with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, if, in the end, access to the courts were not provided to give effect to it. Those are the two questions. They are not questions of detail; they are questions of principle. I must say this to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. I quite agree with him that the situation of this country is not such that one would seek to provoke any unnecessary dispute, nor, I hope—and I speak within the recollection of my fellow Peers—have I done so during the course of these debates, although I have had some hard things to say, either personally to the Government or in wider fields with any other section of the community, or in connection with another place.
Where differences of principle are sincerely felt, they must be dealt with not by asking one side to abandon its stance but in accordance with the law of the Constitution, which provides a way out of these things. It is not a matter for bad temper, but it is also not a matter for papering over cracks which are deep cleavages of conviction in matters of this kind. Therefore, if I may, I should like to say this about my own Amendment, although my noble friend Lord Carrington will be giving advice to those who wish to follow it as to the course we should take about the individual matters.
It has been said from the start from the Government Benches—more often from the Back-Benches than from the Front Bench or from the Woolsack, for a reason which I will disclose—that what we must do in order to have peace in industry is to keep trade relations of this kind out of the courts. That has been the cry. I doubt not that it is sincerely put forward by whomsoever it was put forward, but I am bound to remind the

1717
House that it is the purest nonsense, because the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said during the course of this Bill, not once but, I think, four times, and the Attorney-General in another place has said not once but, I think, about six times, that the courts are not being kept out of these relationships.
The Common Law remedy is preserved. The member of the union excluded contrary to rules or natural justice is allowed to sue for damages, even if the union does not want to pay. Judgments can be given, funds can be sequestrated and the whole procedure which has caused so much alarm can be re-enacted in those circumstances; and the court, as the noble Lord well knows, can also declare certain rules ultra vires and invalid because they offend against reason and common sense. In fact, more than once in recent years the courts have done so. A third party who is injured by a union otherwise than in the course of a trade dispute can bring an action against the union for tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds, and judgment can be given, irrespective of this Bill, even if the union does not want to pay. The whole processof sequestration can be enforced in that case and no-one has suggested that this will cause bitterness.
It is only when I propose an Amendment, the terms of which I will venture to remind the House, that this immense but wholly imaginary bogey is introduced. And what is my Amendment? It is nothing like that: it is nothing like Stratford v. Lindley; it is nothing like the Torquay hotel case; it is nothing like the other cases to which I have referred by implication. It is that if, after the members of the industry have sat down and agreed a charter with certain minimum requirements, which are not themselves in dispute but on which we ask that the Statute should make them pay, someone is aggrieved thereby and has suffered material damage, it shall be the business, not, indeed, of the courts, but of a body to be set up by the industry itself, with the full approval and at the suggestion of the Government, to decide whether there has been a grievance and, if proved, to state how much the damage is; and that their decision should then be treated not as a judgment which can
1718
be taken to the Court of Appeal or to the wicked Old House of Lords, but which can be enforced as an arbitrator's award. What could be milder than that, in comparison with those instances I have just given? If your Lordships are really going to say that a union, an employer or a third party who has put his hand to a charter and has broken it, and has put his hand to the formation of a tribunal—
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Lord Beswick): Address the House!
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I am addressing the House, if the noble Lord will forgive me. But this is rather a serious debate and I should be grateful if he did not interfere—
Several Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: —who has put his hand to a tribunal of the industry's own composition, has broken the charter and has been found by that tribunal to have broken it and to have damaged somebody else who is wholly innocent, would then not only refuse to pay but would prefer to go to prison rather than to obey the award of his own tribunal based on his own charter, or prefer to allow goods to be sequestrated rather than to write a cheque, where are we coming to, and what is the rule of law which members of unions and other bodies are prepared to accept at any time? And when we hear that they are prepared to accept an award of hundreds of thousands of pounds by the courts to which they object, at the suit of a third party—such as the Torquay hotel—but not of their own tribunal based on their own charter, what kind of intelligence or common sense or even good faith can we attribute to them?
These are questions which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, did not answer. Instead he wants us to accept a charter without minimal requirements and without any sanction of any kind behind it. When I was a child a charming story was written by Beatrix Potter called, The Tale of Mrs. Tittlemouse. Mrs. Tittlemouse was a mouse who offered hospitality to a toad called Mr. Jackson. The hospitality which she offered to the

1719
toad was two hard, round cherry stones, which she could appreciate but Mr. Jackson could not. Mr. Jackson rejected the proffered hospitality with the words: "No teeth, Mrs. Tittlemouse. No teeth" —and that is what is wrong with the Government's attitude today.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, professed to find in this matter a danger of some terrible constitutional crisis between the two Houses of Parliament. I say with some confidence to your Lordships that there could be no constitutional crisis unless it were contrived. A constitutional crisis between the two Houses could take place if in fact the process of Government were held up. One knows from the other side of the world that another and more democratically organised Second Chamber has in fact created a constitutional crisis, rightly or wrongly, in such circumstances in accordance with the terms of its Constitution, of which we have no right to speak except by way of illustration. But, my Lords, there is no danger of that here. There is no danger at all of a crisis being caused by this Chamber's holding up the process of government, the elected Executive, which bases its powers constitutionally upon a majority of the other place. Nor is there any possibility of a crisis when, quite conscientiously, on a matter of principle about permanent legislation, or legislation which is intended to be permanent, the two Houses sincerely differ and the matter can be put right by process of law.
The Parliament Act enables the Government to pass the Bill in their own form by January. And we are asked to believe that we must vote otherwise than in accordance with our consciences in order to save the Government the embarrassment of taking the responsibility for this legislation, in which we do not believe, by passing it over our heads under the Parliament Act by January. I cannot believe that the noble Lord is serious in putting forward that proposition. The noble Lord strove to say that the Parliament Act was designed to operate only in moments of supreme crisis—I forget the actual language which he used. That was never the argument in 1911; it was never the argument in 1949 when the amending Act was passed, and I have ample quotations to establish that. It was designed to establish that where there was a genuine disagreement,
1720
after proper discussion in which each side played its part constitutionally and sincerely—as I take it both sides have done in this case—the Government of the day, through its Commons majority, should have a legal way out which would cause dishonour neither to themselves, unless their proposals were inherently dishonourable, nor to this place if it happened to differ from the majority in another.
My Lords, I have said all I have to say. I put forward the Amendment which stood in my name simply in order, as I said before, to be helpful. I did so because I thought that the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, was inadequate. I did so also because it was much milder in some ways than Lord Good-man's because I made use of the body proposed by the Government themselves. I have no desire to act in a spirit of rancour or vanity. So long as the two principles with which I began are properly observed, I claim no pride of parenthood of this particular form. I will take whatever course is proposed by my noble friend Lord Carrington. But I would ask the House sincerely to believe that it will not in the end preserve either its existence or its honour if it refuses to follow its conscience in a matter of principle.
5.8 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I hope that this debate will last long enough for the matter still remaining between us to be thoroughly thrashed out. I shall not raise the constitutional issue. If the Government decide to invoke the Parliament Act, then your Lordships can debate that matter when it arises. There are questions of the merits of this dispute that obviously are still misunderstood. A great deal of confusion exists about what is at stake here. Last Saturday night I heard a British Broadcasting Corporation commentator refer to this Bill as "the Press Bill" One has heard a great deal about freedom of the Press or Press freedom. These are the words which have been used in connection with this dispute and this Bill. This is not the Press Bill; this Bill relates to industrial relations, trade unions and employees generally.
The first thing that should be pointed out is that the provisions of the Bill before the House have been accepted by your Lordships as applicable to all other trade

1721
unions and all other employees except those engaged in journalism—all other trade unionists, including the printing unions in the newspaper industry. All other unions are to be brought within the provisions of the Bill as it stands. Your Lordships have agreed to that. So the first question is whether discrimination is being made against one particular union or one industry. I do not call it discrimination but I do call it distinction. There is no doubt that we all agree on drawing a distinction between the Press and those engaged in it and other industries in the private sector. We are doing this because we recognise the special role of the Press and its importance to the basic freedoms of the country. We are trying to do that by providing a charter that will relate to this industry and to no other. All centres around the charter.
When this Bill first came to your Lordships' House no charter was provided for in it and the Amendments put down by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and other noble Lords provided for no charter. There were sanctions but there was no charter. I proposed the charter in the hope that it would provide the basis upon which fears could be resolved and doubts and disputes between representatives of the industry could be settled in such a manner as to produce in the end a code of conduct which would be agreed to by those directly concerned and would meet with the approval of both Houses of Parliament. This distinguishes the Press, the industry of journalism, from every other union and every other industry; so already we have gone a long way towards recognising the importance of those people who are engaged in this vocation.
Where have we come unstuck on this charter? Not, I submit, on its scope, but on two matters: first, preconditions and, secondly, sanctions for infringement. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, referred to preconditions as minimum requirements. This reveals not a difference of principle but a difference of approach. Those who want preconditions, minimum requirements, stipulations to be imposed upon those who are directly concerned with the discussions on the charter do not trust those who are to draw up the charter to fulfil the requirements of this House. Preconditions are not laid down if you are satisfied
1722
that common sense, judgment and a full sense of responsibility will prevail. There is no need to lay down preconditions unless you fear that without them your requirements will not be met. Therefore, in laying down preconditions there is an clement of mistrust.
When my noble friend the Leader of the House referred to the possible effect upon the unions concerned he was stressing what to most of us is the obvious. If one shows mistrust in people, in many cases the response one gets is not the kind of response, the kind of mood, that one is hoping for. This is deeply psychological and it is not yet understood. This afternoon we have heard echoes of the debates on the Industrial Relations Act 1971. I imagine that we could find in Hansard of that period the speech which was made just now by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, in relation to the attempt to impose the same conditions upon the trade union movement generally. However, the 1971 Act has been abandoned. The former Government went to the country to try to maintain their hold upon the framework of the law that had been imposed upon the trade unions. They failed and a Government came in that was pledged to remove that Act from the Statute Book. That is part of what this Bill is about.
Should we have preconditions? Should we have minimum requirements? I say, my Lords, No. We must define the range of the discussions on the charter—what we are expecting it to deal with and what we are calling upon it to do—and then allow the discussions to continue. At the end of the day there are two remedies for possible mishap. One is that an agreed charter has to come before both Houses of Parliament. If there is not an agreed charter, the Secretary of State has to lay a draft of his own. A few minutes ago the noble Lord, Lord Goodman—
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend a question. I waited until there was a pause in his argument. Supposing that there had been no question of a charter and that the Common Law, which applies to every other trade union and to employers, had been allowed to prevail, could not we have avoided a great deal of this trouble?
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I will reply to my noble friend, although it takes me away for a moment or two from the main course of my argument. When my noble friend Lord Shepherd said that the Government desire to sweep away the last vestiges of the 1971 Act, he may have overlooked the fact that we are not restoring the pre-1971 position. This Bill and the 1974 Act does more than restore the 1971 position, for this reason. Before the Industrial Relations Act 1971 there was no Statute Law either about the closed shop or about compensation for dismissal arising from a closed shop situation.
There was the Common Law compensation for wrongful dismissal if the court held that the dismissal had been wrong and had damaged the employee concerned. However, the 1971 Act provided for compensation for wrongful dismissal by a process other than that of going to the courts. Industrial tribunals could deal with complaints of unfair dismissal and award compensation. But when the present Government dealt with the 1971 Act they did not want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. In the 1974 Act they re-enacted the compensation provisions for unfair dismissal that were included in the 1971 Act. Industrial tribunals are now awarding compensation under the 1974 Act which contains this re-enactment of the compensation provisions of the 1971 Act.
In order to avoid any doubt or difficulty, this Bill and the 1974 Act provide that in a closed-shop situation dismissal is not to be regarded as wrongful dismissal. An employee who seeks a remedy for alleged wrongful dismissal has to go elsewhere for it. In my view, that distinguishes materially the post-1974 and pre-1971 situation. Therefore, when my noble friend asks why could not we sweep it all away and go back to the pre-1971Common Law position, the answer I must give to him is that both Houses of Parliament passed the 1974 Act. It is on the Statute Book and the provisions about wrongful and unfair dismissal are contained in it. That is my digression in order to answer my noble friend.
I come now to the question of sanctions. Here there is always a plausible argument that if there is a wrong one should be able to go to the courts for the remedy. In many cases that is so, but we have
1724
this very complicated, intricate and dangerous matter to deal with in connection with the 1971 Act, and although we may recoil from the conclusion that, in some circumstances, the law cannot be enforced against a mass of people, we have to be realistic about the new centres of powers in the community and about what the law is appropriate for and what it is not.
There is provision for redress, first, in the proposal that there should be a tribunal to consider, to reach a judgment upon and to publish their conclusions on any alleged breach; and there is also the recourse to the special tribunal which has been set up under the Employment Protection Bill for the consideration of matters of this kind. I said on a previous occasion that, on the whole, the chances of getting justice in matters of this kind are better if the judgment is made by those whose judgment will be respected and accepted, rather than by a tribunal whose findings may not commend themselves to the bodies of people concerned. It is matter of judgment and not a matter of principle, and this is where the difference between us lies.
Apart from the Parliament Act and the words being uttered, I hope that your Lordships will see reason in the plea that we should accept the Commons Amendments and give this a trial, leaving the Royal Commission on the Press to continue its work on this and other matters relating to the Press. I understand that the Royal Commission feels unable to give consideration to the matters which arise in our debate today, while Parliament is still discussing them. That is not an unreasonable view for a Royal Commission to take and, while we are at it, the Royal Commission cannot proceed. If we resist the House of Commons this afternoon, it is obvious that this matter will remain open for months to come, because it will require the reintroduction of a new Bill in the House of Commons and certain Parliamentary processes will have to be gone through.
While all that is happening, I understand that the Royal Commission will not feel able to consider these matters of the closed shop and the other issues which we have so fully debated from time to time. In my view, that will be a great handicap. We want the Report from the Royal Commission. We want to

1725
know far more about the Press than the matters that we are dealing with, and the Royal Commission cannot complete this mammoth, difficult and important task if it is to be inhibited in dealing with matters of this importance because they are before Parliament at the present time, and are likely to remain so for a while to come. So I hope your Lordships will bear that in mind. No irreparable harm will be done, even if your Lordships think that if the Bill is passed as the Government want it to be passed there may be harm in it. Nobody will see the difference between one version and another for a little while to come, but we certainly want the Royal Commission to get on with the job.
I wish that the Leader of the Opposition, Mrs. Thatcher, had not made her speech on this subject. I have convinced myself so far that this is a genuine difference of opinion on the merits of the matter and is not politically motivated. I hate to think that the Conservative Party might wish to put out the story that a Labour Government arc using the Parliament Act to suppress the freedom of the Press. I hate to think of the kind of propaganda which, in unscrupulous hands, might be disseminated about this matter, while we, who are thoroughly acquainted with it, know that no such construction could possibly be put on what the Government are asking the House to do. It is true, of course, that we are asking the House to diminish—not to remove—the degree of distinction drawn between the National Union of Journalists and all other trade unionists. I am not going to call it discrimination, but the National Union of Journalists is asked, because of the nature of its vocation, to accept conditions which no other trade union in the country is asked to put up with, and we have to be fully justified in attempting to impose those conditions before we do so. I do not believe that we have yet given the National Union of Journalists a chance to show its constructive approach to the question of the charter.
I conclude by saying this. The final remedy lies in the hands of Parliament, whether the charter is an agreed one or whether it is drafted by the Secretary of State in the event of disagreement between the parties concerned. No dam-
1726
age of the kind feared can possibly happen, unless and until a closed shop agreement is reached. I must stress this. There is no divine law descending upon the scene in Fleet Street, imposing closed shops. Closed shops are agreements between the parties concerned, and the conditions relating to closed shops are matters of agreement between the parties concerned. A closed shop agreement with the National Union of Journalists, in conformity with the charter, could make special provision for the position of the Institute of Journalists; it could make special provision for the position of the editors.
In fact, all these things are suggested heads of agreement in the Bill itself, and the difference here is about whether there should be minimum requirements, whether there should be imposed preconditions before anyone starts talking at all, or whether we rely on these things being done, and, if they are not done, being remedied here and elsewhere, or by the Secretary of State. There is the remedy. Nobody else has these conditions and they are very valuable indeed. This is the long stop of Parliament against the failure of voluntary effort to reach agreement in the interests of those concerned, and in the interests of the community.
I feel passionately about this subject. I believe that the whole approach from the Benches opposite is mistaken and misconceived and will presage disaster in this field, as indeed it did in the field of industrial relations generally in 1971. Have they not learned anything from what happened then? Have they not taken a measure of the situation in 1975? Nobody needs to agree to a closed shop agreement in Fleet Street which does not satisfy employers, proprietors, editors and the rest. Nobody will force a closed shop arrangement down the throat of anybody, except by an attempt at industrial action to do so, and then we shall know what it is all about. Then we shall know what is the danger, if it occurs; then we shall know how to deal with it, if it occurs. The pledge given by the Government is surely one on which we can rely, and if anything happens which remotely impairs the freedom of the Press and puts editors in strait jackets, or sends them trembling down the corridors to their offices for fear of what the chapel of the NUJ may say or do, then Parliament can

1727
step in and say, "We will not have it." If the indications already given are fulfilled at the end of this debate, I believe that the mistake made on more counts than one this afternoon will reverberate in Parliament and elsewhere for a long time to come.
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, sits down, might I ask a question of some relevance? Nobody has played a more worthy part in seeking to compose this difference, and I am sure that the noble Lord would not want to mislead the House. The noble Lord said that an agreement might be reached with the NUJ which made provision for, for instance, the continuing survival of the IOJ, or an agreement might be reached which made provision for editors not being members of unions. Has the noble Lord made any inquiries of the NUJ as to whether they would agree to these provisions? I have, and I will say no more than that.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, the answer is that I have not, for a very good reason. I have no desire to prejudge the attitude of the NUJ, or to find out what their attitude may be. Obviously, the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, is in touch with various elements in this industry and what he has to say on these matters is important. But I do not myself accept that any prejudgment on the intentions of the NUJ is justified in this House this afternoon. I should want to know what was the authority, and what accompanied the words that may be in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. Let us keep them out of it. Let us assume that there are here people of good will, honour and common sense. They surely exist in the NUJ in large enough numbers to sec that, at the end, we will have a charter which is acceptable to both Houses of Parliament.
5.32 p.m.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, I hope I may be forgiven for intervening in what is becoming a private quarrel. I do not propose to follow the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sower by, in his prophecies of doom. I am sure the noble Lord believes sincerely that the end is nigh, and I have the sense that your Lordships
1728
would like to come to a conclusion of the debate, so I will not take up too much time. However, I think that a contribution from the Liberal Benches is called for.
I think we should first recognise that since the Bill was first introduced we have made a great deal of progress. I do not follow the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, in believing that there is a great deal of confusion. I think there is a much better understanding of the issues at stake, and a much better understanding of the problem. There are still genuine and sincere differences of opinion—and they are genuine and they are sincere. I shall revert to this question of what is a matter of judgment and what is a matter of principle in a moment or two. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, can take a great deal of credit for the fact that in the Bill we now have provision for a charter and for a tribunal to pronounce on breaches of the charter when they occur, which is a step forward. What is absent, unless certain Lords' Amendments are included in the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, said, is any form of remedy for an individual or organisation suffering damage from breach of the charter. That concerns us greatly as Liberals on these Benches.
I fully understand the view of those who say that the experience of the Industrial Relations Act, so far as the trade unions were concerned, was such that we must never use the courts again in matters affecting the unions. I understand that view. I also understand how sincerely it is held. But I believe that this issue is really one of principle. It is an issue of a fundamental freedom, a freedom which has to be protected if it is to continue. Freedom must be protected by law. It cannot be protected by hope; it cannot be protected by assurances; it cannot be protected by the results of a ballot responded to by 30 per cent. of the members of a union. The ultimate protection of all the freedoms we enjoy today must surely be by way of the law of the land to which all of us, for our common protection, must be subject. Therefore, if there is a charter and a tribunal to pronounce on breaches of the law, there must logically be a remedy within the law if the protection, particularly of the individual, is to be made a reality.

1729
We are told that we should not select one particular group of workers for special provision. I do not accept that as a principle. There is a very great difference between an industrial closed shop in which pay and conditions are negotiated, and a closed shop which can censor contributions to newspapers, restrict the rights of editors if it is so minded, and contain the freedom of the Press. As a matter of fact, we deal specially with and make special provisions for certain groups of workers—the Armed Forces and the police. This is not something which we can just push to one side. It is suggested that we should leave all this—which, to our minds, constitutes a principle of the freedom of the Press—to both sides of industry. I believe that there is a case for the public interest to be represented on an issue of this sort.
My Lords, I have no hesitation in believing that this House will be doing its duty by insisting on its Amendments, though perhaps not all of them. In the interests of getting closer agreement, we may well be prepared not to press the Amendments—and, when I say "press", I mean support if it is decided to go through the Division Lobby—proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, to which my noble friend Lord Wigoder added his name. In our view, there must be something done to give an indication of what should be in the charter and, at the end of the road, there must be a remedy which people can use. These Amendments may not be perfect, but I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that the Government must share responsibility for any imperfection there. They would have done much better in the interests of the House to come forward with assistance in drafting an Amendment which would enable us to put in a proper remedy.
Above all, I hope we shall not be put off from doing our duty by threats from some quarters of another place. I speak as one who would welcome reform of this House, a reform which was frustrated by the Member of another place who today villifies us for exercising our rights. It was a very bad piece of work that was perpetrated by the present Secretary of State for Employment in 1968. There are a number of people who will never forgive him for teaming up with Enoch
1730
Powell to frustrate the proper reform of this House. I have been over this ground of Lords Reform for 30 years. I voted in 1949 against the proposals of the Labour Government to reduce the power of the Lords, because those proposals contained no element of reform at all. The Liberal Party has a consistent record of wanting to see power and reformgoing together.
The fact is that in insisting on the Goodman Amendments we are working within the limits of delay imposed by the Parliament Act 1949. We are doing nothing more than was contemplated and openly accepted by the Labour Government of the day—and many of us were in that Parliament, and know that that was so. In 1949, the late Mr. Herbert Morrison, in closing the debate on the Second Reading of the Parliament Bill said:
"The Lords are in our view entitled to ask that the Commons should be required to give time and consideration to the Amendments which they propose to Commons Bills. That, as I think v, e should all agree, is reasonable. If the position were that the Lords sent their Amendments to the Commons but the Commons could indifferently ignore them and pass the Bill without further ado"—
which is what Mr. Foot would like to see in the end, then, said Mr. Morrison—
"the Lords would be entitled to say that there was no guarantee that any serious consideration would be given to their Amendments, and we might as well resort to single-Chamber government."
This is what Mr. Michael Foot wants; he is on the Record as wanting it, but not his other Cabinet colleagues. Mr. Morrison concluded by saying:
"The present Bill adequately safeguards the rights of the Lords in this respect."
These were the rights which could be exercised by an unreformed Chamber. These are the rights which we are now exercising, and for which we are criticised. The reduced delaying power under the 1949 Act could in this case, if exercised, amount to a period not exceeding six months in delaying this particular measure, and I do not think this is reasonable.
My Lords, in 1968 the White Paper on House of Lords reform was produced by the Labour Government of that day. I was a member of the full committee under the chairmanship of the then noble and learned Lord the Lord

1731
Chancellor, Lord Gardiner, and of the Sub-Committee—there were three—which studied the matter in very great detail. We dealt with this question of the Lords' powers with some care, and we obtained full agreement in the Committee. The conclusion was put forward with cogency by the then Lord President of the Council, the late Mr. Richard Crossman, who said in November 1968:
"A reformed House given the same powers as the present House would challenge the sovereignty of the House of Commons. If we want a Second Chamber subordinate to the Commons we have to make sure that its powers are exactly attuned to this purpose."
The Labour Government of that time accepted that even for a reformed House a period of delay of six months from the date of disagreement of both Houses, with a carry-over if necessary to the next Session or even the next Parliament, was a reasonable period of time. This is what we shall be doing if we cannot resolve the disagreement between the two Houses. Those Members of your Lordships' House who have any worry about the need for a Second Chamber might read the philosophy of Richard Crossman, in that remarkable speech where he described to the House of Commons how he went through the various stages and ended by believing in a reformed House with this sort of power of six months' delay.
Therefore, I would hope that the Government will recognise that these are not wrecking tactics; that this is not the deliberate disruption of a Government's legislative programme for Party advantage. It is a sincere attempt to uphold the protection of a fundamental freedom by bringing it within the law, and to us on these Benches it is a matter of supreme principle; it is not a matter of judgment, it is a matter of principle in which we sincerely believe. It is the kind of issue which may well arise in different forms in the future, and, in my view, whenever it does this House should exercise the powers bestowed upon it by the Statute which defines our functions and responsibilities.
5.43 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Byers, has demonstrated with his usual clarity that every effort that has been made in the past to reform the House of Lords has led only to the result that your Lordships' House
1732
has remained the same. But that is not the issue before your Lordships' House tonight. The issue—apart from all the specious arguments, the irrelevancies, the ambiguities and the distortions—is a very simple one. It is whether your Lordships are prepared to accept the decision of another place. It is not even a dispute as between Members of your Lordships' House on the Opposition Benches and the Government; it is a dispute between Members of your Lordships' House on the other side. If they decide to implement all their principles and sincere convictions, about which we have heard a great deal, and resolve to go against the decision taken in another place by, according to the evidence, a substantial majority, that is the issue.
My Lords, in almost every dialogue that has emerged on this subject of industrial relations the issue of sanctions has be devilled the judgment of all concerned, both employers and trade unions. In the time of the Wilson Government from 1966 to 1970 an effort was made to introduce an incomes policy. That policy, with some exceptions, would have been quite acceptable to the majority of trade unions in the country if it had not included the issue of penal sanctions against trade unions in the event of some issue arising as between those who were on the shop floor and the employers. I can recall an incident that occurred when I happened to occupy the position of Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party.
The late Mr. Ness Edwards, who was the chairman of the trade union group in the House of Commons, came to me one evening, very late, and asked whether I would see the Prime Minister and intervene on behalf of the trade union group —I was not a member of that group, not being a sponsored trade union member—and plead with the Prime Minister to withdraw the penal clauses which were embodied in the legislation. I saw the Prime Minister, and without going into details I can only repeat what he said: we must have reserve powers, by which he meant to impose sanctions if and when it was found to be necessary. I reported back to Mr. Ness Edwards and his two vice-chairmen. As a result, the dispute within the Labour Party at the time between a large section of the membership and the Government became even more turbulent, and in the event the

1733
proposed legislation was abandoned, with the results that are known only too well.
It has now emerged again. I ventured, when my noble friend Lord Houghton was speaking, to ask a simple question. It was this: on the assumption that the question of a charter had never emerged —and, of course, we know it was intended as a compromise, quite sincerely submitted by my noble friend Lord Houghton—what would have remained so far as sanctions were concerned? The answer was in evidence this afternoon from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, because he propounded the law on the subiect. In effect, what he said amounted to this: if a dispute occurred as a result of the expulsion of a member from a trade union, that person had a right to invoke the Common Law and ask the courts to decide.
There have been cases of that sort that have come before the courts and compensation has been awarded. The Common Law propounded this afternoon by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, still remains the law of the land and can be invoked at any time as and when it is regarded as essential. But what has happened has been an endeavour to produce some kind of discrimination as between the union of journalists and, for example, the union of miners or the steel-workers or general labourers or builders. Frankly, I can see no distinction whatever. It is perfectly true that journalists may be spread all over the world—to use the language of the noble and learned Lord—and they may be in Washington, or in Cairo, or in the West End of London or the East End, or in Fleet Street, or in the various habitats they occupy from time to time. But they arc an organisation, they are a group and they have an affinity, and as such can be recognised.
Then emerges the question of the freedom of the Press. I want to ask a question about this matter of the freedom of the Press. Let us assume that the Press of this country, instead of being politically motivated by capitalist owners, had been politically motivated by the trade unions and the Labour Party, would there have been so much dialogue about the freedom of the Press, retaining that freedom and permitting editors to utilise the services even of militant authors,
1734
writers and journalists? Why, of course not. By the freedom of the Press we simply mean that the newspapers of the country, taken by and large—there happens to be only one exception, I never read it, unlike some right reverend Prelates— say what they like, do what they like, but in the main denounce the Labour Party, denounce the trade union movement, single out trade union leaders and Labour politicians to ther detriment. That is what is meant by the freedom of the Press. I do not want to interfere with the freedom of the Press. Let them write what they like, let them say what they like, but I misunderstand what is meant by the freedom of the Press.
The journalists of the country, whether editors or sub-editors, and their associates, are no more entitled to privileges than miners or building workers, or any person who works on the shop floor. On the other hand, I want to make my position perfectly clear as regards the editors of capitalist newspapers or capitalist periodicals. I would no more interfere with the right of an editor to decide what appears in his periodical or newspaper than I would deny the right of a managing director associated with an industrial establishment to declare how his factory should be managed. I believe in participation by the workers, but not to that extent. The editor of a newspaper must have the essential right—I do not call it a privilege—because of his position to produce in his newspaper or periodical anything which, in his judgment, is regarded as proper. That is my position.
I dismiss at once the specious arguments used by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and I shall tell the House why. On several occasions, not only this evening but in the course of previous debates, he used the word, "We". He speaks on behalf of "We" Who did he mean? The newspaper proprietors. That is what he meant. If he was speaking on behalf of the newspaper proprietors, the freedom of the Press issue is totally specious and irrelevant.
The final issue remains, and it is this: the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, said, "We must rely on our principle. We have sincere convictions" I agree. On a previous occasion I ventured to say to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, the Leader of the Opposition,

1735
"If you denounce the Labour Government and are in opposition to those in another place, you must act according to your convictions." What will be the consequence? In the course of a few months the Bill will return to your Lordships' House and we shall again go through the same dialogue. I shall not plead with the other side, as my noble friend the Leader of the House did, that they should refrain from opposing the decision of another place. I merely venture to point out the consequences, and this is not associated with any threat or any intimidation. I dismiss all that. If the House of Lords is to be reformed one day, or if there is a demand for its abolition, it will have to be dealt with in a commonsense, logical, and pragmatic fashion, so we shall leave that for the time being.
Let the other side act according to their convictions. We on this side will act as sincerely, and in accordance with our principles and convictions. Then when the issue is joined tonight a decision will be reached contrary to what my noble friend the Leader of the House desires. There will be delay, and we shall come back to it with the same dialogue, arguments, convictions and principles, but in the end what is to happen? Nothing more than this: a delay of a few months. But the Opposition in the House of Lords will have the right to say, "We acted according to our convictions. We did what we regarded as what was right, and we defied the House of Commons." That is all. I am bound to put it this way, I shall bear it with my customary fortitude.
5.57 p.m.
Lord DOUGLASS of CLEVELAND: My Lords, I want to make two brief comments. I do not want to repeat arguments that I have used in this House previously. This afternoon the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, disposed of Lord Goodman's arguments if he did not dispose of the whole of his Amendment. But while this debate was taking place it occurred to me that time and expedience have disposed of Lord Hail-sham's arguments. His argument is that after you have arrived at agreement between employers and employees, you must then give it legal force in order for it to be acceptable to the country.
What has been our experience on this? I hope that the Front Bench will listen
1736
to me, because the argument that has just occurred to me I do not believe has been put forward before. The 1971 trade union Act gave employers and trade unionists the right, having made an agreement, to give it the force of law. That is what they were privileged to do under the 1971 Act. In all the years since that Act was passed not one employer or trade unionist gave the agreement legal enforcement. There is a lesson to be learned from this that is, that in this country an agreement arrived at between a trade union and an employer is invariably agreed to. It may be difficult to arrive at but, once an agreement is come to and agreed to, in the years since that Act was passed no employer has asked for it to have the force of law behind it, and for very good reasons.
Once one starts to put the law behind an agreement, one then brings in the lawyers and all the interpretations that have gone into making that agreement. When employers and trade unionists have arrived at an agreement and they interpret it they do not ask, "What did we put in here or there?" or, "Should there be a comma or semi-colon there?" They simply ask, "What was the spirit of this agreement?" I remind noble Lords that many discussions have been going on among trade unions, employers and Government through Neddy and that, through this medium, they arc now producing a code of practice dealing with the £6 limit on wage increases, which is designated to prevent inflation escalating.
In those discussions we have the employers, the trade unionists and the Government, but we do not have the Opposition. I therefore feel a little sourness creeping into our discussions, because the Opposition are recognising the success that is being achieved with this code of practice or code of conduct in trade union negotiations through the medium of Neddy, the only instrument of consultation which the last Conservative Government left on the Statute Book.
I can sum up my remarks by saying that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, has disposed of the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. I am sorry to have to say that, because I always wanted to carry the Cross-Benchers with me, for I believe that when we are dealing with them we

1737
are dealing with people who are objective. The Liberals are also objective but not quite to the same degree as the Cross-Benchers because they have their own axes to grind in the political world. In any event, if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, has disposed of the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and events and history have disposed of the argument for putting legislative force behind agreements arrived at between trade unionists and employers, we have thereby disposed of all the arguments against the speech of my noble friend Lord Shepherd.
Lord GORE-BOOTH: My Lords—
Several Noble Lords: Order!
Lord GORE-BOOTH: I am sorry, but on this occasion I intend to exercise my right of free speech, my Lords. That is what this debate is about. Did the noble Earl, Lord Arran, rise to speak?
6.3 p.m.
The Earl of ARRAN: My Lords, I wish to add a brief postscript to what my noble Leader said a few minutes ago. I must first declare my interest, in that I am a director of the Daily Mail and General Trust and I am a journalist. I have only one point to make, but it is an important one; not only is it the freedom of the Press which is at risk, it is the freedom of speech. If we get a Press which sings the same song—and there is a real risk of this—then people will tend to say the same thing and it will be difficult, even dangerous, not to follow the Party line. We saw it in Nazi Germany, where the Press slavishly followed the Nazi newspaper and the freedom of the Press was systematically eroded. The most famous example was the bringing into line of the Frankfurter Zeitung, possibly the best newspaper in Europe, and with that erosion went the same erosion of freedom of speech; no one dared say a word against Hitler and the Nazis.
I will not go so far as to say that no one will dare say anything opposed to the late unlamented Trotsky, Marx and Lenin, but the doctrine according to these saints will, in the end, come to be regarded as Holy Writ, and to deny the doctrine, privately or openly, will be considered blasphemy punishable by im-
1738
prisonment or death. Quite simply, we shall have a police State, and that, I am sure, is something none of us wants, particularly the Secretary of State. Your Lordships may think me fanciful, but it is because I do not want to see Britain turned into a one-Party State in which no one will dare to speak his or her own mind that I am so strongly a supporter of the noble Lord's Amendment.
6.5 p.m.
Lord GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Arran. I did not see until the last moment that he had risen to speak and, when I saw that he had, I gave way immediately. I, too, will be brief and, as the noble Lord, Lord Douglass of Cleveland, has been polite to the Cross-Benchers I should like personally to reciprocate to him. I wish also to make the point that there is some talk about the role played by your Lordships' House in this matter. It is right that the public, the media and the other place should note that throughout this discussion, if one looks at the records of voting, these Benches, each noble Lord making up his own mind, has with practically no exception shown a sympathy in the voting with the general line of thought presented by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. We are not newspaper publishers, we have no axe to grind and practically all of us have no direct interest in this matter; but we have found that there is something exceptional about the situation which has in general made us vote for his ideas. This was much better expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, than I could possibly express it; it is that this is not a distinction between union and union. It is the distinction between the subject of people who give services or who build anything from a half-million ton tanker to a pin and the exercise of words, thoughts and ideas. That is the real distinction and why there is a worry, and why many of us have a feeling that one man's penal action is another man's safety net.
Why should we worry about this now? That is a question which nobody has attempted to answer. I think the first answer is a national one, the fact that we have had a scare. Thank goodness! it has gone, but we have had it. Secondly, if one looks around the world in countries in which there is an attempt to suppress part of an opinion or the whole

1739
of it what one sees in common is that the people who wish to do that make for freedom of expression as their first target, whether by infiltration or anything else. To illustrate what I mean I need not go further or come nearer than Portugal. Therefore, there seems to some of us to be a problem which might arise with great suddenness—I am almost sure it will not arise in this country—and then, perhaps, a general Common Law, legal safety net would not be a bad thing to have. Whenever the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, talks about this matter I feel one kinship with him, which I can perhaps put in a sentence: this is a situation in which I would say compassionately that diplomacy will still go on and on, and we should try to get it right together. I hope that politics has the inspiration and the machinery to do that.
6.8 p.m.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not know whether I correctly sense the feeling of the House, but after many months of debate on this subject perhaps your Lordships might feel that we have reached a moment when we should make a final decision. I apologise for intervening in this discussion because I have not so far intervened on this Bill; my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone needs no help from me and, indeed, I do not intend this evening to speak about the merits of the Amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, or about my noble and learned friend's Amendment, except to say that there are those of us in this House who feel that the freedom of the Press in its widest sense —the freedom and the right to publish and to contribute—is something which is overwhelmingly important, particularly at this moment when in other countries we see so many basic freedoms disappearing, and when even here institutions and customs which hitherto we have taken for granted are beginning to be questioned and attacked.
This does not seem to be a matter which should divide the House on Party political lines. We have to decide this evening whether, in the opinion of this House, the Government proposals as they now are adequately ensure the free Press which all of us wish to see maintained. There are those who think that they do.
1740
There are those, among them myself, who think that they do not, and my view is shared, as the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, just pointed out, by many of your Lordships in all parts of this House.
It seems right, therefore, that, on this occasion and on an issue of such importance, we should also look at the constitutional position of your Lordships' House. There has been a great deal of talk, as there always is, in the Press, in another place and by some of your Lordships on previous occasions, of a constitutional crisis should the House decide to insist on these Amendments. This is to misunderstand the Constitution and to misconceive the purpose of the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949. The purpose of those two Acts was not to prevent your Lordships' House from expressing an opinion on the legislation which came before it from another place, but to put a term on the delay which it could impose if it rejected or amended such legislation. Nobody now disputes that, in the final analysis, the will of the House of Commons—the elected House—must prevail. The point of disagreement over the years has been as to how long that delaying power should be.
The Parliament Act of 1949, on which work was begun in 1947, expressly gave this House—composed as it then was of no Life Peers other than the Law Lords and the Bishops—the power of one year's delay from the time of the Second Reading of a Bill in another place. It was a Labour Government which thought that 12 months was the right period. During those debates, which I remember very well, as does the noble Lord, Lord Byers, though he was in a different geographical location then, it was agreed by the then Government—though not by the Opposition which thought the period too short —that 12 months was the minimum which should be given to a Second Chamber if it were to be effective.
As did the noble Lord, Lord Byers, I looked the other day at some of the debates in 1947. I came across the following passage from Mr. Chuter Ede, speaking on the Second Reading of the Parliament Bill on 11th November 1947. I believe that what he said is worth noting:
"Where the House of Lords rejects a Bill, drastically amends a Bill so that it is unacceptable to this House, or merely postpones consideration of it, we feel that, while there is a

1741
Second Chamber such as the present one, there should be a guarantee to them that, before such a Bill is passed over their heads, the House will consider either their reasons for drastic amendment or the causes, if we can discover them, which led to their dilatory action by requiring the two Sessions and the 12 months after the first Second Reading of the Bill in this House. We do not deny that the House of Lords, even as at present constituted, has certain duties and rights as a revising Chamber. We think that these are best discharged by the machinery I have just described. We think that their power of a suspensary veto is adequately met if they have 12 months instead of 24 before the Bill can be passed over their heads."—[Official Report, 11/11/47.)
It will be seen from this quotation and that read out by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, that there is no constitutional impropriety and no constitutional crisis can arise if the House uses the powers which it has and which it was given by Parliament under a Labour Government. But that is not really the issue. Those who talk about a constitutional crisis are saying that they do not believe it right that a House composed as we are should delay legislation passed by the elected House. There are some of us sitting in this House—and the noble Lord is nodding—who did our very best to alter the composition of this House and the Party balances in it. Maybe what we proposed was wrong, but it would certainly have removed most of the objections which are felt about the House as it is at present constituted. In any event, those proposals were passed by an overwhelming majority of your Lordships. They failed to succeed because of the opposition of the House of Commons. Ironically enough, as the noble Lord, Lord Byers has said, that opposition was skilfully and notably led by Mr. Foot, the author of the Bill which we are now discussing. It is not our fault that we arc unreformed. Mr. Foot talks about the impropriety of an unelected House challenging the Commons, but he and others who feel like him must make up their mind what they want. Do they want a single Chamber Government? If they do, I, for one, would view that with the gravest possible misgivings. Nor do I think it possible that a single Chamber could adequately manage the legislation brought forward by any Government. I am quite sure that Mr. Foot and those others do not want an elected Second Chamber. Nor do I think that many other Members of
1742
another place would wish it, for an elected Second Chamber would have to be given more power and not less, and that increased power would be at the expense of the House of Commons.
What, then, are we left with? We are left with a House composed roughly as it is or entirely of appointees. Who am I, as a hereditary Peer, to make a decision as to which is better? As hereditary Peers, we are the children of our fathers. Life Peers are the children of patronage. I doubt whether either of us are much worse or much better just for those reasons but, unless the House is to be elected, there is no other way of altering our composition.
Can it then properly be argued that, because our own reform was rejected by the House of Commons, we cannot now do our constitutional duty and use those powers specifically given to us by a Labour Government in our unreformed condition? In our system we have hitherto taken the view that the will of the elected House must in the end prevail, but that there should be a second House which has the opportunity—in rare cases, perhaps—to enforce a delay in which there can be a reassessment by Government, by Parties and by the people of this country of the rights or wrongs of an issue. If now we decide to use that very limited power, we are not thwarting the will of the people for, in so far as it is represented by the House of Commons, it will and must prevail in a comparatively short time. We shall be using those powers for the purpose for which they were given to us—that is, as an opportunity for further consultation, for second thoughts before this legislation inevitably reaches the Statute Book and because we did not want the Second Chamber to be associated with what the Government are doing.
If one studies the record of this House, it will be seen that we have not been unsuccessful in these last years under Governments of both Parties in amending legislation for the better, most notably in the present Bill. The Government rightly take credit—and my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham drew attention to this—for the fact that they have moved a long way since the introduction of the Bill into this House. As they put it, they have made a number of concessions. That is right, they have.

1743
But, if there had been no Second Chamber, no Opposition in this House, no noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, no noble Lord, Lord Goodman, no noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, there would have been no opportunity for the Government to have made these concessions or to have altered the Bill in a way which they themselves think an improvement, for the Bill would have been on the Statute Book months ago and would have been there un-amended and without even the safeguards which the Government themselves now propose.
The House has amply proved its value, but I do not believe the Government have gone far enough. As I have said, there are certain issues in our national life which, it seems to me, are of paramount importance, and high among those is the unfettered freedom of the Press. No doubt there are those who say, and who have said, and who will say, that if we are to maintain our position on this issue then we shall be abolished, or there will be a radical revision of our powers and composition. We have already heard such talk from Members in another place. My Lords, so be it. What would be the rallying cry?—"Abolish the House of Lords, it is trying to maintain the freedom of the Press". I should not have thought that a slogan which would get the ordinary people of this country to the barricades, or your Lordships to the lamp-posts. It would be a curious sight to see those two tricoteurs, Messrs. Short and Foot, needles clicking, waiting at the foot of the scaffold, for the first tumbrel to arrive, in which we should see seated side-by-side the Prime Minister's solicitor and the Chairman of the Arts Council!
My Lords, what then is the advice that I should seek to give your Lordships? I cannot pretend that of the two Amendments I do not prefer that of my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone for the reasons he has given. Yet I venture to think, for two reasons, that we should perhaps support the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. If one looks at the Division Lists in this House and in another place, there can be no doubt that the noble Lord's Amendment has a broader spectrum of approval (wrongly, as I think) than does that of my noble friend; and on an issue of this kind I think it important that there
1744
should be a wide cross-section of your Lordships voting. It should be made plain to the Government, and to anybody interested in this matter, that this issue has cut across Party political divisions.
Secondly, having listened to the speeches of the Government, and of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, on the last occasion we debated this matter a week ago, it seems to me that they feel that the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has less objection in their view than that of my noble and learned friend. Thus perhaps if we on this side, in a spirit of conciliation, were prepared not to press our Amendment we would hope that, even at this late hour, the Government would think again and would be prepared to accept the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. For the rest the only advice which I would dare to give your Lordships is that you should do what you think is right.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, it may be that the only thing I have in common with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is that we share affection for one famous pop singer, Dame Vera Lynn, in that "Now is the Hour" As to whether it is a question of saying "Goodbye", perhaps only events will provide the answer. I did not come to this debate this afternoon to talk about a constitutional crisis. Any noble Lord who looks at my speech, which I delivered at rather great length, will not see one word about constitutional crisis. I have never questioned either that your Lordships' House has not rights under the 1949 and the 1911 Parliament Acts; nor have I questioned at any time the motives of any noble Lord in taking a different view from that of the Government. I have sought throughout to make it clear that we were all united in the need to find some way in which the security and freedom of the Press could be secured.
I do not know of any other piece of legislation on which so much work has been done outside this Chamber to find an agreement. I must say this to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. I deeply resent his attitude today, particularly regarding a certain meeting which took place last night. In the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, said—that the Government had perhaps acted in an underhand, possibly, dishonourable

1745
way—I should say this. An approach was made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor agreed immediately that a meeting should take place, and a meeting did take place. It is very much to be regretted that my noble and learned friend had to go to another place for a State occasion where his presence as Lord Chancellor is demanded and required; the noble and learned Lord knows to what I am referring. However, it was agreed in the light of the question of timing that those officials who were at that meeting should go to see the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and his friends. It was made clear to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, that those officials were not in any position whatsoever to negotiate. They went there to explore, to see whether—because at one stage it looked as if the tide had been moving and that the sand was shifting—there was a possibility of agreement; and the officials went.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, is not right to suggest that he thought last night that there was a proposal made; that one could be accepted, only to be withdrawn. All I can say—and I will leave it at this—is that many negotiations which go on in relation to all forms of legislation in this House and in another place are conducted outside this House. In my view they should always be conducted on a confidential basis and what is said should not be disclosed in this House, because if one once departs from that principle, then the whole spirit and the whole purpose of negotiation (which is so valuable) is removed—
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, I must intervene at this point, because there is one very relevant factor which has been left out. Is it not the case that those officials brought with them an official Government Amendment drafted by the Government for my consideration? Are they seriously suggesting that if that was not a firm offer—which they made it plain it was not—it was a very firm proposal on which hopes might well have been roused and acceptance by me would have seen agreement on the part of everyone concerned? Was that proposal not withdrawn the following morning?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, there was no proposal made to the noble Lord.
1746
There had been various discussions and we sought to see whether there were ways of meeting the point at issue. Since we have Parliamentary draftsmen, we sought to put down on paper what might be a solution. But it was never an offer, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, to the best of my memory was made aware of that situation. But let us leave it at that. With regard to the constitutional position of your Lordships' House, I suggest that this is a matter which we can discuss at greater length on another occasion. I suspect that a great deal will depend on how your Lordships' House reacts when the Bill is reintroduced in the next Session.
I want to conclude on this matter. I hope that noble Lords will not look lightly—as I suspect they may, judging from some of the speeches today—on how the reactions of this House will be seen outside. I believe that this will have very serious repercussions on the general spirit which is now emerging on all sides of industry—the trade unions the employers and the Government. I do not believe that noble Lords opposite —whether it be through ignorance, prejudice or otherwise—have not been prepared to accept it, and very few have sought to meet the case. I understand the great difficulty of the noble Lords opposite in the light of the speech made last Friday. But with regard to the noble Lord, Lord Denham, I must say that I have heard many of his speeches in your Lordships' House, about the great benefit of hereditary Peers; that they bring a great detachment, that perhaps they ease the political pressures that may be placed upon the Parties in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord has convinced me on occasion, but I suspect that this afternoon he will remove any doubt which I may have had. However, this has been a debate conducted in good spirit. I hope that the repercussions will not be as grave as I believe they will be, but nobody can say that your Lordships' House proceeds on a course without having been warned, and without being fully aware of the consequences.
6.31 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 86: Not-Contents. 186.

CONTENTS

Allen of Fallowfield, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Arwyn, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Balogh, L.

Hale, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Bernstein, L.

Hall, V.

Pannell, L.

Beswick, L.

Halsbury, E.

Pargiter, L.

Birk, B.

Hanworth, V.

Peddie, L.

Blyton, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Phillips, B.

Brock way, L.

Henderson, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Popplewell, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Hoy, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Champion, L.

Hughes, L.

Rusholme, L.

Chorley, L.

Jacques, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Jacobson, L.

Serota, B.

Collison, L.

Janner, L.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Crook, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Shinwell, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Leatherland, L.

Slater, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Lee of Asheridge, B.

Stedman, B.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

Llewelyn-Davies, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Strang, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Wallace of Campsie, L.

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

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Energlen, L.

Lyons of Brighton, L.

White, B.

Fisher of Camden, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Wigg, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Maelor, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Gardiner, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Wise, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Melchett, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Clwyd, L.

Grantchester, L.

Airedale, L.

Coleraine, L.

Greenway, L.

Allerton, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Grenfell, L.

Alport, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Gridley, L.

Amherst, E.

Cowley, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Amory, V.

Crawshaw, L.

Amulree, L.

Croft, L.

Hankey, L.

Armstrong, L.

Cross, V.

Harcourt, V.

Arran, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Davidson, V.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Auckland, L.

de Clifford, L.

Henley, L.

Balerno, L.

Denbigh, E.

Hood, V.

Banks, L.

Denham, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Barber, L.

Devonshire, D.

Inglewood, L.

Barnby, L.

Drogheda, E. [Teller.]

Jellicoe, E.

Barrington, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Kemsley, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Dundonald, E.

Killearn, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Kimberley, E.

Belstead, L.

Eccles, V.

Kindersley, L.

Berkeley, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Birdwood, L.

Elles, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Bledisloe, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Bourne, L.

Elton, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Braye, L.

Erskine of Rerrick, L.

Long, V.

Brecon, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Exeter, M.

Lyell, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Falkland, V.

Lytton, E.

Brock, L.

Falmouth, V.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Ferrers, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Ferrier, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Broughshane, L.

Fletcher, L.

Mancroft, L.

Burton, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Mansfield, E.

Byers, L.

Gage, V.

Margadale, L.

Camoys, L.

Gibson, L.

Marley, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Carrington, L.

Goodman, L.

Merrivale, L.

Chalfont, L.

Gore-Booth, L.

Mersey, V.

Chelwood, L.

Goschen, V.

Meston, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Gowrie, E.

Middleton, L.

Monck, V.

Redesdale, L.

Swansea, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Rhodes, L.

Swaythling, L.

Monson, L.

Rhyl, L.

Tenby, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Terrington, L.

Moyne, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Teviot, L.

Netherthorpe, L.

Rockley, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Newall, L.

Rosslyn, E.

Thurlow, L.

Northchurch, B.

Rothermere, V.

Tranmire, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Trevelyan, L.

Ogmore, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Tweedsmuir, L.

O'Hagan, L.

St. Davids, V.

Verulam, E.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Sandford, L.

Vickers, B.

Onslow, E,

Sandys, L.

Vivian, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Wade, L.

Pender, L.

Sharples, B.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Perth, E.

Somers, L.

Ward of Whitley, V.

Piercy, L.

Stamp, L.

Wigoder, L.

Pike, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Windlesham. L.

Porritt, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Wolverton, I..

Radnor, E.

Strathspey, L.

Worcester, Bp.

Rankeillour, L.

Suffield, L.

Young B.

Reading, M.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT TO THE LORDS AMENDMENT
[Nos. 5–7]
After Clause 2, in subsection (3), in line 7, leave out from ("containing") to ("and") in line 11 and insert ("such practical guidance as is referred to in that subsection")
LORDS AMENDMENT IN LIEU
In subsection (3), in line 7, leave out from ("containing") to ("and") in line II and insert ("practical guidance on the matters specified in subsection (2) above together with such other matters as may have been agreed among the parties mentioned in subsection (1) hereof").
The Commons disagreed to the Amendment numbered6 proposed by the Lords in lieu of the Commons Amendment numbered 5, to the Lords Amendment numbered 1, but proposed the following amendment in lieu of the Lords Amendment numbered 6:
In subsection (3), line 7, leave out from ("draft") to end of subsection and insert (",in accordance with subsection (3A) below, a charter containing such practical guidance as is referred to in subsection(I) above, and shall lay the draft before both Houses of Parliament.
(3A) Where, or so far as, there appears to the Secretary of State to be agreement among the parties referred to in subsection (1) above on any matter relating to the freedom of the press, he shall incorporate in the draft charter such practical guidance as he thinks appropriate to give effect to that agreement; and where, or so far as, there appears to the Secretary of State to be no such agreement on any of the particular matters mentioned in subsection (2) above as included in matters
1750
relating to the freedom of the press, he shall incorporate in the draft charter such practical guidance on that matter as he thinks fit.")
6.43 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 6 in lieu of the Commons Amendment No. 5, to which the Commons have disagreed, and doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7 in lieu of the Lords Amendment No. 6. I understand that this is an Amendment which has been agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. It is one of improvement and not one on which I should have thought your Lordships would wish to divide.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 6 in lieu of the Commons Amendment No. 5, to which the Commons have disagreed, and doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7 in lieu of the Lords Amendment No. 6.—(Lord Shepherd.)
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, in the present state of total chaos, it appears to me to represent in rather better phraseology an Amendment which we moved and which was accepted by the Government the last time we discussed the matter. What it amounts to is that we asked for a restriction on the matters which the Secretary of State could insert in the charter to be limited to those matters referred to in the preamble in the initial clause. This was accepted and this Amendment says the same thing more elegantly.

COMMONS AMENDMENT TO THE LORDS AMENDMENT
[Nos. 8–1I]
After Clause 2, after subsection (3) insert—
("( ) A charter agreed as mentioned in subsection (1) above, or prepared by the Secretary of State in accordance with subsection (3) above, shall define its field of operation.")

LORDS AMENDMENT TO THE COMMONS AMENDMENT
At end insert—
(A) A charter agreed as mentioned in subsection (1) above, or prepared by the Secretary of State in accordance with subsection (3)above, shall provide for the constitution of a body which shall have the functions of—

(a) hearing any complaint by a person aggrieved by a failure on the part of any other person to observe any provision of the charter;

(b) issuing to the parties a declaration as to whether such a complaint is well-founded and if so whether the party aggrieved has suffered material or pecuniary loss by reason of such failure and in what amount, and in such case directing the party in breach to pay that amount; and

(c) securing the publication of its decision.

(B) Any decision by the said body shall be final and conclusive between the parties and any decision of the said body made under paragraph (b) of the foregoing subsection shall be enforceable in like manner as an award made in pursuance of an arbitration agreement by an arbitrator in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration Act 1950."
The Commons agreed_ to the Lords Amendment numbered 9 with the following amendments:
In subsection (A), paragraph(b), line 2. leave out from("well-founded") to end of the paragraph.
Leave out subsection (B).
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 to the Lords Amendment No. 9 to the Commons Amendment No. 8. This is one of the Amendments in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, which we discussed in a previous debate.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 to the Lords Amendment No. 9 to the Commons Amendment No. 8.—(Lord Shepherd.)
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I simply confirm what the noble Lord has said. This is my Amendment which, on the advice of my noble friend Lord Carrington, we are not pushing. Therefore, I would advise the House to accept what the noble Lord says.

COMMONS AMENDMENT TO THE LORDS AMENDMENT
[No. 12–16]
After Clause 2, leave out subsections (8) and (9) and insert—
("(8) A failure on the part of any person to observe any provision of a charter 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—

(a) any such charter shall be admissible in evidence, and

(b) any provision of such a charter 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.")

LORDS AMENDMENTS TO THE COMMONS AMENDMENT
At beginning insert ("Subject to the terms of paragraphs (c) and (d) hereof")
At the end of paragraph (a) to leave out ("and")
After paragraph (b) insert—
("(c) any rule, agreement, act or conduct which is contrary to the provisions of the charter shall be deemed to be contrary to public policy,
(d) nothing in the charter shall be taken to restrict or abridge any right existing by statute or COMM011 law.)")
The Commons disagreed to the Lords Amendments numbered 13, 14 and 15 to the Commons Amendment numbered 12 for the following Reason:
Because the amendments provide inappropriate and ill-defined sanctions for failures to observe the charter.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 15 to the Commons Amendment No. 12, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 16, which is:
"Because the amendments provide inappropriate and ill-defined sanctions for failures to observe the charter."
This is the matter which we discussed at great length a few minutes ago. I do not think I need add to what was then said.?
Moved, That the House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 15 to the Commons Amendment No. 12, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 16.—(Lord Shepherd.)
6.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 80; Not-Contents, 168.

CONTENTS

Allen of Fallowfield, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Pannell, L.

Arwyn, L.

Hale, L.

Pargiter, L.

Balogh, L.

Hall, V.

Peddie, L.

Bernstein, L.

Halsbury, E.

Phillips, B.

Beswick, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Birk, B.

Henderson, L.

Platt, L.

Blyton, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Popplewell, L.

Brockway, L.

Hoy, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hughes, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Jacques, L.

Rusholme, L.

Champion, L.

Jacobson, L.

Serota, B.

Chorley, L.

Janner, L.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Collison, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Shinwell, L.

Crook, L.

Leatherland, L.

Slater, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Lee of Asheridge, B.

Stedman, B.

Cudlipp, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Llewelyn-Davies, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B [Teller.]

Strang, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wallace of Campsie, L.

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

Lyons of Brighton, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Energlyn, L.

Maelor, L.

White, B.

Fisher of Camden, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Wigg, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Melchett, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Wise, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Chelwood, L.

Gage, V.

Airedale, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Gibson, L.

Allerton, L.

Clwyd, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Alport, L.

Coleraine, L.

Goodman, L.

Amherst, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Gore-Booth, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Goschen, V.

Amory, V.

Cowley, E.

Gowrie, E.

Armstrong, L.

Craigavon, V.

Grantchester, L,

Arran, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Greenway, L.

Auckland, L.

Croft, L.

Grenfell, L.

Balerno, L.

Cross, V.

Gridley, L.

Banks, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Barber, L.

Davidson, V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Barnby, L.

de Clifford, L.

Barrington, V.

Denbigh, E.

Hankey, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Harcourt, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Devonshire, D.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Belstead, L.

Drogheda, E. [Teller.]

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Berkeley, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

Henley, L.

Birdwood, L.

Dundonald, E.

Hood, V.

Bourne, L.

Eccles, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Brecon, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Inglewood, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Elles, B.

Jellicoe, E.

Broadbridge, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Kemsley, V.

Brock, L.

Elton, L.

Killearn, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Erskine of Rerrick, L.

Kimberley, E.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Exeter, M.

Kinnaird, L.

Broughshane, L.

Falkland, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Burton, L.

Falmouth, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Byers, L.

Ferrers, E.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Ferrier, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Carrington, L.

Fletcher, L.

Long, V.

Chalfont, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Lyell, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Lytton, E.

Pender, L.

Strathspey, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Suffield, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Perth, E.

Swansea, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Pike, B.

Swaythling, L.

Mansfield, E.

Porritt, L.

Tenby, V.

Margadale, L.

Radnor, E.

Terrington, L.

Marley, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Teviot, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Reading, M.

Thorneycroft, L.

Merrivale, L.

Redesdale, L.

Thurlow, L.

Mersey, V.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Tranmire, L.

Middleton, L.

Rosslyn, E.

Trevelyan, L.

Monck, V.

Rothermere, V.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Verulam, E.

Monson, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Vickers, B.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

St. Davids, V.

Vivian, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Sandford, L.

Wade, L.

Moyne, L.

Sandys, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Netherthorpe, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Northchurch, B.

Sharples, B.

Wigoder, L.

Ogmore, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Windlesham, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Somers, L.

Wolverton, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Stamp, L.

Young, B.

Onslow, E.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

6.54 p.m.

LORDS AMENDMENT TO THE COMMONS AMENDMENT
(NUMBERED 12)
[Nos. 17 and 18]
After Clause 2, at end insert"—
"( ) In this section—
"editor" includes any deputy of such editor;
"material" includes any matter printed or intended for printing or broadcast or intended for broadcasting by television or radio."
The Commons disagreed to the Lords Amendment numbered 17 to the Commons Amendment numbered 12 for the following Reason:
Because it is consequential on a Lords Amendment to which they have disagreed.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, it had been my intention to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 17 to the Commons Amendment No. 12 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 18. But I understand that this is consequential on a Lords Amendment to which they disagreed. My noble and learned friend is shaking his head. His brief may be different from mine. Perhaps he might give me advice on this matter.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: If I may properly intervene, I doubt whether it is consequential. We had a discussion upon
1756
the matter at an earlier stage, where there was an objection to the fact that the Amendment introduces broadcasting into the whole compass of this affair—if that is the right word. That would not seem to be consequential upon anything which came before. It has an element of alarming originality about it.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I hesitate to contradict the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, and I think it is the first time in two and a half Parliaments in which I have done so. But I must point out to the noble and learned Lord that in Reason numbered 18 the Commons have said:
"Because it is consequential on a Lords Amendment to which they have disagreed."
So I venture, as between the noble Lord the Leader of the House and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, to suggest that the Leader of the House is probably right, and the Lord Chancellor is probably wrong.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, may I suggest that, so as to get this discussion in order, somebody should put the Question?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 17 to the Commons Amendment No. 12, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 18.—(Lord Shepherd.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I now have the opportunity of putting the Question. The Question is that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 17 to the Commons Amendment No. 12, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 18. As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content"; to the contrary, "Not-Content" The consequence of the voices heard and not heard is that the "Not-Contents" have it.
On Question, Motion negatived.
A Committee appointed to prepare Reasons for the Lords insistence; the Committee to meet forthwith.

PETROLEUM AND SUBMARINE PIPE-LINES BILL
6.58 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of ENERGY (Lord Balogh): My Lords, I beg to move the Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments and the Commons Amendment in lieu of one of the Lord's Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments and Commons Amendment in lieu of one of the Lords Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Balogh.)

COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS AND COMMONS AMENDMENT IN LIEU OF ONE OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill (301) as first printed for the Lords, Commons Reasons and Amendments are printed in italics]

LORDS AMENDMENT
[Nos. 1 and 2]
Clause 1, page 2, line 14, leave out paragraph (c).
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because it would alter the structure of the British National Oil Corporation in a manner detrimental to the performance of the Corporation's functions.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 2.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment.—(Lord Balogh.)
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, several Amendments which were made by your Lordships' House have been accepted by another place and have considerably improved the Bill. We regret that this Amendment was not also made. Let me remind your Lordships of the matter we are considering, because there has been some confusion on this. Our Amendment did not aim to exclude serving civil servants who could be seconded to senior positions on the British National Oil Corporation. That can be done without legislation. The point is that they would then be employees working for BNOC during their period of second ment like others working for the Corporation. Nor was the proposal in any way affecting retired civil servants who could also serve on the Corporation. But the proposal which was originally in the Bill, and which is now to be restored, is something quite different and it is new to nationalised bodies. It is that at least two civil servants should be members of the Corporation, though still employed by their Departments and responsible to their Ministers.
In the other place last week, the Secretary of State for Energy spoke of gross irresponsibility in our argument in favour of this Amendment; but I suggest that he was guilty of gross misrepresentation of our argument. It is the oldest and silliest political trick in the world to pretend that your opponents have said something that they have not said, and then attack it. We have not suggested that the two civil servants to be on the Corporation would disclose confidential information about companies in competition with the Corporation. But the Government have failed so far to answer questions on how the civil servants, still employed and paid by their Departments, will contribute to the discussions of the Corporation.
This is an opportunity, again, for the Government to tell us. Do these civil servants remain silent in deliberations where their knowledge of confidential information about competitors' plans would influence their advice? If not, may not other members of the Corporation be disposed to change their minds if the civil servants are suggesting a different course from them, knowing that the civil servants are speaking from knowledge of additional information?—although, of

1759
course, I emphasise that that information would not be disclosed. Those are the questions which the noble Lord can answer today, because they have not yet been answered and the Government have had plenty of notice.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, may I say briefly from the Liberal Benches that we regret that the Govern-merit have still deemed it necessary expressly to legislate for two civil servants to be on the board of BNOC. We feel that the Government are giving themselves difficulties in this matter, particularly having regard to possible international misunderstandings. Also, there may be constitutional implications, although I do not propose to go into that aspect this evening. During Committee stage I put down an Amendment to the effect that the civil servants should be seconded to BNOC but, on advice, I withdrew that Amendment because I understood that civil servants could be amended without further statutory provisions.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, the noble Lord means that civil servants could be seconded.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, I beg your pardon—could be seconded without further statutory provisions. That position still remains, of course, and it may be that the Government will think of this point once again in the future.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, I hope that I can soothe the worries of the noble Lord opposite and those of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, about this. There is no constitutional implication, and there is certainly no foreign implication, because we have had umpteen State corporations which have officials, whether or not those officials are amended! I think the doubts expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, about confidentiality can he put at rest. We have given assurances over and over again, on the one hand concerning the Official Secrets Act and, on the other hand, that the ordinary rules of the Civil Service will prevent any sort of abuse of their knowledge by those people. Incidentally, I can add that one will be from the Treasury and the other from my Department. I do not quite understand the
1760
worries of the noble Lord, because BNOC will not be a competitor with companies operating in the British North Sea, because they will he partners of each and every one; so that I do not see where the difficulty arises on this point. One may, of course, disagree with the idea that there should be State participation, but we have discussed that umpteen times and it seems to me that this is not the occasion to continue that debate.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, would the noble Lord give way? I am most grateful to him because he has raised something that was not said in our previous debates. We recognise that BNOC will be a partner in some cases—for example, in some oilfields—but in other cases we could see that BNOC would be in competition, because presumably it will not be taking part in every oilfield.
Lord BALOGH: Certainly, my Lords. This is the whole idea. The whole idea is that there will be State participation in each and every commercial oilfield: it is like Norway. Therefore the question as such does not arise. After all, most of the big corporations who operate in the North Sea have partners with whom they compete but which really share their secrets in this field. For instance, there are Esso and Shell in the Brent; there is a tiny Shell-Esso participation in the Forties; the Piper field, as your Lordships will know, has a large number of people. I do not quite understand this and therefore very much hope —I have learned a new Parliamentary trick tonight—that noble Lords will not insist on their Amendment.
7.8 p.m.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[Nos. 3 and 4]
Clause 3, page 5, line 9, at end insert—
("(6) In any case in which the Corporation is in competition with any private company operating in the energy sector the provisions of this and the next succeeding subsection shall have effect for the purposes of securing that such competition is fair.
(7) Neither the Treasury nor the Secretary of State nor any other Minister nor local authority nor any public corporation conducted wholly or in part under national ownership or control shall, or shall counsel, procure or incite others to discriminate unfairly as between the Corporation and a petroleum company operating in the private sector in competition

1761
with each other in favour of the Corporation, whether in respect of the terms of any loan, or any contracts, the making available of land, buildings or equipment, the granting of contracts, the prices and other terms for supplies or purchases of petroleum, goods or services or otherwise howsoever. For the purposes of determining whether discrimination is unfair, regard may be had not only to the economic but also to the social consequences of any matter.
(8) No criminal proceedings shall lie against any person on grounds that he has committed, or aided, abetted, counselled or procured the commission of or conspired or attempted to commit or incited others to commit any contravention of this section. But any person who suffers or apprehends that he will suffer any loss or damage by reason of any such contravention may bring civil proceedings in respect of such contravention or an apprehended contravention whether for an injunction or interdict or for the recovery of the full amount of the loss or damage or for any other appropriate relief or for any two or more of them.")
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because it would unduly inhibit the operations of the British National Oil Corporation.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 3 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 4. I hope that your Lordships will acknowledge that, though moving this Amendment, we do not insist on it. I am not in any way going back on the many undertakings and assurances about the commercial behaviour of BNOC. Once more, I categorically and firmly assert that BNOC, especially if it goes downstream, will act in a perfectly honourable commercial manner, as is expected from a great oil corporation.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 3 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 4.—(Lord Balogh.)
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, briefly, may I say that naturally one is grateful to the noble Lord for giving that assurance; but can the Government guarantee that there will be no discrimination against other companies in favour of BNOC, without this Amendment being in the Bill? I note that it is stated that the objection is that the operations of BNOC would be unduly inhibited. It is difficult to think of examples where this Amendment, had it been added to the Bill, would have unduly restricted the operation of BNOC. Can the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, give
1762
us any examples and give a guarantee that there will not be discrimination?
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, I can certainly give the noble Lord the guarantee that there will be no discrimination. But it seems to me that if noble Lords insisted on their Amendment this might result in extreme delays and various law suits, and interpretation of this Amendment would be extremely difficult. I therefore do not think that your Lordships should insist on it. Rather the contrary. The BNOC would be a sub-commercial enterprise if this Amendment is put through. Again, if it is asked to carry out services for the Government which another oil company could carry out, this too could be open to challenge, although we have always made it clear that it is the intention that BNOC should acton behalf of the Government. Inasmuch as the Amendment seeks to ensure that BNOC behaves commercially we have no objection to it, but it goes far further than that and therefore I hope that noble Lords will not insist on this Amendment.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, may I say briefly that I thank the noble Lord for the further concession he has made and for the assurance he has given to the House this evening.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[Nos. 5 and 6]
After Clause 15, page 12, line 8, at end insert the following new clause:
Right of complaint against unfair practice of BNOC
.— (1) The three next following subsections shall have effect where a body corporate engaged commercially in the exploration, production, sale or supply of petroleum or any product derived from petroleum not being the Corporation nor a subsidiary of the Corporation makes to the Secretary of State written complaint about a practice employed by the Corporation or a subsidiary of the Corporation in the exploration, production, sale or supply of petroleum or any product derived from petroleum and the complaint is expressed to be made on the grounds that the practice is unfair to the complainant and specified the respects in which he considers that it is so unfair.
(2) The Secretary of State shall forthwith after receiving the complaint send a copy thereof to the Corporation and, after such period for consideration of, and comment upon, the complaint by the Corporation as the Secretary of State thinks reasonable has elapsed, shall send to the complainant a statement of the comments, if any, made by the

1763
Corporation on the complaint and shall, if he is of opinion that the complaint raises a question of substance and that the complainant has a reasonable case to make in support of the complaint afford the complainant and the Corporation an opportunity of appearing and being heard either personally or by a representative, before a person appointed by the Secretary of State.
(3) The Secretary of State shall consider the report of the person appointed under the last foregoing subsection and may if it appears to him that the practice complained of is unfair to the complainant, give to the Corporation such directions as appear to him to be requisite to secure the removal of the grounds on which it is so unfair; and the Secretary of State shall furnish the complainant with a statement of any such directions and the Corporation shall give effect thereto.
(4) Where a complainant avails himself of the right conferred by subsection (2) above to appear and being heard before a person appointed by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State shall furnish the complainant and the Corporation each with a copy of the report of the person so appointed and a statement of the conclusions reached by the Secretary of State on considering the report.
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because the aims of the amendment are adequately secured by existing legislation.
7.12 p.m.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 6. I hope we can agree that it is not necessary to insist on this Amendment. There is already protection under the fair trading legislation and under the provisions of the Treaty of Rome for ensuring that BNOC does not pursue unfair practices. The BNOC will doubtless have its critics and opponents and under this clause there would only too easily be a great number of unjustifiable complaints. All of these would have to be investigated and this would needlessly distract—and that would be their object—BNOC from its proper function. I therefore hone that noble Lords will not insist.
Moved, that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 6.—(Lord Balogh.)
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, we are sorry that this complaints procedure is not to be included in the Bill because we consider that it would have helped to reassure many who are viewing with some doubts this new Corp-
1764
oration which is to grow so large. There were similar provisions in the Steel Act 1967 vis-à-vis the British Steel Corporation. The noble Lord, Lord Balogh, has said that existing legislation which is mentioned in Reason numbered 6 consists of the Fair Trading Act and EEC arrangements. The Fair Trading Act is of course largely directed to relations between traders and consumers rather than between two parts of an industry. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he is satisfied that that Act and the EEC arrangements to which he referred would apply to all cases of complaints of unfair practices as between two parts of this industry.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, I should have thought that the answer is positive. It seems to me again, as with the last Amendment, that we are here tying up the Corporation in its ordinary commercial pursuits.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[Nos. 7 and 8]
Clause 19, page 15, line 29, at end insert—
"(3A) Where a licence is revoked on the grounds of any act or omission occurring after the licence was altered by virtue of the preceding section which act or omission would not have provided grounds for revocation of the licence had it occurred before the date of such alteration, and it is shown that the holder of the licence

(i) has incurred expenditure in carrying out work which is rendered abortive by revocation, or

(ii) has otherwise sustained loss or damage which is directly attributable to the revocation

the Secretary of State shall pay to him full and prompt compensation in respect of that expenditure, loss or damage. If any dispute, difference or question shall arise between the Secretary of State and the holder of a licence issued before the coming into force of section 18 of this Act, either as to the entitlement of such holder to compensation under the provisions of this sub-clause or as to the amount of such compensation, the Secretary of State shall, if the holder of such licence so requests, refer such dispute, difference or question to arbitration by the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. In such arbitration a licensee who is controlled by a company incorporated outside the United Kingdom shall be treated as a national of the State in which that company was incorporated and subsections (2) and (4) to (6) of section 302 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 shall apply, for the purpose of determining whether for the purposes of this section, a licensee is controlled by another company."
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because it would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, there has been extensive debate both here and in another place on the subject of this Amendment. The debates were important and your Lordships' Amendment gave the other place an opportunity to reconsider their views. They had an especially full debate on this question, as was only right in view of its importance, but reaffirmed their earlier view which was, as I mentioned to your Lordships, that Part II of the Bill represents an entirely proper and legitimate exercise of Parliament's right to legislate and the Amendment would defeat the object of that legislation. I know that some noble Lords feel strongly on this matter but, as the House will have noted, a question of privilege arises and I take it that, in accordance with custom, noble Lords, whatever their views on the question, will not wish to press such an Amendment against the Commons. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 7 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 8.—(Lord Balogh.)
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, has said, this is one of the most important matters discussed under the Bill. The Commons Reason given is a financial one and of course that is their business and certainly we would not wish to resist their view. But a principle is involved which hitherto British Governments have upheld, together with most of the rest of the world. Without this Amendment, this Bill is a departure from that principle. The Bill has the effect of abrogating contractual rights during the period in which it was freely agreed between the parties that those rights should run. Our Amendment would have made provision for compensation when a licence was revoked as a result of new conditions introduced by this Bill.
This was mainly to protect British interests abroad and Britain's good name. In the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company dispute in 1951 a Labour Government firmly stated,
1766
"that rights acquired by foreign nationals by virtue of concessionary contracts are property rights and that as such they are entitled to the same protection as international law grants to the property rights of foreigners".
That is a quotation from the Government's memorial at that time and that was upholding a principle of great importance to Britain. Having myself in 1951 been the member of our Security Council delegation in New York who had the task of explaining to the world Press the attitude of that Labour Government, I find singularly distasteful Ministers' accusations that we are more concerned about compensation for oil companies than about the national interest. If British concessionary rights in the Western Hemisphere or elsewhere are at any time in future unilaterally curtailed or terminated this Government will bear a very heavy responsibility.
Ministers have used what I think are specious arguments about the licensing terms. I would point out that the second and third rounds of licensing were during the time of a previous Labour Government in 1967 and 1969. A very good example was to be seen last week—the Forties field where the oil was turned on just over a week ago. It was licensed under the second round in 1967 and it is a large and prolific field. The reason of the terms of licensing, which was carried out by a Labour Government in the case of that field, cannot again be used as an argument that in some way the Conservatives were responsible for a situation which the Government are now taking these draconian measures to remedy.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords. I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, on this very important matter. In view of its importance, may I remind the House of what the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, said, in this House on 31st October as recorded in col. 771 of the Official Report. He said:
"The Government's aim in bringing in this legislation …was designed to restore the balance between national interest and fair treatment of the oil companies."
Lord BALOGH: Hear, hear!
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I am glad, my Lords, to have that support

1767
from the noble Lord in a sedentary position. In so far as fair treatment is concerned, I regret that among the vast new powers in the Bill the Government did not go further in fairness to these oil companies which have so far invested vast sums of money and technological resources in the North Sea project. I had hoped that the Government might provide among these varied powers a procedure for claims for compensation to be made—a procedure to be introduced without, of course, admitting that compensation was payable.
Is the noble Lord in a position to say whether his Government have received claims for compensation? No doubt precise claims for compensation are premature because this Bill has not yet passed, but is the noble Lord in a position to say whether claims for compensation have been made? May I make the further suggestion that if claims for compensation are in the offing, the Government ought to reconsider setting up a procedure such as was set up after the last war in respect of very substantial claims by inventors. May I repeat the word "inventors", because frequently in this House I am misunderstood and am recorded as having said "investors" Claims by inventors were dealt with by a special commission that was set up by the War Department. Perhaps the noble Lord will be able to give an assurance that if there are to be large claims a procedure of that kind will be set up to avoid unnecessary and lengthy litigation.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, I am very sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, indulged in history rewriting just now. I do not wish to bring out the controversial aspects of this question, but merely to say that the Government do not believe that this Amendment is justifiable. However, the noble Lord tried to put a gloss on history and I shall now take it off. The noble Lord cannot distinguish between the situation in the third and the fourth rounds. In the third round everybody expected that no oil would be found in the Northern waters. I well remember that the first sign of oil in the Northern waters was about 10 years ago. One of the most notable experts in the Government assured me in 1966…67 that the chance of finding sizable oil reserves in the North Sea were very low. However, in 1969
1768
Ekofisk was discovered and in 1970 the Forties Field was discovered. The Government then received £137 million worth of offers from the oil companies for a few squares of submarine soil, but they went on as if nothing had happened. The Government continued to give these rather splendiferous terms as if we were a banana republic.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, the noble Lord has spoken about what he was told in 1967. However, in one of our earlier debates the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Newton, said that as the Minister responsible in 1965–66 he knew that there was a great deal of oil below the North Sea.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, I must congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Newton, on his prescience, but I do not believe that it was shared by anybody else—certainly not by me. However, he was right and I was wrong, and I must apologise for my doubts regarding his prescience. This Amendment might cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds a year in the 1980s. The objection is the implication that the controls contained in the Bill would, without the Amendment, cost the oil companies sums of this order. By challenging Mr. Jenkin on whether a Conservative Government would pay compensation, no answer was forthcoming. While I can see a certain political case, and more especially the American analogy which I quoted in the last debate, it is quite conclusive that what we are doing is not retrospective. We arc taking remedial action in the national interest to eliminate certain weaknesses in the licensing system which was introduced in 1970 for the new round.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Lord Maybray-King): My Lords. I am advised that Amendment Nos. 9 and 10 on the one hand and Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 on the other have been marked in the wrong order. Therefore, I am calling now Amendment Nos. 11 and 12.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[Nos. 11 and 12]
Page 20, line 13, leave out from beginning to ("payments") in line 17 and insert ("so as to secure to the owner recovery of an

1769
equitable proportion of the relevant capital and operating costs of the pipe-line;
(d) for securing to the applicant the right to have a pipe and apparatus of his connected to the pipe-line by the applicant or the owner;
and such a notice may also authorise the owner to recover from the applicant reasonable commercial").
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because it is desirable for the terms on which pipe-lines are used by persons other titan the owners to take account of the different circumstances of each case.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 11 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 12. We have discussed this question of charges for third party use extensively in this House, and the Under-Secretary has again explained our position in another place.
We regard the power to determine charges as a long-stop. We shall be only too pleased when the parties agree among themselves. Where it is necessary for the Secretary of State to intervene, there is a guarantee for the owner that he will at least be no worse off financially than if the third party was not admitted. Except where a field is marginal, or other sufficient arrangements have been made, the terms fixed for third party use will normally take account of the basic capital costs of the pipe-line. The third party will always pay a fair share of the running costs. Moreover, we must have regard to the owner's likely as well as present needs in deciding whether to admit a third party. Inasmuch as noble Lords opposite have been insisting, very rightly, on the need for exploiting marginal fields, it seems to me that it would be illogical if they insisted on this Amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 11 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 12.—(Lord Balogh.)

LORDS AMENDMENT
[Nos. 9 and 10]
Clause 19, page 16, line 1, after ("(3)") insert (" and (3A)").
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because it is consequential upon the Lords Amendment No. 11 with which the Commons have disagreed.
7.28 p.m.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, this is a drafting, consequential upon the Amendment to page 15, line 29, which seeks to provide for compensation upon revocation —that is, No. 11 in the numbering in which our Amendments were considered by another place—and No. 7 as it appears on the Marshalled List that we are using today. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 9 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 10.—(Lord Balogh.)

LORDS AMENDMENT
[Nos. 13 and 14]
Clause 24, page 22, line 16, at end insert—
("Provided that if the contravention is capable of remedy by or on behalf of the holder the authorisation shall not cease to remain in force unless such contravention has not been remedied within the period specified in the notice or any extension thereof which is reasonable having regard to all the relevant circumstances appertaining to the notice.").
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment but proposed the following Amendment in lieu:
Page 22, line 16, at end insert ("; but the Secretary of State shall not serve such a notice on the holder in consequence of a contravention if the Secretary of State considers that. having regard to the nature and consequences of the contravention and to any previous contravention, it would be unreasonable to terminate the authorisation in consequence of the contravention and that the holder has taken adequate steps to prevent similar contraventions in future.").
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 13 to which the Commons have disagreed and doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14 in lieu thereof. I am grateful for the opportunity for reconsideration which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. and the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, gave us on this point. We could not, for reasons explained in another place, quite accept the Amendment as drafted, but we accept the principle that a minor defaulter should have a second chance, and spurred on by the noble Lord's Amendment we set our minds to devising

1771
words to secure this. The Amendment in lieu is along much the same lines as that suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, and we are indebted to him for an improvement to the Bill. The result commended itself to another place, and I hope it also commends itself to noble Lords.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 13 to which the Commons have disagreed and doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14 in lieu thereof.—(Lord Balogh.)
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, it would be ungracious of me not to say that I am gratified by the very kind words which were said in another place by the Under-Secretary of State for Energy and by those which have been said by the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, in this House about my original Amendment to Clause 24 which was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and upon which I had the honour to divide the House. The Minister was good enough to say in the other place that there was very little objection in principle to my Amendment but that it required some re-wording. It would be ungracious of me not to say that by that re-wording they have improved my original Amendment, and of course I support this Amendment.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, naturally we are glad that the Government saw fit to accept the principle of this Amendment. I would point out that the occasion was such that this might not have happened had not the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, supported by us on these Benches, decided to press it to a Division. It is an example of where we were able to give the Government a chance to have second thoughts, and they have put forward another version which we are glad to see going into the Bill.
7.31 p.m.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[Nos. 15 and 16]
Clause 40, page 39, line 34, leave out ("Secretary of State considers and the Treasury agree") and insert ("Treasury considers").
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because it would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 15 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 16. The arguments have been well ventilated. Your Lordships had a useful discussion on it, and your Amendment gave the other place an opportunity to reconsider their view. The other place have, however, after careful debate reaffirmed their earlier view. This is based largely on the considerations, which I put to your Lordships, that since the general management and control of the Account are the responsibility of the Secretary of State, it would be unfair both to him and the Treasury, for the Treasury to be responsible for just one aspect of it. The Amendment raises a question of Commons privilege. I assume, in accordance with longstanding precedent, that we shall not seek to infringe the privilege of another place.
However, I should like to give an assurance to the noble Lord that expenditure from the Oil Account as from any other public account is under overall strict control from the Treasury, and will remain so. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on Amendment No. 15 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 16.—(Lord Balogh.)

LORDS AMENDMENT
[Nos. 17 and 18]
Clause 48, page 45, line 13, at end insert—
("(d) permits the Secretary of State to exercise or not to exercise any power or authority or to withhold any consent, approval or authorisation or to make provisions terms or conditions pursuant to this Act or a licence for the time being in force by virtue of the Petroleum (Production) Act 1934 with a view to securing participation by the Government of the United Kingdom, or by the Corporation or any other body on behalf of the Government, in activities connected with petroleum beneath controlled waters.").
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because the Secretary of State's discretion in the use of his powers under licences should not be unduly limited.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 17 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 18. I must recognise that noble Lords have felt strongly about this Amendment. They dislike participation, but I cannot help thinking that this Amendment was really attacking it by the back door. It is true that the Bill and the licence terms (before amendment by the Bill as well as after) bestow wide powers on the Secretary of State which, as the Secretary of State himself pointed out, could be used in an unreasonable manner. But they are not being so used, and Clause 19(6) of the Bill as first printed for this House, as well as my assurances and those of my colleagues, are evidence of our good faith in this. On the other hand, and noble Lords opposite must surely recognise this, to deny the Secretary of State the right to use any of his powers of consent to promote a policy which is in the national interest, would indeed be to send him naked to the negotiating table—if I may use a well-worn cliché.
The negotiations are voluntary (if not, they would have been completed long before now), but that does not preclude hard bargaining—on both sides. We have no objection to that nor, I believe, have the companies we are negotiating with. They, too, have strong bargaining counters. Precisely because the negotiations are voluntary, it is unrealistic to expect the Government to accept that their own position should be eroded in the way the Amendment would provide. I must ask noble Lords not to insist on it.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on Amendment No. 17 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 18.—(Lord Balogh.)
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, this was one of the Amendments which we thought the Government would accept. They have said that their policy of 51 per cent. participation is to be carried out by voluntary negotiation with the oil companies. Therefore this Amendment was proposed to the Bill as an addition which would have made clear in the Bill what the Government had stated was their intention; namely, that they would not use the sanctions which this Bill gives the Government to press companies into 51 per cent. participation.
1774
On various occasions the Government have said that the negotiation is to be voluntary, but there has been little evidence of that so far. We know that negotiations are being carried on with individual companies confidentially, but I have asked the Government before and I ask the noble Lord again—and this is the third occasion—whether there have been any instances where permission has been sought for re-arrangement of licences and where the permission has been granted and where the company has not at the same time had to agree to participation in principle.
Our reading of the Press reports is that so far in every such case the permission has only been given with the company at the same time announcing its agreement in principle to participation, and that seems to be evidence that pressure in those cases had been put upon them before they were granted their request. The policy of 51 per cent. participation more than anything else is causing a slow-down beyond the immediate programmes to which companies are already committed. While the immediate programmes are not being slowed down, the succeeding stages are.
The Prime Minister was reported in the Press as saying last night at the Lord Mayor's Banquet:
"By 1980, we expect to be producing as much oil as we shall be consuming that year."
So his statement is that we should reach self-sufficiency by 1980. That is certainly what we were expecting two years ago, but if the present situation continues I do not think that the Prime Minister can count on that happening in 1980, because we know of the postponements and the shelving of plans beyond immediate programmes. Observers are now suggesting that it will be 1981 or 1982. Certainly, the Prime Minister's assertion is open to challenge and none of us ought to be surprised if the official estimate for 1980 is revised in a few months' time.
Fifty-one per cent. participation is also causing uncertainty and second thoughts where orders for the building of platforms are concerned. The Secretary of State for Energy is rightly concerned about the lack of orders for platform building. Platforms are not to be confused with drilling rigs; platforms are the massive permanent structures in the fields, which have to be built fairly near

1775
to them. Each one can be worth £50 million to £100 million—together with the modules and equipment that go on them—to the country where it is produced. As I understand it, at the end of last week the Department of Energy made public that the Secretary of State had asked about 20 companies whether they could advance orders for platforms, and he had received negative answers. The companies had looked at the situation but found that they could not bring forward orders.
I entirely understand the concern felt by the Secretary of State for Energy, which is widely reported in the Press in Scotland where many of the fabrication yards are situated, because there is a large number of unemployed at some of them. Within two years, the Government have transformed the situation from one where yards were busy building platforms, to the present position, and yards are now being created, with a total Government commitment of about £30 million, with no order yet in sight. This situation of flagging platform building is a clear indicator of second thoughts and postponements of the plans to follow the present programmes for offshore activities. Some companies arc committed to large sums in their immediate programmes, but companies ought also to be proceeding with the plans for the next stages if. by 1980 and beyond, we are to get all the oil which the Government are expecting. Of course, they will not place orders for platforms until exploration and appraisal have shown where they are needed, and what kinds are suitable. Unless companies are encouraged to launch out again, they will not go ahead with these plans in the time which the Government have in mind.
My Lords, I know that in our last debate on this Bill the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, promised us that he would make some florid utterances at this stage, and no doubt he is saving them for what will probably be the last debate on this Bill. But I would say again to him that in less than two years his Government, through their policies, have changed the bustling competitive British platform building scene into stagnation.
7.41 p.m.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, surely, that is a little exaggerated. I have been
1776
told that, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, I should facilitate the passing of this Bill in the shortest possible time, because of the human needs of your Lordships after the previous gruelling treatment. The Government do not accept that uncertainty on their part about the contents of the Bill was one of the main reasons for the lower level of platform ordering. First, there is a growing experience and, as in the case of the Forties field, fortunately we have been wrong in our appraisal of the yield. This field is gushing forth far more quickly than we expected. In the Forties field, the drilling of wells has not caused an ebb in the other wells which exist, so that the amount of oil available is much higher than we thought. The same is true for Argyll.
I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that those fields which are underdeveloped now will be quite sufficient to carry us into independence by 1980. We do not need to think in terms beyond that. Of course, we need a continuation of drilling, but I am sure that once the uncertainty caused by the absence of a law which gives firm assurance as to what will and will not happen has passed, the growing experience and appraisal of drilling which the noble Lord mentioned, greater detailed knowledge of the field structure and of seabed technology, will combine to make oil operators aware of the danger of defining their platform requirements before they know the extent of the oil.
On the question of assignments, the embargo was lifted last February. Since then some 14 companies, involving 40 licences, have applied for various assignment projects. They have conceded participation in principle, as have BP and certain other companies about whom I will not speak at the moment, because of problems of confidentiality which I am sure the noble Lord will understand. No field has been delayed because of lack of finance. A number of financial packages are currently being negotiated. and the announcements can be expected shortly. At the end of the year, well over £1,000 million will have been spent in the North Sea, which is slightly inconsistent with the view of the Opposition that the policy of the Government has scared off platform builders.
7.45 p.m.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 19–25]
Schedule 1, page 46, line 11, leave out ("except an official member")
Schedule 1, page 46, line 15, leave out lines15 and 16.
Schedule 1, page 46, line 29, leave out subparagraph (3).
Schedule 1, page 46, line 37, leave out paragraph 5.
Page 47, line 3, leave out ("but must not be an official member")
Page 48, line 19, leave out from ("Corporation") to end of line 21.
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
Because they would alter the structure of the British National Oil Corporation in a manner detrimental to the performance of the Corporation's functions.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 21, 22, 23 and 24, and Commons Reason No. 25 were spoken to with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 19 to 24 en bloc, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 25.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 19 to 24 en bloc, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 25.—(Lord Balogh.)
7.46 p.m.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 26–30]
Schedule 2, page 61, line 10, after ("programme") insert ("and the quantity so specified in such a further notice shall not be less than four-fifths of the proven production capacity of the field for the period specified in that further notice";)
Page 83, line 11, after ("programme") insert ("and the quantity so specified in such a further notice shall not be less than four-fifths of the proven production capacity of the field for the period specified in that further notice;")
Schedule 3, page 110, line 42, after ("programme") insert ("and the quantity so specified in such a further notice shall not be less than four-fifths of the proven production capacity of the field for the period specified in that further notice;")
Page 134, line 34, after ("programme") insert ("and the quantity so specified in such a further notice shall not be less than four-fifths of the proven production capacity of the field for the period specified in that further notice;")
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
Because it is important to retain maximum flexibility in controlling the maximum rates of production of petroleum.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 26 to 29 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 30, because it is important to retain maximum flexibility in controlling the maximum rate of production of petroleum. It was explained in another place that, although in the majority of cases the cutbacks are likely not to exceed 20 per cent., as the statement on 6th December made clear, we cannot in the national interest bind ourselves to that figure in every case. The Amendment goes further than the statement of 6th December in that it would so bind us.
Moreover, we do not think it necessary to incorporate the terms of the statement about the operation of depletion policy in the Statute which confers the powers to operate such a policy. This could create an undesirable precedent. From time to time, we may issue further statements to supplement, but not to override, the statement of 6th December. It would be cumbersome both for the Executive and Parliament if on each occasion we faced demands, as we surely would, for precedents to be followed, and for each new statement to be enshrined in legislation. In view of the lateness of the hour and of these considerations, I hope your Lordships will not insist on these Amendments. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 26 to 29 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 30.—(Lord Balogh.)
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, before we agree to the Motion, may I point out that this Amendment would have carried into the Bill what was generally understood to be the effect of the statement of the Secretary of State of 6th December in a long Written Answer in another place. What it has done, I think, is to bring out that the general understanding of that statement was different from the intention of the Government because, as the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, has just said, the Government do not regard this four-fifths point as applying to every case. When the

1779
statement was made, it was thought this would apply to every case and that there would be no such exception of the kind he has just mentioned. So that from that point of view it is less satisfactory. However, I think it has clarified what the Minister meant in his statement of 6th December. We should have liked to have had this in the Bill and for this to have been our interpretation of the statement of the Minister, because we think that would have given great reassurance to the companies embarking on investment.
My Lords, the noble Lord knows we agree that the Government need to have some powers in order to control rates of production later, in the 1980s and after, but we do not think it is necessary for them to be so flexible that the companies do not know beforehand roughly the limits within which they may be asked to reduce production. Having said that, we have no intention of trying to resist this proposal.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, may I, with the permission of the House, thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for the courtesy with which he has conducted this debate. Even so, we feel strongly about these things. I am very glad to have had a sparring partner such as the noble Lord.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lord I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, for the way he has helped us by explaining the intentions of the Government. Apart from the last point, a great deal has been clarified. May I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, who has sometimes had to answer points at short notice, but who has clearly always done his best to inform us of the situation. I should mention that my noble friend Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, who has taken a great deal of the burden of this Bill, is at the moment, I believe, in the middle of the Indian Ocean. He cannot be here, but I know he would wish to be associated with what I have said.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, I would also like to be associated with what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has said. If there had been time I would have taken up the allusion by the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, that
1780
to him it has seemed that the Opposition Benches were performing a Wagnerian opera with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, as Siegfried and the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, as Brunhilde. I was greatly interested and very happy about such allusions, because at last I thought we must have the perfect Wagnerite before us in the noble Lord, Lord Balogh. The title, as you know, is enshrined in the book by Bernard Shaw. But, as the noble Lord sank back on to his bench, Wagnerian allusions crowded upon me, and I thought that he was the God Wotan sitting there with the spear broken in the shaft, broken by Siegfried. I am sure you will agree that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, broke many of the Government's arguments by the graceful way of presenting his case. This account of the position of Wotan is to be found in that long prologue to the opera, The Twilight of the Gods. May I say there is no sinister motif at this time of night in my having quoted the title of that Wagnerian opera. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, and the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, who like Loki has sat beside Wotan and done so much work in this debate.

FUEL AND ELECTRICITY (CONTROL) ACT 1973 CONTINUATION ORDER 1975
7.52 p.m.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS Lord LOVELL-DAVIS rose to move, That the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act 1973 Continuation Order 1975, laid before the House on 29th October, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act 1973, which the Motion asks the House to continue for a further year, contains wide-ranging powers. Your Lordships will recall that the Act was introduced by the last Conservative Administration to facilitate the management of a crisis involving severe disruption of our energy supplies. Subsequently, however, the Act has been used in situations where the element of crisis has been absent, in some cases to achieve the objectives of domestic energy policy, and in others to fulfil the Government's international obligations. I shall describe further these uses of the Act in a moment.
The Order before the House extends for a period of one year, to 30th November 1976, the powers contained in Sections 1 to 8 of the Act. These powers enable control to be exercised over petroleum, substances derived from petroleum, any substances used as fuel, and electricity. Thus the controls extend not only to petroleum and electricity but also to coal and gas. I should like to reassure noble Lords that the introduction of emergency measures is not the Government's aim in laying this Order. The Government have no reason to expect that any difficulties will arise in the near future which would necessitate the introduction of such measures.
As we go into the winter coal stocks are generally at a satisfactory level, and this applies not only to those held by the Coal Board but also to those held by distributors and customers, including power stations. Oil stocks are also at a high level, particularly taking into account the reduced level of demand. There is a considerable amount of spare capacity in the electricity supply system also due to reduced demand. Even if extremely cold weather arrived unexpectedly, widespread interruptions of supply are unlikely. The position on gas is also healthy.
My Lords, I should now like to describe the uses at present made of the powers in the 1973 Act; first, those concerned with domestic policy. The House will no doubt recall that during the last year the Government have used their powers under the Act to introduce certain constraints on energy use as part of the package of energy-saving measures announced on 9th December last. In particular, we have brought into force compulsory limits on heating levels in buildings other than living accommodation and certain other categories; and restrictions on the use of electricity for external display and advertising purposes during daylight hours. In both cases the restriction takes the form of an Order under Section 2 of the Act.
Section 4 of the Act provides for the modification of existing enactments where these affect the use of fuel and electricity, and it is under this heading that my honourable friend the Minister for Transport has introduced the 50 and 60 miles per hour speed limits in the interests of
1782
fuel saving. These mandatory measures are, of course, only part of our overall programme on energy conservation. The more efficient use of fuel is also being prosecuted through the provision of information, advice and help and through the setting of appropriate economic signals, which chiefly means correct pricing supplemented where necessary by taxation. We believe that a combination of all three lines of action is the right approach, aiming for a programme of measures which complement and reinforce each other wherever possible.
The House will not expect me to anticipate the gracious Speech. But we do recognise that the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act is essentially a short-term measure, whereas energy conservation is a long-term policy which must be maintained over a period of years. In the context of statutory energy conservation measures, therefore, it is our intention to seek permanent powers. There arc two other ways in which the 1973 Act has been used to further domestic policy. First, it has been used to relieve the British Gas Corporation of a statutory obligation under the Gas Act 1972 to supply gas on request in specified circumstances. Major changes in the world energy situation in the last two years or so have created an upsurge in the demand for gas which the Corporation could not reasonably have foreseen. In order to avoid endangering the continuing security of supply to existing users, prior to the arrival of gas from the Frigg field, the British Gas Corporation has therefore been given an authority under Section 4 of the Act to disregard this statutory obligation as regards new or additional supplies exceeding 25,000 therms per annum. The authority does not affect the Corporation's obligation to continue giving a supply, of whatever size, to existing customers or to new smaller users.
The Act also contains power to regulate the prices of oil products. It is important that this power be retained in the light of the continuing uncertainty about the security of world oil supplies and the regular increases in crude oil prices imposed by the oil producers. Since their introduction during the difficult supply situation in December 1973, the price control powers have been used to control the maximum retail price of petrol, derv and paraffin. But the only

1783
current price control is that on paraffin. This has been continued because of its special importance to low income users. The Government are, of course, keeping this control under review.
My Lords, secondly, may I describe the use of the Act's powers in the fulfilment of our international obligations. The Government notified their consent to the Agreement on an International Energy Programme. This was done on 30th October. One object of this Agreement is to secure oil supplies in an emergency. To that end States participating in the Agreement undertake to build up emergency reserves sufficient to sustain consumption at the average level of the previous year for an agreed period. Participating States also undertake to prepare oil demand restraint measures to enable them in an emergency to reduce consumption by certain percentages. They also undertake in an emergency to allocate the available oil among each other in accordance with the rules of the Agreement. The Government need certatin of these powers at present contained in the 1973 Act to implement these obligations, should they be called on to do so. Finally, the Act's powers have been used during the past year to implement EEC Directives under which Member-States are obliged to maintain at all times minimum levels of stocks of crude oil and petroleum products. This obligation, of course, overlaps to some extent with the stockholding obligation under the Agreement on an International Energy Programme.
To draw together the strands of my argument, my Lords, the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act 1973 contains powers which are needed to honour our international obligations and to implement our conservation programme, and for the efficient management of our energy resources. It is for those reasons, and not because of fears of a disruption of energy supplies, that I seek your Lordships' support for the Order. It is the Government's intention to seek permanent powers in due course, but until that can be done continuation of the powers in the present Act is essential. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act 1973 Continuation Order 1975, laid before the House on 29th October, be approved.—(Lord Lovell-Davis.)
8.0 p.m.
Viscount LONG: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, for giving us the facts on this Order. I think we might add that now that the captains and the generals have departed he and I have the Chamber, with one or two others of your Lordships, to ourselves, so we can go through this Order fairly quickly. As the noble Lord mentioned, this Order was introduced into your Lordships' House in 1973 during the fuel emergency problems on the three-day week. It was designed to give the Secretary of State vast and sweeping powers to control the production, supply, acquisition, and use of petroleum, its by-products and also other fuels and electricity. It is, of course—we are most pleased to note—not really needed at this moment.
I must confess that the noble Lord seems to have taken the wind out of my sails on one point, because I felt that this Order was nearly old-fashioned or out-of-date, but, on the other hand, he now says something about the gracious Speech, and that, "We shall now have another look at it." In other words, we are probably looking at a new Act of Parliament on energy with powers in the new Session. Perhaps the noble Lord could enlighten me on this. This may be a little unfair because it is too early and no one is allowed to know these things at the moment, but perhaps a wink or two may help me and my noble friends on these Benches. The Order we are discussing is to be for another year. I was also glad to notice that he was not hesitating in his facts about the reserve stocks of coal and oil at the moment in this country. I was slightly worried by this morning's papers when I noticed that the Secretary of State, his right honourable friend Mr. Wedgwood Benn, was a little hesitant in a reply to a Question in another place. Perhaps the noble Lord can reassure the House that all is well.
I might not have heard the noble Lord right—I might have misjudged him—but, if there is an emergency, how long would our stocks last? Would they last two or three months, or have we stocks to get through a severe winter, say, to March? It is important that we should know this so that no one, in looking at this winter, has any fear for the future. On the other hand, I leave it at this: if

1785
there is to be a new Bill in the new Session we shall from this side continue to watch over this Order until this new Pill comes into your Lordships'House—if it does. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for the facts he has given us, and I am glad that we have been able for another year to dispose of this Order.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, may I also thank the noble Lord for the clarity with which he explained the facts behind this Order. I was interested in one aspect of his announcement regarding the fact that this Order is to implement certain EEC Directives. May I ask the noble Lord whether he is in a position to give details of those Directives of the EEC which this Order is intended to implement? Unfortunately, I have not given notice to the noble Lord of this request, and if he is not in a position to give the numbers of those EEC Directives at the present time, perhaps he would be good enough to let me know in a letter.
8.5 p.m.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, I appreciate the importance of the matters that the noble Viscount, Lord Long, emphasised. I hope that what I have said generally has set his mind at rest. In regard to future legislation, I can only restate that the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act is not a satisfactory basis for a long-term conservation policy, and therefore it is the Government's intention to have permanent powers, and preliminary details will be given in the gracious Speech. I must ask the noble Viscount to wait until next week for enlightenment.
The noble Viscount asked me about stocks. I have here a breakdown of stocks of coal, which show that they are considerably higher than they were at the same time last year. Undistributed stock, for instance, is 9.25 million tons as against 6.21 million tons at the same time last year. Power stations, which last year on the 25th October had 13.58 million tons, now have 18.36 million tons, which is about eight weeks' normal winter rate of consumption. The Iron and steel industry arc similarly well-placed, and have approximately six weeks store on hand. Electricity supply is covered in the stocks which, as I say, amount to over 18 million
1786
tons. British Gas expect to be able to cope even with very severe winter conditions; neither natural gas nor its transmission are affected by low temperatures. The situation on oil stocks is that they are at present estimated at 100 days average 1974 demand, or 94 days forward demand. In short, the overall situation, so far as stocks are concerned, is good.
I do not think that in his Written Answer to a Commons Question my right honourable friend the Secretary of State was in any way hesitant or pessimistic. It was simply that he was then setting out the possible hazards that one faced, largely concerned with transport, as they affected the supply of coal, and so on, and therefore of course the supply of electricity. He simply advised consumers to build up their stocks of fuel to ensure against these transport difficulties. I think that this was the message he was trying to get across.
I think that to some extent I have the number of the Directives about which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, asked me. Unless I can find them quickly what I should like to do is to write to him. To save noble Lords' time, I shall drop him a line or tell him immediately after the debate.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, I shall accept it if it is put in a letter.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, in thanking noble Lords opposite for their constructive approach to this Order, may I say that I am grateful to have had this opportunity of explaining why the Government consider it necessary to continue the 1973 Act in force for a further year, and also to indicate the careful attention which the Government are giving to their energy policy. I think both Parliament and public are all agreed that we must continue our efforts to save energy in order to reduce our import bill and to avoid the waste of valuable resources. The renewal of the 1973 Act is only a part of our energy saving programme, but in approaching a matter of such national importance it remains necessary to have access to statutory powers.

AIRPORTS AUTHORITY BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL
Report from the Committee of the Reasons to be offered to the Commons for the Lords insistence read and agreed to; and a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to return the Bill with Reasons.