HL Deb 22 January 1976 vol 367 cc666-98

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My Lords, an Amendment to the Act was set down by my noble friend Lord Shepherd in this House on 17th October, and was withdrawn on 23rd October, responding to indications from noble Lords on the other side.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 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 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 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 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 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- 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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—

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

My 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 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 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 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 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.