BUSINESS

HL Deb 23 October 1975 vol 364 cc1649-94

5.30 p.m.

Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE

My Lords, with the permission of the House, may I interrupt the proceedings to make a short Statement about Business for next week? I understand that noble Lords have been told at their Party meetings to expect an all-night sitting on Monday. May I inform the House that it is proposed not to sit unduly late on Monday, but it is expected that the House will sit through the night on Tuesday in order to complete the Committee stage of the Community Land Bill.

The Earl of MANSFIELD

My Lords, may I thank the noble Baroness for that information which will prove extremely valuable to us all when making our plans. I do not suppose that any of us really likes the prospect of a very late Sitting, but needs must sometimes.

Clause 53 [Trade union membership and activities]:

Lord JACQUES

My Lords, Amendment No. 19 is to clarify the drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 42, line 39, after ("recognition") insert ("of that union").—(Lord Jacques.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord JACQUES moved Amendments Nos. 20 and 21:

Page 42, line 42, after ("(ii)") insert ("subject to subsection (5A) below,").

Page 43, line 2, at end insert: ("(5A) Subsection (5)(b)(ii) above shall not apply where the reference is such a reference as is described in section 12(2) above on which, in accordance with that subsection. the Service declines to proceed.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 and suggest that they be taken en bloc. I will also speak to Amendments Nos. 75, 76 and 77. The Amendments deal with a point of difficulty which has arisen on the Amendments approved by the Lords in Committee, concerning protection in a closed shop situation for members of unions seeking recognition. Those Committee stage Amendments provided certain safeguards for union members during the period in which the union's claim for recognition is being examined by ACAS. If ACAS recommends that the recognition should be accorded to some extent the special safeguards continue. If ACAS rejects the recognition claim, the safeguards cease.

In drafting this provision we failed to provide for the situation dealt with in Clause 12(2), which enables ACAS to dispose of a recognition claim by declining to proceed with it, if it thinks that it has already examined substantially similar issues. Clearly, when ACAS declines to proceed in this way the protections available to members of unions making the reference should cease. This Amendment covers that point. It is therefore simply dealing with an omission in the Bill. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Lord JACQUES

My Lords, Amendment No. 22 is a drafting Amendment to bring the clause into line with comparable provisions in the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974. I beg to move Amendment No. 22.

Amendment moved—

Page 43, line 7, at end insert: ("(7) In this section, unless the context otherwise requires, references to a trade union include references to a branch or section of a trade union.").—(Lord Jacques.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.35 p.m.

Lord JACQUES moved Amendments Nos. 23 to 26:

Clause 64, page 53, line 9, leave out ("or manager").

Clause 64, page 53, line 11, leave out ("or manager").

Clause 65, page 54, line 41, leave out ("or manager").

Clause 65, page 54, line 43, leave out ("or manager").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I would move Amendments Nos. 23, 24. 25 and 26 en bloc. These are drafting Amendments. The Official Receiver acting during the period between a receiving order and a formal adjudication of bankruptcy is known as an "interim receiver", never as an "interim manager". The Amendments remove this misnomer. I beg to move.

Lord DRUMALBYN

My Lords, may I ask whether it is right that "or manager" in line 6 of page 53 should remain? All the other "or managers", including "receiver or manager" in line 9 are taken out, but in line 6 it remains.

Lord JACQUES

My Lords, we shall be very pleased to have a look at that point.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 67 [Transfer to the Secretary of State of rights and remedies]:

Lord JACQUES

My Lords, my brief tells me that this is a small drafting Amendment to maintain consistency. In the circumstances, I have pleasure in moving Amendment No. 27.

Amendment moved— Page 56, line 13, leave out ("with respect to") and insert ("in respect of").—(Lord Jacques.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 74 [Calculation of basic award]:

Lord JACQUES

My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment which clarifies the explanation of the method of calculating a basic award under Clauses 74 and 75. I beg to move Amendment No. 28.

Amendment moved—

Page 63, line 42, leave out subsection (1) and insert— ("(1) The amount of the basic award shall he the amount calculated in accordance with subsections (3) to (7) and section 75(1) to (6) below, subject to the following provisions of this Act, namely,—

1. (a) subsection (2) below (which provides for an award of two weeks' pay in certain cases);
2. (b) section 75(7) below (which provides for the amount of the award to be reduced where the employee contributed to the dismissal);
1652
3. (c) section 75(8) below (which provides for the amount of the award to be reduced where the employee received a payment in respect of redundancy); and
4. (d) section 77 (which prohibits double compensation where compensation in respect of the same matter is also awarded under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975).").—(Lord Jacques.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 75 [Provisions supplementary to s. 74]:

Lord JACQUES moved Amendment No. 29: Page 66, line 13, after ("shall") insert (",except in a case where the dismissal was by reason of redundancy,").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, although I am speaking only to Amendment No. 29, I would mention that Nos. 29 and 30 are related. In the case of No. 29, we arc dealing with a situation where the employee would receive too small a compensatory award as a result of a reduction in the basic award. In No. 30, we shall be dealing with the opposite case, where the employee would receive too large a compensatory award as a result of the reduced basic award. No. 29 prevents him from getting too little and No. 30 prevents him from getting too much.

The effect of Amendment No. 29 is that it prevents a tribunal from reducing a basic award to take account of the employee's contributory fault in any case where the reason for the unfair dismissal was redundancy. I can best explain this by way of an example. If the tribunal had reduced a basic award of £200 to £150 because of contributory fault and the employee had already received £200 as a redundancy payment, this would mean that £50 of the redundancy payment would be left over to be offset against the employee's compensation for loss on unfair dismissal.

It is the Government's view that it would be quite wrong to allow an employee's compensation for the loss due to his unfair dismissal to be reduced because he had received a redundancy payment which is his statutory entitlement under the 1965 Act. This does not happen under the existing unfair dismissal provisions and the two most important types of cases in which an employee forfeits a redundancy payment under the 1965 Act have already been accommodated under the provisions for the tribunals calculation of a basic award in Clause 74(2). We therefore conclude that the right solution is to exclude the operation of the provision for a reduction of the basic award for contributory fault in cases where the reason for the unfair dismissal was redundancy. My Lords, I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 76 [Calculation of compensatory award]:

Lord JACQUES moved Amendment No. 30: Page 66, line 41, leave out from ("which") to ("in") and insert ("the amount of that payment would have exceeded the amount of a basic award (apart from any reduction under section 75(7) or (8) above)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 30. The Amendment ensures that in assessing the employee's loss of any entitlement or potential entitlement to a redundancy payment over and above the amount of the tribunal's basic award for unfair dismissal the tribunal will base their assessment on the amount of the basic award before they make any reduction for contributory fault under Clause 75(7), or for redundancy payment already made under Clause 75(8). Again, I can best explain this by way of example. If an employee is entitled to a basic redundancy award which amounts to £200 and is also entitled to compensation for unfair dismissal, then if the tribunal decide that he has contributed to his dismissal they might reduce his basic award of £200 to £150. This Amendment ensures that when assessing compensation the tribunal should assume that the worker has already received £200 that is, the full basic award—and not £150 which is the amount after deducting the value of the contributory fault. I hope that that makes the position clear. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 78 [Interim relief pending termination of complaint of unfair dismissal]:

5.41 p.m.

Lord JACQUES moved Amendments Nos. 31 to 37:

Clause 78, page 69, line 29, leave out ("revival or").

Clause 78, page 69, line 36 leave out ("revival or").

Clause 79, page 70, line 13, leave out ("revival or").

Clause 79, page 70, line 16, leave out ("be revived and continue in force") and insert ("continue in force as if it had not been terminated").

Clause 80, page 71, line 31, leave out ("revival or").

Clause 80, page 71, line 34, leave out ("revival or").

Clause 80, page 72, line 3, leave out ("revival or").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 31 to 37 en bloc, and will also speak to Amendment No. 41. These arc drafting Amendments but they appear to merit some explanation. This group of Amendments modifies the description of the type of order which a tribunal must make under Clause 78(8)(b) or 78(9) where it grants an application for interim relief pending determination of a complaint of unfair dismissal, but does not make an interim order for reinstatement or re-engagement. An order of this kind is at present described in Clause 79(1) and related provisions as, an order for revival or continuation of a contract of employment". Clause 79(1) defines such an order as, an order that the contract of employment, if it has been terminated, shall be revived and continued in force, and if not shall on its termination continue in force, in either case until the determination or settlement of the complaint…". However, we think there may be some danger that the use of the word "revival" in this context may create confusion as to whether or not the contract of employment is to be regarded as remaining in force during a period between the date when the dismissal took effect and the date when the interim order comes into effect.

To make it absolutely clear that the dismissed employee's contract of employment is to be regarded as remaining in force during the period, Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 alter the description of the type of order which may be made under Clause 78(8)(b) or 78(9). Under the provisions as amended, such an order will be known as, an order for continuation of a contract of employment". Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 alter the definition in Clause 79(1) to read, An order for continuation of a contract of employment…shall be an order that the contract of employment shall, if it has been terminated, continue in force as if it had not been terminated, and if not shall on its termination continue in force…". Amendments Nos. 35 to 37 are consequential Amendments to the supplementary provisions in Clause 80. Amendment No. 41 makes a consequential Amendment to the provision in Clause 113(2)(b) that any amount paid under such an interim order is to be treated as earnings for social security purposes. I beg to move.

Lord DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I am bound to say that we are all in need of a little revival after that explanation! It is extraordinarily complicated and obviously will need to be looked at very carefully in print. However, it will be not for us to do that but for the other place. Therefore, without claiming to have understood in any way what the noble Lord has said, I suppose we had better accept these Amendments.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 108 [General provisions as to industrial tribunals and conciliation officers]:

Lord JACQUES

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 38 and will also speak to Amendments Nos. 42, 44 and 46. These are all drafting Amendments and I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 91, line 24, leave out ("49").—(Lord Jacques.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 110 [Death of employee or employer]:

Lord JACQUES

My Lords, Amendment No. 39 is a minor drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 94, line 17, after ("12") insert ("to this Act").—(Lord Jacques.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 112 [Entitlement to unemployment benefit and recoupment of that benefit and supplementary benefit]:

Lord JACQUES

My Lords, Amendment No. 40 is a small drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 95, line 1, leave out from ("of") to ("before") and insert ("proceedings").—(Lord Jacques.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 113 [Payments which are to be treated as earnings for social security purposes]:

Lord JACQUES

My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendment No. 41. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 97, line 14, leave out ("revival or")—(Lord Jacques.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 119 [Excluded classes of employment:

Lord JACQUES

My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 42 when I dealt with Amendment No. 38. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 98, line 34, leave out ("49").—(Lord Jacques.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord JACQUES moved Amendment No. 43: Page 98, line 42, leave out (",100 and 102") and insert ("and 100").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 43 and with the leave of the House will speak to Nos. 45, 47, 48, 49 and 50. These are drafting Amendments. Their effect is that in the provisions dealing with the exclusion of certain classes of employees from the provisions of the Bill one will substitute for the reference to Clauses 100 and 102 a reference to Clause 100 only. Clause 100 imposes a duty upon employers and Clause 102 sets out a remedy where the employer does not comply with the duty. If Clause 100 which imposes the duty is excluded it follows automatically that Clause 102, which imposes the remedy, cannot apply. The reference to Clause 102 is therefore unnecessary. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord JACQUES

My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 44 when I dealt with Amendment No. 38. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 99, line 5, leave out ("49").—(Lord Jacques.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord JACQUES

My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 45 when I dealt with Amendment No. 43. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 99, line 6, leave out (",100 and 102") and insert ("and 100")—(Lord Jacques.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.50 p.m.

Lord JACQUES

My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 46 when dealing with Amendment No. 38. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 99, line 10, leave out ("49").—(Lord Jacques.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord JACQUES

My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 47 when I spoke to Amendment No. 43. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 99, line 11, leave out (",100 and 102") and insert ("and 100") —(Lord Jacques.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Champion)

My Lords, would it not be possible to move Amendments 48, 49 and 50 en bloc?

Lord JACQUES

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move Amendments 48 to 50 en bloc.

Page 99, line 26, leave out (",100 and 102") and insert ("and 100").

Page 100, line 17, leave out (", 100 and 102") and insert ("and 100").

Page 100, line 29, leave out (", 100 and 102") and insert ("and 100").—(Lord Jacques.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

5.52 p.m.

Lord SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 51: After Clause 121 insert the following new clause:

"Application of employment legislation to parliamentary staff

—(1) The Provisions of this Act, Schedule 1 to the Contracts of Employment Act 1972 and Parts I and II of Schedule 1 to the 1974 Act shall apply to relevant members of House of Commons staff as they apply to persons in Crown employment within the meaning of section 121 above, and accordingly for the purposes of the application of those provisions in relation to any such members—

1. (a) any reference to an employee shall be construed as a reference to any such member;
2. (b) any reference to a contract of employment shall be construed as a reference to the terms of employment of any such member;
3. (c) any reference to dismissal shall be construed as a reference to the termination of any such member's employment;
4. (d) the references in paragraph 21(5)(c) of Schedule 1 to the 1974 Act and section 18(1)(e) above to any person's undertaking or any undertaking in which he works shall be construed as a reference to the national interest or, if the case so requires, the interests of the House of Commons; and
5. (e) any other reference to an undertaking shall be construed as a reference to the House of Commons.

(2) The provisions of section 1 of the Equal Pay Act 1970 and Parts II and IV of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 shall apply to an act done by an employer of a relevant member of House of Commons staff and to service as such a member as they apply to an act done by, and to service for the purposes of, a Minister of the Crown or Government department, and accordingly shall so apply as if references in those provisions to a contract of employment included references to the terms of service of such a member.

(3) Nothing in any rule of law or the law or practice of Parliament shall prevent proceedings under any enactment applied by subsection (1) or (2) above being instituted before an industrial tribunal.

(4) In this section "relevant member of House of Commons staff" means any person employed in or for the purposes of the House of Commons as follows:—

1. (a) in the Department of the Clerk of that House;
2. (b) in Mr. Speaker's Department;
3. (c) in the Department of the Serjeant at Arms;
4. (d) in the Department of the Library;
5. (e) in the administration department;
6. (f) in the refreshment department.

(5) It is hereby declared that in this section "relevant member of House of Commons staff" does not include the Clerk of that House or any Clerk Assistant or the Serjeant at Arms of that House.

(6) For the purposes of the enactments applied by subsection (1) and (2) above, Mr. Speaker shall be deemed to be the employer of House of Commons staff, except that in relation to any description of members of the staff for the time being designated by Mr. Speaker a person so designated shall be deemed to be the employer of members of that description for those purposes or, if it is so stated in the designation, such of those purposes as are so designated.

(7) Where any proceedings are brought by virtue of this section against Mr. Speaker, or any person designated under subsection (6) above, the person against whom the proceedings are brought may apply to the industrial tribunal to have some other person against whom the proceedings could have been properly brought so substituted for him as a party to those proceedings.

(8) If the House of Commons resolves at any time that any provision of subsections (4) to (6) above should be amended in its application to any member of the staff of that House. Her Majesty may by Order in Council amend that provision accordingly.

(9) It is hereby declared that the powers of nominating or appointing and suspending or removing members of House of Commons staff conferred by sections 14 and 15 of the House of Commons (Offices) Act 1812 (clerks. attendants and messengers) and the power of Mr. Speaker to require the suspension or removal of any such member conferred by section 16 of that Act are exercisable subject to the provisions of the enactments applied by subsections (1) and (2) above to such members."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission, I will move Amendment No. 51 and at the same time speak to Amendments Nos. 52, 86 and 93. The effect of the Amendment is that the provisions of the Bill. Schedule 1 to the Contracts of Employment Act 1972 (computation of period of employment), Parts I and II of Schedule 1 to the 1974 Act (Code of Industrial Relations Practice and Unfair Dismissal Provisions), Section 1 of the Equal Pay Act 1975 and Parts II and IV of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 apply to certain members of the House of Commons staff in the same way as they are applied to persons in Crown employment; to make financial provision for any expenses incurred as a result of the application of these provisions to House of Commons staff; to extend the reference, in Section 5 of the House of Commons Offices Act 1846, to the exercise of Mr. Speaker's powers under the House of Commons Offices Act 1812 and the said Act of 1846 to include a reference to the Bill, and also to amend the title of the Bill to include reference to Parliamentary staff.

I think the House deserves from me an open and frank statement as Leader of the House. In another place, I think on, Report, an Amendment was moved and therefore one assumes came within the rules of procedure in another place, to achieve the purposes of the Amendment that is before your Lordships' House this evening. I had sight of that Amendment two or three days before it was due to be debated in another place, and since that Amendment referred not only to the House of Commons but also to the House of Lords I immediately took steps as Leader of the House to say to my right honourable and honourable friends the Ministers in the Department of Employment that, whatever may be the merits of this Amendment, this is a matter that ought to be discussed, certainly so far as this House is concerned, within those Committees from which all our procedures emanate (particularly I have in mind the Offices Committee) and under which this House operates.

Anyone reading the debate in the Official Report will see that my honourable friend the Minister of State at the Department of Employment, Mr. Albert Booth, resisted the Amendment on the grounds that if you were going to do anything of this nature that affected the two Houses, then the two Houses should not only be consulted but should also be in agreement. Very wisely and, I think, very generously those who felt strongly on the Amendment did not press it. In the light of what was undoubted interest and support in another place, the Department looked at the question of whether an Amendment to the Bill could be drafted in a more adequate form than that which had already been proposed by a Back-Bench Member, and an Amendment was shown to me which appeared to be adequate and one that I could commend.

I have already expressed the view that this is a matter that had to be discussed through our own Offices Committee and I took it to that Committee earlier this week. I should have liked to have taken it earlier in order that we could have moved the Amendment on Report, which would have been infinitely more satisfactory than moving it on Third Reading, but of course we were in Recess and committees are not all that easy to bring together. I am in the difficulty that the Report of the Offices Committee is not printed or available to this House, but I think I ought to disclose that the Offices Committee, as they have done in the past, while they were sure that all the provisions of legislation as it affects Crown servants should equally apply to our staff, they did not feel able at that stage to agree to an Amendment being included in this Bill so far as your Lordships' House is concerned. They preferred a different method, one done by analogy, and I think proposals will be made to this House in this respect.

I was naturally disappointed that the Offices Committee did not take my view, but I have accepted it and when I discussed it with my colleagues in the Government there was an acceptance of it. But there was a feeling that in the light of the interest and undoubted support in another place, the other place ought to have an opportunity, if they so wish, for their staff to be covered by the provisions of the legislation.

Therefore, the Amendment that I am proposing today, if it is possible to describe it as such, is a procedural Amendment, because this is the only way in which we can make it possible for another place to consider and to decide whether they would wish their staff to be so covered by this legislation. I must be frank with the House. I had a sense of obligation to my colleagues. I had stepped in and (shall I say?) exercised my powers of persuasion with my colleagues that this was a matter that ought to be discussed between the two Houses, and thereby of course denied the House of Commons the opportunity to vote upon an Amendment. I have no idea what the result of a Division upon that Amendment might have been, had there been a Division. But I hope the House will feel that, having done that in the interests of your Lordships' House, at this stage I should not miss the opportunity of seeking to provide an opportunity for another place to decide on this matter.

It has been said to me that this is a matter that is outside the terms of the Bill. I suppose it is of a marginal character; that I would accept. I would remind the House that this matter was discussed in another place, and therefore had clearly been accepted by the Table as within the Rules there. So, my Lords, I commend this Amendment not in any way in terms of its content, but because in the circumstances I have mentioned it provides another place with the opportunity to decide what it should do in regard to its own staff. I hope the House will feel that this is a matter which should be left with the House of Commons.

I can well imagine that some noble Lords may ask: "Is this a back door and slippery way by which the Lord Privy Seal might achieve his ends by getting it done for the House of Commons, and seeing that there is an Amendment in another place to include the House of Lords?" I made it clear to my colleagues whose duty it would be to commend this Amendment in another place, that I am moving it on the understanding that it is an Amendment solely in regard to the House of Commons. Being realistic, of course, one can never know what the House of Commons will do. It may be that they will move an Amendment to include the House of Lords; I do not know. If the House of Commons were to do so, it would be for your Lordships' House to decide whether or not to accept it. But I should like to make it clear that if such an Amendment were to come from another place I, as Leader of the House, would not commend it to the House. I ask your Lordships to accept this Amendment as a procedural device in order to allow the House of Commons to decide its own relationship with its own people. Unless we proceed in this way, it will not be possible.

I ask your Lordships to agree to this Amendment, again bearing in mind that I took certain steps with my colleagues to impress upon another place that it should be a matter for the two Houses to consider and to agree—we in this House through our Offices Committee, and the Report of that Committee has yet to be approved. We clearly have a view which I do not wish to press any further, but since this is a matter solely for the relationship of the House of Commons and its own staff, I hope the House will agree that we should give them an opportunity to consider the matter and decide. I beg to move.

6.3 p.m.

The Earl of MANSFIELD

My Lords, may I begin by thanking the noble Lord the Leader of the House for the very full, frank and courteous way in which he introduced this Amendment. If it is not improper for me to say so, the way in which he introduced it shows why he has such a hold on this House. If, for a variety of reasons, I criticise the Amendment, I do so in a spirit which personally acquits the noble Lord of any impropriety, or discourtesy, because noble Lords can see from the manner in which he moved this Amendment that that is very far from his mind.

I am bound to say that at first blush, when I saw the Starred Amendment No. 51 on the Marshalled List, I might well have concluded as might anyone else, that the House was being treated with scant consideration or even respect, and that the Government were exhibiting extraordinary clumsiness and putting the House into a position of potential difficulty and embarrassment. But, as I said, we acquit the noble Lord of any personal part in that. Nevertheless, for a variety of reasons it is necessary to examine the Amendment and the way in which it has been introduced to your Lordships' House, and to make such examination with the greatest care.

For reasons which I shall come to, it seeks to make constitutional, as I think, innovations which the House would not want to pass "on the nod", and would not want to consider except with considerable care and thought. So far as timing is concerned, as the noble Lord the Leader of the House told us, it cannot be said that this Amendment arises out of any sudden whim—if I may so describe it—on the part of the Government. As the noble Lord has told us, it arose in the other place on Report on 30th July, when an Amendment which was somewhat similar to, but in very marked and important ways different from, the present Amendment was moved by Mr. Rose and was later negatived. It is right to say that the Minister of State promised at that stage to consider the matter and that it has therefore been in the mind of the Government for nearly three months.

The attitude of the Minister is perhaps illustrated in column 1918 of the Official Report which reads: I am sure that it would not be the wish of any hon. Member here to seek to intervene in the essentially domestic concerns of the second Chamber in a two Chamber legislature. We can in this House quite legitimately consider our own internal arrangements and the position of our own staff, but I think that we should leave it to Members of the other place to deal with the position of their staff in such a manner as seems appropriate. Those are sentiments with which nobody would complain and, in my submission, a fortiori it is for us as a non-elected Chamber to be even more careful before treading, even warily, in the domains of the other place.

My Lords, thereafter we know that there was, as it were, a silence although no doubt matters progressed behind the scenes until this Amendment appeared on the Marshalled List. The fact remains that, with whatever charm the noble Lord introduced it and however desirable it may be so far as the other place is concerned, we have had no proper opportunity either to discuss its provisions or to consider what may flow from it and, even more important, the implications which it may have in the future. If ever an Amendment was suitable for a Committee stage and the discussion which is proper at that stage, I suggest that it is this form of Amendment. Indeed, it is a matter of regret that at the time when this Bill was recommitted in respect of maternity pay conditions it was apparently still impossible for this Amendment to be put down and recommitted with the others. But it was not, and we find that we are discussing this important measure in the form of an Amendment on Third Reading.

The noble Lord has very fairly said that the matter came not very long ago to the Offices Committee who, rightly or wrongly—and I shall not attempt to discuss that—decided that this measure was not suitable in its form, so far as your Lordships were concerned. It is in the light of that decision that I shall briefly summarise my objections to this Amendment. I say that because for the first time the two Houses will be out of step. If this Amendment is passed and is agreed to by the other place, for the first time legislation of this nature will directly affect employees of the other place whereas ours will be left, at any rate for the moment, in the same position in which they have been for a considerable number of years.

My first objection is this: that by considering the matter as we are this afternoon this measure may well have far-reaching constitutional effects, in the sense that whatever the circumstances, and however the invitation is forthcoming, one House is legislating for the employees and therefore for the other House, and this, to my knowledge, has never been done. Taking the matter slightly colloquially, if we do this now, we cannot, as I believe, on a subsequent occasion be heard to complain if the other place returns the compliment. I do not mean in relation to this legislation, but in relation to subsequent legislation. We are admitting here a precedent which, I would submit, is unfortunate. So far as this Amendment is concerned, there is nothing to stop the other place from amending our Amendment and including us, your Lordships' House and the employees of this House, in it. We heard a very frank, and, if I may say so, very proper, undertaking on the part of the noble Lord the Leader of the House, that it is right to reflect that this could happen, whatever the undertaking that has been given.

y second objection is this: that in general legislation of this nature has never been applied to Parliamentary staff directly but by analogy as Crown servants, and therefore we have to decide, when we come to make up our minds whether we shall agree to this Amendment, are we going to change what has been an established, and I venture to suggest a thoroughly satisfactory, state of affairs just because at the very last moment we are asked to give the other place the opportunity of so doing. The noble Lord the Leader of the House did not give us any reason why the practice, which, as I have said, is quite satisfactory, should not continue, and I say that bearing in mind the unique character of this place and the other place, the Palace of Westminster, matters such as Parliamentary privilege and the curious, if not unique, contract of employment which every employee in this building has. So that that is a further matter which I suggest should come into our reckoning this afternoon.

Thirdly—and I say this, I fear, in disagreement with the noble Lord the Leader of the House—I am very doubtful about the legal propriety of this Amendment, in the sense that there must be doubts whether references to the Equal Pay Act and the Sex Discrimination Act are relevant to the subject-matter of this Bill. I know that the noble Lord the Leader of the House said, "It got past the Table in the other place"; I hope I am summarising what he said fairly, if not accurately. That is really not quite good enough, because the Amendment as it was tabled in the other place merely applied to this Bill when it becomes an Act; it never mentioned the Equal Pay Act or the Sex Discrimination Act, nor indeed any other measure. I venture to suggest that if this Amendment had been sought to be tabled in the way it is now before your Lordships then it is at least arguable that it would have been rejected. So that we are in effect being asked, if my contention is right, to agree to an Amendment which probably would not have been accepted in the House of first instance, and that is another matter where I think we should pause.

My Lords, I have given these various objections which come to mind, but, above all, I am very concerned lest it should be thought outside the Palace of Westminster that we as a House in any way care less for the welfare and interests of our employees than the other place. This seems to me to be one of the difficulties which, whatever we say, can be read into this Amendment by those outside who may not be too keen to extend their charity towards your Lordships' House and what it tries to do. I do not want it to be thought in any quarter that we in this House are agreeable to an Amendment which extends the scope of this Bill to the employees of another place but we are not going to have it extended to our own. I should like to make that very clear, and I hope that others will say the same, in probably more elegant language than mine.

There are thoughts of deep disquiet among many noble Lords about an Amendment, which must he suspect, brought in in considerable haste with really very little time or opportunity for proper consideration or debate. We have not even been told why it is that this Amendment has to be tacked on to this Bill, why it cannot wait either for the other place to do what they want to do in away that is open to them, or why it should not, if it has to be the subject of legislation, be in legislation which can be taken early in the next Session. I appreciate that the noble Lord the Leader of the House was extremely accommodating over the last Amendment to which I objected; that is, Amendment No. 5. May I make a suggestion to him which may be commendable, and which I think would meet the desires of the other House and at the same time not cause these very disquieting thoughts for the future which we must all have. It would be perfectly possible to introduce very early in the next Session an enabling Bill which would in effect ensure that in future each House could remain master of its own House so far as legislation like this is concerned and could apply legislation such as this by means of Resolution or Motion to the staff of each House, as it considers right, proper and necessary. I know that we on this side of the House would give every facility; we would abrogate our normal rules of procedure and we would be able to pass such a Bill in all its stages in one day.

This Bill, which is almost now in its last moments in your Lordships' House, cannot really come into effect for a little time. I think if people could put their heads together in amicable agreement we could have an enabling Bill on the Statute Book ready to greet this particular Bill once it has become an Act and starts to take effect. I invite the noble Lord the Leader of the House not in a contentious spirit but in a deeply anxious spirit, and at the same time, I hope, a co-operative spirit, to examine what I have said and if it is possible to act on it. If he will not—and he may well have sound reasons for not accepting the invitation—then we have already his undertakings, so far as this Amendment is concerned in the other place, and what his attitude would be if the other place tried to amend the Amendment possibly to the detriment of our interests, and, of course, we thank him for that.

But I think, also, there should be an undertaking on the part of the Government, if they wish to persist in this Amendment, and in so far as any Government ever can give an undertaking, that this Amendment and this part of what will soon be an Act should not be a precedent for the future. It would be intolerable if, through a last minute Amendment such as this, each House, and particularly your Lordships' House, lost its freedom to manoeuvre and freedom to conduct its affairs as it thinks best; historical freedoms which it has always enjoyed.

6.20 p.m.

Lord TRANMIRE

My Lords, this is a delicate matter, and quite clearly the noble Lord the Leader of the House and my noble friend Lord Mansfield have walked even more delicately than Agag did many years ago. It is harder for somebody who has come recently from the Lower House, and can be even more delicate for them. Rather than two points may I put two questions to the noble Lord the Leader of the House. First, what consultation has taken place with the Officers of the House of Commons? There exists a difficult position because the Clerks at the Table are excluded from this Amendment, and therefore they would be the normal channel for consultation. How far have the rest of the Officers of the House who are covered by this Bill been duly consulted?

The other question calls for a little more explanation of subsection (3), which I view with a certain amount of anxiety. As I read subsection (3), this is a statutory enactment saying that the privileges of the House shall be destroyed or curtailed by the provisions of this Bill. So far as I know, there is no precedent in law for such action. I have never known it. The privilege of the Houses of Parliament has always been, as I understood it, paramount. Perhaps the noble Lord will explain that matter and what is intended by that particular subsection. I should have thought that the new Amendment would have been perfectly good without subsection (3), and then the custom of Parliament which contains privilege would be, as always, paramount, but the will of Parliament always is to allow the courts their discretion. I have never before seen in any Act of Parliament this, to my mind, clear invasion of privilege.

I view this with a certain amount of regret and uncertainty. I thought that one of the suggestions of my noble friend would be that it would be better to try to deal with this matter generally in the new Session, and then to deal with the whole problem of the status of Officers of the House. I know from my previous incarnation that there has always been a good deal of doubt about the way in which the structure concerning the Officers of the Lower House is brought about. It might have been a good opportunity to review all of that in the new Session, and at the same time to have seen how far these different Acts of Parliament should apply to those Officers. However, that is a matter of judgment. Certainly, I would do nothing to vote against this Amendment, but this might have been a happier occasion if the noble Lord the Leader of the House had taken the same action on the Amendment as he took on Amendment No. 5.

Baroness VICKERS

My Lords, may I say one or two words as I am also new to the House. The noble Lord who introduced this Amendment mentioned the fact that he did not know whether this was appropriate in this Bill. Of course it was not until he changed the Long Title. He had to change the Long Title to put in "Maternity Pay Fund". However, if he is going to bring in the Equal Pay Act and the Sex Discrimination Act, what about the Health and Safety Acts, and the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Acts? Surely we shall need to have these as well, if we are going to have the other two Acts. I should like his comments on that.

Then perhaps the noble Lord could enlighten me on subsections (6) and (7) on page 8, because they deal with the different questions about the staff. Subsection (6) says: …description of members of the staff for the time being designated by Mr. Speaker a person so designated shall be deemed to be the employer of members of that description for those purposes…as are so designated. I do not see how these people are ever going to know who they are. That is why I am asking. It says that any proceedings which are brought by virture of this section against Mr. Speaker— and he is going to designate them first I understand— or any person designated under subsection (6) above, the person against whom the proceedings are brought may apply to the industrial tribunal… But when all the other people are listed, who are going to be these so designated people? What category do they come under?

Baroness PHILLIPS

My Lords, I should like to follow up the noble Baroness on one point which rather disturbed me having listened to the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield. I am sure that the Leader of the House can clarify this. Do I understand that if this is not carried into effect, the Sex Discrimination Act and the Equal Pay Act would not apply to employees within the House, within the designation of this particular clause? I must say that this comes as rather a shock to me. I do not know whether it does to other Members of your Lordships' House. One has known of the strange way in which Crown regulations leave out certain people, but this is certainly something which those of us who worked on these particular Acts took for granted as being included. I should like to know the position, in particular in relation to these two Acts.

Lord SOMERS

My Lords, before the noble Lord the Leader of the House replies, may I ask him one question about which I am not very clear. What is the position of Junior Ministers who sit in your Lordships' House? Are they included in this Amendment?

Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD

My Lords, I have listened with great interest, and I am rather flummoxed by this Amendment because we had no warning of its coming. I should like to ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House a question, because I did not realise that you could divide the staff of the Palace of Westminster in this way, and say that one lot shall be treated in one way and another lot in another way. I am asking this only as a question. I thought that the Palace of Westminster was itself an entity, and there are two Chambers, but that in the employment of the Officers of the Palace of Westminster the same treatment, or the same regulations, whatever word you like to use, would apply to both Houses. Here apparently we can split the Palace. How is that?

The second matter which alarms me is this. When the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was speaking, he pointed out that if this Amendment, referring only to the House of Commons, is passed, it might be interpreted by the Officers of the House of Lords as though we were not as interested in them, or as interested in the conditions under which they work, as we are in the House of Commons. I am sure that everyone in this House would endorse as a fact that nobody in any House could be better served by their Officers than Members of the House of Lords, and that any even vague suggestion that there was some difference, or that we wanted House of Lords Officers not to be on the same basis, or whatever the Amendment does, as the House of Commons, should be instantly stamped on as being absolutely wrong, and not what any of us believe or think.

I find it difficult to support something which could be interpreted in that way after it had gone through this House. I would in fact support what my noble friend Lord Mansfield said, that it would be much better if, in a different Bill in the new Parliament, this matter could be dealt with separately, dealing with the Palace of Westminster as one entity.

Lord DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I wish to associate myself with my noble friend Lord Mansfield in the plea he made to the Leader of the House and particularly in the proposition he put to him at the end of his speech. I should also like clarification on one point. We are always accustomed in this House to say, "This is a matter for the House," yet here is an Amendment tabled by the Government which will then go to another place and the other place will be dealing with an Amendment which has come from this House but tabled by the Government. Of course we all desire to see the greatest possible protection, not less than the protection provided by the law, for the Officers of the House. I do not think there is any question about that. The only question is: what is the appropriate way of doing it?

As I see it, the situation is that we are being asked to agree to a Government proposal in this House as a matter of procedural convenience so that it can go to the other House, and our own responsibily is in no way engaged. I should like to make that clearer than ever from the point of view of the matter being the responsibility of the respective Houses. I do not know whether the Government have thought about this, but supposing this had been a matter affecting only the House of Lords. Would the noble Lord then have introduced this as a matter for the House? In other words, would there have been a free vote without the Whips on? By the same token, it would ease the general position if, when the matter goes back to the other House—and we must obviously not appear to be exercising influence in this, though we can try to exercise influence on the Government —the Government gave a free vote in the other place. This would help to remove any sort of suggestion that we are intro- in this House something which the Government will then introduce in another place, accompanied by the use of full Government powers.

6.32 p.m.

Lord SHEPHERD

My Lords, when introducing this Amendment, I regarded it as a procedural device by which another place could consider this matter, unfettered by the sort of—I will not say restrictions—influence I brought to bear earlier on. I speak at a very great disadvantage compared with, for example, the noble Lord, Lord Tranmire, who was once the Father of the other place; the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, and the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, because I never was in another place and their habits and methods are completely unknown to me. I think I prefer to leave that there. As to the question of the staff who will be covered, I understand that they would be within the Department of the Clerk of that House: the Speaker's Department; the Department of the Serjeant at Arms; the Department of the Library; the Administration Department and the Refreshment Department, and that Office holders such as the Clerk of the House, the Clerk Assistant and the Serjeant at Arms would be specifically excluded. As for those for whom, shall we call it, the employee delegation will be made, that is for Mr. Speaker, and I assure noble Lords that Mr. Speaker has been consulted. I think it would be wrong for me in this House to say what Mr. Speaker has himself advised on this matter. In my view that is a matter for Mr. Speaker and those in another place.

Lord TRANMIRE

My Lords, I was asking whether the staff had been consulted, because I understood that they had not.

Lord SHEPHERD

I was asked a number of questions and perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to seek to answer them as they come to my mind. The point he made in regard to consultation is, of course, of very great importance indeed, but I was seeking first to reply to the noble Baroness. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Somers, that this Amendment could by no possible stretch of the imagination apply to junior Ministers in your Lordships' House, nor for that matter to Ministers in another place. On the question of the timing of the introduction of this Amendment, as I indicated earlier, I had hoped to have done it on Report but I felt it was right and proper that I should take it to the Offices Committee, and therefore I was bound by the Offices Committee procedure on timing in respect of when this Amendment could be introduced. I felt that it would not have been right to bring it to this House on Report without the Offices Committee consideration and the expression of their view.

The problem of the two Houses has been and is very much in my mind, and that is why I have stressed all along that this is a procedural device. I accept particularly the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, in terms of relevance. I said, and it is a fact, that the House of Commons Table accepted an Amendment of this character for debate and therefore I should have thought it a reasonable assumption that it came within the terms. The Equal Pay Act and particularly the Sex Discrimination Act appear in other parts of the Bill, and there are a number of other Acts which are referred to but which are not specifically related to employment protection. I thought the noble Earl was on very strong ground when he referred to precedent. This is a matter to which I, too, gave a great deal of anxious thought. I suppose that we are all creating precedents in the actions we take. I certainly would not wish to see a procedure similar to the one I am now proposing to the House being a regular feature.

The noble Earl made an interesting suggestion and it is one that had been put to me before; namely, that there would be the possibility of having one piece of legislation solely to deal with this matter. Of course the noble Earl was not in a position, in no better a position than I am, to know whether the Offices Committee would agree to even such an inclusion into such a piece of legislation. I would not presume to know what the Offices Committee might advise your Lordships' House. However, what I will do—if noble Lords agree that we give the House of Commons this opportunity of considering this matter, which is solely related to themselves, and bearing in mind the undertakings I have given—is to have immediate consultation with the Lord President of the Council, who is the Leader of the other place. We shall see whether the spirit which the noble Earl expressed from the Front Bench opposite is reciprocated in another place; whether such a separate piece of legislation could be brought forward, with the support of both sides in another place, with an assurance, through our Offices Committee, that we, too, would be willing to agree between now and the consideration of this matter in another place. If this could be done, then I would certainly advise my right honourable friend not to proceed with this Amendment in another place but to proceed by way of a separate piece of legislation. It achieves the same purpose.

My anxiety at the present moment is to allow the House of Commons to have an opportunity of dealing with this matter. We shall need to move very quickly and I shall certainly take immediate steps tomorrow to see whether such a proposal would be met in the spirit in which the noble Earl has expressed it. Perhaps we could then overcome some of the genuine difficulties which I fully recognise.

The noble Lord, Lord Tranmire, asked what was perhaps the most crucial question of all. He asked what consultation had taken place in the other place. I am advised that the employing authorities in the House of Commons took the initiative in seeking to have the employment legislation applied to their staff and that their staff have also asked for this to be done. I am not a Member of the other place, but that is the assurance which was given to me by those who advise me.

With that undertaking, I hope your Lordships will agree that the Amendment should go forward as a procedural device and that I should take immediate steps to sound out the possibility of introducing a piece of legislation which we could get through relatively quickly if there is cooperation and support in both Houses and on all sides. That would be a better solution. I am not master of your Lordships' House and, certainly, I am not master of another place. I do not know what the answer will be, but I hope your Lordships will agree that we should not deny the House of Commons the opportunity of considering this matter. With the assurance that I have given, I hope the House will agree that the Amendment should go through and that it should be left to the House of Commons not only to consider whether in spirit and principle this should be included in the Bill but also to decide whether the nuts and bolts of the Amendment are both only adequate and do not infringe the privileges of another place.

Baroness PHILLIPS

My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, and though I know the matter may perhaps be unimportant in his eyes, I should be grateful if my noble friend could send me a letter explaining whether or not the Sex Discrimination Bill and the Equal Pay Act need further legislation before they will be applied to servants of the House of Lords.

Lord SHEPHERD

My Lords, I must not anticipate the report of the Offices Committee, but I am fairly certain that I can sleep in peace if I give my noble friend the assurance that I should be very surprised if the answer to her question were not highly satisfactory to her.

Baroness ELLES

My Lords, I should like to say that I associate myself with everything that my noble friend Lord Mansfield has said, both as to the matters which concern us on these Benches and also with regard to the very positive and helpful proposal which he has made to the Government. I know that we on this side of the House will do all we can to uphold what my noble friend has proposed and to see that any such legislation would go through even within 24 hours. In this connection, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for the generous way in which he has treated the criticisms, the proposals and the deep concern expressed on all sides, to wish him well in his activities in the immediate future with regard to the negotiations with the other place and to accept his assurances that no Amendment would be made in the House of Commons relating to the House of Lords which would be accepted by this House. We wish him well in his future negotiations. We are grateful to him for the spirit in which he took our criticisms.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 123 [Financial provisions]:

Lord SHEPHERD

I beg to move Amendment No. 52.

Amendment moved—

Page 105, line 30, leave out ("and") and insert— (b) any expenses incurred by Mr. Speaker or by any person designated by him under section (Application of employment legislation to parliamentary staff) above, in consequence of any enactment which is applied by that section; and."—[Lord Shepherd.]

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 125 [Interpretation]:

Lord JACQUES moved Amendment No. 53:

Page 107, line 26, at end insert— (1A)"Employers' associations", except in Part III of this Act, has the same meaning as in the 1974 Act and in the said Part III and in any enactment thereby amended means any organisation representing employers and any association of such organisations or of employers and such organisations.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 61 and 62. The Amendment applies the definition of "Employers' associations" in the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 to the Bill, except for Part III, which I shall come to later. That Act defines employer's associations as, inter alia, an organisation whose principal purpose includes the regulation of relations between employers of certain descriptions and workers or trade unions. In the provisions of this Bill dealing with collective bargaining and such matters as the rights of employees where references are made to employers' associations, it is appropriate that the associations in question should have employer/employee relations as one of their main concerns.

That is exactly the effect of this Amendment. It also gives us consistency with the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act. However, so far as Part III is concerned—and that is covered by Amendment No. 61—we are in some difficulty. The Wages Council Act 1959 refers throughout to "organisations of employers", the meaning of which is not defined. It is well known that the areas in which the Wages Councils work are not areas in which there is a sparsity of employers' associations which carry on collective bargaining nor a sparsity of trade unions.

It is perhaps for those reasons that we have Wages Councils themselves determining the wages. As a consequence, under the 1959 Act, organisations other than those which enter into collective bargaining can be represented on wages councils and are in fact so represented. For example, the Menswear Association of Great Britain, is represented on the Retail Drapery, Outfitting and Footwear Wages Council. We do not wish to disturb that position and, consequently, there will be this wider interpretation of "employer" for the purposes of Part III of the Bill which deals with wages councils. Amendment No. 62 corrects a technical anomaly consequent on the Amendment to Clause 125. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1 [Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, etc.]:

Lord JACQUES moved Amendment No. 54:

Page 114, line 24, at end insert— (2) For the purposes of any civil proceedings arising out of those functions, the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 and the Crown Suits Scotland) Act 1857 shall apply to the Services as if it were a government department within the meaning of the said Act of 1947 or, as the case may be, a public department within the meaning of the said Act of 1857.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the Amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 66 and 67, because they do much the same thing. The effect of the Amendment is to provide that, for the purposes of any civil proceedings arising out of the functions of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 shall apply to the Service as if it were a Government Department within the meaning of that Act, and the Crown Suits (Scotland) Act 1857 shall apply to the Service as if it were a public Department within the meaning of that Act. Amendment No. 66 does exactly the same thing in relation to the Manpower Services Commission, the Training Services Agency and the Employment Service Agency. Amendment No. 67 does exactly the same thing in relation to the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 3 [Supplementary provisions as to maternity]:

Lord JACQUES

My Lords, with the permission of the House, I will move Amendments Nos. 55 to 59 en bloc. They are all drafting Amendments.

Amendments moved—

Page 119, line 34, leave out from ("of") to ("the") in line 35 and insert ("this Act and the 1974 Act relating to unfair dismissal and to provisions of").

Page 120, line 7, leave out from ("references") to ("shall") in line 8.

Page 120, line 16, leave out ("sections 71 to 76 above") and insert ("this Act").

Page 120, line 20, leave out ("sections 71 to 76") and insert ("section 72 or 74").

Page 120, line 41, leave out from ("treated") to end of line 42 and insert (", by reason of the operation of section 313) of the said Act of 1965, as not having been dismissed for the purposes of that Act.")—(Lord Jacques.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 7 [Amendments of Wages Councils Act 1959]:

6.51 p.m.

Lord JACQUES

My Lords, I am informed that this is a small drafting Amendment. I beg to move Amendment No. 60.

Amendment moved—

Page 139, line 46, at end insert— 7. In section 17(2) (notices to be displayed) for the words "wages regulation proposals or wages regulation order" substitute the words" proposals or orders under section 11 of this Act"."—(Lord Jacques.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord JACQUES

My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 61 and 62 together. I spoke to both these Amendments when I moved Amendment No. 53.

Amendments moved— Page 140, line 7, leave out from ("in") to end of line 8 and insert ("Part III of the Employment Protection Act 1975"). Schedule 11, page 155, line 20, leave out ("with employers or employers' associations") —(Lord Jacques.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 12 [Death of employee or employer]:

Lord JACQUES moved Amendments Nos. 63, 64 and 65:

Page 156, line 18, after ("provisions") insert ("(or proceedings to enforce a tribunal award made in any such proceedings)").

Line 18, after ("continued") insert ("on behalf of the estate of the deceased employee").

Leave out line 22 and insert— ("(b) the widower, widow, child, father, mother, brother or sister of the deceased employee,").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I will move Amendments Nos. 63, 64 and 65 en bloc, and speak to Amendment No. 68. The first Amendment broadens the wording of Part I to Schedule 12, to ensure that the right of a personal representative to institute or continue tribunal proceedings on behalf of a deceased employee (or to defend such proceedings on behalf of a deceased employer), includes the right to institute, continue or defend proceedings for the enforcement of an award. The second Amendment ensures that where proceedings are instituted or continued on an employee's behalf by a person other than a personal representative, any sums recovered devolve on the deceased employee's estate in the normal way. The third Amendment modifies the present definition of persons, other than personal representatives, who may institute or continue proceedings on behalf of deceased employees. It substitutes for the present reference to "next of kin" a specific list of close relatives.

The fourth Amendment adds to Schedule 4 to the Redundancy Payments Act 1965 (Death of Employer or Employee) a provision, similar to paragraph 3(1) of the present Schedule, enabling a tribunal to appoint a person other than a personal representative to institute proceedings on behalf of a deceased employee. I beg to move.

Baroness ELLES

My Lords, I wish to express some concern regarding Amendment No. 65. We realise that in law the words "next of kin" in paragraph 3(1)(b) leave much to be desired with regard to definition, because they could mean either statutory next of kin or next of kin as on intestacy; and. indeed, I believe that the definition of next of kin in Scottish law is different from the definition of next of kin in English law. Nevertheless, I express some concern as this is a very narrow definition now given in Amendment No. 65. It is perfectly conceivable that a deceased employee may have left none of these particular close relations, and the class therefore is not defined widely enough, either to carry on proceedings on behalf of the estate of the deceased employee, or to receive such award as may result from such proceedings.

I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, whether this Amendment might be reconsidered in the light of what I have said, so as to see whether or not there is some way to widen the class of people who could act on behalf of a deceased employee in these circumstances. I have in mind perhaps definitions used in the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Bill now awaiting Royal Assent. At the moment there would also be some doubt as to the meaning of widow. For instance, would it include a common law wife? Does "child" by definition now include an illegitimate child or a stepchild? This Amendment needs further thought.

We accept that "next of kin" is unsatisfactory as a definition of a class of persons, but we do not consider that the proposed Amendment has been particularly helpful in removing the doubts as to the definition in the Bill. I ask the noble Lord whether a closer look could be given to this Amendment. We do not seek to obstruct it in any way at this stage, but we should like further consideration of this matter.

Lord JACQUES

My Lords, I had better give the House more information. This Amendment substitutes for the reference in paragraph 3(1) to "the employee's next of kin", a reference to" a person being the widower, widow, child, father, mother, brother or sister of the deceased employee". This Amendment will enable a tribunal to appoint a close relative, other than the immediate next of kin, to pursue the proceedings, where this is desirable for practical reasons and is agreeable to the family. A tribunal might, for example, appoint the brother or sister of a deceased employee to institute or continue proceedings if it was impracticable for the widow to do so because of advanced age or ill-health. The list is confined to close relatives to avoid the complications which might otherwise occasionally arise for tribunals in authenticating the claims to relationship of aunts, uncles, cousins, or more distant relatives. Where a distant relative, who was also the next of kin, wished to pursue proceedings on a deceased employee's behalf, he would not of course be precluded from doing so by this Amendment. He could do so as a personal representative under paragraph 2 of Schedule 12, once he had taken out letters of administration. I do not know whether I have now been any more successful in convincing the noble Baroness.

Baroness ELLES

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that explanation, which goes some way towards relieving the doubt we had, in particular in the reference to the fact that anyone who is not within the definition of the Amendment could take out letters of administration and become a personal representative. I think that that would solve the problem.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 14 [Amendments of Employment and Training Act 1973]:

Lord JACQUES

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 66. I have already spoken to this Amendment when dealing with Amendment No. 54.

Amendment moved—

Page 160, line 23, at end insert— (8) For the purposes of any civil proceedings arising out of those functions, the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 and the Crown Suits (Scotland) Act 1857 shall apply to the Commission and the Agencies as if they were government departments within the meaning of the said Act of 1947 or, as the case may be, public departments within the meaning of the said Act of 1857.".—(Lord Jacques.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 15 [Amendments of Health and Safety at Work etc., Act 1974]:

Lord JACQUES

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 67, to which I spoke when dealing with Amendment No. 54.

Amendment moved—

Page 161, line 45, at end insert— (1) After section 10(7) insert the following subsection:— (8) For the purposes of any civil proceedings arising out of those functions, the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 and the Crown Suits (Scotland) Act 1857 shall apply to the Commission and the Executive as if they were government departments within the meaning of the said Act of 1947 or, as the case may be, public departments within the meaning of the said Act of 1857.".".—(Lord Jacques.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

7 p.m.

Schedule 16 [Minor and consequential amendments]:

Lord JACQUES

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 68. I spoke to this when I spoke to Amendment No. 63.

Amendment moved—

Page 174, line 48, at end insert— 34. After paragraph 21 of Schedule 4 insert the following paragraph— 21A.—(1) If there is no personal representative of a deceased employee, tribunal proceedings arising under any of the provisions of this Act (or proceedings to enforce a tribunal award made in any such proceedings) may be instituted or continued on behalf of the estate of the deceased employee by such other person as the tribunal may appoint being either—

1. (a) a person authorised by the employee to act in connection with the proceedings before the employee's death; or
2. (b) the widower, widow, child, father, mother, brother or sister of the deceased employee,

and references in this Part of this Schedule to a personal representative shall be construed as including such a person.

(2) In such a case any award made by the tribunal shall be in such terms and shall be enforceable in such manner as may be provided by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(3) Section 122 of the Employment Protection Act 1975 shall apply to this paragraph as if it were a provision of that Act."."—(Lord Jacques.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord JACQUES

My Lords, Amendment No. 69 is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 179, line 5, leave out ("the foregoing sub-paragraph") and insert ("this paragraph").—(Lord Jacques.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord JACQUES

My Lords, Amendment No. 70 is a clarifying Amendment. If any noble Lord requires further information, I shall be pleased to give it. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 179, line 21, at end insert— (4) If, in a case in which an employee is entitled to any right by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph, it is necessary for the purpose of ascertaining the amount of his entitlement to determine for what period he has been continuously employed, he shall he regarded for that purpose as having been continuously employed throughout the relevant period."—( Lord Jacques.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 71:

Page 180, line 42, at end insert— 5A. Renumber section 17 (Restriction on grant of ex parte injunctions and interdicts) as subsection (I) of that section and at the end of that section insert the following subsections:— (2) It is hereby declared for the avoidance of doubt that where an application is made to a court, pending the trial of an action, for an interlocutory injunction and the party against whom the injunction is sought claims that he acted in contemplation orfurtherance of a trade dispute, the court shall, in exercising its discretion whether or not to grant the injunction, have regard to the likelihood of that party's succeeding at the trial of the action in establishing the matter or matters which would, under any provision of section 13. 14(2) or 15 above, afford a defence to the action. (3) Subsection (2) above shall not extend to Scotland.".

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is declaratory. It is not intended to confer additional immunities on persons acting in contemplation of a trade dispute but to confirm what is already implicit in the existing law, that where the defendant in legal proceedings is relying on the "trade dispute" defence the court must give proper weight to that factor in deciding whether to grant an interlocutory injunction restraining his activities pending trial of the action. As your Lordships know, Sections 13. 14 and 15 of the 1974 Trade Union and Labour Relations Act re-enact certain long-standing immunities against proceedings in tort for actions carried out —and I quote the famous words— in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute".

Among the protected acts are, for example, inducement of breach of contract and peaceful picketing. Faced with industrial action of that kind, an employer may seek an injunction to restrain the industrial action until the trial of the action. In many cases where injunctions of that kind are sought the action, in fact, never proceeds to a full trial the grant or refusal of the injunction effectively disposes of the issue because it is the immediate question, whether the industrial action is to be allowed to continue, which really concerns the parties. What hap- pens in the injunction proceedings is therefore of vital importance.

Section 17 of the 1974 Act, which in practice adopted one of the useful features of the procedure in the National Industrial Relations Court (if to call that in aid does not give my Amendment the kiss of death) acknowledges the importance of the interlocutory proceedings. It provides that the court shall not grant an interlocutory injunction in the absence of a respondent who has claimed, or seems to the court likely to claim, the benefit of the immunities conferred by Sections 13 to 15 unless all reasonable steps have been taken to give him notice of the application and an opportunity to be heard on that issue. The plain object of that section is to ensure that the court should give full weight to the "trade dispute" defence at the interlocutory stage.

In practice, as noble Lords will know, the courts have proceeded on that basis. If it has appeared from the evidence before the court, and the arguments put forward, that the respondent's actions were in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute and were protected by these statutory immunities in the 1974 Act, or its predecessors, the courts have refused the injunction. But if they have thought that the defence would not succeed at the trial and that in the circumstances it was prudent to preserve the status quo pending the trial, they have granted the injunction and I do not think there has been any complaint as to the courts' approach to these matters.

My Lords, the circumstances which give rise to the Amendment are these. Your Lordships' House has recently had occasion, in a patent case called American Cyanamid Co. v Ethicon Ltd., to review the principles on which interlocutory injunctions are granted in England and Wales and to stress the discretionary nature of this remedy. It was pointed out in that case that there is no rule of law or practice (as the Court of Appeal, when it considered that case, had thought) that a plaintiff was not entitled to an injunction unless he could satisfy the court that he was more likely than not to succeed at the trial. This House, in its judicial capacity, in hearing an appeal from that decision of the Court of Appeal, decided that the court must consider whether the plaintiff has a real prospect of success; and, if he has, the court should then proceed to consider whether, on the balance of convenience between the parties, it is right to restrain the conduct of which the plaintiff complains pending the trial of the action.

My Lords, there has been some speculation in legal circles as to how far the courts will in future be able to consider the rival merits of the parties' cases at the interlocutory stage—and I do not think that I need to expand upon that general question tonight. So far as is relevant for the purposes of the Amendment I am moving I would only say that fears have been expressed that the "trade dispute" defence might not receive its proper weight in future—along, of course, with all the other relevant considerations that the court would have to bear in mind in deciding whether or not to grant an injunction. I am bound to say that I do not myself believe that these fears are justified, because it seems to me that in cases where these statutory immunities are involved the plain intention of Parliament, as expressed in Section 17 of the 1974 Act, must prevail. As I have said, Section 17 requires the court to give a respondent the opportunity to be heard in interlocutory proceedings on the very issue whether he is entitled to the immunities conferred by the preceding sections. There could he no purpose in that unless the court were to take that factor into account, giving it such weight as was appropriate in the circumstances, when deciding whether the injunction itself should or should not be granted.

Nevertheless, this Amendment is introduced to allay the concern that has been expressed, and I commend it to the House as a a useful, clarifying provision. I am sorry to have taken a little time to explain the matter, but as it is such a late Amendment, for which I apologise, I think it is right that the circumstances giving rise to it should be known. I would add only two comments on the terms of the Amendment. First, it is drawn in terms which, of course, recognise the discretionary nature of the remedy by way of injunction, but they require the court, in exercising that discretion, to have such regard as it thinks fit to the respondent's likelihood of success. It does not establish any rigid rule such as this House has recently disapproved in the Cyanamid case. Secondly, the new provision will not apply to Scotland (although existing provisions in Section 17 do) because no doubts have been felt in Scotland on this point, and the new provision will not be appropriate to Scottish law. My Lords, I beg to move.

The Earl of MANSFIELD

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for that very full and clear exposition of the point of this Amendment, which, as he himself admitted, was put down slightly late in the day. Speaking personally, I was in some difficulty because I had always thought that where a judge was being asked to grant an injunction in the way in which the noble and learned Lord illustrated, he would always have regard to a potential statutory defence, if I may so refer to it. It seems extraordinary that it has to be made an even greater duty for a judge, and, indeed, the court, to pay attention to these statutory provisions in Sections 13, 14 and 15. With the noble and learned Lord's assurance that this gives no more of a defence, if I may put it that way, than anything that has existed before, we are content with the proposed Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord JACQUES moved Amendment No. 72:

Page 181, line 2, leave out from ("below") to ("for") in line 3 and insert— ("(a) where the reference is to an employer in relation to an employee, means the person by whom the employee is (or, in a case where the employment has ceased, was) employed, and (b) in any other case, means a person regarded in that person's capacity as one.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment has for its purpose the clarification of the definition of "employer". The definition of "employer" which is to be inserted in the definitions in Section 30(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act ought to cover both an employer who has entered into a contract of employment with an "employee" and an employer who gives work to a "worker"(but who is not an "employee"). The Amendment provides for the first case in (a) in terms consonant with the definition of "employee" in the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act, Section 30(1)), and for the second case in (b). The Bill as drafted dealt only with case (b). I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord JACQUES moved Amendment No. 73:

Page 181, line 8, at end insert— (3A) In that subsection, after the definition of "individual proprietor" insert— job", in relation to an employee, means the nature of the work which he is employed to do in accordance with his contract and the capacity and place in which he is so employed;".

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment is to add to subsection 30(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 a definition of the term "job", as used for the purpose of the unfair dismissal provisions. There was no need to define "job" for the purpose of the unfair dismissal provisions of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act as originally drafted; the word "position", rather than "job", was used in the relevant provisions. "Position" is defined by subsection 30(1) of the 1974 Act.

The amendments to the unfair dismissal provisions made by the Bill—in Clauses 71 to 81, and Schedule 16, Part III—introduce the word "job" in two places. The first occurs in the provisions for an interim order for reinstatement or re-engagement (Clause 78); the second, in the definition of an offer of re-engagement contained in the special provisions on dismissal in connection with industrial action (the new Paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 to the 1974 Act, substituted by Paragraph 12, Part III, Schedule 16 to the Bill). The distinction between "job" and "position" is, however, a narrow one and unlikely to be significant in the context of the unfair dismissal provisions. I beg to move.

The Earl of MANSFIELD

My Lords, I think that I have followed the noble Lord's somewhat sophistical argument so far as the word "job" is concerned and I think I can see why he now wants to define it. But when one comes to the definition the noble Lord will see that in relation to an employee, it means: the nature of the work which he is employed to do in accordance with his contract and the capacity and place in which he is so employed". The use of the word "place" is that which exercises my mind. I would ask the noble Lord whether "place" in this context also means places"; because one has, for instance, an employee who in the course of his employment moves from place to place. In other words, everybody is not employed at the same place. Is that allowed for where the contract of employment is not limited to one place only? Perhaps the noble Lord could give us an assurance on this narrow point.

Lord JACQUES

My Lords, I think that on this very narrow point I should prefer to write to the noble Earl. If we wish to amend this provision it could be done at the next stage of the Bill.

The Earl of MANSFIELD

My Lords, with respect and with the leave of the House, it is not going to do anybody much good if the noble Lord writes to me after the Third Reading. I suggest that those sitting behind him—to use the legal phrase—take heed of the point so that when it gets to another place they could put an Amendment to our Amendment there if the position warrants it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord JACQUES

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 74 which is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 181, line 14, leave out ("5(2))") and insert ("5(3)").—(Lord Jacques.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord JACQUES

My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 75 to 77 en bloc. I spoke to these when speaking to Amendment No. 20.

Amendments moved—

Page 181, line 46, leave out ("paragraph") and insert ("sub-paragraphs").

Page 182, line 7, after ("(b)") insert ("subject to sub-paragraph (5B) below,").

Page 182, line 13, at end insert— (5B) Sub-paragraph (5A)(b) above shall not apply where the reference is such a reference as is described in section 12(2) of that Act (reference of issue previously considered by the Service) on which, in accordance with that subsection the Service declines to proceed."—(Lord Jacques.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Lord JACQUES moved Amendments No. 78 to 81 en bloc:

Page 182, line 26, leave out("were not") and insert ("have not been").

Page 182, line 27, leave out ("were") and insert ("have been").

Page 182, line 28, leave out ("was not") and insert ("has not been").

Page 182, line 36, leave out ("was not") and insert ("has not been").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 78 to 81 en bloc. These are drafting Amendments, the purpose of which is to change the tense of the Bill's Amendments to Paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 to the 1974 Act.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Lord JACQUES

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 82. It is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 183, line 24, after ("20") insert ("of Schedule 1"). — (Lord Jacques.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord JACQUES

My Lords, the purpose of Amendment No. 83 is to correct a reference. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 185, line 18, leave out ("sub-paragraph (3) or") and insert ("sub-paragraph (2) to"). — (Lord Jacques.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord JACQUES

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 84 which is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved—
Page 198, line 48, at end insert—
("1972 c. 11.	The Superannuation Act 1972.	In Schedule 1, the entries relating to the Manpower Services Commission, the Employment Service Agency and the Training Services Agency.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential upon the provisions which restore Civil Service status to the employees of the Manpower Services Commission, the Employment Service Agency and the Training Services Agency. If they are civil servants their employing bodies do not need to be mentioned in Schedule 1 to the Superannuation Act 1972, because civil servants arc automatically covered by that Act.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Page 185, line 23, leave out ("76") and insert ("80").—(Lord Jacques.)

Lord JACQUES

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 85 the purpose of which is to improve the drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 186, line 16, leave out ("there shall be substituted") and insert ("substitute"). —(Lord Jacques.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord JACQUES

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 86 which was discussed with Amendment No. 51.

Amendment moved— Page 187, line 6, at end insert—

House of Commons Offices Act 1846 (c. 77)

1. In section 5 of the House of Commons Offices Act 1846, after the words the said first-recited Act "insert the words", the Employment Protection Act 1975,"."—(Lord Jacques.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 18 [Enactments repealed]:

7.20 p.m.

Lord JACQUES

My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment to remedy an omission. I beg to move Amendment No. 87.

Amendment moved— Page 198, line 21, after ("or") insert ("by"). —(Lord Jacques.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord JACQUES moved Amendment No. 88:

Lord JACQUES moved Amendments Nos. 89 and 90:

Page 201, line 18, lave out ("and")

Page 201, line 32, leave out ("and")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, may I first direct the attention of the House to a printing error? In Amendment No. 89 the line is line 19, and not 18. Amendment Nos. 89 and 90 are to correct typographical errors. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

In the Title:

Lord JACQUES moved Amendment No. 91: Page 201, Line 5, after ("associations;") insert ("to provide for the establishment and operation of a Maternity Pay Fund;")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the effect of Amendment No. 91 is to amend the Title, so that it covers the establishment and operations of the Maternity Pay Fund. The Amendment is consequential on the introduction of the provisions for this Fund. I beg to move.

On Question. Amendment agreed to.

Lord JACQUES moved Amendment No. 92: Page 201, Line 16, after ("agriculture") insert (",the status of bodies established")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment is to include in the Title of the Bill reference to the status of bodies established under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord JACQUES

My Lords, Amendment No. 93 was spoken to on Amendment No. 51. I beg to move Amendment No. 93.

Amendment moved— Page 201, Line 18, at end insert ("to certain, parliamentary staff and")—(Lord Jacques.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

7.26 p.m.

Lord JACQUES

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. In doing so, I should like to thank noble Lords on the Opposition Benches for the way in which they have on many occasions facilitated the passing of this Bill, and also, behind the scenes, for their co-operation in consultations which have been useful to everybody. It has been a controversial Bill and, having regard to the nature of it, it has gone through without too much heat and steam. I am grateful for the co-operation which we have had. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Jacques.)

The Earl of MANSFIELD

My Lords, may I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, for his kind words. It has been a long, complex and indeed controversial Bill which is now in its penultimate stages so far as your Lordships' House is concerned. May I make this general comment so far as this Bill is concerned? If ever there was a justification needed in our Parliamentary system for a second Chamber in general, and for your Lordships' House in particular, I suggest that this Bill has shown that need. When the last Amendment of 93 on Third Reading has a star attached to it, that shows beyond doubt that right up to the very day upon which this Bill receives its Third Reading the Government are having to think again to produce new measures to get over certain difficulties. A great many of those difficulties have been shown up by the debates in your Lordships' House. I say that because there are sometimes criticisms of the way in which we do our work, and of the comments and criticisms we make on individual Bills as they come to your Lordships' House. In this instance, any such criticism is more than answered by even the most cursory perusal of Hansard.

I need not go into all the objections which we on this side of the House had and have in principle to the Bill. That would be tedious, and our objections were ably and succinctly set out at Second Reading by my noble friend Lord Gowrie. Generally speaking, we thought, and still think, that this Bill places too much emphasis on rights which are now accruing in increasing measure to employees and trade unionists, and there is little or no emphasis—there is certainly no stress—on responsibility. It is in this sense that we have tried to tempt the Government and in some cases, I admit, to coerce the Government, into considering Amendments which have improved the Bill radically from when it first appeared on Second Reading.

I say willingly that in many instances the Government, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, have shown themselves to be receptive to these ideas for improvements. One instance is the clauses which relate to the maternity payment provisions. When they were first produced on Report, they made little or no sense. As a result of this stage of the Bill, they now read reasonably well, and will be comprehensible to those who have to interpret them. I want to emphasise that we regard our Amendments as not being one-sided in their interest. We regard them as being good for the trade union movement as a whole. It is right to remind the House that the trade union movement is a body only a proportion of which voted for the Labour Government at the last Election; a large proportion voted in other directions. It follows from what I say that there is no monopoly on the Government side of your Lordships' House, so far as a desire to improve and strengthen industrial relations is concerned.

Listening to our debates, I sometimes felt that noble Lords on the other side of the House believed there was a monopoly of good intentions on their side, and that we on this side were confined, so far as our thoughts and desires were concerned, to a somewhat reactionary and almost Victorian outlook to the Bill. In the main, our Amendments have been tailored and moved in the spirit of improving industrial relations and providing a fair and just framework for both sides of industry, so that they can work out their problems in a spirit of negotiation and conciliation rather than confrontation. I think we see the need for this as much as anyone in your Lordships' House.

Where we differ from the Government is very often over a matter of emphasis. Where we disagree with the Government —and I must admit that on occasion the disagreement has been profound—it mainly concerns the protection of the rights of the individual and possible lines of recourse for those who have been, or feel themselves to have been, wronged and for whom, in many instances, there seems to be no adequate remedy. We seek to protect the smaller and weaker organisations against the possibly overbearing consequences of the big battalions. Equally, we feel that it is not likely to assist the field of industrial relations to tilt the balance so violently against the interests of the employers, especially the small and weak ones, that what may have been an imbalance in one direction then becomes an imbalance in the other. We do not think that fairness to employees and improvement in the industrial climate is more likely to be achieved by tilting the balance too far.

So this Bill now leaves your Lordships' House, considerably amended from the time when it received its Second Reading. I hope that the Government will at least consider these Amendments in the constructive spirit in which I think I can claim they were moved by my noble friends and myself. I am very grateful for the consideration that I have received from Members of the Front Bench opposite. They have made the passage of this Bill considerably less tedious and more pleasant than it would otherwise have been.

On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.