Lords Sitting of 20 October 1975

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Saint Edtmundsbury and Ipswich.

TERRORISM: SECURITY ARRANGEMENTS
Lord ELLENBOROUGH: 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 all possible security arrangements have been made by the appropriate authorities against potential acts of terrorism on public houses which are in the immediate vicinity of barracks and which arc prime targets for the IRA because they are frequented by substantial numbers of the Armed Forces off duty.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, it is the responsibility of the owner or user of private property to take appropriate precautions against potential criminal acts. The police are always ready to give advice, but they cannot mount a continued presence at all places where attacks may occur. Recent incidents have demonstrated how alertness by members of the public can save lives.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. I appreciate the very great difficulties involved, but. I should like to ask him the following questions. First, bearing in mind the comparatively few public houses known to be frequented by considerable numbers of the Armed Forces, and therefore especially likely to be singled out as targets by terrorists, has anything been done to encourage the installation of special safety material over windows, such as I believe is being installed in Whitehall offices and the like; or, at the very least, strips of paper or various forms of plastic material, such as
1140
were used in the last war, so as to minimise injury by flying glass?
Secondly, in view of what appears to be the increasing risk of indiscriminate attack without warning—or virtually without warning—in public houses, restaurants, hotels and similar establishments used by the public, is it not time that Home Office posters were prominently displayed giving practical advice and instruction to the public regarding what action they should take for their protection and to avoid confusion?
Several Noble Lords: Too long!
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd): My Lords, the noble Lord is being slightly overlong with his supplementary question, and there is a custom in your Lordships' House that supplementary questions are not taken from a piece of paper.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, on the latter point raised by the noble Lord, this matter is constantly under review by the Government. With regard to the noble Lord's earlier point regarding physical security, advice on these questions is available from the police.

INVALID CAR SAFETY
2.40 p.m.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have recommendations to make on the Parliamentary Commissioner's report on the safety of three-wheeled cars issued to invalids.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the matters referred to in this report are among the factors being taken into account in our present consideration of the provision of invalid vehicles and the extended mobility help which we shall be giving to disabled people. Arrangements for giving driving tuition to three-wheeler drivers and for maintaining their vehicles are being further reviewed. My noble friend will have seen the public Statement on the safety of the three-wheeler made on 14th October by my right honourable friend the Minister for Transport.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but I wish to ask him whether in the interim the Government will continue to issue vehicles which, according to the Parliamentary Commissioner's report, have been described as "inherently unstable"?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, in the meantime we shall continue to issue vehicles. I should point out to your Lordships that my right honourable friend the Minister for Transport referred to the report in a speech on 14th October to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, and he made it clear that he saw no case whatever on safety grounds for imposing a ban on this class of vehicle.
Lord MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether it is now clear that the invalid tricycle is dangerous and that the policy of Her Majesty's Government ought to be to move away from the invalid tricycle to the four-wheeled vehicle?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the use of the word "dangerous" is rather dramatic. The invalid tricycle is dangerous in the way that four-wheeled cars are dangerous in the hands of certain people.
The Earl of SNOWDON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Department of Health's statistics have shown that the Department's tricycles overturn on the road at 33 times the frequency of adapted four-wheeled cars?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, we are aware of the figures and of the Parliamentary Commissioner's report. We are also aware of the investigation made into the matter by the Department of the Environment. We are not saying that this vehicle is without its difficulties. We are considering the Parliamentary Commissioner's report, as indeed we are considering the views of the disabled organisations. I hope that within the next few weeks the Parliamentary Commissioner's report will be available to your Lordships—when he next makes his quarterly report to your Lordships' House —and then perhaps we can take the matter further.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, could my noble friend say to what contracts for
1142
the supply of these three-wheeled vehicles his Department is already committed?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if my noble friend's question is in relation to the manufacture of three-wheeled vehicles then I am afraid I cannot answer that question because I do not know, but if the question is in relation to repairs and maintenance then I can say that this is a matter which has received a good deal of publicity of late and is another matter with which we are dealing without delay.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, could the Minister say whether a disabled driver has to pass a test before he or she is allowed to drive one of these vehicles, or can they simply sign a statement saying that they have received adequate tuition which they think is satisfactory?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am under the impression that there is no formal test as perhaps is envisaged in the mind of the noble Earl. That is why I said that arrangements for giving driving tuition to drivers of three-wheelers are being further reviewed.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many drivers of these three-wheeled vehicles like them very much? Is he also aware that many other drivers of these vehicles do not like them very much? Would not a remedy for this situation be to issue three-wheeled vehicles to those who want them and four-wheeled, modified vehicles to those who would prefer the four-wheeled ones?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I would agree with what my noble friend said in the first part of his question. The Department is not prepared to provide four-wheeled cars for a variety of reasons, too long, perhaps, to go into at this present juncture.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the fact that the Institute of Advanced Motorists have examined these vehicles and have passed them as absolutely satisfactory for their purpose?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, can the noble Lord explain the difference between "inherently unsafe" and "dangerous"?
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should like to come back on this question because I think it would be unfortunate if the impression given in the question put by the noble Lord were left. May I ask the Minister whether he will consider quite seriously if it is wise, whether or not people want them—there are always people who are not aware of danger—to continue to issue these vehicles while there is some element of doubt about their stability?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, whatever differences of opinion may exist in your Lordships' House on this matter (and I know there are many), may I assure your Lordships that we recognise the problem—we have read the reports, we have taken the advice of experts and we have a wealth of information—and we are considering what is best, bearing in mind, as my noble friend Lord Leather land has said, that a large number of recipients of three-wheelers have written to us asking us not to withdraw them.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, did the Minister say that this report, which was extensively leaked to the Press several weeks ago, will be published within the next few weeks, or did he merely express the hope that it might be published?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I think that what I said—and if I did not say this perhaps I may correct myself—was that I understand that the report will be presented to your Lordships' House with the Parliamentary Commissioner's next quarterly report in a few weeks' time.

DIEGO GARCIA INHABITANTS
2.48 p.m.
Baroness LEE of ASHERIDGE: 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 consultations took place with the
1144
inhabitants of Diego Garcia before they were expelled from their homes.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, during the course of one of his regular visits to Diego Garcia in January 1971, the Administrator of the British Indian Ocean Territory informed all those working there that it was the intention to close down the copra plantations and that, in consequence, it would be necessary for the workers and their families to return to Mauritius or Seychelles. At the same time, he undertook to arrange for as many workers as possible, if they so wished, to go on to other islands in the Chagos Archipelago.
Baroness LEE of ASHERIDGE: My Lords, the House will remember that as recently as 19th March 1975 your Lordships were informed that the Americans did not plan to base ships or aircraft at Diego Garcia, and that there was no question of facilities for any kind of nuclear weapons. We were assured that there were certain extensions being made to the port facilities for peaceful communications and trade. Can we have an explanation why, if that was the situation as recently as seven months ago, four years ago all the islanders had to be expelled from their homes?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, my noble friend has quite correctly repeated what I said in the debate last March on the intentions in regard to these islands; namely, that there is no plan to extend the use of these islands for defensive purposes beyond a limited communications facility. The decision in 1965 to retain these islands for defence purposes was based on joint Anglo-American needs for defence in the area. Those needs then and those needs today do not include the kind of operation that my noble friend has mentioned.
Baroness LEE of ASHERIDGE: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Lord does not think it an extremely callous situation that, apparently, four years after being expelled from their island homes many of these people are still in absolute destitution, and that it took an exposure in the American Congress Committees to give us in the British

1145
Parliament the information that I think we ought to have had directly a long time ago.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I could not agree that the information "exposed" in the American Congress would not have been available otherwise. However, we agree that the condition of those who were returned to Mauritius and the Seychelles—and to Mauritius, in particular—is not satisfactory. For that reason our High Commissioner in Port Louis has, over the past two years or so, repeatedly had talks with the friendly and independent Government of Mauritius about the future resettlement of these people. As recently as 24th September, my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs had a talk with the Prime Minister of Mauritius, one of the outcomes of which was that that Government has now asked the British Government whether we will provide expert advice as to the best way to utilise the generous donation of £650,000 which we made for the purpose of resettlement of the Diego Garcians and other islanders.

RUSSIAN VESSELS AND UK FISHING LIMITS
2.52 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: 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 action they are taking in relation to the Russian fleet "fishing" off the coast of Devon and Cornwall.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Lord Beswick): My Lords, I understand that about 25 to 35 Russian vessels at a time have been fishing, mainly for mackerel, for some 6 to 8 weeks at distances of between 15 and 40 miles off the South-West Coast. This is, of course, in international waters, and the Russian vessels are free to fish in the area under international law. However, fishery protection vessels of the Royal Navy maintain a constant patrol
1146
to ensure that no foreign vessels fish within our 12-mile limit, whether they are vessels from the Soviet Union or from any other country.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask him whether or not he thinks it very unsatisfactory that these Russian ships can come so near in, taking great hauls of mackerel, and that they also have a machine factory ship which can process in one day all the catch that local fishermen would get in a whole week? Surely further action can be taken! I should also like to know what happened to the ship which was brought in by the Royal Navy and, as I understand it, left to go free without any fine.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, in answer to the latter part of the noble Baroness's supplementary question, I understand that one Russian trawler was stopped on 16th October while steaming inside the 12-mile limit with her gear not fully stowed and was escorted into Portsmouth. Investigations showed that she had not been fishing within the previous 12 hours and was on an ordinary passage to refuel. The skipper was given a warning about the regulations on stowage of gear but was allowed to proceed. No other incidents have occurred.
My Lords, as far as the first part of the supplementary question is concerned, the fact is that we, like the Soviet Union and other countries, are members of the North-East Atlantic Fishery Commission. They have a responsibility for enforcing quotas when those quotas are necessary. In the case of mackerel I understand there is no quota because no quota is thought to be necessary.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE: ROYAL COMMISSION
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Shepherd will be repeating a Statement on the Royal Commission on the National Health Service.

COMMUNITY LAND BILL
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I ought to draw noble Lords' attention to a misprint. The line which reads "Clauses 3 to 7" should read: "Clauses 4 to 7".
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order, vizt.:

Clauses 1 to 3,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 3 to 7,

Schedule 2,

Clause 8,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 9 to 15,

Schedule 4,

Clause 16,

Schedule 5,

Clause 17,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 18 and 19,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 20 to 23,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 24 to 46,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 47 to 55,

Schedules 10 and 11.

—(Baroness Birk.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL
2.55 p.m.
Consideration of Commons Amendment to one of the Lords Amendments and Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain other Lords Amendments.
Lord SHEPHERDMy Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reasons for disagreeing with certain Lords Amendments and the Commons Amendment to one of the Lords Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Reasons for disagreeing with certain Lords Amendments and the Commons Amendment to one of the Lords Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 1–3]
Clause 1, page 1, line 8, at beginning insert ("in")
Clause 1, line 9, after ("union") insert ("subsections (3), (4) and (5)")
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
Because a statutory right of complaint is unnecessary.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 3. With the leave of the House, I will also speak to Amendment No. 4 which is a related Amendment. These three Amendments are concerned with exclusion or expulsion from membership of a trade union. The effect of the Amendments is that a worker who is aggrieved may apply to a statutory tribunal for a declaration that he is entitled to be a member of a particular union. Given such a declaration, the worker can if need be apply to the High Court for an injunction and for compensation.
On this issue there is some common ground. On all sides of both Houses there is a desire to have protection for the individual worker, especially in the situation of a closed shop where the job may be at stake. There is, however, a difference of opinion as to the best way in which this can be done. This difference of opinion has been debated in both Houses on several occasions during the last two years. I am sure that the House will this afternoon require me to do no more than outline the difference of opinion.
The Government take the view that law is an inappropriate and ineffective instrument for intervention in decisions by unions as to whom they shall take into their membership. We believe that a direction from a statutory tribunal with a possibility of a High Court injunction and compensation could engender hostility. It could frustrate the achievements of the real objective and it could create a bad industrial relations atmosphere. The unions themselves are ready and willing to tackle the problem. The Trades Union Council will set up an

1149
independent tribunal or review body consisting of a chairman with legal qualifications and two other members; and all three members will be appointed in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Chairman of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service.
In a closed shop situation, a worker who has used the procedure within his union and is still aggrieved will be able to appeal to this new TUC body. This body will proceed by way of conciliation and agreement but will, if need be, make recommendations. The TUC has stated categorically that there will be a clear responsibility on the part of each union to accept the recommendations. The individual unions, on their part, will advise all who are excluded or expelled of their rights within that union and of their right of appeal to the TUC's new body.
My Lords, we believe that in the situation in which the worker is likely to find himself, this is the more satisfactory procedure and is likely to give him greater protection. We believe that because the procedure has been agreed with his fellow-workers and their union, they will be much more inclined to respect and work with it than they would if it were a direction from a statutory tribunal. In effect, the trade union movement as a whole will have a surveillance over the operations of the individual unions.
The Government believe this is a landmark in trade union history and they hope it will be welcomed as that by this House. We are convinced that it is the better way to deal with this difficult problem. We believe that, in practice as distinct from theory, it will give better protection to the individual worker, and we have no doubt whatever that it will be more conducive to good industrial relations. We have however made it clear on more than one occasion that if this does not work then we will seek some other method of protecting the individual, and I repeat that assurance this afternoon. In the other place, your Lordships' Amendments were rejected by a majority of 46. In these circumstances, I hope that your Lordships will see your way clear not to insist upon Amendments Nos. 1 and 2.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 to
1150
which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Jacques.)
3.2 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, perhaps in the circumstances in which your Lordships find yourselves this afternoon it would be right and fitting if I were as brief as the noble Lord, Lord Jacques. What the debates on this part of the Bill have shown—if they have shown anything—right through the passage of the Bill through both the other place and in your Lordships' House, is the difference of approach between those who support the Government and the Opposition, and those who are like-minded; a difference of approach as to how the rights of the individual should be protected, how the weak should be protected against the strong, and what, if anything, should be the recourse of those individuals or bodies who feel they are the subjects of injustice and overbearing operations on the part of the majority. This is exemplified by these Amendments.
I do not suppose that any Opposition has shifted further than this Opposition during the passage of the Bill. I hope I say this without too much contention: there has been a continuous rearrangement of position to try to bring the views of the Opposition nearer to those of the Government and their supporters. So far as we are able, we appreciate the reasons which have motivated this legislation, and I feel able to claim that we have gone along the road so far as we can, bearing in mind the difference in our political philosophies, to meet what the Government are trying to do. But the cleavage—if I may use the word on a matter such as this—is complete. May I state briefly the headlines so far as these differences of approach are concerned.
First, there is the character of the review body. We think it inherently unsatisfactory that the review body which it is promised will be set up—I do not know when this promise is to be carried out, and I do not suppose any other noble Lords know, either—by virtue of its composition cannot provide that security to an individual or a weak trade union that feels its interests have been impugned. Secondly, there is the rules of procedure of the review body. As I understand it, it is to be composed of those within the TUC—and I have nothing against them

1151
or what they no doubt will try to achieve —and it cannot be a satisfactory situation that the rules are going to be made up by that body acting as a court of appeal, if I may use those words, in its own cause or the cause of some of its members.
Perhaps the most serious doubt that we have applies to the enforcement of the fallback procedure if, at the end of the day, conciliation fails to produce a happy result. Unfortunately, as the Bill stands, and as it now comes before your Lordships' House, there is nothing that can be done to protect the rights of the individual. I do not wish to go back over the debates which have exercised your Lordships at considerable length, but we feel there should be a safety net where, if all else fails—as any other citizen has the right to do in any other sphere—an individual or a body of people who feel they have been wronged can seek some form of redress. That is the point between us; it would labour the point to continue any further.
This is a controversial matter; it is one which we on this side of the House regret very much. It is something where we realise the Government arc inflexible and, in this case, are determined to have their own way. I repeat, we do not like to see provisions such as this written into our law.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, this group of Amendments was originally tabled in the other place by the Liberal Party and moved from your Lordships' House from these Benches by my noble friend Lady Seear. It seemed to us—and it still does—thatsome element of independence in the establishment of the tribunal would help to give confidence to those who were complaining before it and, in the last resort, the decision of the tribunal might have to be enforceable upon constituent unions. We recognise the position the Government have taken. I think it necessary in the circumstances to say no more than this: we wish the TUC Committee that is to be established well; we recognise the importance of its decisions in relation to the matters which will affect the livelihood of the individual and his family. We shall scrutinise its operations with care, and if there appears to be any indication that the legitimate rights of an individual are being overborne
1152
by the big battalions, we on these Benches will not hesitate to return to this topic and, in doing that, we shall be encouraged by the assurance which the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, gave your Lordships this afternoon.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I should like to add this point to what my noble friend has already said. From what has been said from both the Liberal Benches and by my noble friend, this is not a matter upon which we seek to embark upon a dispute with another place. But what Parliament is being asked to do by the Government at the moment is to deprive individuals of rights which are clearly within, or were supposed to be guaranteed by, the Universal Declaration and by the European Convention. Although it may be, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannell, said on a rather similar topic not many weeks ago, that the man on the shop floor is not much interested in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I would say that unless he acquires a new interest in that subject it will be an end very shortly of the liberties of this country.
The noble Lord has given an assurance that if this new landmark in trade union history does not work, legal rights, I suppose, but some other unspecified measures, will be taken by the Government. We do not know, because we have not been told, what rights of compulsion the new body will have upon individual unions who may or may not feel disposed to abide by what cannot be called its judgments, because they are not judgments. We do not know what remedy an individual will have if the tribunal which he had no part in creating, and which is not one of the regular courts of the land, denies him justice. He will have no compensation, notwithstanding that he has been unreasonably excluded or unreasonably expelled from his union. In contravention of his human rights, he is to have no monetary compensation.
Of course one understands, although one does not necessarily agree with, the proposition that in industrial relations one does not want to introduce legal proceedings—that has always been a contention of the side opposite—but this has nothing to do with industrial relations. This has to do with the rights of an individual, excluded unreasonably from a

1153
union in the context of a closed shop agreement. He is to be denied his right to work. The Labour Party have decreed that in English law, and indeed in Scottish law, too, he is to be denied his right to work. But let us look where we are going. We are going the way of elective dictatorship.
Lord PANNELL: My Lords, in so far as the noble and learned Lord thought fit to interpolate my name for something that I said some weeks ago—and, after all, let the whole Conservative Party Conference have this on television—may I tell your Lordships' House that I think there is an inalienable right for a member to join a trade union and this does nothing to safeguard that. I tend to tinge justice with memory, and my own memory is of a great deal of discrimination against me for no reason other than that I was a member of a trade union. In this House, whenever noble Lords rise on the other side they always look at the trade union movement with half-hostile eyes. They seek to defend the back-slider and the dissenter, but never the great body of the trade union movement.
3.12 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I should like to comment on one or two of the questions that have been raised. First, as to when this body will be appointed, the TUC is ready and willing to act as soon as these Amendments are not insisted upon. It has already reported to the last Congress what it is going to do, and has its approval. Secondly, the question of appointment and procedure was raised. So far as appointment is concerned, there is very little in it. The Amendments propose to set up a body consisting of a chairman with legal qualifications and two other members The appointment was to be made by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the TUC and the Chairman of the Conciliation and Advisory Service. The procedure will be very much the same now. First, the constitution of the tribunal is to be the same; that is, a chairman with legal qualifications and two other members. But instead of their being appointed by the Secretary of State in consultation with the other bodies, they will be appointed by the Trades Union Council in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Chairman of the Conciliation and Advisory Service. We believe it will
1154
have the same result so far as the personnel are concerned.
So far as the procedure is concerned, the principal purpose of having a chairman with legal qualifications is to ensure that the tribunal will proceed in accordance with natural justice. There is no difference between the Amendments and the position of the Government on that. So far as enforcement is concerned, the TUC has made it clear in its report to Congress that there will be a clear undertaking on the part of the unions concerned to accept the recommendations of the appeal body. We believe they will be accepted; and, if they are not, I have given an assurance which is on the Record.
Finally, so far as appeal is concerned, in almost every union there is detailed procedure which can be followed by an aggrieved person, and the new TUC body will be the appeal body. After the worker has gone through all the machinery within his union, he can then if need be appeal to the new body set up by the TUC. We believe that in practice this will give the most adequate safeguard.
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, it may curtail the debate if I make a few observations on the matter at this point, because this is obviously a theme which will recur in relation to the other Amendments and, once said, it need not be said again. I think the theme really turns on an observation dropped by the noble Lord who said that noble Lords opposite were concerned only with the backslider and the dissenter and were not concerned with the great mass of people. If I may say so, it is the duty and function of Government and of justice to be concerned with the backslider and the dissenter, and a society that does not protect the backslider and the dissenter is a society which is totally failing in its duty.
I have in the last months, since the Amendments were sent back to the other place, undergone a process of instruction that I think has been salutory and helpful to me. I have discovered something which I did not know before—and this was remiss of me—that is, the depth of feeling that runs on the Government Benches about this matter, relating of course to the Industrial Relations Act which they hated with such fervour and

1155
regarded as so loathsome and objectionable. On that matter I have no comment to make, but I do not believe that when their ardour of resentment has abated their feelings on this matter will still leave them with a belief that you can exile the rule of law from a civilised society. They may retain this belief at this moment, and I am sure they retain it with total sincerity, and in view of their feelings about it and of the way in which it arose they have my total sympathy. But I urge them to realise that people of my generation and training—and, I venture to think, those of the generation and training of many other Members of your Lordships' House—cannot accept this proposition in any circumstances whatsoever.
We do not believe it possible to organise a society in which people's property is safe and their lives and security are safe, without some mechanism of law or some mechanism so resembling the law as to make no difference. Hence, I say that what they are seeking to do is to persuade us of the unpersuadable. We shall never be persuaded that you can abrogate the rule of law and live in safety in a civilised society. We shall never be persuaded that the individual should be at the mercy of the mass, the minority against the majority, the weak against the strong; and since it is our function to see that all these lesser elements are protected, I say to them that however many constitutional collisions may arise we shall not accept this proposition, and we believe it to be our bounden duty not to accept it.
Lord DOUGLASS of CLEVELAND: My Lords, I am rather astonished at what the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has said with regard to the rule of law defending minorities. I thought democracy meant that the majority opinion was the one which appertained and which was carried out. I thought the essence of democracy was that the majority had its way, and this was how we avoided dictatorship. The rule of law is, I think, something to which we must all have regard; I would never contradict that argument. But I would not attempt to make laws to cover every situation that we come up against, because by doing that we should become submerged; and we are almost submerged with laws at the moment.
1156
The fact is that if the Trades Union Congress Organisations Committee, with its Disputes Committee working for it, had not solved the problems of people who have different desires as to which union they might or should join, and if this Disputes Committee had not decided those issues to the satisfaction of those who want issues to be decided by law, the issue your Lordships would be asking us to decide in your Lordships' House today would be: how are you going to deal with the multiple unions in an industry, when a man decides he is going to join whichever one he wants, and open the door for that type of trade union which is in industry only to disrupt it? The trade unions and the TUC have been successful in bringing this matter to a conclusion which is satisfactory to all members of the trade union movement, and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and his Party. They have solved the problem without getting the law brought into the matter, with all the complications that brings; and because the trade unions have been so successful we find ourselves in this position today.
As I see it at the present time, the Amendment on the Order Paper would allow trade unions to come in for the purpose of disrupting industry, and be invited in by law; and the Trades Union Congress would be helpless in the face of a situation like this. There is a long argument on this matter but I will say this. If the point of view that my noble friend Lord Jacques put forward is not accepted in this House at this present time, within 12 months the Opposition will be wishing that it had been, and if they come to Office they will look for a power like this which will solve the problems that the Industrial Relations Act, with all its law, failed to solve when they put it through.
3.21 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I apologise for prolonging the debate on these Amendments, but, after the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, in which he asserted that some of us were trying to persuade Members of this House on something about which they will not be persuaded, I think the other side of the case is due to be mentioned, and reinforced from

1157
experience from this side of your Lordships' House. I believe that on a previous occasion I made it clear that the case for the rule of law in this connection did not go by default in the discussions which took place between the Trades Union Congress and the Labour Party on various matters arising from the Industrial Relations Act 1971. But I must repeat that the mischief, the harm, that was done by the Industrial Relations Act 1971 is being felt to this day. An atmosphere was created in which an appeal to the law in connection with relations between union members, or between unions, was regarded as anathema.
The Industrial Relations Act 1971 had prejudiced the whole atmosphere of relations between trade unions and the law. Therefore, when it was pressed on the Liaison Committee, upon the Trades Union Congress, that there must be some safeguard against wrongful expulsion from unions, with consequences that would flow from that, we were persuaded, after very long discussion, not all of it harmonious, that an alternative had to be provided and that that alternative could be provided by the trade union movement itself and, given confidence in it, it could be regarded as acceptable. The assurance we received was that the Trades Union Congress would agree to the setting up of an independent tribunal, presided over by a chairman with legal qualifications, and there should be upon that tribunal members in whom the unions and members of unions could have confidence, and that unions would respect the adjudication and the findings of this tribunal.
The feature of this proposal which was attractive to those of us who had to consider it was that an adjudication by a tribunal of that kind stood a better chance of being accepted within the unions themselves than did a judgment of the court. We all know the problems of trying to enforce a judgment of the court where mass movements are concerned. A court might decide that a certain worker was entitled to reinstatement, or was entitled to be a member of a union, but that would not compel the colleagues of that person to work with him. This is what my noble friend Lord Douglass of Cleveland who has just spoken was referring to—the disruption of a judgment which was un-
1158
acceptable to large numbers of organised workers. This was the shambles of the Industrial Relations Act 1971.
So, my Lords, the best solution in the circumstances is that this tribunal should be set up and should deal with these matters. My noble friend Lord Jacques has said that if experience shows that one cannot have confidence in this kind of machinery, if experience shows that justice is not being done or justice is not being accepted by members of unions in individual cases, then the matter can be reconsidered. But for the time being I am sure that this is the best possible solution. Lawyers naturally appeal to the law. Even non-lawyers who are not wise in their generation think that the law is the best appeal to make. It is not always the best appeal to make. In relationships between human beings other institutions, other factors, can be brought to bear in order to re-establish harmony and mutual confidence. The law has its place, but it has not its place in every situation in life. It has not its place in all human relationships, either.
Where we have, as we experienced under the Industrial Relations Act, a situation in which a large number of workers are not prepared to accept the judgment of the court, what then are we to do? There is no possibility of enforcement. We are not proposing to set up a rival to court procedure. The High Court is still there and an appeal to it can still be made. But for dealing with the general run of problems of this kind the machinery proposed is the most acceptable in the circumstances. I ask your Lordships to heed the wisdom of those of us who have been in this movement for 40 or 50 years and know what we are talking about, and I hope that your Lordships will accept the Motion from the Government Front Bench.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[Nos. 4 and 5]
After Clause 1 insert the following new clause:
Rights of workers aggrieved by exclusion or expulsion from trade union.
". After section 5 of the principal Act, there shall be inserted the following section:—
"Rights of workers aggrieved by exclusion or expulsion from trade union to apply to tribunal.
5A.—(1) A worker aggrieved by his exclusion or expulsion from any trade union, branch or section may apply to a tribunal appointed for the adjudication of such grievances for a declaration that he is entitled to be a member of that trade union, branch or section.
(2) The tribunal shall be appointed by the Secretary of State in consultation with the General Council of the Trades Union Congress and the Chairman of the Conciliation and Arbitration Service and shall have an independent person with legal qualifications as chairman and two other members.
(3) The procedure at such a tribunal shall be in accordance with rules made by the Trades Union Congress and approved by the Council on Tribunals.
(4) If at any time there is not existent such a Tribunal and such rules, such an application may be made instead to an industrial tribunal in accordance with industrial tribunal regulations.
(5) Where any such declaration has been made either by the tribunal or by an industrial tribunal as the case may be and has not been implemented by the union, branch or section concerned within any period specified in the declaration or if no such period is specified within a reasonable period, the worker may apply to the High Court or in Scotland, the Court of Session for an injunction, interdict or such relief (including compensation) as the court may think just and expedient in all the circumstances of the case.
(6) Nothing in this section or section 2(5) above shall prejudice or in any way reduce the common law rights of a person who has applied to join, but not been given membership of, or who claims to be and to remain a member of, or who has been expelled from a trade union."
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because a statutory right of complaint is unnecessary.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I formally move that the House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 4 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 5.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 4 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 5.—(Lord Jacques.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[Nos. 6 and 7]
Clause 2, page 3, line 4, at end insert ("and after the word "belief" there shall be inserted the words "or reasonable grounds of conscience"").
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because the clause, as amended, would lead to too much uncertainty in union membership agreements.
3.29 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 6 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 7: because the clause, as amended, would lead to too much uncertainty in union membership agreements. I have looked into this matter in a personal sense because in the First World War my father was a conscientious objector. If one's grounds for conscientious objection at that time were based upon a religious belief one was not covered by Statute. Therefore, I listened with great interest to the speech that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, made when we recently discussed a similar matter on the Employment Protection Bill. The Government do not disapprove of conscience.
A Noble Lord: Hear, hear!
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, clearly the noble Lord is in one of his frivolous moods. We would not dispute that in some circumstances it may be distinguishable from religious belief, nor do we argue that it is not in some circumstances a valid base for objecting to a particular course of action or requirement. Our argument is based upon the circumstances which are dealt with in this legislation. In the context of industrial relations legislation we consider that it is inappropriate to give statutory rights to some individuals based upon conscience and have limited it to religious beliefs.
We have two reasons for doing this. First, is it right that individual conscience should automatically and as of right be a valid reason for refusing union membership? We doubt it, for we believe that we must weigh in the balance against one person's conscience the freedom of belief of the other persons with whom he works. The employment situation where there is a closed shop is not, in practical or industrial relations terms, a situation in which conscience may be freely exercised without treading on somebody else's toes. We do not think that it is proper by Statute to give one person an individual right which restricts the individual rights of others whose rights are not statutorily defined.
Secondly, we do not think that in these circumstances the meaning of "conscience" is sufficiently well defined with a universal, clearly understood meaning for

1161
statutory provisions with considerable consequences to be based upon the phrase. Conscience is essentially a matter of personal conviction. Industrial tribunals may be able to apply some test to the sincerity of such personal conviction, to distinguish it from religious belief and to decide whether it is reasonable in the circumstances that it should outweigh the sincere conviction of others; but we doubt it, and previous experience in this field of industrial relations does not lessen our doubts. Nor will different tribunals necessarily reach the same conclusion on the matter. Nor, more importantly, will their decision necessarily accord with the interpretation of the meaning of "conscience" by the people who are directly affected.
This is why we say that the Lords Amendment introduces uncertainty into closed shop agreements. Before tribunals tackle the question of what constitutes reasonable grounds of conscience, employers and unions who make closed shop agreements have to decide whether an individual has such valid conscientious objections to union membership as to warrant his exception from the terms of the agreement or whether the employer may fairly dismiss him without payment of compensation. Individual employees have to decide whether to risk dismissal without compensation by relying on the conscience clause. By the time a tribunal considers the issue it may be too late from the point of view of those affected. In particular, it may be too late in industrial relations terms to remedy the damage.
The Opposition in another place argued that all that was at stake was whether or not compensation was payable to the conscientious objector and that therefore the Lords Amendment does not interfere with the closed shop agreement. It is certainly true that the limited issue of compensation for dismissal is the only one where the law touches upon closed shop agreements, which is why the proposed Amendment offers no real protection to the individual. However, I suggest that it is facile to argue that the question of employer liability for compensation does not affect the operation of closed shop agreements. No employer will operate an agreement in a way which will make him liable to pay compensation. Union members in a closed shop
1162
will not willingly tolerate the continued non-membership of a person who relies on conscience to avoid dismissal. If they do not accept the validity of his objections, the result will be industrial conflict. The individual may or may not get compensation for his dismissal, but—this is, in my view, the most important point—the chances of his staying in his job will surely be reduced.
It is our view that this Amendment can produce only ill will on the part of those whose sincere beliefs are not upheld by statutory rights and are placed on a lower plane than the beliefs of those holding opposite views. It can produce only uncertainty among those directly affected as to what their rights and obligations are. From these two factors—ill will and uncertainty—can follow grave industrial relations consequences from which the individual conscientious objector as well as others can derive no benefit. These circumstances are not comparable with those of the individual who objects to compulsory military service on conscientious grounds whose actions do not directly affect the rights and duties or challenge the views of those with whom he closely associates.
The best practical protection for the conscientious objector will be that which he negotiates with the management and unions by convincing them of the strength of his views. Unions and employers do not have closed minds against conscientious objectors, and they probably have greater acquaintance with the sincerity of their views than a tribunal ever could have. We have ensured that exceptions and special arrangements can be made for conscientious objectors. Such arrangements alone, in my view, will protect the individual from losing his job. For these reasons I ask the House to consider the practical implications of this Amendment and to accept the view of of the majority in another place on this matter.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 6 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 7.—(Lord Shepherd.)
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, as we have argued out this matter at length before, I do not wish to spend a great deal of time on rearguing it. However, it would

1163
be wrong if I were not to state the deep distaste with which I heard the view of the Government as expressed a moment ago.
What is this about? It is not, as the Commons have said, about certainty or uncertainty in membership agreements. A man does not join a union in the context of a closed shop. The other union members say, "We will not work with him" and quite probably the employer dismisses him. If the employer has agreed to a closed shop agreement the employer is contractually bound to dismiss him. If he has not contractually agreed he dismisses him because the threat of industrial action compels him to do so.
For this purpose it does not matter very much which of those two conditions applies. The man loses his job and he cannot get another because he is not a member of the union. Is he entitled to compensation from the employer who has dismissed him? That is the only question before the House. It is nothing to do with industrial relations. It is nothing to do with the question whether or not he stays in employment. It is a question of what happens after he has been dismissed. Is he to have compensation? We are assuming for this purpose that he has what the noble Lord's father would have called "conscientious objection". What is the answer to the question if the Commons have their way? The answer is, "Yes, he can have compensation provided he is a Jehovah's Witness; provided he is a Plymouth Brother, but not if he is an aetheist". That is the law imposed by the Labour Government and insisted upon by the Commons.
We are moving towards elective dictatorship. Here again we shall not divide the House, but shall only record our conviction that this is a disgraceful situation brought about by a Labour Government under the dictates from an outside body.
Lord PANNELL: My Lords, once again I must rise because I have never heard this argument used when people have been discriminated against because they are members of trade unions. I particularly remember, after the General Strike, going on a weary trek from one workshop to another, and the mere
1164
fact that you were a member of a trade union barred you for all time. No one spoke about conscientious objection then. But I remind the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, that a wrong to any group of society can only be judged in the context of the group that considers itself wronged. Presumably, that is why the Law Society have some control over their disciplines. That is why the British Medical Association has some control over the doctors. That is why both Houses of Parliament have Committees of Privilege, to judge whether there is any offence against them. What is good for the noble professions is also good for filthy trade. I can only say that in 50 years of trade unionism, when I have challenged a man to produce his trade union card, he has never used grounds of conscience as to why he would not pay.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, we supported this Amendment, and continue to believe it is right. We continue to believe that the test of conscience is a wider and more fair one than the narrower test of religious belief. We take some comfort from the fact that when we come to debate Clay Cross later in the week, the word "conscience" will no doubt be used sparingly by noble Lords on the Government Benches.
My Lords, this battle has been fought on many occasions, and there seems to us to be no point in fighting it again this afternoon. In those circumstances, my noble friends and I will not seek to pursue this matter further on this occasion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[Nos. 8 and 9]
Clause 2, page 3, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) After Schedule 4 to the principal Act there shall be inserted the following Schedule—

SCHEDULE 4A

  REFERENCES TO SECRETARY OF STATE REGARDING UNION MEMBERSHIP AGREEMENTS
  1. Where a union membership agreement has been made as defined in section 30 of this Act and any independent trade union, being neither a party to the agreement nor specified for the purposes of or in relation to the agreement, claims that it should reasonably have been so specified, then the independent

  1165
  trade union may refer the matter to the Secretary of State in accordance with the subsequent provisions of this Schedule.
  2. Upon a reference to the Secretary of State under the preceding paragraph then—

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

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

  3. The Secretary of State may make regulations governing the procedure to he followed on a reference to him under this Schedule and such regulations may contain such supplementary and consequential provisions as appear to him to be necessary or expedient.
  4. Regulations made under this Schedule may provide for the Secretary of State to refer the matter in dispute or any part thereof to any person or body appointed under any other enactment dealing with industrial relations whether passed before or after this Act on such terms as the Secretary of State considers necessary or expedient and before exercising any power in paragraph 2(b) hereof the Secretary of State shall consider the report of the person or body to whom the matter was so referred."")
  The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
  Because the Amendment is unnecessary, particularly given the recognition provisions of the Employment Protection Bill.
  3.45 p.m.
  Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 8 to which the Commons have disagreed for Reason No. 9. This is an issue on which the Government have more or less met the point of view of the Opposition. Therefore, I hope that this can be played in a very low key.
  My Lords, the issue is the closed shop. The effect of the Amendment was to enable unions not specified in a union membership agreement to complain to the Secretary of State, who may vary the terms of the union membership agreement. Provision is also made for the Secretary of State to ask a third party to examine the issues, and report. The Government do not like this procedure because it enables any union, including
  1166
  unrecognised splinter unions, to put in a complaint about closed shop agreements without attempting to establish that they should be recognised, and hence to upset stable collective bargaining arrangements made between employers and recognised unions.
  We have had further discussions with some of the small professional unions, who expressed concern about the practical problems they may face if closed shop agreements applying to their members are made. As a result, we have amended the Employment Protection Bill. The Employment Protection Bill already enables any independent union to refer a claim for recognition to the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service for investigation and recommendation. The recognition can be either limited or unlimited. We have now provided that when a union makes such an application, it is deemed to be specified for the purposes of a closed shop agreement. That means that its members cannot be unfairly dismissed without compensation for refusing to join some other union.
  If the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service does not recommend that it should be recognised, this protection ceases; although the Service may suggest to the parties that special provision for the union's members should be made within the closed shop agreement. If the Service recommends that it should be recognised for any purposes, then the protection continues and those members for whom the union is recognised cannot be unfairly dismissed or pressurised by an employer if they do not join another union. These provisions meet very fully the substance of the Amendments made in this House, but without running the risk of upsetting established collective bargaining arrangements which are working well, and without causing difficulties about possible conflict with decisions of the Service on recognition.
  My Lords, in the light of these changes in the Employment Protection Bill, the other place decided without a Division that the Amendments made in this House should lapse. I hope your Lordships as easily will agree to that proposition.
  Moved, that this House doth not insist on their Amendment, No. 8 to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Jacques.)
  Lord SANDYS: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, pointed out, on the Committee stage in this House concern was expressed for the small independent unions, particularly professional unions, and those connected with local government. Perhaps it is worth recalling that the Amendment sought to make recourse in cases of difficulty not to the law, but to the Secretary of State. But it was said, of course, that this would be an encouragement, if not active encouragement, for splinter groups to manifest themselves. I say that because we make no apology for the fact that in your Lordships' House we pushed this Amendment to a Division.
  Nevertheless, as the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has fairly pointed out, the matter has now been met and the difficulty overcome to a very large extent in the recent Amendments made to the Employment Protection Bill before your Lordships' House. In that instance, I can confidently recommend to your Lordships not to insist on this Amendment.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  [Nos. 10 and 11]
  After Clause 2 insert the following new clause:
  Freedom of the press
  ". After section 1 of the principal Act here shall be inserted the following section: —
  "Charter on freedom of the press
  1A.—(1) If, before the end of the period of six 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 rules of conduct 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 (1) 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;

  1168

  (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 (1) above, the Secretary of State shall, after consultation with the Press Council and such of the parties referred to in that subsection, such organisations representing workers, and such organisations representing employers, as he thinks fit, prepare in draft a 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 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 (1) above, and the Secretary of State shall lay a draft of the revised charter 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 which—

  (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

  1169

  (ii) in the case of some or all of them, 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.")

  The Commons agree to this Amendment but propose the following Amendment thereto:—
  In subsection (1) of the new clause, in line 1, leave out ("six") and insert ("twelve.")
  3.49 p.m.
  Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11 to Lords Amendment No. 10. The House will remember that in Committee my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby, when he moved his Amendment which is now referred to as the Houghton Amendment, provided there should be a period—
  Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, the Commons made, I think, three separate Amendments. I hope I am on the right one; I must apologise if I am on the wrong one. If I am right, they made three separate Amendments to No. 10—namely, Nos. 11, 12 and 13. They raised rather separate points. Perhaps we can take them separately in one sense, if the noble Lord would not find it inconvenient to do so, because they are rather separate debates.
  Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am surprised, because that was in fact what I was doing. I was speaking to Amendment No. 11, to leave out "six" and to insert "twelve". As the House will remember, the Amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby provided for a period of six months for both sides of industry to agree to the terms of a charter. In the event of them not so doing it was required of the Secretary of State himself to produce to Parliament the terms of a charter. I explained on that occasion that I was loath to involve the Secretary of State because, in matters of the freedom of the Press, I should have thought one of the essential freedoms is that Government should not be too closely involved in any working agreement. But, as a result of various discussions, it was agreed that we should extend the period of six months to twelve months. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 11 and I commend it wholeheartedly to your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth not insist on Amendment No. 10 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 11.—(Lord Shepherd.)
  Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, who was responsible for the original Amendment to which this is an Amendment, or the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, who is responsible for certain Amendments to that Amendment, wish to accept this Amendment. But if they, or either of them were to do so, I think noble Lords on these Benches would not be disposed to argue the matter.
  Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, when I remain silent in your Lordships' House, your Lordships can take it that I am reasonably satisfied.
  Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, the controversy in this matter arises on a later clause. So far as we are concerned, whether the Secretary of State makes a code for the Press in six months, 12 months or six years, it is an obnoxious provision.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE: ROYAL COMMISSION
  3.53 p.m.
  Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I were to repeat a Statement that is now being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister about the Royal Commission on the National Health Service. His words are as follows:
  "The Queen has been pleased to approve a recommendation that a Royal Commission on the National Health Service should be set up with the following terms of reference:
  "To consider in the interests both of the patients and of those who work in the National Health Service the best use and management of the financial and manpower resources of the National Health Service."
  "The Royal Commission will also cover the parallel services in Northern Ireland.
  "Its membership will be announced later.

  1171
  "A great deal of concern has been expressed in the House and outside it about the state of the National Health Service. Despite the real cause for concern, Members on all sides of the House will know that the vast majority of its staff continue to give without complaint the skilled and devoted professional service which the nation has come to expect and which has made our Health Service the object of admiration and emulation throughout the world. But the fact remains that the National Health Service, like other services in all sectors of our national life, is under severe pressure from the economic difficulties which the country faces. In the case of the National Health Service, the situation has been accentuated by the upheaval of a major administrative reorganisation following the National Health Service Reorganisation Act 1973, and, in Scotland, the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1972;by the unrest which followed from the Service's employees falling behind in pay before the substantial pay increases which they received over the last twelve months, and above all perhaps by the pressure of rising expectations as medical science advances and new and higher standards of care and service become attainable.
  "The Government have responded positively to the needs of the National Health Service: since we took Office much more money has been put into it—£750 million extra in the last financial year—but pressure on the nation's resources will make it impossible to do all that is desirable over the years ahead. There is widespread and understandable concern about the future of the National Health Service in these circumstances. And it is essential that profound and careful thought is given to the question how the National Health Service—within the inevitable limits of what the taxpayer can provide—can make the best possible use of the finance and manpower available to it, in the interests of the patients and of those who care for them, in whatever capacity they serve.
  "The Government concluded, therefore, that it would be right to establish a Royal Commission to carry out an
  1172
  independent examination of how this might be achieved.
  "I should repeat that the Government's commitment—made clear in the two elections we fought and won in 1974—to phase out pay-beds from National Health Service hospitals remains unchanged and legislation will be introduced as soon as the Parliamentary timetable allows. My right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Social Services and the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will therefore continue with the consultations on the proposals in the Government's Consultative Document. I must also make it clear, as my right honourable friends have already made clear, that the Government are equally committed to the maintenance of private medical practice in this country and we intend to guarantee this in the legislation we propose. My right honourable friend has stated that her proposals on licensing will not conflict with this and she has invited consultations on how the right to private practice can be combined with the need to prevent a drain of essential resources from the National Health Service, particularly in individual regions and locations.
  "While, therefore, pay-beds and the provision for them of National Health Service facilities at the expense of the Service are in our view a matter for Parliament there are important questions touching on the borderline between the National Health Service and private practice, and on the important and continuing contribution which we expect and want private practice to make, which the Royal Commission will of course be free, if they wish, to consider, and on which evidence can be presented.
  "I hope that all those concerned with the National Health Service, and all others to whom the National Health Service means so much, will take this opportunity to present their views to the Royal Commission and I am confident that the work of the Commission will prove to be a landmark in ensuring that the National Health Service is maintained and strengthened."
  My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
  3.58 p.m.
  Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, this is a sad and sorry Statement. None the less, I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Lord for having repeated it in this House. The fact of the matter is quite clear; the Government have been forced to appoint this Royal Commission by the rising tide of criticism that has been evident lately, both inside and outside the National Health Service, and it is a favourite resort of government, faced with a crisis and with a difficult decision, to appoint a Royal Commission. But much as we may welcome the conclusions of this Royal Commission in the long run it will do nothing whatever to meet the present problems of the Service, which are largely caused by the misjudgment and incompetence of the Government.
  It is incredible that there should be such resentment within the Service against the Government when most of those who are working in the Service are largely, as this Statement has recognised, devoted men and women ready to accept considerable hardship and personal sacrifice in the interests of their patients. None of us can possibly welcome industrial action in the National Health Service, but that that is happening is in my view entirely due to the mishandling of the situation by the Government.
  It would be quite wrong for us in the midst of the very important discussions we are having on the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill to debate the failings of the National Health Service at the present moment. Unfortunately with the weight of legislation that faces this House it will also be impossible to give any time to it in the rest of this Session. But I hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the House will respond readily to a request which I am sure this House will wish to put to him, that we should debate the matter very fully in the new Session.
  The only really surprising and utterly indefensible part of this Statement is that the issue of private beds in National Health Service hospitals should be excluded from the remit of the Royal Commission. This proposal lies at the heart of much of the medical profession's anxieties, and surely it would be best considered by a Royal Commission and not
  1174
  by the arbitrary action of government. It falls directly within the terms of reference, the best use and management of the financial and manpower resources of the National Health Service. Whereas one might have hoped that the appointment of this Royal Commission would take some of the steam out of the present situation, in the circumstances, with this exclusion, I doubt very much whether it will do so.
  Lord AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to welcome the appointment of this Royal Commission as going some way to explaining and trying to get around some of the problems which beset the National Health Service at the present time. Some people say that Royal Commissions take a very long time, and sometimes they do, but they can move quickly if they want to. I remember that there was a Royal Commission under the chairmanship of a late leader of this Party, Lord Samuel, on the coal industry, which took its evidence in six months and produced its Report within two months after that so things can go quite quickly. I share the disappointment of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that the question of pay-beds has been excluded from the Royal Commission. I hold no particular brief for pay-beds, but they seem to me to bring a certain amount of valuable revenue into the Service, and they are very good for the practice of medicine in this country and for the reputation of British medicine in foreign countries.
  I must say that it is a trifle ironical to me at the present time to remember that when I was on the staff of a London teaching hospital I had only two patients in the private ward there, not because I had anything ideologically against it but because it was not very practical or very convenient. One of those two patients was a very respected member of the Party opposite, who was admitted to a pay-bed against my better judgment at the urgent request of Transport House. So funny things do occur.
  I have a good deal of sympathy with the problems of the junior doctors at the present time, because I think a lot of the trouble in the medical profession and the ancillary professions was caused by that extraordinary managerial revolution which occurred under the National Health Service Reorganisation Act 1973. I think that has thoroughly upset the members of the medical profession and the nurses and

  1175
  the ancillary services, and at the same time it did no good to the patients or the doctors. So I think there is some trouble there. But there is one thing which I really do not agree with at all. Members of the professions, and particularly of the medical profession, do not go on strike. The welfare of their patients comes before their feelings about their troubles, and therefore they do not go on strike, and that is why, I am afraid, a good deal of my sympathy with them goes. If I may make a suggestion before I sit down, I was wondering whether something could possibly be done—what, I cannot say—to look at their problems and grievances before the Royal Commission finishes its work.
  Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am very grateful for the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, and I share with him the feeling that the National Health Service, despite the strains that are put upon its resources, is a very great one and that the staff in all sections, apart from some exceptions, do their utmost to provide a genuine Service and a Service of great humanity to the people whom they serve.
  So far as the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, is concerned, after 3½ years as Minister of State in the Department of Social Security I should have thought we would have had a response of greater understanding of the problems of the National Health Service. He was a Minister who was responsible for 3½ years, when the Service was under great strain. I should have thought, therefore, that he would have had a greater sense of the problems of the Service. I will say this to the noble Lord. I will willingly debate with him the whole problem of the National Health Service in the debate on the Queen's Speech, if he will agree with his noble friend the Opposition Chief Whip that we should set aside one day for that. We will be most happy to take the noble Lord on, not in a sense of vindictiveness but to see whether, by common consent and common understanding and common knowledge, we can make some contribution to solving the problems of the National Health Service. Therefore, I do not propose to reply any further to the noble Lord. I will leave it to the Queen's Speech, which is not so very far away. If he and his Chief Whip
  1176
  will agree, we will set aside one day of the debate on the gracious Speech to debate the National Health Service.
  Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, as one involved in the National Health Service, and as one of the many thousands of workers in the Service who are concerned with administration, may I say that I deeply and bitterly regret the words uttered by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, who is usually quite a moderate individual. On this occasion, his words will not assist the present unofficial industrial action taking place which —let us face it—can and will endanger human life. In my own hospital we are closing down the accident and emergency centre, and another hospital at Bromley is closing down its centre. Where are the extremely serious accident cases to go, in spite of the offer of consultants to give assistance where necessary? This is not a sad and sorry Statement. This is a Statement which has been long overdue, and the quicker this Royal Commission gets down to work and produces an interim Report the better it will be for the Service. But for Heaven's sake, at this stage of unrest in the Health Service, let us all get political bias out of it and deal with the real principles.
  Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
  Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: Noble Lords opposite can shout "Hear, hear!" but I well remember the opposition to the original Health Service, encouraged behind the scenes, and there is an insidious form of political bias being introduced into this present doctors' dispute.
  Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend one question? Without entering into the merits or demerits of the pay-bed controversy, can he explain why the proposed Royal Commission, which obviously has to deal with all aspects of the National Health Service, is excluded from consideration of one of the most fundamental principles involved? Would it not be better to exercise some restraint and leave the matter to the Royal Commission to come to some conclusion, or am I to understand that the Government are under some pressure from certain quarters to come to some conclusion on one iseue, leaving all the others to be dealt with by the Royal Commission?
  Lord BYERS: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to follow the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, because the point I want to make is about the terms of reference? I cannot help feeling that it is a great mistake to exclude the question of pay-beds from the terms of reference. I speak as a member of the Younger Commission on Privacy. In our terms of reference we were excluded from dealing with the public sector. We made representations both to Mr. Callaghan and Mr. Maudling, but we were told that we could not look at privacy in the public sector. This inhibited our inquiries, the evidence that we could take, and in my view did not allow us to do justice to what we were meant to be doing. This is not a matter of Party politics, but speaking as one who served on one of these Committees I can say that it is terribly frustrating not to be allowed to deal with the whole subject, as the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, says.
  Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, in reply to my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Byers, as the Statement made clear this was a clear commitment by the Government to deal with the whole question of pay beds within the National Health Service. The Statement refers to when time is available for the consideration of legislation, but equally the Statement refers to the borderline between the National Health Service and private practice, and on the contribution which we expect and want private practice to make. The Royal Commission has its terms of reference, it is for them to interpret them, but I could not indicate to your Lordships that the Government can avoid the clear commitment they made during 1974 in this respect. This is a matter which will be open to Parliament to consider when legislation is produced.
  Lord WOLVERTON: My Lords, may I ask just one question. Is there any time limit as to when the Royal Commission is to report?—because these things take a terribly long time. There was the very important question of the rating. The Layfield Committee was given 18 months, and it hopes to report at the end of this year. We hope it will do good, but is there to be any time limit by which it should report?
  Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, in view of the public concern there is clearly
  1178
  a need for an early report, but Royal Commissions are what they are and one cannot put a time limit upon their considerations. Of course it would be open, as I see it, to a Royal Commission to make an interim report should it so wish.
  Lord REIGATE: My Lords, would not all sources of finance for the National Health Service come automatically within the terms of reference for the Commission, including, for example, prescription charges, which an earlier Labour Government promised to abolish, did abolish, and then brought back?
  Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, the terms of reference refer to the management of financial and manpower resources of the National Health Service. The resources that are available to the Service are very much those of the Government, and in this time of financial stringency I should not have thought that any noble Lord would feel that this is a matter that should go beyond the authority of the Government.
  Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that pay beds go to the root of the problem? May I ask him, echoing the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, why they have been excluded from the terms of the Royal Commission? They were accepted by the brilliant creator of the National Health Service, the late Aneurin Bevan. They have played a great part in the development of the National Health Service, and why should they be excluded altogether from the terms of reference by the Government?
  Baroness LEE of ASHERIDGE: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, may I say that in In Place of Fear published in 1952, the statement is clearly made by Aneurin Bevan that the pay beds should be faded out and replaced with amenity beds because he, like, I should say, all Members of your Lordships' House, had a great concern for privacy and the need for privacy. So far as the pay bed issue is related to privacy, that was covered. There are other elements which we can discuss, I hope, when we have a full day's debate.
  Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I can only say to the noble Lord that I disagree with him wholeheartedly that the question of pay beds is central to the problem of the National Health Service.

  1179
  In my view it is essentially resources. There is today great opportunity, great knowledge, great advances, particularly in the field of technology. There is a real sense that much more could be done for the patient than is now being done solely because resources are not available. I believe that this goes well beyond the sense of grievance that there may be over pay. This is a matter which, I think, lies at the very heart of the Royal Commission. It is a question of how those resources should be used, and whether one should look again at the bureacracy that is being created by the recent reorganisation of the National Health Service. Having said that, I think that one should not create even more problems of morale by suggesting yet another change, but in my view the resources available and what could be done if the resources were available are at the heart of the problem.
  Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, am I right in thinking that under the Standing Orders of this House it is not permissible to debate a Government Statement unless there is a Motion that such a debate should take place?
  Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, my noble friend is, as usual, right. But it is one of the sins of your Lordships' House that what may be the rule is usually broken. So long as it is not broken too violently, we somehow accept it. But the noble Baroness has given me the opportunity to suggest that we move to the next business.

  TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL
  4.16 p.m.
  Consideration of Commons Message continued.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT TO LORDS AMENDMENT NO. 10
  [No. 12]
  In subsection (1), in line 8, leave out ("rules of conduct") and insert ("practical guidance").
  Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, in another place there was discussion as to whether the words "rules of conduct" should remain in the Bill. These are words that were in the Houghton Amendment, and after debate it was agreed that the words "practical guidance" should
  1180
  be inserted in place of the words "rules of conduct". The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, in Amendment No. 14A uses these very words. I hope therefore that since the noble Lord and I stand together I need say nothing further in support of this Amendment. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12 to the Lords Amendment No. 10. —(Lord Shepherd.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT TO LORDS AMENDMENT NO. 10
  [No. 13]
  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 publish any article) and the question of access for contributors.")
  Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I suggest that I make a brief speech on this Amendment, and then if the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, would wish to speak to his Amendment No. 13A—I understand for procedural reasons he cannot move it until we have finally disposed of Amendment No. 13—we could have the general debate on it. The original Amendment included in the Bill in your Lordships' House at Committee stage defined the scope of the charter as matters relating to the freedom of the Press, which included such matters as the avoidance of improper pressures to distort or suppress news, comment, or criticism, and the application of union membership agreements to journalists. If my memory is right, criticism centred not on what was included in what should be regarded as the terms of reference for the charter, but what was not mentioned. The Government themselves proposed in another place that specific reference be made to the position of editors, and of access for contributors. I think that all will agree that these are two of the most important problem areas.
  However, honourable Members in another place thought that even this was not specific enough, and would not give those responsible for the drawing up of the charter clear enough guidance as to what it should contain. The Government therefore accepted a further

  1181
  Amendment, which is why Amendment No. 13 comes to your Lordships this afternoon in this particular form. I think that your Lordships will agree that in the process of scrutiny and debate in another place, the Amendment previously tabled in your Lordships' House has been much improved, so that we can be assured that the provisions of the charter will adequately cover the full range of problems about which so much concern has been expressed. There is a slight misprint in the Amendment that is to be proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, in that the word "new" should be "news". I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 13.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 13 to the Lords Amendment No. 10.—(Lord Shepherd.)
  Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, rises to speak, may I mention first—and I should like the guidance of the Leader of the House on this—that it appears from the supplementary sheet that Amendment No. 13A is not to be moved at all and that No. 13B will be moved? This information was given to me at about 12.45 p.m. today. Assuming I am right about that first point, which I hope I am, may I ask this further question? Am I right—I think I am—in supposing that No. 13B cannot be formally moved or voted upon if we accept Government Amendment No. 13; in other words, that before No. 13B could be formally moved and voted upon, No. 13 must itself be rejected?
  Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is quite right. A decision must be taken on No. 13 before there could be a formal proposal in regard to Nos. 13A or 13B.
  Lord GOODMAN: May I clarify the position, my Lords, in regard to Amendments Nos. 13A and 13B? I should perhaps say, and I do so in no spirit of rancour or hostility, that there has been quite exceptional haste in bringing this matter from the other place to your Lordships' House. In the result, the debate in the other place terminated on the morning of Thursday last, and pre-
  1182
  sumably no complete Hansard was available until Saturday morning. My colleagues and I—the noble Earl, Lord Drogheda, the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, and others—worked very hard in the intervening period to try, first to ascertain the precise nature of the Amendments that had been moved in the other place; secondly, to try to understand their implication by reading the speeches that had been made in support of them; and, finally, to produce an Amendment which would deal with our attitude to the matter. We ultimately telephoned our lengthy Amendment to the House of Lords on Friday evening. It was taken down by very willing and sympathetic staff and it would be wrong if I did not pay a high tribute to the staff here in having got it as clear as they have in all the circumstances, and they have been at it all the time. But the fact remains that the Amendment contains a number of clerical errors that have been put right in a manuscript Amendment which is No. 13B.
  We had to consider some very important, crucial, legal implications in the remedies which we sought to attach to the infraction of any rights which your Lordships' House may in the end decide to bestow in relation to the charter. This was a difficult and delicate matter. We produced a scheme for doing it, with the advice of learned lawyers. That I believed, and continue to believe, could and would be effective and might not outrage the sensibilities of those who at the moment take a rather hostile view of the intervention of legalities any more than is absolutely unavoidable. But on looking at these clauses again in the short time that has been available, it is clear that we should not attempt to rush legislation of this kind without a further opportunity for consideration and discussion. Hence, I invite the Leader of the House—and I do not think this is a matter on which there is likely to be much difference—to agree that we adjourn this debate when we reach and conclude Amendment No. 14, so that we have an opportunity for better consideration of the subsequent Amendments which involve the legal implications. I think that would he fair to both sides of the House and would give us a better opportunity of arriving at the correct solution.
  Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has just said, perhaps I might say that approaches were made to me by him and by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, the Leader of the Opposition, in respect of Amendments Nos. 16, 16A and 16B. I imagine that quite a number of noble and learned Lords would be very interested to have clarification of Amendment No. 16 and therefore I think the delay, which I am very ready to agree to, will be useful. Therefore, I propose to the House—and, in the end, we are very much in the hands of the House—that we take our deliberations this afternoon up to Amendment No. 14A and then adjourn to other business, leaving it to the two Chief Whips, through the usual channels, to consider the date of our next meeting for the consideration of this final stage of the Commons message. I do so with a degree of hesitation, because a large number of noble Lords have made a special effort to be here this afternoon, but I am persuaded that this is a matter of very great importance and it would be wrong to rush it. However, I would not accept in any way the criticism that the Government have rushed our business because, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, knows, nothing is done in your Lordships' House without a high degree of consent between the channels as to the business that is before the House.
  Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I support what the noble Lord the Leader of the House and the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, have said, but I should like to put one gloss on it. The reason why I am supporting it is that I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and my noble and learned friend behind me are not totally satisfied that Amendment No. 16B, paragraph (c), does what it is supposed to do. We on these Benches feel it very important that before we accept any Amendment from another place or the Reasons for the rejection of any of our Amendments in another place, we should substitute for that Amendment either one that is adequate or stick to the original Amendment. Consequently, I think it right, because we feel so strongly on this matter, that we should adjourn this debate in order that we are absolutely certain, and the noble Lord. Lord Goodman, and my noble and learned friend behind me are certain, that we
  1184
  have an adequate substitute or we stick to the original Amendment. I also hope very much that we will go as far as the end of Amendment No. 14 and perhaps come to a conclusion this afternoon on the Amendment which, if I am right, the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, is now going to propose.
  Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, I do not think anything more need be said—
  Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was appealing to the House to go as far as Amendment No. 14, perhaps I might suggest that we go to No. 14A.
  Lord CARRINGTON: Certainly, my Lords.
  Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, I do not think anything more need be said about who was or was not responsible for the speed with which this matter arrived. Here it is and we have to deal with it. I, too, very much regret if noble Lords have made inconvenient journeys and will have to return; the only justification one can urge is that I do not think a more important matter has come for consideration before your Lordships' House, and that being so it may well be considered to be worth an extra journey. I am, of course, inviting your Lordships to reject Amendment No. 13, to ignore No. 13A and to accept No. 13B. To enable noble Lords to do this with the degree of comprehension and understanding which one normally associates with your Lordships' House, I had better explain what Amendment No. 13B is. It is almost identical to No. 13A, except that it makes sense of certain clerical errors. Paragraph (a) is the same, but (b) reads:
  "the application of union membership agreements to journalists including the right of journalists not to he 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 joint a trade union".
  The only other alteration is that in paragraph (c) the word "material" appears at the end. I shall also read paragraph (d) as there was also some confusion about that. It reads:
  "The assurance (subject only to editorial discretion) of access to the press of all contributors at all times."
  That is the present text of Amendment No. 13B.

  1185
  First, I should like to say that I am very appreciative indeed—and it would be churlish and ungenerous of me not to say this—of the efforts made by members of the Government, and particularly by what I believe to be called the Manifesto Group to secure improvements along the lines we are seeking here to the form and character of the legislation. It is not surprising that there was a protracted interval of time between the departure of the Amendments from this House and the conclusion of the discussions in the other place and their return here. As your Lordships will know, the members of the Manifesto Group discussed the matter in an anxious fashion. They were deeply conscious of the difficulties and dangers which arose and they were anxious to secure that, so far as possible, those difficulties and dangers should be obviated. I am not ungrateful for those efforts, and they are to some extent reflected in the present Amendment No. 13 which I am perhaps rather ungratefully inviting your Lordships to reject.
  However, I can say that Amendment No. 13B contains all the virtues that are to be found in Amendment No. 13, together with a number of additions and clarifications which are designed to reinforce that provision, to clarify matters of doubt and to make sure that what have been put in as items for discussion in the proposed charter are now included as heads that have to be incorporated in it, whatever else may be included in it as a matter of agreement between the parties. That is the difference, and there are fundamental and vital differences.
  The first point to which I wish to draw attention is that in the other place an Amendment was proposed by Government supporters that the editors should be immune from an obligation to join a trade union. This was resisted and was defeated on the somewhat strange and, I cannot help feeling, unsubstantial ground suggested by the Secretary of State that such a proposal had overtones of anti-unionism. I do not know whether I am quite clear what the Secretary of State meant by that, but I wish to say this. No proposal emanating from me or from my colleagues has, or is intended to have, any overtones, undertones or tones of anti-unionism. Our proposals have nothing to do with anti-unionism.
  1186
  During the last six or seven years, in the period when I have held a formal office in the newspaper industry, I have enjoyed an excellent relationship with the trade unions. There are people here —one of whom seems to have taken his leave—who could probably testify to that better than most. I can also say that in the last few months the willingness of trade unions to co-operate in matters crucial to the industry was responsible, in my view, for the fact that we were able to save a newspaper, at least for the time being. Nothing else could have saved that newspaper except their willingness and co-operation in the reduction of a substantial number of people who had voluntarily to give up their jobs—and a more difficult and painful thing one cannot imagine—to enable the newspaper to continue and to remain for the time being at least, and we hope indefinitely, a viable concern.
  That could not have been done without the total co-operation of the trade unions concerned. As far as the journalists were concerned, it went beyond co-operation and negotiation in that all the journalists who had to leave left as volunteers. They did not ask to negotiate, but suggested that they would decide among themselves who should go. Those who were going were putting before their own livelihood and their own interests the survival and salvation of the newspaper and they agreed to leave without any difficulty.
  It would be wrong in a debate of this kind to suggest that there is necessarily constant difficulty, asperity and conflict between union and management. That is by no means true. What is happening today is a different matter. What and whom we are concerned with is a quite different matter. There have been suggestions about my concern and I was happy to see that the Secretary of State, who is a very old friend of mine, generously acknowledged that he did not think I was concerned on behalf of newspaper proprietors and publishers: he thought I was concerned on my own behalf alone. I do not know how far that was intended to be ironical, but I would rather be concerned on my own behalf than on behalf of a collection of newspaper proprietors, publishers or other amorphous groups. I will say this. I

  1187
  am not concerned on my own behalf alone. I am concerned on behalf of a considerable number of editors, a very considerable number of journalists who indicated their support for me, and a vast number of members of the public who indicated their support for me. I do not know of any issue with which I have been concerned that has given rise to greater disquiet on the part of the members of the public about what may happen if this legislation passes unamended.
  Hence, we return to the Amendment and to the proposal which had overtones of anti-unionism. If I may say so, that has nothing to do with the question of whether editors do or do not belong to unions. Editors are not, in my belief, anti-union and the notion that they should not belong to unions is not founded on any objection to unions, but on the fact that there is a conflict between the functions of an editor and the possible operation of union activities at certain times. Hence, the editor feels that he should not be a member of the union and that that conflict should not arise. It is commonplace in most industries that the managerial elements do not belong to the unions.
  The problem can be solved in a number of ways. I remember, and experts in the trade union field here will remember, that some years ago there was litigation on this subject relating to the film industry. The matter was happily resolved in connection with directors, producers and those who did the "hiring and firing", as they used to say, by an agreement that those people should join a union, pay their subscription to a union charity and hang up their cards during the period when there was a conflict of inconsistency between what they were doing and union membership. These matters can be dealt with between persons of good will without the slightest difficulty.
  Hence, there is no reason why anyone should insist that, as a matter of law, an editor should be a member of a union and every reason why people should accept that, as a matter of law, he should not be a member of a union. But he can make such gestures of good will and friendship and take up such attitudes towards the union as to ensure that the problem does not arise and that no one believes that there is an overtone of anti-unionism in his stance. As a result, I had
  1188
  included the right of an editor not to be a member of a union. I do not feel that there is anything especially provocative, unusual or wrong in that.
  The second point which was excluded from what I might call the "Manifesto Amendment" relates to the fact that we have made sure that, if, as has been agreed, there is to be a charter—and here I should interpolate that I stated in one of our debates that I was a very muted supporter and admirer of charters, but that I now accept that this is water under the bridge, though in any case my personal attitude in these matters is unimportant —that charter shall contain provisions relating to the conduct of newspapers which shall be agreed between the unions concerned and the proprietors and every other element connected with the running of newspapers. What we are concerned to ensure is that that charter should contain the matters that they agree and not those that anyone else agrees.
  We are especially concerned that the charter should not be framed, produced or activated by any Government Minister. It is absolutely wrong that in a free society the Press should be directed, dictated to and guided by any document, charter or rescript that comes from a Minister of the Government. The Press must remain a free Press making its own decisions among all the members. If it cannot make a decision on a point, the matter can be adjourned as matters have been adjourned for year after year until it is able to reach a decision. But our Amendment provides that the matters that are to be dealt with are those which arc specifically referred to in this Amendment and any other matters that are freely agreed between the negotiating parties.
  This to us is a very crucial Amendment, and one upon which we should find it difficult, in fact impossible, to compromise. We will not agree that the Press is to be under the decree of any governmental organisation, institution or Minister; and this is no criticism of any Government or Minister. It is simply an indication of what we regard as tolerable in a free society in relation to one of its most important institutions.
  We then come to another Amendment, which we have inserted, which has been the subject of controversy but ought not to be. It provides that a journalist, if he has to join a union under the closed

  1189
  shop provisions—and we are not seeking to dispute or argue about the closed shop provisions, because that again is water under the bridge and it is not for us to reopen issues that have been accepted both in the other place and here—should be a member of the union of his choice.
  That obscure phrase translates into a very simple fact. There are two journalistic unions. There is the National Union of Journalists, which is a small union of some 20,000-odd members, and there is the Institute of Journalists, an even smaller union with some 3,000 or 4,000 members. Some of your Lordships may remember—some of you will remember very closely; particularly, at least, one person here—that one of the problems of the Munich Agreement that made it very difficult for the parties who reached agreement to know what was to be done was the continued embarrassing intervention of the State of Czechoslovakia. Every time a happy agreement could be reached as to what was to be done that State inconveniently reminded the parties concerned that it was still there and wanted to survive. The Institute of Journalists is playing a similar role in this matter. Instead of lying down and dying, contentedly and without any fuss, the members of it rear their heads frequently and tell us that they are not going to die and that they ought to be kept alive by humane and considerate people. I venture to agree with them.
  There is absolutely no reason, certainly no more reason, why that institute should be destroyed than that the State of Czechoslovakia was destroyed. It would be quite inappropriate to discuss that historical episode. But we are not going to repeat history by the wanton assassination of a free, worthwhile union to which 4,000-odd people wish to belong and wish to join, without giving it the opportunity of survival in debate and discussion. The Institute of Journalists has a loyal membership who want to remain members of that Institute. There appears to be no reason within the closed shop provisions why this union should not be allowed to survive. It may well be that we shall be told about the terrible possibilities of disruption if small unions remain in existence alongside large unions. But I venture to point out that in no case is there a large union here at all.
  1190
  There has never been any problem in relation to the Institute of Journalists. I am not entitled to speak for that Institute, but my recollection is that it goes alongside the National Union of Journalists when it comes to wage negotiations. The members of the Institute have very sensibly tethered themselves to their big brothers on this matter, and the Institute ensures that its members are paid at identical rates. There is no problem that I can see in leaving this union alone, except the tragic quest for consistency which I believe is at the root of all this trouble. What is at the root of all this trouble is a belief that what one person has ever body has to have, and a failure to recognise that a sensible exception often has to be made in a scheme and code of behaviour which otherwise relates to everybody.
  Journalists are not so much different animals, but their product is a different product. I remember that during the earlier debate I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, whether I thought that journalists were superior and loftier creatures than ordinary people who worked on a shop floor. My answer is very simple; I do not. I like journalists. Many of them are fine intellectual creatures, but some of them are not. But the fact remains that what they do has this difference from what other people do: they all do something totally different. East produces a commodity that bears no resemblance to the other commodity. Hence one cannot apply industrial rules to these activities without having a very clear line of demarcation between the activities concerned.
  This is what we are pleading for. We are pleading for a recognition that the attempt is being made to impose a uniform code which may be appropriate for everybody to a sphere of activity for which it is manifestly not appropriate. Hence we want to keep the two unions alive. Hence we want to ensure that the editors do not belong—unless they wish to do so, or unless suitable safeguards are inserted—to trade unions. Hence we want to ensure that no union, be it the Institute of Journalists or be it the National Union of Journalists, is able to provide that a man capable of writing, enjoying the resources of writing, able to work as a journalist, should be excluded by a union of that size and in

  1191
  circumstances where an arbitrary exclusion arises.
  The danger to journalism, the danger to the Press, and the danger to a free society of excluding a man from the exercise of this particular craft cannot be over-estimated, and does not need to be delineated to a body as politically conscious and understanding as this particular Chamber. We must recognise that if people are once allowed to be excluded from the faculty of writing, to be excluded from performing their duties in the function of preparing newspapers, on the arbitrary decision of anybody—it does not matter who it—isthen we are on the way towards dangers which need no underlining and do not have to be brought into relief in relation to your Lordships' House.
  I have not for one moment made any suggestions of impropriety or of a dictatorship, or of arbitrary behaviour against the National Union of Journalists or any of its members. I do not believe that it is either necessary to do so or that I could justify them to any great extent or depth. But I do believe that the dangers inherent in a legislative code to give the arbitrary right of exclusion to any small union are so vast and so great that we are not entitled to take them. That is why we have conducted this fight tenaciously—many people believe obstinately; some people may believe mulishly; and we are going to continue to conduct it until we have lost the battle conclusively, or until we believe the kind of reason that we consider ought to be introduced into this situation is recognised by the people who hold the reins of power.
  Those are the terms of this particular Amendment. I do not think that there is much more I need say about it. The elements that were approved in the other place through the activities of the Manifestos, with, I understand, the acceptance of the Secretary of State—ultimately the willing acceptance—are all embodied here. There are clarifications and there are extensions. But they do nothing fundamentally to alter the situation. I earnestly hope that now the Government will be able to say that they accept Amendment No.
  1192
  13B. It may show that they have to accept it as being some variation from the entirely consistent approach for which they were yearning. They may have to accept it on the basis that they would prefer that it was not there but by accepting it they cannot see that it will do any damage comparable to the fears and apprehensions that we entertain if it is refused.
  Therefore I ask that the voice of reason should enter into these matters. We have been told that we are on the threshold of a constitutional crisis. May I say a word about constitutional crises. I am not a constitutional lawyer, and I have never participated in a constitutional crisis. It makes me feel immensely proud and important to be involved in such a role. If, in fact, I should go down in history as the person responsible for the abolition of your Lordships' House, I can only say that my deep regret would be tinctured by a recognition that at least I should have achieved fame in a fashion in which I have no hopes of any kind.
  I ask the Leader of the House and members of the Government to consider whether there is not the slightest vestige of a justification, in decency or anything else, for suggesting that this issue ought to provoke a constitutional crisis. It is not a political issue. It is an issue about freedom. Most people would believe that there should be a constitutional crisis if the roles were reversed; if the arguments that I am presenting were being presented by the other place and we were resisting them.
  The proposals were advanced by a very modest majority when the Bill first came to us. My Amendments were defeated by 16 votes. The House of Lords—this Chamber—passed my Amendments by about 120 votes to about 60 votes, if my recollection serves. There was a majority from all sides of the House, including several Members from the Government Benches, and there were substantial abstentions in their Benches, as was quite evident from the numbers concerned. It is perfectly clear that there was a large section of our House, and substantial numbers of the other place, who felt deep disquiet and concern about this matter. It took the Secretary of State I do not know how many months—I think it was something like four months—in order to

  1193
  muster his forces in sufficient order to bring this matter back to the Floor of the House and take his vote.
  Could it seriously be suggested on this issue that the Peers are against the people and that we are frustrating the will of the people? I must say that I should be very slow indeed to wish to frustrate the will of the people. Whatever jocular remarks I have made, I should feel deep shame if I were seeking to assert an unconstitutional right against a democratically elected Assemby. But there are circumstances when it is perfectly clear that everything possible must be done to give people who seem to us to be doing something so evidently wrong a period for further discussion and further reflection. That is what we are trying to do, and trying to do constitutionally according to the rights which we possess under the legislation which now exists.
  Hence I hope that we shall hear nothing about constitutional crises and that we shall not have the rather unedifying threats that were uttered previously about how we were going to be joined by great numbers of new arrivals who would stream in through the doors and render it necessary for all of us to sit on the floor; or how the place is going to be abolished. If it is, let it be. If that is the sort of provocation which would cause the Government to abolish this place, then the sooner it is abolished the better. I am obliged to your Lordships.
  4.52 p.m.
  Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if, with the permission of the House, I were to rise at this stage to reply to the noble Lord. I think I require that permission, but in the light of the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, it may be helpful to the House if I were to express the Government's view of the Amendment. Perhaps I may say to him that I do not see a constitutional crisis at this moment, and I hope that the common sense of your Lordships' House will see that the noble Lord does not enjoy the distinction in historical records that he and his royal "we's" created a constitutional crisis. The noble Lord will know—
  The Earl of BALFOUR: My Lords, may I please interrupt?
  Several Noble Lords: No!
  Lord SHEPHERD: I am in the course of my speech. My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, knows that many of us, in many different places, have been meeting to see whether we can arrive at an agreed solution to this problem of the Press, which arose unexpectedly when the Government were seeking to put back the law to what it was prior to 1971; and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, will commend me to your Lordships' House as being one of the first to take steps to see whether, within this Chamber, we could arrive at a formula which would ensure the freedom of the Press, because in my view that was not an issue between us at all. I have to say that Amendment No. 13A or Amendment No. 13B, whichever we are looking at, becomes more important and more doubtful, certainly from my point of view, as to what hostility I should show to it because Amendments 16A and 16B are now being postponed to another day, because clearly the penal sanctions or the procedures, whatever may be adopted or agreed to by the noble Lord before he puts his Amendment down, are bound to have great significance when considering the rights that we are putting into legislation.
  On this I will be brief, because I think the issue is a very simple one. We recognise the difficulties. We recognise the apprehensions of those who saw problems in the way of the freedom of the Press because of the legislation proposed. It was to the credit of my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby that he came forward on his own initiative with a charter. It was not quite his, but at least he took the initiative in bringing it to your Lordships' House. If my memory serves me aright, the original thought of a charter was that of Mr. Hetherington, the editor of the Guardian. We regarded such a charter as a useful way to overcome the problem, but from the very beginning (and here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodman) we saw this very much as a matter for both sides of the industry—on the one side the employers and the editors and, on the other side, the journalists. It was only with reluctance that we agreed to the proposition of my noble friend that the Secretary of State should at any stage have a position in the matter, but we recognised that if the two sides were unable to agree then clearly the importance was such that the Secretary of State

  1195
  would have to intervene—and, with the noble Lord, I hope that this will never arise.
  But, my Lords, we took the view then and we still take the view now—we are not shaken in it in any way whatsoever —that this is a matter for both sides of the industry and that it is not for us at this stage, other than having said that there should be a charter or a code of practice, to say what should be in it. That is a matter for both sides of the industry. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, says that we must not have Ministerial responsibility and that we must leave it to the industry: yet he is coming to your Lordships' House this afternoon and is saying to both sides of the industry: "You are to get round the table you are to agree to a code of practice or to a charter, but you have to put this in, this in, this in and this in by way of terms of rights". My Lords, it may be that both sides will not wish to have these rights established, but they will be precluded from expressing that wish if your Lordships' House accepts the Amendment on the Order Paper.
  My Lords, this is an important matter. It is something that concerns all those who are the guardians of the freedom of the Press—the employers, the owners, the editors, the journalists and all those others who produce newspapers. They are all an integral part of the freedom of the Press. If they are to be the guardians of the freedom of the Press they are not going to fill that position because of something that is written into a Statute. It will come about only by their agreeing to the proper provisions, and if you want the proper provisions you do not start off by saying to those who have to negotiate, "You must put that in, that in. that in and that in". That is not the way to arrive at a code of practice acceptable in spirit and in purpose by all sides of industry. For that reason, I would beg your Lordships' House, in the spirit of being constructive, not to agree to Amendment No. 13A.
  Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I rise to support Amendment No. 13 and to oppose Amendment No. 13B. I shall not refer to any possibility of a constitutional crisis. The noble
  1196
  Lord, Lord Goodman, who raised the matter, seemed to revel in being at the centre of a possible constitutional crisis, and then said, "I hope we shall hear no more about it". I hope we shall hear no more about it, because as long as time and opportunity remain to discuss the merits of this matter then it is on them, I think, that your Lordships' House should concentrate.
  There is a large area of agreement now. I think one of the duties of your Lordships' House is to send back to another place matters upon which there is serious disquiet and to invite the other place to give further consideration to their proposals. Your Lordships' House did this months ago, and the intervening period has, I think, been usefully employed, both in informal discussions and in discussions in another place, with a view to overcoming the difficulties that arose.
  The result is that there is now a large measure of agreement. We are agreed on ultimate aims—there is no doubt about that. We are all for the freedom of the Press; we are all for the liberty of the editor to publish his views and comments on the events of the day. We are agreed on a charter; we are agreed on 12 months of voluntary discussion to try to reach agreement upon it; and, although certain matters of a legal nature are reserved for further consideration and later discussion, it looks as if there is going to be no serious disagreement on them, either.
  So what is the area of dispute between the two sides of the House? The area of dispute is the nature of the stipulations and conditions which shall be required of an agreed code, if one is reached, or of a code introduced by the Secretary of State himself if agreement is not reached. This is the area of dispute; and although my noble friend Lord Goodman said that he had said nothing against the National Union of Journalists —it was not apparently for him to do so and there might not be evidence to support criticisms even though he made them—I am going to assert that the root of this matter is mistrust of the NUJ. That is the root of the matter. Let us face it and deal with it frankly.
  My Lords, nothing was heard about the freedom of the Press in this context

  1197
  when earlier Bills were before the House a year ago. The proposals that were discussed in connection with the July 1974 Act apparently did not arouse grave concern about the freedom of the Press. It seems to me that the mistrust about the National Union of Journalists has arisen since and that fears of the so-called militants and the militant policy emerging from the NUJ have gathered force over the last 12 months. We all know that the 1974 Bill and the 1974 Act did not deal directly or particularly with the newspaper industry. It dealt in general with problems arising from the repeal of the 1971 Act in relation to unfair dismissal. That was the sole point on which the 1974 Act was concentrating in this particular connection. It is only because of the need to re-enact that part of the 1971 Act which deals with unfair dismissal that we get this matter before this House at all.
  My Lords, if the Government had chosen, the 1974 Bill and the 1974 Act could have remained completely silent on whether dismissal in a closed shop situation was fair or unfair dismissal. They could have left it to the pre-1971 situation when the courts decided each case on its merits. But the Government decided, I think rightly, to make it clear that when dealing with re-enactment of the provisions of the 1971 Act a dismissal by an employer of a worker for refusal to join a union or on account of exclusion from a union in a closed shop situation would not be unfair dismissal. That is the beginning of the freedom of the Press issue. All of this campaign about Press freedom relates to what I have just described and centres solely upon the possible actions of the NUJ. Nothing else—nothing else but that!
  My Lords, what is this threat to the editors? What is that fear? Why is it that these stipulations are sought in the code of conduct, in the practical guide? Why this stipulation? Why not leave it to voluntary negotiation, with the Secretary of State as a longstop at the end of 12 months if they fail to reach agreement? It is because my noble friend Lord Goodman wants to tie up people before they begin. He wants to tie them up on the basis of four assumptions. With regard to the whole of the Press freedom issue, the threat to editors, the destruction of one of our sacred institutions and all the rest of it of which we read so
  1198
  much, who will appear in the Press tomorrow as the defender of the faith? My noble friend Lord Goodman will be the defender of the faith; the Opposition case will scarcely get a mention. It did not get a mention before and I do not suppose it will do so again. The hero of the last occasion was my noble friend Lord Goodman who in persuasive tones put across a theoretical case which completely ignored the brutal facts of the situation.
  My Lords, the four assumptions upon which this stipulation is based are these. First, it is assumed that the NUJ will press for a closed shop. There may be grounds for believing that; there may be substantial grounds for an assumption that the NUJ will try to establish the same right as all other unions: that of negotiating with their employers a closed shop. The second assumption is that having got a closed shop, in Fleet Street or in the provincial newspapers or in both, it is assumed that the closed shop agreement reached with the employers will provide no safeguard for the position of editors. That is the assumption here; that a closed shop situation will be conceded to the NUJ—and they are the only union who can ask for it—that it will be conceded to them; and that the employers and the union will agree on a closed shop situation which leaves the editors out on a limb. That is the second assumption.
  Following upon that, it is assumed that if there is a closed shop and if there is an industrial dispute, the NUJ will summon the editors (who have presumably been forced into the closed shop arrangements) to a meeting; that they will declare industrial action and will call upon the editors to obey it. The next assumption is that if the editors refuse, if they claim the right to edit their newspapers without coercion and without undue pressure from the union, the dissident editors might be expelled from the NUJ. The next assumption is that the editors having been expelled from the NUJ, the newspaper proprietors will turn to them and say: "We are sorry, but now that you have been excluded from the NUJ, in a closed shop situation, we cannot continue to employ you without further industrial disruption. We must dismiss you. You will have no claim to compensation because the Act says that this will not be unfair dismissal."

  1199
  My Lords, that is the sequence of events which lies behind this stipulation in Amendment No. 13B; so that we are dealing with circumstances which cannot arise at all unless the parties concerned have first agreed upon a closed shop situation. One surely would presume when the proprietors were negotiating, if they were negotiating, a closed shop situation with the NUJ that they—if nobody else—would take steps to try to protect the position, the liberty and the freedom of the editors. Even if the unions showed no signs of wanting to do so, surely the employers in reaching a closed shop agreement would themselves wish to reserve the position of the editors. They could agree with the NUJ that the editor need not even be a member of the NUJ. It has already been decided that a closed shop agreement, which leaves certain people out of an obligation to join a union, does not vitiate the validity of the closed shop agreement itself.
  So we are asked to believe that the proprietors would be so weak and helpless that they themselves could make no stand for Press freedom. They are asking Parliament to make the stand which they presumably feel too weak to make themselves. Are we to believe that the proprietors would, either voluntarily or under duress, sign away the reasonable freedom of their editors and throw them to the wolves? Where are these newspaper proprietors in your Lordships' House today who will get up and say that they are so weak-kneed, they so lack courage, they so lack fire, that they will sign away under a closed shop agreement the freedom of their own editors, and leave them exposed to the discipline of the union, with the consequence that they may lose their job without compensation?
  I find it incredible that, under the persuasive tones of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, these facts should be submerged. They should be brought out into the open. I do not believe that the newspaper proprietors are such poor creatures that they must come crying to Parliament to protect them from being bullied into surrender by the NUJ. Is this an unfair picture of the pitiful conditions of the proprietors cringing in fear in the shadow of the NUJ, that they must ask Parliament to establish beyond peradventure the free-
  1200
  dom of editors to write what they like, and commission the contributions they like? Is there no freedom except that established by law? After all, the proprietors own the newspapers. They have interfered with editorial freedom freely in the past. They have sacked editors because the editors have not done their bidding. If there is any stain on the hands of anybody today in regard to Press freedom, it is on the hands of the proprietors and not on the unions. The NUJ have surely earned greater confidence than this.
  One advantage of the delay that has taken place in finally resolving this matter is that the NUJ have had the opportunity of sorting themselves out. Some of the fears expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, earlier on perhaps had some foundation from the trends that could be discerned in the union at that time. But since then, the NUJ had a ballot—a most unusual occurrence in any union administration—to overturn the decision of their annual delegate conference and restore the authority and moderation of their executive council. Nobody would dare do that in my union! The NUJ have now come to a position where the moderate attitude of the executive council has been endorsed by ballot, and they themselves made it clear that they were not in favour of coercing editors or putting restraints upon their freedom to do their job.
  The hopes of a voluntary code, agreed by the parties concerned, stand higher today than before. My noble friend Lord Shepherd has surely put his finger on the spot. Let us put this to the test. This was intended to be a voluntary arrangement reached between those concerned in the industry. But knowing the difficulties that might arise, I provided for the Secretary of State to be required to come to Parliament with his own code in the event of a failure to agree within the industry itself. Whatever the outcome of the voluntary discussions on the code, the Secretary of State is in the background, and if all things fail he must bring a code before both Houses of Parliament. So we have the opportunity eventually in the unhappy event of disagreement between the parties concerned, of debating what it is the Secretary of State will propose for the guidance of the industry.

  1201
  When we embark upon an endeavour to get a voluntary agreement, we should try to go all the way to get voluntary co-operation. It is a great mistake psychologically to say that we want a voluntary agreement, but before we begin we are going to lay down conditions as to what that agreement must contain. I believe that these stipulations would seriously endanger getting voluntary discussions going at all. Amendment No. 13B prejudges and prejudices the negotiations. I believe that the Amendment is a recipe for failure to get a voluntary code. It thrusts the responsibility straight to the Secretary of State, because I do not think a union can accept the stipulations which are a reflection upon its attitude, its wisdom and its concern for the freedom of the Press; they are a reflection on the willingness of a union to behave in a statesmanlike and reasonable way.
  I do not want to be offensive, but I believe that the mentality behind the Industrial Relations Act 1971 is the mentality behind Amendment No. 13B. What a disaster the Industrial Relations Act was! I believe that it is a pompous claim for any noble Lord to make, and an impudent presumption on the part of this House, to be more concerned about the freedom of the Press than the members of another place or the members of the NUJ. I think it will be a profound mistake to persist in the mistrust of the NUJ. The code of practice has to be an agreed one, not one dictated by the NUJ. The editors and the proprietors have their part to play, and surely they do not lack ability or courage in discharging their duty. I do not think there is any need to impose these stipulations on the negotiations right at the outset. I believe it to be dangerous to do so.
  My final word is this. In matters of this kind, of deep concern, of complex psychological importance, of the sensitiveness of unions and the pride and dignity of members, what is required is wisdom. Given that, I believe that the outcome will be satisfactory and will vindicate the confidence that your Lordships' House have put in the parties concerned.
  Viscount BARRINGTON: Would the noble Lord explain—
  Several Noble Lords: No!
  5.20 p.m.
  Lord GIBSON: My Lords, in rising to support Amendment No. 13B, I want to say how much I regret, after all the serious efforts which have been made to find common ground, that there should still be this gap between the parties to this argument. I feel that noble Lords on our side of the argument have not been unreasonable. We have accepted that the job is to be done by charter and not by Statute. Our muted admiration for the charter, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, put it, has been tinged with warmth and we now repose some hope in it—but only if Parliament spells out what we regard as the fundamental freedoms which shall be incorporated in that charter. If that is not done, we shall be relying, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said, on negotiations, but the point is that we shall be doing that in regard to something which ought not to be negotiable. The noble Lord said that if, at the end of the day, the parties fail to agree the Secretary of State will be the long-stop. I can only say that I do not regard him as a very reliable long-stop. The gap between the parties is surely now small but it is certainly vital, and if it cannot be bridged it is a case of "a miss is as good as a mile".
  I must declare an interest, and it is a life-long interest. I am the chairman of a large group of newspaper and book publishers, and within that group I am also chairman of the Financial Times— a post held with great distinction until lately by the noble Earl, Lord Drogheda. For the first 20 years after the war I was occupied almost exclusively in newspaper work. Consequently, I have some bias, which I unhesitatingly and gladly admit —a bias in favour of the independence and authority of editors. I look upon it, together with the existence of a multiplicity of publications in which journalists and others can write, as the only guarantee of Press freedom. If editorial authority is not safeguarded we shall have editing by committee, and it is impossible to believe in the effectiveness of that. It leads neither to good editing nor to clearly-defined responsibility, which is hardly less important.
  Responsibility must lie in one pair of hands, and one pair of hands alone; and we must know whose they are. The irony of this is that we have all lived

  1203
  through a period during which proprietors had much too much control over what went into a paper, and sometimes over what did not go into the paper—and sometimes managers, too. In my early days, I played some part in trying to reverse that tendency. It has largely disappeared, and in the climate of today I do not regard it as a danger any longer. The danger now comes from those who urge a form of workers' control over the contents of a newspaper, which in practice would mean control of the editor of the paper by a syndicate of his staff, and not only his journalistic staff. The irony to me is that the editor, not long emancipated from control from above, is now in danger of control from below. That is why his right to publish or not to publish, to be a union member or not to be a union member, should at least be stated as fundamental to this charter, and stated by Parliament, even if it is not to be statutorily protected.
  I am, of course, interested not only in the rights of editors but also in the rights and freedom of journalists; but I put editors first, because editorial responsibility is a pre-condition for the freedom of the Press. There can be no responsibility without authority and independence, and indeed without free editors there can be no free journalists. Of course, a newspaper is a collective effort and a partnership of talents—any editor who does not recognise that fails—but the final responsibility must be that of the editor. The editor's freedom is the guarantee of the freedom of journalists and other writers, under-pinned as that freedom must be by the principles set out in the Amendment I am supporting. That is why I regard it as crucial, and am disappointed to learn that the Government are not prepared to accept it.
  Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, I did not intend to participate in this debate, but the more I listen to the eloquence of my noble friend Lord Houghton and the persuasive tones of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, the more confused and uneasy I become in my mind. When this matter was before your Lordships at an earlier stage, I was convinced that the Amendments proposed by your Lordships were in the national interest and therefore I voted for them against my Party. The matter has now
  1204
  gone back to another place and has been reconsidered over a period of some months. There have been certain adjustments and concessions from both sides. I do not think we have a constitutional crisis here, but I think there is certainly a constitutional issue involved and in these circumstances I shall support my Party, because I believe that the will of the elected Assembly ought to prevail.
  The Earl of DROGHEDA: My Lords, I should like to say only a very few words, commenting on what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said. He spoke with such moving eloquence that I felt he was almost carried away by it! I thought that he possibly ought to be saying that he opposed Amendment No. 13, because that Amendment itself goes some way towards indicating what the Secretary of State should include in the charter. All that the noble Lords, Lord Goodman and Lord Gibson, and I are trying to do is to have reinstated into the Bill the main protections for editors and journalists which were in the Bill when it left your Lordships' House. The arguments were gone over very fully at that time. We think that Amendment No. 13 greatly diminishes in clarity what we previously had to say, and I should like strongly to urge the House to support us when the Division takes place.
  5.27 p.m.
  Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, I should like very briefly—because my noble friend Lord Houghton has left me little to say—to make a few remarks in support of the Government's Amendment No. 13 and against the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, although I was very sympathetic to the noble Lord during the other debates on this matter.
  The phrase "freedom of the Press" is a very intoxicating phrase, and people usually go straight into the stratosphere when they talk about it. It is very heady stuff, and I myself have used it at the United Nations against Soviet delegates and delegates of East European countries. But when one sobers up and looks at freedom of the Press in this country, it is a quite different issue. I oppose the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, because I think the Government have gone an enormous way in meeting the request and the arguments put by the noble Lord in the original

  1205
  debate. They have accepted three out of the four issues which concern his present Amendment and although, as I say, the noble Lord can take credit for having acted as a catalyst in this matter, there is now no proper issue between those who support the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and those who support the Government. In fact, the Government have gone still further by introducing the charter. As for the arguments used during the debate in another place on this issue, when I read what had been said the arguments seemed to me to have dealt only with the abuses that might arise on remote issues. Therefore, I would think—and this is my final sentence—that to suggest or inaugurate the possibility of anything like a constitutional crisis between the two Houses would be not only wrong in principle but utterly disreputable on an issue such as this.
  Lord WINDLESHAM: My Lords, we have had a long discussion on these Amendments and are perhaps getting near the stage when a conclusion will be reached. I have listened to the whole of the debate, and hope that I have done so with an open mind. I am left mainly with two thoughts in my mind. The first is that despite what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said in a very eloquent speech, on any issue of this kind it is a mistake to form a decision on the basis of what we believe to be the motives of those to whom we are opposed. We must give credit to the advocates on both sides of this issue for believing that what they are proposing is the right course, and is in the interests of the Press and of the public as a whole.
  The second point—and it is a fundamental one—is that those of your Lordships who are going to vote, as I suspect we shall shortly, should address themselves to one question. It is a basic question, without Party overtones, and it is this. Is a free Press more likely to flourish under the arrangements proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, or by the arrangements proposed, after some give and take in an attempt to reach compromise, by the Government? I have no doubt in my own mind that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, is right and I hope he will stick to his Amendments.
  1206
  I can see the difficulties. I can understand the practical consequences which may flow from any decision on these lines. But I believe, after a great deal of thought and with some knowledge of the Press in this country, that it is more likely a free Press will be maintained in the future if some arrangements on the lines advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, are accepted.
  5.32 p.m.
  Lord PANNELL: My Lords, I should like to remind the House of what was accepted in the other place—the Amendment of one of the Manifesto Group concerning the right of editors to discharge their duties and publish any article. I do not know how anyone wants to go any further than that. It seems to me that all the rest that is wrapped up in this sort of business is vanity. I am not in any way impugning the good faith of those people who differ from me on this matter, but it is worth reminding the House that this Bill is about trade union relationships. The question of the freedom of the Press was brought in on a side wind. It was nothing at all to do with the original idea of the Bill. Our job to-night is to reconcile the right of a trade union to have a closed shop, which was denied to them under the Industrial Relations Act 1971, and the freedom of the Press. We have to take in both those because we had agreed to the closed shop. Nothing has been said this afternoon about the printing trade unions. The National Union of Journalists might not be the only bogey. These are the considerations.
  We are agreed that there should be a code. We are agreed that it should be set up within a period of 12 months. Surely there ought to be enough intelligence knocking about to set up what has been agreed to on good terms. We are agreed that failure to agree should be referred. We have also agreed that ultimately (and this has not been said) there is the Common Law to settle these matters. It seems to me that if we go any further than that we wrap up this issue in a lot of meaningless Mumbo-Jumbo. I do not want to say anything about the constitutional issue because, although I made some remarks about this place when I was in the other place, I still believe there is enough common sense here to avoid any constitutional crisis.
  Lord CUDLIPP: My Lords, I have one vested interest to declare: I am a member of the Institute of Journalists and was formerly a member of the National Union of Journalists. I have done various jobs in the newspaper world but am not doing any job at the present moment. The Bill I think will go down in history as the Cliff-hangers Bill or Goodman's Last Stand. I see a vision of a mournful monumental mason carving the epitaph on his Lordship's tombstone: The man who failed to defend the Press by Statute but succeeded in abolishing the House of Lords. There was an awful din as I saw this vision, somebody knocking on the coffin lid. It was of course his Lordship wishing to amend the monumental mason's description. But his campaign, and that of others in another place, has certainly not been in vain. Parliament and the public, and even journalists, have now been noisily alerted to the situation and the dangers.
  The Bill now sent here is a very different animal from that which first arrived. It looks, and is, better nourished. It falls short of enshrining on the Statute Book all the safeguards the noble Lord has fought for. But the orgy of Amendments to Amendments has achieved a great deal. Important concessions have been wrung from an unexpectedly reluctant Minister and nobody. surely, could seriously consider provoking a constitutional crisis over what remains. The torturer and the tortured would merely change places in a Parliamentary retribution. What could be achieved is a further delay of months in the enactment of a Bill to which the Government are absolutely committed. There could even be a situation in which the whole of the original Bill could be restored and the Amendments already achieved forgotten and wiped out. All that would be achieved by such an exercise is that another freedom would be lost as the price of one not gained.
  We are considering the Bill as it is and not as it was. As for the proposed charter, I hope it will protect editors not only from the 30 or 40 mindless, outlandish journalists who believe that a newspaper should be edited by a commune of 30 to 40 but also against the type of proprietor who believes that a
  1208
  newspaper should be edited by nobody at all and should merely be the tool of a proprietorial whim. Fortunately that breed is inactive at the moment, but I would not guarantee that it is extinct. I should reassure noble Lords opposite that such a conflict could never occur on the Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph because the noble Lord, Lord Hartwell, has judiciously arranged that there could never be any disagreement or conflict, with or without a charter, between the proprietorial chairman and the editor-in-chief of those newspapers. They are one and the same man, Lord Hartwell.
  In practice, of course, the policies of newspapers are not necessarily ordained by the man with the greatest knowledge or energy or newspaper cunning; it is frequently done by the man who can stay awake longer than anyone else. It is just like politics. And as now in politics, petticoat government has not been unknown in Fleet Street in the past. Of all the newspapers which have paid special attention to this controversy, The Times and the Guardian are reasonably satisfied with the progress made, and so am I. Only the Sunday Telegraph urges Members of this House to show more backbone than its newspaper contemporaries. I have always wondered whether cutting one's throat is necessarily a proof of possessing backbone. A more convincing way is standing up to be counted.
  In conclusion may I say this, my Lords. If the voluntary charter, or failing that the charter imposed by the Minister, does not go far enough; if it transpires that the additional Government concession, the creation of an independent tribunal to hear and adjudicate upon complaints, is not sufficient—if these things do not in practice afford sufficient protection for editors, that will not be the end of the battle. There are other ways and other days. The growing pressure for a new Bill of Rights is perhaps one of those ways.
  Lord WIGODER: My Lords, no question of any constitutional crisis, surely, arises at least at this juncture. The position is that Amendments have been sent by us to the other place; they have been replaced by fresh Amendments, and we

  1209
  are now considering those fresh Amendments together with a further Amendment that has been put down in substitution. Any question of a constitutional crisis at this moment, at any rate, is very far removed. The only other matter to which I venture to draw your Lordships' attention is this. The distinction between Amendment No. 13 which stands in the Government's name and Amendment No. 13B which stands in the name of the noble Lord. Lord Goodman, is a very limited distinction indeed. The list of matters in Amendment No. 13 which are to be referred to in the charter is included en bloc in Amendment No. 13B which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman.
  The only difference between the two Amendments is that Amendment No. 13B contains certain additional material. It contains three additional rights which it suggests are to be referred to in the charter: first, the right of a journalist not to be unreasonably excluded or expelled secondly, the right of a journalist to belong to the union of his choice; and, thirdly, the right of an editor, if he chooses, not to join a trade union. That is the only distinction between these two Amendments. It is the view of my noble friends on these Benches that those three rights, which are the additional rights in Amendment No. 13B, are self-evidently proper and correct. For that reason we shall support Amendment No. 13.
  Lord ARDWICK: My Lords, briefly may I point out that just as the representatives of management over there are united, so are the three editors and the four to five members of the National Union of Journalists on this side of the House. We are united behind the Government. I have worked with the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, on this controversy. I have also worked closely, although intermittently, with the editors as a member of the British Committee of the International Press Institute which has nothing at all to do with the Institute of Journalists. Although I have travelled the same route with the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, I have got off a few stops before him and I am sure that he will not be surprised today if I do not go to the end of the journey with him.
  1210
  As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has pointed out this afternoon, the militants in my own union, the National Union of Journalists, fought very successfully, powerfully and rightly for the economic justice which was not done to journalists in the post-War years, and eventually they got it. In many cases, however, the economic militants were also political militants and the danger was that they would use the muscle they had developed in the industrial field to secure editorial power. A closed shop that would include the editors was a step on the way. At first the Government did not see these dangers. They were remarkably insensitive to them. It was only as a result of the campaigns of the editors, the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and the help of my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby that the Government were persuaded to face reality. This they have now done.
  I have believed from the beginning that a compromise was possible. A compromise has now been offered and I accept it gladly. However, I accept it only because the moderate and liberal majority in my union has asserted itself. I have never doubted that the moderate and liberally-minded journalists were in the majority but I doubted whether they would have the will and the skill to insist that their views became union policy. This they have done quite remarkably and I am quite content that when the charter emerges it will be an adequate safeguard. I do not think that we need to go so far as the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, wants us to go in trying to obtain the kind of legal guarantee which he seeks. Indeed, it may militate against the production of a charter that is reached by happy co-operation.
  Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I have very little to say about this matter. I want to express—I think with the approval of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition—the hope that we might soon proceed to a Division for the convenience of your Lordships, although I have neither the desire nor the power to enforce that view.
  First, on one matter of order I am told on the very best authority—namely, that of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington,

  1211
  on my side of the House, although I speak subject to correction from the other side —that there are Members of the House who would like to be enlightened as to the procedural point on this Amendment. It surprises me, but as I am told that is the position I hope I may be forgiven for saying so. Before the House there is only one question, whether the House shall accept Amendment No. 13. If that Amendment is passed, the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, falls. It cannot be divided on. It follows, then, that we could divide only on Amendment No. 13B which is the one to which the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has spoken if and when he proposes it—because he has not moved it—if we reject Amendment No. 13. I think that the noble Lord the Leader of the House accepted that as correct when I ventured to intervene before.
  There has been a certain amount of rather wild talk about constitutional crises. I did not notice that many of the noble Lords who raised the point have been Members of your Lordships' House for more than five years. I have been a Member of your Lordships' House, on and off, for most of my adult life. I would venture to say only that all that can happen as the result of any Division at the moment is that the Commons will receive a variety of Messages from us, some saying that we do not insist on the Amendments, some saying that we do insist on the Amendments and others saying that we propose an Amendment to their Amendments. The process of constitutional interchange is by no means complete. Even if it were, when the law provides that the will of the Commons should prevail, it is no good making a great fuss about it and saying that it ought to prevail. There are means whereby the Government can make it prevail.
  The next remark I want to make is that the Government's position was lucidly and, I thought, admirably stated by the noble Lord the Leader of the House. I do not believe that anything has been said since that has improved upon his exposition. He said that the charter is a matter for all sides of the industry and that it is not for us to say what must be in it. If one accepts both of those propositions, of course his con-
  1212
  clusion follows. It is a conclusion of the utmost logic. But this is a matter of the freedom of the Press and I do not regard the freedom of the Press as exclusively a matter for the Press industry, employees and employers. When I say that it implies absolutely no criticism either of the Press Lords, or of the National Union of Journalists, or anybody else. The freedom of the Press is slightly more important than the industry itself. It is something which concerns Parliament and it is something which concerns the people.
  The fact that we insist that safeguards for the freedom of the Press should be inserted in this charter is not a reflection on the competence or the good will of those who will negotiate it. I really believe that those who will negotiate it want to put in safeguards. The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, has encouraged that belief. I really do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, was talking sense when he suggested that the mere fact that we told them that they had got to would cause them to leave it out. They are far too sensible for that.
  Therefore I say quite frankly to the House that so far as I am concerned this is not simply a matter for the industry. It is a matter which concerns the whole nation. Secondly, providing safeguards for insertion of these matters into the charter by Parliament is not a reflection either upon the unions concerned, or upon the Government, or upon anybody else. Therefore, may I suggest that my noble friends and the House should support the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, which involves the rejection of the Government Amendment, although of course I accept at once that the Government Amendment represents an advance which they have made upon previous attitudes and I do not wish in any way therefore to speak harshly of the noble Lord or of what he has done. I only say that because, in order to carry the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, we have, as a matter of procedure, to reject the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd.
  Lord CHORLEY: My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships for more than two minutes but, like my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger, I have supported the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, in the past, and I should like to thank him on behalf of a great many of us for having secured

  1213
  most valuable concessions, which I personally think have removed the danger. If I still felt that there was a real danger to the freedom of the Press I would go into the Division Lobby with him, even against my own Party, but I agree with those who feel that these concessions are so substantial that the danger has been removed, and if he goes into the Division Lobby I shall vote against him.
  Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I rise solely to confirm what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, has said, that if your Lordships wish to support the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, then first you will have to disagree with Amendment No. 13. Once Amendment No. 13 is out of the way, then it is for the noble Lord, Lord Goodman—I hope formally, because it has been a long debate—to propose his Amendment No. 13B, and then it is for the House to decide.
  Several Noble Lords: Divide!
  Lord FLETCHER: My Lords, I promise not to detain the House for more than one moment. Like my noble friend Lady Gaitskell I think there is a duty on
  those who on other occasions spoke in favour of the Amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, to express our opinion now. My own view is the same as that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, that no constitutional issue arises today. I listened with the greatest care to what the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, said and to the very cogent arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, against. I agree with the analysis given by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that Lord Goodman's arguments were based on four assumptions. But I was totally unconvinced by the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that any of those four assumptions were invalid or impossible. Therefore I feel it my duty, though with some regret, to say that I cannot support the Government on this occasion.
  5.54 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 13 to the Lords Amendment No. 10?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 77; Not-Contents, 188.

  CONTENTS

  Ardwick, L.

  Feather, L.

  Milner of Leeds, L.

  Bacon, B.

  Fisher of Camden, L.

  Morris of Kenwood, L.

  Balogh, L.

  Gaitskell, B.

  Paget of Northampton, L.

  Beswick, L.

  Gardiner, L.

  Pannell, L.

  Birk, B.

  Geddes of Epsom, L.

  Pargiter, L.

  Blyton, L.

  Goronwy-Roberts, L.

  Peddie, L.

  Briginshaw, L.

  Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

  Phillips, B.

  Brock, L.

  Hale, L.

  Platt, L.

  Brockway, L.

  Hall, V.

  Popplewell, L.

  Bruce of Donington, L.

  Hanworth, V.

  Sainsbury, L.

  Buckinghamshire, E.

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Serota, B.

  Burton of Coventry, B.

  Houghton of Sowerby, L.

  Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal)

  Castle, L.

  Hoy, L.

  Shinwell, L.

  Champion, L.

  Jacques, L.

  Slater, L.

  Chorley, L.

  Kirkhill, L.

  Stedman, B.

  Collison, L.

  Leatherland, L.

  Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

  Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

  Lee of Newton, L.

  Stow Hill, L.

  Crook, L.

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

  Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

  Crowther-Hunt, L.

  Taylor of Mansfield, L.

  Cudlipp, L.

  Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

  Wallace of Campsie, L.

  Darling of Hillsborough, L.

  Lovell-Davis, L.

  Wallace of Coslany, L.

  Darwen, L.

  Lyons of Brighton, L.

  Wells-Pestell, L.

  Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

  McLeavy, L.

  White, B.

  Douglas of Barloch, L.

  Maelor, L.

  Willis, L.

  Douglass of Cleveland, L.

  Maybray-King, L.

  Winterbottom, L.

  Elwyn-Jones, L.

  Melchett, L.

  Wootton of Abinger, B.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Aberdare, L.

  Amherst, E.

  Auckland, L.

  Airedale, L.

  Amulree, L.

  Balfour, E.

  Aldenham, L.

  Armstrong, L.

  Balfour of Inchrye, L.

  Alexander of Tunis, E.

  Arran, E.

  Banks, L.

  Alport, L.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Barnby, L.

  Barrington, V.

  Goschen, V.

  Onslow, E.

  Beaumont of Whitley, L.

  Gowrie, E.

  Pender, L.

  Belstead, L.

  Grantchester, L.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Berkeley, B.

  Greenway, L.

  Perth, E.

  Bledlsloe, V.

  Grenfell, L.

  Piercy, L.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Gridley, L.

  Pike, B.

  Broughshane, L.

  Grimston of Westbury, L.

  Porritt, L.

  Burnham, L.

  Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

  Rankeillour, L.

  Byers, L.

  Reay, L.

  Caccia, L.

  Halsbury, E.

  Redesdale, L.

  Cairns, E.

  Hampton, L.

  Redmayne, L.

  Camoys, L.

  Harmar-Nicholls, L.

  Reigate, L.

  Campbell of Croy, L.

  Hartwell, L.

  Rhyl, L.

  Carrington, L.

  Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

  Robertson of Oakbridge, L.

  Cathcart, E.

  Hawke, L.

  Robson of Kiddington, B.

  Chelwood, L.

  Helsby, L.

  Rothermere, V.

  Clitheroe, L.

  Henley, L.

  Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

  Clwyd, L.

  Hereford, V.

  Sackville, L.

  Colville of Culross, V.

  Hewlett, L.

  St Aldwyn, E.

  Cornwallis, L.

  Hives, L.

  St. Davids, V.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Home of the Hirsel, L.

  St. Helens, L.

  Cowley, E.

  Hood, V.

  Saint Oswald, L.

  Craigavon, V.

  Hornsby-Smith, B.

  Sallsbury, M.

  Crawshaw, L.

  Howe, E.

  Sandford, L.

  Cross, V.

  Hunt of Fawley, L.

  Sandys, L.

  Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

  Hylton-Foster, B.

  Savile, L.

  Daventry, V.

  Iliffe, L.

  Seear, B.

  de Clifford, L.

  Jellicoe, E.

  Sempill, Ly.

  de Freyne, L.

  Kemsley, V.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  De L'Isle, V.

  Killearn, L.

  Sharples, B.

  Denbigh, E.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Sherfield, L.

  Denham, L.

  Kinnoull, E.

  Snow, L.

  Drogheda, E. [Teller.]

  Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

  Stamp, L.

  Drumalbyn, L.

  Long, V.

  Strathcarron, L.

  Eccles, V.

  Loudoun, C.

  Strathclyde, L.

  Effingham, E.

  Lucas of Chilworth, L.

  Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Luke, L.

  Elles, B.

  Lyell, L.

  Strathspey, L.

  Elliot of Harwood, B.

  Lytton, E.

  Sudeley, L.

  Elton, L.

  Macpherson of Dromochter, L.

  Suffield, L.

  Emmet of Amberley, B.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Swaythling, L.

  Erroll of Hale, L.

  Mancroft, L.

  Terrington, L.

  Erskine of Rerrick, L.

  Mansfield, E.

  Teviot, L.

  Evans of Hungershall, L.

  Margadale, L.

  Thomas, L.

  Ferrers, E.

  Merrivale, L.

  Thorneycroft, L.

  Ferrier, L.

  Mersey, V.

  Thurlow, L.

  Fletcher, L.

  Meston, L.

  Trefgarne, L.

  Foot, L.

  Middleton, L.

  Trevelyan, L.

  Franks, L.

  Monck, V.

  Vernon, L.

  Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

  Monk Bretton, L.

  Vickers, B.

  Furness, V.

  Monson, L.

  Vivian, L.

  Gage, V.

  Mottistone, L.

  Waldegrave, E.

  Gainford, L.

  Mowbray and Stourton, L.

  Ward of North Tyneside, B.

  Gibson, L.

  Moyne, L.

  Ward of Witley, V.

  Gladwyn, L.

  Newall, L.

  Wigoder, L.

  Glasgow, E.

  Northchurch, B.

  Windlesham, L.

  Glendevon, L.

  Norwich, V.

  Wolverton, L.

  Goodman, L. [Teller.]

  Nugent of Guildford, L.

  Young, B.

  Gore-Booth, L.

  Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

  6.8 p.m.
  Lords Amendment in lieu of Commons Amendment No. 13
  [No. 13B]
  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;
  1216
  (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) of access to the press of all contributors at all times.")
  Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, I do not intend to make a second speech, but I have one or two very brief observations which I think I ought to make. In a previous debate, it was suggested that there was really no radical difference between Amendment No. 13 and Amendment No. 13B. But there is a very radical difference between these two Amendments, quite apart from the fact that Amendment No. 13B covers matters of great importance not included in Amendment No. 13A. The radical difference is that Amendment No. 13 provides rubrics, heads of discussion; it does not provide matters that have to go into the charter at all. They have to be discussed, and the nature and character of the actual insertion is not provided for. Therefore, there is absolutely no provision for any
  liberty of the Press, any freedoms, or any of the matters with which one is concerned. What ultimately emerges from the melting pot one does not know. That is the fundamental and very important difference. If I may say so, it justifies the Division we have just had. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with Amendment No. 13B in lieu of Commons Amendment No. 13 to which the House has disagreed.—(Lord Goodman.)
  6.10 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the House doth agree with the said Amendment (No. 13B) in lieu of Commons Amendment No. 13?
  Their Lordships divided; Contents, 188; Not-Contents, 68.

  CONTENTS

  Aberdare, L.

  Droghera, E. [Teller.]

  Hives, L.

  Alexander of Tunis, E.

  Drumalbyn, L.

  Home of the Hirsel, L.

  Alport, L.

  Ebbisham, L.

  Hood, V.

  Amherst, E.

  Eccles, V.

  Hornsby-Smith, B.

  Amulree, L.

  Effingham, E.

  Howe, E.

  Armstrong, L.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Hunt of Fawley, L.

  Arran, E.

  Elles, B.

  Hylton-Foster, B.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Elliot of Harwood, B.

  Iliffe, L.

  Auckland, L.

  Elton, L.

  Jellicoe, E.

  Balfour, E.

  Emmet of Amberley, B.

  Kemsley, V.

  Balfour of Inchrye, L.

  Erroll of Hale, L.

  Killearn, L.

  Banks, L.

  Erskine of Rerrick, L.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Barnby, L.

  Evans of Hungershall, L.

  Kinnoull, E.

  Barrington, V.

  Ferrers, E.

  Kissin, L.

  Beaumont of Whitley, L.

  Ferrier, L.

  Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

  Belstead, L.

  Fletcher, L.

  Long, V.

  Berkeley, B.

  Foot, L.

  Loudoun, C.

  Bledisloe, V.

  Franks, L.

  Lucas of Chilworth, L.

  Broadbridge, L.

  Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

  Luke, L.

  Brock, L.

  Furness, V.

  Lyell, L.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Gage, V.

  Lytton, E.

  Broughshane, L

  Gainford, L.

  Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

  Burnham, L.

  Gibson, L. [Teller.]

  Malmesbury, E.

  Byers, L.

  Glasgow, E.

  Mancroft, L.

  Caccia, L.

  Glendevon, L.

  Mansfield, E.

  Cairns, E.

  Goodman, L.

  Margadale, L.

  Camoys, L.

  Gore-Booth, L.

  Merrivale, L.

  Campbell of Croy, L.

  Goschen, V.

  Mersey, V.

  Carrington, L.

  Gowrie, E.

  Meston, L.

  Cathcart, E.

  Grantchester, L.

  Middleton, L.

  Chelwood, L.

  Greenway, L.

  Monck, V.

  Clitheroe, L.

  Grenfell, L.

  Monk Bretton, L.

  Clwyd, L.

  Gridley, L.

  Monson, L.

  Colville of Culross, V.

  Grimston of Westbury, L.

  Mottistone, L.

  Cornwallis, L.

  Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

  Mowbray and Stourton, L.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Moyne, L.

  Cowley, E.

  Halsbury, E.

  Newall, L.

  Craigavon, V.

  Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

  Northchurch, B.

  Crawshaw, L.

  Hampton, L.

  Norwich, V.

  Cross, V.

  Harmar-Nicholls, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

  Hartwell, L.

  Pender, L.

  Daventry, V.

  Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

  Penrhyn, L.

  de Clifford, L.

  Hawke, L.

  Perth, E.

  de Freyne, L.

  Helsby, L.

  Piercy, L.

  De L'Isle, V.

  Henley, L.

  Pike, B.

  Denbigh, E.

  Hereford, V.

  Porritt, L.

  Denham, L.

  Hewlett, L.

  Rankeillour, L.

  Reay, L.

  Seear, B.

  Teviot, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Sempill, Ly.

  Thomas, L.

  Redmayne, L.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Thorneycroft, L.

  Reigate, L.

  Sharples, B.

  Thurlow, L.

  Rhyl, L.

  Sherfleld, L.

  Trefgarne, L.

  Robertson of Oakridge, L.

  Snow, L.

  Trevelyan, L.

  Robson of Kiddington, B.

  Stamp, L.

  Vernon, L.

  Rothermere, V.

  Strathcarron, L.

  Vickers, B.

  Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

  Strathclyde, L.

  Vivian, L.

  Sackville, L.

  Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

  Waldegrave, E.

  St. Aldwyn, E.

  Ward of North Tyneside, B.

  St. Davids, V.

  Strathspey, L.

  Ward of Witley, V.

  St. Helens, L.

  Sudeley, L.

  Wigoder, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Suffield, L.

  Windlesham, L.

  Sandford, L.

  Swaythling, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Sandys, L.

  Tanlaw, L.

  Young, B.

  Savile, L.

  Terrington, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Ardwick, L.

  Gaitskell, B.

  Milner of Leeds, L.

  Bacon, B.

  Gardiner, L.

  Morris of Kenwood, L.

  Balogh, L.

  Geddes of Epsom, L.

  Paget of Northampton, L.

  Birk, B.

  Goronwy-Roberts, L.

  Pannell, L.

  Blyton, L.

  Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

  Pargiter, L.

  Briginshaw, L.

  Hale, L.

  Phillips, B.

  Brockway, L.

  Hall, V.

  Platt, L.

  Bruce of Donington, L.

  Hanworth, V.

  Popplewell, L.

  Burton of Coventry, B.

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Sainsbury, L.

  Castle, L.

  Houghton of Sowerby, L.

  Serota, B.

  Champion, L.

  Hoy, L.

  Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal)

  Collison, L.

  Jacques, L.

  Shinwell, L.

  Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

  Kirkhill, L.

  Slater, L.

  Crook, L.

  Leatherland, L.

  Stedman, B.

  Crowther-Hunt, L.

  Lee of Newton, L.

  Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

  Cudlipp, L.

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

  Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

  Darling of Hillsborough, L.

  Taylor of Mansfield, L.

  Darwen, L.

  Lovell-Davis, L.

  Wallace of Campsie, L.

  Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

  Lyons of Brighton, L.

  Wallace of Coslany, L.

  Douglass of Cleveland, L.

  McLeavy, L.

  Wells-Pestell, L.

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

  Maelor, L.

  White, B.

  Feather, L.

  Maybray-King, L.

  Willis, L.

  Fisher of Camden, L.

  Melchett, L.

  Winterbottom, L.

  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
  6.22 p.m.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 14 TO LORDS AMENDMENT No. 10
  [No. 14] 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")
  Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 14. The House will see Amendment No. 14A in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, the noble Earl, Lord Drogheda, and the noble Lord, Lord Gibson. If my understanding is correct, the effect of Amendment No. 14A is to limit the discretion of the Secretary of State if, in the event of the parties being unable to agree to a charter in 12 months, the duty of preparing the charter falls to him. The result would be that the Secretary of State would be able to include in the charter only matters which had been agreed by
  1220
  the parties if they did not fall within the matters listed in subsection (2).
  My Lords, this is not a point on which the Government hold strong views. It is certainly our hope that this provision will not be used, and it is not our intention that the Secretary of State should provide in the charter for matters which are not included in the terms of reference. Rather he will act as an arbitrator or conciliator if, on any points, the industry cannot reach agreement, and if there is no agreement it might well be that only one or two points separate the parties. It is just possible that some of these points might technically not be within the scope of subsection (2) of the clause. However, in that case I would expect the Secretary of State to use his best endeavours to assist the parties to reach an agreement. Therefore at first sight the Amendment would not seem to stand in the way of an effective charter being made by the Secretary of State. Although

  1221
  therefore, the spirit of this Amendment is acceptable to the Government we shall need to take a careful look at the precise wording and make sure that the Amendment does what it is designed to do and no more.
  If it is the wish of your Lordships' House to support Amendment No. 14A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, it will be necessary for the House to decline the acceptance of Amendment No. 14, and then we can proceed to Amendment No. 14A. I have indicated the Government view on Amendment No. 14A merely to expedite progress.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14 to Lords Amendment No. 10.—(Lord Shepherd.)
  Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, this is a substantial concession on the part of the Government on a matter about which we were deeply worried, and it augurs well for the future.
  Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am grateful for the reference that the noble Lord has made. This is a step towards bridging the two views, and it perhaps indicates that the Government have taken a flexible view in this important matter and are not guilty of the strictures that have been placed upon them on previous occasions by certain of the media and certain Members of your Lordships' House.
  6.24 p.m.

  LORDS AMENDMENT IN LIEU OF COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 14
  [No. 14A.]
  In subsection (3), in line 7, leave out from ("containing") to ("and") in line 11 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").
  Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 14A.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with Amendment No. 14A as an Amendment in lieu of Commons Amendment No. 14.
  Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, as a consequence of representations which have been made to me, I beg to move that further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned.
  Moved, That further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned.—(Lord Shepherd.)
  Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, may I just say "Thank you". I shall not take any longer than to say that I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House. It would have put us in a difficult position had he not made this concession.

  EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION BILL
  Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report in respect of Clauses 34 to 43, 54, 55, 111, 113 and 117 be now received.
  Moved, That the Report in respect of Clauses 34 to 43, 54, 55, 111, 113 and 117 be now received.—(Lord Jacques.)

  SOCIAL SECURITY (CONTRIBU TIONS) (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) REGULATIONS 1975
  6.28 p.m.
  Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL rose to move, That the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 1975, laid before the House on 8th August, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Social Security Pensions Act, which received Royal Assent this summer, implements the Government's plans to relate the rates of National Insurance retirement pensions and some other major benefits to earnings on which contributions have been paid. It also enables employees to be contracted-out of full social security contributions and benefits where comparable benefits are provided by an occupational pension scheme. The Pensions Act amends the Social Security Act 1975, which since April this year has been the principal legislation on National Insurance contributions and benefits.
  As a consequence of amending the Social Security Act 1975, it is also necessary to make corresponding changes to the Social Security (Contributions) Regulations 1975 which were made under power contained in that Act. These new Regulations which we have before us make the necessary amendments and additions needed to adapt the contributions provisions for the new arrangements that are due to start in April 1978. We arc giving employers and others concerned plenty of notice of the changes, which we have deliberately kept to the minimum necessary.
  The Regulations also make changes to that part of the contributions regulations which sets out the arrangements—commonly known as the "married woman's option"—under which married women and widow beneficiaries are at present able to elect to pay contributions at a reduced rate when in employment and to pay no contributions when self-employed. The Pensions Act ends the right to make such elections but requires special provision to be made by regulations for those women who already have that right.
  Your Lordships will recall that when we considered the Social Security Pensions Bill on Report on 16th July last I referred to a reply given on the previous day in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. In that reply she explained how these regulatory powers would be used. These Regulations now give detailed effect to the policy decisions which she then announced. The broad effect is that a woman who has reduced liability in the year before the main provisions of the new scheme come into force—that is, in the 1977–78 tax year—will continue to have reduced liability so long as she remains either a married woman or a widow beneficiary and does not revoke her election or have a break in her employment of two or more tax years. If she revokes her election, is divorced or has a break in her employment covering two complete tax years, she will lose her right to have reduced liability. If she ceases to be a widow beneficiary—other than by getting marrie—dshe will lose her right to reduced liability from the beginning of the tax
  1224
  year following that in which she lost the benefit, unless by that time she has again become a widow beneficiary.
  Your Lordships will have noticed that a substantial part of the Regulations is taken up by schedules containing tables of contributions. These are the contributions which would apply from April 1978, when the contributions provisions of the Pensions Act come into force, on the basis of the contribution rates and levels specified in that Act. The tables will not, in fact, come into effect because those levels will be revised before 1978. But they have been included to illustrate the basis on which contributions will then be levied, for employers and others to whom such information is important. The Regulations may therefore be seen as falling into three distinct compartments. First, they make amendments to the contribution arrangements which result from the decision to enable contributions to be paid at a lower rate where employees are contracted out. Secondly, they make changes consequent on the decision to phase out the married woman's option. Thirdly, they contain schedules which establish the form and layout of tables of contributions as they will apply from April 1978. Apart from this, the Regulations contain only minor and consequential amendments.
  I should mention that there are three misprints in the draft Regulations, which will be corrected when they are reprinted but which I wish to draw attention to now. The first is on page 13 where, in the first line of Regulation 98(5)(c), the word "that" should be "the". The second is on page 17 where, in column 1 of the tables, is "£62.50". The first time it appears it should be £62. The third is on page 59 where, in column 3 of item 1 of Schedule F, the words "of persons" need to be inserted after "Exception". I apologise for these mistakes, which will be remedied when the reprint takes place. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 1975, laid before the House on 8th August, be approved.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
  6.36 p.m.
  Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for having explained this quite bulky document of

  1225
  Regulations. As he said, they are consequential Regulations as a result of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 and in that regard, although we had certain disagreements at the time of the passing of that Bill, I have no comment to make on that now. I welcome the fact that since this Bill became an Act the date of starting is now April 1978 for certain. We had discussions about that, and many of those interested in the pensions industry took the view that to bring it in in April 1977 would be far too quick, and therefore April 1978 seems to us a much more satisfactory date.
  I am grateful to the noble Lord, too, for having explained the Regulations which put into effect the married woman's option in respect of those married women who will be enjoying the option when the Act comes into effect. So far as I know, these are quite satisfactory and I am grateful to him. I wish also to congratulate him—though there were, he said, three misprints—in that whoever produced and checked the 40 pages of contributions tables in the document must have had a mammoth task, and if there is only one misprint in the whole of those tables that is quite satisfactory.
  Lord BANKS: My Lords, I too wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for the way in which he explained the Regulations with his customary lucidity. Unlike other matters we have been discussing in this House today, I think they are entirely non-controversial. I was puzzled when I looked at the table, Schedule B, and saw that it began with £11.50 and ended with £81, when we know that next month the basic rate goes up to £l3.30, and presumably the top rate will be seven times that. But the noble Lord explained that point, my puzzlement has been dispelled and I am happy to support the adoption of these Regulations.
  Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I say how grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and the noble Lord, Lord Banks, for their comments and observations? I do not say lightly—I mean what I say—that we are grateful for the help that both noble Lords gave us when we were discussing this matter and I hope that this is a satisfactory conclusion. I had expected the noble Lord, Lord
  1226
  Aberdare, to return to the question of the married woman's option, and I may say that we should have understood the situation from his point of view.

  URANIUM PURCHASES FROM NAMIBIA
  6.39 p.m.
  Lord BROCKWAY Lord BROCKWAY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government for particulars of the contract for the purchase of uranium from Namibia (South West Africa) and of the use to which supplies are directed. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I propose briefly to raise four points. The first is the source of our uranium supplies from Namibia; the second is the series of Government decisions on this subject; the third is the implications of the illegal occupation of Namibia by South Africa; and the fourth is the use of the uranium in this country. I have given notice to the Minister of these intentions and also to the management of the Rio Tinto Zinc Company, which is the British firm involved.
  I have done considerable research on the subject and I have met many surprises. To one of these I want to draw immediate attention. I found that the company from which we are buying uranium in Namibia is not only the British based multinational company Rio Tinto Zinc but that the South African Government is involved through its State-owned Industrial Development Corporation. The facts are these: the Rossing mine from which the uranium is to come is situated 30 miles North of Swakomund on the Namibian coast. It will be operated next year. Rio Tinto Zinc obtained rights to its deposits in 1966 and formed a subsidiary company, Rossing Uranium Limited, in 1968. A West German consortium assisted in prospecting Rossing. The Federal Government had 40 per cent. shares in the consortium but they withdrew their financial support in 1972, giving alternative supplies of uranium as the official reason but acknowledging that there was a political background. There is no doubt that that political background was the controversy about South Africa's occupation of Namibia.
  Then the South Africans became involved. The German consortium was replaced as Rio Tinto Zinc's prospecting partner by a South African company, the General Federal Mynbou. This was accompanied by South African partners joining the board, including the General Mining and Finance Corporation Limited and the Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa, the State corporation to which I have referred. Rio Tinto Zinc has 48.58 per cent. of the shares and South African companies only have 20 per cent. However, I am told that the South African Government has virtually the power of veto. The Government own all uranium ore in Namibia as well as in South Africa. It is the South African Government which grants the leases and it is the State Industrial Corporation which provides loan finance and is backing the processing plant worth £30 million.
  I want to be fair to RTZ. The company is setting a precedent in Southern Africa for labour conditions for its black employees. It does not employ compound or contract migrant labour. It provides housing accommodation in which families can be united and single persons are provided with rooms. At Rossing, the African employees are to be housed in the new town of Arandis. There is to be provision for medical care. My criticism is not based on the company's labour conditions.
  My case on this first point is that I believe that British public opinion—and not only Labour opinion but, I feel sure, Liberal and much Conservative opinion—would not countenance, if it were aware of the facts, the reliance on the South African Government for our nuclear power. Our policy should be—and indeed has publicly been—to dissociate ourselves from the apartheid regime rather than becoming dependent upon it. This is a consideration apart from the question of association with the illegal occupation of Namibia to which I shall return. I ask the Government to respond to the desirability of terminating our dependence upon the South African Government.
  Secondly, I pass to the attitude of successive British Governments. In 1968, the Labour Government authorised the Atomic Energy Authority to conclude a
  1228
  contract with Rio Algom, a Canadian subsidiary of Rio Tinto Zinc, for the supply of uranium until the 'eighties. In considering subsequent developments, I shall refer only to published statements. I do not want to infringe the Official Secrets Act, though I have other information. When the contract with the Canadian subsidiary of Rio Tinto Zinc was authorised, it was reported that because there was uneasiness that the source of uranium supplies might be transferred, the Government insisted that if any question of purchasing uranium oxide from South Africa arose they should be informed. Despite this, in 1970, the Government agreed that two major contracts should be signed between the Atomic Energy Authority and a South African subsidiary of Rio Tinto Zinc, Riofinex, for the purchase of uranium from the Rossing mine. Accounts have been published of how this change came about. It has been said that officials of the Department of Technology negotiated the deal and that it was, in effect, a fait accompli when the Government considered it. I do not know whether this be true, but I am sure that the decision was made reluctantly.
  The Rossing deal became publicly known only after Labour's defeat in the Election of June 1970. It aroused controversy in our Party and its Executive and the Annual Conference expressed the view that Labour would terminate the contract when returned to power. Tony Wedgwood Benn had been the Minister of Technology. According to custom he took responsibility for the decision, though it has been said that he was unaware of the conclusive negotiations. With unusual and commendable frankness he then acknowledged that the deal was a mistake and he wrote to the Guardian as follows:
  "We (the Labour Party) have already decided to terminate the AEA-RTZ contract. That particular case, in which neither the AEA nor RTZ were altogether candid with the last Labour Government, points to the need for even greater vigilance than has been shown in the past. As the Minister responsible at the time, I certainly learned that lesson."
  Under the Conservative Government of 1970–74 there was no question, of course, of revoking the contract with Rossing Uranium. But now we have a Labour Government. There is still time; the contract does not become active until next

  1229
  year. In June of last year Joan Lestor replied to a Question in another place:
  "No decision has yet been taken. The whole question of our policy towards Namibia is currently under review."
  In 1970 the Attorney General ruled that there was a force majeure clause in the contract which safeguarded any policy decision by the Government. It could, therefore, be cancelled. It is argued that adequate supplies of uranium are not obtainable elsewhere. What of Australia and Canada, to which I shall revert?
  Thirdly, my Lords, I turn to the implications of the occupation of Namibia by South Africa. I can put the issue briefly because it is one of principle. The International Court of Justice and the United Nations have declared that occupation illegal. The British Government have concurred, while acknowledging that it is de facto—
  Baroness ELLES: My Lords, would the noble Lord give way? Would he not agree that the British Government had, in fact, said that the decision in the International Court of Justice was not acceptable on legal grounds, and that both the British and the French Governments did not agree with the findings of the International Court of Justice? Perhaps the noble Lord opposite will confirm this.
  Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, what I am saying is that the British Government have repeatedly said, despite their reservations on that issue, that the occupation is illegal, but have gone on to say that it is de facto. I am submitting that the fact of South Africa's power in Namibia does not justify our recognition of its possession of the minerals of that territory, or a contract under which we benefit from the exploitation of those minerals. What right has South Africa to plunder the natural resources of Namibia? What right have we to accept that plunder? Morally, the British Government are acting as a receiver of stolen goods in that respect.
  Lastly, my Lords, I ask whether we are using the uranium for peaceful purposes in the creation of energy, or in the production of weapons of war? There are disturbing indications that it is the latter. I referred earlier to the fact that we had cancelled our contract with Canada. Why? The Government are now refraining from
  1230
  accepting uranium from Canada. Why? Is it because the Canadian Government have decided that they will prohibit the export of uranium for the purpose of nuclear war preparations?
  In addition to that, under the United Kingdom Atomic Energy (Weapons Group) Act of 1973, the Weapons Group of the Atomic Energy Authority was transferred to the Ministry of Defence. The main task of the Weapons Group —some four-fifths of its total effort—is, according to the AEA journal, not only research development but production work on explosive devices for use in nuclear weapons. I ask the Government whether under this change the contracts with Rossing have been transferred from the AEA to the new corporation for nuclear fuel?
  The use of the uranium is the final and fundamental question. The Labour Government are committed by their Manifesto to take the initiative to end our nuclear weapons in an international agreement. What initiative has been taken? The tendancy is for NATO to rely evermore on tactical nuclear weapons. Our nuclear weapons are irrelevant in this world situation. They are a prescription for the suicide of the whole population of Britain. They are insignificant compared with the stocks of the United States of America and of Soviet Russia, and would be insignificant if hostilities broke out. They would invite the destruction of our people.
  If the uranium from Rossing is being used for nuclear war preparations, it is the supreme reason, supplementing the more immediate reasons I have given, for ending the contract. I appreciate that this submission involves a decision by the Government in another sphere. But long before the contract terminates one has the hope that mankind will have the sense to repudiate the production of weapons which mean world destruction. My Lords, I ask the Government to fulfil the decision, to which our Party is committed, to end the Rossing contract.
  6.59 p.m.
  Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, I will start by giving the short answer to the Question set down by my noble friend Lord Brockway. It is that the contract for the purchase of uranium

  1231
  from Namibia is with the Rossing Uranium Company, and it provides for the delivery to the United Kingdom of 7,500 short tons of uranium oxide (yellow cake) beginning towards the end of this decade. The material will be further processed in the United Kingdom and converted into fuel elements for use in our civil nuclear power reactors. That is the basic situation. During the course of their review of Southern Africa policy, the Government considered with great care and in great depth the question of whether this contract should be allowed to continue. Her Majesty's Government decided against any interference with this contract, and announced this last December. So far as Britain's interests are concerned, the uranium which will be provided under this contract forms part of our arrangements for fuelling our nuclear power programme.
  The noble Lord referred to the transfer of the contract with Rossing from the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority to British Nuclear Fuels Limited. As responsibility for the procurement of uranium for the United Kingdom nuclear power programme has since passed to the NFL the Rossing contract has been assigned by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority to British Nuclear Fuels Limited. There is, as noble Lords well know—and the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, referred to this—a world shortage of uranium, and this is particularly true of non-processed uranium ore, which the Rossing mine will supply. If the contract had been cancelled there would have been no prospect in the present world supply position of replacing the material from any of the existing major sources, which, apart from South Africa, are the USSR. Canada—and, in the case of Canada. I should like to stress that there is nothing sinister; the simple fact is that there is none available from that source—Australia, France and the USA.
  The current position with this is that, apart from small spot quantities from the USA, no uranium is available today from any of these countries during the period of the Rossing contract. The possibility remains, of course, that small quantities of uranium might be obtained at a later date from one or more of these countries,
  1232
  but to rely on purchases nearer the time of requirement would be exceedingly risky. This would be a serious matter for our nuclear power programme. To emphasise the importance of the Rossing supplies from the point of view of timing, I should also say that our present uranium supply position is that our existing stocks, together with quantities due for delivery under this contract and under another contract with Canada, will provide sufficient material to meet the fuel needs of our nuclear reactors up to the early 1980s. in the present world supply position, we would have no prospect of finding alternative supplies in this time scale if we abandoned the Rossing contract.
  My noble friend Lord Brockway mentioned the question of the legality of these contracts for uranium in the light of the UN Resolutions against trade with Namibia and the UN Council for Namibia's decree on the natural resources of Namibia. So far as the UN Resolutions are concerned (and the 1971 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice in respect of them), our position was fully explained in a Statement that my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary made in another place on 4th December 1974. We shall play our part in the international community to help bring self-determination and independence to Namibia, but in the absence of a determination under Chapter VII of the UN Charter (that a threat to the peace exists) we are opposed to measures which are in the nature of sanctions in relation to Namibia. Only the Security Council can authorise mandatory sanctions. It has, in our view rightly, refused to do so.
  My noble friend asked why this Labour Government have not terminated this contract, as they said they would when they were in Opposition. The fact of the matter is that a view on this matter was expressed at the Labour Party Conference in 1973, but I must draw my noble friend's attention to the fact that this was not subsequently adopted in the 1974 Manifesto, as I think he seemed to imply, upon which the last General Election was fought.
  So far as the decree on natural resources is concerned, the Government's position was made clear by the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in another place

  1233
  on 5th February 1975. While we are ready to co-operate with the UN Council for Namibia where we can—for example, we are contributing to the UN fund for Namibia, which finances some of its activities—our view of the legal position is such that we cannot accept that the Council is the lawful administration of the territory. We do not agree that the UN General Assembly was competent to confer this status on the Council. Consequently, we do not regard this decree as having any legal effect. But in saying this I would, of course, emphasise that the purchase of uranium from the Bossing Uranium Company by British Nuclear Fuels Limited in pursuance of a commercial contract would not imply any recognition by the British Government of the right of South Africa to continue to administer the territory.
  My Lords, the question that we are dealing with is a most complex one. There is no simple solution. The Government decided that unilateral cancellation would not work. The result of cancelling unilaterally would have been that others would benefit from the release of short-term supplies while we would have gone without, with serious implications for our nuclear power programme. My Lords, as the years pass, changing the present situation and bringing, as they must, independence to Namibia, the export value of these uranium mining developments will he of tremendous importance to the future prosperity and stability of that country.
  Lord HALE: My Lords, will my noble friend forgive my interrupting him for a moment before he sits down? I have been trying earnestly to follow his argument, and it occurred to me that we complained rather bitterly that it was a breach of the comity of nations and the general agreement when the USA were buying quite innocent chrome from Rhodesia. Surely the buying from Namibia of something which may constitute a deadly poison is a point which cannot be dismissed quite so lightly as that. Secondly, what my noble friend said was that we were receiving stolen goods. I have had to defend quite a number of people on a charge of receiving stolen goods, but I have never been able to put forward, nor do I think I would have the cheek to put forward (and I use that word with respect), the defence that our motives were honourable when we received the
  1234
  stolen goods, because this was rather in the industrial interests of the people we robbed.
  Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, I think I have fully covered the point of what my noble friend refers to as "stolen goods". I do not think that applies in this case; and the subject of Rhodesia is another matter altogether. I was very nearly at the end of my speech and, if I may, I should like to finish it. The fact is, my Lords, that any successor State in Namibia would, we think, start with a distinct advantage on the basis of arrangements such as those obtaining between Namibia and United Kingdom companies, already firmly in position and capable of extension by mutual agreement.

  SEX DISCRIMINATION BILL
  Returned from the Commons on Friday last with certain of the Lords Amendments agreed to; and with the remaining Lords Amendments disagreed to with an Amendment proposed in lieu thereof; the said Amendment in lieu printed pursuant to Standing Order No. 48.