Lords Sitting of 2 March 1976

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

OIL RECYCLING AND RE-USE
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the need to conserve energy and of the damage to the environment which can be caused by the indiscriminate dumping of used engine oil, they will take action to recover such oil for recycling or for use as a fuel oil.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, a considerable amount of recycling and re-use of waste oils already takes place where it is viable and the Government, with both economic and environmental arguments in mind, are giving further encouragement to this activity. A technical memorandum on the disposal of waste oils now in preparation, and a specific case study soon to be completed for the Waste Management Advisory Council, will explore further possibilities.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, will the Government accept that it is always difficult to start off these schemes, and that they may not initially be economic? Also, do the Government realise that there is considerably greater recycling and re-use of oil in Western Germany, and that at present only about half the potential is being used here?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, the answer to the first part of the noble Viscount's supplementary question, on the economic aspect, is "Yes". The rest of it really concerns which oil he is referring to. Some 600,000 tons of spent lubricating
894
oils arise annually in this country, and about two-thirds is technically reclaimable as lubricants or fuel. Different considerations apply to different types of oil.

LOFT SPACE INSULATION STANDARDS
2.38 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they propose to take to raise the standards of loft space insulation in the present building regulations to the levels recommended by the Sectary of State for Energy in his leaflet Energy Saving in the Home.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, requirements in the building regulations relating to loft space insulation were, in effect, doubled last year. They represent the highest level of insulation for new dwellings that can at present be justified in mandatory regulations subject to penal sanctions. The higher levels recommended in leaflets issued by the Department of Energy and also the Department of the Environment relate to existing dwellings not covered by the new regulations, and are therefore solely advisory.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. Does she agree that to the ordinary person it is somewhat confusing that the building regulations should recommend insulation of 50 millimetres, which is approximately 2 ins., whereas the Department of Energy recommend 3 ins. to 4ins. of insulation in the loft?
Baroness BIRK: No, my Lords; I do not find it very extraordinary, because, as I said, one is mandatory, so one has to take the rock-bottom standard, whereas the other is advisory. To increase the advisory standard would mean increasing the cost. We have to bear in mind that many households use insufficient energy to reap the higher benefit from increasing the standard of insulation. Also, we need to know more about the effect of high levels of insulation and modern methods of roof construction—for example, there are problems of condensation in new houses—before making higher standards

895
compulsory. It is also true to say that many things that are advisory today become mandatory tomorrow.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, may I ask whether the Government have considered extending mandatory provisions to factories, because, after all, people spend a great deal of time in them?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, this comes under the Health and Safety at Work Act, and powers to conserve energy will be coming into use under that Act. It is certainly true that this will cover non-domestic buildings, such as hotels, shops, offices and, no doubt, factories.
Lord LEATHER LAND: My Lords, if she comes to consider the question of extending those provisions to factories, will my noble friend bear in mind that in the summer many factories and production lines become far too hot, and many instant strikes have been due to the fact that workshops have been too hot?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, it is for exactly this reason that experiments are are still going on, and the whole matter is still under consideration.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell the House what steps the Government are taking to insulate buildings which they own, particularly the dwellings owned by the Ministry of Defence?
Baroness BIRK: Not without notice, my Lords.
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, am I to understand the noble Baroness as saying that mandatory standards are rock-bottom standards? Would she like to reflect on that, because, in relation to matters like Parker Morris, I have always understood that the absolute reverse was the case?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, what I meant was that the mandatory standard must be the minimum safe standard that can be imposed on people, taking into account what it is about, the cost and the state of our research. Over and above that, it is quite proper to advise people that they would be more comfortable and would probably also reap the maximum benefit—if they were using a certain
896
amount of energy—if they went above that standard. In view of his connection with housing, I am sure the noble Lord will know the disadvantages at this time of imposing this standard on housing authorities and private developers.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, in view of that last reply from the noble Baroness, how can she say that the Department of Energy can recommend a much higher standard of loft insulation, when, as I understand it, the Department of the Environment does not yet have the information on which to base a similar recommendation?
Baroness BIRK: No, my Lords; what I said was that we are advising that this makes sense. The advice is given very much on a do-it-yourself basis; indeed, there is a circular, of which I shall be very happy to let the noble Baroness have a copy, which is purely advisory. But when it comes to implementing a standard on a large scale, other factors such as cost, the amount of energy that people use and the question of condensation in new houses have to be taken into account, and the advice being given is for people living in existing houses.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, does my noble friend suggest that the Department of the Environment does not have the energy to find the solution?

COUNCIL HOUSING: LOFT INSULATION
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, in view of the number of fuel debts and cases of hypothermia among council tenants, whether they can say how many council houses do not have loft space insulation of three or four inches, as recommended in the leaflet Energy Saving in the Home, and what steps they propose to take to improve any shortfall.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, exact figures are not available, but council houses will have at least the amount of loft space insulation needed to conform to the building byelaws or regulations in

897
force at the time they were built. A recent circular has pointed out to local authorities the benefits of improving the thermal insulation of existing dwellings, although in the current financial climate the funds available for this are limited. But the insulation of roof spaces as part of a comprehensive scheme of improvement qualifies for Exchequer subsidy, and so do improvements to the roof insulation of dwellings for the elderly or disabled.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that reply, am I to understand from it that no council houses have roof insulation to the standard recommended by the Department of Energy, that very few, in fact, have the 50 millimetres recommended, as this will be only in buildings built to the latest building standards, and that most council houses have less loft insulation than the 50 millimetres that is currently recommended?
Baroness BIRK: No, my Lords. The noble Baroness cannot imply all that from what I said. I said that we have not got the figures. As the noble Baroness is aware, what happens varies from one local authority to another. It is perfectly true that the new regulations did not come into effect until January 1975, so it is impossible to have figures on the matter. It is possible that some local authorities have gone above the two inches, but we have no figures as to that because they are not required to produce them.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, in view of the Government's tremendous "Save It" campaign, which presumably means that Her Majesty's Government are anxious to save energy, would not it be helpful to keep such figures so that we knew which houses met what are regarded as desirable standards of insulation, and would not it be better to encourage better insulation of houses rather than to subsidise tenants by way of heating allowances?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, the question of subsidising tenants by heating allowances arises because in many cases, and particularly in respect of this Question, insulating a roof will not help an old person who is living in and heating aground floor room. The result would not be immediate or particularly effective.
898
The other question is that of expense in house-building. As I said in reply to the previous Question of the noble Baroness, we need to know more about insulation before it is incorporated mandatorily in building regulations. Nevertheless, advice on insulation is absolutely right and proper and, to their benefit, many people have taken advice and insulated their homes.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, could the Minister answer that part of my noble friend's Question which asks the Government:
"…in view of the number of fuel debts and cases of hypothermia among council tenants…"
and say how many there were among council tenants?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I am afraid that information is not available. The Question of the noble Baroness is tied up with hypothermia, but as this does not always result directly from heating and the Question we are now answering, it would be quite impossible to say. It covers a great many other causes as well.
Lord CASTLE: My Lords, in view of the greater and greater pursuit of insulation, I wonder whether the noble Baroness would direct the attention of her right honourable friend to the insulatory effect of newspapers? As the noble Baroness will appreciate, this is a subject which has been neglected. There is no better use for an old newspaper than for insulation, as anybody who has slept in the open will know.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, certainly I use all the many newspapers I have to insulate myself, but this did not prevent me from getting the 'flu.
Lord WADE: My Lords, does this apply only to old newspapers?
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, will the noble Baroness say whether the newspapers are to insulate one from reality?
Lord SLATER: My Lords, could my noble friend say where all the money is to be found if the steps mentioned in the Question that has been asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, are to be met? One has in mind what will happen to the houses that were built immediately

899
following the Second World War. In every area throughout the country there are thousands of houses that were built in the post-war period. Certain alterations have taken place in these houses to try to improve their condition for the benefit of the tenants. If this has to take place, could my noble friend state where she thinks the money will be found to meet the requirements asked for by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in her Question?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, further to what my noble friend implied in the first part of his question, may I suggest that he should direct his question to the noble Baroness opposite.
Several Noble Lords: No!
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she can give us some indication of the cost of insulating a loft as related to the payments which are made for subsidising fuel?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I am afraid that is an entirely different Question and the noble Lord must put it down if he wants an answer to it.

NATO NAVAL OBLIGATIONS
2.50 p.m.
Lord CHELWOOD: 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 confirm that the NATO contingency plan agreed in 1971, for a naval task force to operate South of the Tropic of Cancer if need be, has now been confirmed by the Defence Planning Council; whether this will involve any Treaty amendment; and whether the Government have expressed their willingness in principle to contribute to such a task force.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, no such contingency plan was agreed in 1971. However, in 1972 the Defence Planning Committee of NATO gave authority for SACLANT to study the problem of protecting shipping outside the NATO area. SACLANT has not
900
yet presented its final plan to NATO. Any question of national approval or treaty amendment is therefore premature.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Minister say when the plan will be presented? Will he further say whether in principle the NATO Council of Ministers now regards the threat to, or interference with, the freedom of the seas outside the formal NATO Treaty area as something that could and would be countered?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, with regard to the second part of the question, the fact that SACLANT was instructed to study the problem means that the problem is one concerning the Defence Planning Committee of NATO When SACLANT will actually present its final plan is not yet clear.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, if my noble friend Lord Winterbottom declares that a treaty of amendment may be regarded at the moment as premature, would he say the same thing about the need for a task force below the Tropic of Cancer? Is not the Government somewhat too complacent about the international situation?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the NATO Defence Planning Committee is obviously aware of the threat, and therefore instructed SACLANT to study the problem. My noble friend Lord Shinwell I am certain will remember that the North Atlantic Treaty does not define areas of operations. In Articles 5 and 6 the Treaty specifies areas within which an armed attack on any member State will be regarded as an attack on all members. But this particular Article does not prohibit contingency planning. For that reason, SACLANT has been instructed to study the problem.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that the time has arrived for a review of the whole defence situation?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, that is a very wide question. I am certain we shall have an opportunity to debate it in the near future.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, does the noble Lord recollect that in January of last year the Secretary of State for

901
Defence said that he was worried about the growth of Soviet naval activity in the Indian Ocean and round the Cape? If there was cause for worry some 14 months ago, is there not more cause for worry now? May I seek an assurance from the noble Lord that, when a decision is made about the matter, a statement will be made to Parliament, rather than leaving noble Lords to rely on leaks in the newspapers from usually reliable sources?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, is a valid one. I shall draw it to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister not agree that it would be better if we sought the neutralisation of the Indian Ocean, as demanded by all the adjoining nations in Asia and Africa, rather than proceeding with these policies?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, that is another question.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us what forces this country might have available to contribute to such a task force, outside the forces already committed to NATO?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, that is a hypothetical question. We have not reached that point yet.

RHODESIA
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will repeat a Statement on Rhodesia.

COMPANIES (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
2.54 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to companies and, in connection therewith, to amend the law relating to the registration of business names. I beg to move that this Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

INVERNESS HARBOUR (CITADEL QUAY ETC.) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report.
INVERNESS HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report.

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL
2.55 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 2 [Freedom of the press]:
Lord GOODMAN Lord GOODMAN moved Amendment No. 1:
Leave out Clause 2.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when we adjourned after Committee stage I was to receive a message from the Government indicating whether, in the event of the failure to negotiate the charter by agreement between the negotiating parties, it would be imposed by the Secretary of State on the basis that whatever charter he proposed would be subject to invigilation by both Houses of Parliament. The suggestion was made to them by me, and made to them by weightier voices; that is, that they might delete from the proposed Amendment the provision to which we took special objection and which we found especially odious. I have no intention of repeating the speech I made the other day; in fact, I was chided for having made, perhaps, too provocative a speech, so I am determined to say nothing today that is remotely provocative. We took the view that it was a historic enormity that, in a country where liberty of speech had been in the forefront of living standards for centuries, we should arrive at a situation in which rules for the regulation of the Press should be imposed in detail by a Governmental Minister and by a Government. This we regarded as

903
an intolerable situation, and one that should be resisted at all costs, as we have resisted it at all costs. It is on this footing that I am again presuming to draw the attention of the House to this matter.
My Lords, perhaps I might say this. I am not particularly apologetic for having to bring the attention of this House back to the matter. During the last debate, the noble Lord the Leader of the House, perhaps understandably, displayed a slight impatience with the fact that we had devoted so much time to this question. I am totally unapologetic on that matter. I can think of few matters of higher importance which justify greater attention and expenditure of time. We are dealing with fundamental liberties. We discuss many matters in this House. It would be invidious and slightly impertinent of me to pinpoint matters which I regard as being of less significance and from which time could have been spared. I do not believe that any time at all should reasonably be spared for the most careful, scrupulous and meticulous consideration of this proposition. In so far as some noble Lords may find it wearisome, getting the right result in all important historic issues has been found wearisome over the centuries, and we must accept the weariness involved.
I have received, unhappily, a reply from the Government that the request that this particular provision should be deleted is not one to which they can accede. Perhaps the reply is not surprising. I do not say I was totally without surprise. I am of a sanguine and optimistic disposition, and I retained a hope to the last moment that we might compromise this issue by an indication from the Government that they gave some weight to the very real concern felt by those who had raised the matter, and continue to raise it and continue to battle from the outset.
I am afraid I have to say something about the nature of the charter and the reasons why it is preferred that the charter should be rejected in toto rather than that we should have a charter containing this provision. The first point I would wish to make is the constitutional point. I am advised that there is nothing unconstitutional in our failing to accept the
904
suggested Amendments that have come from the Commons. Owing to the workings of the Parliament Act and the manner in which the matter has operated, the provisions relating to the charter—which were an afterthought, an early afterthought but an afterthought—are not embodied in the Bill. If carried through according to its strict letter, the Parliament Act can only give us the Bill; we are perfectly entitled to reject the trimmings if, as a House, we consider those trimmings are, for one reason or another, unacceptable.
At this time I am not sure what course I shall adopt in relation to this Amendment. I said last time that if I received sufficient encouragement to believe that there was a possibility of my defeating the provisions which would entitle a Minister of the Crown to write a charter for the Press I would seize the opportunity. I cannot furnish a final answer on this matter until I have heard what is said by the other noble Lords who will speak in the debate. But I now entertain a faint hope that I may garner sufficient support to make it sensible and respectable to divide, and, in fact, ignominious to refrain from dividing the House. If there is sufficient support to enable me to believe that there is a chance of defeating this provision, I think I should be untrue to many of us, certainly to myself, if I did not seize that opportunity.
If, at the end of the day, my efforts have failed, I shall know that they have failed after the best effort that I can make; but there will be a historical record of those who took one view and those who took another view. Not that I am suggesting that those who take another view are necessarily doing anything wicked or terrible. They, according to their lights, regard this as proper. I, according to my lights, regard it as highly improper. I think it should be on record that there was this clear demarcation of viewpoint, those who put industrial regulation before liberty of expression, which many of us regard as having a much higher priority. If I may say so, it is not much use wagging heads to say that that is not the priority. That is the simple unavoidable priority. There is nothing to be ashamed of in placing industrial regulation before liberty of expression. There might be arguments in certain circumstances why it would be right to do so.

905
With my background and my antecedents and the things I have been used to doing over the years, I cannot alter my priority, which is that nothing can have a higher place in the affairs of the nation than the right of a man who wants to write or speak or say something to say it without interference from other people entitled to interfere by right of law. That is what this issue is about and it is not about anything else; it is simply about that.
When this charter was first introduced, I said at that time that I regarded it as of great importance but it was not something that would bring me to the barricades, unless there were provisions in the charter which, in my view, could be injurious to the social system, as I regard these provisions. The original charter I sought to amend, and many of your Lordships supported me in those Amendments, and they were triumphantly carried. It is very important that we should distinguish between the charter in in its present proposed form and the charter in the form in which we were prepared to accept it; on the footing that it was embodied in the Bill, on which we were prepared to leave the matter.
I should draw attention to the proposals of the present charter:
"…a charter containing practical guidance for employers, trade unions and editors and other journalists on matters relating to freedom of the Press, the Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a draft of that charter. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, practical guidance on matters relating to the freedom of the Press must include guidance on the avoidance of improper pressure to distort or suppress news…."
—a matter on which I shall make little or no comment, because I do not think anyone would regard it as appropriate that improper pressure should be exercised to distort or suppress news, comment or criticism—
"…the application of union membership agreements to journalists…",
which is a provision as vague as is possible to make in relation to the rights of journalists and the question of whether or not they can belong to or be excluded from unions or expelled from unions. It would be difficult to have a general heading vaguer, less precise, less encouraging, less reassuring than that.
"…(and in particular the right of editors to discharge their duties and to commission and
906
to publish any article) and the question of access for contributors."
All in terms of the most studied vagueness, none of them solidifying or chrystallising into anything remotely resembling a right on which a man could base his career, base his future, stake a belief that as an editor he could proceed without important interference, without damaging interference.
The charter as we proposed it was in these terms. If I may say so, Iinvite your Lordships to consider whether there is a single syllable in the Amendments that we suggested to which objection could be taken by liberal-minded people who were anxious to have a free Press. There is no controversy in these proposals, nothing in these proposals to which anyone could legitimately have taken objection. The proposals were these. We left out the vague, nebulous and insecure words, and we substituted these words as matters which were to go into the charter:
"The rights of editors and other persons exercising editorial responsibilities to discharge their duties free from any obligation to join a trade union".
In the clearest possible terms we said that we did not think it appropriate that an editor should be obliged to join a trade union. No one has yet suggested that it is appropriate, except that no one is prepared to say that he should not be so obliged.
"The rights of journalists to join a trade union of their choice."
Here the question arose that there exist two trade unions relating to journalists. There is the National Union of Journalists and the Institute of Journalists. The Institute of Journalists is a small union, but not despicable in size; it has something like 3,000 members. The members of that union prefer to belong to it because it suits their neeeds better than the National Union of Journalists. The charter as now proposed must ensure the immolation of that union and the total destruction of any choice; and the certainty that membership of the National Union of Journalists is a total precondition to being able to write for the Press. If, as must inevitably follow, a closed shop is achieved, as there is the strongest possibility that it will be achieved with the industrial strength to be marshalled by the National Union of Journalists against

907
the proprietors, against the managers of the newspapers, then no one will be able to write for the Press if he is not a member of the National Union of Journalists.
I go further. No one can be a member of the National Union of Journalists unless the executive of that body desire to have him as a member. If he is thrown out because they dislike his opinions, if he is thrown out because they dislike what he writes, then he has no redress of any kind. The suggestion of any redress has been resolutely and determinedly refused throughout the whole long history of this discussion in this House and in the other place. There has been an absolute refusal to allow any redress, except redress that I must regard as being of a "prefectory" nature, having no legal effect, in a form on which he cannot rely because it emanates from the very people who would have been responsible for his expulsion. The certainty and security of being able to make some appeal to an independent tribunal, such as a court of law, has been refused and rejected with the utmost firmness. There may be many people who believe this to be right, and I make no suggestion that those who believe it to be right should follow me into the Lobby this afternoon if, in the event, we divide. But those who, like myself, believe it to be wrong, I invite to follow me into the Lobby, regardless of political considerations, which for once have very little operation in this matter.
This is not a political issue. People may say as much as they like, but it is not a political issue. It is only a political issue in the minds of those people who feel that no one could hold the views that I hold unless he has misguided political notions somewhere concealed within the ample bulk within which they can be concealed. I wish to say to you that this is not a political issue at all. This is an issue about whether you place one thing in front of another. That is the simple question you have to decide this afternoon.
May I continue on the other things that we tried to include: the rights of journalists to join a trade union of their choice; the rights of editors to commission, publish or not to publish, any article free from pressure by industrial action;
908
the rights of journalists not to be arbitrarily or unreasonably excluded or expelled from membership of a trade union. I do not wish to embark on any story of the behind-the-scenes discussions and negotiations that have gone on so tiresomely, with such difficulty, so painfully between the conscientious people on each side, each holding a different conscientious view.
I think it is fair to say that I indicated at one stage that if the charter was allowed to contain beyond argument, and without any question of doubt, a provision dealing with the rights of journalists not to be arbitrarily or unreasonably excluded or expelled from membership of a trade union, even though that charter had no legal sanction and no legal redress I would regard that as a sufficient moral encouragement to me to withdraw my further opposition to the whole matter. That would state in the clearest possible terms what we regarded as the essential requirement of a journalistic charter. I made that proposal. I am sorry to have to say that that proposal also proved unacceptable. I do not wish to arouse in your Lordships' minds any dark suspicions as to the intentions of people who are going to draw the charter. I only say that if it was to be a charter of the sort that I want, and that I hope many of you may want, no one would have argued about that particular suggestion. But it was argued about, and it was not acceded to, not accepted.
That is the difference between the two proposed charters. One is to be drawn by the Secretary of State if it is not agreed —and the odds against it being agreed are enormous, because it will have to be negotiated on the one side by people who want what I want, and on the other side by people who are fortified by the knowledge that, in the course of these discussions, what I want has been totally rejected by the final arbiter of the charter when it comes to be drawn. When that charter comes to be drawn the final arbiter has already indicated his unwillingness to accept the sort of provision we want in the charter. I cannot regard it as a remote possibility that that charter will be successfully negotiated in terms acceptable to people who are concerned about liberty. I cannot regard it as the remotest possibility.
May I say that I will give the Government an assurance on behalf of those for whom I can speak that, if they will still accept the proposal that I have made, we will go into negotiations immediately, and we will negotiate in good faith and from day to day in the determined desire, and the determined effort, to produce a charter that is a genuinely agreed document. There will be no question about our willingness to negotiate: we shall negotiate, and negotiate as wholeheartedly and as fully as we possibly can.
I said last time I spoke that there have been some surprisingly encouraging developments between the trade unions and the proprietors and managements in the newspaper industry. Literally in the last few weeks we have achieved results in negotiations with the printing unions that no one had expected we should achieve, and we have achieved them without any suggestion of governmental pressure. We have achieved them with the very valuable situation that the Government, and particularly the arbitration and conciliation body that exists and has done such valuable work, are there to help if a situation arises which cannot be resolved. But we have not achieved them on the footing that the Government are there to impose a solution. It is fair to say that at this moment there are better prospects than there have ever been of valuable negotiated agreements allowing for redundancies, allowing for casual labour, allowing for pensions, allowing for all the matters that have been a source of worry and concern over the years, without any suggestion of governmental control or the imposition of governmental control, and none of the printing unions has ever asked or suggested such a thing.
On behalf of the management side of the industry, I will give an undertaking that we will negotiate forthwith to achieve a charter if the suggestion is removed that it can be imposed upon us by a Minister or by a Government. I make the further suggestion that if, in the event we divide, and if, in the event we strike out this charter altogether—and, in my view, this is a very dangerous charter to have, and we are better off without any charter—it is open to the other place to restore the provisions of the charter without this particular offensive provision. I will say that if that
910
happens there will be no opposition on my part, and no opposition on the part of anyone for whom I speak or with whom I have any influence. If we send this Bill back without the charter—it has to go back in any event because of the Amendment which was made on Committee stage—and if the Commons care to restore the charter provisions stripped of this particular provision, no one here, I venture to think, would wish to raise the slightest opposition to it. Obviously I cannot speak for the entire House, but no one for whom I speak would wish to raise the slightest opposition to it.
I invite your Lordships to consider this: we are making what I regard as an historic decision this afternoon. We are going to say whether we are to be one of the few countries—if not the only country—and certainly one of the first countries in the world which is to accept a governmental regulation of our Press. There is much comment and much criticism of the Press. We are told that it is not an ideal instrument. We are told that it does this and does the other. In fact many people say it is so full of sheer comment it is not worth preserving. May I say that I challenge that issue. We have a Press that is a fallible human instrument, but we have a Press of which, until recently, we were always trained to be proud. We have a Press in which it is extremely unlikely that any responsible opinion will be suppressed or will not be aired. We have a Press which is to this day the instrument of free men. Of course there are hideous things in it. Of course there is tittle-tattle. Of course people can smile, because it is easy to smile over any institution which has grown up over the years and which inevitably is subject to the failings and shortcomings of any human institution. We have a Press that we can improve. We shall certainly not improve it by handing it over to the unfettered control of a single union. We shall certainly not improve it by seeking to have a charter which will make it impossible to ensure that a man can necessarily write what he likes without being exposed to the risk of expulsion or exclusion.
I regard this charter as a menace to a free Press in its present form. I would not seek to urge others who do not to change their views at this stage. The opinions of others who do not I will

911
respect. But I do urge those of your Lordships who regard what I have said as sufficiently weighty to be worthy of consideration, in the event I ask you to divide on this, to consider whether it is not proper and right that you should throw out a Press charter composed in these terms.
3.18 p.m.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, spoke of the constitutional position, and for that reason I thought it right to speak immediately after the noble Lord and perhaps give some guidance to the House first of all about the procedures, and secondly, despite what the noble Lord has said, to reject the proposition that he has put before us this afternoon. The noble Lord said that he would not be provocative. If I may so, I took a deep sense of resentment at the implication that he and those who think like him on this matter are the only guardians of the freedom of the Press and of individual rights. I will say nothing more about it, but I hope that my feeling—I would nearly say contempt—for what was then said is reflected in my voice.
The procedure today is relatively simple. The Bill has come from another place as a consequence of failure by this House and another place to agree in the last Session. It comes to us under the Parliament Act procedures which require that the Bill shall come to this House for consideration in substantially the same form—
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: In exactly the same form, my Lords.
Lord SHEPHERD: Very well, my Lords, in exactly the same form. I prefer "substantially" and I will explain why shortly. The Parliament Act procedures, as I was saying, require that the Bill shall come to us in the form in which it was first introduced in this House. The difference between the noble and learned Lord's "exactly" and my "substantially" is that under the Parliament Act procedure there can be Amendments to the Bill—Amendments agreed during the previous Session: Amendments agreed by both Houses—and the Bill which is now before us includes certain refinements
912
and redrafting and that is why I use the word "substantially" although the difference between the noble and learned Lord and myself is very narrow indeed. He is correct and so am I.
The House of Commons took the view that, in regard to Press freedom, there should be provisions in the Bill, but it could not, under the Parliament Act procedures, have those provisions in the Bill because when the Bill came to this House in the first instance it came here solely as an industrial relations Bill, nothing to do with the Press. Under the procedures, the House of Commons has sent us a suggested Amendment. I explained on Second Reading why I intended to move, as I did, the suggested Amendment in Committee; because I believed that there was general hope in the House that if possible the Bill should go on the Statute Book avoiding the Parliament Act procedures. Unless we adopted the Amendment in Committee so that it was part of the Bill when we finally approved it, the provision could not be made because the suggested Amendment could be used only when the Bill had been either rejected or there had been failure to agree. I therefore say to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, that what he has in mind is perfectly constitutional.
I think it right that I should rehearse some of the history of this matter because listening to Lord Goodman one might get the impression that the Government were seeking to impose themselves and the Secretary of State in the drafting of whatever charter might arise. Nothing is further from the truth and Lord Goodman is as well aware of that as are most noble Lords. As I said, the Bill was introduced here solely as an industrial relations measure. While it was going through another place there was genuine feeling that something should be done about the Press; the fear of the effect of the closed shop on editors and others. When the Bill came to us there was genuine feeling throughout the House, and certainly on my side, that something should be done.
My noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby, on his own initiative, produced in Committee a code of practice. It was not then a charter but, as I say, a code of practice. Clause 2 of the Bill which is now before us is substantially that, as recommended by my noble friend, which

913
this House accepted. There is some redrafting and of course some substantial concessions were made to Lord Goodman, though he has not this afternoon in his general historical survey of the situation conceded those. I would remind him of those major concessions, which he himself regarded as major ones. When, at the end of last Session the Bill was disagreed to, the two areas over which we had disagreement were the question of rights and the question of legal sanctions. Lord Goodman and others felt strongly on this matter, which was considered exhaustively in the House of Commons, from where we now have the Bill back with the suggested Amendment—with neither of the provisions which Lord Goodman wished to see. Despite again covering the ground and speaking of his fears, if my memory serves me aright Lord Goodman said on Second Reading that it was not his intention to persist with either of those provisions—that is, for the rights or for the legal sanctions—and today we have had, if I may say so, a different argument, and that is concerned with the position of the Secretary of State.
I ask the House to look at the first subsection of Clause 2. This lays a duty, a responsibility, on all sections of the industry together to reach a charter. I was indeed gratified to hear from Lord Goodman his view that such a charter could be achieved—although he made the qualification, provided there was nothing in the legislation concerning the Secretary of State and the Government. Leaving that aside, the noble Lord expressed complete confidence that both sides of this industry would be able to agree to a charter. The other provisions of that subsection state that when a charter has been agreed by both sides the Secretary of State shall lay a draft before both Houses of Parliament and that, by the Affirmative Resolution procedure, the charter shall have its proper being. The question of the Secretary of State arises only if there is failure by both sides to reach agreement on the charter.
Lord Houghton proposed that there should be a period of six months, but I took the view that that was possibly too short a period. It was on my recommendation that we extended it from six to 12 months. We have also hedged round the position of the Secretary of State and per-
914
haps I might remind Lord Goodman that when my noble friend's Amendment was being considered I expressed on behalf of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State the doubt whether the Secretary of State ought to be involved in an affair of this sort, but we agreed to it because there was recognition that if both sides could not agree—and the importance of this matter was clear to many in both Houses of Parliament—then the Secretary of State should break the deadlock. However, we hedged round the powers of the Secretary of State in relation to two particular matters, of which Lord Goodman failed to remind the House. I ask noble Lords to look at Clause2(3), which is of great importance, particularly sub-paragraph (a). This provision states:
"…the Secretary of State shall after consultation with the Press Council…"
and other bodies, et cetera. This is the constraint placed on him—
"where…there appears to the Secretary of State to be agreement among the parties referred to in subsection (1) above on any matter relating to the freedom of the press, he shall incorporate in the draft charter such practical guidance as he thinks appropriate to give effect to that agreement."
That subsection constrains the Secretary of State where some agreement has been reached by the two sides but where there is failure to reach full agreement. Subparagraph (b) provides that, where there is no such agreement but where there may be some matters outstanding, the Secretary of State may draft the charter to give practical guidance. However, what is most important is that the Secretary of State, after all these consultations, must go to both Houses and lay the draft order before them for their Affirmative Resolution procedure. If one House disagreed with such an order, the Secretary of State would have to go through further formal negotiations, in particular with the Press Council, and then come back to this House.
However, an extra protection which the Government themselves initiated because of representations made in another place is that, under subsection (7), where a charter has been made and approved by both Houses, if, in the view of both sides of industry, the charter is wrong and needs to be revised the two sides can go to Parliament without the intervention of the Secretary of State and say that they do not like the charter which the Secre-

915
ary of State has drawn up and which Parliament approved and that they want amendments to which they seek the agreement of the two Houses. I suggest that we have had the Secretary of State brought into this in a most reluctant way. He has been hedged around with many provisos, hoops and hurdles to overcome. At the same time, the opportunity has all along been given for the two sides to come back to Parliament if they are unhappy or dissatisfied with any charter that has been proposed to them.
What is the position of this House? Noble Lords opposite on the Conservative and Liberal Benches and on the Cross Benches came together in great strength in support of the Amendment moved during the last Session by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. Such an Amendment could well have contained all the provisions I have spoken of—the charter and so on and all the rights and legal restraints—without the involvement of the Secretary of State. However, the Amendment which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and supported by all noble Lords except those on this side of the House provided for the role of the Secretary of State, in the same way that is provided in the Bill now before the House. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has now come to the House to say, "Irrespective of what I advised the House in the last Session and of what you, the noble Lords around me, agreed—despite all that and because I cannot get rights and legal sanctions, I want no charter at all." The noble Lord makes his case solely upon the position of the Secretary of State, to which he himself put his name, and in which he asked noble Lords opposite to support him.
The noble Lord may have a case but what about this House? Having demanded not only our time but time in another place exhaustively and most anxiously to consider this matter, if we suddenly at the last moment say with the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, that we do not want a charter at all I suggest that that will make complete nonsense of all our procedures and of all the time we have most anxiously put in on this matter. The Government believe that a charter may be helpful. We hope we shall see
916
a charter which has been arrived at by the two sides of the industry. I passionately hope that the Secretary of State will at no stage be involved other than in the laying of an order in both Houses. I hope that the House will take the view that this matter has now been given exhaustive, anxious consideration. Much work has been undertaken, many concessions have been made to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and I trust that noble Lords will take the view that, although the Bill which is now before the the House may perhaps not be exactly what they would like to see, in the light of all the anxieties which have been expressed in both Houses, in the Press and in the industry itself, it would be better for what is proposed regarding the freedom of the Press to be in the Bill than for there to be no provision at all.
This legislation could well be revoked in later years, particularly when we have received the report of the Royal Commission on the Press. I have already given an assurance and I now repeat it that if anything comes out of the Royal Commission which helps in any way to strengthen the freedom of the Press, the Government will not hesitate to legislate. If the legislation needs to be repealed, it will be repealed. I suggest that with all the work, all the time and all the good spirit which has been put into this question to try to meet genuine fears it would be quite wrong for this House now to reject it, particularly as another place has, after full consideration, asked that we should consider it and approve its inclusion in the Bill.
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he be kind enough to explain why, since the Royal Commission will be taking evidence next week on this matter, it is necessary for us to legislate today?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, knows why we are legislating today. The present Bill was introduced during the last Session as an industrial relations Bill. It was the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, who came to this House and who, with all the clarion calls in the Press, sought to raise the whole question of the freedom of the Press. The Government have sought to react to those pressures and to the genuine feelings of all sides of the House. That

917
is why we are legislating today, and the noble Lord knows it perhaps better than I do.
3.39 p.m.
Lord BRADWELL: My Lords, may I say a few words in support of what has been said by my noble friend, speaking, as I do, as one who has been a working journalist for almost half a century. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, is a brilliant lawyer and a most humane man for whom many of us feel an affection hardly short of veneration. Yet I fear that he has been keeping what I regard as the wrong company in this context. He is of course a spokesman of the Newspaper Proprietors' Association, who now prefer to be called the Newspaper Publishers' Association because they have learnt that the burden of admitted proprietorship or ownership of an organ of the Press is too heavy a burden of temptation to be carried by any human being. So there are now "publishers", not "proprietors". I wish that the noble Lord had spent more time in the company of what we call the FOCs—the fathers of the chapels in Fleet Street—the chairmen of the branches of the NUJ. The NUJ is—whatever the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, may say—the only genuine trade union for journalists. The other is more in the nature of what we sometimes call a "company union".
I am afraid that there has been a great deal of humbug talked about the freedom of the Press. My noble friend Lady Gaitskell says "on both sides", and that may be so. Humbug tends to spread, even when it is contradicted. There is an old adage, which I think is still broadly true, to the effect that the freedom of the Press in Britain means freedom to print such of the proprietor's prejudices as the advertisers do not object to. That is perhaps a slight oversimplification, but only slight. I commend it to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and to your Lordships, for the essential truth contained in it.
Take that admirable, sober, and brilliantly produced Conservative newspaper, the Daily Telegraph. It is most ably edited by a former, most distinguished Member of another place, Mr. William Deedes. Does anybody suggest, does the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, believe, that if Mr. Deedes wanted to
918
print an article which was—possibly not for political reasons, but perhaps for social reasons—deeply objectionable to the noble Lord, Lord Hartwell, or indeed to his brilliant and gifted wife, that Mr. Deedes could get away with it? Not for long, anyway.
Therefore, I suggest that there is an element of humbug in the perfectly sincere and well intentioned Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. Thus, as a working journalist, as well as a very new Member of your Lordships' House, I support my noble friend.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I was very surprised—
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I think we should now have the Statement.
Several Noble Lords: Statement, Statement!
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I think it is the wish of the House that we should now have the Statement—
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I also thought so, but I notice that my noble friend behind me, who was referred to in the last speech, has risen, and perhaps, in accordance with the wishes of the House he might be entitled to speak, because a personal reference, which some might feel was an unfortunate one, was made.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, if the noble Lord wishes to speak, then I am certain that the House will agree that he does so. I intervened only because it seemed that some noble Lords wished to deal with the Statement at this stage. I suggest to the noble Lord that if he wishes to speak, the House would be happy to hear him.
Lord HARTWELL: My Lords I do not propose to intervene in the debate at this moment. I merely want to reply to what I regard as a most offensive innuendo, not only about myself but also about my wife, and when I have made my observations, I should be obliged if the noble Lord would withdraw it. The noble Lord referred to Mr. Deedes, who has been the editor of the Daily Telegraph for 14 months, and I have never had any occasion to interfere with the policies

919
which he has decided upon. We have discussed matters, but I have never directed him to write an article with which he does not agree, nor have I ever done such a thing in the 21 years in which I have been an editor-in-chief.
With regard to the noble Lord's observations about proprietors, I think that he is a little out of date. He is referring to the late Lord Beaverbrook and the late Lord Northcliffe, and that is not how papers are conducted nowadays. I have been in journalism almost as long as the noble Lord, Lord Bradwell. I have worked on 10 papers, and I have done practically every job that there is to be done in newspapers. So I think I know what I am talking about, and I should be grateful if the noble Lord would withdraw his observations.
Lord BRADWELL: My Lords, my reference was intended to be perfectly friendly, but if it was regarded by the noble Lord as an offensive innuendo, then of course I withdraw it.

RHODESIA: LORD GREENHILL OF HARROW'S REPORT
3.45 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, with permission I shall repeat a Statement which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The Statement is as follows:
"I will, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, make a Statement on Lord Greenhill's recent visit to Rhodesia.
"My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. David Ennals) told the House on 24th February that the purpose of Lord Greenhill's mission was exploratory: to assess whether attitudes had changed to the point where there might be a genuine possibility of the British Government's helping to promote a settlement providing for an early and orderly transfer of power in Rhodesia.
"Lord Greenhill arrived in Salisbury in the early hours of Thursday, 26th February, and left again on the afternoon of the following day. During his
920
stay, he had two meetings with Mr. Smith, and one with Mr. Nkomo and some of his colleagues.
"I received Lord Greenhill's report over the week-end and discussed it with him yesterday. He did not bring back any constitutional proposals, for that was not his purpose. But he did bring back the asssessment of attitudes for which I asked, and which I am now considering. Let me make clear once again that our objective is an early transition to majority rule by peaceful means. In the light of what Lord Greenhill has told me, I am considering whether there is anything we can usefully do to help achieve this end. These are serious days for Rhodesia and there must be adequate time for consideration. I shall inform the House of my conclusions.
"I should like, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, to renew my thanks to Lord Greenhill for undertaking this mission."
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for having repeated the Statement. We join in expressing thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, for having undertaken this misssion, and we are glad to hear that he has now returned. However, since we have no idea of the contents of the report made by the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, nor of the contents of the mind of the Foreign Secretary at this moment in regard to the report and its contents, I think it would be unhelpful if we said anything further at this stage.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, in thanking the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for repeating the Statement made in another place, I wish to welcome the reaffirmation in the Statement that the objective of the Government is to secure an early transition to majority rule by peaceful means. The Statement does not add very greatly to the knowledge we had already gleaned from the newspapers. I fully appreciate that the noble and learned Lord will not wish to say anything today which might prejudice the outcome of negotiations and consultations which are taking place. But I wish to point out to him that we should want

921
to know as soon as possible whether Mr. Smith has altered his position on majority rule, and what are the new and interesting proposals of which Mr. Nkomo spoke yesterday; furthermore, what part has the question of guaranteeing the security of the white population under black rule played in the discussions and, finally, what progress has been made in seeking to secure the withdrawal of foreign forces from Southern Africa as a whole?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have little doubt that when my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, in the fulness of time, although obviously it will be soon, reports to another place on the report he has received from the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, all the matters which the noble Lord has just mentioned will be considered and taken into account. I respectfully agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, that in the circumstances we cannot really take the matter further at this stage. I am sorry to have offered your Lordships so little in the Statement which it has been myhonour to read.

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL
3.49 p.m.
Debate on Amendment No. 1 resumed.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I was very surprised when last week the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, raised the question of the position of the Secretary of State in this charter, and looked to the Government for some favourable response to his suggestion that the Secretary of State should be dismissed from the scene. The Secretary of State has been in this charter right from the beginning, and no one has so far taken him out. With all the other Amendments to the charter in its original form, no Amendment was proposed in this House to remove the Secretary of State from his responsibilities under the proposed charter. Last Thursday I said that if such an Amendment were brought forward at the Report stage today I would oppose it as a wrecking Amendment, notwithstanding that the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, described it as a modest proposal. But I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, now
922
realises how fundamental is the proposition that was in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman.
Without the Secretary of State there is no court of appeal from the discussions on industrial relations which the charter lays it upon all sides of industry to have. I shall enlarge on that just for a moment. The beginning of this charter was the feeling on all sides of the House that industrial relations in the newspaper industry were too important to be left entirely to the parties directly concerned. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and others proposed that the public interest should be safeguarded by introducing into the Bill itself statutory safeguards, with statutory sanctions in the event of breaches of the safeguards that were to be embodied in the Bill. Now we had had so much experience of the futility of endeavouring to regulate industrial affairs by statute that it struck me that there was perhaps an alternative to statutory intervention in the normal course of industrial relations in the newspaper industry, and that that might be a code of conduct, a charter, a code of guidance or something of that kind which would impose a framework and certain disciplines upon the parties to settle matters among themselves to the satisfaction of some third party who would represent the public interest.
My Lords, I took the idea of this charter from the early sections of the Industrial Relations Act 1971. It was a slab of the 1971 Act which represented good sense in industrial relations. In framing the charter, I not only took it as the inspiration: I copied the words which were in the 1971 Act and which were translated into the main Act of the Labour Government of 1974. So it had quite respectable origins; and the idea of it was that it was better if agreement could be reached by discussions directly between the parties concerned provided there was someone in the background to take care of the public interest. As my noble friend the Leader of the House has said, the Secretary of State does not come into this matter until everything else has failed. If there is an agreed charter, the Secretary of State has no duty beyond laying it before both Houses of Parliament. He cannot interfere with it. If it is an agreed charter, an agreed code of conduct, it comes to both Houses of

923
Parliament and is laid before both Houses of Parliament by the Secretary of State.
However, if there is failure to agree, then quite obviously there must be power in such circumstances to refer to some third party, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has not come before this House at any stage with proposals for the setting up of some court of arbitrament, or some tribunal, which would have the responsibility to resolve differences between the parties. It seemed to me that throughout the discussions on the Bill the noble Lord had been content, or reasonably content, with the functions prescribed for the Secretary of State. If there is disagreement, failure to agree, on a charter, then the Secretary of State comes into it, and then he must pay attention to two things. He must pay attention to the matters upon which there is agreement—he is not asked to interfere with them—and he must pay attention to the matters upon which there has not been agreement. In regard to those, he has to formulate his own proposals and then, after he has discharged his responsibilities, he has to bring the revised charter for the approval of both Houses of Parliament. This is where the public interest is safeguarded. Those who say that industrial relations in the newspaper industry cannot be treated as if they are industrial relations in any other industry must be prepared for disciplines, they must be prepared for guidance and they must be prepared for the final arbitrament of Parliament—and that is all contained in the proposed charter.
I know that Lord Goodman, while accepting the principle of the charter as we went along in our numerous and long discussions on this matter, sought to introduce into the charter certain stipulations, not as to matters that should be considered but as to matters which should be predecided. His stipulations were to require the code of conduct to contain certain provisions, and he has enumerated them on many occasions. The charter as it stands says that consideration must be given by the parties to these various matters, but the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, said that they must be put in the charter beyond peradventure and beyond argument. He said that Parliament must put them there by embodying them in the charter itself; and that is
924
what the other place rejected, although this House agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, in that approach. So the charter comes to us without stipulations, without the right of statutory intervention in the industrial relations of the newspaper industry save for that provided for by the position of the Secretary of State.
It surprises me that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, should regard the position of the Secretary of State as some kind of imposition, as some form of intervention by a wicked man, an evil spirit, into the whole scenery of discussion on industrial relations in the newspaper industry. The Secretary of State is there in his Ministerial capacity, because it seemed to me when I drafted this charter that there was nowhere else for that responsibility to go. If there was to be anyone responsible to both Houses of Parliament for laying a charter before both Houses, it seemed to me that the Minister was the right person; and unless, as an alternative to him, there was to be a tribunal to try to resolve disagreements and take the final responsibility of laying a charter before Parliament, I could not see how we could escape placing that function and responsibility upon the Secretary of State. But it is a very limited one. The Secretary of State can come into the matter in any interventionist form only in that area in which there is disagreement between the parties. That is all; and that, I hope, would be extremely narrow, if it arose at all—and we all profoundly hope that it will not arise at all.
My Lords, I conclude by saying this. If the charter is thrown out of the Bill, I do not know what may happen to it, but my guess is that the Bill will then pass into law without the charter in it. That I think, would be a great sadness, and surely it would be a denial of the first propositon from which we began, when we said that industrial relations in the newspaper industry cannot be left to the normal processes of negotiation, as in all other industries; thus the public interest must be safeguarded; and that the freedom of the Press, the public interest in it and all the rest of it should somehow be provided for in this Bill. If we reject the charter, these things will not be provided for. The newspaper industry will then be left in the very condition which, on all sides of the House, we tried to

925
avoid: the position that there is no regulation, no discipline, no charter, no guidance, no public interest safeguarded and no power of intervention by either House of Parliament.
The public interest has to take its place along with the public interest in industrial relations, in the railway industry, in the milling industry, in the transport industry, and in all other industries. That is not where we hoped to leave the matter when this Bill left this House. It would be, I think, a sad and retrograde step for this House to turn back on all that we built up over these months and say that we would rather go back to the beginning with nothing than have the charter in the Bill with its imperfections and its shortcomings as have been described by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman.
My final words are these. This House has a very grave responsibility this afternoon in deciding whether this charter remains in or is thrown out. I hope that all noble Lords will weigh carefully the possible consequences of what they may do this afternoon. We have a collective responsibility. If I may say so with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, our responsibilities are not identified in any way with any section of the industry. We are looking at the general interest of the public, the general interest of the industry and of those who work in it and who serve the freedom of the Press. That, if I may say so with great respect, is a wider perspective than perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, feels entitled to bring to bear on his special responsibilities in this matter. I hope this House will approve this charter and then let us see what happens. I sincerely believe that the consequences of passing it will be far more favourable than the consequences of rejecting it.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, we on these Benches are quite determined that any charter that is produced shall give proper protection to the right of individual jounalists, to the rights of editors, to the rights of outside contributors and of the Institute of Journalists to lead its own separate existence. What causes us a little hesitation this afternoon is whether, in all the circumstances, it is still necessary, believing as we do that this House should divide on the issue now before us.
926
I venture to put this to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, for his consideration simply in this way. The Bill provides in terms that any such draft charter, before it can become effective, must receive the approval of a resolution of this House. That—and the noble Lord the Leader of the House will correct me if I am wrong —is in no way subject to the provisions of the Parliament Act. That amounts to giving this House an indefinite veto over any charter of which your Lordships do not approve. In those circumstances I would suggest that the important matter this afternoon is quite simply that we should make it abundantly clear as a House that we will not tolerate and will not approve any form of charter that comes before us in the future unless it gives the essential protection of the fundamental rights which I have referred to.
Lord GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, as many noble Lords on these Benches have gone a long way with the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, in this debate over many months, I thought that one voice should be heard rehearsing briefly where we started and where we have got to and what I myself think is the right thing to do now. I think it is important to re-state in this House that when this debate began, it was your Lordships who presented, for the purposes of 1975/76, a radical view as opposed to the other place who, with great respect, represented a conventional view. In other words, I think that noble Lords were absolutely right to place the greatest possible emphasis on the principle of freedom to publish, to speak and to write. It was our duty to do so and we did so within the terms of constitutional possibility with great success. If any noble Lord should doubt what I am saying, I would suggest his reading again, after all this is over, the moving speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Snow, on 11th March 1975, when he started from the premise that a journalist is part of an industry but that in another sense he is something quite different.
That is what those who have supported the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, have been thinking of all along. One is bound to say in all graciousness that the Government have responded, with the help of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of

927
Sowerby, in great degree though possibly not in totally sufficient degree—to what we have been arguing.
Probably the country does not know how much it owes to this House for this persistence. In the written Press there have been adequate accounts; but I feel that the audio media and the audio-visual media have not given this subject the space or sympathy that in their own interests they should have done. I do not know why. I listen regularly to "Today in Parliament", and I also watch a good deal of political debate on television and I cannot feel that this issue received the amount of space and time that it should have received.
Having said that, I would add that, on certain issues, had they come to the crunch, I would have been ready to vote against the Government even if it involved the Parliament Act. But on the basis of the few words that I have just said, I must say to my noble friend Lord Goodman that I do not feel this to be the right issue on which to do anything of this kind. The reason for that is I am sure that all the media would have some justification in using as their headlines, spoken or written, "House of Lords vetoes Charter" I am sure that is not our desire. We may find the charter to be imperfect. I am sure it is imperfect, like most of the works of man; but it is probably as near right as we shall get. For that reason and particularly after the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, who has just sat down, I feel that the right thing would be not to divide the House at this stage, because it would be the wrong point on which to divide.
4.8 p.m.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, if I heard the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, aright, he said that his mind was not completely made up whether or not to divide the House. I will help him because I have made my mind up sonic time ago on what should happen. Of course, the House should divide—but not for the reason given by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, who I do not think is quite right in saving that the House has a collective responsibility. This is not the House of Commons. There is not a machine-made majority through the exercise of the Whips on either side of the
928
House. There is a case on this issue where it is a matter of extreme doubt. Both sides have changed their views or modified their views. We have heard from the noble Lord the Leader of the House how reluctant Ministers are to accept the duties imposed upon them by this charter if they are driven to that position. I am the last person to want to drive Ministers into any position, even when I am sure I am right—and generally when I speak it is with that conviction. I do not want to drive them.
My Lords, there is an easy solution. This is a matter in which opinions are nicely balanced. Let us therefore have a free vote! Let us have the Whips off! Let us not exercise a collective responsibility which is not vested in this House. I do not regard myself as being part of a collective vote. I am here to speak the truth as I see it and to exercise my judgment. But, above all, in not only by what I say but what I do, my vote matches my voice. We have heard this afternoon from the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, as dangerous a doctrine as was ever enunciated in a free Parliament. He said that in the case of the Press there is an important issue of the public good. I agree. Would any noble Lord on either side of the House tell me of any industry where the same argument does not apply? It would apply to the miners, to the electricians, to the port workers, and to the steel workers. If we are going to say, as Lord Houghton said this afternoon, that in fact in dealing with the Press we are dealing with a matter of such paramount importance that you must have discipline, the same words could have been used by Mussolini—and indeed were!—and I suppose might include his more liberal doubts, not of course that I am suggesting that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, shares views even remotely the same.
In regard to my political thinking, it is axiomatic that there are those with whom I disagree. I regret to say that I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, on this point. I do not think he is wicked. I am far too charitable for that. I think he is stupid. If you examine the argument he pursues you see just how stupid it becomes. This is because he tells the truth but not the whole truth. The piece of verbal knitting that is enshrined in the charter had its origin not

929
because the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, communes with the Almighty but because there was a row in the Parliamentary Labour Party. The Manifesto Group were exerting pressures and meetings were taking place—I was not at any of them. As the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, said, "i" comes before "o"; so the Intelligence Service told some of us what was going on. There were meetings between this group and that group, and the charter is what has emerged.
My objection to the charter can be easily explained. I opposed the Industrial Relations Bill, although there was much of it with which I agreed, because I was opposed in principle to the intervention of Government—any Government—in matters between employers and employees. In my judgment these matters should at all times be left to be hammered out, and the nearer to the factory floor that they are hammered out the more likely there is to be a solution. But notice what happens. When the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, wants to find a sacred principle, a form of words that are impeccable and cannot he challenged, where does he go? Pack to the Tory Party Industrial Relations Act, and he produces that trick from his sleeve as if it is really the joker. Your Lordships should note that when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, was moving his Amendment at an earlier stage he did exactly the same, not to the Industrial Charter but to the Standing Orders of the Labour party.
So this is now like a Chinese football team, they change sides at half-time. In other words, we are engaged in a piece of political jiggery-pokery, a piece of expediency. But what are we playing with? We are playing with a stick of dynamite. We are playing with the liberty of the subject, the freedom of the individual in an area of the mind, of the spirit. My objection to this Bill concerns the Minister. I have said before that even if the Minister were someone as noble as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham—and I cannot say more than that—I would still object. The Minister could be drawn from the heavenly host and I would still object. Parliament and Ministers should keep out of this field.
930
I believe in the closed shop. This divides me from almost every noble Lord on the other side of the House, although I do not believe that in principle it divides me from the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. I believe in the closed shop on one condition—that there shall be no oppression of the individual, which means that the relations in a particular industry shall be arrived at from negotiation between employers on the one side and employees on the other. I do not want a scabs charter, a method whereby individuals can bring pressure for personal advantage. I believe in orderly plants. I believe in the closed shop as a safeguard for both employers and employees, but on that condition.
Let me move on to the charter itself. What I will not have at any price is that a decision about the freedom of the Press, or any other freedom for that matter, shall rest in the hands of any Minister. That is not where personal freedom should reside. If it does so a time will come, not within the Labour Administration, not when the Minister of Employment is anyone as liberal as my friend Michael Foot, but when somebody else has control. That is what we are deciding today. I say with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton—he is the chairman of the Commission—that that is not an accident if the Press, our free Press, are to be believed; it may even be a certain amount of inspiration. On the other hand, it may be a little bit of guidance. We are to receive a recommendation that public money is going to be given to political Parties. I am utterly opposed to that too.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: Good!
Lord WIGG: My vote will go with my voice. I believe in free institutions. The political progress which has been made in my lifetime, the improvement in the conditions of the class into which I was born and to which I am proud to belong, has come about because of the existence of those free institutions. If those institutions are not operating this is no place for me. I joined the Labour Party over 50 years ago, and I am a paid-up member. Unlike a considerable number of other people I did not wait to join the Labour Party until I became ennobled.

931
All my life I have stood and fought for it, and I am fighting for the same things now as I fought for when I was a small boy. That is why, even if mine is the only vote, I will divide the House this afternoon.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, if for no other reason than the revelations on the television programme introduced about a month ago by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont (who is not here today) and which some of your Lordships may have seen. If you did so you will surely have been startled by the interview granted to a prominent member—I do not for one moment say a typical member—of the National Union of Journalists, in which this member gave as his opinion that the Army and the police force in this country ought to be abolished and replaced by a "workers' militia". My Lords, do we really want to entrust the future of minority unions and, even more important, the future of the freedom of the Press in this country to such people? We know (do we not?) that the influence of extreme Leftists in unions is out of all proportion to their actual numbers. If we vote to delete this clause today it will prevent the public from having reassuring wool pulled over their eyes, and give public opinion time to mobilise—as it assuredly will—in favour of the protection of minority unions and in favour of the freedom of the Press. My Lords, I hope your Lordships will in large numbers follow the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, into the Division Lobbies.
4.18 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, if I should prove inaudible or unintelligible, probably both. I hope the House will forgive me because I am in the middle of a bout of 'flu which, like humbug, may be said to be pervasive. I almost feel in an arbitral position in this debate because my attitude to the charter in its present mutilated form is exactly like the Scots deserter described the holy water on Mount Athos, "I will do you no harm; it will do you no good", so that I can observe this debate which has moved occasionally from irrelevance to acrimony with a certain degree of detachment. But I cannot fail to feel the cockles of my heart
932
warmed by the tribute paid to me by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, and respond to it in the like spirit in which it was offered. He asked for a free vote. So far as the Conservatives are concerned he shall have one.
There is relatively little that I wanted to add but there are one or two points which I think the House should gather up. In the first place I think that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, is under a misapprehension about one constitutional point—if I am wrong about this I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will correct me as he is in a position to do. It is of course true that with the conscience Amendment which we discussed on Committee the House of Commons will have an opportunity of seeing this delightful piece of legislation once more but it will not, with respect, have an opportunity of reconsidering this suggested Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, I think is mistaken in that. If we were to reject it it could not put it back in, and if we were to pass it it would not have it back to keep it, so that it cannot have it again on this Amendment. Let us be quite clear about that.
Secondly, on the constitutional point, I do not think that any constitutional issue between the two Houses either can or does arise in any way over this particular issue because, as the noble Leader of the House correctly said, the Parliament Act involved the Government in producing for Second Reading in another place a Bill which was (except for Amendments which had been agreed) identical with that produced for the first time for Second Reading during the Session before. As no Amendment to this effect had been agreed, it had to take the form of a suggested Amendment, which is what the Parliament Act provides for if the House of Commons wants to invoke its procedure and at the same time put forward a possible modification. So we are perfectly free either to accept this Amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, or to reject it. Perhaps I might just say in passing that I must congratulate my noble friend Lord Hartwell on one of the shortest, most concise and pertinent maiden speeches I have ever heard. I should like to say at once to him, as an old and valued personal friend, that I hope the congratulations he will receive,

933
should he repeat his breach of virginity on another occasion, will be as warm as my feelings for him have always been.
This Amendment would remove any possibility of a charter finding its place in this legislation. It was originally inserted as a concession to the Press and to those who had doubts about this Bill, at the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. If the Press do not want it—and the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has said that he does not want it—I cannot see why anyone should cling to it with such enthusiasm as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has done. On the other hand, if one feels as much confidence as the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, feels that without the assistance (benign or otherwise) of Mr. Foot, he could come to a perfectly good agreement on behalf of the publishers with the other elements in the industry, I cannot see why he should object to it, because Mr. Foot will not come into it at all. However, the Press do not want it and they say it is a menace; and all I would say plainly at this point is that so far as we on these Benches are concerned we feel that noble Lords should vote as they please.
4.24 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, it is good to hear that the freedom to vote is still being maintained on this side of the Chamber and, from what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, it is clear that he is retaining the right for himself on the other side of the Chamber. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, referred to my comment that what was asked for last time by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, was modest. Indeed it was certainly very modest, and it is because that modest request has not been granted that it makes me think that we really have to look rather deeper than the usual excellent speech by the noble Lord the Leader of the House would otherwise have caused us to do.
We have tried all sorts of ways of putting teeth into this Bill in order to preserve the freedom of the Press. No one has tried harder than my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham to get a conscience clause and other statutory things inserted where we could be certain that this would not be handing over power to a certain section of people—, in this case the National Union of
934
Journalists—who had not really exhibited the responsibility that ought to go with such power. If the Minister has power to prepare the code in the absence of agreement, to accept as a last move—as the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, did—that he would negotiate a settlement in so far as he had any power with the people whom he represents was really modest. I could not understand it when it was not accepted. I think that from the Government's point of view it would have shown that they were not being "hard liners" on this for reasons which I, at any rate, do not understand.
I believe that if we have put in that the code can be prepared by the Minister, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, has referred to, this is bound to strengthen one side or the other in the negotiations and encourage them to be more intransigent than they would have been if they knew that such an alternative was not there. I am convinced in my own mind that the proprietors or the publishers on the one hand would not really have confidence if a Minister who has been so firm on this so far was the one who had the power to decide what the ultimate code would be. I am equally certain that if there was a change of Government and another Minister was given this power, the National Union of Journalists would not accept from a Party they would say were responsible for the Industrial Relations Act their power to prepare the code. I am convinced that if the Minister is given this ultimate power to prepare the code in the absence of agreement, it is a certain way of saying," You won't get that agreement". Therefore, if we want them to negotiate a code I believe it would be right to accept this modest request which was made last time to have the power of the Minister withdrawn from it.
That apparently is not acceptable and will not be agreed. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, now wants to remove the whole of the subsection which would have the effect, as I understand it from my noble and learned friend, that the code would not then be included in the Bill. I wonder whether that would matter, because, for instance, that may well meet the doubts which were voiced by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, who said, as, I understood him, that he was rather

935
inclined not to push this to a vote because at the end of the day this House would have the power of veto, that that would give him a feeling of contentment and that he would let it go without pressing the matter. But if the code is not included and if, because the power of the Minister is not included, you are more likely to get an agreement which is acceptable to both sides, I would suggest that it would be a good thing for the code to be wholly excluded. This Chamber would still have the power quite separately and with the separate powers of Parliament if they considered that one side or the other, in negotiating about the code, was being unnecessarily difficult. Parliament could then come in and this Chamber could play its part in deciding, in the light of the intransigence of one side or the other, that a certain power should be given to some Minister, with specific instructions as to how he should act. I believe that if we want a code at all which is negotiated and acceptable to both sides, you are more likely to get this if the power of the Minister is removed. If the code is not included in the Bill at all and if negotiations to reach some sensible agreement as to how both sides may operate together cannot be undertaken, then Parliament at a later stage, after the 12 months' delay referred to by the noble Lord the Leader of the House, has shown that this matter ought to be settled.
A modest request was made last time. It was turned down; and this makes me very doubtful indeed that those who think as I do ought to play any part at all in giving this Bill at any rate the power of having had the support of this House. If this Bill as it now stands becomes law, it ought to become so by means of the Parliament Act. Let the Government, who are obviously very satisfied with their right, bear the full responsibility for having done it. With all the concessions —and there have not been many—that are supposed to have been made, I do not think that Members of Parliament, whether it be the Liberals, those on the Cross-Benches or those on this side of the House, ought to be a party, by their silence, to putting on the Statute Book something which would be likely to interfere with the freedom of the Press.
I was very interested in the very brief intervention of the noble Lord, Lord
936
Bradwell, who gave a very clear indication of how he feels. He said that the only union is the National Union of Journalists, and the other is of no consequence; it is some cooked-up company that is not really representative. The 3,000 members of the Institute do not think that. If we are to have people who have made up their minds in advance that the only group of men under a union banner who ought to have anything to say are the National Union of Journalists, then we ought to take into account what one of the leaders of that Union said on television. It is for all those reasons and risks, and because the Government did not accept this final, very modest request as regards eliminating the Minisster from preparing this code, that I shall use my free vote to support the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, if he pushes his Amendment to a Division.
4.32 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, for the first time this afternoon in the course of this dreary debate I learned the reason why my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby was inspired to inject into this proposed legislation what is called the charter. He was inspired by the Industrial Relations Bill which became an Act with all its dire consequences with which we are by now familiar, by the proposition which was accepted and, indeed, forced upon us by the majority of your Lordships' House; namely, the code of practice. But the code of practice contained many conditions and stipulations. Members of your Lordships' House who were present during the debates on that piece of legislation will recall the contention that occurred as a result of the propositions made by the Government of the day. Therefore, I cannot for the life of me understand why my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby objects to the injection of stipulations and conditions in this legislation, however objectionable.
I have come to a definite conclusion, like my noble friend Lord Wigg, though not necessarily of the same nature. We should say to the Publishers' Association or the Newspapers' Association—whatever appellation or definition they require in order to be identified—and to those whom they employ, whether editors, sub-editors or just plain common or garden journalists, "Get together and settle this

937
business for yourselves." Let us have no legislation of any kind.
We have heard a great deal this afternoon about the subject of the freedom of the Press. If anybody has suffered at the hands or the pens of the Press, I certainly have in my time; but not necessarily from editors or even sub-editors or those who have been permitted to make occasional contributions to the Press. I have suffered, as indeed have many of my colleagues on this side of the House, and those who are not on this side of the House but who would like to be and may come to this side after the next General Election. We have suffered at the hands not of those whom I have described, but at the hands and the pens of the ordinary common or garden journalists.
When my noble friend Lord Brad well attacked the Daily Telegraph because it is a victim of the advertising media, I thought he went a little too far. I myself have objections to the Daily Telegraph, although I buy it and read it every day. My reason for buying it is that whenever I feel a measure of dissatisfaction with the Labour Party, I read the Daily Telegraph and I am immediately consoled. It has nothing to do with the advertisers. I do not believe for a moment that Sir William Deedes, who is an old colleague of ours in another place, would so demean himself as to allow himself to be influenced exclusively and wholly by the possibility of obtaining additional advertisements in order to boost the revenue of the company which owns the Daily Telegraph. I do not believe a word of it.
Let us not brag about the ordinary common or garden journalists. Indeed, I remember when my noble friend adopted the cognomen of William Hickey it was not at all discriminating. I was at the time regarded as something of a moderate, and was the victim of criticism —that is a mild term for it—by journalists who did not always write under their own names. No, my Lords; let us not brag about either the freedom of the Press or, in particular, the dignity, honour, compassion or impartiality of the common or garden journalists. In the main, they write as it pleases them. Anyhow, I do not believe for a moment that every editor issues instructions at the daily conference to those who surround him around 12 o'clock—always before lunch
938
—as to what they must write. They write, very often, as it pleases them. Indeed, that is what we mean by the "freedom of the Press". All these attacks on this newspaper or that leave me quite cold. My withers are unwrung. I ask your Lordships to excuse the cliché.
I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, a man of high intellectual stature, and I can understand that he wishes Members of your Lordships' House to come to the aid of the journalists and rehabilitate them in the arena of freedom. I would agree with him wholly, and without any reservation whatever, that every editor of any newspaper or periodical in the United Kingdom should have an exclusive right to write as he pleases and to run it as he pleases. That is what I understand by the "freedom of the Press". I would never seek to impede an editor in any fashion, because that would be all wrong. Of course, we very often do not like what we read in the leading articles. For example, sometimes in The Times newspaper there are leading articles which are difficult to understand and apprehend. Nevertheless, we are afforded something in the nature of information which otherwise we should be unable to obtain, so the less we say about the newspapers and the less we indulge in derogatory language about them the better it is going to be.
Therefore, my advice to your Lordships' House, if I have any influence at all—perhaps not on this side of the House but it may be on the other side—is to take the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, in perhaps the most intelligent speech that has been made, apart from the remarkable and brief speech that was made by the noble Lord opposite, for he said to us, "If you are going to have a charter you must put into it something sensible; you must have safeguards in it". In effect, what he said was, "Do not bother about a charter at all". I understand that as nothing but latitude. Leave it to those who are the employers and those who are the employees to come together and argue it out on the shop floor, or wherever it may be: for instance, in the chapels to which reference has been made by my noble friend who is sitting beside me on these Benches.

939
Therefore, my advice is, reject the whole thing: reject the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman; reject the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wigg; reject every other kind of Amendment. That is what I would ask your Lordships' House to do. As for leaving the power to exercise judgment in matters concerning the Press to a Minister of State, there is not a single Minister either in this Government or in any Government with which I have ever had any connection—not even myself—whom I would trust to exercise a determination as to what should appear in the newspapers of this country. Why do we assume that a Minister of State is of such intellectual quality as to be able to determine what should appear in the newspapers, what should be written, what should be exorcised? Of course not. Therefore, my advice is: let us finish with it. For Heaven's sake! I beg your Lordships not to let this creature come back again to your Lordships' House. Let us cut its throat and be done with it.
Lord WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I recognised just now in the noble Lord the Leader of the House the unmistakable restiveness which comes over a Leader when he senses that a decision ought to be reached. We are getting towards the end of this debate. How the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, intends to vote after that speech is something to which we shall all look forward with great interest.
I will be brief. I have attended most of the debates on this matter, although it is only the second time in the last year that I have spoken in the debate. Having listened to the conflicting arguments which have been put forward—all of them honestly and sincerely held—I might say that allegations of humbug do nothing to elevate the debate and do not further it at all. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, is patently sincere and certainly has worked just as hard to reach agreement as the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. In listening to the arguments I think that on an issue of this kind we should be guided in making our final judgment—and I hope it is a final judgment on the charter—by instinct as well as by reason. When I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and what he had to say in moving his Amendment this
940
afternoon, I believe we were listening to the authentic tones of individual freedom. It sounds a rather ponderous thing to say, but I think it is true. That a speech of this kind can be made from the Cross-Benches, free from Party political pressures, whatever other pressures bear on the noble Lord, is just one more example of the value of the Cross-Benches in this House.
As the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, reminded us, the issue before us is one of principle. It is, in brief, industrial regulation against liberty of expression. I am not a believer in codes, in rules, in charters. I am not convincd that once they come into effect they always influence behaviour in the way the framers intended. The only reason for having charters or codes written into legislation is if they contain redress. If someone is wronged, if he seeks a remedy, he can only obtain it by Act of Parliament. Therefore, I am with the noble Lord, Lord Wigg. It is not all that often that we agree, but I am with the noble Lord in concluding that this is a field which Governments and Ministers would do better to keep out of. However well-intentioned interventions by Ministers may be, in the end I believe that they are likely to lead to a diminution of individual freedom, rather than to any increase in freedom of expression.
The decision whether or not to press this Amendment to a Division is for the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. He has heard how the debate has gone. He has heard the arguments raised from either side of the Chamber. I can only say for myself that if he decides to divide the House, I shall vote with him.
Lord HANKEY: My Lords, may I say one more word from the Cross-Benches because I am not quite sure that the issues have been put squarely to your Lordships. In actual fact, this is not a question whether the Government shall be enabled to make some arrangement which might undermine Press freedom. The question is whether, by the operation of the closed shop, editors and other journalists may or may not need protection in order to assure Press freedom. I agree with what has been said. There has to be an arbiter if there cannot be agreement. I was very encouraged by what was said by the noble

941
Lord, Lord Goodman, who believes that the possibilities of agreement have been increasing in recent months. That is very good and I hope that there will be agreement. If there is, there is less reason to fear that this arrangement will lead to general Government intervention. However, I have lived too long in countries where the Press is controlled by one means or another not to see the very great danger in front of us if the arrangements we are now making get queered. Do not forget that the Bill which is now about to pass your Lordships' House—over our dead bodies, if I may say so—
Lord HOY: Speak for yourself!
Lord HANKEY: —is going to abolish the provision which protected workers against arbitrary or unreasonable exclusion from trade unions. When you apply this very new position to the Press, it has rather sinister possibilities. I remember talking to a very high official behind the Curtain with whom I had made friends. He was complaining very much about the Government he had to serve. I said to him: "But look here. After all, you have got a motor car, you are well dressed, you have got a flat, you feed well. What do you complain of?" He said: "My dear friend, the fish does not realise what the water is until he comes out of it, and one does not realise until one comes away from a country where there is freedom of thought what a terrible thing the absence of it is. You cannot imagine what it is like to be deprived of that kind of water".
I believe it is important that, having gone so far, we should accept this arrangement about a charter. It is not going to be imposed. It is an encouragement to the industry to arrange a charter for itself. If they do not reach agreement —although I hope from what the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has said, that they will—then as serious men we ought to think about whether or not there should be an arbiter. I do not see who it can be, except the Secretary of State. As it is the same Secretary of State who has made us pass this Bill abolishing the provisions against unreasonable and arbitrary exclusion, I do not feel all that confident, any more than does the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. But the charter is better than a poke in the eye with a blunt stick, and
942
I recommend that we should not vote for the Amendment.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, was right. As an ex-Leader of the House, he recognises that Leaders need to take into account what may be the feelings of the House. I think we have had a good debate. We have debated this subject on many occasions. It may be that the House would wish to come to a decision on the matter very quickly.
My Lords, by leave of the House, may I say one thing about the constitutional situation. If your Lordships were to accept the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, then that would be the finish as far as concerns any provisions for the Press in this piece of legislation. If, however, your Lordships were to reject the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and this Bill were to go back to another place with the provisions which we put in during Committee, then, of course, another place will have to consider the Bill, because the Bill is then proceeding along its normal constitutional course. I do not know what another place would do. They might seek, in the light of the debate here, to see whether there is any point in what was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. I would not want to mislead him by saying that I would have thought there would be a change.
Listening to the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Wigg and Lord Windlesham, I can only reflect that if they had spoken with that same degree of clarity on earlier occasions during the previous Session, we should not have a charter involving the Secretary of State. If a decision had been taken then, a great deal of time would have been saved. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, voted for the inclusion in one shape, form or another, of the role of the Secretary of State. I have no doubt at all that if the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, had attended any of the previous debates and had voted with the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, he would have voted for the inclusion of the Secretary of State. Noble Lords did it knowingly. There is no question about that; it was not hidden. So your Lordships voted that way, and therefore it seems to me strange that at this

943
very last moment this is raised as a great issue upon which the freedom of the Press depends. I feel that a very large red herring has been drawn across this matter today.
I hope that the House will agree that the Bill should remain as it is; that we should not accept the view of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. Great efforts have been sincerely made; major concessions, meeting many of the fears he has expressed, have been made to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, which, on earlier occasions, he has been quite free in acknowledging. A great deal of work has been undertaken, not only in this House but in another place. To use the phrase of the noble and learned Lord, it is there; let us try it: no harm will come of it. It may well be that it is the basis upon which both sides can negotiate out of a very difficult situation that may confront them as a consequence of the general provisions of this legislation. I should be much happier if these provisions were in the Bill than if we were to pass this Bill with no such provision, considering all the fears that have been generally expressed in the past. I think that would be a very grave error indeed.
The Earl of PERTH: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I interrupt to ask him one question? At the end of his speech, the noble Lord said that it would be a grave error if the Bill was not passed in its present form. But what happens if the clauses which constitute the charter are withdrawn under the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and the Bill stands without the charter? What happens if there can be no agreement between the publishers and the unions?
Lord SHEPHERD: Nothing, my Lords; and all the fears expressed in the past would be there before us.
The Earl of PERTH: My Lords, I am sorry, but that does not help me. The noble Lord says, "Nothing ". But what happens?
Several Noble Lords: Nothing!
The Earl of PERTH: My Lords, if there is disagreement between the publishers and the unions, what is the situation? Is there a strike?
Several Noble Lords: Yes.
The Earl of PERTH: The thing is as now.
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, if I may come in here, the situation is as it was before 1970. May I venture to reply to the question asked by the noble Earl, Lorth Perth? What happens is what happens now. The newspaper continues to be produced with difficulties, with travail, sometimes joyously, sometimes tragically, but produced without the benevolent assistance of any charters imposed by the Secretary of State. If I may say so, that is infinitely preferable to the charter we might have which will set us on quite different courses, as determined by a Minister of the Crown and as regulated by Parliament. I have already made the point, but I make it again, that there is no civilised country that I know of that has its Press regulated by a Minister and by its Legislature. It will be a sad day indeed if we decide to make that innovation.
My Lords, if I may say so without being patronising, we have had a most interesting debate. I feel I am obliged to divide the House if only to ascertain the manner in which the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, will cast his vote! I have had a good measure of support. I have had the slight travail and the infinite boon over many years of the support of the noble Lord, Lord Wigg. I often think his support is akin to that given by the late Prince Rupert in the days of the Cavaliers. He gallops boldly, and with immense courage, on to the field; he faces the enemy more resolutely and does more damage to them with little equivalent damage to his own side, and then disappears from view. But at the end of the day, he is on your side. I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, for so stoutly having made the one point with which I am concerned. We do not want Ministerial intervention in relation to the conduct of the Press.
I have no other point to make. I am told that this is inconsistency on my part, and that hitherto I had accepted this. But that is not the least of the case. We accepted that, as a matter of conciliation and compromise, we would allow a charter in which passing, nodding reference was made to the Secretary of State, provided there was close and precise

945
regulation of what he could do. That is so divergent from this situation as not to bear the slightest resemblance. It is not on that account that I claim to be wholly acquitted from any impeachment of inconsistency. There is no inconsistency in my attitude, and there is an immense chasm between that situation and that which we are asked to accept at present.
Your Lordships have listened with great patience to what I regard as an important debate, and I make no apology for having again taken up the time of your Lordships. I have decided, in view of the expressions of support I have

CONTENTS

Astor of Hever, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Auckland, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Sackville, L.

Balniel, L.

Hartwell, L.

St. Davids, V.

Bessborough, E.

Henley, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Bethell, L.

Inglewood, L.

Sandford, L.

Birdwood, L.

Killearn, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Bolton, L.

Kilmany, L.

Sharples, B.

Boothby, L.

Kissin, L.

Stamp, L.

Cathcart, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Strange, L.

Chelwood, L.

Lloyd, L.

Strathspey, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Swansea, L.

Davidson, V.

Lyell, L.

Tenby, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mancroft, L.

Terrington, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Margadale, L.

Teviot, L.

Elles, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Thomas, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Merrivale, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Erskine of Rerrick, L.

Mersey, V.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Falkland, V.

Monson, L.

Vernon, L.

Gainford, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Vickers, B.

George-Brown, L.

Newall, L.

Vivian, L.

Glasgow, E.

Northchurch, B.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Goodman, L. [Teller.]

Ogmore, L.

Wigg, L.[Teller.]

Gowrie, E.

Perth, E.

Windlesham, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Porritt, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Collison, L,

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Amulree, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Helsby, L.

Ardwick, L.

Crook, L.

Henderson, L.

Arwyn, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Hood, V.

Aylestone, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L..

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Hov, L.

Balogh, L.

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

Hughes, L.

Banks, L.

Diamond, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Beswick, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Jacobson, L.

Birk, B.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Jacaues, L.

Blyton, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Janner, L.

Bradwell, L.

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

Kirkhill, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Leatherland, L.

Brockway, L.

Fulton, L.

Lee of Asheridge, B.

Brown, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Lee of Newton, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Gardiner, L.

Llewelyn-Davies, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Geddes, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]

Burntwood, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Byers, L.

Gregson, L.

Loudoun, C.

Castle, L.

Grey of Naunton, L.

Lyons of Brighton, L.

Cawley, L.

Hale, L.

Lytton, E.

Champion, L.

Hamnett, L.

McLeavy, L.

Chorley, L.

Hankey, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Clwyd, L.

Hanworth, V.

Maelor, L.

received, that whatever the result of the Division—whether we be defeated, even ignominiously defeated—it would be wrong not to demonstrate in the proper Parliamentary way that there are a few of us, and I hope more than a few, who view this proposal with repugnance. The way to express that repugnance, if I may venture to say so, is by accompanying me into the Division Lobby.
4.59 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 71; Not-Contents, 109.

Maybray-King, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B

Melchett, L.

Platt, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Popplewell, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Strang, L.

McCarthy, L

Roberthall, L.

Summerskill, B.

Oram, L.

Rochester, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Rusholme, L.

Wade, L.

Pannell, L.

Seear, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Pargiter, L.

Segal, L.

White, B.

Parry, L.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Winterbottom, L.

Peddie, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Phillips, B.

Slater, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

CITY OF ABERDEEN DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
5.7 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be now considered on Report—(Lord Kirkhill.)
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, this Bill has one or two unusual features; it calls for some comment and it also prompts some questions. I have, therefore, given the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, notice that I would raise one or two points. He himself was for four years Lord Provost of the City of Aberdeen, and, if I may say so respectfully, personally gave the city distinguished service during that time.
The Bill deals with two subjects which are not obviously connected. The first concerns licensing for sale of liquor on local authority premises, and the second is the seizing of stray dogs. Although technically this is not a Hybrid Bill, I think it might be called a mongrel. The matter to which I must draw your Lordships' attention is licensing. The Bill seeks for the Aberdeen District Council special powers beyond the general powers in legislation, and would enable this particular local authority to serve liquor on certain named premises. The Bill anticipates legislation to cover all other Scottish local authorities regarding liquor licensing. The Bill to do this has been promised in the Queen's Speech for this Session, and we understand that it is to be introduced in a few weeks' time.
The matter which is raised in this Aberdeen Bill is likely to be contentious
948
when the Government's Bill comes before us. This Private Bill was originally an Aberdeen Corporation Provisional Order, and under the Scottish procedure for private legislation two Petitioners objected. They are the British Hotels, Restaurant and Caterers Association and the Scottish Licensed Trade Association. As a result four Commissioners were appointed, including my noble friends Lord Balfour and Lord Gainford. After a public inquiry in Edinburgh in November, the Commissioners recommended modifications to the Bill, which I understand have all been included; in particular, that at two of the premises there should be restaurant licences only.
A significant event during the inquiry was that the Commissioners heard evidence from a Scottish Office official that the Secretary of State for Scotland intended to legislate in the sense of the Aberdeen District's proposals. This was because paragraph 100 of the Clayson Committee's recommendations recommended that local authorities should have greater powers of discretion to sell liquor where this was ancillary to the provision by them of social, cultural or recreational facilities. I would remind your Lordships that the Clayson Committee —which I set up myself when I was Secretary of State for Scotland and which reported to me—is the equivalent of the Erroll Committee in England and Wales.
The Commissioners were clearly concerned to obtain such a statement of the Government's intention, and that was no doubt why they asked for the evidence to be given orally to them by the Scottish Office official. Although everybody recognises that Parliament can amend, or decide differently, when a Government Bill is put before Parliament, none the less the Commissioners were concerned to obtain such a statement about the Government's intention. I should like to ask the Minister whether he will confirm that it is the Government's view that they

949
will legislate in accordance with recommendation No. 100 of the Clayson Committee's Report, because it is also clear that consultations have been, and are still, proceeding with those concerned outside Parliament in the formulation of the Bill. It was made clear that it was the Secretary of State's intention, but that he was none the less involved in consultations which might affect his final draft for the Bill.
The Commissioners have done the work for us at their inquiry, and we are grateful to them. I would not wish in the present case to dissent from their recommendations. There are special circumstances in the case of Aberdeen. The City Corporation suddenly had to acquire His Majesty's Theatre at short notice, otherwise that theatre would not have been able to continue as a theatre. I am sure that a large majority of people in the North of Scotland would agree that it was right that the theatre should have been saved as a theatre. It makes a great contribution in the cultural and dramatic field in that area. In order to own and run the theatre it was necessary to be able to operate a bar and have a licence for it. I do not think that there is argument about that. I do not think that the objectors have objections against a licence for the theatre in those conditions. But what the Aberdeen District Council decided to do was to add some other premises (which are named in the Bill) to the order arising from the situation which the theatre had created. The issue is really around the other premises which have been added.
The theatre situation has led to an anomaly. That is that this Bill is coming before us a few weeks before the general measure in which the Government are proposing to give similar powers to local authorities in Scotland as a whole. The City of Dundee were thinking of taking similar action but recently they decided not to proceed with private legislation—no doubt one consideration was the cost to their ratepayers when they knew, because of the Queen's Speech, that a general measure was shortly to come before Parliament.
I should therefore point out—and the Government may care to comment on this—that it is possible that Aberdeen could be in this anomalous position, if
950
Parliament were to decide not to support the Secretary of State's proposals in this matter and do something different. I would reiterate that there is no dispute about the theatre, but objectors would feel that powers have been granted for other premises in Aberdeen on the understanding that such powers were about to be extended also to all other Scottish local authorities and, in the event, that had not happened. In considering this Bill today, therefore, I think that we should beware of its possible repercussions.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I should like to come in briefly to support what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has said on this matter. I am aware of the fact that there are other local authorities in Scotland who would wish to have powers along these lines and who, in one case at least, I think I have persuaded not to take action until they saw what happened under the Government's proposals. This is the East Kilbride District Council. Naturally they do not want to spend the ratepayers' money in proposing private legislation if the Government are going to do the job for them.
I am not opposing these proposals for Aberdeen. I just want to express the view that if the Government legislation does not come forward, or does not in fact get on to the Statute Book, Parliament will have created in Aberdeen a precedent which it will be difficult to prevent other district councils from seeking to follow. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend Lord Kirkhill is able to give a pretty firm assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, that the Government are to proceed with the legislation as soon as possible in this Session.
5.17 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I think that it would be helpful to your Lordships if I were to sketch in quite briefly the background to this Bill, and I hope at the same time to assure the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and my noble friend Lord Hughes that there is a unique situation as befalls the City of Aberdeen District Council. Briefly, the City of Aberdeen District Council are promoting this order which will give the council power to apply for a certificate for the

951
sale of excisable liquor in the "council refreshment rooms". "Council refreshment rooms" are defined as the Beach Ball Room and Restaurant, the Aberdeen Arts Centre, the restaurants belonging to the Council at Duthie Park and Hazel-head Park, and His Majesty's Theatre, Aberdeen.
It had been the intention of the previous authority—the Aberdeen City Corporation—to promote just such an order as this, but it would not at that time (and I talk now of about four years ago) have included His Majesty's Theatre because at that time the theatre was not in the ownership of the then local authority. However, it was decided then that the time was not propitious to move towards such an order. In the intervening years, and very suddenly, the question arose that either the local authority, the then Aberdeen City Corporation, purchased His Majesty's Theatre or the theatre was to be disposed of privately for other use. Quickly the local authority, at significant cost to itself, purchased His Majesty's Theatre, and then equally quickly found that it had a major problem; that is to say, that the previous owner was the licensee and that a No. 1 touring theatre, such as His Majesty's Theatre. Aberdeen, undoubtedly is, could not survive without adequate bar facilities. This obviously led to the promotion of the order before your Lordships' House this afternoon.
As Lord Campbell rightly said, the Clayson Committee, which sat to consider our special Scottish licensing law, recommended in its Report published in August 1973 that Section 132(11) of the Local Government Act 1948—now Section 91(6) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973—should be repealed, thus making it possible for local authorities to supply excisable liquor where it would be ancillary to their provision of social, cultural or recreational facilities. On28th October 1975 my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland announced that he proposed to reform the licensing law of Scotland; it is his intention that the legislation should include a provision implementing this Clayson Committee recommendation.
Under the present law in order to make it possible for a licence to be obtained for local authority premises it is necessary to promote a provisional order exempting
952
the premises from Section 91(6), which of course is what Aberdeen is presently doing. Such a step is precedented and I give noble Lords the example of the Kings Theatre, Edinburgh. The fact that the Secretary of State is contemplating general legislation does not alter this position and in my view there is no improper anticipation of general legislation in Aberdeen's promoting of this order.
It is reasonable to say that the preparation of the Aberdeen order was proceeding at the same time as Ministers were reaching decisions on the Clayson Report. As Lord Campbell rightly said, the proposals were objected to, thus bringing the matter to inquiry by Parliamentary Commissioners. With the agreement of Ministers, the Scottish Office submitted observations at the inquiry on 4th November 1975; these were submitted to the Commissioners appointed to conduct the inquiry. No comment was made on whether liquor should be sold or supplied in the particular cases which were the subject of the order, it being for the Promoters to make their case to the Commissioners. As a result of the inquiry, the Commissioners recommended that the order should be made subject to the modification that certificates granted in respect of the restaurants at Duthie Park and Hazelhead Park should be restricted to restaurant certificates; the order contains these restrictions.
To sum up, there are precedents for orders of this kind and, in my view, the promotion of this order is not an improper anticipation of the Clayson Committee recommendations. It is clear that the Promoters have made their case for the proposals to the Parliamentary Commissioners and that it has been accepted by the Commissioners subject to the modifications to which I referred. I appreciate that Lord Campbell and Lord Hughes referred to what could be an anomalous position if this Order were approved and, subsequently, Parliament did not sustain the view that the section to which I referred should be repealed. An anomalous situation would certainly occur in those circumstances, but I believe that a majority in Parliament will support this particular appeal as recommended in the Clayson recommendations.
Perhaps I might end these brief remarks with a personal word. I was very conscious during my time as Lord Provost

953
of Aberdeen how vital His Majesty's Theatre was to the social and cultural life of the whole of the North of Scotland. It really is because the theatre was suddenly found to be in the possession of the local authority and equally suddenly found to be without real provision for a licence as a result of the change of ownership that initiative was given to the then Aberdeen Corporation, subsequently carried on by Aberdeen District Council, for the promotion of this Bill; and I thought that Lord Campbell was more than generous in his personal remarks about my tenure of office as Lord Provost.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I am sure that I speak for others in saying that I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving that account and, as I indicated at the outset of my remarks, he is on home ground having been Lord Provost up to last May. May I ask the noble Lord to answer the question I asked about the timing of the Bill. When is the Bill expected to be introduced into Parliament? There are rumours that it will reach us before Easter, but they are only rumours. Is it possible for him to say whether the Bill will come first to this House or to the other place?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I fear that I am unable to give a direct reply to those two questions. I can only say that the Bill will be before Parliament quite soon.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, as an Englishwoman, may I ask the Minister why it is called His Majesty's Theatre? Does it refer to a Scottish King, or do we have devolution already?
Lord KIRKHILL: The theatre was built in 1903, my Lords, in the reign of King Edward.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, would it not be quite unreasonable to expect an Aberdonian to go to the expense of changing the theatre's name every time there was a woman on the Throne?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I can certainly confirm what my noble friend Lord Hughes says; indeed, we do not even illuminate the place.

PREVENTION OF TERRORISM (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL
5.26 p.m.
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 Harris of Greenwich.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Earl CATHCART in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Orders excluding persons from Northern Ireland]:
On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand Part of the Bill?
Lord BELSTEAD: I rise to ask about the practical effect of this clause. On Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, gave statistics of these people who had been excluded from Great Britain under Clause 4 since the Act was passed 15 months ago. Clause 5 now provides for exclusion orders from Northern Ireland. This is a new clause which has been moved into the measure by the Government in another place and is as yet totally untried.
On 1st February at a rally in Londonderry, Rory O'Brady of Sinn Fein is reported to have called for no partnership and no reconcilliation in Northern Ireland under British rule. Today the Northern Ireland Convention is meeting for the last time with the hope, still faint but not yet extinguished, of achieving partnership and reconcilliation, precisely the two things that Mr. O'Brady crossed the Border to announce should not be achieved. It is significant that Provisional Sinn Fein is not at the Convention; Provisional Sinn Fein is not a Party, in that it has no elected representatives at the Convention. Mr. O'Brady therefore is one who represents nobody in Northern Ireland and whose Party represents nobody in Northern Ireland; he crosses the Border merely to make inflamatory and subversive speeches. I therefore ask the Government, on a matter about which many people including myself feel very deeply, if the House can be told whether the Home Secretary is now intending to

955
make an exclusion order under Clause 5 against Mr. O'Brady. If for any reason no such action is contemplated, may I ask under what other legislation threatening language of this sort is to be prevented?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: As the noble Lord has just pointed out, this is a new clause which was inserted during the Report stage in another place as a result of representations made by a number of the noble Lord's honourable friends. The Government took the view that it would be wise to amend the Bill in this respect. As the noble Lord will realise, I find it difficult to answer a precise question of the kind which he has just put to me because I should have to give long consideration before answering a question in relation to a named individual. Clearly, when the Secretary of State is armed with the power in question, it is quite likely that he may use it in appropriate cases. On the other hand, I hope that the noble Lord will recognise that it puts me in some difficulty if I begin to speculate about how a particular power should be used in relation to a particular individual. Nevertheless, the fact that the Government have thought it right to confer upon the Secretary of State—who, in this respect, would be the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—a power of the kind laid out in this clause, shows that there was some unease about the original Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. We have moved in this respect and I hope it will satisfy the noble Lord that the Government are seized of the importance of this power and will use it in appropriate cases.
Lord BELSTEAD: I should like to acknowledge the fact that the clause was put into the Bill as a result of suggestions which were made in another place. I omitted to acknowledge that and to say that I was grateful for it, as indeed I am. I deliberately brought up the point not only because I feel very strongly about it but also because a great deal was said in another place about its fulfilling what was called the "principle of reciprocity". That is not entirely so. In the present case—that is, the happening on 1st February in Londonderry—there is no question of reciprocity in Northern Ireland. It is a straight case of somebody
956
coming into Northern Ireland from a place other than Great Britain and acting in a way which should, in my opinion, be condemned. I certainly accept that the noble Lord cannot give a specific answer about a specific case, but I am glad to have had the opportunity of raising the subject under this clause.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
5.33 p.m.
Clause 7 [Right to make representations etc. to Secretary of State]:
Lord WIGODER Lord WIGODER moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 5, line 22, at end insert (" and
(c) include in those representations' a request that at the interview he may be accompanied by a legal adviser or other person.")
The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' leave, I shall speak at the same time to Amendment No. 2. The position is that Clause 7 is a new clause which gives a person who may be subject to the making of an exclusion order the right to be heard personally by one of the advisers. My concern is with the person who may be innocent of any offence, who may be wholly illiterate, who may perhaps be mentally unstable, and who may be totally incapable of presenting a proper case to the adviser. My concern is simply that he should be given such assistance as may be reasonable in the circumstances. All I have endeavoured to do in these two Amendments is to write into the Bill the effect of what was said by the Home Secretary on 28th January. He said:
"I would also be prepared to say that, when the adviser takes the view that it is reasonable in the circumstances, the person should be accompanied by someone, by a legal adviser or a friend or relation if that is thought appropriate. But I must hold the position that in certain cases which could be very difficult and sensitive the question must be whether the adviser, knowing what he has to deal with, thinks this is a reasonable procedure.…What I will say is that I am not prepared to accept a blanket provision that in all cases there is a right to legal representation. That moves towards a quasi-judicial procedure which this is not, should not be and in my view cannot be without undermining its whole purpose. What I am prepared to say and what I tried to say is that in many cases the adviser might be content that the person should be accompanied by someone else, whether a legal adviser, a friend or a

957
relation, according to the view of the individual and of the adviser. That would be reasonable in many cases, but I could not accept it as being a statutory right, because there might he cases in which it would be inappropriate."—[Official Report, Commons, 28/1/76; cols. 527 and 528.]
I have accepted at once, as I indicated on Second Reading, that the proceedings are proceedings of an executive and not of a judicial nature and I accept at the same time that there are many cases in which it will not be appropriate for a person against whom an exclusion order is sought to be represented or assisted because of security grounds. I have not tried to go any further in these Amendments than to make provision in the Bill for what the Home Secretary said was the existing practice. I have sought only to provide, first, that when a person who is subject to the making of an exclusion order applies for a personal interview under the existing clause he can at the same time, if he wishes, apply to be accompanied by a legal adviser or other person at the interview. Secondly, I have endeavoured to provide that, if a request of that nature is made, the adviser shall consider the matter and shall grant the request unless, in his absolute discretion —so there is no question of any appeal to the courts—he comes to the conclusion, having regard to all the circumstances, that it would be contrary to the public interest in the case in question.
It may be that the wording is not entirely apt. I need hardly say that I should be perfectly happy to accept an improved drafting in the hope that something can be produced which will go no farther than the words which the Minister accepted as the view of the Government on Second Reading. If it is asked why it is necessary to write this into a Bill rather than leave it as the existing practice, I venture to put forward two reasons. First, it is desirable that publicity should be given to the procedure and that it should be an official procedure so that it is known by everybody against whom an exclusion order is made. Secondly, it is always possible that there may be a change of Home Secretary or of adviser. I believe that it is desirable that, if there should be changes of that nature, the present practice should be given a statutory backing so that, subject to proper safeguards, it will become the
958
right of an individual in these circumstances to be assisted at an interview provided that the adviser agrees that it is reasonable in all the circumstances. I beg to move.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: I hope that the Government will not accept anything that weakens this Bill. I believe that the Amendment would do so. I am a lawyer myself. I believe that we have our function, but I certainly do not feel that the purpose of this Bill would be assisted by the presence of a lawyer. If one were to ask any police officer whether he was more likely to get the truth from an interview in which he had a man before him alone or one in which the man's hand was held by a lawyer, I have little doubt that that police officer would say that the chances of getting the truth were far better without the presence of a lawyer. We are not here considering cases in which guilt or innocence is in question.
It has often been said that it is better that 10 guilty men should go free than that one innocent man should be convicted. Should have thought that here almost the opposite ratio applied. People are entering the country with, and travelling about with, explosives which they intend to use, and which they do use, indiscriminately to kill and to maim people. It is far better that 10 people, who are quite innocent, should be excluded than that one man, with the intention which I have mentioned, should be admitted. I urge the Government to accept nothing at all that weakens their hands in this situation. Indeed, I can think of a great many things which I should like them to ask for which would strengthen their hands.
5.40 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: There is one point on which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and the Government are in complete agreement namely, that in certain circumstances—I repeat "certain circumstances"—a legal representative, or another person, may accompany the individual who is subject to an exclusion order. My right honourable friend said in another place what the noble Lord has quoted today, and I expressed the continuing support of the Government for that position when I

959
replied to the debate in this House on Second Reading. But there is a difference between the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and the Government on this matter, and I want to identify it at once. The difference is that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, wants to put this provision on the face of the Bill, while we do not. I shall seek to show why I think that it would be better to avoid having this provision written into the Bill.
It is true that in his Amendment the noble Lord has written in a qualification; namely, that the adviser could decide that it would be contrary to the public interest for a third party to be present. But we believe that this goes too far. It shifts—I was going to say subtly, but it might be rather more than subtly—on to the adviser the onus to state that it would be contrary to the public interest. Over a period of time Parliamentary Questions can be put down in either House. If it were shown, or could be shown, that one adviser had used this particular qualification and had consistently decided against having a third person present at the interview, it could well be argued that the adviser was flouting the intention of Parliament. This would be an extremely unfair and unjust charge to make against the noble Lord, Lord Alport, and Mr. Ronald Waterhouse, QC, who at the moment are undertaking the exceptionally difficult job of conducting interviews in these cases.
The Committee should be under no illusion that this is a difficult and, to some extent, a dangerous business. The information available to the authorities and to the adviser often comes from highly sensitive sources, and for this reason the job of the adviser is particularly difficult. I am bound to say that if a new and additional burden were to be imposed by Parliament at this stage, it would, in my judgment, be unreasonable. It is only right to say that because of the exclusion order process many dangerous men have been removed from this country. As a result of their removal, a number of our fellow citizens, who would otherwise be dead, are today alive. Although we are doing everything we possibly can to avoid injustice to any citizen, we should have no doubt that, as a result of the events of recent weeks, and indeed the events of
960
last night, we are still confronting a grave terrorist threat in this country. We must balance the interests of the person who is subject to an exclusion order with the wider public interest, to which my noble friend Lord Paget of Northampton has just referred.
I return to the point that I believe that, on the principle of the matter, there is not a great gulf between what the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has put forward today and what the Government intend. But, for reasons which I have tried to set out, we believe that it would be wrong to have an explicit reference to this assurance given in the Bill. I have no doubt that in appropriate cases the advisers would act on the basis of the assurance given by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
But I must put it to the Committee that there are certain circumstances in which, with a provision of this kind, the third party, who need not necessarily be a lawyer, and who might be nominated by the person subject to the exclusion order, might himself be well known to the authorities as an active sympathiser of the provisional IRA, albeit not himself a person who could be subject to the exclusion order process. That position would not be known to the wider public. It would not be known when Parliamentary criticism was voiced against an adviser for having possibly flouted the intention of Parliament by not agreeing in sufficient cases to a third party being present. In such circumstances, which as I have indicated are highly difficult matters for the adviser, it seems to me wrong to impose this additional burden upon him. For that reason I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, will decide not to press his Amendment this afternoon.
Lord BELSTEAD: I can well understand why the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, moved these Amendments. No one likes what is, in effect, an executive procedure. It is to the credit of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, that he has pointed out to us the drawbacks to this situation, and the possible way in which it could be cured. But I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has put the matter perfectly fairly. Bearing in mind what he said to the Committee about the undertaking of his right honourable friend that there may be cases where

961
legal representation would be possible, I should certainly be disposed to agree with what the Government have said.
When I saw the Amendments put down by the noble Lord, it occurred to me that it is worth bearing in mind the recommendation of over a year ago, of the Committee under the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, that if a detention advisory board had been set up, then appearances in front of that board should not be accompanied by legal representation. As your Lordships will remember, in the event there was no detention advisory board. There were to be single advisers, and, if I remember rightly, there was not to be a legal representation before them. In fact detention was discontinued.
Of course I fully realise that detention and exclusion orders are not at all the same thing. It seems to me that the onus of proof and the matters upon which the Secretary of State has to be satisfied in both procedures were not dissimilar. Unless one casts aside wholly the idea of an executive decision—something which none of us likes—I should have thought that a statutory right to legal representation is inappropriate.
After listening to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, it appears to me that the Government are being consistent. After all, this would be a statutory right, the very thing which the Home Secretary said in another place he felt he could not agree to. If the adviser were to take the proviso which the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has inserted in his second Amendment, to say in a certain case that it would not be in the public interest for a legal representative to accompany a person, then it would leave the adviser open to all kinds of conjecture.
We should also remember that here, as the noble Lord, Lord Paget of Northampton, said, we are not considering conviction. We are considering removing someone from a part of the United Kingdom. But this is absolutely essential for the security of the people of this country. If Parliament is in earnest, we must not weaken the Bill, and for those reasons I would not be able to vote for the Amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has put down.
5.49 p.m.
Lord WIGODER: First, I wish to answer the point made by the noble
962
Lord, Lord Paget of Northampton. There is certainly no intention on my part to weaken this clause or indeed any other clause in the Bill, which we on these Benches have always supported and, at times, sought to strengthen. I say with respect to the noble Lord that I doubt whether in relation to this clause the matter arises of any interrogation under which a legal adviser might interfere with the due processes of the questioning. The object of Clause 7 is that the person who is the subject of the making of an exclusion order can seek an interview with the adviser. The object is not that anybody should be interrogating him about anything. So I doubt very much whether the presence of a legal adviser or other person would in any way hamper the proceedings, and it might assist the person simply to be able to express his own point of view properly and freely on a matter which otherwise he may not find it easy to understand.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: Does the noble Lord suggest that, when this person against whom an order is being made, or has been made, goes before the Commissioner, the Commissioner does not ask him questions on his statement? If he does not ask him questions on his statement, what is the point of having an interview at all?
Lord WIGODER: I stand to be corrected by the noble Lord the Minister, but as I understand the object of this it is not that the adviser should ask the person about to be excluded questions at all: it is so that the adviser can explain the grounds of the exclusion order as fully as he can to the person being interviewed and the person being interviewed can put his own point of view and make his own representations. Although I have never been present at any such meeting, I feel tolerably confident that that is the case.
I have listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has had to say, and I accept that there is a case that can be made out for saying that it is better left in the realm of practice rather than being written into the Statute. On the intimation by the noble Lord that advisers will of course, and as a matter of routine, consider whether, in appropriate cases, a legal adviser or other person can be present, I believe that this difficulty will

963
be met. In those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Offences under Part II]:
5.51 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 6, line 11, leave out from beginning to ("shall") in line 33 and insert—
"

(1) If any person who is subject to an exclusion order fails to comply with the order at a time after he has been, or has become liable to be, removed under section 8 of this Act from Great Britain, Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom, as the case may be, he shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) If any person—

(a) is knowingly concerned in arrangements for securing or facilitating the entry into Great Britain, Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom of, or

(b) in Great Britain. Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom knowingly harbours,

a person whom he knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, to be a person who is subject to an exclusion order and who has been, or has become liable to be, removed from there under section 8 of this Act, he shall be guilty of an offence.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) or subsection (2) above,".

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is designed to clarify Clause 9 in two respects. First, the offence of failing to comply with an exclusion order is to arise only after a person has been removed, or has become liable to be removed, under Clause 8, rather than, as at present, at a time after he has been served with notice of the making of an exclusion order. Secondly, the Amendment simplifies and improves the provisions creating offences in relation to harbouring or facilitating the entry of persons subject to exclusion orders. I beg to move.
Lord BELSTEAD: I am grateful to the noble Lord for this Amendment, which meets particularly a point which was made on Report in another place. The point which was made is met particularly in subsection (1). I thank the noble Lord for this Government Amendment.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Contributions towards acts of terrorism]:
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7:
Page 6, line 41, leave out from beginning to ("shall")in line 7 on page 7 and insert—
("(1) If any person—

(a) solicits or invites any other person to give or lend, whether for consideration or not, any money or other property, or

(b) receives or accepts from any other person, whether for consideration or not, any money or other property,

intending that the money or other property shall be applied or used for or in connection with the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism to which this section applies, he shall be guilty of an offence.
( ) If any person gives, lends or otherwise makes available to any other person, whether for consideration or not, any money or other property, knowing or suspecting that the money or other property will or may be applied or used for or in connection with the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism to which this section applies, he shall be guilty of an offence.
( ) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) or subsection (1A) above,")
Page 7, line 14, leave out ("this section") and insert ("subsection (1) above")
Page 7, line 15, after ("property") insert ("(a)")
Page 7, line 16, leave out ("intended to") and insert—
("(b) which, at that time, he intended should")
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I can take Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 together, with the consent of the Committee. These Amendments constitute a substantial redrafting of subsection (1) of the new clause, which deals with contributions to acts of terrorism, and contain minor adjustments to the remainder of the clause. The Amendments also bring within the scope of the clause the case where money is raised, not by way of a gift but by way of a bogus sale.
There was some criticism of the drafting of the clause, on stylistic grounds, in another place, and these Amendments reflect the Government's response to these criticisms and attempt to clarify the sense of the clause in general. We believe that the amended version is a significant improvement on the clause as at present

965
drafted. The change of substance we have made is to include within the scope of the clause money raised, not by way of a gift but by way of a bogus sale; for example, by a raffle. We believe that an Amendment to this effect should be made so that there is no possibility of a technical escape on these grounds. The second Amendment is consequential on the first, and the third and fourth Amendments are entirely drafting. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 [Information about acts of terrorism]:
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 10:
Page 7, line 22, leave out ("knows or believes that he")
Page 7, line 23, after ("which") insert ("he knows or believes")
Page 7, line 31, leave out ("to a constable or") and insert—
("(i) in England and Wales, to a constable, or (ii)")
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I could move Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 10 together, and also speak to Amendments Nos. 12 and 13. These Amendments are designed to do two things. First, they clarify the drafting of the clause and, we hope, will meet some of the criticisms of drafting which were expressed in another place. Secondly, they introduce a provision in relation to Northern Ireland by which a person can avoid committing an offence by disclosing information within the scope of the clause if he discloses it to a member of the Armed Forces instead of to a constable; that is, the saving will apply in the case of both the police and the Army. This point was indeed raised by a number of honourable friends of the noble Lord on the Opposition Front Bench. Subsection (1) of the clause has been redrafted so that the position of the words "knows or believes" is altered in accordance with criticism of the present drafting. We accept that the new structure is clearer and perhaps more logical than that of the existing clause.
We have certainly taken note of the point, which has been made on several occasions, that the requirement to disclose information only to a constable may
966
be too restrictive, particularly in relation to the very special situation which obtains in Northern Ireland. We have therefore decided that a logical and desirable extension of the clause, in view of the particular conditions prevailing in Northern Ireland, would be to provide that, in Northern Ireland, information may also be disclosed to a member of Her Majesty's Forces. However, we think it impracticable to go any wider than this in the list of those to whom the information may be passed. We have looked closely at the terms of this clause in accordance with the undertaking given by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary at Report stage in another place. These Amendments are the result of that consideration, and represent all that we can suggest to clarify and limit this clause without destroying its basic purpose. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 10.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: I should tell the Committee that, if Amendment No. 10 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 11.
Lord BELSTEAD: May I first thank, the noble Lord for Amendments Nos. 8 and 9, which, as he quite rightly said, meet points which were made about the drafting of this in another place. Amidst Amendments Nos. 10 and 12,which is not yet moved, there is inserted Amendment No. 11, which is in the names of my noble friend Lady Elles and myself. If, with the agreement of your Lordships' Committee, I may refer to that, the Amendment was put down to relieve a person who is in possession of information about terrorism from having to disclose that information specifically to a constable and to no one else.
The problem is that Part III of the Bill relates to Northern Ireland as well as to Great Britain, and I think there is no question but that the duty to disclose terrorist information to a constable, and to a constable alone, in Northern Ireland does not take sufficient account of the difficulties of life in that country. There are people in Ulster who, totally misguidedly, would be resistant to contacting the police even though they felt very strongly concerning a piece of information which had fallen into their hands.
On the other hand, there are those who would be eager to divulge their information to a constable but who

967
would fail to use even the confidential telephone which has been a successful feature of Northern Ireland security. In devastated parts of Belfast a public telephone must be a rarity. Most people are not on the 'phone. This would entail someone going out to use a neighbour's telephone with the consequent risk of being overheard and all that that in the circumstances might entail.
The aim of my noble friend and myself was purely to probe the Government's thinking which is now revealed by the Government Amendment No. 12 which, although strictly not yet moved, provides for information to be disclosed not only to a constable but also to a member of Her Majesty's Forces. The Government Amendment certainly broadens the scope of the provision by including the Army which can, after all, be fairly readily contacted and which would treat the identity of an informant with secrecy in the same way as would the police. I think it might be argued that at the very least a Northern Ireland Member of Parliament or a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly ought to be included in this clause as a recipient of information; but until the Northern Ireland constitutional position is decided, it would be premature to select the small number of Northern Irish Westminster MPs to incur the danger of being statutorily listed as recipients of terrorist information.
On the other hand, I wonder whether the Government may have considered adding the words, "or to any other person in authority" to the list of those statutorily provided for to receive information under this clause. That suggestion would presumably include the Judiciary, the Civil Service and local people in local government. The noble Lord may take the view that this would be spreading the net too wide and would place a wide range of potential recipients of information in danger. I would simply ask whether the Government have considered this suggestion and, if not, whether they would do so before the next stage of the Bill. With that proviso, I should like to thank the Government for recognising the problem which the clause presented as originally drafted. At this stage I would certainly support all the Government Amendments.
Lord WIGODER: I might say now rather than on the Motion, Whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill, that I remain of the view that it is in some way an unrealistic extension of the criminal law to make it a criminal offence for a housewife in the Falls Road area, perhaps with young children, to fail to disclose information that may come to her about some terrorist activity being planned by her next-door neighbour. This seems to me to lead to a situation where a criminal law is beginning to lose touch with reality.
I would ask only two questions about the Amendments proposed. They arise out of the use of the confidential line, of which there is public knowledge. The first is this. Is it correct (as I am told it is) that civilian employees frequently answer the confidential line service? If it is correct, one might run into some difficulties with the words proposed by the Government in Amendment 12 as to a" constable or a member of Her Majesty's Forces". That might add weight to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, about a "person in authority being informed. Secondly, I should like to ask whether it is correct that no record is kept of the caller's name and address and of the contents of the call when a call is made on the confidential line.
I ask this because if that is so—and one can understand why there are reasons that it should be the position—it would make the proving of the defence to the criminal offence now being suggested almost impossible. It might make the proving of the offence equally impossible if a person said, "I did put a call through" and there is no evidence one way or another to substantiate it. This might give rise to difficulties.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I am grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has said. I will look at the point that he made. However, I have rather an ugly suspicion at this stage that the use of the phrase "person in authority" is rather imprecise when ones comes to define a criminal offence. It would not be difficult, indeed it might be arguably easy, to set up a defence by saying: "I had in fact reported it to a person in authority"; for one might be surprised at the difficulty there would be in finding out who the person in authority

969
might be. I think it is necessary to have precise language in a clause of this sort which, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, said, moves into new territory. As I have indicated, I am grateful for what he said. We have tried to meet the points raised by his honourable friends and noble friends.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. I should like to look into the first point he raised. So far as the second point is concerned—that relating to the confidential telephone, whether some form of record is kept, and how one would establish that one had made a call —the answer is that a record is kept of all calls, Therefore, if somebody said, "I telephoned at 5.25 that afternoon", then he did or he did not. There is a record kept to demonstrate the truth or falsehood of that defence.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 12 and 13.
Amendments moved—
Page 7, line 32, leave out ("he") and insert ("or
(iii) in Northern Ireland, to a constable or a member of Her Majesty's forces,
he shall be guilty of an offence.
( ) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) above.")
Page 7, line 41, after ("believed") insert ("that the information might be of material assistance").—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 [Powers of arrest and detention]:
On Question, Whether Clause 12 shall stand part of the Bill?
6.8 p.m.
Lord WIGODER: Where the situation is that a person may be detained in custody in a police station for some seven days and there may have been a particularly horrible and appalling crime committed and emotion may be running high in the police station, there are two difficulties. One is the danger that possibly some police officer might be tempted to exceed his proper authority. I am not suggesting for one moment that that happens as a matter of routine, but one can understand the temptation. The other situation that arises is that where a man is held in custody for seven days or so, if
970
he is charged and tried, it is almost inevitable that there will be allegations made of ill-treatment while he was kept in custody. I am not suggesting that those allegations are by any means invariably justified or likely to be justified. The only matter I should like to raise at this stage is that, aware of that situation as the Government no doubt are, would the noble Lord, Lord Harris, agree that in a situation where there is a detention order made it is of even more importance than in the ordinary criminal situation, that the Judges' Rules should be strictly complied with? Would the Government agree that it is worth while reminding the police force of the extreme importance of complying strictly with the Rules in the situation where a person is under long detention?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I am grateful to the noble Lord. As he said, he was making no suggestion that there was any impropriety. He is endeavouring to protect the police from allegations that there has been impropriety. Certainly, it will be our intention once the Bill is enacted to give advice to the police on the way in which they should proceed in implementing it. That point will be taken into account as it was when the 1974 Act was enacted.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
6.10 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I beg, to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill which it is my duty and pleasure to introduce to your Lordships today is not a very long nor, I would hope, a controversial one. The contents are rather a mixed bag, since the Government have naturally seized the opportunity to make a number of amendments to the Education (Scotland) Acts which seem to us for one reason or another to be desirable. We are the more anxious to make these amendments now because a consolidation of the Scottish Education Acts is in prospect. The initial, and longest, clauses are those

971
bearing on school commencement and school-leaving dates. There has, as your Lordships will probably be aware, been a good deal of interest recently in the question as to whether children should be compelled to stay on at school against their will, as some unhappily are towards the end of their school career. It was in the light of this very difficult question that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland decided to carry out a comprehensive review last year of the fixed school-leaving dates system. The provisions dealing with leaving dates are the fruit of that review. The provisions dealing with commencement dates are however much more of a rationalisation of existing arrangements, as I shall now proceed to explain in greater detail.
The first two clauses of the Bill concern school commencement and school leaving dates. At present the dates on which children start and leave school are both fixed by the education authority, subject to the approval of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The proposal in the Bill is that school-leaving arrangements should be determined on a national, as opposed to a regional, basis, while commencement dates are to continue to be decided locally. This necessitates dividing the present provisions into two separate sections of the Education (Scotland) Act 1962 (the main Statute governing educational matters in Scotland). Clause 1 of the Bill substitutes a revised Section 33 dealing only with school commencement; Clause 2 contains a new section 33A setting out the proposed revision of school-leaving arrangements.
Clause 1 basically rewrites the existing school commencement provisions. We have, however, taken the opportunity to clarify and simplify the drafting where possible. There is little new in subsections (1) to (3). These simply re-enact the present provisions under which the education authority submit, for the Secretary of State's approval, proposals for one or more school commencement dates for their area. It is possible for different dates to be fixed for different schools—perhaps to take account of different transport arrangements in rural and urban areas, or to allow for local or religious holidays and the differences which can flow
972
therefrom. In the event of disagreement, the Secretary of State is empowered, after due consultation, to direct the authority to fix a date or dates other than proposed by the education authority. The only new feature is that the wording now recognises that the commencement dates may not be fixed calendar dates (for example 1st September or 1st April) but may be slightly variable each year; the most common practice is for authorities to propose as their date or dates the first day of a particular school term or terms. Subsection (3) preserves the position that a child does not become of statutory school age until the commencement date following or coinciding with his fifth birthday. At that point the duty on the parent to see that his child is educated begins, and the education authority is required to admit the child to primary school, if the parent has not made other arrangements for the child's education.
My Lords, I should explain that in Scotland the position is that an education authority, in operating a commencement date, determines an age range of children who will be admitted to school on that date. Precise arrangements vary widely, depending on whether the authority are operating one, two or three commencement dates a year,but the commonest practice is for places to be offered on a commencement date both to children who will become of statutory school age on that date and to those who will be five within a specified period after it. For example, where the commencement dates are the first day after the summer and Easter holidays, children who reach the age of five between 1st July and 31st December may start school in August and those who reach the age of five between 1st January and 30th June may start in April. Where a single commencement date in August is operated—and this is becoming increasingly popular among the new regional and islands education authorities—we expect children whose fifth birthdays fall any time up to the end of the following February to be admitted to school at the beginning of the session.
The new subsections (4) to (6) recognise in Statute this practice of determining age ranges on intake. What we propose is that in future any education authority wishing to fix a commencement date will submit in addition, for

973
the approval of the Secretary of State, proposals for a latest date by which children would have to attain five in order to qualify for admission to primary school on that commencement date. This is basically what happens already, particularly in relation to a single annual commencement date. Successive Secretaries of State for Scotland have indicated that approval of a single commencement date would only be granted if it did not raise significantly the top age limit of pupils entering the first year of primary education. In the past authorities who wished to operate a single commencement date have therefore been asked to give voluntary undertakings as to the age range of infants who would be admitted to school on that commencement date. Under the new provisions, instead of resting on a voluntary undertaking, the age range of the intake will be approved statutorily in the same way as the commencement date itself.
Our aim is of course to continue to reach agreement with authorities on commencement arrangements which are both appropriate to the particular circumstances of their areas and acceptable on educational merits to the Secretary of State. But if, unhappily, there was a failure to reach initial agreement or to continue to operate arrangements once agreed, the approved age ranges as well as the commencement dates themselves would in future be legally enforceable. At present if an education authority has received approval to a single commencement date, and subsequently fails to admit at that date the agreed age range, with the result that the entry of some children into primary education is delayed until they are, in the Secretary of State's view, rather too old, the Secretary of State's only sanction is to require the authority to return to several commencement dates a year. This seems to be a somewhat negative way of proceeding.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State takes the view, however, that as commencement dates, in the same way as school-leaving dates, effectively determine the length of a child's compulsory school education it is reasonable that there should continue to be an ultimate national control by the Secretary of State. And if the commencement dates are to continue to be subject to his approval, then it is logical that an authority's proposals for the age range of
974
children to be admitted at each date should also be subject to approval, since the age range is as essential a part of the commencement arrangements as the commencement dates themselves. I should perhaps stress that there is nothing in the new provisions which lays down what the age range must be. It will still be up to each education authority to decide, in the light of local circumstances, what commencement dates and age ranges they wish to propose.
One final point on Clause 1: as I have already said, the point at which a child becomes of statutory school age is not altered. The position remains that a parent's duty to see that his child is educated does not begin until the commencement date after the child's fifth birthday. The age range approved by the Secretary of State will usually provide for the authority to offer a place in primary school to children under school age at each commencement date, but the parent does not have to accept that place.
I turn now to Clause 2 of the Bill, which deals with the upper limit of compulsory school education. The new Section 33A of the 1962 Act, set out in Clause 2, reflects the outcome of a comprehensive review of the fixed school-leaving dates system undertaken in 1975. The review was initiated by the Secretary of State in view of the large number of representations about the present school-leaving date system which he had received following the raising of the school-leaving age in 1972.
Those who responded to the invitation to submit their views on what changes, if any, were required in present leaving arrangements, were virtually unanimous that the present system was unsatisfactory. They proposed a variety of alternatives, all of which were carefully considered before the present proposals were formulated. The most common suggestion put forward during the review was that pupils should be allowed to leave school on reaching their 16th birthday. We have, however, rejected this as being potentially too disruptive for schools and pupils. I venture to suggest that those advocating sporadic leaving were merely grasping at the most obvious expedient to rid the school of some unwilling pupils and that the potentially damaging effects had not been fully considered. One can imagine the difficulties for a teacher trying

975
to organise a coherent course for pupils in the 15 to 16 age group if pupils were disappearing individually throughout the year. At least as important was the consideration that sporadic leaving could well diminish the likelihood of pupils entering further education or jobs with planned training, both of which are geared to intakes at specific times of the year.
Another suggestion which was considered was linking school leaving to the completion of a specific stage of secondary education; in Scotland this would logically have been the fourth year of secondary education, the shorthand for which is S4 (corresponding to the fifth year in England and Wales). However, the age at which pupils complete S4 varies widely. Some pupils make exceptionally rapid progress and complete the stage at an age which we would think unacceptably early to leave school. Others are, for one reason or another, delayed in their school career and might not complete S4 until they were 17 or older. Any attempt to combine upper and lower age limits with some sort of link with the completion of S4 would produce a very complicated provision indeed.
In contrast, the proposals set out in Clause 2 have, we hope, the advantage of being readily understood. In essence, children whose 16th birthdays fall between 1st March and 30th September will be able to leave school on 31st May, at ages ranging from 15 years 8 months to 16 years 3 months. Children whose 16th birthdays fall between 1st October and the end of February will be able to leave at the beginning of their school's Christmas holidays, at ages ranging from 15 years 10 months to 16 years 3 months.
The main change in comparison with the present system is the introduction of nationally, as opposed to regionally, determined leaving dates. The regional variations in leaving arrangements, which have in the past resulted in a child becoming entitled to leave school up to six months earlier than his exact contemporary in another education authority area, will thus be largely avoided. Minor variations will still be possible at Christmas, depending on term dates, but these will be a matter of days rather than months.
The other main features of the proposals are the advancement of the summer leaving date to 31st May and the
976
earlier leaving entitlement of children whose 16th birthdays fall between the beginning of the autumn term in August and 30th September, and between the beginning of the spring term and the end of February. These arrangements will allow the summer school-leavers to go as soon as the examination period is over, leaving schools free to begin work with those intending to stay on at school for a further period. The main advantage of the extended age range of those eligible to leave in the summer is that it will give all those with birthdays up to 30th September the opportunity of entering autumn apprenticeships or other employment with structured training, or further education courses. This will help to remove some of the resentment felt by children with autumn birthdays, who previously have been compelled to stay on at school for one term of S5 after most of their contemporaries have left in the summer.
I turn now to Clause 3. This short clause repeals part of Section 2 of the Education (Milk) Act 1971. The point here is that Section 2 of the Milk Act lays an obligation on education authorities to recover the full cost of providing milk in schools except in the case of certain categories of pupils, for whom it must be provided free. These categories are pupils up to the end of the school year in which they reach the age of 7; pupils in special schools, that is to say schools for handicapped children; and pupils holding a medical certificate stating that their health requires them to be provided with milk at school. Under the Milk Act as it stands at present the expense of providing any milk for pupils not in these categories must be defrayed either by the pupils or their parents.
This means that milk costs more in schools than it does in shops or delivered to the front door, because the education authority must charge not merely the retail price but in addition a factor representing the cost of supplying the milk. We have lately received a report by a Working Party on catering in Scottish schools which recommends that milk should be sold at a subsidised price. We accept that recommendation and, in accordance with my Party's Election Manifesto, we now propose to repeal this very restrictive requirement in the Milk Act.

977
The repeal in itself leaves open the question of what arrangements should be put in place of the present ones. We have already consulted the Scottish local authorities in general terms. They have indicated that they desire to be given discretion to subsidise the price of milk and it is intended to provide for that in new regulations, the making of which will, of course, be preceded by consultations with the local authorities as to the precise extent and nature of the discretion they wish to have over charging. We shall be initiating discussions with the Scottish local authorities in due course. I have now covered, I think, the main provisions of the Bill. The rest are of a relatively minor character, and I do not propose to detain your Lordships much longer in describing them.
Clause 4 is no more than an adjustment of machinery. The bodies mentioned in it—independent schools tribunals—have in fact never had to be constituted in Scotland. A tribunal would be called into existence only if the Secretary of State had served a notice of complaint on an independent school and the school had appealed against it. Fortunately, a situation of that sort has never arisen so far and one hopes that it never will arise. It is better if control over schools can be exercised by negotiation and guidance, and so far that is what has happened.
It is necessary, nevertheless, to keep in existence the machinery for setting up a tribunal, including provision for the remuneration of the members who would serve on it. This requires regular up-dating of statutory instruments made by the Lord President of the Court of Session with the concurrence of the Secretary of State. This procedure consumes time and energy in many quarters which could be better saved or spent in other ways. Clause 4, therefore, does away with the need for statutory instruments by substituting an administrative power to pay allowances. The intention is that the allowances that would be paid would be in line with normal Civil Service rates, as is already the case with a very large number of other tribunals.
Clause 5 is designed to simplify the task of modernising the wording of educational endowment schemes. The Secretary of State has power under Part VI of the Education (Scotland) Act 1962 to
978
prepare schemes for educational endowments for such purposes as up-dating obsolete provisions and amalgamating the funds of smaller endowments for more economical administrations. Legislation passed in recent years has made some of the terms used in certain endowment schemes obsolete or inappropriate, but nothing has been done to effect the necessary consequential changes in the schemes themselves. The purpose of this clause is simply to effect these consequential changes. The alternative method of proceeding would be for the Secretary of State to prepare a separate amending scheme in every case in which one of the obsolete terms occurs. This would be a substantial administrative task and a very cumbersome way in which to carry out these small formal changes. There is nothing in Clauses 6 and 7 on which I need remark, except perhaps to point out that subsection (2) of Clause 7 gives the Secretary of State considerable flexibility in the way in which he brings this Bill into operation. The Royal Assent will bring into force only the power to make the necessary orders, which themselves will bring the various provisions into operation. Nor need I dwell at length upon the Schedules. Schedule 1 contains a number of minor and consequential amendments all necessary or valuable in themselves, but about which I do not think it necessary to weary your Lordships by going through them one by one. This is a small but, in its own way, important Bill and I commend it to your Lordships. My Lords, I beg to move that it he now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Kirkhill.)
6.31 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for introducing and describing this Bill which seeks to make certain miscellaneous changes in existing legislation. He described it as a mixed bag, and I should just like to make some comments and ask some questions. First, on Clause 1, it appears to be the intention of the Government to rationalise and co-ordinate children's starting dates at primary schools, so here we are considering the fives and under-fives. I am aware that in various areas of Scotland there has been anguish among parents,

979
because their small children's birthday dates have been just before or just after some key date, which meant either that they had to go to school or could not go to school at a certain time, against the parents' wishes. So that, in principle, subsection (4), in producing a standard leeway period to be agreed beforehand, with the option that the parent does not necessarily have to take up an offer until the child is aged five, seems to be a way of trying to improve the situation, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for the time and trouble he took in explaining this aspect. But it appears that after agreement has been reached, or even if agreement has not been reached, between the Secretary of State and the local authority concerned, a leeway period can then be legally enforceable and the local authority will in future have to operate under Statute a system of offering places to pupils whose birthdays fall within a certain period.
I turn now to subsection (2). While the Government were about it, I wonder why they did not decide to standardise commencement dates more uniformly. Still it seems that one authority may fix different school commencement dates for primary schools in its own area. That is the situation in Scotland today. But is it necessary to continue it? So I would ask the noble Lord—if not in reply to this debate, at a later stage—whether he can say why further standardisation could not have been achieved at this stage.
On Clause 2 and the school-leaving age, as the noble Lord has explained, the Bill appears to go for a national rather than a regional system. That would certainly remove anomalies that now exist in the treatment of children of the same age, as regards leaving or staying on compulsorily, when one child is compelled to stay on at school while another, in exactly the same situation but in a different area, is leaving. There is also advantage in arranging for the same leaving date at the end of May, because it means that they go directly after the examination period. We have been expecting adjustments and, clearly, this Bill is the vehicle to carry them out. After the raising of the school leaving age three or four years ago, we indicated when we were in Government that we thought it best to see how the system worked out,
980
and then consult those concerned and bring forward adjustments. So we feel sure that what the Government are now doing is the right way to proceed, and we shall at later stages examine the details to see whether there are any improvements to be made in the system which they are proposing.
I understand that the Education Institute of Scotland, which is the largest teachers' association in Scotland, would still prefer pupils to leave on their 16th birthdays—what the noble Lord described as the sporadic system. That would mean a spread of school-leavers over the year. Against that, there are arguments for the contrary view, as the noble Lord pointed out. It would be much more difficult to arrange courses if children were leaving schools sporadically, and the provision to extend the age of those leaving in the summer will give to all who have birthdays up to the end of September the opportunity to enter apprenticeships and other special training courses. So I think that the Government are right to proceed in this way, rather than go for the sporadic system, even though the largest teachers' association appears still to advocate the latter.
There are problems with school-leaving at a time of very high unemployment which, unfortunately, we are observing at present. From the published figures, it seems that nearly 3,000 of last summer's school-leavers in Scotland were still without jobs last December, and I should like to ask the noble Lord about National Insurance provisions. Normally, entry to National Insurance is at the age of 16, but there will be employment of 15-year-olds and this will presumably be legal under the school-leaving arrangements in this Bill. What will be the position of such 15-year-olds? Will their employers be contributing to National Insurance for them? Will they be eligible for any benefits during that period, and, in particular, what will be their position regarding industrial injury benefits if they are employed before their 16th birthdays?
Clause 3 deals with the completely different subject of milk. The present position is that it is not issued free to 7-yearolds and over, unless they are receiving special education or a medical officer considers that a child requires it for health reasons. The background to this—and I speak from memory here—is that it was a

981
Labour Government which removed free milk from secondary schools between 1964 and 1970; but I should like the noble Lord to answer a question on this later. Then, in 1971, a Conservative Government extended this to primary schools subject to the conditions, including the medical officer's advice, which I have mentioned.
I should like to ask the noble Lord, because it was not clear from what he said, whether the reversal which he is now proposing in the Bill is for primary schools only, because he did not give any upper age limit. My recollection is that this was done separately by two Governments of different persuasions, one for secondary schools and the other for primary schools. The noble Lord spoke only about the 7-year-olds and over, and I assume that, because it refers to the 1971 Act. Clause 3 simply means that local authorities will again be able to give free milk in primary schools. But I should like the Government to say whether they are proceeding in due course, even if not now, to restore it to secondary schools also.
I recognise that this is a subject which was blown up into a political issue in 1971 and 1972, and the Government no doubt feel obliged—indeed, impelled; and the noble Lord referred to a Manifesto—to reverse the position and to restore free milk to those not covered by medical and other considerations. But I must point out that, since the Bill was published, a White Paper on Public Expenditure has also been published, under which there are to be substantial reductions in subsidising school meals. So we must put this in perspective. On page 87 of that White Paper on Public Expenditure, it is stated that the,
"charge for school dinners will be increased progressively, with an increase from 15p to 20p in September 1976";
that is, in about six months' time. Therefore the Government appear to be giving with one hand and taking away with the other.
Again, if one could consider the figures involved, on page 85 of the White Paper on Public Expenditure it is estimated, at constant prices, that the additional expenditure on milk—presumably as a result of this Bill and its equivalent for England and Wales, because we are now talking about the United Kingdom—will be a little over £1 million. But the school meal subsidy will be reduced by
982
£67 million—from£315 million to£248 million. When one is talking about free food and milk I think it has to be brought out that this is a very small drop in relation to the reduction which the Government themselves are proposing in the subsidy for school meals. It hardly seems worth providing this£1 million extra for free milk when one is taking away so much— £67 million—in terms of school meals as a whole. However, I recognise that the Government are carrying out a political obligation to which no doubt they feel committed, although in today's conditions it is inconsistent with the rest of the White Paper on Public Expenditure, in particular in relation to school meals.
I have one point to raise on the Schedules. In Schedule 1, paragraph 11(a), there is an extension proposed of the powers of the Secretary of State to intervene in academic matters. I will read the passage involved:
"In subsection (1) after paragraph (v) there shall be added the following paragraph:
(vi) provide that the governing body of such a college shall comply with any direction given by the Secretary of State, after consultation with them, as to the discontinuance of any course of instruction provided in the college or the number of students of different categories to be admitted to the college in any period".
In general, the Secretary of State for Scotland, as Minister of Education, among other things, in Scotland, does not intervene in questions of courses and curricula. Normally, this is left to colleges and schools. Therefore I ask why the Government have felt it necessary, in what otherwise appear to be very straightforward and harmless changes in the Schedules, to introduce what looks like an extension of the powers of the Secretary of State to intervene. Although I gave the noble Lord notice that I was going to raise this point, I shall understand if he wishes to consider it and to reply at a later stage. However, I thought that the sooner I mentioned it the better, in order to give the Minister more notice.
6.42 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, having spent a good part of my life as chairman of an education committee, I want to make one or two comments about this Bill. I agree with my noble friend who has just spoken that it is a useful Bill. One of the difficulties

983
is the dates at which schools begin and end their terms. I hope that when dates are suggested it will be remembered that in certain parts of the country there are well-known traditional holidays. I read the debate in another place when one of the Members for Lancashire drew attention to the fact that Wakes Weeks do not always coincide with school dates. In the area in which I live—that is, the Borders—we have a considerable number of local festivities which are known as the Common Ridings. They have different names in different places, but these festivities are sacrosanct from the point of view of the population. Any school has to allow its pupils to have their holidays when the Common Ridings are being held. I am sure the noble Lord knows all about that and, therefore, that the Government will ensure that such very old, traditional holidays are allowed for in any arrangements that are made for the dates of either the commencement or ending of terms.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy that the question of the leaving date is difficult. One does not wish children to leave school earlier than they need. In fact, I have always encouraged them to stay at school and go on to further education. However, we know that a certain number of children are only too anxious to leave and that very often they have jobs waiting for them. At this moment it is more difficult for them to find jobs, but in the part of the country in which I live there is not quite the shortage of employment that there is in other areas. While I agree that it is a good plan for children not to leave school until the end of a term, I hope it may be possible for exceptions occasionally to be made if the matter is very urgent and the child can easily go into either training or employment.
On the subject of school milk, I have a very soft spot for it since it was my husband, way back in 1926, who first introduced the milk in schools scheme. It was introduced on the basis that they paid a penny for a third of a pint. Afterwards, as we know, it was supplied free throughout the whole of the school system. I feel that it is extremely valuable for the health of children that they should receive milk, and I am glad that
984
some of the arrangements are being restored. I did not agree with my Party when they abolished the milk in schools scheme, and I said so. I am glad that school milk has been restored—anyway, to some extent. As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy has said, both political Parties are involved and on both occasions I thought that abolition was a mistake. However, I agree that it is much more important for younger children to be given milk than it is for the older age group. In fact, I believe that some of them never even bothered to drink it. However, I support the reintroduction of school milk for the younger age group, provided, of course, that it does not mean cutting down on other things because of the financial crisis through which we are going.
I believe that the Bill will be welcomed in Scotland. It simplifies some of the problems which arise from organising education in different areas. I know that I should have been grateful for some of the provisions in the Bill during the many years that I was chairman of the education committee. It was always difficult to please everybody and sometimes you pleased nobody. Therefore it makes it easier to have a more stable plan such as there is in the Bill and I support the noble Lord's introduction of it.
6.48 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, first let me say how much I appreciate what I judge to be the reasonably warm welcome that has been given by your Lordships to this Government measure. May I make the Government's position clear on the several points which have been raised? I will deal first with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, who asked me why commencement dates are not to be uniform throughout Scotland. Before replying in some depth to the point, perhaps I should say that so far as the initial part of his question is concerned, it is unquestionably true that age ranges will be legally enforceable upon the authority. Therefore, as the noble Lord very rightly pointed out, the authority would have to take children within the approved age range, and I confirm the accuracy of his remark at that point.
I think that the more general question that was put to me by the noble Lord,

985
Lord Campbell of Croy, is a very reasonable one to put to the Government Minister concerned. I have been emphasising the virtues of uniform leaving dates. The situation is, however, rather different in relation to commencement dates. Education authorities still operate a variety of arrangements, and have moved less far towards uniformity than they have in relation to uniformity of leaving dates. This is a point that the Government must take into account. Indeed, education authorities have shown a preference for moving towards a single commencement date in the year, but before these authorities can operate such a system successfully they must be sure their accommodation and staffing are sufficient to cater for an intake of a whole year group at a time. Most important, they must ensure that their teachers are trained in the methods necessary to meet the individual needs of the children.
Further, I would suggest that authorities may yet wish to operate different arrangements for good reason in different types of area. For example, it may be reasonable to have a single intake in an urban area, but not in a rural area where it would mean children as young as 4 years 6 months having to travel in some cases, long distances to school. Education authorities themselves, therefore, have asked that the Bill should give as much flexibility as possible in relation to commencement dates. I think this is a reasonable request, and indeed Government have taken this on board. If at any time in the future, however, the Secretary of State decided that the time had come for uniform arrangements throughout Scotland—and I must stress that he would not normally do this without prior agreement with the authorities—Clause 1 enables him to issue directions to authorities to secure this
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, mentioned that the EIS have taken a particular view, essentially as regards the question of uniform leaving date. But as I said in my opening remarks, Government have consulted widely and are of the view that the present emphasis is just about correct, and is in the right balance at this time. The noble Lord also raised a question on the position of the under-16s within the National Insurance field. I accept that there may be seen to be a deficiency in
986
our proposals on this point. However, this is a matter for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. It is not one in which it would be right for the Government to tackle the difficulty in relation to Scotland alone in this Bill. The entry point for the National Insurance scheme has been the 16th birthday, or the point at which a young person ceases to be of school age, whichever is the later, since the raising of the school-leaving age. Up to now it has not been possible for a pupil in Scotland to reach school-leaving age before his 16th birthday. Clause 2 will now enable some to leave in the summer from the age of 15 years 8 months, and some to leave at Christmas from the age of 15 years 10 months. It would be fair to say that the period before these young people will be eligible to enter the National Insurance scheme will, of course, be a short one.
I can also reassure the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, on one point. Young people in employment under the age of 16 are covered by industrial injuries legislation. Family allowances are also payable until at least the age of 16, and for a longer period if the child stays on at school. I should make the point to the noble Lord that these young people under the age of 16 are not entitled to supplementary benefit in their own right. Here I respond to a point touched on by the noble Lord in his remarks. Of course, employers will not contribute while the employee is under the age of 16.
As regards Clause 3 and the desire of the Government to repeal that section of the Education (Milk) Act, I stand very clearly behind the Government Election Manifesto commitment. I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that at an earlier period those who were secondary pupils found that this provision for them had been discontinued, but I am not today in a position to say whether or not this will be the position in future. This is something which the Government are continuing to discuss with the local authorities concerned, and I therefore specifically made no mention of the upper age range. My remarks were conspicuous by their absence on that point.
If I may touch on another point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, which related to the rise in the cost of school meals and the Government

987
restriction on public expenditure, on the one hand, and, on the other, to an apparent relaxation of certain public costs as regards the provision of school milk. I must point out to the noble Lord that the constantly rising price of school meals is now of such enormity that an increased price of between 15p and 20p per meal is necessary to contain the rise. It is not really possible to make an analogy between the cost of meals, on the one hand, and of milk provision, on the other. I take the view that the milk provision is at a more constant price.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for what he has said, but he has misunderstood me. I was not speaking of the increase in the cost of meals to produce part of our apparent rising prices, but of the public expenditure White Paper stating that the £300 million-odd being paid now will be reduced in 2 or 3 years' time to £200-million odd that is, a reduction of £67 million in the Government subsidy.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, if I have misunderstood the noble Lord, then, of course, I must apologise. I certainly understood him to be making a comparison between the price in total government expenditure of meals as against milk. If I have misunderstood the noble Lord, I will not pursue the matter at this stage. I should like now to turn to the other point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, when he made the suggestion that the power of direction in paragraph 11 of Schedule I would constitute an infringement of academic freedom. I do not myself think that there is anything new in this proposal. Section 81 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1962 empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations prescribing the courses taken and training to be provided in grant-aided colleges, which includes colleges of education.
This power was duly exercised, for example, in Regulation 13 of the Teachers (Colleges of Education) (Scotland) Regulations 1967, which provided that courses should be approved by the Secretary of State, or could be directed by him. Neither the local authorities nor the colleges have ever objected to this power. The need for its restatement in this Bill arises from the fact that
988
Section 81 was amended in the Education (Scotland) Act 1969 in a way that might cast doubt on the existence of this power, although that was not the intention at the time. I think that explains the point the noble Lord raises.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I can say straight away that the noble Lord has answered the point. I am grateful to him. As he put it, it is a reenactment of something for clarity, whereas my question was why it should be needed when it appeared as if it was a new power being sought.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, may I just mention my appreciation of the remarks which the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, made in her general welcome of the Bill, and perhaps I could just explain to her, as far as the question of local holidays is concerned, that these will not really be affected by the proposals for leaving dates. It would not matter if 31st May fell within an existing holiday, and the Christmas date would in any case be fixed by reference to a holiday. The authority's proposals for commencement dates can take account of local holidays, so I think she can have an assurance that considerable flexibility at this point is quite possible.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, as a mere Welshman, having listened with interest to his explanation of the Bill all about laws and regulations, how much flexibility is left to a country schoolmistress in a little Scots village? We used to have it in the Welsh ones, because I toddled to school across fields at four years of age. Can a Scots mistress in a primary school take in a child under the statutory age, at four, if the parents would like it to go and there is room for it, without a lot of brou-ha-ha with the county education authority?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I think I would need notice of that question. I rather think there would be a lot of brou-ha-ha, but she would probably take in the child. If she was an intelligent teacher in a small remote Scottish village, I am certain she might.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I thank the noble Lord.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, one other point which the noble Baroness,

989
Lady Elliot, mentioned, was the question of perhaps an early leaving arrangement in specially urgent circumstances. I can give her an assurance that there is again flexibility at that point. My Lords, I think that covers the Government position as it relates to the Bill at this stage.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES (AMENDMENT) (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1976
7.2 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge): My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft Industrial and Provident Societies (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, which was laid before this House on 10th February 1975, be approved. Article 3 of this order seeks to amend the Industrial and Provident Societies Act (Northern Ireland) 1969, so as to increase from £1,000 to £5,000 the statutory limit on the value of shares which any individual member of an industrial and provident society may hold. Noble Lords may recall that last March this House debated the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, which introduced certain amendments to the law in Great Britain this order will similarly amend the Northern Ireland legislation on industrial and provident societies to keep it in line. It also provides that the rules of a registered society may be changed by a simple resolution of the committee, thus enabling the society to take immediate advantage of the permitted increase. Article 4 enables any future amendments of the new limit of £5,000 to be effected by regulations made by the Registrar of Friendly Societies for Northern Ireland with the consent of the Department of Commerce, but any such amendments cannot reduce the limits below the amounts now proposed.
990
This order also deals with credit unions. I should explain to your Lordships that credit unions are composed of people who share a common bond of residence or employment in a particular locality and who join together to encourage thrift by means of savings. These savings are then used to advance loans to members at limited interest rates. In Northern Ireland credit unions are specially controlled under the industrial and provident societies legislation. Many of the provisions governing ordinary industrial and provident societies apply to credit unions, but separate provisions covering such things as membership, dividend and interest rates, size of loans, investment of funds and appropriation of profits, were also enacted to meet their special needs. Article 5 of this order seeks to increase the limit on the amount of shares which any individual member of a credit union may hold from£1,000 to£2,000, and this may also be increased by regulation. The proposed increases are necessary mainly to offset the effects of inflation and, also, in the case of industrial and provident societies proper, to give these societies an opportunity to expand their member-owned capital. These increases should, therefore, have a stimulating effect on the work of the bodies concerned. Accordingly, I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Industrial and Provident Societies (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, laid before the House on 10th February, be approved.—(Lord Donaldson of Kings-bridge.)
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I do not think it is always the fact that Northern Ireland should be in line with the rest of Great Britain. There are certain aspects of legislation where arrangements for Northern Ireland, I think, are superior. But in this particular case I am absolutely convinced of the correctness of this order. I think in every single respect it is right in following the Act which was passed just a year ago.