Lords Sitting of 22 January 1976

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock; The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Leicester.

USA BICENTENARY:CONGRESS RESOLUTION
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I have received a copy of a Concurrent Resolution of both Houses of the United States' Congress, passed on 23rd October 1975, relating to the loan of an original copy of Magna Carta in recognition of their Bicentennial celebrations, Which is as follows:
" Whereas, the historic document known as the Magna Carta of 1215 A.D. represents an essential link in the long chain of constitutional instruments; and
" Whereas American Colonists brought with them from England the traditions of free government and the principle that all persons stand as equals before the law, concepts which had been embodied in the Magna Carta, and they regarded them as their birthright and incorporated them in their colonial charters and constitutions; and
" Whereas, in drafting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights of the United States, our Founding Fathers sought to guarantee to the people of these United States the freedom of the church, an independent judiciary, the right to a speedy trial, and the concept of due proems of law, which principles were clearly derived from the Magna Carta; and
" Whereas, in recognition of the Bicentennial celebrations of the United States of America, the House of Lords and the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have unanimously adopted motions respectfully praying that Her Majesty,
640
The Queen, direct that an original copy of the Magna Carta be loaned to the people of the United States, to be held by their representative, the Congress of the United States, for a period of one year; and
" Whereas, this loan has been authorised by Her Majesty, The Queen, in order that this historic document may be displayed in the Capitol, enclosed in a showcase donated by the United Kingdom for that purpose; Therefore, be it
" Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring) That the Congress of the United States recognises that it is natural that men should value the original documents which guarantee their rights, and thus hereby expresses its sincere gratitude to Her Majesty, The Queen, the Parliament and the people of the United Kingdom for their loan to this Nation of the Magna Carta, a document of historic and symbolic significance to the people of both our Nations, and believes that its temporary residence here in the country of its philosophical descendants, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, will contribute an important historical perspective to the Bicentennial celebration; and it be further
" Resolved, That the showcase donated to the United States by the United Kingdom to be used to display the Magna Carta may be placed in the rotunda of the United States Capitol, and the Architect of the Capitol is hereby authorised to make the necessary arrangements there for, including the payment of all necessary expenses incurred in connection with the installation, maintenance, and protection thereof; and be it further
" Resolved, That the Secretary of State is requested to transmit a copy of these resolutions to the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland."
Signed by the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Secretary of the Senate.
The Resolution, my Lords, is also being read by the Speaker in another place tomorrow.
Lord MAELOR: My Lords, would the noble and learned Lord the Lord

641
Chancellor agree that it would be a good thing to send this document over to America by Concorde?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not know whether it is appropriate that I should be questioned on this matter, but I hope that the concord involved in the loan of Magna Carta will achieve all the necessary results required.
Ordered, That the said Resolution be entered in the Journals of the House.

POST OFFICE: CHRISTMAS MAIL
3.10 p.m.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: 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 state the number of letters handled during the customary three-week Christmas period in 1975; and how this figure compares with that for 1974 using the same basis of calculations, when the number handled was 806 million.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Lord Melchett): My Lords, these are matters for the Post Office, but it has informed me that the number of letters and packets posted during the three-week period 13th December 1975 to 2nd January 1976 was 636 million. These figures are provisional.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, as that represents a fall of 170 million items posted, which is a drop of 21 per cent., may I ask the Minister two short questions which arise. First, apart from the disappointment caused to individuals by the refusal to have a Christmas stamp, has he any idea of the damage caused to charities? Secondly, can we take it that the Carter Committee on the Post Office will look into this matter of Christmas post in time to make a recommendation before next Christmas?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I do not have any information regarding the sale of charity Christmas cards, and indeed this does not fall within the terms
642
of the Question on the Order Paper. But it is the view of the Post Office that any concession would involve a substantial fall in revenue to the Post Office, and it is not the business of the Post Office to subsidise charities. As to the Carter Committee, their terms of reference are very wide, as my noble friend knows, and they will be able to study this question if they wish. I would hope that they will be able to report as soon as possible.

POLITICAL HONOURS SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: 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 how many adverse reports on recommendations for advancement to the Peerage have been made by the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee since 1960 and how many of such adverse reports have been overruled.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd): My Lords, advice given to successive Prime Ministers by the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee is strictly confidential, and I am afraid that it is therefore not possible for me to provide the details for which the noble Lord has asked.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, while appreciating the necessity for confidentiality, may I ask what recourse the Committee has if it makes an adverse recommendation which is over ruled? How can it then fulfil its proper function?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am not aware of any recourse here—this is an advisory Committee—but if the noble Lord were to look at the terms of reference he would see the terms under which the Scrutiny Committee act. If they were to give what might be called adverse advice and the Prime Minister of the day was then to overrule it or not to accept it, the Prime Minister is required to ensure that when he makes his recommendations to the Monarch a copy of the report of the Committee is submitted with it.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend what is the reason for confidentiality in a matter of this kind, particularly on the part of a Government who believe in everything being explained to the general public? Is there any assurance that the members of the Honours Scrutiny Committee, whose names are not known to us—perhaps my noble friend will enlighten us on that point—never exhibit any bias? Is there any guarantee that they are completely devoid of bias when names come before them?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, if my noble friend had exercised his customary scrutiny he would be aware of the names of the members of this Committee. In the light of what he has said in regard to bias, if I say that the present members of that Committee are the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, the noble Lord, Lord Reay, and my noble friend Lady Summerskill, I think my noble friend will acquit them of any question of bias in this matter.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I am not in the least assured by what he says? Is he aware that I know of some instances where the recommendation was made—I say this with great delicacy—even by persons associated with the Royal Family, and was rejected by the Scrutiny Committee, although the recommendation was made on two occasions? Is there some reason for this? Are we not to know why recommendations which emanate from quite responsible organisations—though I do not particularly support them—should be rejected?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, my understanding is that recommendations for honours of whatever kind—but in this case political honours—do not go direct to this Committee; they go there only when it has been decided that the name should be placed upon a recommended list. I would have thought that it must be obvious to my noble friend, and I am sure to the House, that a Committee of this kind, considering the very nature of its task, could work only upon a basis of confidentiality. I believe that any other basis would be utterly unacceptable.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, for the record I think the noble Lord meant to
644
refer to the former Leader of the Liberal Party, the noble Lord, Lord Rea, and not to the noble Lord, Lord Reay.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg the pardon of both noble Lords.

EEC: TINDEMANS REPORT PROPOSALS
3.17 p.m.
Lord DUNCAN-SANDYS: 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 make a Statement regarding their attitude to the proposal in the Tindemans Report on European Union that the Governments of the Member States of the European Community should accept an obligation to consult one another on major issues of foreign affairs and to endeavour to work out common policies.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, Member States of the Community already make a practice of consulting each other on major foreign policy issues, and Her Majesty's Government have consistently advocated that the nine countries should act as one in their relations with the outside world. We shall need to examine very carefully, both here and with our partners, the proposal that there should be an obligation to reach a common view.
Lord DUNCAN-SANDYS: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply, may I ask him one further question. Of course, there already exists a measure of consultation in these matters, but the Tindemans Report goes a good deal further and asks for the creation of a single centre for the progressive development of a common European policy, without which, as it seems the noble Lord agrees, Western Europe is unlikely to exercise its due influence on world affairs. May I ask the noble Lord whether Her Majesty's Government will take an early opportunity to state their general reactions to the Tindemans recommendations?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the Report, of course, is a very substantial document fully covering the

645
field raised in the noble Lord's Question. It will take some time in this country and in the other eight countries for proper study of these proposals, some of them very far-reaching indeed, to be completed; but I can assure the noble Lord and the House that the Government are actively studying this important Report, and we hope to take full part in the discussions on these matters which will in due course take place between us and our partners in the Community.
Lord ARDWICK: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some of us who share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Duncan-Sandys, that something good should come out of Tindemans, nevertheless are glad that the Government are not going to rush into a Statement, believing that in the end there can be a constructive consensus among the Nine only after long and deep discussion?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I could not hope to express Her Majesty's Government's policy in this regard better than my noble friend has already expressed it.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, could the noble Lord answer two questions for me, please? First, is he aware that at the time of the Middle Eastern War of 1973 the EEC Foreign Ministers produced a declaration which carried a great deal of weight, certainly among the Arab nations, and consequently carried much more weight because it was a declaration of the Nine as opposed to declarations by the individual Governments?
Secondly—and perhaps this question should be directed to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd—would there not be a perfect case for debate in this House on the Tindemans Report?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the second part of the supplementary question should be addressed to my noble friend. I have no doubt that his reply will be very helpful. On the first point, I agree that the Euro-Arab dialogue which is proceeding will, like the 1973 initiative, help towards a solution of the Middle East conflict. In conducting that dialogue all members of the Community are fully aware of the position of Israel and of the rights of Israel.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, is my noble friend convinced that the working out of a common European foreign policy will in no way weaken the identity of views on foreign policy which have previously existed between this country and the USA?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I can give that assurance. Relations between the EEC and the USA are on an excellent footing. Moreover, M. Tindemans has himself made interesting proposals as to the way he thinks these relations can be even better handled and strengthened, and we shall examine what he suggests with great care and, indeed, with sympathy.

LIBRARY: POSTAGE STAMP SALES
3.21 p.m.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask the Leader of the House why the arrangement in operation for many years of selling stamps in the Library, where a convenient post box is available, has been discontinued to the inconvenience of those who have used this helpful service.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, fortunately this is a matter for the Library Sub-Committee, who will no doubt take into account the views of the noble Baroness. I understand that following the representations from the noble Baroness this service has been reinstated.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for that very satisfactory reply and also the Committee concerned? May I also ask that the official who, for some time, I think, has been dealing with this matter be thanked for the helpful and courteous way in which he has assisted noble Lords in this matter of postage stamps? May I also ask the noble Lord if he will accept that in general we in this House feel that nowhere in the world have we such first-class servants looking after our interests and that we wish the world to know how lucky we think we are?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am very happy to agree with the noble Baroness on this occasion. We are indeed indebted to the Librarian and his staff. I think that some of us who have been here for a few years and have seen the way in which our membership has grown can express, perhaps with greater knowledge, our sense of satisfaction at the way in which the service has been maintained for many more Members but with very few increases in staff. This is very much due to our staff. I shall see that what the noble Baroness has said and the sense of this House is conveyed to the Librarian and the staff.
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, may I as Chairman of the Library Sub-Committee put it to the noble Lord the Leader of the House that, while we are glad to try to meet the request of my noble friend Lady Ward of North Tyneside, it really is a fact that twice a year your Lordships' numbers go up and our staff remains the same? It is becoming quite a question which of the services your Lordships prefer. I am myself in some doubt whether the sale of stamps one by one is really a task that we should put on to a trained librarian.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I hope that this will not be the occasion for a debate about the sale of stamps between the Chairman of the Library Sub-Committee and the noble Baroness. This is something I hope they will conduct somewhere else.

BUSINESS
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House if I mention that on Tuesday next, the 27th January, dinners will be available for your Lordships.
TRUSTEES SAVINGS BANKS BILL [H.L.]
Report received.
INSOLVENCY BILL [H.L.]
Report received.

LICENSING (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
3.25 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Harmar-Nicholls.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Earl of LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Repeal of section 76(5) of Licensing Act 1964]:
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, leave out (" section ") and insert (" Act ").
The noble Lord said: With permission, I will speak to both Amendments, which can be put separately. This may save the time of the Committee. They are purely technical and what I call tidying-up Amendments. So far as the first is concerned, Section 76 of the Licensing Act 1964 (which this Bill seeks to amend) refers not only to licensed premises but also to premises in respect of which a club is registered. The Long Title of this Bill at the moment refers only to "licensed premises". This should be amended by leaving out the word "licensed". It will then cover both premises referred to in Section 76. That means that this Bill is then put on all fours with the parent Bill of 1964.
The second Amendment deals with a similar situation. Clause 1 of this Bill contains the words:
" Subsection (5) of section 76 of the Licensing Act 1964 (which excludes any bar from premises in respect of which any special hours certificate may be granted under that section) … ".
It is a fact that the special hours certificates are not granted under Section 76, which deals with permitted hours. They are dealt with under Sections 77 and 78. The best way of making this provision technically correct is to remove the word "section" here it appears (which is just before the closing of the bracket) and to replace it with the word "Act". It is a purely technical and tidying Amendment.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: For the Government, may I say that we regard this as a purely drafting Amendment and consider it desirable that it should be in the Bill.
The Lord Bishop of LEICESTER: Obviously I have no strong feelings about this particular Amendment and I see no particular objection to it, but in the absence of my right reverend Brother the Bishop of London, who is in hospital, I feel I ought to express the feelings that I am sure he would express were he here: that there is some sense of disappointment that the Amendments which are before us do nothing to mitigate what he and others felt to be some more serious aspects of this matter. Obviously, we must not re-open a Second Reading debate on this matter, but I thought that I should reflect this feeling. It may be that in the final stages of the discussion of the Bill some further safeguards may be thought of which could be incorporated in the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
3.30 p.m.
Lord JANNER: Before this clause is passed I think it essential to point out again that without some amendment there is a real danger that a seemingly innocuous but undoubtedly well-intentioned Bill will have side effects of a most undesirable nature. I have gone into this matter carefully with the people who deal with licensing, such as magistrates and others.
With all due respect to the noble Lord who is introducing this Bill I agree it has the very best intentions and, in many respects, it is a very desirable Bill—nevertheless we ought to take this opportunity of pointing these matters out. I am of the opinion that this will have side effects of a most undesirable nature unless some amendment at a later stage is agreed between the promoters of the Bill and those who have these serious doubts about the effects of it. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, to whom the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester referred, would have drawn attention to some of these doubts as he did in the course of the Second Reading debate.
650
It was probably difficult at the Second Reading stage for your Lordships' House to appreciate the strong grounds for the caveat which he raised, in view of the evident desire of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, in introducing this Bill merely to regularise a common practice in certain established places of entertainment. There were, however, very strong grounds for what the right reverend Prelate said, and it is for this reason that it seems to me to be highly necessary at this stage to deal further with a situation which I feel led him to speak as he did. In passing may I—as did the right reverend Prelate a few moments ago—express deep regret, which I am sure the whole House shares, that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London is at present undergoing hospital treatment which prevents him from being here to pursue the matter further.
The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, directed your Lordships' attention very effectively to the clubs and other centres of night entertainment which have held special hours certificates for some time. Generally speaking, these establishments are of a respectable nature far removed from the sleazy strip-tease businesses which so grossly disfigure some parts of the central London scene. Nor have the Soho strip-tease establishments made any conspicuous efforts so far to obtain special hours certificates. There is a very good reason for this, which needs only to be stated to be understood. It is simply that a preliminary hurdle had to be crossed before they could apply for such a certificate. In order to obtain one, they had to be in possession of two things; a music and dancing licence and a licence to sell intoxicating liquor. Without the possession of both these qualifications, a request for a special hours certificate is simply a non-starter. And at this point any aspirations they might have had in that direction were decisively blocked by the firm refusal of the Westminster licensing authorities to grant them liquor licences. A few years ago a number of these places made efforts to secure such licences, but they were consistently refused. That is the answer to the inquiry made by my noble friend Lord Wigg during the Second Reading debate, as to why strip-tease clubs had not been queueing up long ago to seek special hours certificates.
Recently however a totally new development has appeared, and it is to

651
this that I would ask your Lordships to direct your close attention. It is the fact that in certain areas of London, at any rate, some public houses, already firmly in possession of licences to sell intoxicating liquor, have found business less flourishing than it was a few years ago. Despite this, a substantial number have bravely struggled on without stooping to anything of a disreputable nature; but others, unfortunately, have lowered the whole tone of the industry. I have a high regard for the industry; your Lordships will probably remember I raised a question about certain matters pertaining to their interests a few weeks ago. Others have lowered the tone of the industry and of the neighbourhoods in which they trade by offering the tawdriest of striptease entertainment as an attraction to customers.
The size of the advertisements announcing these activities on the outside of the premises concerned suggests that they are regarded as one of the principal inducements to draw in the casual passer-by. I have made full inquiries, and two-thirds of the window space of one public house is now occupied with announcements of "Lunch-time topless plus striptease" and "Male strippers ". Another announces: "Every Sunday-lunchtime striptease; Monday to Friday. topless Go-go ". Another until a recent change of tenancy, advertised "Topless Go-go and "Fantastic strip ". At least two public houses which had displayed advertisements of this type had applied to the Thames Division Licensing Court for special hours certificates before the decision of the Carter v.Bradbeer case. In considering the matter, the magistrates' hands were tied. I would point out to your Lordships that the magistrates in this country have a very high reputation, and are very well acquainted with the areas in which they work. Their part in so far as the granting of new licences is concerned, as your Lordships well know, is very confined.
Since the applicants possessed music and dancing licences. and also licences to sell intoxicants which had originally been obtained long before, the only grounds, under the provisions of the 1964 Act, on which they could have refused the certificate would have been that the premises were—and I stress this—not
652
structurally adapted for music, dancing. and substantial refreshment; or that the applicant did not intend to provide these three facilities; and if the applicant declared on oath in evidence that that was his intention, it is difficult to see how a refusal could be justified on the latter ground. In another instance, faced with the same predicament, the same bench had no legal ground enabling them to refuse a special hours certificate to a public house where conditions proved later to be so bad that a murder occurred there, and the police then, after the murder, successfully applied for the certificate to be revoked. Surely it would have been better if the magistrates, who knew the circumstances so much better than the distant committee of the Greater London Council—and I place no aspersions on them, they have a large area to cover—which issued the music and dancing licence, had been able to refuse the late-night drinking there in the first place, without waiting for somebody to be killed.
However, while this sorry situation was showing up the weaknesses of Sections 77 and 78 of the 1964 Act, there came a respite—the Carter v. Bradbeer decision, which left the profitability of a special hours certificate so open to question that some public houses which had taken the initial steps towards obtaining them withdrew their applications. And now the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, for whom I have the highest regard, and who perhaps faces no analogous problems in his part of the world, asks us to put an end to that respite, and offers no means of equipping the magistrates with the means of preventing the increasing tide of applications from the less desirable public houses which may well result.
This is the reason for the deep concern felt by a number of Members of your Lordships' House, some of whom, unfortunately, have been prevented from being present this afternoon. For myself, and probably for most of them. I must make it clear that we see no objection to the legitimate service of drinks over a bar counter, which this clause is intended to legalise, provided that the most dangerous side-effect to which others as well as myself have drawn attention, is counteracted. We think it is reasonable to ask that it should be counteracted; for surely the dominant decision, where the right to

653
sell intoxicants until 2 or 3 a.m. is concerned, should lie with licensing magistrates who are in a position to take into account all the circumstances, rather than with a committee of a local authority whose principal concern is simply to decide whether there is any valid objection to the music and dancing which may take place there. I do not wish to prolong this speech unnecessarily, but let me say that I am well aware that there are parts of the country where music and dancing licences are in fact granted by the licensing justices, but this is not the case in the most populous quarter of these Islands—the south-east of England, which includes London.
As to the means by which the magistrates' hands could be strengthened, there is room for discussion. At present they can refuse a special hours certificate only if they can show that the applicants are failing to supply one or other of the two licences and three facilities required. If they are supplying them they can in effect do what they like otherwise. What we say is that they should be able to refuse these certificates where it is clear that some of the other activities carried on during their currency are undesirable. This might he achieved by adding a subsection (c) to Sections 78 and 79 of the Act, so that the justices are required to grant the certificate only if they are satisfied with the conduct and the intended future conduct of the premises, or by modifying in other ways the statutory nature of those sections.
The matter, as I have indicated, is a deeply serious one. The dangers to which the right reverend Prelate referred at the earlier stage are real. What I think we would all ask. and what I ask, is that the Promoters of the Bill should consult with myself and others who are concerned with this problem, with a view to drafting an agreed Amendment at the Report stage. I ask this, while reserving my right, and that of the right reverend Prelate, to put down an Amendment at that stage if such consultations cannot take place or are unable to produce an agreed conclusion. I conclude by saying once again that it is not my intention at all to interfere with what the noble Lord has in mind, but I hope he will meet us with a view to seeing how these problems can be dealt with.
Lord HARMER-NICHOLLS: The noble Lord has made it clear that he is not resisting the Amendments that I have submitted to your Lordships this afternoon; they are purely technical. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has confirmed that they are technical, and they are needed to make this a clean Bill to pass to another place if it eventually gets through its later stages.
On the matters to which the noble Lord has referred and about which he feels so strongly, the situation is not affected in any way by the Bill that I am presenting to your Lordships. This Bill merely reverts the position to what it has been for 14 years. For 14 years it has been operated exactly as it will be operated if this Bill should become law. Referring to what the noble Lord has said about the goings-on in parts of London, which he finds so deplorable and against the best interests of the country, we cannot hamper the rest of the country because of possible marginal weaknesses which there may be in the capital. If I am not out of order, I would suggest that perhaps the best way of dealing with this is for the noble Lord to bring in his own Bill, adding to Sections 77 and 78 of the 1964 Act; but he would not be achieving what he seeks by delaying the Amendments I have submitted.
Lord JANNER: Before the noble Lord finishes, may I ask him one question? The fact is that we are attempting to legalise the bars in these places—it is true they have been legalised before, but the noble Lord now knows what is happening in certain public houses. If the bars are to be fully legalised—and people will sit by those bars to listen to all these things and see what is going on—they will do it legitimately now, instead of as in the past, merely believing it to be legitimate. I think we should deal with the problem at this stage.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: Although it is marginally outside the scope of this discussion, I am grateful for the compliment paid by the noble Lord to the magistracy. I have been a magistrate myself for 30 years, and so I take my share of the compliment. I can assure the noble Lord that in other parts of the Bill the magistrates have a number of powers of discretion to cover many of the points mentioned by the

655
noble Lord. But that is really out of order, since we are dealing at this Committee stage with points which are purely technical and of a "tidying up" nature.
3.47 p.m.
Lord WIGG: The noble Lord, Lord Janner, mentioned my name. I did not quite understand the context, but as my name has been mentioned perhaps I should make my own position clear. It might help the noble Lord to know what the Bill is about, because quite clearly he does not know that at the present time. This Bill does no more than put right something that for 14 years everyone had thought to be the position. I know that the noble Lord. Lord Janner, from the tips of his toes to the top of his head, is a reactionary. He always has been and he is now. This is an all-out attack on working men's clubs because they, after all, are the chief beneficiaries. Some £200 million has been invested in the belief that the law was as it was thought to be before a decision of your Lordships' House decided that it was different. Now it means that vast numbers of people who work hard not members of the legal profession—and who sweat their guts out in mine and factory, and who go along for a night's enjoyment. are to be prevented by the academic nonsense we have lust heard from the noble Lord, Lord Janner.
I hope that your Lordships will ponder just one question that I ask the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London: If it is thought that this Bill is an open cheque for strip-teasers, male or female, in cold or warm weather, why should they have waited until now? Why have not they done it before? This Bill adds nothing to the strip-teaser, male or female. All it does is to make it lawful for people to do what they have been doing for 14 years, that is to buy a drink from the bar.
The right reverend Prelate introduced for emotive reasons the idea that people would go and lean on the bar. Why should they? They go to a bar not to lean on it but to buy drinks. The law now provides that people must have a drink and must have it brought to them. The law decided that you had to be served by a waiter or a waitress, and in working-class circles that is not common. When people wanted a drink, they went
656
and bought one. This Bill allows people once again to go to the bar and buy a drink if they want to. It does that and nothing more; and if anyone wanted to take off their clothes before they could. If they want to take off their clothes now, they can. This has nothing to do with strip-tease at all and it is emotive humbug to say that it does.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I wonder whether I can help your Lordships, because we have wandered a long way from the Amendment. This is a drafting Amendment, and as at present drafted the clause refers to subsection (5) of Section 76—
Lord JANNER: Will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt? I thought we had finished with that Amendment and were on the Question, That the clause stand part?
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (The Earl of Listowel): The Question before the Committee, if I may repeat it, is that the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill?
Lord JANNER: That is right, and I spoke on that.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
In the Title:
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
Amendment moved—
Line 1, leave out (" licensed Lord ").—(Lord Harmar-Nicholls.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed; Bill reported with the Amendments.

EDUCATION (SCHOOL-LEAVING DATES) BILL [H.L.]
3.52 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Crowther-Hunt): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Crowther-Hunt)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Earl of Listowel in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Family allowances and social security]:
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTER-HILL: I crave your Lordships' indulgence. I am not yet sufficiently familiar with the Rules of the House to know whether I am in order. Unfortunately, I was unable to be present at the Second Reading debate on this Bill. When that took place, the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, asked a question of the Minister who agreed to answer it when he wound up the debate. Unfortunately, he found himself unable to do so—no doubt, inadvertently—because of the many other questions addressed to him. I do not know whether I am in order but, if I have your Lordships' permission, I wish to comment on the Bill and to repeat the question in the hope that the Minister will be able to answer it.
I am gravely concerned not with what is in the Bill, but with what is not in it. The question which the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, addressed to the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, was: why is there not included in this Bill provision for the abolition of the Easter school-leaving date, making one school-leaving date in the year? This is a proposition which, to my certain knowledge, has been pressed on the Government for six years. On four separate occasions I have made representations to successive Secretaries of State. Until that is done, the intention of the 1944 Education Act that children in this country should receive five years of secondary education will not be fulfilled.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, will agree that educational opinion is unanimous in its support of that provision. I understand that the reason for its not being included in the Bill is concerned with the Department of Employment, with industry and commerce and, to some extent, with those concerned with careers guidance who believe that this is not an appropriate time at which to -make such a change. I want to submit to your Lordships that there will never be a more
658
appropriate time, for let us face what we shall be doing. At Easter, we shall be adding 80,000 children to the unemployed in this country; and there are already plenty of unemployed. The idea that that will help those concerned with careers guidance is manifest nonsense. Those concerned with careers guidance should be concerned with getting jobs for those who have already left school and do not have jobs. To add 80,000 to their work, load of those seeking jobs will not help them.
It is reasonable to assume that they could be unemployed for the two months with which I am concerned, at a cost of between £4 million and £5 million in unemployment benefit. The impact on the schools will be that when these 80,000 children leave, the equivalent, in manpower terms, of 2,000 teachers will be paid their salaries for teaching children who are not there, at a cost of another £1 million. I cannot understand why the decision could have been made not to take this opportunity, with the support of the whole body of educational opinion—teachers, local authorities and all those concerned with the education service—to incorporate in this Bill a clause abolishing the Easter leaving date and creating a single school-leaving date.
Your Lordships may ask me with reason: why not move an Amendment to give effect to what I am now putting to the Committee? The answer is simple. I am advised that the two major Parties in this House have already reached agreement that such a clause should not be included in this Bill, and I have never believed in hitting my head against a brick wall. But I profoundly hope that the Government will consider very seriously, if not in this Bill, taking the opportunity at the earliest possible date to achieve the purpose of the 1944 Education Act; that is, creating one school-leaving date and offering our children five years of secondary education.
Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: With the leave of the Committee, may I quickly refer to the point which the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, has raised? If he looks at Hansard for the appropriate date, I think he will find that specifically referred to the point and answered the question of the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton. But I will repeat what I said—and I stress the word

659
" repeat "—that, from the educational point of view, we would favour a single leaving date for all and would have regarded the abolition of the Easter date as giving fuller effect to the policy that all young people should have a full course of secondary education.
But other interests have to be taken into account, and the proposal to drop the Easter leaving date attracted heavy criticism from certain employment and training interests who felt strongly that better use could be made of careers guidance, job placement and induction training facilities if school-leaving dates were staggered, and that there were advantages to be gained by giving a head start in employment terms to the unqualified Easter leaver before he faces competition from the main group of qualified summer leavers. Therefore, we recognise that there is room for a different view on the question of the Easter leaving date. As I hope I explained to your Lordships, the Bill does not seek to resolve any conflict of interests; it deals only with the important and more urgent problem of the summer leaving date, and therefore the Easter leaving date will remain for the present at least.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
In the Schedule [Repeals]:
3.59 p.m.
Lord CROWTHER-HUNT Lord CROWTHER-HUNT moved the following Amendment:
Page 3, column 3, leave out lines 39 to 42 and insert—
" In Schedule 5 the repeal in the Education Act 1962, the repeal of section 2(1) and (2) of the Family Allowances and National Insurance Act 1967 and the repeal of the definition of "School-leaving age "in Schedule 20 to the Social Security Act 1975."
The noble Lord said: This is a purely technical and drafting Amendment. It has its origins in the fact that the Child Benefit Act 1975 repeals certain other enactments as from the date when child benefit replaces family allowances in 1977. The Bill now before your Lordships' House itself repeals three of those enactments as from the date when it gets the Royal Assent, and thus the references to them in the Child Benefit Act will no longer be required. The Schedule
660
to the Bill which is now before your Lordships' Committee repeals the reference to one of these three enactments and this Amendment adds the other two. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with an Amendment.

RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES (SERVICES) ORDER 1975
4.1 p.m.
Lord JACQUES Lord JACQUES rose to move that the draft Restrictive Trade Practices (Services) Order 1975, laid before the House on 9th December, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. At the present time the restrictive trade practices legislation applies only to the supply and acquisition of goods. The purpose of this order is to apply it to commercial services. In 1965, the monopolies legislation was widened to apply to services. By the Fair Trading Act 1973 the then Conservative Government, with all-Party backing, gave the Secretary of State power to extend the restrictive practices legislation to cover commercial services. This order implements that power.
May I say something about the effects of the order. Restrictive agreements affecting such matters as charges, terms and conditions and market sharing will have to be registered with the Office of Fair Trading. The parties to the agreement can, of course, abandon the agreement rather than register it. Many did so after the 1956 Act which applied to the acquisition and supply of goods. Failure to register causes the agreement to be void and it would be unlawful to operate it. There is no criminal penalty, but any body who suffers as a consequence of the application of an unregistered agreement can take civil action for damages.
The Secretary of State may direct, in response to representations made by the Director General, that the restrictions in an agreement are insignificant and that no further procedure is necessary. Of course, in his consideration of the matter the Director General may have consultations with the parties and suggest modifications to their agreement so that he can

661
make those representations to the Secretary of State. Since 1969, when this provision was introduced, it has been used in respect of 173 agreements. If the Director General cannot accept that the restrictions are insignificant, he must refer the agreement to the Restrictive Practices Court. Even at this stage the parties to an agreement may choose to abandon it rather than go to court. If, however, they insist upon their agreement it is for the parties to the agreement to show to the satisfaction of the court, using the criteria in the legislation, that the agreement is not against the public interest. Of some 3,000 registered agreements, only 37 have come to the court for full hearing, and of those only 11 have been found not to be against the public interest.
The Schedule to the draft order pro vides for certain exceptions which are made on two grounds: first, that the control or supervision is already adequate and that it is not necessary to apply this order to the particular service or, secondly, that registration and investigation would give rise to problems of international jurisdiction. This applies in particular to international transport such as shipping.
I should like to say something about the procedure leading to the order. Under Section 111(2) of the Fair Trading Act, the Secretary of State has to give 28 days' notice of her intention to make this order. Within that period representations can be made and the Secretary of State must take them into account. Notice was published in August 1974 and, since this was the first use of these powers, 56 instead of 28 days were allowed in which representations could be made. In point of fact, the representations that had been made up to the time of making the draft order have been duly considered.
Exclusions have been sought on three grounds. First, it has been contended that the order represents a fundamental interference with trade. This objection has been rejected on the ground that Parliament itself has already decided, by the Fair Trading Act, that services should be brought within the scope of the legislation. Secondly, in some cases it was pleaded that the agreement was an agreement of merit and that it was in the
662
public interest. This objection was rejected on the ground that Parliament had decided that judgment in this matter was not for the Secretary of State but for the court. Thirdly, representations were made that the service in question was already subject to adequate control. As a result of these representations, the schedule of exemptions has been amended, and extended.
In conclusion, may I direct the attention of the House to the fact that over the last decade we as a community have spent an increasing part of our income on services. Agreements concerning the acquisition and supply of goods have long been subject to registration, scrutiny and further action, and it is now appropriate that such agreements relating to services should be subject to the same kind of scrutiny. My Lords, I commend this order to the House.
Moved, That the draft Restrictive Trade Practices (Services) Order 1975, laid before the House on 9th December, be approved.—(Lord Jacques.)
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I welcome this order which will subject restrictive agreements for services to registration and, possibly, to judicial investigation. I have two questions for the noble Lord. First, have the Government made any calculation of the weight of work which this order will generate? I realise that many agreements will be found to be restrictive only when they have been registered, but I should like to receive an assurance that, so far as the Department can see, the order will not lead to an increase in Civil Service manpower or more public expenditure. Secondly, I trust that the Office of Fair Trading will be issuing and circulating guidance about this order. My Lords, with those two questions I support the passage of this order.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the weight of work will be relatively small. It has been assessed and the increase in public expenditure will not be significant. On the question of guidance, I imagine that some guidance will be issued by the Director General. However, I will certainly direct the point which has been made to the attention of my right honourable friend.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HORTICULTURE (APPLE AND PEAR GROWERS) (SPECIAL PAYMENTS) (VARIATION) SCHEME 1975
4.10 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that the Horticulture (Apple and Pear Growers) (Special Payments) (Variation) Scheme 1975, laid before the House on 11th December, be approved.
This variation scheme is made under the Horticulture (Special Payments) Act 1974. It brings into effect new rates of payment for the grubbing of apple and pear trees under the scheme. These new rates are equivalent to the latest standard costs for grubbing under the Ministry's capital grant schemes. These costs were recently revised and came into effect on 15th December. The payment under the Apple and Pear Growers (Special Payments) Scheme consists of two parts: first, the special payment itself, which varies according to the girth, type and density of the trees, and, secondly, a payment related to the costs of grubbing, which varies according to the girth of the trees. It is the latter payment that is to be increased by this order.
The Government of the day introduced a Special Payments Scheme because it was considered that some growers of apples and pears might find their production uneconomic after our accession to the EEC. Before our entry into the Community, our market was protected by import quotas for apples and pears. These were replaced by compensatory amounts which act as import levies and export refunds and are due to be phased out during transition. They are not, however, as restrictive as the former import quotas. In addition, France and Italy enjoy a climatic advantage which leads to higher yields than are possible in this country.
A grower wishing to grub his trees under this scheme must agree to remove his entire area of at least one of the three eligible categories of trees, which are dessert apples, culinary apples or pears. Cider apples and perry pears are excluded from the scheme. The grower must have been in commercial production with at least five acres of one of the categories to be grubbed on 1st July 1970, and at the time of application.
664
Apple and pear growing must constitute at least one third of the activity of the business, which for the three years ended 31st March 1973 must have yielded a sufficient livelihood to the person carrying it on. An application must also relate to at least five acres of one of the eligible categories and the land not replanted with trees of any eligible category for five years. The land must also remain in agricultural use.
We consider it encouraging that so far few growers have thought it necessary to apply under the Scheme. Up to November last year in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, only 56 proposals had been approved since the original Scheme began in August 1973. These involve some 2,400 acres at an average payment of about£165 an acre. Although the Scheme closes for applications on 31st July 1976, successful applicants will have up to one year after approval to complete their grubbing and they will be able to benefit from these higher grubbing rates. I commend the Scheme to your Lordships and I beg to move.
Moved, That the Horticulture (Apple and Pear Growers) (Special Payments) (Variation) Scheme 1975, laid before the House on 11th December, be approved.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for giving details of this order, with which we on this side of the House thoroughly agree and of which we approve. It will be well known, from the Government White Paper Food From Our Own Resources, Cmnd. 6020, that the overall strategy for horticulture envisages changes in certain horticultural products. We assume that the intention of the Government in bringing forward this order is to sustain horticultural growth as a whole and to permit the renewal of a good stock of trees in the United Kingdom.
There are two questions I should like to ask the noble Lord and they both relate to the situation after grubbing. First, approximately how many acres is it anticipated should be grubbed and what incentives will there be in the Government's strategy for small growers to take their areas so grubbed into a new form of production? We read with interest what the Government's intentions

665
are in the level of horticultural increase by 1980 and we see in Table 2 of the same White Paper a proposed increase of 5 per cent. We assume that this fits in with the overall strategy and I should like confirmation from the noble Lord to that effect.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, for the welcome that he has given to this Scheme. I believe in many ways we are carrying on the good work initiated by his Government. The noble Lord asked what would happen to land after the orchard has been grubbed. From the available evidence on completed schemes it is clear that the great majority of applications under the Special Payments Scheme have come from mixed holdings and it seems likely that the released land will be taken up by one or other of the owner's existing activities. We have some information on the use to which applicants so far have intended to put their land; the majority intend to put it to cereals and the remainder either to grass or to cider apples.
With regard to the aids available to those who have grubbed, to help them to make full use of this released land, of course growers who have taken advantage of the Special Payments Scheme can apply for grants towards the cost of investments, which will help to make full use of the released land under two schemes made in accordance with the EEC Directive 72/159 on farm structure. The Directive sets maximum levels of aid which can be given, and the grants given in the United Kingdom are about as high as it permits.
The higher grants are available under the Farm and Horticulture Development Scheme and they attract a FEOGA contribution of 25 per cent. of the grants. They are payable on approved expenditure incurred in pursuing a development plan which is aimed at bringing the income per labour unit on a grower's holding up to a level comparable with incomes outside agriculture. Grant rates for horticulturists are slightly higher than those for agriculturists and are at 30 per cent. for improvements to land and for buildings, except additional production buildings. The rate is 20 per cent. for most plant and equipment and 10 per cent. for additional production buildings and minor cultivation equipment.
666
There is also, of course, our own national scheme as an alternative. This is the Horticultural Capital Grants Scheme which does not require an approved development plan; the rates of grant are 25 per cent. of approved expenditure on land improvements or buildings (other than additional production buildings) and 15 per cent. on most plant and equipment. The costs of this Scheme authorised under the EEC Directive to which I have referred are met entirely from national funds. I am afraid I cannot say whether or not there will be a slight upswing before the closing of the Scheme, but so far only 2½ per cent. of the eligible land has been grubbed. I hope that answers the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
4.20 p.m.
Lord BRIGINSHAW: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Perhaps I should declare an interest. I am a Member of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service established under the Employment Protection Act. However, as a result of an Amendment to the Bill approved by your Lordships, the certification officer is a quite independent officer and does not come within the jurisdiction of ACAS in any matter whatsoever. The Employment Protection Act was recently given the Royal Assent. This Act received a warm welcome from trade unions in this country and represents a significant stage in the process of improving the minimum legal protections for workers. It is also an important step in fostering the further development of collective bargaining as the primary means of regulating industrial relations in this country.
My Lords, an Amendment to the Act was set down by my noble friend Lord Shepherd in this House on 17th October, and was withdrawn on 23rd October, responding to indications from noble Lords on the other side. The purpose of this Amendment Bill, if I may say so supported by the Trades Union Congress, is to make a small but very important

667
addition to the Act concerned with the determination of whether or not a trade union is independent, and reproduces exactly the Amendment of my noble friend, Lord Shepherd. Certain of the provisions of the Employment Protection Act and the Trades Union and Labour Relations Act 1974, to which it is closely related, apply only to members of independent trade unions or independent trade unions themselves. I am concerned that the existing criteria for union independence are not adequate.
My Lords, the concept of union independence is a major feature of the Employment Protection Act and related legislation. Let me first indicate its 'importance by referring to the main circumstances which it affects. In per using Sections 8, 19, 53, 57, 58, 98, and Schedule 11 in particular, your Lordships will see that the question of whether or not a union is independent is crucial in determining whether it and its members can avail themselves of the many major provisions of the new Act. I have enumerated the sections rather than unduly taking up the time of the House this afternoon.
The important question to determine which is and which is not an independent union, is to be given to a certification officer. Section 8 of the Employment Protection Act states:
" A trade union whose name is entered on the list of trade unions maintained under section 8 of the 1974 Act may apply to the Certification Officer for a certificate that it is independent."
The certification officer shall determine whether the applicant trade union is independent. His decision, and the date of his decision, is on the record, and if he determines that the union is independent, he issues a certificate accordingly, or if he determines it is not, he must give reasons for his decision.
My Lords, Section 8 of the Employment Protection Act goes on to describe the way that the certificate of independence may be withdrawn and the procedure whereby a union, aggrieved with the certification officer's decision, may appeal. No guidance is included in the Employment Protection Act about whether or not an applicant trade union is independent, but basic criteria for the certification officer to apply appear in Secton 29 of the Trades Union and
668
Labour Relations Act, which provides that an independent trade union is one which is:
" not under the domination or control of an employer or group of employers or of one or more of the employers' associations, and is not liable to interference by an employer or any such group or associations arising out of financial or material support, or by any other means whatsoever tending towards control."
These criteria are satisfactory so far as they go, but in my view, And, I believe, in the view of many other people who are very experienced in industrial relations, the criteria will not provide adequate guidance to the certification officer.
More specific criteria need to be laid down to help the certification officer deal very shortly with a difficult situation. This House will know that there is a range of bodies in existence in this country which claim to represent employees in relation to the employers. This includes established trade unions with a long history of independence, most, but not all, of which are affiliated to the TUC, and none of which has any doubts as to their independence.
Secondly, there are staff associations formed and funded by employers, usually with the prime objective of excluding genuine trade unions from the company, although I ought to make it clear that not all staff associations fall into this category. Thirdly, there are bodies not specifically linked to particular employers, but which have been formed explicitly as an alternative to trade unions. These bodies pursue an active, but so far not very successful, policy of opposition to established trade unionism. They and some associations compete for recognition with genuine and established trade unions in a number of important areas of employment—for example, finance, and in the middle and senior management groups in private manufacturing industry. If they are able to obtain certificates of independence and have access to many of the existing legislative provisions, their activities will cause unnecessary friction, and stimulate the growth of still more new bodies. Such a development would be disruptive and dangerous.
My Lords, in the first place, most of us would like to see a reduction, not an expansion, in the overall number of trade unions. I am sure that that goes

669
for the whole of the trade union movement in this country. Secondly, it is public policy to promote effective collective bargaining between employers and genuine trade unions. Any provisions which prop up bodies which cannot bar gain effectively are inhibiting the growth of proper collective bargaining. Thirdly, such provisions would cause a new degree of bitterness, with all the undesirable con sequences that would follow in inter-union conflicts between genuine unions and these other spurious bodies.
On 1st February when he starts, the certification officer is going to be faced with claims for certificates from these bodies. On the other hand, he is likely to be faced with a number of objections lodged by trade unions, saying that these bodies are not truly independent or effective. I think it can be agreed that the certification officer will have a very difficult job, and he needs the clearest possible guidance from Parliament as to how he will do his job. The existing criteria in Section 29 of the 1974 Act, as I have already indicated, are all right so far as they go, but more specific guidance is really needed. That is the positive reason behind this Bill which seeks to develop in more detail the criteria the certification officer should apply. It is, as I have indicated, practically the same as an Amendment tabled in this House by the Government to the Employment Protection Bill, which was not pressed then primarily owing to shortage of time to debate the issue thoroughly, careful note having been taken at the time of Opposition views expressed.
The criteria the Bill sets out are also very similar to those in pages 59 and 60 of the Report on Industrial Relations, on trade union recognition, which was published in 1974 and which had been used by the CIR to guide them when they handled the recognition issues referred to them by the National Industrial Relations Court or the then Employment Secretary. This Bill lays down a specific practice which should be taken into account when determining a union's eligibility for independence. First, the certification officer should be required to take into account conditions applied by any organisation to which the union is affiliated. For example, the Trades Union Congress already requires a union applying for affiliation to demonstrate, before
670
its application is accepted, that it is a bona fide body which acts independently of employers. TUC affiliation would naturally be a strong indication to the certification officer of a union's independence.
Secondly, the certification officer should examine how a trade union was formed. If, like many staff associations, it was formed by an employer and he is still involved in its affairs, this is an overwhelmingly strong indication that it is not a body which can stand on its own feet and bargain effectively with the employer. Thirdly, the certification officer needs to examine how the union is funded, and in particular whether it is self-supporting through contribution income from members, or whether and to what extent it receives financial support from employers. In trade union affairs, as elsewhere, it is true that he who pays the piper calls the tune.
Fourthly, when staff associations hold meetings a representative of the management may have the right to attend. It is obvious that this right is an inhibiting factor on free discussion and development of unfettered policies, and where this practice occurs a union cannot really be regarded as independent. Nor can any truly independent union—this is the fifth factor in the Bill—be compelled to supply the management with minutes of meetings or other confidential material. The sixth point is that no union which obtains a certificate of independence should have its policies influenced by employers, other than, of course, through the process of collective bargaining. which is a system making joint agreements on matters of common interest. What is being sought is recognition that bodies whose policies are affected by one form or another of employers' control are not regarded as independent.
The seventh point is those bodies whose membership is restricted to one company only, which are often non-independent, and this is a point to which the certification officer needs to have regard. However, it is not, of course, invariably true, and no one would suggest that the National Union of Mineworkers is not an independent body. God forbid that I should do so! Finally, the most fundamental job of the genuine trade union is to bargain effectively on

671
behalf of its members with their employers, and I think that an applicant union should therefore be required to show that it is a body which is at least really seeking to do so.
This presentation is made against a background of the decided legislative position now operative, that the Employment Protection Act is a fact of life, and it should be received by this House as a positive contribution to good industrial relations. I therefore commend this Bill to the House on the grounds that it would clarify an important part of the Employment Protection Act by giving additional guidance to the certification officer. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Briginshaw.)
4.35 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, at this stage in the debate I would make it clear that this Bill has Government support. The new clause which the Bill would insert in the Employment Protection Act 1975 is identical to the clause which the Government sought to insert at the Third Reading of that Act when it was a Bill in this House. We considered the clause desirable then; we consider it desirable now. At that time we withdrew our Amendment because the view was taken in the House—and we had sympathy with this view—that the Amendment had been moved rather late in the day. But there is now ample time to debate the details. We believe that the Bill would improve the provisions of the Act and should therefore be supported in this House. We do not consider that the Bill is contentious. We believe that the effect would be limited but very helpful. I will try to explain why we have reached these conclusions.
Under Section 8 of the 1975 Act a trade union may apply to the certification officer for a certificate of independence. This certificate is important because some of the benefits available to trade unions under the 1975 Act and the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 are available only to independent trade unions. If any question arises as to whether a union is independent a certificate of independence will be essential to the union con-
672
cerned. In considering whether or not to issue a certificate the certification officer is bound by the definition of an independent trade union in Section 30 of the 1974 Act. This definition was settled after lengthy debate during the passage of that Act, and it is important to bear in mind that the Bill does not in any way change that definition. Clause 1(3) of the Bill says this explicitly.
What the Bill would do is to set out a list of matters the certification officer would be required to take into account when considering whether a trade union came within the definition in the 1974 Act, and whether, therefore, a certificate of independence should be issued. The matters are drawn in the main from a study published by the Commission on Industrial Relations. The Bill neither enlarges nor restricts the definition. It would merely particularise the matters which the certification officer would need to look at in applying the definition. These are matters which, in our view, he would need to consider whether or not they were set out in a Statute.
The certification officer would, moreover, retain ample discretion. He would be able in each case to decide how much weight to give to each of the criteria listed and to apply other criteria not included in the list. Consequently, the effect of the Bill would be limited; nevertheless it would be helpful to the certification officer and to trade unions. It would also be helpful for the Employment Appeals Tribunal, where an appeal is made to it by an aggrieved party, to have before it a list of clear public statutory criteria which the certification officer will need to apply.
In conclusion, I ask the House to give this Bill a Second Reading for four reasons. First, I believe that this is a matter on which Parliament should lay down guidelines. Secondly, those guidelines would be helpful to the certification officer, to the Employment Appeals Tribunal, and to trade unions. Thirdly, on this occasion, as distinct from the last occasion, there is time after the principle has been agreed for the details to be considered in Committee. That was impossible the last time this provision was raised, and objections were legitimately raised on those grounds. That does not

673
apply this time. Fourthly, it is normal to give a Second Reading to such a Bill.
4.40 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, it grieves me, although not very much, that I shall have to take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, on every one of his four points on which he urged your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading. I shall come to them one by one. As your Lordships have been told by both noble Lords, the Bill first saw the light of day, so far as discussion is concerned, on 23rd October last, and that was on the Third Reading of what is now the Employment Protection Act. The Lord Privy Seal moved this Amendment, which was identical in terms with the present Bill. The proposed Amendment won almost universal condemnation, and the Lord Privy Seal very wisely withdrew it. It is fair to say that much of the opposition stemmed from the fact that what was in effect a totally new Amendment, which had not previously been considered or discussed by either House, was being moved at the very last moment when what proved to be a long, complex, and contentious Bill was being considered by this House for the very last time before being sent back to the Commons.
It is, however, fair to say that the content of the Bill—at that stage an Amendment—itself raised considerable anxiety. Your Lordships have had the opportunity—and here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jacques—to consider these proposals in somewhat greater depth since last October, but I fear that in this case familiarity has bred, if not contempt, certainly some kind of emotion which can be akin thereto. On the last occasion the Lord Privy Seal described the Amendment, as it was then, as not essential but helpful. Noble Lords on this side of the House regard the Bill as invidious and thoroughly unhelpful in the field of industrial relations.
My noble. friend Lord Drumalbyn asked the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for what I think in the art world is described as the "provenance"of the Amendment, as it was then, and he received no answer at that stage. and I do not suppose that any of your Lordships were surprised. He got his answer with a vengeance in the Financial Times
674
in its issue of Thursday, 6th January, where it says:
" The Bill is the brainchild of Mr. Clive Jenkins' Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs. It lays down strict criteria against which an organisation will be judged by the Employment Act's new certification officer when he decides whether to certify a union as independent.
" Only a certified union can enjoy the Act's recognition, arbitration and other advantages and a large number of staff associations will try to gain this status in order to fight off TUC unions such as ASTMS.
" For this reason ASTMS is keen to make it as difficult as possible for the associations to pass the certification test … "
There is the provenance of this Bill: there is, I suggest, the motivation behind it. It is one more example of what, on this side of your Lordships' House during the passage of what is now the Employment Protection Act, we regarded as the strong combining against the weak; where the rights and the interest of the individual are being sublimated to what might be described as the interests of the already over-mighty.
Nobody would dispute that this Bill is important. As I have said, and as is apparent from the Financial Times article, only unions which pass what I might call the Section 8 test of the Employment Protection Act will enjoy its benefits. The effect of this Bill, if it were passed, would be to fetter the discretion of the certification officer when he comes to apply him self under Section 8 of that new Act.
One is bound to ask, or at least to muse upon the question, how it comes about that the noble Lord, Lord Briginshaw, acting as he is as a TUC nominated member of ACAS (an independent body) is seeking to fetter what is at the moment the almost complete discretion of another independent creature—and I hope that I do not say that in an unkind or rude way—the certification officer who, as I under stand the position, takes up his duties on 1st February. If this Bill were to become law, there is no doubt that a fetter there would be. At the moment, under Section 8 the officer has almost unlimited discretion to do what he considers to be right and fair over this matter of recognition. We know that in all probability what he will do will he to apply the criteria to which the noble Lord, Lord Briginshaw referred, which are set out in Study No. 5 of the pamphlet of the CIR. The effect will he to provide a number of pegs upon which unions such as ASTMS will be

675
able to hang objections to such certification, and in fact they would provide a number of focal points upon which unions who wish to prevent certification can give vent to their feelings in the form of special pleading.
I want to come back, if I may, to the criteria as laid down in paragraph 233 of Study No. 5. At first blush it could be said, I suppose, that the eight paragraphs in Clause 1 of the noble Lord's Bill follow those criteria. In fact they do not—or not in all cases, as I shall hope to show your Lordships. Let us take paragraph (c), which is akin to sub-paragraph (2) of the CIR criteria, which reads:
" Financial support from management should not be essential to its continued existence."
Of course we are talking about the trade union in question. In paragraph (c) of the Bill we see:
" whether the trade union receives financial or other material support from any employer and the extent of such support and the manner of its provision; ".
That is putting the burden of proof very much lower than it is in the CIR criteria. One regards financial support to be essential before the independence of the union is called into question; the other merely enjoins the officer to consider it.
Clause 1(1)(e) of the Bill states:
" whether it is the practice for the trade union to submit minutes of its meetings or to supply other confidential information to an employer ".
On the other hand, sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph 233 of the criteria merely says:
"There should be no obligation to submit minutes or to supply other confidential information to management ".
The effect, therefore, of these two—and it does not end there—is to compel the certification officer to apply not the CIR criteria but quite different ones. Again, Clause 1(1)(g) of the Bill reads:
"whether membership of the trade union is confined to employees of a single employer or to employees of associated employers and the effect of such a restriction in the circum stances of the case ".
In sub-paragraph (7) of the criteria, however, we read:
"There should preferably be a membership base outside the company ".
It is by observing and remarking on the actual provisions of this Bill that in my
676
submission one can come to some sort of judgment as to whether this is fair and whether it is intended really to help industrial relations or whether in fact it is intended as an aid to unions such as I have already mentioned which are anxious to damage as quickly and as effectively as they possibly can staff associations and unions taking their membership from one company or organisation. For all these reasons I fear that I should be failing in my duty, as would any noble Lord who examined this Bill, if I did not consider very carefully whether there should be a Second Reading.
Any hesitation which I might have had was removed by a letter which I received yesterday from Sir Leonard Neal, who was lately chairman of the Commission on Industrial Relations. I will quote shortly from it. In paragraph 1 he says:
" The CIR work referred to was essentially, a study prepared by the Commisison's staff for internal purposes. It was approved for publication by the Commission in the belief that it would be of use to those who are engaged in handling future recognition claims, but it was not intended that the study should provide detailed statutory guidance ".
In paragraph 2 he goes on:
" The work and experience of the Com mission demonstrated the wisdom of maintaining the maximum degree of flexibility in resolving issues of this sort and that any attempt to lay down hard and fast rules should not take into account the infinite variability of employment practices in the real world. I, as Chairman of the Commission, would not have been willing to serve on the Commission had it been required to surrender its judgment in these difficult recognition areas in order to operate within this type of inflexible criteria as suggested by the Bill. I am bound to say also that I think it probable that the Commission may have been unwilling even to publish the study had it imagined that this work was likely to be quoted in the way proposed ".
We have, therefore, a set of criteria which have never been intended for this sort of use, and which will be doubtful in practice and application, being sought to be prayed in aid to support a Bill which is thoroughly obnoxious in character. Dealing with the final point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, I know of no practice by which your Lordships' House, except in certain circumstances, is bound to give a Second Reading to a Bill by a Private Member.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I did not say "bound ". I said it was customary.
Several Noble Lords: No.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: That is semantic waffle, my Lords. I know of no reason why this House, if it is not considered proper and fitting to give this Bill a Second Reading, should be prevented from doing what seems best to each individual noble Lord.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I know of no Bill in the last five years which has had Government support whose Second Reading has been rejected.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, the noble Lord might care to reflect on that and talk to the noble Baroness, Lady White.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: As well as the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, my Lords.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: Be that as it may, my Lords, whatever the noble Lords says, I invite noble Lords who are like minded as myself to join me in the Lobby at the end of this debate.
4.56 p.m.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, I think it is common ground between us that independence in trade unions is of paramount importance. It is, of course, of paramount importance in terms of the implementation of the Employment Protection Act. As the noble Lord, Lord Briginshaw, pointed out, a number of the clauses and benefits deriving to unions under that Act depend on the establishment of independence. It is basically far more important, of course, to realise that if collective bargaining—and collective bargaining is a very important aspect of industrial relations—and industrial relations are to develop satisfactorily (I almost sail "continue satisfactorily" but perhaps that would be a slight overstatement in view of the experience of recent years) they can do so only on the basis of the complete independence of what Europe calls, and what I hope we shall grow to call, "the social partners"; they must be independent partners.
Having said that this is common ground between us, I am afraid that this is where the common ground ceases, at any rate so far as we on these Benches are concerned. We see no reason why the conditions for determining independence
678
should be laid down in this kind of detail in an Act of Parliament. When the Employment Protection Act was going through this House I made the point that if this kind of guidance was needed the place for it was in a code of practice in which it would not have the force, the rigidity, of an Act of Parliament but which would be a useful indication of the matters which should be taken into account in establishing independence. A code would be there and would be useful for those people who were formulating a claim to be an independent trade union, and would also be useful to the certification officer.
We already have a number of codes of practice which have been developed in connection with other legislation closely connected with, or indirectly related to, industrial relations, and I cannot see why, if this kind of guidance is needed, a code of practice for the Employment Protection Act could not be developed. If there is not already adequate provision for developing such a code, then that could be brought into being by means of an addition to the Act in just the same way as an attempt is now being made to alter the Act by the introduction of the Bill which we are considering today. We have already begun to establish this kind of guidance and experience shows that its proper place is in a code of practice, and this is how, in my view, this kind of guidance, if it is needed, should be developed. For this reason I shall not support incorporating these proposals in the Employment Protection Act.
I also question this sort of detailed guidance and, in any event, there seems to be some misunderstanding as to the real intention of this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, if I understood him aright, said it was only guidance for the certification officer but that he would be able to use his judgment and would be able to consider other matters, apart from those which we are now considering. That statement from the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, very much strengthens my argument that it is in a code of practice that such provisions should be put, because that is exactly how a code of practice is used. Something which goes into an Act of Parliament should be something specific which is to be precisely applied and should not remain a matter of judgment on the part of the person who is to use it.

679
A law is a direction to an official. A code of practice is guidance to an official. If the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, is right, he must agree with me that the place for this is not in the Act but is in a code.
A further reason is surely that, as the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, has said, the certification officer is there to use his judgment. I do not know who the certification officer is, but it must be assumed that a person who has been appointed to a post of this kind of responsibility and this level is someone who will be well versed in matters of industrial relations, who will have great experience and knowledge in this field and who will be perfectly capable of using his judgment in considering whether or not a union is independent. Surely we want him to use just that kind of judgment and to do so in an unfettered way when cases of this kind come before him. That is the nature of the task which he is called on to perform.
Those are two reasons why I am opposed to the incorporation of this Bill into the Employment Protection Act. However, it seems to me that, behind this Bill, there is another purpose of an even more important kind which determines me to vote against it. The noble Lord, Lord Briginshaw, made much of the point that we all want to see fewer unions in this country, and urged that we need to reduce the number of unions as a step towards better industrial relations. Of course that is, in general, true. It is a cliché that we have far too many unions here. In so far as, other things being equal, a reduction can be made in the number of unions, I agree that this is a step in the right direction, but the reduction in the number of unions is not the overriding consideration in all the circumstances.
I believe that this Bill, if passed, would make very much more difficult the development of new unions, however much those new unions might be wanted by particular groups of people who do not believe that their interests will be properly defended by existing organisations. We know that there are such groups already in existence. There is every reason to suppose that, in the ordinary nature of affairs, other groups of this kind will emerge in due course. I do not accept that it is an overriding
680
objective of policy that it should be very difficult indeed for groups of people who are not satisfied with the provision, the attitudes, the ideas and, I almost said, the ideology of existing unions to form their own independent organisations and to get them recognised as independent organisations entitled to all the benefits and protection provided by the Employment Protection Act. It is above all else because I see the Bill as a way of making it far more difficult for that to happen that I shall vote against it.
5.5 p.m.
Lord HANKEY: My Lords, after a very careful examination of the Bill and of the background to it, I strongly advise your Lordships to reject it on Second Reading. I entirely agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, have just said. In the first place, I honestly do not think it a necessary Bill. I shall read the existing definition of an independent trade union because the noble Lord, Lord Briginshaw, read it very fast and it is important that we in this House should know exactly what we are talking about. The existing definition in Section 30 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 states:
" ' independent trade union' means a trade union which—

(a) is not under the domination or control of an employer or a group of employers or of one or more employers' associations; and

(b) is not liable to interference by an employer or any such group or association (arising out of the provision of financial or material support or by any other means whatsoever) tending towards such control ".

That is a very good definition. I can not see why it is necessary to add to it and I agree with those who have said that it is undesirable to add any such specific and tendentious definition as is now pro posed. The clauses which appear in the Bill are either dangerously obscure; or are designed to discourage co-operative relations between trade unions and employers; or they can be used by trouble-makers—of whom we have all too many—to get a union removed from the certification officer's list of independent trade unions.
Taking the clauses in turn, Clause 1(a) is completely obscure. However, it could clearly be misused: if a trade union belonged to a federation—for instance

681
the ICFTU—to which the militants were opposed, the latter could rake up some thing to make trouble for the union. Sub paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) are clearly aimed at excluding from the list of independent trade unions any union which has or has had close and co operative relations with employers. They are also, in consequence, aimed at discouraging employers from establishing close relations with trade unions. Section 8 of the Employment Protection Act provides a procedure for removing trade unions from the list of registered independent trade unions. I believe that this was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Briginshaw.
In my view, the workers in an industry have an equal interest with employers in ensuring its success and, indeed, its profitability. This is most wisely recognised by the leading industrial nations of the world—of which Britain is now hardly one. I should like to give three examples from my own experience which I feel are interesting in this connection. I shall not detain your Lordships with a long story, but I believe this to be important. I visited a famous shipyard in Southern Sweden and, having always been very interested in industrial relations, I asked the managing director how he managed. He said: "Oh, before we have our negotiations, the head of the trade union here, which is the Metalworkers' Trade Union, always comes to see me and we have a talk. I tell him all about the position of the company and he tells me what suggestions, proposals and requirements he thinks he will be making to me. We try to put those things together and then we see how we can arrange matters. When the negotiations come, I know that some things are more important to him than others and he knows that certain things are almost impossible in the interests of the company. We really end by reaching very good agreement. "
I must say that I believe that, if one shuts two Swedes into a room and tells them to agree about anything—the desirability of free love, the nature of free will or anything else—they will always come out agreeing if they are left there long enough. Perhaps this was an example of that. However, I recall that Sweden has been social democratic for 40 years and there can therefore be nothing contrary to the proper practice of social
682
democracy or good trade unionism in this sort of practice. However, it would not go with the noble Lord's definitions.
I also have a friend who is a director in the German petro-chemical industry. I asked him the same question. He said, "In Germany "(under arrangements made by my beloved chief, Mr. Ernest Bevin) the workers in any business are represented on the board. As soon as there is any sign of trouble the first thing we do is to whistle up the member of the staff who represents the employees on the board, and we ask him to find out what is wrong. We soon take evasive action, with the result that we have never really had any trouble in our factories. "Would this be possible under the noble Lord's definition? That man would be completely tarred. The union which permitted it—and there is only one union for each big German industry (which is one of the reasons why they are so successful) —could certainly be accused before the certification officer of not being independent.
Crossing the Iron Curtain, I now wish to relate an experience which occurred when I was privileged to be a member of a Parliamentary delegation which visited Russia some years ago. We went to a famous generator factory in Leningrad. When it was my turn to ask a question I asked the managing director: "How do you manage with industrial relations? Do you ever have any trouble here? "He said: "Oh no, of course not. I have very good relations with the head of the trade unions. He comes to see me very often, and we exchange ideas and notes. In any case we do such a lot for the workers. We have houses and installations in the forest on the coast and in the country all around Leningrad in such a quantity that one-third of the staff can have a free holiday with their families every year." I asked him: "How do you choose which members of the staff are to be that one-third? "He replied: Oh those members of the staff are chosen by the head of the trade union."
Obviously there are no wild cat strikes in those circumstances. Here was a trade union which received from the factory a type of help and assistance which I personally believe is very sensible, very helpful and very desirable. But it would be contrary to the noble Lord's definition.

683
None of this would happen if this Bill were applied here, and in my opinion we shall never make the economic and industrial grade in this country so long as we tolerate the ridiculous chaos and the dreadful industrial relations which we have.
I am sorry to say that in my opinion our own militants are out to smash any such sensible and profitable co-operation. The Trades Union and Labour Relations Act 1974, and the amending Bill now in another place, seem to me to form a bully boy's charter for the militants. We can expect only trouble until those measures have been repealed or abolished and the whole system has been reformed. In any case, the militants clearly aim to bring this country to its knees and to replace our free Parliamentary régime with some thing quite different. If we continue to be sloppy-minded about this, by passing Bills of this kind, the militants may well succeed before the present depression has passed. I say this because I believe we are entering an extremely tricky period and there will be a very difficult situation before our economy recovers. Incidentally, I hope that many of your Lordships saw the remarkable television broadcast by my noble friend Lord Chalfont the other night.
But to return to the Bill, do not let us be under any illusion. It has now become very important indeed whether or not a trade union is clased as independent. Under Section 11 of the Employment Protection Act only independent trade unions can appeal to the Conciliation and Arbitration Service for recognition by an employer. Under Sections 17 and 19 only independent trade unions are entitled to receive full information from employers or to appeal to the Central Arbitration Committee if they do not get it. Under Section 53 an employee can enforce his rights to join a trade union only if it is registered as independent. Under Sections 57 and 58—the noble Lord referred to Section 58—an official of a trade union can press for time off to conduct union activities only if the trade union is registered as independent. And there is much more besides in the legislation.
In short, a trade union which is not on the register of independent trade
684
unions cannot possibly hope to compete in the circumstances in which we now live. Is it not clear that obscure or dangerous interpretations, such as we have in this Bill, will inevitably be used —whatever may be the intention of the noble Lord; and I am not throwing any aspersions on him personally—they will be used to promote a war between trade unions to deregister those who promote good productivity and good industrial relations, or who have sensible social democrats in charge; and it will certainly be used to damage smaller unions. I also agree that it will certainly be used to smash staff associations or other bodies which co-operate closely with employers. I have no hesitation in solemnly requesting your Lordships to reject this Bill.
5.16 p.m.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, I rise to support the reservations of my noble friend Lord Mansfield and other noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. When I intervened in a similar discussion during the Committee stage of the major Bill, I did so with some special knowledge of two well-conducted and very successful independent unions. I little thought that my brief intervention then would have brought me such a wealth of information and protest from many more professional and non-TUC-affiliated unions. After all, fewer than half the employed population is, in effect, in unions affiliated to the Trades Union Congress. It is a denial of free choice and of democracy to endeavour to impose on independent unions harsher conditions —this is what it amounts to—than those which apply to others. I was very glad indeed to hear the assurance from the noble Lord, Lord Briginshaw, that the certification officer would be truly independent of the ACAS.
The noble Lord may be whiter than white on this issue, and may be completely disinterested. But I should be less than fair to the representations made to me if I did not say that it is very difficult to convince those who are not members of the Trades Union Congress that someone as distinguished and partial as the noble Lord can be wholly disinterested when he is a member of the ACAS, a most distinguished leader of his own very powerful union and a member of the council of the TUC. When colleagues of the noble Lord, such as Mr.

685
Clive Jenkins, boast of the unions and of the membership they will garner when the Bill becomes law, then I think the independent unions, the professional bodies and (as the noble Lord referred to them) the middle and senior grades—people with specialised training as chemists, scientists and engineers—have every reason to be a little worried about the implication of this Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Briginshaw, and the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, referred to the definition in the original piece of legislation, the Trades Union and Labour Relations Act 1974, to which the 1975 Act refers and to which this new Bill will be an addition. In the view of many lawyers that original definition was unconstrueable. Since the burden of proving independence lies on the unions, none of the unions who had to apply for this certification, however independent, could be sure of getting a certification officer—who, in view of the many applications obviously cannot always be the chief certification officer—to find them independent. I fully support the views expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that it would have been reason able to have a code of practice. Indeed, when the 1974 Bill went through Parliament the Bar Association proposed to the Department of Employment that there should be such a code of practice and guidelines, not only to assist the certification officer but also to assist the unions, from the outset, on what was expected from them in the constitution of their particular organisation, to give them a fair opportunity to know what was expected of them and to allow them to retain the independence they sought.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in the earlier debate, and I believe Lord Jacques, again, this afternoon, made reference to the ILO definition. I am sorry the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is not here, but he made great play with the fact that the definition in the Act of 1974 merely reflected the ILO definition. But there is a major difference of great significance between the terms which this Government have applied in the Bill and those which operate in the ILO definition, part of which was read out by the noble Lord, Lord Briginshaw, and the noble Lord, Lord Jacques. I will not repeat the first section, but the second section says:
686
" In particular, acts which are designed to promote the establishment of workers' organisations under the domination of employers' organisations, or to support workers' organisations by financial or other means "—
and these are the relevant words which have been changed—
" with the object of placing such organisations under the control of employers or employers' organisations, shall be deemed to constitute acts of intereference ".
No one has any quarrel with that, but the 1974 Act uses the word "liable". It is far less definite than "placing … under the control ". In other words, if it does not occur in practice now, could it in any future circumstances and at some future date? That word "liable"appears nowhere in the ILO Convention.
Further, we have the totally subjective expression, "tending towards such control ", in the 1974 Act, which has far wider implications than the Convention's very clear-cut expression," with the object of gaining control ", which is something far easier to establish. In the main, these independent unions represent white collar workers, professionally qualified groups who have spent years on their training, who know intimately the sphere and process of their own industry or profession. They join together to fight on their own ground in their own specialty for better salaries, wages or working conditions. They are ready to prove their independence on a fair analysis, but they feel that this Bill is weighted against them from the start. They say—I quote one of them—"Is not the TUC saying to us, ' Don't do as we do; do as we say '? "
The natural and expected amenities provided by a good employer for an affiliated union are accepted as fostering good labour relations. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Briginshaw, mentioned that, despite all the amenities provided by the Coal Board for the miners, no one would suggest that they were not independent. Why, then, if the same type of facilities are provided for an independent union, should it be assumed that this is a means and a measure by which they can be disbarred from being registered? A natural and expected amenity in these days is that the firm will collect the union subscriptions through the pay packet, thus saving the union administrative expenses. That is now a regular function of a good employer. Others are that they will allow

687
union meetings on the firm's premises and in the firm's time; and that they will accept that union correspondence conducted by the convenor is typed by the firm's typist. These are accepted and expected as fostering good labour relations within the major firms today.
But the independent unions who have got to go forward for registration fear that these terms will be interpreted to their disadvantage if they have had similar advantages from their employers for their particular organisation. As one of them put it to me, 30 years ago, to facilitate joint consultations and collective bar gaining, the association was started and the company gave a once-for-all contribution of £250 to get the organisation off the ground until it could gather subscriptions from its membership. Will that be held against them 30 years later when, for ever after, the association has been completely financially independent? Is the employer to be castigated as seeking to control when he was seeking to facilitate collective bargaining? We have all heard of the fate of the Ferrybridge Six, dismissed not because they were bad workers—no one has ever suggested that they were not responsible and competent engineers—but because one union closed shop would not accept democratic independence from a very able, though small but well-conducted, union.
I conclude, my Lords, with one further point of current significance. The noble Lord, Lord Hankey, referred to the programme to which a number of us, I am sure, listened a few nights ago. The independent unions are proud and jealous of their non-Party political affiliations. Anyone can join. There is no political levy in any independent trade union of which I know. They welcome the fact that Labour, Tory and Liberal members, and members of no Party, can easily join because they are working together for their industrial conditions, for their salaries and for the working conditions of themselves and their colleagues. Some of them consider it a denial of democracy that they should be committed by union conference votes to Party political action occasionally—not industrial action, which is valid—which they regard as completely against their views and their principles. It is some thing very valuable that these unions
688
are confined to furthering the advantages to their profession, their working conditions and their salaries. They are very proud of the fact that they are completely non-Party political, and they welcome members of any political faith. My Lords, I join with other Members of the House in hoping that this Bill will be rejected.
5.28 p.m.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I had not intended to speak—I did not put my name down to do so—but some thing has happened which has prompted me to stay on here when I really wanted to go home, and I ask to be allowed to utter four or five sentences. First of all, I am a great believer in cultivating harmonious industrial relations. That is not a mere theory on my part: it has been my practice in such trade union offices as I have held in the early and middle years of my life. I was for some years the father of the chapel in a daily news paper office. It was our proud boast there that our relations with the employers were completely harmonious, although by (shall I say?) competent negotiation I was usually able to get for my fellow workers whatever we wanted.
I was rather surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, should have raised again the hoary old "Red menace" theory. We are not talking about Red menaces here; we are talking about respectable bodies of workers who want independence. But, surprised though I was that he should have raised the question, I was even more surprised that he should go to Leningrad to illustrate the harmonious way in which trade union and employer relationships in that hotbed of "Redism" were operated. He told use how, before big negotiations were entered upon, the trade union leader would go round to the commissar or to the captain of industry and have a nice quiet chat with him about the proposals which were to be discussed. If that is how the "Reds" operate, let us have them here.
I was equally surprised when the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, invited his noble friends to stand on their heads and to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill. I say "stand on their heads "for this reason. The question before us is whether we should have this code of practice arranged voluntarily or whether

689
its terms should be set out in legalistic language in the Bill. I recall that in another quarter at the present moment they are discussing the trade union Bill in which the question of the newspaper closed shop is a matter of some importance. I recollect there that the Government are saying, "Let this code of practice produced by the newspaper offices be voluntary. Let us work out voluntarily between the two sides a code of practice which we can embody in the law. "But the Conservative Party on that trade union Bill are not saying, "Let us have it the voluntary way ". They are saying, "We want the terms inscribed in black and white in the Bill. "That is precisely what we are suggesting here. We have listened to their arguments on that, we have come to the conclusion that there is some merit in it so, instead of asking for a voluntary code of practice here, we are saying—
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, does it not occur to the noble Lord that the difference is that the provisions that we wanted to put in that Bill were provisions protecting liberty and that what the noble Lord is wanting to put in this bill are provisions restrictive of liberty?
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is confused between the attacker and the defender. There are attackers and defenders in all aspects of industrial relations. We are now setting out in the Bill something that we think will be in the interests of organised workers. I do not see anything reprehensible about that, particularly as from the 1974 trade union Bill onwards the Party opposite have been proud in their boasts that their interests were those of the workers. We here are asking for the terms of this code of conduct to be set out in legislative terms in the Bill whereas the Party opposite want it to be voluntary. That is precisely the opposite of what they are doing in connection with the trades union Bill. I shall have to tell Mrs. Thatcher about what the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, is proposing.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, if the Conservative Party is standing on its head because it is adopting an opposite policy, so also is the noble Lord standing on his head with the Labour Party because they are adopting one policy in the trade
690
union Bill and a different one in this. Surely it is goose and gander.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I said that. If the noble Baroness will look at Hansard she will find that I said there was equal virtues between the two sides. We happen on this occasion to be accepting the advice which the noble Lords opposite laid before us in connection with the trade union Bill. They cannot say that they are right this time and right the other time also. If they were right on the trade union Bill, they are wrong on this one.
I would refer to one point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, whom everybody in this House recognises as a real authority on the question of industrial relations. She objected to the legalistic setting out of the terms in the Bill because she said these matters would be decided by an expert—she did not use the word "judge "—acting in the capacity of a judge and he would be able to use his judgment. But in the highest courts of the land, judges of the High Court are called upon to exercise their judgment in deciding matters, but they have the terms of the particular law set out in black and white for them to pronounce upon. Therefore why should not the judges in this case have the law set out in black and white and then use their judgment in applying that law and not in applying some vague thing gathered from the atmosphere without legalistic guidance at all.
I do not want to detain your Lordships; but I would urge this House, in accordance with its traditional custom to give this Bill a Second Reading and then to hammer home any Amendments, suggestions or improvements that they wish to make at Committee stage.
5.35 p.m.
Lord COLLISON: My Lords, I, too, did not put my name down but it occasionally happens, as it did on the last time I spoke, that I am prompted to speak because of some comments made in the debate. I would take exception to some of the comments made which reflect upon the TUC and on members of trade unions across the board. I listened to every body carefully and to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, with great respect and I appreciate that there are matters in this Bill which are contentious and

691
which need discussion on the way that the noble Baroness tried to discuss them. But your Lordships will know that when this Amendment was introduced originally by my noble friend Lord Shepherd, he accepted that it had been put to the House too late and that there had not been time to discuss it properly. With his usual courtesy and understanding he with drew the Amendment at that time. I am aware that things were said then—I read Hansard—which were highly critical of the Amendment.
Nevertheless, I came into this House today believing, as I am sure did many of my noble friends, that this Bill would be given a Second Reading. think that that is the only reason why they are not here. We thought that there was no argument about it. I suggest that when the noble Earl talks about feeling nothing but something akin to contempt that this Amendment has been reintroduced, this is not the kind of language suitable to this House in its friendly relations and it is certainly not the kind of language that should be used about a matter which has the support of the TUC. The TUC is not an inconsiderable body. Like my noble friend, I, too, was taken aback when we drifted into this "Reds under the beds "business. The noble Lord, Lord Hankey, I am sure, will not take offence if I say that to talk about the "bully boys" as though the trade union movement was comprised of bully boys across the board is not conducive to good industrial relations.
Only trade unionists, I believe, and those who study the movement deeply will know how the trade unions feel about this matter of shop unions. I do not always agree with Clive Jenkins, but the fact is that he has had trouble about some of the so-called shop unions he has had to deal with and which have kept him out, not only in that field but in others also. My noble friend Lord Briginshaw introduced the Motion in a very restrained way. He made it clear to the House that he was not condemning all these unions but only those who were liable to get control of the workpeople in that plant or office because the union was sponsored and supported by the employers.
In view of what I have already said I do not want to go into a deep argument
692
for or against this Amendment. I think there are matters about it which need discussing and I was hoping that in its usual way the House would give this Bill a Second Reading so that the contentious points could be threshed out at a further stage. Then if it proved to be completely unsatisfactory we could do something about it or amend it to make it more satisfactory. The fact that this has come to your Lordships with the support of the Trades Union Congress General Council entitles it, I think, to greater respect than was offered it today. I should have thought that it would have been a courtesy to have given this Bill a Second Reading and I hope that your Lordships will reconsider what you have said.
I have been concerned deeply with industrial relations. I have been critical, and am still critical, of some of the things that go on in the industrial relations field, some of the things which have happened not only in the trade union sector but also in the employers' sector. Good industrial relations require communication, understanding, courtesy and respect; and each side should show regard, respect and courtesy to the other side. I was forced to my feet because of some of the things which were said this afternoon. They are not conducive to the atmosphere which I have said is required. Whatever one thinks about this Bill, to talk about contempt for something which the TUC would like your Lordships to talk about and discuss, and to talk about the bully boys is not the way to approach this. I say that with great humility and respect.
My Lords, I ask you to reconsider your attitude and, simply as a matter of courtesy, allow this Bill a Second Reading so that we can go into it in detail. Half my Party are not in their places here today; I am sure that they would have been here if they had thought there was going to be any difficulty about giving this Bill a Second Reading so that further debate could take place on this matter.
5.42 p.m.
Lord STRANGEMy Lords, I apologise for having "jumped" earlier on. I thought my name was on the list of speakers and I found out when I was speaking that it was not, and so I did that annoying thing called "jumping". For that I apologise to your Lordships. I have had the pleasure of hearing a very

693
interesting debate from all sides. I have no doubt in my own mind that the ablest speech came from the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield. He put across the right view and, in a way, most people see it. As a Cross-Bencher I have been able to speak from this place for 10 years in a safe place. I enjoyed speeches from other noble Lords against the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, particularly from two noble friends.
As a Cross-Bencher, my Lords, everybody is your friend; you are not going to hit anybody. I have enjoyed the speeches which were well thought out. Lord Mansfield's speech was clear and spoken with an extreme "punch" behind it. If it comes to a vote, that is the way I shall vote, and your Lordships know the reason why. It is terrible to be a "jumper" because nobody wants to hear him. His name is not on the list; he suddenly appears and nobody knows for how long he is going to speak or what is going to say. It is a pathetic position to be in. Sometimes a debate can be taken to the extent that every body has said everything that can be said. My Lords, you may say that of this debate; everybody on both sides has said everything that it is possible to be said. For 10 years I have been boring your Lordships; but you do not bore me because you are so much better than me.
Thinking of something interesting which was brought up, it occurred to meat the beginning of to-day's proceedings—it has nothing to do with this debate—that there was talk about what was going to go over to America. Perhaps this has something to do with this debate. This concerns the various forms of the basis of our Government. What was said about the fisheries in the old times was true. We have not kept up-to-date with our old laws. It says clearly in, I think, the Lincoln version of the Magna Carta that kiddies must not be set on the Thames and Medway. They have been set today. Salmon are being caught illegally from off Lots Road power station today and it is run by the Government. My Lords, everybody will agree that I have said enough.
5.46 p.m.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, in answer to the eloquent plea of the noble Lord, Lord Collison, may I make two
694
observations. I hope he acquits my noble friend and myself on these benches from wishing to be in any way discourteous to the TUC. That would not be a proper or fair interpretation of anything in the argument put forward by my noble friend Lady Seear. We have considered with care the suggestion that this Bill should proceed to a Committee stage. The difficulty that those of us who share the view of my noble friend Lady Seear feel is that there would be nothing to have a Committee stage about. It would not be a matter of suggesting improvements in the wording in this one clause of the Bill; it would not be a matter of suggesting that certain of the subsections might be deleted or certain new clauses included. The only point at issue is whether it is appropriate to include matters of this nature in a Statute. In those circumstances, those who take the view that it is not appropriate find it impossible to see how proceeding to a Committee stage could serve any useful purpose.
5.48 p.m.
Lord BRIGINSHAW: My Lords, when one has served for 25 years as a full time trade union officer, one can hardly be hurt personally if the proposition one has put up is critcised or even, in the end, defeated. But I must say I am most disappointed. The record itself will be important for the trade union movement to see how this House has reacted to what was a moderate Bill, which was objective in its intent. I tried hard to present it moderately with objective intent. Not only am I disappointed but my colleagues are disappointed. The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, sought to deal with some details of the Bill, and led one to think that, following custom, if not strict procedures, the Bill should get a Second Reading and then some of the matters raised could be examined in Committee. But so far as the Liberals are concerned, they do not share that view; it is not possible for them to accept that possibility.
Contrary to the speaker from the Cross-Benches, I do not think it has been a good debate. From a practical business point of view, and having any bearing on industrial relationships in this country at this time, it is about the poorest debate which could have taken place—and the most dangerous, in some senses. Because what it does is to indicate an industrial

695
immaturity from some of the contributions as against the positive suggestions and intent of the Government, in so far as they were prepared to support me, in seeking to avoid industrial conflict and to get contention where we, on the basis of our experience, know quite easily it would be forthcoming.
If it is an academic debate, that is all right: let us have fun—but I thought we were talking strictly about business and therefore we were dealing with the trade union movement and I was speaking on their behalf undeniably. An indication is that, while a contributor to the discussion could say that only 50 per cent. of the population are affiliated to the TUC, it is the most stable mass organisation in this country. If that had not been proved before it was proved last July, when in the national interest a very important series of decisions were taken by that trade union movement, which has come under criticism this afternoon. We could wipe that out, but what the debate did was to retread ground that we have been over in this House in so many ways with regard to the original Bill. That is another reason why one should be disappointed that advantage was not taken. Advantage has apparently not been taken of the positive features.
I think I ought to say to this House that if I mention "industrial immaturity "I do so without any intent of creating a discourteous situation; but people are talking about standing up and being counted these days and this is why I have to do it. I have to point this out and try to persuade, even at this late moment, so that noble Lords may see the sense in changing that record, which will be widely perused in this country, to a situation where we can respond to the appeals that have been made to get this Bill into Committee.
I think I ought to deal with one or two specific points which have been raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, strongly expressed her feelings and those of her associates and colleagues over individuality. I wonder whether your Lordships understand that we feel that we express this individuality in a collective presentation on as wide a front as possible in the trade union movement. I wonder whether this is understood, and particularly in the field of associations
696
and managerial positions that the ASTMS cover. I do not see any reason why we should be unduly critical of an organisation that has been able to attract 300,000 people in this field. Instead of being the individual blue-eyed boys inside firms, with all the effect it has on industrial relationships and employer/employee relationships, they are now able to present themselves as very important men and women expressing their individuality through their collective presentation.
Someone mentioned people standing on their heads, and I must say that I did not want to play the academic debate. But the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, said there was a unanimous view of rejection when the Amendment was before this House on 23rd October. It must have been a different House, in view of what the Record shows—and I wanted to mention this to the noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith, in regard to what has happened to her since the 23rd October, in view of what she has said this after noon, with some measure of decency, I must say. Perhaps I might quote what she said on 23rd October at cols. 1634 and 1635 of the Official Report:
" I have some sympathy for Government in relation to the necessity of introducing some clarification, because I understand that various organisations—and not least the Law Society—considered that the terms in the original Bill were absolutely impossible to construe."
It seems to me, so far as the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, is concerned, that there was a disagreeable voice there. This is quite different from what the noble Baroness has said this afternoon.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, but I said almost exactly word for word the same thing—that those terms could not be construed—in my speech this afternoon.
Lord BRIGINSHAW: My Lords, I thought I had quoted the noble Baroness absolutely. That brings me to the point which was made very strongly by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, with regard to Mr. Clive Jenkins and the Financial Times. I understand from Mr. Jenkins that he was misquoted on that occassion and, as I had no conversation with him about matters around that date, it seems to me it might have been possible. But taking all these things together—
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, would the noble Lord accept from me that there is not a single quote in the article from which I have read this afternoon?
Lord BRIGINSHAW: My Lords, if I misused the word "quote", then may I say that the report itself was a misrepresentation of the discussion that he had with the journalist concerned. What he is saying is: "I did not say what he says I said."
Without taking up too much time this afternoon, may I say, without disrespect for not following every speaker into every cul-de-sac and blind alley that has been
Resolved in the negative, and Motion for Scotland Reading disagreed to accordingly.
presented in this academic discussion, that it would be better if we reached the stage where we have to say that it appears we must agree to disagree. In these circumstances we shall have to divide, if we must. But I still hope that there might be a move which will put us in a position to discuss this Bill in Committee, where the matter can be dealt with in a mature fashion, as I hoped when I presented the Bill to this House earlier this afternoon.
5.58 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Bill shall be now read 2a?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 40: Not-Contents, 100.

CONTENTS

Allen of Fallowfield, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Ardwick, L.

Halsbury, E. [Teller]

Shinwell, L.

Beswick, L.

Henderson, L.

Snow, L.

Birk, B.

Jacques, L.

Stedman, B.

Briginshaw, L. [Teller]

Janner, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Brockway, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Burntwood, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Summerskill, B.

Chorley, L.

Longford, E.

Taylor, L.

Collison, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Pannell, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

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

Peddie, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Shannon, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Piercy, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Gainford, L.

Pike, B.

Amulree, L.

Glendevon, L.

Platt, L.

Avebury, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Polwarth, L.

Banks, L.

Goschen, V.

Porritt, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Grenfell, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Belstead, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Rhyl, L.

Birdwood, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Runciman of Doxford, V.

Bledisloe, V.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Bourne, L.

Hankey, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Hanworth, V.

St. Davids, V.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Harding of Petherton, L.

St. Just, L.

Byers, L.

Hawke, L.

Sandford, L.

Caccia, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B. [Teller]

Sandys, L.

Cairns, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Seear, B. [Teller]

Camoys, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Seebohm, L.

Carrington, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Selkirk, E.

Cathcart, E.

Long, V.

Simon, V.

Colwyn, L.

Lothian, M.

Somers, L.

Colyton, L.

Lyell, L.

Stamp, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Strange, L.

Craigaven, V.

Mancroft, L.

Strathcylde, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Mansfield, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Daventry, V.

Merrivale, L.

Strathspey, L.

de Clifford, L.

Monck, V.

Sudeley, L.

Derwent, L.

Monson, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mottistone, L.

Vernon, L.

Eccles, V.

Mowbray of Stourton, L.

Vickers, B.

Elles, B.

Northchurch, B.

Vivian, L.

Elton, L.

Norwich, V.

Waldegrave, E.

Erskine of Rerrick, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Exeter, M.

Ogmore, L.

Wigoder, L.

Falkland, V.

Pender, L.

Young, B.

CIVIL AIR TRANSPORT POLICY
6.7 p.m.
The Earl of KINNOULL The Earl of KINNOULL rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the deep concern felt at their recent declared change of policy on civil air transport involving British Airways and British Caledonian and whether they will reconsider abandoning this change. The noble Earl said: My Lords, in the wake of the dramatic excitement of the British Airways Concorde going into service yesterday, the spectacle of which I am sure quickened everyone's pulse, it is perhaps almost untimely to be raising a Question on civil aviation policy which might disturb this happy and intoxicating euphoria.
The noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, may also wonder why this Question should be put down, when only a week ago my noble friend Lord Trefgarne put down a similar Question as to when the White Paper on civil aviation policy was to be published. On that occasion the reply was somewhat brusque, with the immortal word "shortly". The reason why I have put down this Question today is that the word "shortly" has the most elusive connotation when used by Government spokesmen, and has been known to cover periods of days, weeks or even years—and I am almost tempted to say decades.
One of the purposes of my Question tonight is to emphasise to the Government as strongly as possible the very real and urgent need to publish the White Paper as soon as possible, and so put an end to a climate of uncertainty which has hung over the industry for far too long. It is, I think, not unfair to remind the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, that the White Paper was promised last autumn. While, of course, it is not unknown for Government timetables sometimes to go adrift, I hope he will agree with me that in this case uncertainty in the air transport business is both harmful and should be avoided. While urging the Government to publish the White Paper, I should like also to add something on which I am sure even British Airways and British Caledonian would not fail to agree—if they fail to agree on other matters.
It is that the sooner a balanced policy has been determined by the Secretary of
700
State and approved by Parliament, and the sooner that the whole issue is taken out of the political arena and the industry left alone, the better.
It is a very real pity that the Government saw fit to disturb the industry so relatively soon after the 1972 policy guidance, which followed very closely on the recommendations of the Edwards Committee and gave wide and flexible powers to the Civil Aviation Authority to create and maintain a healthy industry. Of course, that is past history; but whatever is produced, a very clear responsibility is laid on the Secretary of State to create a balanced policy which could survive without being politically tampered with yet again for a good period of time to come. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, will be able to con firm that the intention of the Secretary of State is that the framework which is now being prepared will give the industry room to expand and the hope that it will not be tampered with in the near future.
My Question tonight refers in partticular to the position of British Caledonian in the Government review. It is perhaps worth recalling that the company's very existence is owed to the last Labour Government. Unless my memory fails me, its immediate predecessor, the British United Company, was on the point of being secretly purchased by British Airways in 1969 when the Secretary of State stepped in and refused per mission for the purchase to proceed. At the time of the publication of the Report of the Edwards Committee—here may I say how sorry one was to learn of the recent death of Sir Ronald Edwards, for the industry owes a great deal to the distinguished Report of his Committee—I recall that all Parties accepted the recommendation that Britain should have an independent second force. The last five years have shown that British Caledonian have filled this role with great distinction.
I am told that they are now responsible for 50 per cent. of the traffic operations at Gatwick Airport. Since Gatwick is the second major London airport, with considerable room for expansion which Heathrow has not got, this is a very important factor. I understand that their operations now consist of 55 per cent.

701
scheduled services and 45 per cent. charter services. They employ over 5,000 people and at least twice that number depend upon their operations. They regard with the greatest of pride their relations with their staff, for in the last five years they have never had one day's stoppage through strikes. When one recalls their forced cutback in October 1974, when 15 per cent. of their staff and 30 per cent. of their management had to leave, I feel that this record is quite remarkable. Their revenue earnings stand at something like £70 million a year, which is no mean achievement. Perhaps above all, their standard of safety, like that of British Airways, is excellent. Their standard of care and thought for their passengers, coupled with their delightful Scottish tartans, is a feature which has proved to be a great attraction in terms of their international reputation.
If the Edwards Committee were asked today how their second force recommendation has proved itself I believe that they would be more than pleased, despite the acute problems which British Caledonian faced, as did all other air operators, in the disastrous year of 1974. One sees that on the domestic routes both British Caledonian and British Airways have competed to the benefit of the travelling public. There is the shuttle service of British Airways, and cheap weekend fare rates to Scotland and Manchester have recently been introduced by British Caledonian. Turning to the international routes, again one sees that a greater share of the markets has been won. All these were the objectives of the Edwards Committee when they made their second force recommendation.
This achievement has not been won only by the skill and effort of all the staff of British Caledonian. Another vital factor was that they should have a framework of routes granted by the Government of the day in 1971 and added to by the Civil Aviation Authority in 1973. This gave them the necessary medium and long-term growth plans which were so vital to that company, coming from the private sector. Thus, it is understandable that British Caledonian felt concern when they saw the announcement last July by the Secretary of State that he had decided to abolish dual designation on the international long haul
702
routes and create a separate sphere of influence for both British Airways and British Caledonian. In other words, he is to divide up the world between the two scheduled airlines, with British Air ways getting by far the majority share—90 per cent. or over.
At that stage—last July—it appeared that British Caledonian were to lose the North American and Singapore routes, that they were to retain the West African and South American routes and, presumably, that they were to argue over keeping their East African routes. From both the information published by the Department of Trade and that contained in the Statement, it seems that the decision of the Secretary of State to abolish dual designation, particularly on the North Atlantic routes, stems largely from the decision of British Caledonian temporarily to withdraw their North Atlantic scheduled services in October 1974.
The arguments used both in the July Statement and in the subsequent Department of Trade publication stressed that the depression of 1974 did not warrant dual designation. To back this up, they produced graphs which showed that the traffic won by British Airways and British Caledonian on these routes over the 18 month period had not proved beneficial. I am advised that so far as the Los Angeles service is concerned, the graphs published by the Department of Trade are not acceptable.
It has occurred to many people that both of these bits of evidence that the Government have produced, taken from an exceptional year of operations, will hardly help to create a balanced policy. The House will recall that the Civil Aviation Authority described 1974 as "the worst year in the history of civil aviation ". One had the oil price escalation, the world recession and the 10 per cent. negative growth in airline traffic. Every single airline operator suffered. On the North Atlantic routes, in 1974 the combined losses for the scheduled operations of all international operators amounted to over 300 million dollars. I have no idea what British Airways lost that year, but they, of course, have a unique position for survival. Understandably, British Caledonian pulled out, as did Pan Am, from their Los Angeles service.
What has happened since 1974 when all the evidence was taken? I am told that in 1975 the negative growth of the previous year was beginning to bottom out, and in 1976 there seem to be much better prospects for a gradual recovery. When the White Paper is published I hope that the Government will be able to find more convincing arguments for abolishing dual designation, which goes against the carefully thought out recommendations of the Edwards Committee. Perhaps more important than all this, in order to produce a new policy framework that can be left undisturbed I hope that the Government will reconsider their decision on dual designation—a matter that can be reviewed by the Civil Aviation Authority when, in their judgment, it needs to be reviewed and leave the Civil Aviation Authority its vital flexibility. As to the sphere of influence which British Airways and British Caledonian are to have in the future, of course one is not privy to any of the discussions which have been taking place between these two airlines but one must assume, as these discussions have now been going on since July and, as we learned last week, the White Paper still depended on a fruitful agreement, that no agreement has been reached. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, will be able to tell us whether or not an agreement has been reached between the two airlines.
I hope the noble Lord will agree, if one assumes that it has not been reached, that disagreement between the two airlines is quite understandable. On the one hand there is the giant British Air ways, who I suspect still deeply resent the forced handing over of certain routes in 1971 in order to establish British Caledonian as the second force. I am sure that resentment at the time was quite understandable as in many cases it had taken British Airways some time to build up the routes which they had to hand over. But that of course was the price of setting up a second force. At that time one often heard rumblings from British Airways that they looked forward to the day when they would be able to bury British Caledonian. It is thus understandable that British Airways do not wish to lose anything further in the
704
exchange of groups; but of course, so far as that is concerned, the effect on them would be completely minimal.
With regard to British Caledonian, however, the situation is very different. They are the minnow of the party whose very survival rests on the structure of routes that are granted to them. They have already noted the decision of the Secretary of State to take away their North American and Singapore routes. I understand that this represented some 67 per cent. of their estimated traffic growth for 1979–80. They clearly, as well, will not easily be persuaded to agree to any loss of further routes. I am sure the Secretary of State is anxious to try to persuade these two airlines to reach an amicable solution but I suspect, with his already declared policy of July, he has placed himself in a position where he will have to act as an arbitrator.
I hope that tonight the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, will be able to advise us a little further as to how soon a decision on this matter is likely to be taken, and whether he expects the White Paper to be published by February. How soon is "soon"? In the July Statement the Secretary of State uttered some very soothing words and assurances about the future of British Caledonian, and I hope the noble Lord will be able to repeat them this evening. I am sure the Secretary of State included those words with complete sincerity but the proof of his intentions now rests with his actions, and in reaching his decision on what spheres of influence and what routes the two scheduled airlines should have I hope he will be in accord with the advice, whatever it is, that the Civil Aviation Authority has given him. We know that this body has now been led for five years by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and it has done a great job for the air transport industry. It is clearly vital to the future of British Caledonian that they should receive not only a sufficient network to operate as a viable concern but that this network should include the vital scope for future expansion.
In conclusion, as I shall not have a chance later, I should like to thank all those noble Lords who have indicated that they will be taking part in this short

705
debate. Without anticipating their remarks, I believe their support will reinforce the wish for the Government to get on and publish the White Paper and also to leave the second force as a viable concern, as envisaged in the Edwards Committee Report.
6.25 p.m.
Lord POLWARTH: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Earl for raising this matter and giving us the opportunity to discuss it. My only excuse for taking part is that I am a regular commuter from Scotland on both airlines, that I travel upwards of 50,000 miles a year on the long-haul routes and that I have taken an interest in their place in aviation for close on 30 years. I should like to start by associating myself with the tribute paid by the noble Earl to Sir Ronald Edwards, whose tragic death earlier this week was a great loss to the country. He was a colleague of mine in one place and I have seldom met a man of such brilliant intellect, great common sense, and modest and unassuming withal. We shall greatly miss him.
The report of his Committee was debated nearly six years ago and was received remarkably unanimously by all sides in Parliament. Why then is it thought necessary to review it now? So far we have had only statements of the need; statements of certain supposed facts without any evidence and this we await in a White Paper which has been brewing for nearly two years. I think one can only assume that the idea of a review arose from the passion which every Government have to show that they can do everything differently from their predecessor. This process of digging up by the roots is extremely unsettling in matters of industry and commerce.
What it is certain we shall want to know is whether it is the intention of the Minister to abolish competition between British airlines on the long-haul routes—what is known as "double designation". I would remind your Lordships that air services are run not simply for the benefit of their operators and their owners but for the passengers. Down the years I think it has been perfectly clear that it is thanks to competition that passengers today enjoy the services and standards that they do. We have seen this on the Scottish services, where the introduction of British Caledonian pro-
706
vided a useful spur to British Airways in the standard and frequency of service that they offered. We have seen it on the North Atlantic services in the competition between British and other lines; it is interesting to see what happens in the other direction.
Not so long ago the route from Manchester via Prestwick to Montreal and Toronto, which was divided between British Airways and Air Canada, was carved up and the whole of that route given to British Airways alone. One consequence has been the abolition of any first-class accommodation on those flights. When I asked the airline why, they said that they could quite easily fill every seat if it was all economy, so they could not afford to provide any first-class service. This seems to be a poor deal for the businessman from the North of England and Scotland who is trying to sell this country's goods.
What happened when the Caledonian came on the North Atlantic for a short time? They did not take revenue away from British Airways: they had a good share and British Airways increased theirs—a process which I believe would have continued had we not experienced the oil crisis. With that, of course, is tied up the currency earnings of this country. I simply cannot believe that British Airways—this Goliath of an airline which advertises itself as the largest air network in the world, with all its advantages of scale and State-backing—is so vulnerable to competition from the David of an airline with only 10 per cent. of their total combined revenue.
My Lords, look at the position in some other countries where State and private airlines run simultaneously. In France UTA, a privately-owned airline, takes 23 per cent. of the combined revenues. In Canada, where I have personal experience from an indirect connection with the Canadian Pacific Airline—a private carrier—that line carries 33 per cent. of the combined traffics in competition on a number of routes with Air Canada;that is despite considerable restriction on the allocation of routes to it. Yet in neither case is there evidence of damage to the flag carrier.
Even if we restrict our routes to one of the airlines we shall still be in competition with other countries. Surely it

707
is better to have two strings to one's bow, or two arrows in one's quiver. I am particularly concerned by the proposed withdrawal of the rights to certain North American routes which Caledonian have not yet, for reasons of the present economic state, been able to take up. I am thinking particularly of the route to Atlanta and Houston. At present there is no direct service between Texas and this country. I have to make this journey three or four times a year; it is something like 10,000 miles for the round trip. I have tried every combination of inter-lining at different points, and can assure your Lordships that it is a far from pleasant journey. Many of my friends in the oil business who come from Texas complain loudly that here we are, the centre of the North Sea operation, and yet, while they can fly from Texas to Paris they cannot fly direct from Texas to the United Kingdom. It is quite wrong to take away the prospect of this route from British Caledonian, particularly when there is no application by British Airways to take it up.
My Lords, in his Statement in another place last July, the Minister acknowledged the contribution of British Caledonian and expressed anxiety for it to continue as the significant centre of airline experience—I think he said—in this country. We were very glad to hear it. At the same time, it is all very well to pay lip service to these concepts if they are not followed up in practice. No plant can flourish without sunlight and room for growth. If British Caledonian is to starve through lack of positive help and the prospects of expansion, then just as sure as a plant that is starved, British Caledonian will wither and die. That would be a disaster for this country, and I can assure your Lordships it would be a further boost for nationalism in Scotland, for which they have done so much.
My Lords, there is another aspect. It is good news to hear that it is Government policy to encourage and help those industries in this country with a prospect of success and which are run efficiently. On every count I submit that British Caledonian qualifies as just such a concern. It is efficiently and economically managed; it gives first-rate service to its customers; it gives valuable employment; it enjoys excellent labour relations,
708
including a high degree of consultation with its employees; it is a valuable earner of foreign currency. On all these grounds, it is a concern which deserves to be fed with encouragement, and to be given the prospect of growth, rather than being fed a subsistence diet of crumbs from its richer brother's table.
Finally, a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since the announcement in the spring of 1974 of an impending review. It was then expected that we should have a firm policy within a few months. Two years later, we still have only an outline indication of what the Government intend, and that is the way things work, as all of us know who have been in Government. But what is not appreciated is the demoralising effect of this kind of delay and uncertainty; a demoralisation that is bound to occur, particularly in an industry where plans must be laid, and new aircraft ordered, as much as 10 years ahead. For example, we know there is speculation in East Africa and the Seychelles as to who is to be the airline operator in future. The morale of the staff in East Africa is being sorely tried in their attempts to tie up travel contracts with tour operators, and so on, not knowing whether they will still have the rights.
Lastly, things have settled down and changed considerably since the upheaval of the oil crisis in 1973, which really was the genesis of this whole affair. Oil prices have stabilised; the airline recession, as my noble friend said, is bottoming out, and will continue to improve with the return to prosperity of world trade. The Edwards Committee always envisaged there would be ups and downs in the industry; that is why they produced a policy based on a hard, long look, designed to take the ups and downs in its stride. Through this difficult time, British Caledonian have conducted themselves with prudence and skill. Therefore, I ask the Government to think again before they finally make up their minds on restricting the scope of the growth of British Caledonian, and give the Edwards Report a chance to show what it can do for the whole British airline industry.
6.34 p.m.
Lord SEEBOHM: My Lords, although I personally have no financial interest

709
whatsoever in British Caledonian, I am chairman of a company that has, so to that extent I must declare my interest. This involvement has enabled me to get a picture of British Caledonian which perhaps many of your Lordships here have not had. I have visited Gatwick; I have spent the day with the management and staff and I have formed certain opinions. British Caledonian is an absolutely first-class airline; it is well led, and in addition, as has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, staff relations are absolutely first class. It is the sort of organisation I should hate to cease. I would also point out that since the disasters of 1974, when everyone was in trouble, British Caledonian have taken a very firm line with themselves. They have slimmed down and eliminated their losses. For that reason, and because they are an efficient and courageous organisation, they deserve support.
However, at the moment, there are intolerable delays in a firm statement on the future of British Caledonian. This is bound to have an adverse effect on the morale of the staff if something does not happen fairly soon. The Edwards Report, which took three years to produce, was a study in depth. Its main conclusions are as true today as they were then. But the most important thing now is to stop this shilly-shallying so that British Caledonian can get on with the job. I would remind the House that there is a lot of money at stake and a lot of plans. There are plans for development which are held up until something happens.
There seems to be some idea that if British Caledonian is deprived of certain routes, traffic will automatically be transferred to British Airways. As the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, pointed out this afternoon, this is just not true. What is true is that where British Caledonian has operated, it has steadily increased the British share of the traffic and therefore has made a positive contribution to our earnings of foreign exchange, which we sacrifice at our peril. This raises the very material point of whether or not there should be dual designations on international routes. I strongly urge that the Civil Aviation Authority should not be inhibited in reconsidering their present policy which is presumably to refuse dual designations.
6.37 p.m.
Lord MERRIVALE: My Lords, first of all I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Kinnoull for initiating this short debate today. Secondly, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, because I feel that some of our arguments and conclusions may be similar but may be presented in a slightly different way or with a slightly different emphasis. My Lords, like other noble Lords in this House I am becoming rather concerned by the time it has taken for the civil aviation review to be concluded. I think we would all agree that there should be fair play in this matter, and that the decisions taken should be equitable to both British Airways and British Caledonian. As the Edwards Report says in paragraph 1065 with regard to a second force:
" One motive for proposing it is a sense of fair play."
Therefore it is essential, I feel, that this motivation should be carried through in the future as in the past.
When he comes to reply, the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, may say that one of the reasons for the long delay is the safeguard to the vital interests of British Caledonian. But I wonder! The Civil Aviation Review, as has been mentioned before, was first mooted in the spring of 1974, and a formal committee was announced in October of that year. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, mentioned, 1974 was the worst year in the history of the airline industry. There were soaring fuel prices; there was economic recession in the Western world leading to reduced air travel and airline over-capacity. Since then, oil prices, while still high, have stabilised, and the economies of a number of Western Powers have undoubtedly improved. Certainly I can say that about the United States, France, Germany and so forth. So that in effect British Caledonian has been operating in a state of uncertainty for almost two years now.
I would agree that the statement by the Secretary of State for Trade, Mr. Peter Shore, in another place, repeated here on 29th July last, may have removed some of the uncertainty, but it still left many matters unresolved. I think this has not been cleared up by his reply in a Written Answer on 6th August (col.

711
238), or by the remarks of the Under-Secretary of State for Trade, Mr. Clinton Davis, on 13th October (col. 1101/6), nor by Mr. Peter Shore's reply to oral Questions on 15th December last, when he said:
"I expect to publish the White Paper early next year ".
He also added:
" I hope that the discussions between British Airways and British Caledonian will come to a conclusion, and I hope further to announce the results, and indeed more broadly the new policy statement, in the new year."
Therefore, my Lords, expectations and hopes only.
For my part, I doubt whether a final agreement will be reached on the spheres of influence or route structures that will be operated by British Airways and British Caledonian—that is, on a scheduled basis—in which case I sincerely hope that the Minister will not feel that something should be imposed, which in effect neither airline might want. In that case, would it not be better to continue along the guidelines recommended by Edwards, for basic factors affecting the airline industry have changed again since the Committee was formed in 1974. I think that was a point that was very well made by the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth. Also, as has been mentioned, the Edwards Committee studied the industry for almost three years before coming to conclusions. They also took account of the fact that there would be difficulties and setbacks along the way, but basically a sound policy was recommended that would stand the test of time at least during the 1970s.
In 1974 Mr. Peter Shore may have intended only minor modifications to the policy followed since 1970 and approved by both Parties, but since then there have been unaccountable delays and these have certainly meant mounting uncertainty. For example, there has been more than speculation—this has been mentioned before, but I think it should be stressed—in East Africa and the Seychelles to the effect that British Caledonian will be ceasing to operate to these points and that British Airways will be taking over. Would the noble Lord not agree that this can be most demoralising for the staff in spite of Mr. Clinton Davis's statement on 13th October last, at col. 1106, where he says:
" I stress that we have to bear in mind the employment prospects of thousands of people,
712
not only those who are employed by British Caledonian but those who are heavily dependent on British Caledonian."
I think it might be relevant, too, at a time when this country is at grips with a difficult economic situation, to recall the recent words of Mr. Arthur Day, Director General of the Institute of Exports. I should like to quote his words, because I think they are important. He said:
" Before we change any existing institution, we have seriously to examine the contribution to the nation. British Caledonian's history indicates that it saved our South American route operation; operates services to 35 destinations in 23 countries; has achieved increases in the United Kingdom's share of total air markets traffic on several routes; has provided alternative terminal facilities; has pioneered charter operations; has placed high priority on air cargo traffic; has shown flexibility in management in difficult times; has provided an alternative source of airline management skills; and given employment to around 5,000 technical personnel."
For these reasons I sincerely hope that the Edwards recommendations will continue to be followed. There is no need for a change to the present guidance. Airlines holding Civil Aviation Authority licences should be designated to the points named in those licences. The industry as a whole should be encouraged to go out and fight for a larger share of world markets in the interests of the country as a whole and those directly dependent on the airlines for their employment.
In conclusion, I feel that the CAR will certainly not give this essential encouragement and boost. And to end, as a traveller, and particularly with regard to travelling to Africa, perhaps I may just give two personal experiences, because I think the voice of the traveller is important airlines do need travellers. This month I had the pleasure of being invited by the Government of Senegal for a five-day official visit and flew out there and back by British Caledonian. The service was absolutely perfect, and in effect the reactions about British Caledonian I received from Ministers in Senegal could not have been higher praise.
A few months before that, in September—this is relevant as regards the route from Gatwick to Nairobi and the Seychelles—I flew out to Tananarive. Madagascar. I had to fly out by Air France and fly back by East African

713
Airways. I remember a few years ago the Malagasy Government applied to Her Majesty's Government for landing rights in the Seychelles so that there could be a link between Tananarive, Nossi Bé, the Seychelles. That was turned down. They might apply again. I remember a few months ago speaking to Mr. Andriasitohaina, who is the chairman of Air Madagascar, and he was very pleased because he had received another destination for the airline and had permission to land in Mauritius. So I think that in effect if British Caledonian, as I hope sincerely, continue to fly to the Seychelles, and Air Madagascar extends its destinations in the area it would open up new horizons for the airline in the future. Therefore, I would end by hoping that the noble Lord will be able to reply very constructively to this debate.
6.49 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, in rising to support my noble friend Lord Kinnoull tonight I have to confess that I have nothing very new to say and not a great deal to add to what has already been said by noble Lords beside me and behind me. I would emphasise and underline the major point that has been made: that the delay in producing this White Paper, and the subsequent guidance to the Civil Aviation Authority which will flow from it, has really been less than satisfactory, has been damaging —I can use no other word—to British Caledonian, and so far at least has not been satisfactorily explained.
I would also ask the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, whether the consultations, which I gather have only recently moved into any substantial phase, have taken in any of the other independent airlines in addition to British Caledonian? It may be that the Government's proposals do not extend to them, but we do not know that. I should like to hear from the noble Lord whether the consultations have gone wider than just British Caledonian. I presume that the consultations have included people other than airlines. It is said, for example, that the views of the TUC have weighed heavily with the Government and have caused them to move away from support for British Caledonian. I hope that this is not so, but perhaps the noble Lord can clarify that also.
714
My Lords, the time has now come for the Government to state their case clearly in this matter. They have dithered for nearly two years. I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, replies in a moment he will give us some clear and concise guidelines.
6.51 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I hope that the Government will agree that this debate comes at a useful moment. The Report of the Committee under the late Sir Ronald Edwards, who is going to be so sorely missed in these difficult times, allowed for a good deal of public and Parliamentary discussion before the Labour Government of the day published their 1969 White Paper which accepted the principle that two national airlines would further the interests of British civil aviation on scheduled services, and it is now desirable, and surely in the interests of more open government, if some comments are made about the general situation upon which the current consultations between the Secretary of State, the Civil Aviation Authority, British Airways, and British Caledonian Airways are being based.
I am sure that the Government appreciate the real concern which has prompted my noble friend Lord Kinnoull to ask his Question today. The problem is that the Secretary of State's policy statement of the 29th July of last year in effect puts a stop to much of British Caledonian Airways' plans for development. Six months later, as all noble Lords who have spoken have said, we still await the White Paper which will set out the alternative proposals for that airline's future. I thought that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, was valuable in that he reminded us that many institutions have invested in British Caledonian, not least institutions in Scotland. I think they have had reason to be proud of their trust. Whether it is service to the customer, safety of operations, opportunity for employment, or improvement in communications—all subjects which were dealt with by the Edwards Report—British Caledonian bear any comparison.
At a time when we are fighting for our financial existence this airline, as my

715
noble friend Lord Polwarth said, has been a valuable foreign currency earner. Therefore, I welcome that part of the Secretary of State's statement of last July which endorsed the second force airline. The Secretary of State confirmed the approval of the travelling public, and he made the point that Gatwick Airport needs to be expanded as part of our national airport strategy. Indeed, this must be so with already some £70 million spent on the airport and a substantial number of jobs dependent directly, and indirectly, upon Gatwick. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, as I am sure he is willing to do, to repeat in this House that the Government are anxious to retain British Caledonian Air ways as the second force airline.
Having asked that, may I add, in all fairness, that I understand the reasons which prompted the Secretary of State to make his statement last year. Of course that was six months ago, and I seriously wonder whether, on reflection, the Secretary of State is now convinced that the changes that he was envisaging then are in fact necessary. Airlines have suffered a recession, yet I wonder whether the Government are not being unduly severe in declaring that there will be practically no opportunity for dual designations in the foreseeable future.
Last November the Department of Trade published its first Consultative Document on Airport Strategy, looking ahead to 1990 and beyond. In Chapter 4 of that document the forecast for the four airports of the London area is that numbers of passengers could increase from 27.4 million in 1974 to between 36.1 million and 52.5 million by 1982, with a possibility of a faster rate of growth thereafter. Of course I appreciate that those are forecasts and that they refer to all passengers. But I would ask whether the Government believe that in principle two national flag carriers on a scheduled route is something which is undesirable, or whether that conclusion derives from current economic circum stances. I hope that we may be assured that the Government take the latter view. Both my noble friends Lord Kinnoull and Lord Polwarth have said that there are some signs of recovery in air passenger traffic, and if the forecasts which I have just quoted for passenger movements have
716
any accuracy at all, it would appear that there is going to be scope for development and opportunities for British airlines in the longer-term future.
The immediate problem is that the practical implications of the Secretary of State's policy statement are very serious for the development of British Caledonian Airways' business, and not least, as the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, said, for British Caledonian's employees. The rights to New York and Los Angeles, which I believe were not only licensed but also designated, are to be lost, and the licences to Bahrain, Singapore, Toronto, Boston, and Houston are to be withdrawn. I have a slender knowledge of business, but presumably to plan to serve routes of those kinds requires having to secure a very great deal of capital. My noble friend Lord Kinnoull analysed in his speech some of the adverse operating factors which cautioned British Caledonian not to proceed with those services at the present time. But they are potentially very valuable routes, which British Caledonian, as my noble friend quoted, estimates would have produced about 67 per cent. of the airline's scheduled service revenue by 1979 to 1980.
Therefore, may I ask the Government three questions. First, can the noble Lord tell the House that the Government are taking seriously into account the estimated profitability of routes which may be transferred to British Caledonian's sphere of influence, if that is the type of decision that the Secretary of State is going to reach? Secondly, in arriving at his conclusions, will the Secretary of State weigh with the greatest care the prospects for the development of the second force airline? For instance, I cannot believe that those prospects are going to be very bright unless British Caledonian has the opportunity to introduce wide bodied jets, and that opportunity is bound to depend upon the designation of suitable routes. Thirdly, may I join my noble friend Lord Polwarth in asking why, as British Airways does not fly to Houston, is there any reason why British Caledonian should not serve that route, on which it was licensed, and the Atlanta route also?
It is because civil aviation generally needs time to plan that decisions from the Secretary of State are urgently needed. I realise that the development

717
programme for Concorde is something which has been unique. In saying this, may I wish Birtish Airways the very best of luck with this wonderful aircraft. The Concorde programme is a reminder of the immense problems (not least of cost) which are involved in civil aviation development. The longer the Government delay, the more difficult become commercial decisions for British Caledonian and also, to some extent, for British Airways. But this is crucial for British Caledonian. In no sense is the airline a threat to the Corporation. Its revenue is no more than one-tenth of that of British Airways, yet British Caledonian provides that most necessary of all ingredients, healthy competition. Despite all the difficulties, I believe that it succeeded last year in operating at a profit It has earned foreign currency without damaging the prospects of British Airways and it provides employment for about 5,000 people—who are, I believe, solid in their support for the company—and for 70,000 or more who depend on Gatwick for their living.
Having listened to this debate, I wonder whether the Secretary of State may perhaps be reconsidering his statement of last year. The Edward Report recognised that civil aviation must contend with all sorts of problems, but that Report was made after nearly three years of study and to change the present guidance does not help the confidence of airlines. What, therefore, is needed urgently is a Government decision. My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will be able this evening to assure the House that this is now imminent.
7.1 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for raising the question of civil aviation policy and for giving the House an opportunity to debate this important subject. I wish also to express my appreciation to noble Lords who have taken the trouble to take part in this discussion and for keeping their comments so concise and to the point. It has been a useful debate. As the noble Earl will be aware, the Secretary of State has promised that the White Paper on policy review will be published early this year, and that is what is meant by "soon". I am informed that it really is not too far off and I
718
certainly hope that it will come before the swallow dares. He will obviously appreciate that I cannot anticipate the contents of the White Paper and that I can only reassure him and other noble Lords about the Government's intentions.
Several noble Lords asked whether the Government are aware of the "deep concern felt at their recent declared change of policy ". My reply is that the Government are not aware of any such "deep concern", hoping rather that the proposals are generally recognised as sensible and intended solely to strengthen the position of British Airways, British Caledonian and the United Kingdom civil air transport industry as a whole. I thought the Secretary of State's Statement in July made that quite clear. We must admit that the disastrous year of 1974 was the result of circumstances which could not have been foreseen in 1969, and what we must do is accept the fact that progress does not go forward in a straight line; we must adapt policies to circumstances when the situation changes radically.
British Caledonian, in a statement made immediately after the Secretary of State's announcement to the other House last July on the main findings of the review, recognised that there were, from its own point of view, both good and bad sides to it, but that it would form the basis of careful analysis and further consultations. Similarly, a leader in the Financial Times commented:
" The conclusions appear for the most part to be a reasonable compromise. They recognise the practical limits to competition in an industry which is in any case dominated by Governments … at the same time they accept that the private sector has made a considerable contribution and must be allowed to prosper".
I appreciate the concern with which British Caledonian is awaiting the publication of the Government's proposals, but noble Lords will agree that it is much better that we get decisions right than that we get them fast. Negotiations—genuine negotiations—are going on at the moment. There is still some uncertainty over the likely outcome of the route exchange talks and whether the package of measures likely to emerge will command the support of both airlines. This is one of the factors that leaves the timing of the publication of the White Paper in some doubt, as the Secretary of State wishes to do all he can to secure general acceptance of its provisions

719
before publication—and, as I say, these are genuine negotiations.
British Airways and British Caledonian have co-operated fully in the discussions, although both have naturally sought to protect their interests, and the Government remain confident that an outcome satisfactory to both sides will be achieved. That is a statement of hope, but let us trust that it will be achieved. At this point it might be valid for me to tell the noble Lord. Lord Trefgarne, that other airlines, particularly Dan Air and Laker Airways, have recently entered the discussions and have met Ministers in order to put their points of view to them.
As I said, the civil aviation policy review was instigated solely as a result of the Government's concern about the health of the United Kingdom airline industry in the aftermath of the oil crisis and the consequent economic recession. It was not doctrinaire but reaction to an unfavourable economic climate. The changes envisaged are the minimum necessary to ensure that United Kingdom resources are deployed to the maximum advantage in what are now extremely competitive markets and to ensure that the United Kingdom market share on international routes is retained or increased.
The Edwards Committee Report based its recommendations on the assumption that the industry would continue to expand rapidly throughout the 1970s, and the existing policy of "dual designation" of British airlines on selected long-haul routes of course reflected the Edwards recommendations. Economic circum stances have, however, undermined their validity. In 1974—the "black year" to which noble Lords have referred—the traffic carried by United Kingdom airlines, following a worldwide pattern, fell by about 10 per cent. and British Caledonian was forced to abandon the scheduled services it had been operating across the North Atlantic. The routes for which British Caledonian held licences in 1973, in particular London to Atlanta and Houston, to Toronto or to Bahrain and Singapore. were never operated. There were some general signs of recovery in the industry during 1975, but current forecasts still suggest that growth will be much slower in the markets involving
720
United Kingdom airlines for the rest of this decade than it was in the 1960s and early 1970s.
Aviation authorities throughout the world, including the United States, have been seeking to restrict competition with their own flag carriers and there are few routes on which we could now hope to introduce a second United Kingdom carrier on terms which would help to increase the British share of the traffic or revenue. Dual designation would often only be feasible at the expense of reducing British Airways existing capacity allocation on that route, thereby cutting the profitability of British Airways operations without providing sufficient potential for operations by the second force airline. It is important to stress that it also tends to weaken United Kingdom negotiating strength with other countries, especially those which have only one international airline themselves. Conflicts of interest can arise, even when the two British airlines seek different routes the other country is able to play off one against the other resulting in a poorer bargain being achieved for the United Kingdom overall. In the present economic climate, these factors become accentuated and a United Kingdom policy of dual designation for the two airlines just not practicable.
I hope that I can now say something of comfort. The Government want British Caledonian to continue operating as a scheduled carrier on major inter national routes. They recognise the airline's achievements of the last few years and that it has now accumulated valuable operating experience. Many passengers appreciate having a choice of United Kingdom airlines on domestic and European routes. In addition to what the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, said. I have heard many nice things said about British Caledonian, whose role as the largest operator at Gatwick, where national airports strategy dictates the need for a progressive increase in the volume of traffic, should not be overlooked.
The Government are also anxious to do what they can to make the jobs of the airlines employees more secure. The Government believe that the limited exchange of scheduled international routes envisaged between the two airlines will he of mutual benefit to both. It has taken time carefully to balance the

721
Interests of all interested parties, but Mr. Adam Thomson, the chairman of British Caledonian, has stressed as much as anyone that the route rationalisation talks should not be rushed but reach a sensible, considered and long-term agreement, as I said earlier.
The Government want a long-term solution to the industry's problems, giving future stability to British Caledonian while ensuring the optimum use of existing resources by all airlines. They want to see long-term planning and long-term investment in the industry, which has suffered too long from uncertainty following frequent and major policy changes by successive Governments. I believe that many noble Lords will say Amen! to that. The Government also hope that the activities of the two airlines on scheduled long-haul routes will become increasingly complementary rather than being waste fully competitive, and that a closer spirit of co-operation may emerge, mutually benefiting the airlines and helping to maximise the value of the routes in question so far as the United Kingdom as a whole is concerned. There seem to be many areas, both technical and commercial, where such co-operation could bring benefits, and the Government hope that their proposals will encourage this to come about.
As I said earlier this evening, I cannot anticipate the final conclusions of the talks on route rationalisation which have been continuing for several months now. These will be incorporated in proposals for a revised policy guidance for the Civil Aviation Authority in the White Paper on civil aviation policy to be published shortly. Noble Lords will of course have an opportunity to discuss the details of the Government' policy when the proposals are before them. In the meantime, I can only assure them that the Secretary of State's main objective is to get a settlement which is fair to both airlines, likely to endure for a reasonable period and which will not lead to redundancies either in British Airways or in British Caledonian. I hope that the proposals will be seen in this light, and that they will command a wide degree of support in your Lordships' House when the opportunity to discuss them arrives.