Lords Sitting of 10 February 1976

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the dock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Rochester

LORD SCHON
Sir Frank Schon, Knight, having been created Baron Schon, of Whitehaven in the County of Cumbria, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Todd and the Lord Annan.

ROOF INSULATION
2.47 p.m.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider what incentives, financial or otherwise, could be given to encourage owners of uninsulated houses to install roof insulation, and whether they will ask local authorities to send out information on the benefits of doing so with the rate demands.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, roof insulation can normally be expected to
2
pay for itself fairly quickly in reduced fuel costs, and money spent on improving property in this way increases its value. No grants are available generally for thermal insulation, it being the view of Her Majesty's Government that home owners already have sufficient incentive and that the resources available are better deployed in tackling the basic defects of substandard homes. The Government are however anxious to make home owners aware of the advantages which will accrue to them, as well as to the country, from installing roof insulation, and there has been a series of Government leaflets, as well as publicity campaigns on the radio, on television and in the Press, explaining the position and advising home owners how to install effective insulation.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for that reply, may I ask whether I am correct in believing that in the last 18 months the Government have spent £5 million on publicity for saving energy? Why is it that a measure which I propose in the Question—a measure which would cost virtually nothing and would bring the saving to the attention of all ratepayers—should not be put into effect? Alternatively, why could not this kind of notice be put out with the bills for gas and electricity?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the Government have indeed spent a lot of money on giving publicity to this matter. They have produced very useful leaflets and booklets on the subject, but local

3
authorities are their own masters as to what they send out with their rate demands. So far as the Government are concerned, they would be very happy to produce leaflets if the local authorities wanted such things to send out with their rate demands, and the same would apply if the gas or electricity boards want to do this. It is up to them to ask the Government and it is not for us to insist that they send out this material.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, surely the Government can indicate that this would be an acceptable thing to do, as they have done in many other areas. Finally, does not the noble Baroness think that some small incentive—which might have to be at an almost negligible final cost—would promote home insulation? If the Government arc spending these vast sums of money on publicity, why do they not give more serious consideration to this?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the Government always give serious consideration to ways in which we can save energy. We have already asked local authorities, and we have provided for them relevant leaflets about rate and rent rebates, and other matters. But there is a limit to the type of material which we can ask local authorities to send out. If local authorities want some information to send out and are willing to use it, we are happy to provide it. As I said earlier, roof insulation will normally be expected to pay for itself very quickly by reducing fuel costs.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that, just as the cigarette manufacturers are required to state that their product is dangerous for health, the suppliers of energy should be expected to state that the waste of energy is also unnecessary and dangerous for the country, and that insufficient heat in houses may be equally dangerous for health?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, that is a matter entirely for the electricity and gas industries. They have spent a lot
4
of money on advertising in their "Save It "campaign. I am sure they will go on doing so. I am certain they will take note of the comments today in this House.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the National Gas Consumers Council, of which I am national chairman, has produced an excellent leaflet which has been issued throughout the country, and a great many people are taking notice of it. Would she agree that, despite the fact that one might be able to get a householder up into his attic, it is very difficult to force him to insulate it?
Baroness STEDMAN: Yes, my Lords; I agree entirely.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that we have attached to Her Majesty's Government what is known as the Minister for Information? The Ministry of Information covers not only the subject raised by the noble Lord but also a very wide field; it spends quite a lot of money passing on information for the benefit of the general public. Why complain when the Ministry takes action to try to give a form of cover to individuals who are owner-occupiers?—not only owner-occupiers but also local authorities.
Baroness STEADMAN: My Lords, the Central Office of Information do a very useful job of work, and indeed my Department of the Environment have got rid of some 750,000 copies of this little booklet on, " Warmth Kept In Keeps Heating Costs Down ". People have shown an interest. I have no doubt a lot of people have used the advice in that document.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, in view of the Government's clear support for these proposals, can the noble Baroness say what steps the Government are taking to insulate their own buildings, particularly those owned by the Ministry of Defence?
Baroness STEDMAN: Not without notice, my Lords.

A3 IMPROVEMENTS
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the present phase of improvements to the A3, in particular, the flyover West of Ripley, the Cobham and Esher by-pass and the Malden Road underpass, is proceeding on schedule.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, there are three current improvement schemes on the A3 between the South-West of London and Burntcommon, about four miles North-East of Guildford. The underpass at Malden Road has been slightly delayed and should now be finished in July, instead of at the beginning of June. The Esher by-pass is up to schedule and should be completed in the spring of next year. The flyover West of Ripley and the Ripley by-pass are being opened to traffic later this week, some four months ahead of schedule.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that satisfactory and helpful reply. Will she give an undertaking, if that is not too strong a word, to secure that the disruption to traffic at the Eastern end of the Cobham and Esher by-pass is kept to an absolute minimum?
Baroness STEDMAN: Yes, my Lords.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, will the noble Baroness take it from somebody who very frequently travels on that road that to see something which says "opening Summer 1976" opened next Thursday—or "T'ursday ", as the Irishman I asked today said—is a matter for congratulation? And congratulations ought also to be given to Her Majesty's Government, few and far between as opportunities for such congratulations occur.

CYCLING IN PARKS
2.54 p.m.
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to allow cyclists to use the footpaths in Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens, as reported in the Press.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, at my request the Department of the Environment are considering an experiment using certain paths around the periphery of Hyde Park only, provided this can be done without endangering other users of the Park.
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, does the noble Baroness mean the roads or the footpaths, because this is a rather important difference?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, the suggested route runs roughly parallel to four short stretches along the carriage drive, with a further section parallel to Park Lane. I think I ought to point out that already the Serpentine road, which runs along the North side of the Serpentine, is closed to normal traffic but is open for cyclists; the path connecting the police station to the West carriage drive and the Serpentine road is also closed to normal traffic but open for cycling. If we decide to embark on the experiment there will be safety signs and guidelines, and it will be done in co-operation with the police.
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply, which is more or less satisfactory. But are Her Majesty's Government fully aware that for bicycles to be admitted to any of the narrower paths would present a very great danger to elderly people, such as myself, and particularly to the very young?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, we are very much aware of this. That is why, if we embark on this, it will be first in the nature of an experiment and will be carefully monitored. If there are any tear-away people cycling around we will have it stopped immediately. Secondly, it will

7
be carefully marked out and signposted, as the other paths are.
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness. That is very satisfactory.
Lord AMULREE: My Lords, is it Her Majesty's Government's intention that the number of guardians (or whatever they are called) in the Park shall be increased so that they can keep a watchful eye on what bicyclists are doing?
Baroness BIRK: No, my Lords, that is not the intention at the moment. This task will be undertaken by the police and also the people who are working there at the moment. It is not intended to increase the manpower. We believe the experiment can be monitored and watched quite clearly, and if there are any complaints from members of the public we will have the matter looked into immediately. I repeat that this will be an experiment.

RHODESIA: MR. GARFIELD TODD
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will demand the release from detention of Mr. Garfield Todd, ex-Prime Minister of Rhodesia, on his return to Southern Rhodesia after his visit to London.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, the Government will continue to press for the unconditional release (or trial) of all persons, including Mr. Todd, detained or restricted without trial in Rhodesia.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether it is not quite intolerable that an illegal Government in a British colony should for years hold an ex-Liberal Prime Minister in confinement to his ranch when he might have been
8
contributing constructively towards a settlement of the constitutional position?
Lord GORONWY-REBORTS: Yes, my Lords, quite intolerable.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, is there really nothing more that we in this country can do to put this situation right? Many of us have written to the Press. I would like to support the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. We feel totally frustrated about the situation.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, this has been discussed and debated so many times, here and in another place; it is constantly under discussion in the Foreign Office and indeed between the Government and Opposition and all Parties in the State. It is an exceptionally difficult situation. That does not detract from the intolerability of its nature. We must continue to do our best.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, without any desire to criticise the Rhodesian Government—because I do not think it does very much good—can my noble friend say what is the crime alleged against Mr. Garfield Todd which has caused his detention? There seems to be some mystery about it and it ought to be cleared up.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the illegal régime allege that Mr. Todd is a threat to public order in Rhodesia. Most people would think that the illegal régime is the greatest threat to the public order of Africa.

ANGOLA: BRITISH MERCENARIES
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend the Leader of the House will repeat a Statement on British mercenaries in Angola.
DAMAGES (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Report received.
LAND DRAINAGE (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
Report received.

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL
3.0 p.m.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd): My Lords, we have before us today two Motions which I suggest we can conveniently consider together. The first is that the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill be read a second time. The second is that we consider the Amendments suggested by another place, pursuant to the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, for insertion in the Bill at a later stage if your Lordships so agree.
It is, I suggest, misleading to talk in terms of giving this Bill a Second Reading. We have considered it, and its contents, in the last Session. The Amendment suggested in another place is also familiar—and indeed was first proposed in this House. I do not propose to go through the clauses of the Bill as is customary at Second Reading, for the Bill before us today is substantially the same as that sent to us from another place almost exactly a year ago—except that it contains an improvement to Clause 2(4) made during Committee proceedings in this House. That apart, only the dates in Clause 3 have been changed.
This House has, of course, considered the Bill in exhaustive detail before. Noble Lords did not insist on their Amendments on the last occasion when we considered the Commons Message, except in regard to the Press provisions. We now find ourselves in the position of considering a Bill that has been reintroduced in accordance with the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949, because this House has disagreed a small part of a clause, about the freedom of the Press, which was not part of the original Bill, and which was substantially the same as the clause at first accepted in Committee by noble Lords without a Division, though it is true that this was amended on Report. This unique situation also involves unique procedures, which I should like to describe to noble Lords.
This House, quite properly and within its rights, on the freedom of the Press reasserted its views in the last Session on a clause which quite rightly is regarded as critically important, and on which its views were at variance with
10
those held—equally strongly—in another place. Noble Lords have exercised this prerogative on very few occasions, and not at all since the 1949 Act amended the original Parliament Act and reduced the time for which this House could delay a Bill. It has also been accepted by noble Lords opposite that this House should use its powers of last resort sparingly—though in saying that I do not, of course, imply that the powers should not be used at all.
Since this Bill failed to obtain agreement and Royal Assent so, in accordance with the Parliament Acts, it has had to be reintroduced in a second Session, in substantially the same form in which it first came to us. We have no powers now to impose Amendments to the Bill which are not acceptable in another place. We have no powers to delay the passage of the Bill beyond the end of this present Session, whatever we may propose. That is the stark reality against which we carry out the normal consideration of the Bill itself.
As regards the second Motion before us today, on no previous occasion has this House had to consider Amendments suggested by another place for addition to a Bill which has been reintroduced in a second Session under the Parliament Acts. Section 2(4) of the 1911 Act provides for this safety valve, which can enable Parliament to make agreed changes to a Bill without impeding its progress towards Royal Assent under the Parliament Acts. No suggested Amendments have previously been agreed to in another place on any of the Bills passed under the Parliament Acts. We have been sent, by another place, a suggested new clause providing for a charter on Press freedom. Noble Lords therefore have the opportunity finally to decide on this issue which previously so much concerned them, although the clause is in itself not part of the official Bill.
This House has a duty—I stress duty—under the Parliament Act 1911, to consider any suggested Amendments sent from another place. During our normal Second Reading debate on the Bill proper this afternoon, we may refer to these suggested Amendments which have been placed upon today's Order Paper so that noble Lords can consider as a whole the final form in which another place would wish the Bill to go forward

11
for Royal Assent. When the Second Reading is over, I shall move "that the Commons suggested Amendments be now considered ", in pursuance of our duty under the Parliament Acts. Noble Lords will appreciate that, eventually, under the Parliamentary Act procedure, we may only agree or disagree to the Commons' suggested Amendments.
I shall not, however, be moving that we should agree the suggested Amendments at this stage. Instead, I suggest that we should proceed to a Committee stage with the intention of moving Amendments to the Bill in precisely the same form as the Commons suggested Amendments which arc on today's Order Paper. They may then be treated as normal Committee stage Amendments, and become part of the Bill under normal processes. Because noble Lords did not previously accept a Press clause in this form, it is proper that they should be able to give it further detailed consideration.
The Government very much hope that this Bill can be passed in the normal way with the agreement of this House, and including the clause on Press freedom suggested by another place. The procedure that I am proposing—that we should consider, but defer a final decision on, the Commons suggested Amendments today, and should instead deal with them as normal Committee stage Amendments —will enable noble Lords to pass this Bill normally if they wish, without, of course, prejudicing their powers to do otherwise. I hope that this procedure will be acceptable to your Lordships.
I should also say that a Motion to agree the Commons suggested Amendments can, if we wish to return to them in this form, be taken at any time, provided due notice is given, before the Bill goes for Royal Assent. We shall, therefore, have scope for seeing how the Bill progresses before taking final and binding decisions about Amendments in this form. If this Bill is given a Second Reading and we move into Committee, it is of course constitutionally open to noble Lords to table Amendments to any part of it, quite apart from the Amendments incorporating the suggestions from another place.
12
But I hope that noble Lords will bear in mind that we have exhaustively considered the issues in the Bill on a number of occasions; that the views of another place have consistently been reaffirmed, and with substantial majorities; and that, leaving the Press clause on one side for the moment, this House did, reluctantly perhaps but none the less clearly, accept the changes made by the Bill which has come back to us today. There have been over 120 hours of Parliamentary discussion on these issues, and another place have expressed their support for the Bill in this form in a score of votes. I hope that, in view of the evidence of continued support in another place for the provisions of this Bill in this form, we can consider that we have now fulfilled our task. There can be no doubt as to the Commons view.
The suggestions from another place which I should seek to introduce as Committee stage Amendments differ from the Bill proper in that their continued existence depends on the will of this House—I repeat, the will of this House. If noble Lords who have not supported the clause in this form nevertheless take the view that half a loaf is better than none, then there will be safeguards for Press freedom in this Bill. If, however, noble Lords are not prepared to accept Amendments in the form suggested, then there will be no safeguards for Press freedom of any kind in the Bill when it goes forward for Royal Assent. This particular decision is now for this House alone, and we should refresh our memories on what is at stake in Committee.
The suggested Amendments which we formally consider today, but which I hope we can consider more substantially in Committee, are Amendments for a new clause very much on the lines originally proposed by my noble friend Lord Houghton, with improvements and embellishments, made as a result of discussion in both Houses, with the support of both Houses. There are one or two drafting changes, and one more substantive change which provides for what would happen if Parliament rejected a charter on Press freedom proposed by the Secretary of State. The details of these minor changes are more appropriate to Committee proceedings than this debate. But the essential point is that the suggested new clause sent to us from another place for a final

13
verdict is essentially that to which another place have given their support on three separate occasions.
At the behest of this House, they have re-examined the issues not twice but three times, without changing their minds on the basic issues or approach. On the most recent occasion, the Opposition in another place made their views very plain. They would have preferred to see changes in this clause, but that was not the will of the substantial majority in another place. But on the question whether or not the new clause in un-amended form should come forward to this House as a suggested Amendment to the Bill, there was no disagreement at all.
My Lords, both Houses of Parliament have already devoted a quite inordinate amount of time to this little three-clause, or, as I hope it will be, four-clause Bill. The options open to us on the way ahead are clear. The House may reject the Bill outright, today or at a later stage, and let the Parliament Acts be used forthwith. This would, of course, be perfectly constitutional action, but it would perhaps be at variance with our former acceptance of the provisions of the Bill. Perhaps I should make clear that if noble Lords rejected the Bill on Third Reading, they could still agree to the Commons suggestions, on which we shall have deferred final decisions, and they could be included in the final Bill. Noble Lords may seek to amend the Bill and to delay the inevitable passage towards Royal Assent by a few months. But it is overwhelmingly apparent that the scope for finding acceptable Amendments is, after such prolonged discussion, virtually nil.
However constitutionally legitimate such an approach might be, I think that in practice Amendments to the Bill which this House has already accepted once before, and has been so much debated, would be highly questionable. Moreover, this action and consequent delays could only be seen both in another place and by those outside who are directly concerned as wilful procrastination. I should make clear that the Government may not find time in another place for further consideration of Amendments to this Bill, which has already been subject to such detailed scrutiny.
On the suggested Amendments providing for a charter on the freedom of the Press the options are equally clear. We
14
can accept the thrice-affirmed view of another place, and pass the suggested new clause into the Bill as normal Amendments. Alternatively, noble Lords can reject them and refuse to have them added to the Bill by any means. That is the prerogative of this House. But if we do that, people will wonder what all the fuss has been about. The Bill has been delayed because this House wished to insert in it safeguards for Press freedom; yet at the end of the day it would go forward for Royal Assent, and by the will of this House would do so without a single provision relating to Press freedom in it. That would not be an entirely defensible position.
I must mention, but without enthusiasm, that noble Lords could start again on the roundabout of seeking to amend the suggested new clause providing for a charter on Press freedom. I have much more enthusiasm for the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, on the last occasion when we considered this clause; namely, that the powers which we may exercise in relaying are designed to enable us to encourage another place to have second thoughts and to enable this House to demonstrate its views on the Bill, rather than to hold things up merely for the sake of it. Those in another place have, at our behest, had second, third and fourth thoughts. It must surely now be apparent, from our proceedings last autumn and from the progress so far of this reintroduced Bill, that it is this version of the clause that is wanted by another place. In the last resort, they might prefer a Bill with no clause on Press freedom. I would very much regret that. I hope that the Bill proper will be given a Second Reading, and that we can proceed as quickly as possible through further stages towards the passage of a Bill agreed in the normal way by both Houses.
The procedure prescribed by the Parliament Act 1911 imposes certain rigidities and limitations. The Act was clearly drafted on the assumption that this House would continue to oppose any Bill which it had previously rejected. The Government would much prefer that the Bill should find its way on to the Statute Book as a Bill agreed between this House and another place. It is still my hope that noble Lords will in fact

15
pass this Bill once again, in the normal way, under the normal, well-tried procedures, without delay and without need to obtain Royal Assent under the Parliament Acts.
Throughout my speech I have referred repeatedly to "we" and "our" in the sense that this House is a corporate body. Perhaps, as Leader of the House, I might express a personal view. I have acknowledged today, as I have done in the past, that this House has certain constitutional powers of delay which were confirmed in the Parliament Act 1949—incidentally, a Labour Government Act of Parliament —and the proposals of a more modified form of delay in the Labour Government proposals in the reform of the House of Lords in 1967. Such delaying powers are there to be used, as I have occasionally been reminded before by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. But such powers are powers of last resort. In considering those powers and their possible use the House needs to balance the issue that is involved and the undoubted repercussions on Parliament as a whole.
Many see the essential purpose of a bicameral system of Parliament as being a check upon the Executive and on the possible actions of one of the Houses of Parliament, and for us a check upon the House of Commons. That may be so, though there may be some who think that the only credible check your Lordships may have is on a Labour Government and a Labour majority in the House of Commons. But I would suggest that a two-chamber Parliament, especially as we have it in this country, where we have Chambers which are so different in composition, authority and experience, has a much more constructive approach. I see the contribution of the British Parliament, with these two Chambers, to our democratic society as one of cooperation and the sharing of knowledge and experience in a positive way to solve the critical problems that confront the nation. I applaud the increasing co-operation between the two Houses and I am convinced that we are only at the formative stage of that co-operation.
An essential element of co-operation must be the recognition that the Commons authority rests on the votes of the electorate and this must mean that this
16
House, without a popular mandate, must accede to the decisions of the Commons. The Parliament Acts recognise that position and I do not believe that anyone would challenge it. But what counts in co-operation is the spirit of understanding that exists between the two Houses and their Members. To exercise our powers to the full will undoubtedly create a confrontation, and lead to hostility between Parliamentarians for generations.
The harm that could arise at worst would be irreparable, and at least certainly more than could possibly arise from the passing of the Bill to which we, as a House, have already agreed. I think this is recognised and I would be very surprised if this House, with all its political experience, would act in such a way as to create that confrontation, except on an issue of supreme national importance.
It may be argued that to send this Bill back again to the Commons, if only for one further effort to get agreement, would not just be exercising our undoubted constitutional rights on what, for this Session, is a new Bill, but that this would not create difficulties between the two Houses. I beg to differ. This is a small Bill consisting of three clauses. The issues have been debated exhaustively. The issues are in themselves narrow and have been subject to countless Divisions in another place. There can be no question as to what are the views of the majority in the House of Commons. No new issue can be foreseen. I suggest that any Amendment could only be a new draft on issues that have already been more than adequately considered. I know that your Lordships regard the conscience clause as of supreme importance. There have already been 11 different drafts on this matter. Time is a vital factor in the House of Commons.
Parliamentarians in both Houses know that it is a traditional tactic of Oppositions to delay proceedings to seek the restrictions of time as a way of embarrassing the Government of the day. To send Amendments that have already been considered three or four times back again, could well be seen as the way in which some noble Lords might be wishing to add to the frustrations of the Government in the House of Commons. Time is recognised by all to be inadequate for the proper consideration of national

17
affairs and for the future legislation which the House of Commons will be asked to deal with. To impose yet further demands on valuable and precious time for consideration of issues which, as I have said, have been considered time and time again can only create frustration and resentment and harm our relations. If 1 thought there was anything new; something that might be acceptable to bridge the gap between the two Houses, I would be the first to try. I do not believe that is now possible.
I beg the House to consider with great care their attitude to this Bill. Sooner or later under the Parliament Act this Bill will receive the Royal Assent. I hope, therefore, that in the long-term interests of future co-operation between this House and another place we will now decide that we have done all that we can and that we will now let the Bill go through to the Statute Book without any further delay, thus avoiding unnecessary inconvenience in the use of valuable time in the Commons on issues exhaustively considered and voted upon. The House has already made its views patently clear and earns no disrespect for that. So far, common sense has prevailed. There is no constitutional crisis, and the two Houses are not at war. As Leader of the House, I ask the House to help me to seek, and continue to seek, ways of avoiding confrontation. I hope that we may continue to tread the path of common sense and responsibility in accepting the considered judgment of another place without delay, and without empty gestures of martyrdom or heroic last stands.
For myself, agreeing the Bill would not be capitulation, nor a defeat. We shall have exercised our powers, perhaps overlong, hut in the end wisely and sensibly. We have other important work to proceed to, where our suggestions can and will, of course, have concrete benefits in influencing the final outcome—always provided that we exercise our power with discretion and on occasions where there is real merit in doing so. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Shepherd.)
3.28 p.m.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has made a very important speech on this matter and
18
one which we shall need to consider with great care in reaching conclusions as to what we are to do about the Bill. We return once again to consideration of the Bill and this time—as the noble Lord has made plain—under the shadow of the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949. We fought strenuously against this Bill throughout the last Session and against some of the provisions of its sister Act, the Employment Protection Act. In both cases, we were fighting, as we saw it, for the rights of the individual and, specifically, for the rights of the individual worker against the power of the boss, whether it be his union boss or his employer.
Although the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, did not, for understandable reasons, want again to rehearse some of the underlying grounds upon which we oppose the Bill, I feel that it is necessary, in considering the Bill again, once more to bring to light some of the objections which we feel to be fundamental. I should not wish to detain your Lordships very long, but I believe that we must look at the merits of the Bill and trace some of its previous history.
For my purposes I remind your Lordships of what was contained in the Donovan Report. The Report did not reject the closed shop. Nevertheless, it recognised—and I quote:
"… the closed shop as it operates at present is not always in the best interests either of workers or of the community as a whole. It is liable from time to time to cause substantial injustice to individuals from which they have no effective means of redress."
In particular, it drew attention to interference with the freedom of the individual:
" where workers have conscientious reasons for not belonging to trade unions."
It proposed that an individual should have a final right of appeal to a new and independent review body, and it is precisely that which we have been fighting for in the course of the Bill.
The then Labour Government failed to implement the Donovan Report, and it was left to the Conservative Government of 1970 to bring forward our much maligned Industrial Relations Act 1971. That Act sought to substitute the concept of an agency shop agreement for the concept of the closed shop and contained specific provisions to guarantee the rights

19
of an individual employee against unfair exclusion or expulsion from a union and against unfair dismissal by an employer. However, the present Government repealed that Act and put in its place the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974. Thanks to their slender majority at the time, that Act, although it brought back the concept of the closed shop, contained in Section 5 certain rights of workers against arbitrary or unreasonable exclusion or expulsion from a trade union; in Schedule 1 dismissal by an employer in a closed shop situation was unfair if the employee objected to union membership on grounds of religious belief or on any reasonable grounds.
This Bill takes yet a further step to deprive the individual employee of his legal rights against unreasonable exclusion or expulsion from a trade union and against unfair dismissal by an employer. It repeals Section 5 of the 1974 Act—that is, Clause 1(a)—and in Clause 1(e) it removes from Schedule 1 the words,
" or on any reasonable grounds to being a member of a particular trade union ".
This has been our fundamental objection to the Bill throughout its progress in this House. We believe that trade unions are now in a position of considerable power, and that Parliament should be concerning itself, more particularly in the present circumstances, with the rights of the individual worker rather than with giving yet more power to the union against the individual worker.
Moreover, we believe that some of the provisions of this Bill are in contradiction to the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights. This was the reason why, at the Committee stage in the last Session, my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone moved Amendments to secure the rights of the individual. The Bill allows a person to claim damages against an employer for unfair dismissal if he refuses to join a recognised trade union on grounds of religious belief and on no other grounds. This seems to us to be far too narrow and, in particular, to exclude grounds of conscience which have, in the past, always been recognised as valid, which were recognised as valid by the Donovan Report, and which, in
20
an increasingly irreligious age, one would have thought might have more validity than ever before.
The Amendment which your Lordships made at the Committee stage a year ago inserted after "religious belief" the words "or reasonable grounds of conscience". That Amendment was rejected in another place, and on the matter returning here we very reluctantly accepted that rejection, mainly because by then we were even more preoccupied with one particular aspect of the closed shop, which related to the freedom of the Press. However, the relevance of those Amendments has now been highlighted by the case of the so-called "Ferrybridge Six". They were dismissed by their employer as they were unwilling to join a recognised union. But under the 1970 Act, as it still stands, they had a right of appeal to an industrial tribunal. They exercised their right of appeal; that tribunal has now reported and has found in their favour.
But none of this appeal procedure would have been open to them if this Bill had now been on the Statute Book. If this Bill had already become law their only recourse would have been to a committee set up by the TUC which, in my view, by its very nature, cannot be considered to be an independent tribunal. I have no prejudice against the TUC. At the same time, I believe that it is a generally accepted view that justice has not only to be done but has to be seen to be done; I do not believe that a committee established by the TUC can possibly be seen to do justice between an employee and his union. What is more, its jurisdiction would not apply in the case of unions that are not members of the TUC, and it has no means of ensuring that its decisions are put into effect. We remain firmly opposed to the provisions of this Bill as they affect the individual worker.
However, it was more particularly in relation to the freedom of the Press that this House seized upon the dangers inherent in the Government's proposals. There remain the dangers of an agreement to establish a closed shop within a newspaper, compelling the editor to join and influencing his editorial judgment; and there remains the further danger of excluding outside contributors who may not be members of an appropriate union.

21
This was the case which was at the time so eloquently argued by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and those who supported him, and which this House supported by a very large majority, in the final analysis by 168 votes to 80, with my Party and the Liberal Party supporting the noble Lord, Lord Goodman; with a very large majority of the Cross-Benchers supporting the Amendment; and with even some Members on the opposite side of the House supporting it. I am very sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, is not able to be with us today. I understand that he is making good progress and that he will be able to be with us on the Committee stage. In the meantime, we are fortunate to have one of the co-sponsors of his Amendment, my noble friend Lord Drogheda, who no doubt will be able to put us in the picture with regard to his views on the present proposals for a voluntary Press charter.
As the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, told us, the Government are determined to get their Bill, either with our agreement, or by means of the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949. The Government have reintroduced this Bill in substantially the same form as it came to us from another place in the last Session, together with a number of suggested Amendments which consist mainly of a new clause with their proposals for a voluntary charter on the freedom of the Press. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has clearly outlined to your Lordships the various options which are open to us under the Parliament Acts and the present situation. We are powerless to prevent the Bill from being passed into law by the end of this Session.
Should we therefore seek to defeat it at Second Reading, thereby causing a clear disagreement between the two Houses and allowing the Government to get their Bill immediately under the Parliament Acts? My Lords, this view has some attractions, not only from the point of view of an Opposition who dislike the Bill intensely but, it may be, also for the Government in allowing them to get their Bill without further delay. But personally I would hope that your Lordships would not act thus precipitately. It seems to me that the very fact that another place has sent us suggested Amendments demands that for the sake of courtesy and the normal constitutional
22
proprieties we should give this Bill a Second Reading, and should examine its implications more closely at the Committee stage.
As I understood it from the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, the Government will put down the suggested Amendments, if they are considered this afternoon and if the Bill is given a Second Reading, and your Lordships can then discuss the merits of this new clause, or its possible demerits, and decide whether or not these suggested Amendments should be incorporated in the Bill. As the noble Lord also made clear, we shall have the opportunity, if we give the Bill a Second Reading, to consider other Amendments, in particular, perhaps, Amendments to Clause 1(a) and Clause 1(e), still the main, underlying reason for our utter dislike of this Bill. However, my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham will probably have more to say on this particular matter when he comes to speak later in this debate. I would content myself with advising your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill, much as some of us may dislike it, and to agree to the consideration of the suggested Amendments. How we treat the Bill at its Committee stage or subsequently we can decide in the light of our further discussion of its provisions.

ANGOLA: BRITISH MERCENARIES
3.43 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement which is now being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister—and I will use his own words:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would now like to make a fuller Statement, following my Statement to the House yesterday, on the reports of the activities of British mercenaries in Angola and on the wider issues involved.
"In the present confused and dangerous situation in Northern Angola it is obviously difficult to ascertain all the facts. I regret, however, that there can now be little doubt that an atrocity of the kind reported over the week-end did take place. There

23
must inevitably remain a doubt about the number of deaths and how they took place until police investigations have been completed. A plane carrying British mercenaries left Kinshasa yesterday evening for Brussels and reached London this morning in two parties totalling 44. All are now being questioned by the police. I understand that three of the mercenaries are seriously wounded and that at least one has been found in possession of a firearm and has been detained.
" The organised recruitment of young men, many of them with no military experience whatsoever, for mercenary service in Angola must be a matter of deep concern to the Government and to all honourable Members.
" The Government have therefore decided to establish an inquiry with the following terms of reference:
'In the light of recent events, to consider whether sufficient control exists over the recruitment of United Kingdom citizens for service as mercenaries; to consider the need for legislation, including possible amendment of the Foreign Establishment Act; and to make recommendations. ' "
" This Inquiry will be conducted by a small Committee of three Privy Councillors, and I am pleased to inform the House that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, has agreed to act as Chairman of this Inquiry and that the other two members of the Committee will be the right honourable Member for Kettering [Sir Geoffrey de Freitas] and the right honourable Member for Hertford shire East [Sir Derek Walker-Smith]. Lord Diplock, as the House will know, is Chairman of the Security Commission, and his expertise in that field will be especially relevant to this Inquiry.
" The whole House will, I think, have been as disturbed as I was by the evident facility and speed with which a small group of people, funded by an unknown source, were able to recruit misguided people to participate in what the right honourable Member for Barnet [Mr. Maudling] referred to yesterday as ' this bloody business '. The
24
potential dangers of such easy recruitment are apparent, but the proper form of control is not easily defined—and the existing law on the many complex issues involved is unsatisfactory. We have therefore concluded—and I hope that the whole House will endorse our conclusion—that we must establish the facts of the situation by a thorough Inquiry into all relevant aspects, so as to prepare the ground for any necessary changes in the law. The Committee will be asked to proceed with all possible speed, given the complexity of the issues. They will of course be free to make an interim report, or reports, if they see fit to do so."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I am sure the House will be very grateful to the noble Lord for having given us the burden of the Statement made in another place by the Prime Minister. I think we would all agree that it is indeed a "bloody business", and one which has many unfortunate aspects. May I put three points to the noble Lord? The first is that it is very difficult for any of us to make a judgment on what has gone on until we know the facts. The Statement repeated by the noble Lord said that it is difficult to ascertain all the facts, and I think I should like to underline that. Until we really know all the facts, it is very difficult to come to any judgment. In the second place, I am sure the noble Lord would also agree with me that it is very important that the police should have a completely free hand to investigate any matters of a criminal nature that may have been committed by British subjects in the course of this affair, and I take it that the fact that a Committee of Inquiry is to be set up will not in any way affect the operations of the police in carrying out their duties.
The third point I should like to put to the noble Lord concerns the terms of reference of this Committee of Inquiry—and we all join in welcoming the fact that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, is to be its chairman. I notice that the terms of reference refer specifically to "the recruitment of United Kingdom citizens for service as mercenaries".

25
Would this exclude the question of volunteers? Because in the past a great many citizens of this country have taken part in civil wars or internal disputes in other countries as volunteers; and one can remember, on the other side of the fence, certain Americans who joined our Forces at the beginning of the last war, for whose help we were indeed extremely grateful. I would suggest that possibly these terms of reference are rather too narrow, and that they should cover not only mercenaries but also volunteers who go of their own free will and take part in activities of a warlike nature in other countries.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, first of all may I say that it makes a pleasant change to see the Press in full pursuit of mercenaries instead of British politicians for once; but, having said that, I should like to support very sincerely the setting up of this Committee of Inquiry. I think the noble Lord the Leader of the House made a slip of the tongue when he referred to the Foreign Establishment Act; it is in fact the Foreign Enlistment Act that we are dealing with and I thought I would put that right just for the Record. Following on what the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has said, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, exactly what assistance the Committee of Inquiry will have in ascertaining the facts about recruitment in the United Kingdom and atrocities, if they have occurred, overseas. Is this going to be a matter of the British police assisting the Committee of Inquiry, or is there to be a special unit with special powers? As speed is essential, I think that this ought to be clarified very quickly. As the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said, there are probably two sides in this matter. One is the levelling of criminal charges for offences that may have occurred and the other is to sift the facts on both recruitment and atrocities.
3.50 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am grateful for the reception that both noble Lords have given to this Statement. In regard to the question of the terms of reference, it is true that the terms refer to mercenaries. I suspect that the reason for that is that we are dealing with the present and very sad situation in Angola and, if we arc to deal with this situation, the Committee must act very quickly and this can be done only if the opera
26
tion of their inquiry is in a very narrow field. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, mentioned volunteers. One thinks of those who have served with honour as volunteers in various causes. This would raise very wide issues. I should have thought that the first thing was to deal with this particular case and this is why the terms of reference have been so drafted.
Clearly, this inquiry is not to replace that of the police. The police have to inquire into any criminal act that may have occurred, both in Angola and in this country. The Committee will be responsible for their own inquiries. What relations they may have with the police will be a matter for them and the police. In order that evidence may he given to this Committee, freely and without fear, my understanding is that the Attorney-General intends to exercise such powers that those giving such evidence will not be charged under the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870—and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Byers, for his correction. One of the difficulties about making a speech and then having to make a Statement is that one tends to mix up the various Acts of Parliament.
I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that before making a judgment one needs the facts. I do not think that there can be ally doubt that an atrocity did take place in which some of our citizents were involved. My only judgment—I do not think it is a hasty one and I suspect that the House would agree with it, because the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, referred to it—is that when people for commercial reasons enlist men to go to fight, it is indeed a "bloody business" and one that should not be tolerated in a civilised society.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether the terms of reference will include the category associated with the Cubans and the Russians? Are they to be regarded perhaps as peacemakers or will some other definition apply? Are they not also mercenaries? Why should we condemn, although they be very foolish, some of our people, young and middle-aged, who want to assist in this adventure, no doubt for remuneration or some other reason? Why condemn them and not utter one word of rebuke about the Cubans and members of the Soviet Union?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, my noble friend is highly articulate. I suspect that from time to time his memory may be, for convenience, short. But my noble friend from this Box has on a number of occasions condemned all sides, including the Soviets and the Cubans, for their military intervention in Angola. At the present moment, Her Majesty's Government have a responsibility to British citizens. That is what the Inquiry is about. I should have thought therefore that on reflection my noble friend would feel that his intervention was perhaps less worthy than one customarily expects from him.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, in view of the great urgency of this matter and its tragic involvement both for persons and also in a political context, may we have an assurance that pressure will be brought upon this Committee to produce at least an interim report with extreme speed?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, the House will know of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, and the speed with which he can work if he sets his mind to it. I think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, will be aware of the urgency of this matter, particularly if legislation is required. I have no doubt that the views which the noble Baroness has expressed—and which will be shared by all Members of the House—he will take note of and do his best to comply with.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, in case it is felt that no one else in this House feels like the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, I too should like to voice some doubts. While welcoming the Inquiry very much, I was not quite sure whether the noble Lord the Leader of the House did himself justice when using the words" should not be tolerated ". Let us await the results of this Inquiry. I wonder whether a local inquiry in this country will cover the fact that volunteers are going in large numbers from France, Germany, Belgium and the United States. Ought we not to seek a report from our diplomatic representatives on the spot as to what is happening to those volunteers?
May I remind the noble Lord the Leader of the House that it is not too long ago in all our memories when
28
between 1,000 and 2,000 volunteers from this country went to serve in Spain, and they had the strongest encouragement from the Labour Party of the day. The British battalion, No. 1 Company, after being visited by the then Mr. Attlee was in fact called the Major Attlee company. It is not without honour that people serve in bloody events of this sort. May this fact be borne in mind? Furthermore, could the Government, having got this Inquiry out of the way, now turn their minds and that of our allies to stopping the massive invasion by 12,000 Cuban troops carried by Russian military aircraft?—because that has been the cause of the main problem in this desperately unhappy state of affairs.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, we could have a long debate upon the difference between what has happened in Angola and the way in which recruitment has taken place in this country, and the free volunteers who went to Spain in support of a democratic Government fighting against the enemies with whom we ourselves were confronted from 1939 onwards. I agree with the noble Lord that we should exercise judgment. Perhaps it may be easier for the noble Lord to do so, than for me with (shall I say?) my own particular knowledge of this matter. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, will produce his Report, which will be available to this House, and that it will be one that this House will be able to consider. I hope too that, if legislation were to be necessary, it would be legislation that this House would certainly expedite in its processes.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that those people who have been responsible for recruiting these mercenaries, now announce that they have a contract for 500 more? May we take it that while awaiting the Diplock Report the Government will ensure that there is a shortage of transport methods from this country for any of them?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, no British airline has made any aircraft available for mercenaries to go from this country to Angola. Representations have been made to a Belgian airline to cease transporting them. My understanding is that they are now willing to comply with that request.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, will the Government keep in mind the dangers that may flow in the long term from the narrow terms of reference? While one welcomes the Inquiry and understands the necessity of it in view of the particular tragedy that is alleged to have taken place within the last few days, if as a result of the Inquiry we give the impression that we are contracting out of the bigger conflict behind Angola, the bigger conflict based on ideologies which are in conflict, it may be that we shall be doing long-term damage. By all means let us inquire into this specific problem; but let us not do so in a way which will give the impression that we, as a free democratic country, are not prepared to play our part in resisting the encroachment of a dictatorship which would be objectionable to all of us.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, the role of this Government must be to seek, through the United Nations and our relations with the Commonwealth, the EEC, and the OAU, a peaceful settlement not only in Angola but throughout the world. I held very strong feelings in those days of 1938 and 1939, and I still hold them. I believe the participation which has taken place recently is not conducive to what the noble Lord has in mind. It is much more likely to bring discredit, rather than anything else, on this country and the West. It may be that what has happened will be used against the West, and this country in particular. We need terms of reference for this specific Inquiry; but clearly, if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, felt it necessary to go further or wider, it would be for him to approach the Prime Minister, and I have no doubt that that would be a matter to which we would give most urgent and careful consideration.
Lord PANNELL: My Lords, does my noble friend understand that though we are not necessarily associated with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, there is a great deal of truth in what he said. Though there were friends of ours associated with the volunteers in Spain—and we would never dub those people who died as" mercenaries "—there were on the other side people who rose to high positions in the Conservative Party who were proclaimed friends of
30
Franco, who wanted volunteers to assist the rebel Government over there at the time. Coming to the point which the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, made, if the American Congress had decided to go into this business in Angola, we might have placed ourselves in some intellectual difficulty. We need a far wider-ranging Inquiry; we cannot decide the matter on the question whether a 17-year-old is likely to be killed.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I suggest to my noble friend, and perhaps to the House, that this is something to which we may well have to return when the Report from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, is available. I say that because I am conscious that we have before us a debate which is of considerable importance. I suspect that, like my noble friend Lord Pannell, I have been guilty of getting involved in a debate. I should have been more careful and dealt with the Statement as my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts always does. In the knowledge that we shall have to come back to this matter at a later date, perhaps we should now move on to the other business before the House.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, in view of the fact that Scotland was once a source of many" soldiers of fortune "—that is a better phrase than the word "mercenaries"—could the noble Lora, Lord Shepherd, assure the House that the Diplock Committee will keep an eye on the position under Scottish law? This need not necessarily be a matter of their terms of reference or personnel.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, knowing the history of the Scots as mercenary soldiers, I am certain the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, will have the Scots well and truly in his mind.

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL
4.4 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, in reverting yet again to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill, I begin to feel some sympathy with an actor who has a small part in the stage production of the Mousetrap, because all

31
the arguments on these issues have been repeated over and over again in the other place and in your Lordships' House. It is hardly necessary to reiterate any of those this afternoon, except in so far as they are affected by the particular situation in which we come to consider this Bill; namely, that there is now in the background the possibility of the operation of the Parliament Acts. I suggest we do not regard that as a threat; those Acts are there to he operated if the need arises. It is wholly unnecessary to talk at any time in terms of confrontation, conflict or strife between the two Houses if we happen still to take a different view on any part of this Bill or of the suggested Amendments. It is encouraging at least to know the Government take the view that if the Parliament Acts are operated it will be because on this issue, if I may quote the words of the noble Lord the Leader of the House,
" The Government have a popular mandate."
That is a conception I find not entirely in accord with the facts.
The Bill, as we know, endeavours to put the clock back some five years, so reverting to the position in relation to the closed shop as it was before 1971. It is not necessary to repeat much of what has been said on that issue, and my noble friends on these Benches have always made it clear that we view that situation with some anxiety. We accept, recognise and appreciate the attractions, particularly of a post-entry closed shop, to the trade unions, and of course also to many employers who find that it facilitates the processes of industrial bargaining. At the same time, we have felt considerable anxiety lest there is a possibility that power might be abused under those circumstances, and the individual—perhaps the awkward individual—might find himself suffering. That is particularly so where there is the possibility of a closed shop in a nationalised industry or monopolistic situation.
Therefore when this Bill was before your Lordships' House at an earlier stage, we on these Benches put down two Amendments, both of which were debated and carried in your Lordships' House. One was to provide that there should be a tribunal with an element of independence
32
to which people who claimed to be victimised by the operation of closed shop legislation could appeal. The other was a similar Amendment to that to which the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, referred, to extend the area of objection beyond that of religious objection to the grounds of conscience. Your Lordships' House carried both those Amendments, which went back to the other place where they were rejected. The Bill came back to your Lordships' House and the House assented to that rejection.
It would be open to us, feeling as strongly as we do about these matters, to put down similar Amendments at a later stage to this Bill. The noble Lord the Leader of the House indicated that that would be constitutionally proper, that we should be constitutionally within our rights to do so. I am bound to say, having considered the matter, that my noble friends and I have doubts about the wisdom of such a course. We believe that, although it may be proper, it would nevertheless not be in accord with the spirit of the relationship between the two Houses of Parliament that yet again Amendments should be tabled in your Lordships' House, when we have on a previous occasion acquiesced to their objection. That is the situation so far as the principal Bill is concerned.
The dangers of abuse of the closed shop situation are particularly evident when one comes to consider the Press. It is of course because of that that the Press charter Amendments became added to this particular Bill. Clearly, there are dangers to the freedom of the Press— something which is valuable, however often it may be abused—where the independence of editors may he at risk, where the rights of outside contributors may be limited, and where a valuable and useful union, such as the Institute of Journalists, might find its very existence at stake. It was in those circumstances that Press Amendments came into existence, because it was widely recognised that the newspaper industry is rather different from other industries in this country. It affects not the quantity of our standard of life but its quality. In setting out the Amendments and having the discussions that we did, we were not singling out the Press for criticism but instead we were paying everyone in the industry a tribute by recognising the very

33
special part the industry plays within the community. This was not a new suggestion.
The noble Lord, Lord Shawcross, when he presided over the Royal Commission on the Press in 1962 reported, in relation to a different proposal, in these words:
" It may be said, and said truly, that the proposal involves treating the newspaper industry differently from industry in general. The answer is that the public interest in relation to the newspaper industry is different. The discrimination is based on the proposition that freedom and variety in the expression of opinion and presentation of news is an element which does not enter into the conduct of other competitive industries, and that it is of paramount public interest."
It was because of the widely-recognised belief that that was so that many of your Lordships, and particularly the noble Lords, Lord Houghton of Sowerby and Lord Goodman, determined to sec whether the problems of the Press could be dealt with in this Bill. There was much debate and discussion, and it is as a result of that debate and discussion that these suggested Amendments now come before your Lordships' House. It is perhaps a little churlish and not very helpful of Mr. Foot not to recognise that your Lordships' House played a very substantial part in bringing about the present situation. When one comes to consider the Commons suggested Amendments, as they are entitled, one reaches the situation that as a result of the interchange of ideas between the two Houses a very substantial area of agreement has been reached. There is largely agreement about the content of the charter. There is a disagreement between the present proposals and those contained in the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, which suggests that the rights and duties under the charter should be more specifically written in there than they are in the rather loose wording of the Government's proposal. We on these Benches believe that is right, and we believe that the public interest in the matter is such that it would be far better to have those specific rights and duties written into the charter.
Equally, there has been some difference of opinion as to the extent to which the charter should be enforceable. It has been said that the argument is between those who believe that the law should have no part to play in trade union relations and those who believe that the law should dominate trade union relations. Neither
34
of those attitudes has the slightest relationship to the reality of the situation that has developed. Again, as between the Government's proposals and those of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, there is much in common. It is now widely recognised that, of course, the Common Law of this country will have a part to play in the development of the charter and and its enforceability.
The matter was put at its clearest, perhaps, by the right honourable gentleman the Minister, Mr. Booth, when he said the following words at column 1430 of the Official Report on 21st January:
" In the first instance we sought to ensure that there will be matters for the industry, but where existing causes of action exist in which such matters are relevant, the existence of the charter should be recognised by those bodies and any decision of the supervisory body should also be quotable in such action."
A moment or two later, at column 1438, Mr. Booth added these words:
" We are seeking to make quite clear, on the basis of law that already exists for specific purposes, just what the situation is. In cases of unfair dismissal, breaches of contract of employment and even where a union member is taken to court by his own union, we consider it appropriate that this provision may be quoted and referred to.
We do not want to create any basis of legal action beyond that. That is our position."
It has been made quite clear by the Government that the Common Law has a part to play when disputes arise as to the effectiveness or the working of the charter. All that the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, sought to do was to encourage and stimulate the Common Law to be active in those directions. It was not creating any new basis of statutory law whatsoever.
In this situation, when we reach the Commons suggested Amendments, your Lordships will have to consider what course should be taken. I have indicated that we do not believe, on these Benches, that it would be right to seek to amend the principal Bill, if I may so call it. When we come to the Commons Amendments the situation is different, because at this moment the two Houses have not agreed on the Amendments, in the form in which they come forward. It would therefore be open to your Lordships to consider, to discuss and indeed to pass one or both of what I might call "the Goodman Amendments", if we thought

35
that would help. I venture to think that it would help, because last time, as we know, there were hurried all night discussions between the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and the Government, who we were led to believe were not a thousand miles away from reaching some form of agreement. If we were to put down those Amendments again at a later stage and if they were carried, the result would be that this matter would again be referred to the other place. The more important result would be not that the other place would have an opportunity of formally discussing the matter in the Chamber but that there would be a last opportunity of an informal discussion between those who were involved to see whether agreement could be reached.
Certainly, I have no doubt that the noble Lord the Leader of the House would agree that, if we were to pass such an Amendment, that would not in itself, so far as can be foreseen, amount to a rejection by this House, as a result of which Mr. Speaker would proceed at once to certify that the Parliament Act might operate. In those circumstances, there would be an opportunity for discussion. I would hope that is the course which your Lordships will take. I would hope it would be widely accepted that, if that course were taken, it would not be because your Lordships' House wished to flex its muscles or assert its independence, or to gain the transitory pleasure of defeating the Government on an issue of some importance. It would certainly not be with the object of causing any appreciable delay: that in itself is quite purposeless.
I hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the House will find himself able to agree with two quite simple propositions. The first is that, in this matter of Press relationships and the conditions inside the newspaper industry, we are dealing with a very delicate, difficult and important area. The second consideration, which I venture to think is self-evident, is that if we can deal with that area with the agreement of both Houses, of the political Parties and of all the sections inside the newspaper industry, the prospects of success of the legislation we are about to enact will be immeasurably brighter.
4.20 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, we all have the feeling that we have been here before, and now the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, is proposing that we should repeat what we have done before. It is a matter for regret that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, cannot be with us this afternoon, but he has had the advantage of being able to make his speech and have it reported in the columns of his own Hansard; for I see a letter in The Times newspaper this morning which tells us that but for his disabled foot he would have been here to say much the same thing as he has written in The Times. So I think we can assume that his letter represents his current point of view.
This is part of the aftermath of the 1971 Act. We must not overlook that fact. We are not considering this matter in an atmosphere entirely free either from history or from prejudice. I am sorry to harp on the fact that the 1971 Act did so much damage in the field of industrial relations and of the rights of trade unions that to get through this period without further damaging those relations is extremely difficult. I do not like this Bill. I do not like any Bill that has to do with trade unions, because, on the whole, it either restricts their activities or it perhaps gives them a licence which they should not have. But this Bill is necessary, because the Act of 1974 failed completely to clean the slate of the Act of 1971; and had there been no Act of 1971 there would have been no Bill today.
I have said repeatedly that the only reason why we are discussing this central feature of the closed shop in this House today is that this Bill, like its predecessor, the 1974 Act, has to deal with a situation related to compensation for unfair dismissal. Prior to 1971, there was no statutory provision for unfair dismissal. A worker had only the normal rights of compensation for wrongful dismissal at Common Law or for breach of contract. But the 1971 Act introduced this benefit of compensation, subject to the adjudication of an industrial tribunal, for unfair dismissal and it is only natural that when the present Government came to repeal the 1971 Act they felt they had to retain the provisions covering compensation for unfair dismissal. It is because of that

37
that the 1974 Act had to try to deal with the question which arose: is dismissal in a closed shop situation unfair dismissal? The Bill before us now proposes to say, like the Act of 1974, that dismissal in a closed shop situation is not unfair dismissal. Nevertheless, Common Law rights, for what they are worth, still remain. That is the position and we have gone over it many times.
The problem of the Press arose because of certain signs of militancy and exclusiveness which were discernible in the activities of the National Union of Journalists, and it was pointed out at the time that, from the point of view of this Bill, the NUJ and the newspaper industry were in no different position from any other trade union and any other industry. But because the newspaper industry is related to the freedom of the Press, which is one of our cherished freedoms—often abused, I may say—we wanted to give especial care to the protection of the essential conditions of freedoms in that industry. That is why, when it appeared that the Press was becoming the issue arising from this Bill to the exculsion of all other industries and all other unions, it seemed to me that it was desirable to try to erect some special freedom within which Parliament could require the newspaper industry to function in regard to its industrial relations.
I must remind your Lordships that the Commons Amendments, which embody the so-called charter, require the newspaper industry and all concerned—and they are enumerated in the suggested Amendments from the Commons—to try to reach agreement on guidelines for the conduct of industrial relations, including the closed shop, in the industry within a period of 12 months, and, if they do agree, then that charter has to come before both Houses of Parliament. That, my Lords, is an unusual safeguard. If they reach agreement, when they are all happy, their agreement must come to both Houses of Parliament to see whether we are happy and whether the public interest is properly taken care of in an agreement which might otherwise tend to be a fix-up between unions and proprietors.
If at the end of 12 months there is failure to agree upon guidelines, then that failure must be reported to the Secretary
38
of State, who must then try his own hand at formulating a charter which in his judgment would meet the situation or deal with any aspect of the charter upon which agreement has not been reached. Then, again, the proposed charter must come before both Houses of Parliament for approval to see whether the Secretary of State has got it right after his consultations, which are prescribed in form in the suggested Amendments from another place. That vests the final voice on this matter in both Houses of Parliament, whether there is agreement on guidelines or whether there is not, and it seems to me that that is an especial power to put in the hands of the Legislature on matters of industrial relations and it is this closed shop matter which is the central feature of our discussions and of our disputes.
The difference between the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and mew as that he wished to have specific stipulations as to what the charter should contain and he also wanted the sanctions of the law to be applied in certain circumstances of breach of the stipulated conditions. That meant bringing the law into the matter in positive form, and experience of the 1971 Act has surely shown how desirable it is to avoid bringing the law into this relationship between employers and employees. The trouble is that no one has yet discovered a way of fining 2,000 or 3,000 workers and getting the money from them. Nobody has yet discovered a way of sending 3,000 workers to prison without considerable political and industrial upheaval. Nobody has yet found a way of coercing workers to go to work when they feel that they should stay at home because they have a protest to make which they ought to express by staying away from work. None of these remedies has been found to be possible.
I well remember that at a meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party when we were discussing the White Paper In Place of Strife, and when a full explanation had been given of the possibility of the courts being brought into recovery of fines as a civil debt but with a full safeguard against any imprisonment for failure to pay, a member of the other place got up and said, "What are you going to do with the thousands of refrigerators that you will get as a result of distraints on workers' homes?

39
How are you going to dispose of them? Will there be a gigantic auction of the consumer durables of the workers of Britain, because you cannot recover the fines from them in any other way?"
This is what makes an absurdity of the position which can arise if enforcement is attempted in a big way. Even if it is attempted in a small way, as it was in connection with the dock workers, one finds that it spreads and gets out of hand and that thousands of workers are going to stay away, notwithstanding the fact that one could scarcely call such strikes as being in pursuance of industrial disputes. Workers stay away, nevertheless. In the end one has to send messengers around to find the Official Solicitor to contrive some reason whereby these men can be released so that the strikers will go back to work.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, the noble Lord really must not reiterate what is untrue. No messengers were sent around on the occasion to which he refers. This has been said repeatedly. The Official Solicitor acted on his own initiative under his general remit.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: All right. Your Lordships have had my version and also that of the noble and learned Lord.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, the noble Lord has made an assertion about an official which would have meant that he was grossly abusing his public position. The noble Lord cannot say, "All right". It is not all right. If he has evidence to support his assertion the noble Lord should bring it, otherwise he should retract his attack upon a public official.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I know the Official Solicitor and I would not wish to say anything which was derogatory either to his dignity or to anything else. So all I will say is that he happened to be the right man in the right place at the right time who was doing the right thing, and that that overcame a serious political and industrial situation.
It seems to me that the practical issue before the House is whether the Bill will be better with or without the suggested
40
Amendments from another place. That seems to me to be all that is worth talking about. Surely the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, does not think that we are going to resurrect Amendments, discussed at great length in this House earlier on, which have gone back to another place and which have been discussed there and rejected. That would be a futile exercise. Surely so many attempts have been made to find the formula upon which there can be general agreement that I fully endorse what the noble Lord the Leader of the House said in his speech: that the possibility of overcoming the final difficulties between us is very remote indeed.
I am never against any attempt being made to achieve even the impossible, but for practical purposes I do not think that we ought to consider that that is likely to be the way out. I believe that we have the duty to vote straight on whether to accept the suggested Amendments of another place or whether to let the Bill go forward without them. I think it would be a great shame if, in order to establish some kind of resistance to the view of another place, we rejected the suggested Amendments from another place and allowed the Bill to go forward without amendment. That would be a great pity because there is great hope from this charter, if it is approached in the spirit of good will by both sides of the industry.
I have already mentioned the safeguard of the approval of both Houses of Parliament to whatever is the outcome of the discussions between the parties concerned. I draw attention to the introduction of a new feature in the charter that was agreed to by the Minister at quite a late stage on the previous occasion; namely, subsection (5) which provides for an independent body—not a judicial but an independent body—to which can be referred all disputes and problems that arise from the interpretations of either the guidelines or the charter. They will not be able to make an award but they will be able to make a judgment, and they will be able to make their judgment publicly and to ensure that it is printed and available for all to see. In these days, surely the judgment of an independent body is worth something. Although it might not be regarded by some as equivalent to the force of law, I believe that in certain conditons it

41
would have greater force than the force of law. It is much more likely to be respected. Certainly it is not likely to be resisted, as I believe would be the intervention of the courts.
I am always hopeful that common sense will prevail in any situation where the interests of both sides of industry are so deeply entrenched against obtaining agreement and co-operation as they are in the newspaper industry. It will not take very much to wreck Fleet Street. The workers must understand that as well as the employers. Notwithstanding the shadow of this Bill and the uncertainty of what is going to happen to it, discussions are going on at the present time between the unions and the employers to reach agreement on the use in the industry of new techniques, which are probably essential if newspapers are to survive. I hope, therefore, that upon that kind of co-operation can be built an accord which will lead to agreed guidelines.
My final comment is on the question of individual freedom. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, referred to this several times. I hope that I stand for as much individual freedom as most people, but one is bound to concede that living in any community in association with others and having to adjust oneself to living and working with others is hound to entail some pooling of liberty, some adjustment of one's individual liberty to the liberties and freedoms of others. It seems to me that it would be bad if we were to elevate individual freedom to the point of anarchy, to the point of insistence on individual rights, no matter what. That is not freedom; it is the abuse of it. Whether it is in the community of a town or village, or whether it is in the community of a trade union, there is bound to be some give and take in matters of freedom.
In this particular case the "give "has been given to those holding certain religious beliefs. I would have wished that the "give" should go to people who hold deeply-held personal convictions. But no matter. There is "give" there. But the "take" has to be that those who wish to work in harmony with their fellows and to be associated with collective action and common endeavour, must try to harmonise their desire for individual freedom with the wishes of those with
42
whom they work in order to have the association of all their fellows in what they do.
Surely now, in present national difficulties, the one thing above all others which is needed is co-operation: not the exercise of individual or even collective anarchy, not the exercise of freedoms to the disadvantage of others, not the exercise of freedom to the disruption of industry, interference with production in the name of freedom. We want people to understand that those who have freedom have something to give and they can give it in co-operation with others and reclaim it at any time. That is the thing about freedom, that you can reclaim it at any time. Therefore I think noble Lords make a mistake if they are now going to preach the gospel of individual freedom as a matter paramount above all else in the whole field of social activity, trade union activity and personal freedom. I think this effort which the suggested Amendments from another place require the industry to make is worth while and I believe if we leave it alone the chances are that this kind of agreement that we all seek will come out of it—including the position of a minority union, which after all may loom large in the discussions that are taking place—and at the end of the day we may feel satisfied with what we have done. But if we go on I fear that we shall not only make it an issue between this House and another place but shall have disturbed the possibility of reaching agreement in the industry and we shall finish in a worse mess than we began, and, heaven alone knows! that was bad enough.
4.43 p.m.
The Earl of DROGHEDA: My Lords, as you all know my noble friend Lord Goodman is unfortunately indisposed. He is making rapid recovery but he cannot be here today. I do not know why the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, used the expression "Lord Goodman's personal Hansard", which is a bit of an exaggeration: but Lord Goodman had a powerful letter in The Times today, written in his inimitable style. In his letter he explained—and I go along with him as a co-signatory of his earlier Amendment—why we did not feel happy about the "watered down" version of the proposed Press charter; namely, those pieces of this

43
Bill which affect the Press. We still feel very unhappy.
It is of course true, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said, that without the 1971 Act we would not be discussing this Bill at all, but so much water has gone under the bridge that I do not think it matters very much. We have it, and we have to deal with the position as it is today. I am bound to say that no Government spokesman, either here or in another place, has said at all convincingly so far as I am concerned why the specific safeguards for which we press should not be written into the charter. The Secretary of State for Employment has indeed fully recognised the special position of the Press and has said over and over again that he regards the freedom of the Press as being vitally important, as indeed does every sensible person.
Originally there was no question of a Press charter, but there was pressure from many of us and from many Government supporters for the charter. So what we are really talking about still is the question of the built-in safeguards, and there are some points which I think are enormously important. In particular there is the question of the closed shop and the right of the journalists to belong to the union of their choice. To me it is most distressing that at no point has Mr. Michael Foot referred by name to the Institute of Journalists, treating it almost as though it did not exist, despite its 3,000 members and its long and distinguished history. Therefore we have considerable doubts about this so-called voluntary charter. Many people in Fleet Street still believe that we would be better without a charter at all.
The arguments are very finely balanced and there must be a great deal of discussion between now and the Committee stage, and I hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the House will comment upon the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, which I personally thought was most helpful and constructive. I suppose he will not agree to go along with what the noble and learned Lord proposed; one can but hope. My Lords, I do not wish to say anything more now. I am extremely sorry that my noble friend Lord Goodman could not be present. He will be here for the Committee
44
stage and I have no doubt that your Lordships will be treated to some of his well-known oratory, but before then there will undoubtedly be a great deal of discussion and we hope that the Government will still be willing, even so late, slightly to move their position.
4.47 p.m.
Lord PANNELL: My Lords, I, too, read with sympathy the letter which appeared in The Times this morning from the noble Lord, Lord Goodman—who appears to be having trouble with his left foot. But I do not really think that, succinctly written as it was, it carried the argument any further. It did not shift my opinions at all but I suppose that would be pretty hopeless because I speak with that degree of obstinacy that comes from tingeing justice with memory. I have been a member of a trade union for 56 or 57 years and I need to go back beyond the 1971 Act to find out the obstinacy of the trade union movement.
It ought to be remembered that the trade union movement was born of a voteless peasantry and voteless proletariat and through all their history they have come up against their natural enemies, who have largely been on the Conservative Benches in the other place or, more largely, in the House of Lords, to say nothing of the judges of the time. Through all the years the trade unionists had to go as supplicants to the political Parties and eventually they won the vote. Now we find there is a certain rhythm that the life of man attains in this sort of thing. When the trade unions are defeated at the polls they swing back to industrial action, and it was natural, following almost every industrial precedent, that in 1971 when the Conservative Government had got into power, bringing in the 1971 Industrial Relations Act, that there was a swing to direct action again.
No one can forget the terrific marches that took place at that time and when I was a Member of the other place and there was an attempt to fix a guillotine on the discussion of the Bill I tried to warn that these people were marching with their feet, and every shop steward who was concerned about this matter and had control of hundreds of members was quite different from a supine electorate who did not care very much about these things. It is the people who care very

45
much, who matter. If I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Widoger—and this is why I was glad about his speech—we are now at the point where the Parliament Act has been invoked and much of what has been said is so much water under the bridge.
There was another point to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, responded with some feeling; that is, the position of the Official Solicitor. Quite frankly, may I tell your Lordships that I did not know such an animal existed before the intervention of the noble and learned Lord on behalf of the five dockers. As a matter of fact we were not entirely alone in our ignorance, because the legal correspondent of the Guardian said that the official receiver had been called in—which only goes to show how one can get mixed up about this sort of thing. We were not alone in our ignorance. When one speaks about justice being seen to be done, I can only say that if one asks any docker or if one asks the most responsible trade unionists among dockers, they believe the Official Solicitor was an official fiddle to get out of the difficulty. I have no doubt that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, with his great legal knowledge, is right, but it is what humble people believe that matters, not what the legal luminaries are talking about. The fact of the matter is that they thought there had been an intervention.
I have noticed that in previous discussions here there was a great deal of enthusiasm for the one man who stood up and said, "I will not belong to a trade union". In times of deflation and unemployment when I wanted to be a trade unionist and I was sacked for being one, I never heard a whiff of sympathy. People always plead the right of a man to stay out of a union, never the right of a man to go in. That is what it is all about. That is what I mean when I say that I tinge justice with memory.
My Lords, we now come to the position that the Parliament Act has been invoked. The Bill comes back to us as it was first presented. Briefly, the choice before this House is to accept the Amendments of the Government, which give this House something of what it wanted, or to accept the original Bill
46
in all its pristine purity, if those are the right words for it. There is nothing much more to be done about it. Some sort of virtue has been invoked, in that we shall not vote on this tonight. I wish we were to do so, because if this House had voted to reject the Bill tonight, it would have been law tomorrow; the Speaker's stamp would have been on it. There is no question at all about that, because this House would have shown that it rejected the Bill. We are making Parliamentary history. On my reading of history, the House of Lords have rejected a Bill from the Commons before, but I do not think they have ever sought to amend a Bill in this way, and that is what makes it different. That is why we have had some rather cloudy opinions as to what is to be done next. So I think the point has to be established that we can play about with this Bill for as long, as it takes to the end of this Session, and then it becomes law; or we can attempt to get a rapprochement with the other place, and see how far they will go. But I tend to think that the Minister has gone as far as he intends to go. Therefore— and I hope your Lordships will not make some sort of "Custer's last stand"on this, but that you will understand the facts of political life, that this is what the Parliament Act is all about—we either go on and the Bill becomes law in its original form by the end of the Session, or we accept the Amendments of the Government. I am not putting the weight one way or the other. These are the facts of Parliamentary life. The fact is that the elected Chamber must predominate in the end.
My Lords, there is one other point. I notice that the right honourable lady, Mrs. Thatcher, announced at Scarborough over the weekend that on 29th February she will be making a great speech pleading for the co-operation of the trade union movement with the Conservative Party. I warn them that they are on the eve of being a secret weapon against Mrs. Thatcher, because the rejection of this Bill is not the way to go about what their leader desires.
4.55 p.m.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, the Bill will, of course, receive a Second Reading, as my noble friend Lord Aberdare advised the House to accept it. Nobody wants a confrontation between the two Houses.

47
At the same time, I am tempted to say a few words in very general terms, because this is a momentous day in the history of Parliament. Today, both Chambers, one at each end of the corridor, echo to the strident clam our inspired from behind the scenes by our latter-day industrial tyrants, as I see it regardless of the nation's wider interest in the freedom of the individual. In my view, this day must be the absolute nadir of the decline in the fortunes of our nation, a decline which has stemmed from the policies of the Socialist Government. If the echoes to which I refer in this Chamber are muted—although the noble Lord, Lord Pannell, could hardly be described as being mute—the distant message is the same as was mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Drogheda.
My Lords, I hold many noble Lords opposite in regard and respect, recognising their sincere dedication to the Socialist creed, recognising also that many of their tenets coincide with those held on this side of the House. Our bitter differences are a matter of method and of degree. After all, as Sir Geoffrey Howe said the other day in an interview, men and women arc in politics, "because we care deeply about the society in which we live". For that reason, my heart goes out to those noble Lords opposite whose thraldom to the Socialist Party has brought them to the edge of a steep place. I think that in the not too distant future, there may well be an almighty splash.
4.58 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, it seems as if I am to be the almighty splash! I must begin by first apologising that my judicial duties in the Privy Council prevented me from listening to the first two speeches. I have had them reported to me by my noble friend Lord Aberdare and, therefore, I think I know more or less what was in them. I do not want to detain the House for long, because I think what we really have now to discuss is what measures we take about the Bill rather than what we think about the Bill, because most of us know what each of us thinks about it.
In the first place, I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd—and I think he will accept it, because he has done so on previous occasions—that it
48
has never been part of the intention of my noble friends and myself to hold up Government Business. We have facilitated every stage of the Bill through this House. What we have also sought to do is to perform our constitutional function of criticising and amending. My Lords, the legal position—I think we must now consider the legal position for a moment—is as follows. If we were to refuse this Bill a Second Reading this afternoon, it would probably, in a purely rational world, be the best thing we could do, both for our-selves and the Government.
In a purely rational world this would be the right course of action. This is a hopeless little Bill. It cannot be tinkered with so as to make it otherwise than oppressive, for reasons I have rehearsed again and again and to which I will refer only briefly in a moment. Most of the amendments, at any rate, that we could think of, have already been thought of and discussed. The position is that if we were to reject the Bill this afternoon Mr. Speaker would then be free to certify under the Parliament Act tomorrow, and it could become law on presentation to Her Majesty on the following day, assuming that indecent haste was not pursued. Therefore, if we were living in a purely rational world, I would recommend the rejection on Second Reading in the interests of everybody—Parliament, Government, Opposition, and everybody else. But we all know that we do not live in a perfectly rational world, and therefore the House will not be surprised to know that this is not the advice I am about to tender.
First, what we did would be open to misconstruction, the kind of misconstruction to which I think the noble Lord, Lord Pannell, referred in his last sentences. It would be said that we were beastly Lords, the natural enemies of the working man, like Lord Feather, Lord Pannell, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, and other reactionary elements in our social and national life; therefore, we were wicked people and ought to be sent to the tumbrils. I am not sure that I would mind that very much; I am getting to a certain age. But, at any rate, I see no reason why I should cut these things short.
But there is another and perhaps better reason why we should not refuse the Second Reading. If we refused the Second Reading, we should get the Bill without

49
the possibility of discussing at Committee stage the Commons suggested Amendments. I think that that would be discourteous to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, who is the original father of the suggested Amendment, although he modestly did not refer to the fact in the course of his speech; it might be thought discourteous to the Commons, and it would certainly be discourteous to those who would wish to discuss the pros and cons of that Amendment, or who might even—as the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, said he might do, and for aught I know the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, may do —suggest further Amendments to it. If we were to reject it here and now, we should prevent that entire discussion. I think, on the whole, the sense of the House would be that we would wish to have the discussion. Therefore, I have come to the conclusion, like my noble friend Lord Aberdare, that it would be wrong for us, despite the irrefutable, logical case in favour of rejection, to refuse the Second Reading.
Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, I do not say that I am adopting a position from which I shall not resile as the Bill goes through this House; at the moment I take a somewhat different point of view. He suggested that it would be a good thing to send this Bill back to the Commons with Lord Goodman's suggested Amendment in it. I do not happen to think that this would do anybody any good. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, suggested, as I understood it, that we should send it back to the Commons with the original Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, to the suggested Amendment in the Bill, which we have every right to do if we want to.
Although I cannot, of course, speak for Mr. Speaker or those who advise him, I should have thought it was quite unlikely that they would treat this as an Amendment to the Bill. But I do not think that that will be worth while. I think we are sick to death of discussing this matter, and I suspect—again without attempting to speak for them at the other end of the corridor—that they are sick to death of discussing this matter. If we are to talk in terms of good or bad relations between the two Houses, I should have thought that the fact that we returned it again with an Amendment which they had
50
already discussed twice would not be as good from that point of view as an outright rejection of the Bill, which would give them their way without further argument. So I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, about this at the present time.
The second point I want to make is that I think if we were to amend the Bill once more—and I am not yet determined to do so—we ought to try something which had not been tried before. The one thing which occurs to me is of importance, and which has changed the situation since we had it here the last time, is that certainly in the autumn of last year Lord Houghton said, in the course of discussing the Employment Protection Act, that if we had put our conscience Amendment in the terms of the Labour Party Standing Orders and, I think, used the phrase, "deeply-held personal convictions" instead of the phrase, "conscience" he would have voted for it. This makes a new suggestion, and it would certainly affect not merely the general situation under the Bill but also the particular situation in connection with the Press, because it would provide an editor who had deeply-held personal convictions in favour of the National Institute as against the NUJ with a weapon against his employer. It would not give him a weapon against a union, a point to which I must revert in a moment in order to clear up some of the misconceptions which seem still to be current even after our lengthy discussions. But it would give him a weapon against his employer.
Therefore, I think it is something which we might want to consider. If we did this, I may say at once so far as I am concerned, and I have no doubt from the point of view of my noble friends, that it would not be with the idea of prolonging or delaying proceedings, which I hope would not be the case for more than a few days, but certainly not more than a week or two. But it might be worth while, in order to achieve what I am sure we should have liked to achieve; that is, something like a consensus upon the matter, taking Lord Houghton's suggestion, as it has been taken in other parts of the Bill.
As regards the other outstanding matters—that is. both Lord Houghton's

51
suggested Amendment, the Houghton charter, and the earlier parts of the Bill about unreasonable exclusion and unreasonable expulsion—I think we have no alternative but to take the view of the Government, although we do not agree with it. And the view of the Government, although we do not agree with it, is this: although the rights ought to exist they ought not to be protected by legal sanctions. This is a view I profoundly differ from, as does the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and as do most Cross-Benchers, and I suspect most fair-minded people. But the Government have at any rate made these concessions since the long passage of this Bill through Parliament began. One is that in relation to the unjust exclusion or expulsion they have suggested a voluntary tribunal, and one is that as regards the Press they have proposed the suggested Amendment. Although I think that both suggestions are without teeth and therefore not worth very much, there is something to be said —not that I would wish to say it myself —for the Government's view that the only possible course open is to give them a fair chance to prove whether or not they are useless. I think we have no real option but to do it.
But, on the question of conscience, I must say that I remain profoundly of the opinion that I held in the earlier stages of the Bill. It is not only Plymouth Brethren and Seventh Day Adventists who have got consciences; Atheists have consciences; even Anglicans have consciences, though I am happy to say of a singularly rubbery and effective kind. Sometimes our consciences have nothing whatever to do with our religious beliefs; they are deeply-held personal convictions. I cannot help thinking that the Government would be very wrong and that another place would be very wrong, if we used the expression which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, suggested to us, in saying that only on the question of conscience we shall say that the House of Lords has rejected this Bill.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. It seems to me that I am going to be the "fall guy" before this is over.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, we have all suffered from rushing in where angels fear to tread. There is no reason at any rate for the noble Lord to imagine that I say this except out of genuine respect for his experience in this field of law.
Before I sit down there is one point I must clear up. When we are talking about conscience, or when we are talking about the suggested Amendment and the Goodman Amendment to it, it has nothing whatever to do with sanctions applied either to trade unions or to trade unionists. This is a delusion from which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, still suffers, apparently, although I have done my best now on, I think, five occasions to disabuse him of it. The position is whether or not an employer who dismisses an employee in closed shop conditions has to pay compensation to that employee. The union does not come into it, and the men do not come into it either. They have had their way; the man has gone. He has lost his job and he cannot be reinstated for the very reasons the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, stated and which the industrial tribunal underlined the other day in the course of rather a muddled judgment about the Ferrybridge six.
The only question is whether the employer has to pay. It is nothing to do with fining 2,000 or 3,000 trade unionists; it is nothing to do with the Official Solicitor; the simple question is whether an employer, who finds for his own economic advantage that a closed shop agreement is the one he wants to make in order to avoid trouble, has got to pay innocent people out of his own pocket for their loss of their jobs. It is in order to ensure that he does not pay a penny that the Government and the noble Lords, Lord Houghton and Lord Pannell, are coming to the assistance of the employer to deprive the dismissed workmen of their compensation. This is the miserable depths to which the Labour Party and their trade union friends have fallen.
No, my Lords this Bill is a Bill designed to protect the strong against the weak, and it is done for bad reasons. It has nothing to do with the 1971 Act (which has been trotted out again) because if one looks at the 1974 Act one finds how

53
hollow the claim is to have repealed the 1971 Act. There is a whole part of that Act re-enacted in the 1974 Act in the Schedule, 22 pages and, I think, 32 sections. The only question which arises in this Bill is whether, because they have chosen to re-enact that part, they are prepared to do justice as well. Apparently the Government are not prepared to do justice as well. Every kind of sophistry and every kind of arrogance has been introduced to cover up what they are really doing, which is to protect the strong against the weak.
Well, they have chosen to invoke the Parliament Act. I do not blame them for it. It is a much more sensible and constitutional attitude than all the huffing and puffing which Mr. Foot and his friends indulged in at the expense of your Lordships' House. They have the right to impose their will on the country, and they are going to exercise it in one way or another. We have done our best to improve matters. It would have been both undignified and un parliamentary to try and indulge in delaying tactics, and I suggest that we should pursue our way, doing what we think to be right, but not seeking in any way to obstruct Government business. This is a bad little Bill. It cannot be made anything else. However, I suggest that we should proceed with our business with dignity and without rancour, knowing that the Government have decided to invoke the Parliament Act against us, and not complaining that they have done so, provided that it is clear that the ill-doing is their doing and not ours.
5.15 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I cannot possibly complain about the way your Lordships' House has considered the Second Reading of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, called this "mean, ugly, little Bill" Throughout our discussions on it today and during the last Session strong views have been expressed, but they have always been put forward in a genuine sense of candour and with a genuine recognition that what divides us is not really a matter of principle but a matter of method. I agree with the noble and learned Lord that what we should be considering between now and the Committee stage is the best way in which this House should approach the remaining
54
stages of the Bill, and what decision should be taken when we come to Third Reading.
Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, I was initially attracted to the idea of putting everybody out of their misery, both in another place and in your Lordships' House, by suggesting to the noble Earl the Opposition Chief Whip that if, somehow, he could get some of his troops into the Division Lobby I was prepared to ask some of mine to join up and to ensure that together we dealt with the situation. However, on reflection, that would not have been right. It would always have appeared rather an unholy alliance, and at the end of the day history would not have thought much of us. If the noble and learned Lord will do me the honour of reading my speech, he will see that throughout I have suggested that what we should seek to do is to adopt the normal processes of this House of Second Reading, Committee stage, Report, and Third Reading, and it would then be for the House to decide what to do. As I have already said, it is the Government's hope that we should obtain this Bill without the use of the Parliament Act, and, if not by agreement, at least by acquiescence.
As the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, acknowledged, leaving aside the question of the freedom of the Press, certain parts of the Bill your Lordships' House has already accepted, albeit with unease and reluctance. While it may be right for the noble and learned Lord to feel that there is something still open to us in the field of conscience, perhaps I could say to him, although it is reminding your Lordships' House, there have been 11 different drafts on the question of conscience during the passage of this Bill. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, with his great affection for the standards of the law and the need for consistency of the law, would recognise that taking one Act of Parliament with another, we ought to have the same definition of these matters.
The noble and learned Lord can correct me if I am wrong, but if my memory is right, during the last Session we passed three Bills in which the conscience clause was restricted to the question of religious belief. Like the noble and learned Lord, if it were possible to put conscience into this Bill I would do so, but all the advice that we have received is that it is not

55
possible to define conscience in such a way that it could not be used in a disruptive fashion within unions and between unions. All the experience of the various bodies and tribunals is that when they have had to consider the question of conscience, they have had to fall back on to religious belief. I say to the noble and learned Lord that there is nothing between us on this issue. The problem is a definition that will stand in a Statute, one that cannot and should not be used to created difficulties and strife between workpeople within a union and between unions.
I come to the question of the freedom of the Press. I join others in expressing sorrow at the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, cannot be present today. I hope he will soon be fully fit again, not only to be able to attend this House but also to deal with certain other matters in which I notice he is involved, and certainly I hope that he will be back in time for the Committee stage. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, that although there is little between the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, what there is between us goes very deep. I have looked at this matter and I assure the noble and learned Lord that I would be prepared to look at it again, but, as I said in my opening speech, I do not believe that there is a chance of bridging the gap. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, suggested that we should pass this Amendment and send it to another place, if only to make it necessary for discussions to take place. I said before, and I repeat, that I am most willing to initiate discussions. I am willing to go to the bedside of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and to other noble Lords to see whether it is possible to bridge this gap, but I personally do not believe that that is possible.
However, if an approach of a serious nature were made to me, I would certainly see whether what was put forward was possible. I suggest, however, like the noble and learned Lord suggested, that if we were to do that, then it should not be a question of sending an Amendment to another place; it should be done now, between the various stages of the Bill—and if this Bill goes through our normal procedures, it will be here for at least
56
a month, which means that we have time. On the other hand, if we were to accept the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, to send the Amendment to another place, then they would have to consider it. I agree with the noble and learned Lord that nothing would be more likely to harm our relationship than to create a sense of frustration—I almost said "harassment "by sending Amendments to them when they have been so carefully and exhaustively considered, and voted upon.
Perhaps I might say to the noble Lord and to the noble Earl, Lord Drogheda, that it may be that the Government proposals, are not sufficient for the freedom of the Press. I have repeatedly said, and the Secretary of State has repeatedly said, that the Government are as much committed to the freedom of the Press as is any editor in Fleet Street today. After all, the present Government set up the Royal Commission on the Press; we set it up for that purpose, recognising that the freedom of the Press is not only a question of the position of editors and unions, but is a much deeper and more immediate one. I have said before, and I repeat, that if the measures proposed in this Bill are insufficient to guarantee the freedom of the Press, this Government will, without any hesitation, introduce the necessary legislation so to provide. I suggest it would be better, if we were to introduce legislation of that sort, that it should come not just because of a debate in this House but as a consequence of a Royal Commission considering all the possible aspects. If, therefore, we were to take the view that the Government's Amendment was half satisfactory, then opportunity will still be available because this Government are as dedicated as anybody to the freedom of the Press.
I hope, therefore, that the House will give this Bill a Second Reading. We can then go into Committee, we can consider the Amendments that I shall be moving on behalf of the Government, and certainly there will be opportunities to consider the matter. I ask the House to reflect carefully on what I said earlier about the constructive approach of our relations with another place. As I said. I believe that we are at the most formative stage of that co-operation. Joint Committees are being set up, and perhaps

57
nothing is more illustrative of the changed relationship and attitude between the two Houses than the way in which, beyond any of our wildest dreams, our two Committees scrutinising the EEC legislation are proceeding. I would not wish that process in any way to be prejudiced by short-term problems and fears. I therefore beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL
5.28 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Commons Suggested Amendments be considered.—(Lord Shepherd.)
COMMONS SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS BROUGHT FROM THE COMMONS
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
Freedom of the press
. After section 1 of the principal Act there shall be inserted the following section: —
" Charter on freedom of the Press
1A.—(1) lf, before the end of the period of twelve months beginning with the passing of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Act 1975, there is agreed among parties including employers of journalists (or employers' associations representing such employers), editors (or editors' organisations), and trade unions representing journalists, a charter containing practical guidance for employers, trade unions and editors and other journalists on matters relating to the freedom of the Press, the Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a draft of that charter.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, practical guidance on matters relating to the freedom of the Press must include guidance on the avoidance of improper pressure to distort or suppress news, comment, or criticism, the application of union membership agreements to journalists (and in particular the right of editors to discharge their duties and to commission and to publish any article) and the question of access for contributors.
(3) If no such charter has been agreed as mentioned above, or if a draft charter laid before Parliament (under subsection (1) above or this subsection) is not approved by resolution of each House of Parliament as mentioned in subsection (6) below, the Secretary
58
of State shall after consultation with the Press Council and such of the parties referred to in subsection (1) above, such organisations representing workers, and such organisations representing employers, as he thinks fit, prepare in draft a charter, as follows:

(a) where, or so far as, there appears to the Secretary of State to be agreement among the parties referred to in subsection (1) above on any matter relating to the freedom of the Press, he shall incorporate in the draft charter such practical guidance as he thinks appropriate to give effect to that agreement;

(b) where, so far as there appears to the Secretary of State to be no such agreement on any of the particular matters referred to in subsection (2) above, he shall incorporate in the draft charter such practical guidance on that matter as he thinks fit,

and the Secretary of State shall lay the draft charter before both Houses of Parliament.
(4) A charter agreed as mentioned in subsection (1) above, or prepared by the Secretary of State in accordance with subsection (3) above, shall define its field of operation.
(5) A charter agreed as mentioned in subsection (1) above, or prepared by the Secretary of State in accordance with subsection (3) above, shall provide for the constitution of a body which shall have the functions of—

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

(b) issuing to the parties a declaration as to whether such a complaint is well-founded; and

(c) securing the publication of its decision.

(6) If a draft laid under subsections (1) or (3) above is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament, the Secretary of State shall issue the charter in the form of the draft.
(7) A charter for the time being in force under this section may be revised from time to time by agreement between such parties as are referred to in subsection (1) above, and the Secretary of State shall lay a draft of the revised charter before both Houses of Parliament.
(8) If a draft laid under subsection (7) above is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament, the Secretary of State shall issue the revised charter in the form of the draft.
(9) On issuing a charter or revised charter under subsections (6) or (8) above the Secretary of State shall make by statutory instrument an order specifying the date on which the charter or revised charter is to come into effect.
(10) A failure on the part of any person to observe any provision of a charter

59
which is for the time being in force under this section shall not of itself render him liable to any proceedings, but in any proceedings—

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

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

Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, before we proceed, may I ask the Leader of the House for a little guidance? What does all this mean? This is something that has not happened before in the history of Parliament. In my innocence I assumed that what would have to be done was that the Government or somebody else would move this Suggested Amendment at the Committee stage. What arc we doing now, therefore?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I thought I explained the position; in fact, that accounted for most of my speech. Unfortunately, as we know, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, was sitting in a judicial capacity. Perhaps I might say a few words by way of explanation, especially as I would not wish him to join the one voice I heard behind me saying, "Not-Content" when the Question on the last Motion was put.
Under the Parliament Act we are required to consider the Commons Message. The Motion that is before the House is in many ways a procedural one. We have discussed the broader issues of the Commons Message, but I indicated that in Committee the Commons Message would be moved as a Government Amendment and would then be treated as any other Amendment. Of course, having done so, the Commons Message or Suggestion remains (shall I say?) in limbo. If at any stage the Bill were to be rejected it would still then be possible for that Suggestion to be agreed to and to be included in the Bill before receiving the Royal Assent. I assure the noble and learned Lord that the Motion which I have moved in no way prejudices his right to consider not only the Government proposals but any other Amendments which he might have in mind for the Committee stage.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I intervened only because the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, when I ventured to call on him at his place of abode at the moment, indicated that he might have two minds about supporting the suggested Amendment and I wanted to be assured that by passing this Motion we were not in any way prejudicing his position.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, we are certainly not being asked to agree or disagree; this is basically a procedural Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

RATING (CARAVAN SITES) BILL [H.L.]
5.30 p.m.
Bill read 3a.
Clause 3 [Valuation and rating of caravan sites in Scotland]:
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 16, at end insert (" (a) ").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I believe that it will be for the convenience of the House if I speak to all three Amendments together. Your Lordships may recall that I have, at various stages voiced concern over the need to avoid dsiadvantaging any person who occupies a caravan which is constructed or adapted for the use of a disabled person. This relates only to Scotland since, in the English system, this situation is covered in Clause 1(7).The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, enthusiastically supported me in finding an Amendment to deal with this point.
This aspect of the law is extremely complex and my difficulties in preparing these Amendments were compounded by the very recent judicial decision to which I referred at Report (Hansard, 5th February; col. 1480). The effect of the Amendments is to remove from the scope of the Bill any caravan whose occupier would in the past have benefited from the provisions of Section 8 of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956, which provides for the exclusion from valuation of certain structures provided or adapted for disabled persons. In this way, the benefits available to disabled persons will

61
be continued. Even though they come at the eleventh hour, I imagine that the Amendments will meet with the approval of the House, and I am therefore very happy to move them. I beg to move the first Amendment.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I would commend these Amendments to the House and I should like to thank the noble Baroness for having brought them before us at this late stage, while the Bill is still in this House. As she said, we have expressed concern about the disabled and have gone into the Bill in some detail as it was introduced into this House. I know that the Government have been under some difficulty because of the legal case which went as far as the highest court in the land—that is, your Lordships'House—and has only recently been settled. I believe it to be helpful that Amendments should be made to clarify the position in Scotland in the light of that judgment. I trust that the Amendments deal appropriately with caravans for the disabled. As I understand what the noble Baroness has said, they mean that the situation is clear. That will he welcomed by all who are concerned about the state of the disabled.
I should like to take this opportunity also to recall that I indicated on Thursday, at Report stage, that I had only that morning received some further points in relation to the discussions at Committee stage and that, because of the short time allowed between the various stages of the Bill, it was not possible for all the points to be raised. I understand that the Government want to get the Bill through by a certain date and, therefore, rather than put down Amendments on Thursday for the Third Reading today—which would have given the Government only the weekend in which to consider them—I felt that these points would be better dealt with in another place because there will be more time. There are two or three more points which we should like to raise and I shall ensure that the Government are informed of them as soon as possible so that they have plenty of time to consider them before the matter comes up in another place.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move the second Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 19, at end insert (" and (b) as excluding a caravan thereon which is any such structure as is mentioned in section 8(1) of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956 (which relates to structures for the use of persons suffering from certain disabilities) ").—(Baroness Birk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move the third Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 21, leave out ("Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act ") and insert (" said Act of ").—(Baroness Birk.)
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, may I take this opportunity of thanking the noble Baroness for having dealt with the Bill, which is half Scottish. I feel that she certainly deserves the gratitude of the Scottish Office Ministers for having handled Scottish legislation, which this is. I believe that it was convenient to take it all in one Bill rather than have a separate Scottish Bill. I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I should like also to thank her for having stated categorically at Report stage that the question of rate rebates does not arise. We are dealing only with leisure caravans and I believe that it will be helpful to those who deal with the Bill in another place to know that that complication will not ensue because rate rebates do not arise on the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. In doing so, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for his kind remarks about my explorations in Scottish waters. Many years ago I went up to Edinburgh for a conference. That was at a time when tartans were very much in fashion and I was wearing a tartan suit and hat to which, I must hastily add, I was clearly not entitled. In the 'plane returning an American woman said to me, "Oh, thank goodness I have met you! I have been up here for a whole day and seen as much of Scotland as I could but I have not spoken to a Scottish person. Now I have met you! "I thought it better not to disillusion her because she was very taken with the combination of the tartan and the red hair. I thought she had better go home thinking she had met a Scot.

63
This was a more complicated Bill than appeared at first sight. Although we had a rather prolonged Committee stage, I believe that it paid in the end for we had a thorough discussion which enabled us to improve the Bill, as I believe we have done, and it will prove to have been extremely useful when the Bill is considered in another place. I shall be most grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, will let me know as soon as possible the points which he is to raise in broad outline, even if the Amendments are not already drafted, so that I can pass them on to my colleagues. I should like also to thank the Opposition and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for his help in getting the Bill through in what I appreciate was a rather short time. Though it was a short Bill it was highly complex.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Birk.)
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness for her kind remarks. She deserves much kinder remarks because she has often had to lead us by the hand through terrifying thickets. She has done so with great success. Those who have helped her have also helped us, especially on one notable occasion by preventing me from making a startling misinterpretation in this Chamber. For that, also, I am grateful.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES) MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ORDER 1976
EUROPEAN CENTRE FOR MEDIUM-RANGE WEATHER FORECASTS (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES) AMENDMENT ORDER 1976
OECD FINANCIAL SUPPORT FUND (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES) ORDER 1976
INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES) ORDER 1976
EUROPEAN FREE TRADE ASSOCIATION (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES) (REVOCATION) ORDER 1976
5.40 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS rose to move, That the draft International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) Miscellaneous Provisions Order 1976, laid before the House on 20th January, be approved.
That the draft European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (Immunities and Privileges) Amendment Order 1976, laid before the House on 20th January, be approved.
That the Draft OECD Financial Support Fund (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1976, laid before the House on 20th January, be approved.
That the Draft Inter-American Development Bank (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1976, laid before the House on 20th January, be approved.
That the Draft European Free Trade Association (Immunities and Privileges) (Revocation) Order 1976, laid before the House on 20th January, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg Organisations Act 1968; one of them, the European Free Trade Association (Immunities and Privileges) Order, being a revocation of an order made in 1961 under the previous International Organisations Act of 1950. The Inter-American Development Bank (the subject of one of the orders) whose membership was originally restricted to members of the Organisation of American States and Canada, was founded in 1959 to promote the economic and social development of those of its members who were developing countries. The Bank's resources consist partly of contributions by its members to a fund out of which it makes loans on soft terms, and partly of funds raised commercially. Some years ago, the Bank began to consider ways of amending its Articles of Agreement to enable non-regional countries to join as donors. The United Kingdom, and other non-regional countries, were engaged in negotiations over a period of years, and a package of

65
Amendments to the Agreement, and of subscriptions to the Bank's resources, was finally agreed.
Financial provision to enable the United Kingdom to subscribe to shares of the Bank's stock was approved in another place on 17th December 1975. Once the present order has been made, we shall be able to apply formally to join the Bank. Our membership will become effective when the Bank's governors have approved the Amendments to the Articles and the Bank has accepted our application. It is hoped that all these processes will be completed by the middle of the year. The Bank has its headquarters in Washington and a European office in Paris. It is very shortly to open a small office in London to which an official of the Bank, at present serving in Washington, has been appointed as manager. It is not at present intended to appoint any other overseas staff to this office, but to recruit secretarial help locally.
The purpose of the present order is to confer on the Bank and its staff a scale of privileges and immunities similar to those we at present accord to other development banks, such as the World Bank, the Caribbean Development Bank, and the Asian Development Bank, in respect of which similar orders have been made. The privileges consist mainly of taxation relief for the Bank and its overseas staff, but the only immunity accorded is that in respect of official acts performed by members of the staff on behalf of the Bank. This would not, of course, apply to any breach of the traffic laws, or to claims for damage caused by motor vehicles belonging to the Bank.
I now turn to another order in this list. The OECD Financial Support Fund is being established to provide mutual assistance to member countries of OECD in the event of balance of payments difficulties. It was designed as a relatively short-term measure to counter the dangers of economic disruption arising from the increase in oil prices. The Agreement setting up the Fund accordingly provides that authority to make loans from the Fund shall continue for two years only; that is, two years from the entry into force of the Agreement. It is popularly known as the "Safety Net Fund". The machinery will in practice work only if activated by a request for a loan by
66
a member in financial difficulties. The OECD Financial Support Fund Act 1975, which received the Royal Assent on 19th December last, enables Her Majesty's Government to implement certain financial provisions of the Agreement. We intend to ratify the Agreement as soon as the present order has been made.
The Fund will be established within the framework of OECD and will use the organisation's premises in Paris for its meetings. As it will also be serviced by the OECD Secretariat, the draft order does not provide for any privileges or immunities to be granted to individuals. To the Fund itself it accords exemption from direct taxes and the inviolability of its official archives. As in the case of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the Development Banks, its immunity from jurisdiction is limited in regard to its lending operations to ensure its credibility as a borrower in commercial markets.
The draft order relating to the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts amends the order made a year ago, which enabled Her Majesty's Government to ratify the convention establishing the centre. The convention entered into force on 1st November, and in accordance with its terms a Headquarters Agreement, elaborating the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities annexed to the convention, has now been negotiated between the centre and Her Majesty's Government, and was approved by the centre's Council during its first meeting in London. The present order makes slight adjustments to the earlier order, and these are required to enable us to sign this Agreement. The centre at present occupies temporary accommodation at Bracknell, in Berkshire, and will later move to permanent headquarters at Reading.
The present draft order amends the existing order in three respects. In the first place, it restricts the inviolability of the premises of the centre so that legal process can be served on the centre by post. This could be of practical help since the staff of the centre do not enjoy any immunity from jurisdiction in regard to their private acts. Secondly, it extends to advisers and to members of the Scientific Advisory Committee attending meetings in this country, the privileges and immunities quite rightly accorded by

67
representatives of Member-States and their alternates. Thirdly, it accords to all these categories of persons the same baggage facilities as are accorded to diplomatic agents. As your Lordships will have noted, traffic offences are specifically excluded from the immunities conferred by this order on representatives.
The order revoking the 1961 order in respect of the European Free Trade Association is necessary in order to avoid any doubt as to whether it could be regarded as still being in effect, despite the fact that we are no longer members of EFTA. It is a revocation order.
Finally, the Miscellaneous Provisions Order is also in the nature of a tidying-up order. It relates to the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the International Finance Corporation, the International Development Association, and the Western European Union, and enables them to obtain relief from car tax and value added tax. We are already committed to granting this relief by the various international agreements we have concluded with the organisations. Similar provision was made last year in respect of a number of other international organisations.
Our representatives in the negotiation of the Agreements to which three of these orders give effect, have been mindful of the views expressed by your Lordships on similar occasions as to the need to limit privileges and immunities to what is needed to enable the organisation to operate effectively. From time to time I have given full assurance that complete care will be taken in that regard. I hope your Lordships will agree that these orders certainly raise no difficulties in that regard. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) Miscellaneous Provisions Order 1976, laid before the House on 20th January, be approved.
That the Draft European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (Immunities and Privileges) Amendment Order 1976, laid before the House on 20th January, be approved.
That the Draft OECD Financial Support Fund (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1976, laid before the House on 20th January, be approved.
That the Draft Inter-American Development Bank (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1976, laid before the House on 20th January, be approved.
That the Draft European Free Trade Association (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1976, laid before the House on 20th January, be approved.—(Lord Goronwy-Roberts.)
5.48 p.m.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, for his explanation of the purposes and provisions of the draft Statutory Instruments requiring affirmative approval by your Lordships. These draft orders are symptomatic of, and are a reminder of, the increasing interdependence of States and of the many international activities in which we, as a country, participate. As the noble Lord has explained, these orders are in effect implementations of agreements or conventions, either already signed, or waiting to be signed, relating to our international obligations. I wish to thank the noble Lord for giving such a clear explanation of the immunities and privileges which are to be conferred by these orders. They are very much more limited than is sometimes the case, particularly in relation to traffic offences, which is an element which sometimes causes concern, not only to your Lordships but to other citizens, too. So we are very grateful for the care that has been taken in the drafting of these new orders and agreements.
I had given notice that I would raise the question as to the number of persons who would be affected by these orders, and the noble Lord has given a very clear indication of the numbers; they are indeed very few, and in one case only one overseas employee will be involved. With regard to the fifth order, concerning EFTA, I think perhaps we should just note it as an historical event. It is the end of the period when we were apart of EFTA, which really stood us and our economy in very good stead throughout that time. It served its purpose, and this is just a passing word to the people who remain in EFTA.
There is one point I should like to raise, of which I have given notice to the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts. It concerns the exemption from tax. I understand, of course, that it is something

69
that could not be altered now, retrospectively, but nevertheless it does give rise to some concern that those who work in international organisations are put in a position analogous to those who are diplomatic representatives. In the case of United Kingdom citizens, even if they are employed by international organisations, they are not exempt, as I understand it, from the tax laws of this country when serving in this country. I think this must undoubtedly cause discrimination in the take-home pay of a United Kingdom citizen vis-à-vis an alien employed in the same organisation, possibly with the same family set-up and possibly of exactly the same status.
As the noble Lord will I am sure agree, taxation in this country, whether direct or indirect, and regardless of the complexion of the Government, takes a very large slice out of the income, either earned or unearned, of a United Kingdom citizen. I was wondering whether, at some time, some consideration might be given to the proposal that a United Kingdom citizen employed in an international organisation should be exempt from tax solely on the salary that he is getting while employed in that international organisation. I put this only as a point which might be considered when future agreements are being considered, because I think that undoubtedly at the moment it creates undesirable discrimination—a kind of discrimination which is recognised in many areas of our national life as being totally unacceptable—that people doing the same work should be getting different salaries. I would therefore put this to the noble Lord, so that, in the future, when immunities and privileges are being examined. this point may be taken up. On behalf of noble Lords on these Benches, I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Lord for his very clear explanation.
5.52 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, may I commend the noble Baroness on the brevity and cogency of her remarks? If I may say so, I think she has made a model speech in response to a Motion of this kind. I join her in a passing salutation to EFTA—still going strong, and in an increasingly mutually profitable relationship to the EEC. I join her in thanking our partners in EFTA
70
for having stood us in good stead, as she so rightly put it, in past, rather difficult years.
The noble Baroness raised one or two important points. Relating to tax, the position is that in regard to most of these international organisations the internal system applies whether the staff is British national or external; but the noble Baroness is quite right in saying that there are some "more-old-standing" organisations—and, indeed, one of them is mentioned here; the Inter-American Development Bank, founded in 1959—which do not have this provision. So there is this anomaly, this dichotomy of tax, between local and external staff. There are one or two other old-standing organisations of this kind which were founded before there arose this generality, this consensus about applying to everybody, whatever their country of origin, the same internal system, in lieu of national taxation. It is very possible indeed that this could be looked at. There may or may not be a substantial anomaly here. On the face of it, it would seem that there is, and the noble Baroness is quite right to raise this in connection with this Motion. I shall certainly bear in mind what she has said, and I thank her once more for the way in which she has supported this Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
POST OFFICE (RATEABLE VALUES) ORDER 1976
POST OFFICE (RATEABLE VALUES) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 1976
5.55 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN rose to move, That the Post Office (Rateable Values) Order 1976, laid before the House on 15th January, be approved.
That the Post Office (Rateable Values) (Amendment) Order 1976, laid before the House on 3rd February, be approved. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the first order before your Lordships concerns the rating of property belonging to the Post Office and used for telecommunication services. Certain kinds of Post Office hereditaments are rated by formula. These hereditaments are, first, property,

71
not within a building, used for telecommunications purposes and, secondly, the Post Office underground railway in London; but we are concerned today only with telecommunication services. The sorts of installation involved are telegraph posts and wires, underground cables and ducts and telephone kiosks.
The current formula was laid down in the Post Office (Rateable Values) Order 1972, which was made under Section 52 of the Post Office Act 1969. Quite a number of other public utilities, such as the electricity and gas industries and the National Coal Board, are rated by formula, and it is a convenient method where the ordinary methods of assessment would be difficult and cumbersome to apply. Some of the formulae are laid down in detail in the General Rate Act 1967, but Section 19 of the Local Government Act 1974, under which the orders before us today are made, enables all of them to be amended by order.
The purpose of the order before the House is merely to remove a minor anomaly in the formula for rating the telecommunication services of the Post Office, although in doing so it sets out the whole formula in its revised form. The problem concerns the television relay schemes run by the Post Office by which television is brought over Post Office lines, which are not telephone lines, into people's houses. There were about 10,000 television relay lines at the 31st March 1975, although only about 9,000 were actually in use. At present these lines escape assessment for valuation and rating purposes. This is because television relay lines are used for the purpose of telecommunication services and therefore fall to be rated by formula laid down by order. However, when the aggregate rateable values of the relevant hereditaments were determined by the Post Office (Rateable Values) Order 1972, few television relay lines existed and no amount was included in the aggregate values to cover them.
The 1972 order makes provision for the aggregate rateable value to be adjusted annually by formula in proportion to the increase or decrease in the number of exchange connections. Television relay lines do not constitute exchange connections, so that no account
72
is taken of them in the adjustment of the aggregate value of Post Office hereditaments under the 1972 order. The first order before us today brings television relay lines, defined as the number of subscribers to such lines, into the adjustment formula for 1976–77 and subsequent years. In practice, this addition will make little, if any, difference to the aggregate rateable value for 1976–77. This is because of the rounding provisions in Article 4(2) and 4(5) of the order. Although there were only about 9,000 subscribers at the 31st March 1975, I am told that the scheme is expanding and that at some point the inclusion of the television relay lines will affect the aggregate rateable value of the Post Office hereditaments covered by the order.
At this point I should mention the other order before us today, the Post Office (Rateable Values) (Amendment) Order. The sole purpose of the amending order is to make it clear that the rounding provision I have just referred to in Article 4(5) of the main order applies to the sum of the number of exchange connections and one-third of the number of television relay connections for the purposes of the certificate by the Inland Revenue. I am sorry that in the drafting of the main order it was not sufficiently clear in this respect.
Returning to the main order, on the rating of the Post Office telecommunications network, the order replaces the relevant parts of the 1972 order and repeals the relevant provisions in section 52 of the Post Office Act 1969, under which the 1972 order was made. In both documents the provisions relating to the Post Office underground railway are left unchanged. My right honourable friend has consulted all those affected, and they do not object to what is proposed. I therefore beg to move that these orders be approved.
Moved, That the Post Office (Rateable Values) Order 1976, laid before the House on 15th January, be approved.
That the Post Office (Rateable Values) (Amendment) Order 1976, laid before the House on 3rd February, be approved.—(Baroness Stedman.)
6.0 p.m.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships will be indebted to the noble Baroness for the lucid way

73
in which she has explained the complex instrument before us. When she tells us that it relates principally to telegraph poles and such, it is amazing that such a large structure can be supported on so small a base. There are one or two serious points that I should like to raise. One of them I have not given prior notice of because I was not a party to the explanation which has just been given and it arises from that. I should like to know whether the adjustment to the formula which takes in the adjustment of value as to the hereditaments to which or in which these relay lines are attached, leaves unchanged the other adjustment for the rest of the formula; in other words, are we looking at an order which only alters the rates payable on installations which include these lines to the extent that they do include these lines and otherwise leaves them the same?
The second matter that I should like to raise is one of drafting or wording. It is not the one raised in the amending order; but in both Article 4(2) and Article 4(5) there is a rather extended phrase which I take it to mean that the figure to be arrived at shall be calculated to the nearest £100,000 in the first instance and the nearest £500 in the second. While I accept that it is important that Parliamentary language be precise and that that may sometimes make it appear to be prolix, I cannot detect any difference in meaning between what I have just said and what the order says.
The third point may be pre-empted by the reply of the noble Baroness to my first point. I should like to be assured of the equity of the arrangements for the ratepayers in Hull and in the remainder of the United Kingdom. We refer frequently to one-tenth only of the acreage of things in Kingston upon Hull. I am looking at A2 of Article 5(2). It recurs throughout that formula. I take it that the one-tenth relates to the delightfully named parishes listed in the Schedule, finishing with Sproatley and Swine. The word "Gadarene" is not included. When I first read this order I would have joined them.
Finally, it might be of interest to your Lordships if the noble Baroness could outline how it was that the amending order became necessary a month, I think, after the original order was laid—not that
74
I am raising objection to that, but the process by which such orders are scrutinized is of interest because in a sense this process of scrutiny anticipates what we are now doing at this particular point of the procedure.
6.3 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for having given me notice of some of the points that he has raised. On the first, the order merely affects potentially the apportionment of the rateable value of the Post Office network to places with television relay lines. The other apportionments remain unchanged. The rounding that he referred to in the order of the £50,000 and £100,000 and £500 and £1,000 must be spelled out in this way. This is the way in which the Parliamentary draftsmen like it, to make it certain. The noble Lord is right: where it is less than £50,000 it is disregarded, and where it is more than £50,000 it is rounded to the nearest £100,000. It is the same with the figures in the following paragraph.
Another point that the noble Lord made was on the question of the effect of the acreage provisions relating to the Hull telephone area. Kingston upon Hull area is exceptional because the main telephone system is operated by the city council. The Hull system and the Post Office system have, for obvious purposes, to be linked in some parts. For this purpose the Post Office have some installations in the Hull area. It was accepted in the discussions preceding the 1972 order that counting the acreage and all the other relevant factors in the Hull area, the non-domestic rateable values, the number of domestic hereditaments at one-tenth only of their actual value would produce an appropriate apportionment of the elements of the total rateable value for the network which are apportioned by reference to these factors.
The other point was why we had to make an amending order only one month after the first. This was because the Government were advised that it was not possible to withdraw an order once it had been laid before Parliament. A simple amending order appeared to be the most convenient method of proceeding in such circumstances.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Baroness. She has

75
given me almost everything I wanted to know. I hope that she will be kind to the feelings of a number of us that language is important in these measures and if the opportunity arises to simplify, as it might have arisen here, that she will apply her own gentle offices to our louder and more raucous persuasions at an earlier stage.
Baroness STEDMAN: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I share his view that sometimes Parliamentary documents might be termed in a simpler way for people like him and like me who cannot understand all the many words that we have to use for what appears to be a simple phrase. I will bear in mind and pass on to my colleagues what has been said. I am grateful for the way the House has received these two orders.
On Question, Motion agreed to.