HL Deb 20 October 1975 vol 364 cc1180-219

[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 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- 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 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.

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.

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 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 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 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.

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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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."

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- 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.

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 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 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 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. 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 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 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.

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, 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- 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 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; (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.