Lords Sitting of 15 November 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 Sheffield.

MERCHANT SHIPPING CONVENTION: ILO CONFERENCE
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how the British delegations voted at the ILO Conference on 29th October 1976 on the proposed Convention providing for minimum standards of employment and safety on merchant ships; what was the vote; and whether they will ratify the convention at the earliest possible moment.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the United Kingdom delegates voted in favour. The vote was 160 in favour, none against and 67 abstentions. Ratification must be preceded by wide consultation to establish beyond doubt that the law and practice of the country are in complete conformity with the provisions of the Convention. In accordance with normal practice the Government's intentions in relation to all the instruments adopted by the Conference will be announced as soon as possible in a White Paper.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while welcoming that Answer, may I ask the Minister whether he will confirm that this Convention deals with ships sailing under flags of convenience, which are often substandard and employ cheap labour? Would the noble Lord also say whether the Convention guarantees to sailors continuity of work and paid holidays, and that it ends racial discrimination on the issue of equal pay?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I can confirm that the Convention provides minimum standards for the ships of all
970
countries and therefore would include the ships of convenience mentioned by my noble friend. I am afraid I do not have details of the Convention, but I can say that it deals mainly with two issues: the safety of the crew and the living conditions of the crew.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord could tell me how far the minimum conditions imposed by the Convention are in advance of those already imposed by regulations on British flag vessels? My second question is: Supposing the countries involved in flags of convenience do not adhere to the Convention, what method of enforcing the standards of the Convention, if any, is available?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I understand that the Convention is not more advanced than the conditions which have to prevail on our ships at the moment, but it contains a new feature for enforcement. If any ship is in port in a particular country and that country receives a complaint from the ship which relates to health or safety, after inspection the country by whom the complaint is received can immediately notify the country concerned and the ILO, and insist upon the matter being put right forthwith.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, following the question which was put by the noble and learned Lord, may I ask the Minister: Is it not very disturbing that there were 67 abstentions when this matter was considered, including, strangely, the East European countries?—although the Yugoslav trade union movement had the courage to vote against their Government. In these circumstances, if only ten ratifications are required for the Convention, can we, with our Western European Community partners, seek to get the Convention accepted on a much greater scale so that it may be enforced?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, we can always seek to do it, but experience has shown that it is not always easy when we are seeking to get the Eastern Europeans to do things. I can only say that we entirely agree with the Convention and shall use the whole of our influence to have it ratified by as many countries as possible.

BANKRUPTCY PETITIONS
2.40 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how the increase in the number of bankruptcy petitions last year—24 per cent. in the High Court and 25 per cent. in the county courts—compares with that in other EEC countries.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I regret that figures comparable with those for bankruptcy petitions in the United Kingdom are not available for other EEC countries.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether, in planning their future programme of finance for this country, the Government will give consideration to these small firms and others which have been made bankrupt? Would not the noble Lord agree that, if something of the kind is not done, such bankruptcies will hit the economy of this country and also create further unemployment?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I think the Government are doing a great deal, through the Department of Trade, to encourage and help the development of small firms.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, could the Minister say why these figures are not available? Is it just that they have no comparable courts and that there are no comparable bankruptcy petitions? Or are the Government not willing to give figures of bankruptcies in other EEC countries?
Lord ORAM: No, my Lords, the answer is in accordance with the first suggestion which was made by the noble Baroness. It is quite impossible to relate one set of figures to another. In this country there are three categories of insolvencies; that is, individuals, unincorporated companies and incorporated companies. Whichever way you play this, you cannot get a comparable figure for other countries.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, without relating it to the EEC, can the noble Lord tell us what percentage of these bankruptcies apply to small businesses, as defined in the Bolton Report? Also, does not the noble Lord agree that they make a very worthwhile contribution to our industrial innovation, and therefore deserve an alleviation of some of the more tiresome forms of taxation and every possible encouragement?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, in answer to the noble Baroness, I indicated my attitude to the second part of the noble Lord's question. In relation to the first part, I am afraid that I should need notice on the question of figures for small as against larger concerns.

ADVERTISING AND ABSA
2.43 p.m.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Committee of the recently formed Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts (ABSA) will have powers to prevent the advertising of undesirable products; and whether a code of practice will be negotiated with the sponsors.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge): No, my Lords. The Association will not have preventive powers of this kind. Its purpose is to encourage commercial and industrial organisations to assist the arts. It will not normally be involved in the detailed arrangements which may be made between individual concerns and the promoters of artistic enterprises. It is for the promoters to determine, with their sponsors, whether any advertising which may be agreed upon is appropriate, always subject to the law of the land, and whether any of the voluntary codes on advertising are relevant. The Association will, of course, be in a position to give advice on these points.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply which I find a little

973
disappointing, but I am sure that that is not his fault. May I ask him one or two supplementary questions? Does he agree that any negotiations to establish some kind of code of practice—which he says cannot be done by this Committee—should take place early rather than late? Does he also agree that the method of promotion is important? Finally, does he think that the advertising of cigarettes will conflict with the Government's antismoking campaign? May I say that I am all in favour of sponsorship of the arts, if these safeguards exist.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, the morality, as it were, of advertising is normally controlled, as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, knows very well, by the organisation of which I think he is chairman, where there is a voluntary code of procedure. The people brought together by ABSA, this new organisation—that is to say, some body who wishes to give money towards art and some artistic enterprise which wishes to receive money—will be subject to this in the ordinary way. I cannot pronounce on whether any particular instance will conflict with the Government's anti-smoking policy. There is a fairly carefully laid down code on the advertising of smoking—I think through the television companies—and I believe that there is even some talk of making this more rigid, but I am not quite clear how far this has gone. But, once again, any transaction entered into by ABSA would be subject, as would everybody else, to that.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, will the Minister agree that, on the whole, the business sponsorship of the arts up to date in this country has been more or less unexceptionable, and indeed admirable?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, with the greatest of pleasure, I should agree.

RABIES: PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES
2.46 p.m.
Lord DE CLIFFORD: 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 the even of an outbreak of rabies the organisation described in the guidelines issued to local authorities to control an outbreak is now set up throughout the country and whether the equipment listed in the same document is available.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I understand that the great majority of local authorities have now completed the preparation of their contingency plans or have them well advanced. Some equipment is already available and procurement is continuing. With a view to co-ordination and economy, some equipment is being pooled between neighbouring authorities.
Lord DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I point out that these guidelines went out in June. Also, may I ask him whether he considers that local authorities have not had sufficient time to do this right throughout the country? May I also ask whether he does not consider that implementation of the dog warden scheme at the same time as this might be of great help throughout the country, for the collection of strays in the event of an outbreak.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the Ministry of Agriculture has a programme of purchasing necessary equipment to hold in readiness for a rabies outbreak. Only vital items will be purchased; that is, those which would not be immediately available for hire or purchase at the time of an outbreak. The Ministry maintains a record of sources of equipment to be acquired at the time of an outbreak, and this information is available to local authorities. With regard to stray dogs, of course this is one of the matters which would be implemented should there be a rabies outbreak.
Lord PEDDIE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he agrees that the penalties against the illegal importation of animals are sufficiently severe?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the penalties are, of course, £400 on summary conviction and an unlimited fine or imprisonment up to a year on indictment.

975
I think the question of whether they should be made more severe is one for consideration, and this will certainly be borne in mind.
Lord DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, while I fully appreciate the situation so far as equipment is concerned, I should like to press the Minister little further. How many councils have not completed their organisation? When I asked my supplementary question, I had hoped that I should get a greater amount of detail as to how many councils had done so, but in his supplementary reply the Minister ignored that. May I press him to say how many councils have completed their organisation and how many are still outstanding?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord an exact breakdown, but I would emphasise that contingency planning is a continuing process which will be kept under constant review. As recently as last week, officials of my Department and the Department of Health and Social Security met again with representatives of local authority and police associations to review progress and to discuss future action.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether it would be too much to ask the Department to recircularise those authorities which have not yet sent in the returns about which the noble Lord is so concerned?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, that I am sure is a suggestion which we shall consider, but I do not think that it is necessary because the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is keeping in close touch and working closely with all the local authorities. I should like to emphasise to the House that these are precautionary measures. The Government's policy is to keep rabies out of the country. There has not been a single case of rabies since 1970 and there will not be one, provided that we can control the import of dogs and cats.

LAND DRAINAGE BILL [H.L.]
2.50 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg to move
976
that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill (211) as first printed for the Commons.]

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 1.]
Clause 29, page 29, line 26, leave out '(2)' and insert '(1)'
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. This Amendment, like almost all of those which I shall move in this connection, would correct a minor mistake in the Bill. This one in particular brings it into line with the enactments consolidated, by correcting a wrong cross-reference in Clause 29(6).
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 2 to 4.]
Clause 32, page 32, line 31, leave out 'the area of any water authority' and insert 'Great Britain'
Clause 32, page 32, line 35, leave out 'the area of any water authority and insert 'Great Britain'
Clause 32, page 32, line 39, leave out' the area of any water authority' and insert 'Great Britain'.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 en bloc. These Amendments all cover the same point and would correct a mistake in the Bill, and bring it into line with the enactments consolidated, by substituting "Great Britain" for "the area of any water authority" in three places in the definition of "inland water". I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 5.]
Clause 56, page 51, line 2, leave out 'board' and insert 'authority'.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5. This would correct a mistake in the Bill and bring it into line with the enactments consolidated, by substituting "board" for "authority" in Clause 56(1)(c).
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 6.]
Clause 64, page 55, line 32, leave out 'and' and insert 'or'.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6. This Amendment would correct a mistake in the Bill and bring it into line with the enactments consolidated, by substituting "or" for "and" in Clause 64(5) so as to make the second reference there to "character and annual value" read "character or annual value".
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 7.]
Clause 96, page 81, line 12, after 'is' insert 'liable'.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7. Again this Amendment would correct a mistake in the Bill and bring it into line with the enactments consolidated, by inserting the missing word "liable".
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 8.]
Clause 112, page 88, line 18, leave out 'the Maplin Development Authority'.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House
978
doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8, and with the consent of the House I will also speak to Amendments Nos. 13 and 14. Amendment No. 8 would eliminate from the Bill references to the Maplin Development Authority and the Maplin Development Act 1973, for the very good reason that it is now clear, though it was not clear when the Bill was introduced, that the current Maplin Development Authority (Dissolution) Act, which provides for the dissolution of the Maplin Development Authority, will take effect before the Land Drainage Bill.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 9 to 11.]
Schedule 1, page 94, line 11, after 'by' insert 'or on behalf of'
Schedule 1, page 94, line 25, after 'by' insert or on behalf of'
Schedule 1, page 94, line 34, after 'by' insert or on behalf of'.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11, and with the consent of the House I will do so en bloc. These Amendments all cover a similar point on paragraphs 2 and 3 of Schedule 1 to the Bill. They would correct three mistakes in the Bill and bring it into line with the enactments consolidated, by inserting the missing words "or on behalf of" in three places.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 12.]
Schedule 6, page 113, line 28, at end insert—
'(2) This paragraph is hereby repealed as from immediately after the time when the repeal by this Act of the entry referred to in subparagraph (1)(a) above has effect.'
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12. This Amendment would

979
add a self-repealing provision to paragraph 5 of Schedule 6 to the Bill. That paragraph, which is needed because the Bill would probably come into force shortly before the coming into force of the Local Land Charges Act 1975, one provision of which it consolidates, is needed at most for only a very brief period—probably only a few weeks. The inclusion of the self-repealing provision that would be provided by this Amendment would enable the Land Drainage Act, when it comes to be printed for the new edition of the Statute Book, Statutes in Force, to be printed without this paragraph, which will by then be dead wood.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene but I am sure that it would be the wish of noble Lords on all sides of the House to congratulate the House of Commons on the revisory role that they have played in this legislation, which clearly left this House in a very slipshod fashion. There are many of us who think that if they confined themselves to that role things would perhaps go better.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not blame the noble Lord for his undoubted justifiably impatient but, alas!, premature intervention in the flood of my submissions to the House. I do not think that I put to the House the Question on Amendment No. 12.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment. (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 13 and 14.]
Schedule 7, page 116, line 5, leave out paragraph 9.
Schedule 8, page 117, leave out lines 20 and 21.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, finally I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 to which I have already spoken.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.— —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFITS BILL [H.L.]
2.59 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a similar exercise but, mercifully, a briefer one. I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill (243) as first printed for the Commons.]
[Nos. 1 and 2.]
Clause 33, page 20, line 36, leave out subsection (1).
Clause 33, page 20, line 39, leave out 'an order'.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 and 2. As introduced, the Bill was to be brought into effect by means of a commencement order, or orders, to which Clause 33(1) and (2) would apply. On recommitment to the Joint Committee, Clause 36(3) was amended to provide that the Bill should come into force on the specified day, the 15th November. With the amendments made by the Joint Committee to specify a date on which the Bill is to come into force, there are no provisions for the making of orders by the Secretary of State to that effect. The references to such orders in Clause 33(1) and (2) are therefore unnecessary.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DOCK WORK REGULATION BILL
3 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reasons and the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Reasons and the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Jacques.)
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, I wish to intervene at this stage. We are considering the Message from the Commons on the Amendments decided in this House on this Bill. Your Lordships also have before you further Amendments which the Government will commend to you. Before our detailed consideration begins, I should like to make a brief intervention. The new Government Amendments would substitute throughout the Bill the concept of a definable dock area as decided by your Lordships for that of a cargo handling zone. They would ensure that a new Dock Labour Scheme would be applied to all work to which the 1967 Scheme is now applied, whether or not located in a definable dock area. They would provide that objections to a proposal to extend any particular definable dock area would be subject to public inquiry and that any subsequent order for such an extension would be laid in draft before Parliament and would need to be approved by a Resolution of each House. If these Amendments are acceptable to your Lordships and your Lordships do not insist on other Amendments, on behalf of the Government I assure the House that we would not seek to reintroduce the Bill as it was approved by the Commons on Third Reading, with a view to enacting it under the Parliament Act.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I think the House will be grateful to the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal for that statement, but before I say anything about it I think there are one or two prior considerations arising from the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques; namely, as to whether or not we should in the circumstances consider these Messages at all, and the context in which we are considering them. Perhaps I may just start by reminding your Lordships of what has occurred since we were last dealing with this Bill at Third Reading last Monday. Following our consideration here, which was far too hurried, we sent back to another place 58 Amendments. The other place tackled those Amendments last Wednesday; they agreed to 11 of them (for which we are grateful); the Government were defeated on two; they tied on three; they discussed a few others—about half a dozen—leaving 36 of our 58 Amendments not discussed at all because they were guillotined. So one consideration we have to apply is just how
982
those Reasons which are attributed to the Commons can be so attributed because they have not been discussed by the Commons at all.
The second consideration is whether in all the circumstances we are really ready for this consideration. The Commons Reasons for disagreeing to the Lords Amendments were published and became available on Friday afternoon, so that they were only in the hands of those of your Lordships who happened to be here, dealing with the quite different subject of Southern Rhodesia. On top of that the very Amendments to which the noble Lord the Lord privy Seal has referred in his important statement were not published and available until 10.15 this morning, so I doubt whether there are many of your Lordships who have even seen the paper, let alone had time to study it. It is quite certain that the interests which we are attempting to defend, and have been defending all along, will certainly barely be aware of its existence.
Those are the circumstances in which at the end of this most discreditable procedure we are being asked to reach our final conclusions. Turning to the statement of the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal I have to say that if the Government now accept, as a result of the opinion of the Commons, the concept of the limited half mile definable dock area, then the further Amendments which they are putting before us are, in my view, a satisfactory way of making the Bill operate satisfactorily. It is not really for me to speak on behalf of the whole House as to whether this is the right thing for us to be doing or whether the Lord Privy Seal's assurances are satisfactory, but they seem to me to be so. I think it is now a matter for other Members of your Lordships' House to express an opinion.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, we on these Benches would also like to thank the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal for making that statement. We are particularly grateful for the indication that the Government are proposing graciously to accept the fundamental alteration to this Bill from the five mile zone to the half mile limit, which was the Amendment most strenuously pressed in your Lordships' House. Indeed, if I may say so, the statement is itself a vindication of a

983
great deal of the work which has been done over the past few weeks on this Bill in your Lordships' House.
I should like to ask the Lord Privy Seal three questions that arise out of his statement. First, it appears that if we are to accept the proposals in the statement there will no longer be the statutory protection for the small ports which was originally inserted in the Bill by way of Amendment in your Lordships' House. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether the Government still stand by the statement, made by the Secretary of State before the Division in the other place at column 519 of Hansard on 10th November. He said:
"I recognise that there are a number of small ports, which, by their geographical location, irregular nature of cargoes and a number of other factors, will not be suited for the Dock Work Regulation Scheme".
If the noble Lord is able to indicate that that still remains the attitude of the Government, it will be of very great assistance to many of us on this side of the House.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I am advised that the answer is, Yes.
Lord WIGODER: I am much obliged, my Lords. Secondly, if we are to adopt the proposals in the statement and in the Commons Message and the Amendments to the Commons Message proposed in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, there is to be reinserted into the Bill the powers of the Secretary of State to exercise certain discretion to extend what will now be the half mile zone subject to public inquiry and subject to Affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. I have no doubt that the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal accepts that any attempt by the Secretary of State to extend the zone beyond the half mile limit will be rigorously scrutinised by your Lordships' House should such proposal be made.
Thirdly, may I ask the noble Lord whether his final observations when he assured the House that he would not seek to reintroduce the Bill with a view to re-enacting it under the Parliament Act as it was approved by the Commons on Third Reading is an indication by the Government that they are not contempla-
984
ting in the near future attempting to substitute a five mile area for the half mile limit which has now apparently been agreed in both Houses? When this Bill first came to us it was a Bill that did no good and potentially a great deal of harm. If we accept these proposals, it is now a Bill that still does no good but may do comparatively little harm. During the Second Reading debate I described it as being a Bill that would be a blot on the Statute Book: if we now proceed along the lines indicated in the noble Lord's statement it will not be a blot, it will be equivalent to inserting a number of blank pages into the Statute Book and that is a course which we on these Benches will find infinitely preferable.
Lord PEART: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has stated clearly his point of view and I am grateful that he has accepted my statement in such a spirit. I should like the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, to deal with two points as he has been dealing with them throughout the course of the debates on the Bill.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the reasons for the rejection by the Commons of various Amendments by this House were agreed by a Committee appointed by the other place, a Committee which, presumably, represented the views of the other place in devising the Reasons. I am glad the noble Lord thought that the Amendments now submitted were satisfactory. The first and most important part of the Amendments is to tidy up the Bill in accordance with the decision by the other place to confirm the half-mile limit. Therefore, the Amendments submitted are very largely tidying-up Amendments.
My Lords, we have always understood that no one wanted to declassify work already being done by registered dock workers. That is another purpose of the Amendments. One further purpose of the Amendments is simply to make it more difficult for the Secretary of State to amend the half-mile limit. In addition to the Affirmative Resolution procedure, the Secretary of State will now have to proceed with a public inquiry. We believe that at the end of the day the Amendments we are submitting will make the Bill a fair compromise, and will be a recognition by the Government as the

985
letter and spirit of what took place in the other place last Wednesday.
So far as questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, are concerned, I believe that when speaking of the small ports the Secretary of State made a serious statement which he intended to be taken as some kind of factor that would be given by the Government in considering the small ports. I believe the fact remains that the Government will have to have special regard to the difficulties of isolated ports. It is quite impossible to have the same arrangements in every port. Labour arrangements in small ports are necessarily different from those in large ports, and I think that the noble Lord meant that that would be taken into account by the Secretary of State.
As to the extension of the half-mile limit, I think I have said enough to show that we are suggesting Amendments to the Bill which will make it more difficult to extend the half-mile limit. However, we believe there could be occasions when we feel we should extend it and therefore it remains in the Bill. So far as concerns the last point on the Parliament Act, we are saying that if the House agrees to the Amendments which the Government have now submitted on the lines which I have indicated and there are no other changes, the Government will not use the Parliament Act for an immediate introduction of the Bill—that is to say, its introduction 12 months from the Second Reading in the House of Commons. On the question of whether the Government will try to amend the Bill in the course of next Session, I have no authority to say, "Yes" or, "No". It would be wrong for me to try to anticipate what will be in Her Majesty's speech, but I would be very surprised if it were included—but I have been surprised on more than one occasion.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, I am wondering whether it is in order for a Back-Bencher to intervene, as we are having a general discussion, because in this general atmosphere of amiability there is something I should like to say. I have greatly welcomed the statement of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal, and what I think is the generous attitude of Government in the way this has been phrased. I have abstained on this Bill from the beginning
986
because, as I made it plain to my noble friends, it was something I could not support. The only time I voted was when I had to accept the irrefutable logic of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, when he said he felt that as this House had spent so much time on the Bill and produced some 60 Amendments, not to send them back to another place for consideration would seem to be lacking in common sense, so I voted on that.
My Lords, I want to say that I felt I could not support the Bill, not because I necessarily did not agree with it, but because I thought it was wrong. I thought it sought to advantage one section of one union against other workers. I think it is obvious that many of my noble friends agreed that the Bill was not a desirable one, as is evident from the Division Lists. I think it is equally obvious that many members of my Party in another place also were not in favour of the Bill. Lastly, those members of the general public who were interested in the Bill thought it was unfair.
It seems to me that perhaps all this trouble started when another place sent us six major Bills to examine within six weeks. Apart from whether or not the Opposition were awkward, or quite apart from whether other Members like myself were awkward, had these six Bills been entirely uncontentious I do not think they could have been dealt with within a period of six weeks; it was impossible. I hope in this new spirit of amiability that the stream of abuse which has been directed to all Members of this House—it is not only to the Opposition but to all of us—will cease, because I, for one, in my humble way, have had enough.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ROYAL ASSENT
3.18 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts and Measure:

Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.

Supplementary Benefit (Amendment) Act 1976.

987

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.

International Carriage of Perishable Foodstuffs Act 1976

National Health Service (Vocational Training) Act 1976.

Insolvency Act 1976.

Electricity (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1976.

Motor-Cycle Crash-Helmets (Religious Exemption) Act 1976.

Bail Act 1976.

Valuation and Rating (Exempted Classes) (Scotland) Act 1976.

Retirement of Teachers (Scotland) Act 1976.

Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976.

Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 1976.

New Towns (Amendment) Act 1976.

Companies Act 1976.

Land Drainage Act 1976.

Supplementary Benefits Act 1976.

Royal County of Berkshire (Public Entertainment) Provisional Order Confirmation Act 1976.

East Kilbride District Council Order Confirmation Act 1976.

Cromarty Harbour Order Confirmation Act 1976.

Tees Tunnel Act 1976.

County of South Glamorgan Act 1976.

Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure 1976.

DOCK WORK REGULATION BILL
3.20 p.m.
Consideration of Commons Reasons and Amendments resumed.

COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS AND COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO CERTAIN OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill (312) as first printed for the Lords. Commons Reasons are printed in italics.]

LORDS AMENDMENTS
1 Clause 1, page 1, line 12, leave out "twelve" and insert "sixteen".
2 Clause 1, page 1, line 18, leave out "four" and insert "eight".
3 Clause 1, page 1, line 21, leave out "and".
4 Clause 1, page 1, line 22, at end insert "The National Consumer Council,".
5 Clause 1, page 1, line 22, at end insert "and the National Association of Warehouse-keepers".
6 Clause 1, page 1, line 22, at end insert "to represent consumers, port users and their employees and others not represented on the National Joint Council but with an interest in the efficient working of the ports."
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
Because they are inappropriate haring regard to the functions of the Board.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 1 to 6 en bloc, to which the Commons have disagreed for Reason No. 7. I would point out that the Bill is now in an entirely different state from the original Bill. The half-mile limit as distinguished from the five-mile limit makes a difference to the need for enlarging the size of the Board. Furthermore, I would point out that four-fifths of the cargo-handling is already going through Scheme ports, so that so far as the loading and unloading of ships is concerned we are concerned with only one-fifth of the imports and exports.
I would also point out that the Government have agreed to the Lords Amendment that when considering classification or declassification the National Dock Labour Board shall have due regard to the public interest. We believe that the Amendments would have resulted in the Board being too big and would have given people outside the industry a majority of places on the Board which, in relation to both sides of the industry, would have been unreasonable, since their primary task is to administer the Scheme.
In the circumstances in which we now find out ourselves, I would suggest that there is even less good reason for these Amendments than there was before and I hope the House will not insist upon them.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendments, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 7.—(Lord Jacques.)
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am sorry that the Government have found themselves unable to agree to some form of consultation with consumer interests on

989
the Board. There were two Amendments which were designed to attain that purpose, one that I moved and the House agreed to on Division, and also Amendment No. 4 which, if I recall correctly, was a Liberal Amendment to include consultation with the National Consumer Council. One of the Bill's many defects is that the consumer interest is really nowhere represented, and, as many noble Lords said at the time, the difficulty is that even in the now narrowly defined dock labour areas the warehouses and other facilities which may in due course become operated by dockers will give these new dock labour forces what some would call a stranglehold on the food supplies of the nation. As a House we are resolved not to insist upon these Amendments, but I could not let the matter pass without saying clearly that the failure to make provision for consultation with consumer interests is a fundamental defect of this Bill.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I would agree with what the noble Lord has said, that now the area of suzerainty of the Board is going to be less wide there is less reason for increasing the numbers as proposed in the Amendment which we sent to the Commons. That is not to say that there is no reason at all. I hope that in some way or other the Government will provide for your Lordships and the other place to know how the Board is voting on these matters regarding premises and the like on which they are recommending. This is important in order that the Board may be seen to be impartial, and we are not all the time getting a majority of the interest directly concerned, that is of the National Joint Council, over-riding the rest. Can the noble Lord give an indication as to how some kind of publicity will be given to the Board's decisions and how both Houses will be able to find out how they are working?
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I do not want to make a speech but only to ask a question. I do not know who will answer it. Are we going to debate these matters all over again? Already there is an attempt to do it. The noble Lords, Lord Trefgarne and Lord Drumalbyn, have indicated their disagreement. If we are going on to debate this case again we can all take part. I suggest that we decide what we are going to do. Either we are going to vote against the Motion or leave the matter alone.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I suggest that the House will proceed with its usual good sense. One understands that Peers from all sides of the House will want to ask questions, but in view of the Statement made by my noble friend the Leader of the House which was unequivocal, and in the spirit in which it was received particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, I should very much hope that we shall keep these proceedings in the normal good temper and as brief as possible.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, in reply to the discussion may I say that during the previous stage of this Bill I was at pains to show how, in the Government's opinion, the consumers' interest was negligible. Four-fifths of the cargo-handling is already done by regulated dock workers. For that reason we did not think that there should be that consultation. On the other hand, it is provided in the Bill that there shall be consultation with the TUC and the CBI. What the Government have in mind, which I think will be agreed on all sides is fair and reasonable, is that that work which could be classifiable should have the opportunity of representation by both sides on the National Dock Labour Board—I refer not to work that is classified, but to work that is classifiable—so that before the event they can have a say as to whether or not it should be classified. That was the main reason for the additional numbers on the Board. I have noted what the noble Lord has said about publicity. I think it is a point which we should bear in mind and see what can be done.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
3.28 p.m.

LORDS AMENDMENT
8 Clause 4, page 3, line 38, leave out "in draft" and insert "and publish in accordance with the provisions of Schedule (Public Inquiries (Notices and Procedures)) to this Act,".
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
9 Because provision for a public inquiry procedure is unnecessary, the Deputy Speaker having cast his vote to retain the Bill in the form in which it left the Commons.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 8, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 9,

991
and if I am in order I would move similarly in relation to Amendment No. 10 for the Reason numbered 12; Amendment No. 11 for the Reason numbered 12, and speak to those together.
My Lords, I believe that the House should not insist on these Amendments. In previous debates there has been some confusion about what the public inquiry procedure would achieve. The old Dock Labour Scheme specified to which work and to which premises the obligations and requirements of the Scheme would apply. The new Scheme is concerned only with specifying the obligations and requirements. Under this Bill the question of where the Scheme can be applied is to be determined, first, by the decision of what is a definite dock area and, second, by the procedures under Clauses 6, 7, 8 and 9 for determining in those areas whether or not classifiable work should be classified as dock work.
Under the 1946 Act employers and unions could put forward their own local scheme to apply to a port, and when introduced in 1946 it was thought that the Government would normally not interfere in such matters. In practice it has always been the Government which put forward the proposals for a scheme. We hope therefore that the House will recognise that there are important distinctions between what was envisaged under the 1946 Act and what is envisaged under the Bill. We are not opposed to public inquiries—indeed, there is a Government Amendment which indicates that—but we believe that the public inquiry is unnecessary in these particular circumstances.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 9.—(Lord Oram.)
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, the last thing I would wish to do is to irritate the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, by rehearsing once more our debates of earlier stages about public inquiries. I would only say that when the noble Lord, Lord Oram, told us that the Commons disagreed with our Amendment he might also have pointed out that they so disagreed by the casting vote of the Speaker. I enjoyed listening to the noble Lord telling us that the Government do
992
not, in principle, object to public inquiries. That is a somewhat different line from that taken by the Front Bench opposite at earlier stages of the Bill, but, as he pointed out, they have now accepted the principle in regard to the important question of the powers of extension of the Secretary of State, and with that we on these Benches, at any rate, are, for the moment, content.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
10 Clause 4, page 3, line 41, leave out paragraph (b).
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
12 Because provision for a public inquiry procedure is unnecessary.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I have already spoken to this Amendment. I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 10.
Moved, that this House doth not insist on the said Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 12.—(Lord Oram.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
11 Clause 4, page 4, line 4, leave out paragraph (c).
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
12 Because provision for a public inquiry procedure is unnecessary.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 11.
Moved, that this House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 12.—(Lord Oram.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
13 Page 4, line 12, at end insert—
"(2C) A definable dock area shall not include any small harbour or any place within half a mile (in a direct line) of a small harbour, being a place which is not also within a similar distance of a harbour to which this Act applies.
(2D) In subsection (2C) above "small harbour" means a harbour or wharf—

(a) at which the hours worked in the twelve months ended 3rd December 1975 by a person in loading cargo into, or unloading cargo from, ships did not exceed (on being averaged

993
with the hours so worked by other persons so engaged during that period) 1,350; or

(b) which cannot at mean high water, accommodate ships of a gross registered tonnage more than 1,000 tons; or

(c) where the labour force is employed substantially on a permanent basis and where the terms and conditions of service are not less favourable than the national terms laid down for ports affiliated to the National Joint Council; and for the purposes of this subsection "cargo" and "ship" mean the same as in Schedule 3 to this Act."

The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following Reason:
14 Because they would exclude areas within which work should be capable of being considered for classification, Mr. Speaker having cast his vote to retain the Bill in the form in which it left the Commons.
3.35 p.m.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 13 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 14. This Amendment seeks to exclude what we have come to refer to as the "small ports". There is very little which divides your Lordships' House and the other place and the Government and the Opposition on this matter. The Secretary of State said in the Commons debate on the Lords Amendments:
"I recognise that there are a number of small ports which by their geographical location, irregular nature of cargoes and a number of other factors, will not be suited for the Dock Work Regulation scheme. I would not lay before the House a Bill which would have the effect of requiring every small port to be included in the Scheme if those factors did not apply."
Therefore, my Lords, there is no disagreement about the objectives of ensuring that small ports are not subject to the Scheme where its application would be both irrelevant and absurd. The Government are objecting to the means proposed in these Amendments to achieve that objective. They believe that the Bill contains in Clauses 7 and 8 adequate and satisfactory procedures to deal with small harbours. Those clauses deal with the small harbour question far more effectively than the criteria contained in Lords Amendment No. 13, since they already provide for the Board to take account of all relevant considerations, and in particular whether the work requires for its efficient performance the engage-
994
ment of a permanent labour force. The Government have repeatedly stated their view that absolute exclusion of particular places, either by name or by reference to some standard criteria of the kind proposed in the Amendment, is not a sensible way to proceed precisely because there is such a wide variety of factors that could be relevant. The exclusions proposed would work in a completely arbitrary and unsatisfactory way.
In view of the repeated assurances given about the Government's intention towards small ports, and since the House would be able to study the effect of those assurances as classification of work as dock work could take place only after statutory orders had been laid before both Houses, we would hope that your Lordships would not wish to insist upon these Amendments.
Moved, that this House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 14.—(Lord Oram.)
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I wonder whether the Government could clarify a little what the situation will now be. As I understand it, under the Bill as it came to us in the first place, although various assurances were given in another place at Second Reading and later, there was going to be the possibility of those administering small ports having to provide particulars in some detail to either the National Dock Labour Board or the local dock labour board so that such boards could determine whether or not they should leave such ports alone—if that is the right phrase. One of the things which concerned the people in small ports was that, even if they were going to be left alone—because they were so small and because they fell into the general pattern which the noble Lord has reassured us yet again the Government are not seeking to cover in this Bill—they were going to be troubled (if that is the phrase) by having to produce a lot of facts and figures which, normally speaking, they would not produce. They would be required to go to the trouble and expense of collecting these figures for the benefit of the Board, so that it could make its decision.
I am not quite clear whether, under the Bill as amended after the Government

995
have moved and carried the Amendments now before us, the small ports will be spared unnecessary collation of facts and figures, or not. I suspect it might be a little difficult for the noble Lord, Lord Oram, to provide me with an answer immediately, but I should be most grateful if he could provide such an answer. If the local dock labour board or the National Dock Labour Board are going to make such impositions on small port operators, could he see his way to preventing that in obviously ridiculous cases? It may be that this could be achieved administratively rather than by prolonging Amendments to this Bill. Would it be possible for him to give me some reassurance?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, the noble Lord is right; that procedure does still remain for requiring information in the way he suggests, but I think it will be administered in a common sense way. There is no need to trammell ports unnecessarily, but we believe there is a need to examine circumstances in all small ports. I understand the noble Lord's anxiety and I will, if I may, write to him at greater length.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, before we dispose of this, I wonder whether I might ask for guidance as to how we are proceeding. I find it extremely mystifying. We have two Papers before us on Lords Amendments to the Dock Work Regulation Bill, and at the moment I am not sure whether we are working on the second Paper in regard to the Amendments and on the first Paper in regard to the Commons reasons for disagreeing with the Amendments. I was not quite clear what happened on the last Amendment, because I was not clear which No. 11 we were talking about. If we were talking about No. 11 on the original paper, then I think I was right in hearing that this House did not insist on that Amendment, but if we are talking about No. 11 on the second paper, it would be a case of this House agreeing with the Commons in their Amendment. I wonder whether I could have some clarification on this. Otherwise we are going to get in rather a mess.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I hope we can avoid that. So far we have been dealing with this document marked at the bottom No. 382, but later either I or my noble friend Lord Jacques will be moving Amendments; so far we have not had to do that; we have been considering the Commons Reasons. Later, the other paper will come into play.
Lord DRUMALBYN: With great respect, the reason for asking was that we proceeded, as I understood it, straight from an Amendment on page 4, line 4, to an Amendment on page 4, line 12, whereas one of the new Amendments was "page 4, leave out lines 11 and 12 and insert the new words proposed by the Commons". We seem to have left that out for the moment. I was wondering what we could do about it.
Lord ORAM: My reference is to page 4, line 13, which would put the matter in order. It may be that the document to which the noble Lord referred is an older version; I am not sure.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: It is possible that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is speaking to the document printed on 8th November, whereas we are dealing with the document printed on 11th November.
Lord DRUMALBYN: May I clarify this point. Do I understand that when we come to the new Commons Amendments they will be dealt with as and when they arise, at the end of our procceedings?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: Yes.
Lord LEATHERLAND: If I may add to Lord Drumalbyn's bewilderment, he referred to the two printed sets of Amendments. We find in the Printed Paper Office that there are two typewritten sets of Amendments.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
Lord SANDFORD: It is all part of the confusion.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I trust we are all ad idem about what we are talking about.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
15 Clause 4, page 4, line 12, at end insert—
"(2E) The Secretary of State may by order amend (or having made one or more previous orders under this subsection, further amend), by substituting some other number, the number of hours laid down in subsection (2D)(a) or the number of tons laid down in subsection (2D)(b) above.
(2F) An order shall not be made under subsection (2E) above unless a draft of it has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House."
16 The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because they would exclude areas within which work should be capable of being considered for classification.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 15 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 16. These are linked with the previous Amendment.
Moved, that this House doth not insist on the said Amendment to which The Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 16.—(Lord Oram.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
Page 4, line 13, leave out subsections (3) to (7).
17 The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
18 Becase they would exclude areas within which work should be capable of being considered for classification, Mr. Speaker having cast his vote to retain the Bill in the form in which it left the Commons.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 17 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 18.
Lord FLETCHER: May I formally inquire whether there is a misprint in relation to this Amendment at the top of page 2 of the manuscript document where, with regard to the order it says that it should be approved by a resolution of the House? It seems to me that perhaps there is a misprint there and it should read "both Houses".
Lord ORAM: Yes, my Lords, instead of "the", the word, "each" should be inserted. I shall have something further to say in relation to a substitute Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment numbered 17 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 18.—(Lord Oram.)
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I am afraid that that will not do. I said that we were in considerable confusion and now here we are. The fact of the matter is that we have to have at least four bits of paper in front of us. One is the Commons list of our Amendments labelled at the bottom "Bill 248". Without that, you cannot tell exactly what the Commons have done with their agreed Amendments. Then you have to have the list with the figure 382 at the bottom left-hand corner which, up to this moment, we have been running through in sequence. Now, for the first time, we come to the additional Motion and Amendments proposed by the Government, tabled only this morning for us to consider, the first one of which requires a manuscript Amendment before we can deal with it. If the noble Lord would move his manuscript Amendment, then I think we would be in order.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I think the necessary step first is that the Motion that I have just moved should be accepted by your Lordships before we get on to a consideration of the Amendment and the manuscript Amendment to which the noble Lord has referred.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg to move a manuscript Amendment to the Amendment:
Subsection (5), leave out the second "the", and insert "each".
On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT IN LIEU OF LORDS AMENDMENT No. 17
Page 4, line 13 leave out subsections (3) to (7) and insert—
"(3) Any premises as to which the Board has reported under section 6 of this Act that work done there is dock work for the purposes of the 1967 Scheme as it applies in any port, or is so treated by custom and practice, are to be treated as part of the definable dock area which includes that port, if not otherwise falling to be so treated under subsection (2A) above.
(4) The Secretary of State may, if it appears to him necessary in the light of local circumstances affecting any particular definable dock

999
area, by order extend that area (or, having made in relation to it any one or more previuos orders under this subsection, further extend it) by directing the addition to it of any contiguous area.
(5) An order shall not be made under subsection (4) in relation to a definable dock area unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of the House.
(6) Schedule (Procedure before making of extension order under s. 4(4)) to this Act has effect as to the steps which are to be taken by the Secretary of State before making an order under subsection (4) of this section; and where an order under the subsection is laid before Parliament in draft for the purposes of subsection (5) there shall be laid with it—

(a) a statement by the Secretary of State certifying that Schedule (Procedure before making of extension order under s. 4(4)) has been complied with, and

(b) where a public inquiry has been held, a copy of any report and recommendation made by the person who held the inquiry."

Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth propose the first Amendment in lieu to page 4, line 13, to Amendment No. 17, to which the Commons have disagreed. The provisions of the original subsections (3) to (7) defining the cargo handling shown and providing a procedure for its extension would create a nonsense if, following the Commons agreement to the Amendment confining the operation of the new scheme to definable dock areas within half a mile of harbours or harbour land, they were retained. The purpose of the alternative Amendment proposed is to make a workable and sensible Bill which, if enacted, would still be of benefit to the Docks Industry and the country.
The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that the spirit of the decisions taken both here and in another place are put into a form which would enable their sensible operation in the future. The Government believe that this must mean allowing the possibility of extension of the definable dock area, just as Clause 4(6) and (7) would have allowed for such a possibility. The procedure for such extension proposed is similar to that previously proposed for the cargo handling zone; that is, consideration by the Board, allowing 60 days for representations and an order, subject to Affirmative Resolution, but as an addititional and substantive safeguard in view of the debate, provision for a public inquiry where objections are
1000
raised to the proposal. This is in line with the Amendment originally proposed by noble Lords opposite at Committee stage to the procedure for extending the cargo-handling zone.
It will not be possible for any part of the country which is not contiguous with an existing definable dock area to be added to the definable dock area by this procedure. Any addition can therefore be only of an exclusion of an existing definable dock area. Since definable dock areas will cover only a very small proportion of the area which the cargo-handling zone would have covered, this places very strict limits to the additional areas which could be added.
The Government hope that this proposal will be acceptable to the House. It seems undesirably inflexible to exclude altogether the possibility of extending definable dock areas other than by new legislation. Premises in a dock estate may be so treated, because the half-mile limitation is outside a definable dock area when it would be sensible to include them. If an employer moves 100 yards from within to without a definable dock area, we think that good industrial relations can best be maintained by allowing for the possibility of an extension of the Scheme. Similarly, half a mile from a harbour or harbour land may, because of geographical configurations of harbours, lead to some obvious nonsenses of the land which is, or is not, to be potentially within the scope of the Scheme if dock work is performed. But this procedure calling for examination by the Board, a public inquiry if objections are made, and then an Affirmative Resolution, should mean that the power will be used only either to correct what was accepted by all to be an anomaly, or where developments had been such that the need for such an extension was very widely felt to be desirable.
The provision in new subsection (3) is desirable because there is a small amount of work, particularly at some container bases in London and Liverpool, which is at present treated by custom and practice as dock work and done by registered workers clearly outside a definable dock area. The Government believe it would be most undesirable and create an enormous amount of industrial ill-feeling if it were not possible

1001
to bring such work under the new Scheme. In addition, it is possible that work done within what are considered as dock work areas, and which is certainly dock work under the 1967 Scheme, may be done more than half a mile from harbours and harbour land. For these reasons, I beg to move the Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the first Amendment proposed in lieu of Amendment No. 17 to which the Commons have disagreed.
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, I suppose that the most difficult examination which it is possible to sit in in this country is the examination for the Fellowship of All Souls, and I would suggest to the examiners of that college that next year in their political papers they set this question: Discuss the last 10 days in the life of the Dock Work Regulation Bill. The gist, if I may try to summarise it, of what the noble Lord, Lord Oram, has just said is that the Government have accepted the consequences of the House of Commons' Vote last Wednesday and are taking out all mention of the zone. With this of course we are delighted. As the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, said when discussing the Statement of the noble Lord the Leader of the House earlier this afternoon, it makes these long hours, days, weeks and nights in this House on this Bill well worth while.
I want to refer to the position first under the 1967 Scheme; that is, the Scheme which is currently in force and which this Bill seeks to renew or to extend. It was never our intention, those of us who believed that the half-mile Amendment improved the Bill, to declassify existing dock work, and so we fully accept this Amendment—that is, subsection (3) of the Government's new Amendment—as clarifying the agreed position. We have not ceased to make clear on these Benches that we are not against ameliorating the difficulties faced due to technological change and other factors by dock workers. We simply want to limit the extension of dock workers' powers as they may affect the rights and interests of other groups of workers.
I come to the powers of extension by the Secretary of State which are implicit
1002
in the Amendment moved by the noble Lord. Due to a casting vote of the Speaker in another place the Secretary of State's power to extend the zone from half a mile did remain in the Bill in another place, though I think it is fair for me to say that had that vote been taken in your Lordships' House it would have been written out as consequential on the earlier victory. So we on this side were most concerned that these powers could have been used effectively to reverse the House of Commons position and effectively to retain the five-mile zone. If we had been convinced that this might have been the case, I think we would have wished to leave the Bill even in a highly absurd muddled form on the Statute Book so that it would surely be unworkable. But we felt that this position could be tidied up safely because of the hand brakes, if I may so term them, which we have applied to the Secretary of State's machine.
The first of these is the question of timing. It will take the Government some years, perhaps one year or two years, to set up the Scheme, to get it into full operative force, and we have had an effective admission from the Government this afternoon that no early use of it would be likely to be made. But this by itself would not be good enough, and so we have the concession from the Government of a public inquiry, at variance rather with their remarks about there being no need for public inquiries on other items in connection with the Bill at an earlier stage. We also had the important concession that the Secretary of State would only make extensions order by order and district by district.
One of the purposes surely of a Parliamentary proceeding of the Affirmative Resolution procedure which applies here is that while the Affirmative Resolution proceeds through both Houses there is time for outside opinion to mobilise, and for those who might feel adversely affected by the Secretary of State's powers here to make their views and wishes known. We feel that these two additional items give a real braking effect to what the Secretary of State can do as well as, as I said earlier, giving in to the wishes of the House of Commons on the matter.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT IN LIEU OF LORDS AMENDMENT No. 17
Page 24, after Schedule 1 insert—
the following new Schedule:—

SCHEDULE

  PROCEDURE BEFORE MAKING EXTENSION ORDER UNDER S. 4(4)
  1. Where the Secretary of State proposes to make an order extending or further extending a definable dock area, he shall refer the proposal to the Board and invite them to report to him with their opinion and advice on it.
  2. He shall also publish the fact that he has referred the proposal, and the manner in which the area in question is proposed to be extended—

  (a) in at least one national newspaper and at least one newspaper circulating in and around the area proposed to be extended, and

  (b) without prejudice to section 15(2) pf this Act, in such other ways as he thinks most appropriate for bringing the proposal to the notice of the persons likely to be affected by an impleemntation of it.

  3. The Secretary of State shall allow at least 60 days for representations to be made to him (by the Board and others) with regard to the proposal, and shall consider any representations that are made.
  4. (1) For the purpose of determining whether to proceed with the proposal, the Secretary of State may cause a public inquiry to be held: and he shall cause such an inquiry to be held if it appears to him, from representations made by the Board and others, that there are objections to the proposal (other than objections appearing to him to be merely frivolous).
  (2) Any such inquiry shall be held by a person appointed by the Secretary of State from among persons appearing to him to be impartial as respects the subject matter of the inquiry; and the person so appointed shall report his findings to the Secretary of State, together with such recommendations (if any) as he thinks it right to make.
  (3) In relation to any inquiry held for the purposes of this paragraph, Section 250(2) and (3) of the Local Government Act 1972 (power to require witnesses' attendance, etc.) apply as they do in relation to a local inquiry held under Section 250(1) of that Act.")
  Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do propose the second Amendment to insert a new Schedule in lieu of the Lords Amendment No. 17, to which the Commons have disagreed. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the second Amendment in lieu of Lords Amendment No. 17.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
19 Clause 4, page 5, line 8, at end insert—
"A.—(1) Subject to final determination by the local dock labour boards, transfer of men from the extension register to the main register shall be restricted to those—

(a) who have been employed for a minimum of two years in work which becomes classified as dock work;

(b) who have satisfied the Medical Officer of the National Dock Labour Board that they are fit to perform the work concerned;

(c) who have attained the necessary levels of skill to perform the work in question; and

(d) who have not, while previously employed in the port transport industry, accepted severance pay under any redundancy scheme.

(2) Where a person is employed on premises classified under the Act and is unable to meet the requirements of subsection (1) above, that person shall be allowed to continue in that employment on the extension register."
20 Clause 4, page 5, line 9, after section "insert" and section (Transfer from Extension to Main Register) above,"
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
21 Because they impose undesirable restrictions respecting the transfer of an existing work force from one register to the the other.
4 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 19 and 20, to which the Commons have disagreed for Reason No. 21.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on the said Amendments, to which the Commons have disagreed for Reason No. 21.—(Lord Jacques.)
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I rise briefly to regret that the other place took this view. Our Amendment had been modified considerably in the light of the Government's first reactions, but we still felt it was necessary to have this new clause in order to limit the extent to which the existence of a large force of men, unskilled and largely medically unfit to do the work for which they were registered, remained a burden to port employees. We still take that view and regret that this Amendment should not have been accepted and that this cost will now fall on the ports and the employers in them.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
22 Clause 5, page 5, line 30, leave out "the cargo-handling zone" and insert "a definable dock area"
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
23 Because they would exclude areas within which owrk should be capable of being considered for classification.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 22, to which the Commons have disagreed for Reason No. 23. Before the Question is put, there are two things that I should say. First, I wish to put forward in place of the Amendment which has been rejected by the Commons the Amendment on the supplementary Marshalled List, in:
Page 5, line 28, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
"(4) The work that may be classified is any which—

(a) is done or to be done at premises in a definable dock area and is within Part I of Schedule 3 to this Act and not within Part II of that Schedule; or

(b) whether or not falling within paragraph (a) above, is reported by the Board to the Secretary of State under section 6 below as having been dock work for the purposes of the 1967 Scheme or been to treated by custom and practice".)

Secondly, I should mention that in the second last line of the typescript the word "to" should be deleted and the word "so" put in its place.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on the said Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 23, but agree to the Amendment in lieu thereof as set out on the Manuscript List subject to the Amendment to delete "to" and insert "so" in the penultimate line.—(Lord Jacques.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
24 Clause 5, page 5, line 41, at end insert—
"(5A) The Scheme shall not impose any obligations on dock employers who do not for the time being employ workers on classified work."
The Commons agreed to this Amendment but proposed the following Amendment thereto:
25 Clause 5, page 5, Line 3, leave out ("for the time being").
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 25 to the Lords Amendment No. 24.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment to the Lords Amendment.—(Lord Jacques.)
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may we have an explanation from the Minister as to why the words "for the time being" are being left out? There is no explanation in the document that we are considering.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, this was a Government Amendment and the Amendment made to it in the Commons is a drafting Amendment. In our view, it further clarifies the intention of the Amendment which was made in response to points raised on Report.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
26 Clause 5, page 6, line 37, leave out from "shall" to end of line 42 and insert "comply with the provisions of Schedule (Public Inquiries (Notices and Procedures)) to this Act."
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
27 Because provision for a public inquiry procedure is unnecessary.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 26, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 27.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 27.—(Lord Jacques.)
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, the only point I have to make is that this is entirely inconsistent with the view the Government have been taking up to a few minutes ago.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 28, to which the Commons have disagreed for Reason No. 32 but propose the Amendment in the supplementary Marshalled List in lieu thereof:

LORDS AMENDMENT
28 Clause 5, page 8, line 7, leave out "the cargo-handling zone" and insert "a definable dock area".
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
32 Because they would exclude areas within which work should be capable of being considered for classification.
Page 8, line 16, leave out from ("done") to ("by") in line 17 and insert ("at premises situated in a definable dock area").
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 32 but agree to the Amendment in lieu thereof—(Lord Jacques.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
29 Clause 7, page 8, line 16, leave out "the cargo-handling zone" and insert "a definable dock area".
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
32 Because they would exclude areas within which work should be capable of being considered for classification.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 29, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 32 but propose the Amendment in the supplementary Marshalled List in lieu thereof, in page 8, line 16.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 32 but agree to the Amendment in lieu thereof, in page 8, line 16.—(Lord Jacques.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
30 Clause 7, page 9, line 32, after "if" insert "(a)"
31 Clause 7, page 9, line 33, after "Act" insert" or
(b) the work is done at premises outside a definable dock area."
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
32 Because they would exclude areas within which work should be capable of being considered for classification.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 en bloc, to which the Commons have disagreed for Reason No. 32.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendments, to which the
1008
Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 32.—(Lord Jacques.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
33 Clause 7, page 9, line 39, after "efficient" insert "and cost effective".
34 Clause 7, page 9, line 40, at end insert "and
(iii) if classified as dock work can continue to be performed economically without any risk of the undertaking where the work is performed being rendered uneconomic with the consequent loss of employment.".
35 Clause 7, page 9, line 43, at end insert—
"(7A) The Board shall not so recommend if in their opinion the classification of the work would adversely affect the financial viability of the operations constituting the work.".
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
36 Because it is undesirable to restrict the Board in the manner proposed in relation to its recommendations concerning classification.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 33 to 35 en bloc, to which the Commons have disagreed for Reason No. 36.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendments, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 36.—(Lord Jacques.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
37 Page 10, line 31, after "Act" insert "and in particular to subsection (1A) below".
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
38 Because they introduce criteria for classification which would be difficult to interpret and could give rise to anomalies.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 37 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason No. 38.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 38—(Lord Jacques.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
39 Page 10, line 32, leave out "the cargo-handling zone" and insert "a definable dock area"
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
40 Because they would exclude areas within which work should be capable of being considered for classification.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 39, to which the Commons have disagreed for Reason No. 40, but propose the Amendment on the supplementary Marshalled List in lieu thereof:
Page 10, line 32, leave out from ("premises") to ("within") in line 33 and insert ("situated in a definable dock area and falling".)
Moved, That the House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed but propose the Amendment in lieu thereof.—(Lord Jacques.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
41 Clause 7, page 10, line 37, at end insert—
"(1A) Where more than one half of all the hours worked by persons engaged in the handling of cargo on the premises in any continuous period of twelve months within the preceding five years have been spent on work which is not classifiable as dockwork the Board shall not recommend classification of any work done on these premises."
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
42 Because they introduce criteria for classification which would be difficult to interpret and could give rise to anomalies.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 41, to which the Commons have disagreed for Reason No. 42.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 42.—(Lord Jacques.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
43 Page 11, line 18, leave out "(a)"
44 Page 11, line 20, leave out "or (b)" and insert "and (a)"
45 Page 11, line 26, leave out "more" and insert "both".
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
46 Because it is undesirable to restrict the Board in the manner proposed in relations to its recommendations concerning classification.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist
1010
on their Amendments Nos. 43 to 45 en bloc, to which the Commons have disagreed for Reason No. 46, but propose the Amendment to page 12, line 28, in lieu thereof and as set out on the Manuscript List:
Page 12, line 28, leave out from ("premises") to ("with") and insert ("situated in a definable dock area".)
Moved that this House doth not insist on the said Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 46 but propose an Amendment in lieu thereof.—(Lord Jacques.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
47 Clause 9, page 12, line 28, leave out "the cargo-handling zone" and insert "a dock labour scheme area,"
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
48 Because they would exclude areas within which work should be capable of being considered for classification.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 47, which to the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 48 but propose the Amendment to page 12 line 28, in lieu thereof:
Page 12, line 28, leave out from ("premises") to ("with") and insert ("situated in a definable dock area".)
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 48, but propose an Amendment in lieu thereof.—(Lord Oram.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
Appeals concerning classification
49 After Clause 9, page 13, line 22, at end insert:
"B.—(1) If any person being an employer of persons carrying out work to which sections 7, 8 or 9 apply, or any trade union recognised for the purposes of collective bargaining by any such employer shall dispute whether any work should be classified as dockwork which falls within Part I of Schedule 3 and not within Part II of the Schedule or claims that any work should not be classified or should cease to be classified on the grounds that it falls within Part II of Schedule 3 and not within Part I of that Schedule, he may give notice to the Secretary of State.
(2) Any such notice under this section shall state—

(a) the name and address of the person giving the same and the facts entitling him to give such notice;

1011

(b) the nature of the dispute identifying the work in question and the facts relating thereto in sufficient details to enable a reference to be made hereunder including the address or description of the premises at which such work is carried on;

and a copy of such notice shall be sent by the person giving the same to the Board and to all other persons being employers and trade unions as aforesaid and in any way concerned or interested in the subject matter of the dispute.
(3) If the dispute or claim is not resolved, withdrawn or otherwise settled the Secretary of State may refer the dispute for decision to the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service or to an Industrial Tribunal.
(4) No report or recommendation by the Board and no order made by the Secretary of State relating to such a dispute or claim shall be made while the dispute or claim stand referred to the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service or to an Industrial Tribunal."
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
50 Because the Bill already provides adequate procedures for determining whether or not work should be classified as dock work.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 49 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 50.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 50.—(Lord Jacques.)
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, can help me. The original Consultation Document about dock work envisaged that both the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service at one point and the Industrial Tribunal at another could be involved, and should be invoked in order to deal with disputes about what should be and what should not be arising from proposals or decisions to classify particular pieces of work as dock work. The Commons disagreed to the Amendment which we eventially put into the Bill after a good deal of discussion, and they say that there are now adequate procedures for determining disputes as to whether or not work should be classified. I think it would be interesting to know from the noble Lord just exactly where we can find those in the Bill.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I think that the procedures are set out in Clauses 7 and 8 and in one of the Schedules to the Bill, which sets out the procedure for dealing with the classification of work. For example, where the work is other than loading and unloading, there is a two-stage procedure. First, the Board has to give notice that it considers there to be a prima facie case for classification. It sends a copy of that notice and receives representations. It has to consider the whole question again, and, if it decides that there is a prima facie case, it has to start all over again and give notice again. After receiving representations the second time, it has to decide whether or not it is reasonable to recommend classification. It then recommends to the Secretary of State, and, again, there is an opportunity for representation. So, in that case, there are three opportunities for representations, two to the Board and one to the Secretary of State. That is the kind of procedure to which we are referring when we say that the procedures in the Bill are adequate.
Lord DRUMALBYN: The noble Lord may feel that there are adequate procedures in the Bill but he has only given an example from one clause. There may possibly be other clauses within which representations may be made and I do not necessarily agree with everything that he has said about Clause 8. I believe that it would be helpful to the House if the noble Lord could spell out what the Government are proposing instead of the Amendment which was made at the Committee stage in this House.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the Government rely upon the procedures in the Bill. There is another procedure in Schedule 4, paragraph 13, which was the Schedule to which I was referring a moment ago. There, it says that the Secretary of State, if he thinks it appropriate in consequence of representations made to him, through him or otherwise, may refer questions to ACAS for its opinion and advice.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am sorry but the noble Lord is now dealing with only one clause. It would be necessary for him to show on the other clauses—Nos. 6 and 7—that there were parallel procedures. However, there are not; there is only the right to make representations.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, so far as ACAS is concerned, the Secretary of State has the power to refer any industrial relations matter to ACAS now.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, for the life of me, I cannot see why this should not go into the Bill in a way that covers all these procedures. The main procedures are directed towards deciding whether work should be classified or not; they are not directed towards disputes that arise as a result of those decisions. However, at this stage, I think that we despair of pursuing the matter any further.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
4.12 p.m.

LORDS AMENDMENT
51 Clause 11, page 14, line 3, leave out "the cargo-handling zone "and insert" a dock labour scheme area,"
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
52 Because they would exclude areas within which work should be capable of being considered for classification.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 51 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 52 but propose in lieu thereof the Amendment to page 14, line 3, set out on the Manuscript List.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed, but agree to the following Amendment in lieu thereof:
Page 14, line 3, leave from "premises" to end of line and insert "situated in a definable dock area".—(Lord Oram.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
53 Clause 11, page 14, line 22, at end insert ", after the provisions of Schedule (Public Inquiries (Notices and Procedures)) to this Act have been complied with,"
54 Clause 11, page 14, line 29, after "State" insert "after the provisions of Schedule (Public Inquiries (Notices and Procedures)) to this Act have been complied with"
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
55 Because provision for a public inquiry procedure is unnecessary.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 to which the Commons
1014
have disagreed for the Reasons numbered 55.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on the said Amendments, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 55.—(Lord Oram.)
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, my noble friend mentioned this earlier, but having put a public inquiry procedure into the Bill, it seems illogical for us to agree to Commons Reason No. 55. Though I would not suggest for a moment that we would want these Amendments carried through or that one should object to the Commons disagreeing them, I think that for the sake of logic and the record it should somehow be indicated that there is a new reason and not that given in Reason No. 55. This seems unhappy, and I wonder whether the Government can help us here.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, perhaps the Reason or suggested Amendment could read, "for the reason that a public inquiry is provided for elsewhere".
Lord ORAM: My Lords, what is stated here is the Commons Reason, not the reasons that we are now putting forward in relation to Amendments which we are moving. The point is that there are two kinds of public inquiry in question. One is a much more general one which was inserted at an earlier stage of the Bill in your Lordships' House and which it has now been agreed is not to be insisted upon, and the other is the public inquiry which the Government have proposed today which relates only to objections to proposals to extend the definable dock area. It is a narrower concept of public inquiry but very necessary, as I think noble Lords opposite will agree.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
56 Clause 15, page 17, leave out lines 36 and 37.
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
57 Because they would exclude earas within which work should be capable of being considered for classification.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 56, to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose

1015
in lieu thereof the Amendment to page 17, lines 36 and 37 set out in the Manuscript List.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed, but agree to the following Amendment in lieu thereof:
Page 17, leave out lines 36 and 37 and insert—"definable dock area has the meaning given by section 4".—(Lord Oram.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
58 Schedule 2, page 24, line 37, leave out from "workers" to end of line 40 and insert—

"(a) provision for training and welfare in so far as provision does not exist apart from the Scheme;

(b) the administration of any severance in accordance with the terms of any national agreement of the National Joint Council or other relevant joint industrial negotiating body."

The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
59 Because it is undesirable to restrict the matters which may be dealt with in the Scheme.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No, 58 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 59.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 59.—(Lord Oram.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
60 Schedule 3, page 25, line 21, at end insert "except for qualitative checking and recording where inspecting and/or measuring and/or weighing and/or sampling is involved."
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
61 Because it may be desirable to classify work which is within the terms of the Amendment.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 60 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 61.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 61.—(Lord Oram.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
62 Schedule 3, page 25, line 38, leave out from "be" to end of line 40 and insert "loaded as cargo become "cargo" when they are physically received by the stevedore, wharfinger or lighterman from the sender or his agent"
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
64 Because it is undesirable that "cargo" should be defined in the manner proposed.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 62 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 64, but propose in lieu thereof the Amendment to page 25, line 39, set out on the Manuscript List.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed, but agree to the following Amendment in lieu thereof:
Page 25, line 39, leave out from "within" to "and" in line 40 and insert "a definable dock area".
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
63 Page 25, line 40, at end insert—
"(bb) goods which have been loaded as cargo in a ship cease to be so when they have been physically handed over by the stevedore, wharfinger or lighterman to the receiver or his agent; and"
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
64 Because it is undesirable that "cargo" should be defined in the manner proposed.
4.20 p.m.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 63 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 64. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 64.—(Lord Oram.)
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, this was a very important Amendment. I do not propose to say anything further about it, but I wish to point out that I believe that the Government will give themselves a great deal of trouble by this division of cargo handling area and by the disagreement with the Lords' Amendments in this case. The Government will find that they will get a considerable amount of trouble for very little result.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
65 Page 26, line 12, at end insert—
"(c) by the National Freight Corporation or any subsidiary of that corporation."
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
66 Because work done by employees of the National Freight Corporation ought not to be classifiable.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 65 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 66. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 66.—(Lord Jacques.)
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, is the noble Lord able to tell us why work done by employees of the National Freight Corporation "ought not to be classifiable" in the view of the Government? What do they mean by, "ought not to be classifiable"?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, in the opinion of the Government, the terms and conditions and general employment circumstances of the employees of nationalised industrise who might come within the scope of Part I of Schedule 3 are considered to be such that the bringing of their work within the Dock Labour Scheme is never likely to be justified under the provisions of Clause 8.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, does the noble Lord think that it is certain that there will never be any industrial disputes as a result of this distinction between what is done by the National Freight Corporation and what is done in exactly the same sphere by other aspects of dock labour?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, our position here is much the same as it is with the railway docks. We believe that the conditions of employment in both cases are such that there is no need for classification. Both sides of industry are carrying on and they have not got the kind of problem that we are trying to deal with, the problem of casual labour.
Lord SHENWELL: My Lords, it would help to clarify the matter if my noble friend would state specifically what is the nature of the occupation of these employ-
1018
ees of the National Freight Corporation. Does it differ fundamentally from the labour undertaken by the dockers who are embodied in this legislation?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, they work under a collective agreement under which there is complete agreement between the employer concerned and the trade union concerned, and there are conditions which are comparable with those which apply under the dock regulation scheme. We do not think that in that case it is necessary to classify the work.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
67 Page 26, line 17, at end insert—
"10A. The work of persons employed in a business on premises occupied for the purposes of that business where the terms and conditions of employment are mainly or exclusively the subject of a collective agreement unless the parties to the collective agreement further agree that the work in question may be classified."
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
68 Because it may be desirable to consider work for classification without agreement of both parties to a collective agreement.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 67 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 68.
Moved, that this House doth not insist on the said Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 68.—(Lord Jacques.)
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, can the noble Lord explain this a little? It seems to me to be a very odd Reason:
"Because it may be desirable to consider work for classification without agreement of both parties to a collective agreement."
Will not a rather awkward situation arise here?
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies to my noble friend, I should like to ask him how, in the light of what he has just said about the National Freight Corporation, he can possibly justify that Reason. If the parties can come to a collective agreement which has the effect of making it then undesirable to classify the work going on under the collective agreement, why do we have exactly the opposite view in the next Amendment?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, we are dealing with something quite different here. The broad effect of this Amendment is similar to that of Amendment No. 78, which seeks to give the right to veto to the trade unions recognised in respect of the work concerned since 3rd December, 1975. It goes even further in that the positive agreement of both union and employer is required before the work can be classified. This is quite a different thing. It is giving not merely a right of veto but a double right of veto, a right of veto to both sides.
Viscount BARRINGTON: My Lords, can the noble Lord make a little more explicit to those who do not understand these technical terms, the meanings of the words "desirable" and "undesirable"? The last three Amendments and many before that, including the Liberal Amendment about consumers, have been rejected on the grounds that what was proposed is undesirable, which may mean undesirable to the public, undesirable to the Government, or undesirable to any one person. Here it definitely states the word "desirable" in a context where it is apparently not desirable by one of the two parties concerned. Could that point be made a little clearer?
Lord SLATER: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it could not be any clearer where one gets the employer and the trade unions to agree in toto upon an issue of this character? This is what really happens in industry. I am surprised at the attitude of some industrialists on the other side of the House who have to negotiate with trade unionists and who at some time in the course of negotiations, after long talks and deliberations in their departments, reach finality. I think that on this issue the Government are presenting this in the right way, and that it is quite clear to those people who have had experience within this operation.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the word "desirable" is used by the Commons, and I should not like to answer for the Commons.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, there is an issue here which has been raised by my noble friend Lord Slater. Just because the employers and the unions, no matter after how many hours of
1020
argument, make an agreement, is no reason why a democratic Parliament should take it. I think that we are getting a little wide of our remit here. We are in fact giving a veto to the trade unions, because unless the employer agrees with them he cannot get by. I was a little worried when my fellow backwoodsman, the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, raised a point on the last Amendment. I did not get up, but I became a little worried and thought that possibly I should have done. I am rather worried about this one, too. I cannot really see the case for letting this one go. Now since everybody seems to have arranged things behind the scenes, I am willing not to be awkward. But what we cannot do, I should have thought, is simply to argue that because the employers and the trade unions have fixed it up between themselves, behind the scenes, none of the rest of us have anything to say. It seems to me to be destroying the idea of Parliamentary democracy. I personally am rather uncertain about whether I am willing to let this one go.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, this Amendment is much less important at this stage of the Bill than it was originally. I should like to remind noble Lords that there is a half-mile limit now, not a five-mile limit. We are saying that there is work which was done by registered dock workers. It has been taken away from the waterside, and the Board should be able to consider whether that work should or should not be classified without a veto from the employer or the trade union concerned. We say that this matter should at least be considered, but if this Amendment were carried it would not even be considered. That is the line that the Government take.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
4.30 p.m.

LORDS AMENDMENT
69 Schedule 3, page 26, line 18, leave out paragraph 11 and insert—
"11. Driving any vehicle whose use is mainly on public roads, whether inside or outside any definable dock area; supervision of loading and unloading such a vehicle; seeing to the security of its load."
The Commons agreed to this Amendment but proposed the following Amendment thereto:
70 Schedule 3, page 26, Line 3,—leave out ("any definable dock area") and insert ("the cargo-handling zone")
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth disagree with the Commons Amendment No. 70 to the Lords Amendment No. 69. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth disagree with the Commons Amendment No. 70 to the Lords Amendment No. 69.—(Lord Jacques.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
71 Schedule 3, page 26, line 22, after (12) insert
"(a)"
72 Page 26, line 23, at end insert—
"(b) such work as by local custom or usage is left to riggers and shipwrights.
Provided that nothing in (a) or (b) above shall operate to prevent a change in the local custom or usage which is agreed by a majority of the employers and unions concerned."
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
73 Because it may be desirable to clasify work which is within the terms of the Amendment.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, with the leave of the House I beg to move that this House doth not insist upon their Amendments Nos. 71 and 72 en bloc to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 73. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendments, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 73.—(Lord Jacques.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
74 Schedule 3, page 26, line 35, leave out "the cargo-handling zone" and insert "a definable dock area"
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
75 Because they would exclude areas within which work should be capable of being considered for classification.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist upon their Amendment No. 74 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 75, but propose the Amendment to page 26, line 35, in lieu thereof, set out in the Supplementary Marshalled List. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason
1022
numbered 75, but doth agree to the following Amendment in lieu thereof:
Page 26, line 35, leave out from "premises" to "or" and insert "not situated within a definable dock area ".—(Lord Jacques.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
76 Schedule 3, page 27, line 5, at end insert—
"16A. The work of persons wholly or mainly engaged in the storage of perishable foodstuffs under controlled temperature conditions, except—

(a) where such goods are discharged directly from a ship into a cold store or onto the quayside adjacent to a cold store, and where by custom and practice the handling of such goods has been dock work; or

(b) where a cold store or other premises for the storage of foodstuffs under temperature controlled conditions is or is to be established within a dock labour scheme area as an integral part of the cargo handling operation."

The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
77 Because it imposes undesirable restrictions on the classes of work which can be classified.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist upon their Amendment No. 76 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 77. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 77.—(Lord Jacques.)
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I wonder whether the Government can help me a little on this one. The first Amendment on this makeshift Marshalled List that we have had for the first time today talks about the Secretary of State having powers, subject to all sorts of limitations, to extend contiguously to the new dock area. It seems to me that there is not an immediate possibility of cold stores which are remote from the seafront or the waterfront, outside the half-mile range which is now within the Bill, being considered for job classification as the Bill now stands. I should be grateful if the Government could give me reassurance that that is the situation.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, as I understand it, the noble Lord is dealing with cold stores slightly outside the half-mile area?
Lord MOTTISTONE: Yes, my Lords.
Lord JACQUES: There are two possibilities there. First, if the work is already being done by registered dock workers, then it could be classified in accordance with the procedures, I think under Clause 4. If the work is not so classified, then before the work could be classified it would be necessary to have an extension of the limit, and an extension of the limit would involve a public inquiry followed by an Affirmative Resolution of both Houses.
Lord MOTTISTONE: Perhaps the noble Lord could help me further. The limit could be extended only contiguously to the now-defined dock area; that is, it could not be extended five miles inland?
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, I should like to say that it is becoming clear now that this House is crumpling before the Government at the present time. It is insisting upon nothing. It is not insisting upon any of its Amendments; everything is being withdrawn; and I believe very strongly that, in the long run, that is not going to be any good for the Government or for this country. The proceedings this afternoon are absolutely farcical.
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, from this side of the House I should like to point out that we are extremely pleased with the way things have gone. We do not like the Bill—we never have liked the Bill—but we think that the Amendments to the Bill are in accordance with what we have been fighting for over many long days, weeks and months (what seems like years), and are certainly in accordance with what was wished for by another place.
Lord HANKEY: My Lords, I do not really agree with my noble friend Lord Boothby, for once. I think invariably I otherwise do, because he is a man of very great wisdom. But I should like to say that this Bill is being handled in the way in which I think it ought to be handled. I like to see an attempt being made by the Parties on both sides of the House to agree on things so far as they can agree them. I think that the trouble with our country is that we are at present in danger of magnifying and multiplying causes of disagreement, with a view to the Parties downing each other. If we go on doing that, my Lords, it does not matter which Party is in
1024
power, this country is going to sink under the waves of the North Sea. So I congratulate those concerned on the way in which they have done their business. However, I do not congratulate this House on the detailed manner in which it is being conducted. I would never have allowed OEEC to have the Amendments presented in this higgledy-piggledy way when I was chairman of it, and OECD would never have permitted it. It is very hard to understand these Amendments. I am delighted there has been a certain amount of agreement, but I think it has been reached in rather a hole-in-the-corner manner; and I wish we had had time to see these Amendments. I suppose I ought to have spent the night here, or come in at 9 o'clock this morning. It is difficult.
My Lords, what I really object to about this Bill is that it is not relevant to the affairs of the docks at all. The reason the Port of London has declined is because it has been extremely badly run. The docks in London will probably never get back to what they were, and the reason is not because the dockers have not had more power; the reason is because the dockers have had too much power, and have been too well looked after. I think this Bill will probably make the position worse, and will extend the troubles to other ports. But I do not want to make a Second Reading speech about this. I just wish to register a protest from these Benches that the measures we are considering with such haste are not more relevant. In conclusion, I congratulate everybody concerned on the way in which they have reached agreement.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, may I say that the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is "Yes".
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, perhaps it would be only reasonable to add that I do not think that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, has quite understood the great effect of the change in the cargo-handling zone which has been brought about. We now have an area of half a mile round the actual port, instead of an area of five miles around the entire country. within which these changes can take place. I really think that is a considerable achievement. Although we have not had to do any opposing at this stage because the Government have very

1025
wisely I think, and very graciously, given way on things, we have nevertheless been saying "Content" to a remarkable number of Amendments from this side of the House, which is not always very usual when the other place sends us back the Amendments moved by this side of the House.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, I am rather confused in all this Second Reading stuff. What was it that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, said "Yes" to, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone? May I be reminded?
Lord JACQUES: Yes, my Lords. The noble Lord asked: "If there was a possibility of an extension of the definable dock area or cargo-handling zone, would it be an extension of one mile or ten miles? Surely it would be restricted." The answer was, "Yes, it would be restricted".
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: But restricted to what, and by what?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, the question was, "Would it be extended only contiguously to an existing area?", and the answer to that is, "Yes".
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
78 Schedule 4, page 28, line 40, leave out "18th September 1967" and insert "3rd December 1975"
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
79 Because the right to object to classification should be confined to trade unions recognised in respect of the work at least since September 1967.
4.40 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 78, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 79.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 79.—(Lord Jacques.)
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, this is an agreement I should like to have seen in the Bill because I think it is unreasonable to distinguish between the
1026
rights of trade unions purely in relation to the date on which a recognition agreement was made. If those in respect of whom a recognition agreement was made before 1967 are to have the right of veto, so should those after 1967. I think it is wrong to discriminate in that way. I may say that when reading the Reason which the Commons have given for disagreeing to the Lords Amendment, which is in the following terms:
"Because the right to object to classification should be confined to trade unions recognised in respect of the work at least since September 1967.",
I cannot help wondering whether those who drafted this were very familiar with the Bill because, as the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has already made clear, in dealing with Clause 8 and the right to object, a notice has to be sent out whenever the Board are considering or are about to consider proposals for classification under that clause. A notice has to be sent out both to the employers and the trade unions, so that they can make recommendations. In those recommendations, they can object and yet this Agreement says that:
"… the right to object should be confined to trade unions recognised in respect of the work at least since September 1967".
I know what they mean, but they have not got it right: and if they have not got it right, how on earth are other people to get it right—members of the public, and those who are going to have to operate under the Bill? It is a very complicated Bill. I personally let this go with great reluctance, because I think it shows so clearly how wrong it is that one section of the public should try to solve its problems at the expense of another section of the public. That is the core of the objection to the Bill.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, why does one let it go, even with reluctance? If we want to say something differently, why do we not insist on trying to get it said? We do not mean only the trade union or the trade unionist before 1967, do we? We actually mean that any body, any group of trade unionists, properly recognised and properly organised before or after 1967 should have the right to make representations—as the noble Lord said, making representations and making, if you wish, an objection. What I do not understand is why

1027
we let a thing go through as ill-drafted and indefensible as this, unless we are assuming that we are transferring the responsibility to the judges and assuming that if at some later stage it is moved against, the judges will say, "This is wrong", or, "It falls because we cannot interpret it".
I just do not understand. I know that both sides have done their best and, on the whole, I am willing to accept that; but they could have done better. I honestly and truthfully do not see why we let something go through in the cynical view that because it is in any case indefensible somebody else will knock it down at some later stage. I think I shall be a Not-Content on this issue.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, there are really two points here. First, I still dislike very much the rejection of our Amendment by the Commons. Secondly, I do not like the Reason which is given for that rejection, and I was pointing out that it does not stand up. However, this is not really a matter that we can amend.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I have raised several objections to the Bill, but the Government are right about this. What the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is asking for is a confrontation with the dockers. That is exactly what we are trying to avoid, and that is exactly what would happen if this were not accepted. There may be some trouble arising out of this legislation, but if we can avoid it, so much the better. The reference to September 1967 is there simply because that is when the dockers came to an agreement. It is on the basis of that collective agreement that they are seeking to gain further powers; that is all. What Members of your Lordships' House sought to do was to promote a new collective agreement. That could cause a lot of trouble. The Government are right on this matter, though in many respects they have been quite wrong.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I should like to ask for clarification whether it is not a fact that there is an opportunity for objections to be made by other trade unions which have been established after 1967 under the public inquiry system. Is there not therefore less reason for this
1028
Amendment than perhaps there might otherwise have been? I do not know whether or not noble Lord, Lord Jacques, heard me. I was asking whether it was not possible for other trade unions which have been established and recognised after 1967 to make an objection under the public inquiry system. Have I got the wrong end of the stick? Perhaps my noble-friend can clarify the position for me, if the Government cannot.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I think there is some misunderstanding here. First, I would say to my noble friend Lord George-Brown, that there is nothing to prevent a trade union, whether recognised or not, making representations and objections when classification is being considered. What we are considering is whether it should have a veto. We say that it should be only in the rarest circumstances that an institution outside Parliament should be given a veto. Consequently, the veto has been restricted to those trade unions which were recognised by the employer before September 1967, because it was desired to protect the long-established warehouses and cold stores, to say that they could not be classified.
What we are saying in regard to the more recent cold stores and warehouses is not that they should be classified but that they should be considered. There should not be a veto by anyone to stop them being considered. They may very well be in-lieu of work that was done at the dockside, or they may not. We think it is a matter for consideration. What we are trying to do here, and what we have been trying for all the time, is to set up peaceful means of settling disputes instead of the picketing, and so on, that went on during 1970, 1972 and 1975.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
80 Page 30, line 11, at end insert the following new Schedule—
"PUBLIC INQUIRIES (NOTICES AND PROCEDURES)
1. Where subsection (1) of section 4, subsection (10) of section 5 or subsection (4) of section 11 above apply the Secretary of State shall proceed in accordance with the following provisions of this Schedule.
2. The Secretary of State shall publish a notice that the draft Scheme, the proposal or the draft order (as the case may be) are available, stating where copies may be obtained and specifying a period of 40 days

1029
within which representations may be made to him about the draft Scheme, proposal or draft order.
3. A notice under paragraph 2 above shall be published—

(a) in the London Gazette, the Edinburgh Gazette, or both, according as the draft Scheme, proposal or draft order relates to ports in England and Wales, Scotland or both; and

(b) in such local newspapers or in any other ways as appear to the Secretary of State best suited for bringing the notice to the attention of persons interested;

and shall specify a place where the draft Scheme, the proposal or the draft order (as the case may be) may be inspected, and copies thereof obtained at all reasonable hours, and the time in which and the manner in which any objections thereto may be made to the Secretary of State and, subject to paragraph 4 below, the Secretary of State shall consider any objections made within the time and in the manner specified in the notice.
4. The Secretary of State shall not be required to consider any objection which does not comprise, or have submitted with it, a statement in writing setting out the specific ground of the objection and particulars of any omission, addition or modification asked for, or any objection which in his opinion is frivolous.
5. If there are no objections which the Secretary of State is required to consider, or if all such objections are withdrawn—

(a)in the case of a draft Scheme or order (either in the terms of the draft or subject to such modifications as he thinks fit, being modifications which in his opinion do not effect important alterations in the character of the draft as published), he may lay the Scheme before Parliament or make the order (as the case may be); or

(b)in the case of a proposal, forward to the Board for their consideration a copy of the report referred to in paragraph 8 below.

6. Before preparing a new Scheme, the Secretary of State may cause an inquiry to be held.
7. Where any objections are made as aforesaid and are not withdrawn, the Secretary of State shall cause an inquiry to be held by an impartial person and, where that inquiry relates to a draft Scheme or order, the Secretary of State may, after considering the report referred to in paragraph 9 below, lay the draft Scheme before Parliament or make the order (as the case may be) in the terms of the draft or subject to such modifications as he thinks fit.
8. Subsections (2) to (5) of section 250 of the Local Government Act 1972 shall apply in relation to an inquiry held under this Schedule as they apply to a local inquiry held under subsection (1) of that subsection with the omission of the word "local" from subsection (4).
9. The Secretary of State shall publish the report of the person appointed by him to hold an inquiry for the purposes of this Schedule."
The commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
81 Because provision for a public inquiry procedure is unnecessary.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 80, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 81.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 81.—(Lord Jacques.)
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I shall not make much of this last Amendment, because we have said everything we wanted to say earlier. But I should like to say, as I have said many times before on this Bill, that I think that the Government have imposed on this House in particular a quite impossible procedure. We have had to go through the Bill in quite inordinate haste, and as a result we have not done our job as well as we should have done. Despite that, and despite what a number of noble Lords have been saying from all around the House in the last few minutes, I think that Parliament as a whole can be well satisfied with the significant achievement that it has secured over this last week in curbing the intentions of the Government, and particularly in protecting the large number of interests that have very rightly felt themselves to be seriously threatened by the Bill.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I should just like to thank noble Lords in all parts of the House, and particularly noble Lords opposite, for their co-operation in getting on to the Statute Book what I believe is a fair and reasonable compromise of opinion in the two Houses.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

RENT (AGRICULTURE) BILL
4.51 p.m.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Price of Wales to acquaint

1031
the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Rent (Agriculture) Bill, have consented to place their prerogative and interest, so far as they are concerned on behalf of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. In order to save the House hearing me make two speeches, I should like to await with interest what other noble Lords have to say and will save my remarks for winding up.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Baroness Birk.)
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, it looks as though the tenants of the tied cottage on the Opposition Front Bench have been evicted.
Lord SWAYTHLING: My Lords, I feel very strongly that, with all the many Amendments that have been put into the Bill since it arrived in your Lordships' House, much has been done to make it less objectionable to the agricultural industry, and I trust that all the Amendments will be retained. Nevertheless, I feel sure that, if opinions were taken in the agricultural industry, practically all the farmers would wish that the Bill should not become law. It must be remembered that the farmers have the interests of their workers very much at heart, and there has not been any strike or friction between employers and employed. Also, if the opinions of farm workers were sought, I am confident that the large majority would be against the passing of the Bill. Those who studied it would know the effects. Some of the older workers approaching retiring age might wish to see it become law so that they could remain in their houses, although they are well aware of the necessity of housing their successors at work. The younger men, however, would realise that there would be many difficulties in moving to another job to gain experience and to improve their position, in order to climb the ladder of success.
1032
During the course of the Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Peart, and the noble Lord, Lord Collison, several times mentioned the question of mobility. It seems obvious that there will be much difficulty in providing houses for new workers, when they are engaged to replace a worker who is leaving his job. I trust that when the Bill is reconsidered in another place, those who vote will consider carefully all that has been said in your Lordships' House during its passage.
4.54 p.m.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I wonder whether I may now cast such observations as I was going to make, and I apologise to your Lordships for not being in my seat when this Bill started. I am afraid that the processes of the last Bill went slightly more quickly than I anticipated.
We have now come to the last stage of the Bill and, before it returns to another place with the recommendations which your Lordships have seen fit to suggest should be made to it, I should like to take the opportunity of thanking both the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for the acceptable and courteous manner in which they have, as it were, dealt with us as an Opposition. If I may be permitted to say so, they have handled a highly contentious Bill in an exemplary fashion, in a friendly, understanding and considerate manner, and for this we are very grateful. On a personal level, this has been much appreciated and I should like to thank them as representatives of the Government for this generosity of approach. I should also like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for the way in which she has been prepared to see me individually during the Bill's progress, both outside the Chamber as well as inside it, to try to understand our concern and to see whether there was any meeting of minds. Of course, there was a pretty steely hand, even if it was a delicate one, inside the kid glove and there was not too much give, but I did not really expect that there would be very much give even though I hoped for it. But I appreciate the effort.
I only wish that there had been more give on the part of the Government, because I genuinely believe that if and when the Bill becomes law it will make inroads into the system, efficiency and

1033
running of British agriculture which are quite unprecedented, and which will be infinitely greater than the Government have begun to think likely. Although the Bill is highly contentious, at no time have my noble friends and I disputed what one might call the moral rectitude of the motives which prompted the Bill in the first place. If eviction, anxiety, indignity, fear or oppression are sought to be cured or even alleviated by the Bill, who can castigate such motives?—not I, and not, indeed, any of my noble friends behind me. These are high and worthy principles, but they generate and form strong driving forces. Those aims are, I hope, common to all of us, and in so far as we may have been contentious in some of our Amendments, it was not on those grounds where our dispute lay. Rather was it the recognition that those strong driving forces could, like a ship propelled through the water, leave behind them a wash, the impact of which could be devastating to those caught in it. This made us suggest that the officers of the watch might, with profit, look around and trim their course a little for the benefit of the occupants of the sea, as well as the occupants of the boat.
I venture to think that your Lordships' House has, over this Bill, again done what this House is supposed to do, which is to consider all the aspects of a Bill. It is very lucky for the Government that there is a Second Chamber, because as the Bill arrived to us the Government considered it sufficiently inadequately drafted that they have sought to make, and your Lordships have agreed to make, no fewer than 97 Government Amendments to the Bill, which another place will be asked to accept as improvements. We, for our part, have asked your Lordships to agree that another place should consider the inclusion of 31 Amendments—relative peanuts, numerically. But this is what your Lordships' House is for, and many hours of work, effort and thought have been given to some of these Amendments to try, in a non-Party way, to improve the Bill so that when it becomes law it will operate better.
I am bound to say that it is disheartening and disdaining in the extreme, to think that the operation of the guillotine in another place will result in many of these Amendments not even being considered or spoken to, but being frog-marched out of the Bill straight into the wastepaper
1034
basket by the continuous circulation of Members of another place through the Division Lobbies, irrespective of the merits or otherwise of the unheard of arguments upon which they will be voting.
I had earnestly hoped that more flexibility would be shown by the Government over "best endeavours" Those two words have scared the life out of the agricultural industry. Farmers see the prospect of the houses which are vital to the operation of their businesses being occupied by people who choose to work elsewhere. They fear for their businesses; they fear for their stock; they fear for their farms; and they fear for their future. The local authority can say, "We have used our best endeavours to re-house but we are afraid that we can't" and by those few simple words can be lost, for years, a house which is vital to a farmer. I still do not believe that that can be right. We have tried to improve those words so as not to conflict with the principle of the Bill, yet on every occasion the Government have, with a stubbornness which historically has been attributed to mules, said, "No".
We had four Amendments, each one of which was designed to put a few more teeth into the flimsy sentiments of "best endeavours" but which together might make the Bill work without debilitating agriculture. We said, "Let us put a duty on the local authority to accept the obligation to re-house". The Government said, "No". We said, "Where the ADHAC says that there is a case of extreme urgency, let the local authority re-house in three months". The Government said, "No". We said, "Let temporary accommodation, provided that it is suitable, be used only where the local authority says that it intends to re-house as soon as it can". The Government said, "No". Then, when everything else has failed and the farmer cannot regain possession of a house that is vital to the running of his farm and the local authority cannot or will not re-house, we said, "Let him put up a caravan". The Government said, "No". Indeed, as part of her argument the noble Baroness used these extraordinary words:
"I think it would be quite wrong to find justification for putting farmers or any other group in a privileged position where a change of land use is involved without first obtaining planning permission".

1035
I am bound to say with the greatest of respect to the noble Baroness, because I realise that she speaks for the Government, that I have seldom heard a more irrelevant and more unsympathetic reply. The noble Baroness's brief must have been, "Use any argument that you can think of, however inept or irrelevant, but, whatever happens, at all costs say, No". To suggest, when everything else has failed and a farmer puts up a caravan, that this is a change of land use and a privilege would be almost laughable, were it not said in earnest. It is a last desperate attempt to ensure that, where every other provision in the Bill has failed, a farmer can still carry on his business, yet the noble Baroness says that this would be a privilege.
Let us be clear that if privileges are being accorded it is this Bill which accords them. The Bill gives rights to a small section of people in tied accommodation, rights which are denied to the other 90 per cent. of people who are living in tied accommodation. It gives rights of security of tenure which are infinitely greater than those enjoyed by people in local authority housing, who are not protected by the Rent Acts, who have in law no security of tenure whatever and who can be given notice to quit their homes within 28 days. Whatever the merits, this Bill accords the privileges. I suggest that it is a degradation to the farming community, both to employees and to employers, that the Government should introduce a Bill the effect of which is such as to require a provision for caravans to be made. It is almost anachronistic, yet the effect of resisting such a provision is to result, in some cases, in the operation of farm businesses seizing up.
Throughout the Government have steadfastly refused to acknowledge this dilemma and the Government have steadfastly refused to resolve it. I fear that the Government still do not realise what they are doing. I beg them to give further consideration, even at this late stage, to the Amendments which your Lordships have passed and not automatically to seek to heave them all out in another place. In no way do these Amendments contravene the spirit of the Bill; they merely seek to make it better to operate.
My real worry throughout the whole of the Bill is that it is a Department
1036
of the Environment Bill. The Department of the Environment does not understand the problems of agriculture or the way in which it operates. This has been made crystal clear throughout by the replies which have been given. We have tried to point out to the Government not the unwisdom of the motives, because we agree with them, but the unwisdom of the proposed practices because of the far-reaching effects which they will have. Almost every argument which has been put forward against the tied cottage system in agriculture could have been put forward against the tied cottage system in any industry, yet agriculture, representing only 10 per cent. of tied cottages, has been singled out for this reform, a reform which by its very nature infers that there is no need for the principle of the tied cottage.
If that is so, why do not the Government excise the tied housing system throughout the whole country? They cannot do so because, whatever imperfections the system may have, the tied cottage system is required by the industries that it serves and it is required by the people who serve those industries. The Government and everybody else knows this, but in agriculture the Government have had the pressure of a trade union to push the case. There is nothing new in that; the pressure in the agricultural industry has been there for 70 years. What is new is that every previous Labour Government have felt that pressure but have considered it prudent, on wider grounds, to resist it. Every Labour Government since 1945 knew that their Party Manifesto contained a commitment to abolish only the agricultural tied cottage but every Labour Government until this one knew that the disadvantages of so doing outweighed the advantages. This Government, as we have seen so clearly and so frequently, voluntarily subject themselves to union pressure under the mantle of magnanimity and against all other considerations.
At a time of desperate economic crisis—nobody denies that this is what we are in—at a time of high inflation, at a time of unprecedented overseas borrowing and at a time when food prices at home are soaring, as are the costs of food imports, nobody can surely deny the simple necessity of producing as much food as possible at home. Nobody can surely deny the simple logic of encouraging

1037
agriculture to increase its output as much as possible in the interests of the nation. But this Government do not do that. They continually introduce legislation which, whatever its merits may be, can have at least one certain effect: a restriction upon the ability of agriculture to serve the nation and produce the food.
I am bound to remind your Lordships again of what the Government have done. They have introduced the capital transfer tax, which can only result in farms getting smaller. They have introduced the capital gains tax, which can only result in less money being available for investment in agriculture. They have introduced the Community Land Act, which can only deter building. They have introduced the development land tax, which can only deter selling. They have introduced the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act which will ensure that there are no new tenant farmers. Now they have introduced this Bill, which will give to everybody in any farm cottage at any time, and at a stroke, the right of security of tenure and the right to continue in that cottage for years. Thereby the Bill will ensure that it is more difficult for people to move from farm to farm and that efficiency is impaired; it will also ensure that no new private farm cottages are built.
It is a desperately condemnatory record. Individually the effects of these different Acts in agriculture may be justified and individually their effects may be small, but corporately their effects will be devastating. They are restrictive, they are inhibiting, they are debilitating and they are frustrating. As each Act has been given the Royal Assent, so the tourniquet around agriculture has been given a twist just at the time when in fact it ought to be released. For all its worthy humanitarian motives, which I have never failed to recognise and to acknowledge, I venture to forecast that this Bill can only impede the efficiency of agriculture. It injects a paraphernalia of committees, formulae and uncertainties into agriculture.
The Bill alone will cost £5 million to administer. What is the real cause of the problem? The cause is the shortage of housing, but despite the expenditure of £5 million not one extra house will be built. I will only say this to the noble Lord, Lord Peart, because my guess is
1038
that in his heart of hearts he knows that this Bill will impede agricultural output. His is an urban orientated Government. I do not say that in any derogatory sense whatever but in a factual one. It is town-based, town-bred, town-centred. He may no longer be the Minister of Agriculture but he was a very distinguished Minister of Agriculture and he is a very distinguished man. He is still a Cabinet Minister and he knows and understands agriculture. But even though he is no longer Minister of Agriculture I want to tell him that the agriculture industry still looks to him in a way which I dare say modesty may prevent him from recognising, to uphold and to project the case and the cause of agriculture among his colleagues whose many qualities may well not necessarily include an intimate understanding of the workings of agriculture. The noble Lord, Lord Peart, has that knowledge and if agriculture is to be permitted to give what it should to the nation at this particular time he may be aware that the agricultural industry still looks to him to put the case and he should not be shy to use his knowledge or his influence in conference with his colleagues.
I conclude by saying that, despite our differences, despite the fact that I feel the effects of this Bill on agriculture have not begun to be appreciated, I am grateful to noble Lords opposite and especially to the noble Lord, Lord Collison, who has always expressed his views so modestly and has at least tolerated ours with at least no outward expression of total abhorrence. I should like to thank them for the friendly and courteous way in which the proceedings on this Bill have been conducted.
5.13 p.m.
Lord MIDDLETON: My Lords, I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Ferrers that no one with any knowledge of the agriculture industry, and certainly no employer of farm workers, can fail to be in sympathy with the motives behind the long campaign by the National Union of Agricultural Workers to disengage the farm workers' conditions of employment from the circumstances in which they are housed. I have now spent more hours than I care to think about, not only in your Lordships' House but also before the Bill was drafted. Having listened carefully to the arguments, however desirable the objective, I have to

1039
say that when we come to frame legislation, designed in the words of the Consultation Document to remove the social objections to the tied cottage system in a manner consistent with the Government's wider policies and objectives for the national economy as a whole, so that its form and effects ensure that there is no adverse effect upon the efficiency of the agricultural industry, then inevitably we run into the very real difficulties that are apparent when one considers, as your Lordships have done with very great care, the provisions of this Bill.
The two objectives are virtually irreconcilable and that, I have no doubt at all, was obvious to the Department even before the Bill was drafted; but with very great ingenuity they worked out how to give security by extending the Rent Acts for the protection of farm workers. Then we come on to the central problem: once you give protection you are faced with the geographical fact that the farm workers' houses are not conveniently situated in towns and urban areas; they are scattered around the countryside so as to be placed as near as possible to, and usually on, the farm holding which provides employment. Then you are faced with the economic fact that these houses are part of the fixed capital of the farm, just like the farmhouse itself. It is difficult to work many farms without some service housing and some farms cannot be worked at all without some service housing. So how do you get over the problem that arises when a farm worker leaves his employment but remains fast in his former employer's house? "Ah", said the Government, "You put a duty on local authorities to re-house that man, provided, of course, that the farmer can first establish that he must have the house in order to work his farm. That will solve the problem."
But now we come to what seems to me to be an absurdity. Even as things are, without this Bill, the old spectre of the farm worker being turned out of his house with his family and effects, on to the road at the whim of a capricious farmer, to all intents and purposes has been laid to rest. We have had the Rent Act 1965 where an employer can only obtain repossession of a service house at a county court; and Section 33 of that Act says that the court may suspend the execution of any order
1040
they may make and gives power for an extension of suspension.
Then we have Section 99 of the Agriculture Act 1970 which requires a court to grant suspension of an order for repossession for at least six months, and that suspension can, of course, be extended under the 1965 Rent Act. Finally, we have the Employment Protection Act which prevents unfair dismissal. One is therefore tempted to wonder whether the present Bill was necessary at all. But even with the present Bill in operation, as it soon will be, does it really afford any better security for the farm worker in the long term? Suppose a man gives up his job on the farm and becomes a statutory tenant; suppose the farmer needs the house for a key incoming worker and after all the procedure for repossession, application by the farmer, ADHAC, housing authority decisions and all the rest of it, the outgoer is offered a council house suitable in every way, and he accepts it and moves into it, what security of tenure has he got then? As my noble friend Lord Ferrers has just told us, he could be given 28 days' notice for any reason whatever and all the council has to do is to go through the formality of obtaining a court order and the man can be evicted. Is he really going to be any better off than he is at present?
As to the Amendments which your Lordships have made to this Bill, my noble friend Lord Ferrers referred just now to the fact that the overwhelming number were made by the Government, and that is in itself an indication of the complexities involved in drafting this Bill in a satisfactory form. I will mention just two of the Government's Amendments since they are so obviously helpful. The elimination of Clause 32 and the amendment to Clause 30(6) setting a limit to the time in which a local authority must make a decision. I only wish the Government had been equally helpful over meeting our requests to make some provision for temporary accommodation. Here, in my view, they have been unreasonably inflexible and I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Ferrers on that point.
I do not know how many of our Amendments will be accepted by the Government in another place, although I have a fair idea. Nor do I know what your Lordships will decide to do when the

1041
Bill returns from another place. We have been very thoroughly into the arguments for and against making some provision for temporary accommodation in a case which may so easily arise where a farmer, in order to maintain production, must have vacant possession of a house for a key worker and the local authority cannot find another house, for the man who is stuck there.
This, incidentally, is the very situation which is bothering those farm workers with whom I have discussed this Bill. Of course, they form a very small number, but what they fear is an end to the free circulation which gives mobility and freedom of choice, in my part of England at any rate. What worries them is the thought that when they want to move, after promotion or for any other reason, they will not find a house to go with the new job because there will be someone there who cannot move out. My noble friends Lord Ferrers and Lord Burnham have put with all the force in their power the arguments for temporary accommodation. I firmly believe that the two Amendments now in the Bill, or something very similar if the Government can think up wording which is better, should remain. If all our other Amendments are rejected and these two remain, the legislation might just be made to work. A great deal of difficulty and inconvenience will be suffered by farmers, but it might just work. I agree with my noble friend Lord Ferrers that it will work just that much better if the Amendment deleting the words "best endeavours" and substituting the wording of Section 9 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 is also left intact for the legal reasons I argued on Committee.
My Lords, I was particularly impressed by the quite independent opinion from the Cross-Benches, voiced by the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, on this matter. If I may say so, with his highly trained and logical mind, the noble Lord saw, as soon as the arguments were developed in Committee and on Report, that the lack of provision in the Bill for temporary accommodation was a major defect. He saw from an entirely unbiased position how weak were the Government's arguments deployed in resisting the suggestions we put forward which we felt were practical. It is not easy for those of us who have declared an interest as owners of a farm or farms, with herdsmen, shepherds, or other workers in
1042
service housing, to escape the possible criticism that we are unable to look with a detached view at this Bill. However, I believe such criticism would not be justified. I know we have accepted the principles behind the Bill, and our attempts to improve it are a sincere effort to make it work.
I am encouraged, by the support we have had from other parts of the House, to think that there is a good, logical case for the two temporary accommodation Amendments. Therefore, I urge the Government to look very carefully at the need which they highlight, to make it possible first, for a court to consider a temporary house as alternative accommodation, provided it is suitable, and secondly, for temporary accommodation to be available for an incoming key worker without endless delays in planning procedure, not to speak of outright refusal which one would get in the case of a national park. If the Bill comes back to this House on Friday next without such provisions left in, then I believe your Lordships will be justified in taking the view that the Bill would not be workable.
5.25 p.m.
Lord COLLISON: My Lords, I apologise for not putting down my name on the list. I did not intend to speak again, but in view of what has been said I am prompted to say a few more words. First, may I repeat what I said before, that I appreciate the humanity with which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has approached this problem, disagreeing as I do with the practical issues he has brought to bear on the problem. May I thank him also—it would be churlish of me not to do so—for his kind words about me.
With regard to what was said about the Bill, particularly with regard to what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said, continuously throughout this debate, reference has been made to other people living in tied cottages. Indeed, there are other people living in tied cottages. I am quite sure that at some time, where such a situation is improper for the people concerned, it will be dealt with. But some of the references—for example, the old chestnut about the Prime Minister living in a tied house—I really thought were inappropriate to drag into a debate of this kind. To compare the situation of the

1043
Prime Minister, or any other highly paid worker, with that of the agricultural worker is quite impossible, the two situations are entirely different. It is so damaging for the agricultural worker, and it is a situation so easy to deal with for people in other circumstances.
My Lords, reference has been made to the mineworkers and to the railwaymen. But I would point out that the railwaymen and the mineworkers are employed by one employer, not by thousands of employers. So far as the mineworkers are concerned, when issues arise affecting mineworkers in tied cottages a joint committee has been set up by the employers and trade unions to deal with such cases—but I must not make a Second Reading speech. I listened to the suggestion being made that the Government have given way to trade union pressure. I referred to this before when I spoke on Second Reading. What pressure? If a resolution is passed which requests something of a Government, any Government, that is pressure which I accept is a perfectly proper procedure to follow. But the National Union of Agricultural Workers has not threatened to go on strike, to bring the industry to a standstill; it has not held a pistol to anyone's head. It has simply argued the case, as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, accepted, on humanitarian grounds, and has pointed out the evils of the tied cottage system. The union has asked the Government to do something about it, and one should not blame the Government for responding after so many years.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said the Amendments which had been introduced were not contrary to the principle of the Bill. Yet, against our wishes, the dairymen and stockmen have been eliminated from the Bill, thus cutting the effect of the Bill in half, or perhaps even more so.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, will the noble Lord, Lord Collison, forgive me for interrupting him?—because I know he would not wish to misconstrue anything I said. At that juncture, when I was speaking, I was referring to the four Amendments to deal with "best endeavours".
Lord COLLISON: Yes, indeed, my Lords. Some of the Amendments, at any rate, are much more serious. This is one
1044
of them. Then, there was the attempt to introduce the matter of misconduct as being a reason for not giving security to the worker. A very famous and a very great man, some years ago now, referring to another perhaps much more important matter, said, "Some chicken, some neck!" But if these are peanuts, these are some peanuts! I am very anxious indeed that the National Union of Agricultural Workers, and people like myself—I am no longer active with that union—should see something which we have regarded as a social evil for such a long time dealt with, and dealt with finally. I have said before, and I repeat, that I do not believe that the fears that people have expressed will become fact. There is a great exaggeration here. I have said it before and I say it again—there will be a great exaggeration. There can be the odd case of difficulty, and I have no doubt there will be. But by and large I am sure the new procedure will work. Time will prove whether I am right or wrong, or whether noble Lords opposite are right or wrong. We must wait and see. But I am convinced in my own mind of what I say.
From time to time—not too much I hope—I have intervened in this debate because it is a matter which affects my own feelings so very strongly. In another way I have enjoyed it. Perhaps I have felt a little "het up" at times but, on the whole, I have enjoyed the crossfire of debate. For myself, and if I may for the National Union of Agricultural Workers (and I am not pointing a pistol now), may I offer our sincere thanks to the noble Lord the Leader of the House and to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for the able and efficient way they have dealt with this Bill. They will, I am sure, be thanked for doing so by the union throughout the years to come.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, as it is the final day of this Bill which we have been discussing I should like to add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Peart, and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for the way in which they have listened to us, discussed and argued with us. At times, we have won in a Division. I hope very much that they will encourage their supporters in another place to look at some of our Amendments with a generous eye, realising that, so far as my

1045
colleagues and I are concerned, they are put forward for two reasons.
First, we want to have a very efficient agriculture at this time. It is vital that we cut down on our imports of food. The second point—and I think the noble Lord, Lord Collison, will agree with me—is that the relationship between farmers and farm workers, whether expressed through the National Farmers' Union or the National Workers' Union, is one of the very best in the country. There is not a farmer whom I have known who has not been deeply concerned about his workers and eager to do the best for him and to provide him with accommodation that bears comparison with accommodation for anyone working in industry. The feeling between the farm worker and the farmer, as to 90 per cent. or perhaps 95 per cent., is very good indeed and I do not think that any agricultural workers would feel that they were being hardly treated by the farmer if conditions arose whereby they wanted to retire or wanted to move and we had to get someone else into their house because it is the only one which could be used for dairying or for a shepherd working up in the hills. When you are discussing a Bill of this kind, these things make a great deal of difference.
I do not wish to imply any criticism of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, but I am sorry that this is not a Department of Agriculture Bill. We have all worked with the Department of Agriculture over the years and we know how understanding and knowledgeable are the officials and the local representatives of the Department and how much help we can get from them. They understand about agricultural workers just as well as they understand about helping us to improve production. As I say, there is no criticism of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, who has been excellent all through, but her Department is not concerned about the industry. We are concerned about the industry and we want to do the best we can. Not long ago the Government issued a White Paper Food From Our Own Resources and I took this very much to heart. I felt that we must do everything we could to utilise the land better, to produce more and so on. This Bill is going to make it much more difficult.
In some areas there are spare houses and it will not be so difficult, but in other
1046
areas it will be frightfully difficult. That is why I support what I call the halfway house, something which will tide over the difficulty of getting another house for a man, either the one who is leaving to go into a council house or the one who is arriving to go into one of the farm houses. I hope the Government will put this to their supporters in another place. The halfway house would make it possible to continue to increase production as we all want to do. A great deal of damage could be done to production and efficient agriculture if our Amendments are turned down. I know that all our Amendments will not be accepted, but if they will accept some that bear on agriculture, on farming and on production it would help a great deal. The farm worker is vital in this matter. I am no longer on a county council, but if I were I would take a very strong line with county councillors and say that they must help to rehouse and to provide housing for agricultural workers. If this Bill becomes law, it must be an absolute obligation that the local authority should understand and know what is expected of them. I should take a very tough line. If the Bill is to be effective and if it is to be possible from the farming point of view, the good will and help of local authorities is vital. I would impress upon county councillors the importance of rehousing agricultural workers. If that means delay in some areas, I am sure the halfway house idea is one worth pursuing.
My Lords, this is an extraordinary Bill in some ways. Someone said that only 10 per cent. of people living in tied cottages are in agriculture and that 90 per cent. are in other industries. I do not know what would happen if the principle were applied to the other 90 per cent. There is no doubt that there would be chaos. I want the best for production and for the farm worker, and there must be some compromise on this or it could be a disaster for farming and production.
5.37 p.m.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, I hope the House will forgive me for intervening in the debate, but there are one or two points which have been raised since I have been in the House and I hope I can help the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and others to realise that their fears are unfounded. First, I should like to say that I think

1047
this debate has been carried on in a very good way indeed. The case on both sides has been presented extremely well. One of the main arguments or contentions is that there is good faith between the employer and the employed in the agricultural sphere.
I think there is very little which noble Lords opposite and the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, have to fear. As I understand it, this Bill will deal with a very small number of people. There may be some who would take advantage of the situation as it now stands, but I think that the fear expressed in the debate of it being a disaster, a crisis, that agriculture will practically disappear is entirely unfounded. I am convinced by the arguments used on the other side that there is no fear of that. On the contrary, we on this side fear that people can be turned out without having any other place to go to. That is something which should be considered and which the Bill intends to consider.
The noble Earl, in a very interesting speech, referred to one aspect of the situation with regard to council houses. I agree with him that under normal conditions a council can turn a tenant out, but if he will look at the Bill itself, one would hardly call it "suitable accommodation" if a council were to offer the person a place to live in and there was any likelihood of them turning that person out. It must be suitable in every respect. One can well imagine what would happen, assuming that a council had in fact given alternative accommodation to a farm employee on the grounds referred to in the Act itself, if they took an arbitrary step to turn that person out, unless of course that person was undesirable or in some way or other came within the ordinary terms on which a protected tenancy could be terminated. So I do not think anyone need fear about that side of it. I do not think the noble Earl need have sleepless nights over that. If anything were to happen about which the public, Members of Parliament or other people interested in the welfare of individuals heard, I cannot imagine that the council would be a very long-lived one.
Generally, I come back to the point we have been making. Those of us who have thought about tied cottages for years have always felt that they are an anomaly in so
1048
far as the Rent Acts are concerned. The whole idea of the Rent Acts from the beginning was to give security to people who were in a position where they might be turned out. It goes back a long way. I remember that it all started at the time of the First World War, when many people were turned out by unscrupulous landlords—again I say unscrupulous ones, which means by very far a minority. Consequently Acts had to be brought in to protect persons from being turned out, and also at that time from paying higher rents. It is consistent with that policy. And although noble Lords opposite have said that I am wrong in this respect, in my view that policy has been an absolute godsend to millions of people in this country since the Acts were introduced. The position of the tied cottage is an anomaly in the circumstances, and I hope that noble Lords opposite will realise that that is so.
We take into consideration the fact that good employers and employees in the agricultural industry get on very well with each other and would be very considerate towards each other in respect of this particular problem, but if the position were to remain as it is those who are really in difficulty because the employer is not as good as he should be, could be turned out.
In the circumstances I think we ought to accept the Act. Quite a number of the Amendments have been—I nearly said rushed through the House; I hope my noble friends will not take that too hard. After all, noble Lords opposite are much greater in number, and I have been sufficiently long in Parliament to know that when the numbers are available it is easy to get them, irrespective of how many are on the other side. They have managed to alter certain parts of the Act which otherwise they would not have done. I hope that when the Bill comes hack from the other place, after due consideration of the points they have raised, they will not obstruct what is an extremely useful and beneficial Act.
5.45 p.m.
Lord WISE: My Lords, we have spent many hours discussing this Bill in the past few weeks. May I very briefly say that I hope your Lordships will give this Bill a Third Reading. May I also hope

1049
that the Government and the Members in another place, when they discuss the Bill in the time available to them under the guillotine, will feel able to accept many of the Amendments that we have made, for with the greatest respect I consider that the Bill has been greatly improved by many of the Amendments which your Lordships have made. In particular, I hope the Government and another place will accept, perhaps in their entirety, the Amendments which we have made regarding provision of alternative accommodation, especially where the committees have decided that the need is urgent.
During our deliberations we have not lost sight of the needs of the agricultural industry, the needs of the land and the needs of the staff on that land. This provision of alternative accommodation is, I feel, the whole crux of the Bill. If it is going to work—and I think it will work—it depends entirely upon the ability of the local authorities to play their part. I think one recognises that they will have extreme difficulties in many instances, but the Amendments which we have passed will go a long way, I feel, to alleviating those problems and difficulties. Possibly too much accent has been placed throughout the whole of the Bill on security of tenure as opposed to the removal of the fear of eviction. It is this removal of the fear of eviction which is the reason why I support the Bill. I hope that it will foster and enhance the excellent relationships which exist now between employer and employee within the whole industry.
5.48 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, we have had a full debate on the Bill and my remarks will be relatively brief. I cannot, however, restrain myself from commenting on what the noble Lord, Lord Janner, said, because, of course, he speaks from very long experience of the law. His reference to the very first Rent Act of 1915 drew out attention to this problem, which is, of course, confusing the agricultural scene with the broad issue of housing in the country as a whole. I must say that it impressed me as an extraordinary argument for a very astute lawyer such as Lord Janner to use, to compare what is the law for one of these categories; that is, agriculture, with a law and convention for the other; that is, the public sector housing.
1050
My Lords, I feel that the heart of our discussions has centred upon the irreconcilable objectives within the Bill. I think my noble friend Lord Ferrers stated the case very clearly when he said that he believed that the results of this Bill when it becomes an Act will be restrictive, debilitating and frustrating. Immediately I turn to that basic document, for the health of agriculture, Food from our own Resources, so aptly quoted by my noble friend Lady Elliot. Once again, when one comes to the end paragraph of the same White Paper Cmnd. 6020 where we reach the summary and conclusions, there is a very important sentence which perhaps I may be allowed to quote. In paragraph 57 it says this:
"The Government will frame their agricultural policies in the light of these conclusions."
My Lords, unfortunately they have not framed their agricultural policies in the light of those conclusions. One of the basic conclusions was to expand output. One of the basic provisions for expanding output is, of course, the healthy morale of the industry as a whole. How right my noble friend Lord Middleton was when he referred to mobility of labour. Within mobility of labour is the implicit argument that those who work within the industry should be able to move from a job on one farm or one group of farms to another without difficulty; that there is a career structure, an opportunity to go from one stage of their particular career to another to get better jobs with relative ease.
My Lords, it is our firm conviction that the results of this Bill will make it much more difficult for the energetic and enthusiastic farm worker, in whatever branch of the industry, to do what he wishes to do; that is, to progress up the ladder. I should also like to examine the other end of the ladder, the retirement end, and the situation of the pensioner. Here I believe that the Government have reached yet another of the irreconcilable problems to which we have attempted to adduce our minds.
My noble friend Lord Gisborough addressed his mind to this and gave us the opportunity on Report, as indeed I gave your Lordships the opportunity in Committee, to discuss an Amendment dealing with this particular problem. The Amendment on Report is numbered 42 in the Marshalled List and refers to this

1051
particular situation. Twenty thousand retired farm workers are at present housed by the industry and one can only hope that the situation will obtain in years to come, but obviously it will not because the housing situation is being placed artificially within the restrictions so aptly described as restrictive, debilitating and frustrating, by my noble friend Lord Ferrers. I believe that the book to which the Government should address their mind is that very important little document called Small is Beautiful by Professor Schumacher. The industry itself is dependent on a very large number of individual enterprises. Some may be relatively larger than others, but the essence is that they are small enterprises when controlled by an individual farmer.
I believe that the Government have got the mores of the farm industry wrong. Therefore, we have these solutions which they put forward and I believe that it is going to come to a situation which has in no way been exaggerated. We have been accused of exaggeration by the noble Lord, Lord Collison. We have been accused of exaggeration by the noble Lord, Lord Janner. I do not think the noble Baroness has accused us of exaggeration, because I think she has taken a more reasoned view of the industry. I should like to reply to that in the words used by Sir Winston Churchill, as the noble Lord, Lord Collison, was good enough to refer to him. In a speech made by Sir Winston on 22nd January 1941 in the House of Commons, he said this:
"I do not resent criticism, even when, for the sake of emphasis, it parts for the time being with reality."
My Lords, I believe that the Government in bringing forward this Bill have parted completely with reality. I believe that if the noble Lord, Lord Janner—and I say this with respect to him—had discussed this in some depth with the individual farmers, he would feel that we have not exaggerated over much. I believe that the Amendments which we have pursued in your Lordships' House have been immensely worth while for the industry as a whole.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, may I first thank the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for his extremely kind remarks to my noble friend Lord Pearl and myself,
1052
and also for what he said about the atmosphere of the progress of this Bill through this House. I think it is quite true that there has been a fierce battle at every stage, but it has been conducted in a fairly sunny atmosphere. I should also like to thank noble Lords from all sides of the House for those constructive contributions which have been made during the various stages of the Bill. This evening, I should also like to thank my noble friends Lord Collison, Lord Janner and Lord Wise who spoke in favour of the Bill.
It is true that some of the Amendments tabled represented genuine attempts to improve the Bill. On a few, we were able to meet the Opposition—for example, by providing time limits within which local authorities must decide on applications for rehousing. On many others, I am sure—at least, I hope, I am less sure now, having heard speeches of noble Lords—we have been able to convince noble Lords that their anxieties were unnecessary. It is true that a large number of Government Amendments have also been made. Some were to meet representations made in another place and others were fairly technical Amendments, unavoidable in a Bill of this complexity, but I think very important for interpretation. These were agreed upon without contention.
Yet it would be foolish not to accept that real differences have reared their controversial heads between us over the Bill. Of the eight groups of Amendments—and as Lord Ferrers said, they comprised 31 individual Amendments which noble Lords opposite pressed to Division and defeated the Government—three stand out. They have the effect of removing the Bill's protection from a large number, possibly the majority, of agricultural workers living in tied accommodation. These are the Amendments which first exclude dairy farming, livestock keeping and breeding from the activities which count as agriculture for the purpose of the Bill; secondly, the Amendments dealing with forestry, which also remove forestry from the activities which count as agriculture for the purpose of the Bill. No wonder the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, said that he found it less objectionable at this stage. Thirdly, the Amendments preventing agricultural workers from

1053
gaining protection until they had completed almost four years of full-time work. Even then, they would lose that protection each time they moved farms.
As my noble friend said in Committee, the effect of the Amendments on the definition of "agriculture" will be to remove the protection of the Bill from some 17,000 workers who are engaged full time in dairy farming, livestock keeping and forestry. As my noble friend Lord Collison said, this is hardly peanuts. But because the qualifying worker test is based on whole-time working in agriculture as defined in the Bill, these Amendments also mean that many other farm workers, who do some work in those activities and some in others, may also not qualify for protection. That is why I have said that these Amendments would exclude the majority agricultural workers living in tied accommodation.
Then the third Amendment, which excludes a significant number of agricultural workers, is the Amendment which increases the period for which employees must work whole-time in agriculture from two years to four, and also requires that the last 50 weeks must have been with the current employer. This Amendment will also remove the protection of the Bill from a large number of genuine agricultural workers. We estimate that there are some 7,000 workers living in tied accommodation who have completed more than two but less than four years of whole-time agricultural work, and also that at any time there are 5,000 such workers who have been with their current employer for less than one year.
A great deal of discussion and consultation took place over this particular clause. The National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers, with some reluctance accepting the idea, wanted to restrict it to one year. There can be no pretence that this Amendment is designed to help local authorities. It was, after all, the Association of District Councils' view that the qualifying period should be two years. This Amendment, like those restricting the definition of agriculture, was purely aimed at reducing the coverage of the Bill. In doing so, I believe that it would do exactly the reverse of what has been cited, and that it will stop mobility and act as a disincentive to young people to come into agriculture.
1054
I must say that I find it rather hard to see how these changes tally with what has been said this afternoon about revision, and also with Lord Carrington's claims, which I saw and heard him proclaim on television, that noble Lords opposite are merely concerned with revision. It took two hours to take dairy farming, livestock keeping and breeding straight out of the Bill, which was really taking the large part of the guts out of it. If that is revision, then it is a funny sort of revision to me when you really dig up the Bill in that way. One hour later forestry was felled, so another great slice of the Bill went out.
Yet in this Bill the ADHACs, the Advisory dwelling-house Agricultural Committees, are being set up in order to act in those very cases of urgency which come within the definition of dairy farming, stock breeding and livestock keeping. So immediately there is thrown out of the Bill the part which is absolutely vital to it, and together with the Amendments that have been made they have taken away a great deal of the object in the work of the ADHACs. As the National Executive of the Agricultural Union have said:
"this amounts to an emasculation of a reform that has been fought for for so many years by agricultural workers."
I think, in this area, less talk about revision and more talk about demolition would be more to the point.
The remaining Amendments which I believe important to mention are those altering the re-housing obligation in Clause 28(8), to which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, referred, and on which he put so much stress. The effect of these is that local authorities would be obliged, by law, to give an absolute, automatic overriding priority to the re-housing of ex-agricultural workers and their dependants. There could be no question, the way the Bill is now framed, of authorities considering the claims of other groups—the homeless, families living in slum, insanitary or overcrowded accommodation, or even people whose homes have been compulsorily purchased. You may ask why not. The reason is that the reference to authorities considering the competing claims on accommodation they can provide has now been deleted.
Therefore, as the Bill now stands, if an authority were to give priority to a homeless family over an ex-farmworker,

1055
they would, irrespective of the relative urgency of the two cases, run the risk of having to pay damages to the farmer. Noble Lords opposite must face up to the real effects of their Amendments, and not simply pretend that they will merely ensure that farmers are given the sort of priority they deserve. I do not believe that noble Lords opposite can really want to see non-urgent agricultural class cases take precedence over other, highly pressing ones. If they do, they are horribly wrong. If they do not, they are horribly mistaken in what they have done to the Bill. But that is the effect of their Amendments.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, came back once again to the question of his Amendment on caravans. I can only repeat that it would seem absolutely wrong to cut across the whole of our planning law and planning permission in this particular way and for one particular purpose. What I promised on Report—and I have carefully re-read it—was to do all that we can, and I can, to see that local authorities give some priority to the consideration on planning grounds, but to cut across and again demolish the planning procedure in this way would seem to be absolutely wrong.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, have all referred to temporary accommodation, and we debated the issue on several occasions in Committee and on Report. I am sorry that we have not been able to agree with the Amendments which noble Lords opposite put down on this subject. I note their emphasis on the idea that any temporary accommodation must fulfil the requirements of suitability and be followed up by permanent accommodation. The noble Lord, Lord Middleton, said that he would not forecast the attitude that he and his noble friends would take to the consideration of your Lordships' Amendments in another place. Equally, I cannot forecast what attitude will be taken in another place on these Amendments. But I am sure that what your Lordships have said today, and indeed on Report, will be studied carefully and then a decision will be reached on it.
Noble Lords have claimed that they share the Government's concern over the
1056
inequities of the agricultural tied cottage system. The words "humane" and "humanitarian" have been used all the way through by noble Lords from all over the House. Indeed, today the noble Earl referred to the moral rectitude of the motives. But, quite frankly, when all the words have passed under the various verbal bridges what noble Lords opposing the Bill really want to do is to preserve the status quo. And what does it represent? It represents a system that is archaic and inequitable—a system which even the Journal of the National Farmers' Union has described as "uncertain, lengthy, unpleasant and costly". Many opposing the Bill seem to think everyone will be frozen on their farms and in their cottages. This is nonsense. The Bill does not mean that the process of movement and promotion will not continue. Indeed, I believe that they will increase as young people will not want to assume the aspects of agricultural antiquity empitomised by the tied cottage. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, that farmworkers as well as farmers are involved in our food production industry, so one has to look at both sides of the industry and see that both are satisfied.
I think that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, displayed a streak uncommon to him of a very strong built-in pessimism, particularly when he rattled off what I felt was his list of despair. It is true that other industries have tied cottages, but not right to criticise that and at the same time say that one should not at least start somewhere. The place to start was obviously with agriculture, where there has been a commitment over all these years. The fact that it has not been dealt with earlier is no argument for saying that it should not be dealt with if this needs doing, and I think that it has been proved that it does. Although it is long overdue, it should be done as soon as possible.
The Bill removes from the wide range of agricultural workers their present worries about what the future holds, especially after retirement. I recognise, as did my noble friend Lord Peart, on Report, exactly what the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, said when she referred to relationships in the agricultural industry; that the overall record of the industry in providing for its retired workforce is a proud one. Nevertheless, we all know—I know this from my limited

1057
experience of agriculture—that they need more reassurance than being told of the 20,000 or so cases where pensioners or their widows still occupy farm cottages.
They cannot close their eyes to those cases where this does not happen. Nor does it give them individually the assurance they need and confidence in their future. Thus, they want to be certain that they will not be ordered out or taken through the courts either at the end of their job on the farm or after they have retired, and retired workers in particular need to be sure that a change in ownership of the farm is not going to threaten them with the anxieties they face under the present system. In my view, not enough stress was placed on this aspect in our debates; the fact that a change in ownership can result in changes in whole attitudes or in the composition of a farm. This does not apply only to the retired; the Bill at long last will set their minds at rest by offering to them more present security than the good will of their current landlord.
My noble friend and I, as we have said at earlier stages, believe the Bill will work. We believe that the advisory committees will have a valuable role to play and that the local authorities will take their statutory obligation—as set out originally in the Bill—very seriously. Once farmers, farm workers and local authorities have become attuned to the Bill's basic concept, they will, I believe, recognise this long overdue reform as a vast improvement and will not adopt a "No, it certainly cannot work" attitude but will be determined to make it work and be determined to make it work successfully.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Lord Derwent): My Lords, I do not think we can go further until we know about the consent of Her Majesty and the Prince of Wales.
Lord PEART: That was given at the beginning, my Lords.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, that was given at the beginning by my noble friend Lord Peart.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry, my Lords; evidently the lines of communication between the Deputy Speakers did not work.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

RACE RELATIONS BILL
6.14 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reasons and Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Reasons and Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN LORDS AMENDMENTS, COMMONS AMENDMENT'S TO A LORDS AMENDMENT AND COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO WORDS RESTORED TO THE BILL AND MOTION TO BE MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF ONE OF THE COMMONS REASONS
[References are to Bill [266]as first printed by the Lords. Commons Amendments and Reasons are in italic. The Motion is printed in bold type.]
1 Clause 1, page 2, line 1, leave out "he cannot show to be" and insert "is not".
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
2 Because the Commons consider it appropriate that the onus of establishing that a requirement or condition which has been shown to be discriminatory is justifiable should rest on the respondent.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 2. The issue embodied in this Amendment has been debated extensively both in your Lordships' House and in another place, so I shall be brief. The issue before us is not whether the burden of proof under the Bill should in general he on the respondent; in general the burden of proof under the Bill is on the complainant. The issue we are considering is the much narrower one of where the burden of proof should lie in respect of one of the elements of indirect discrimination. The complainant has to show that he is put at a disadvantage by a requirement or condition which is discriminatory in its effect. After the complainant has established this, it should,

1059
the Government believe, be for the respondent to justify the requirement or condition.
The primary questions of fact to be determined in a case of indirect discrimination are these: first, has a requirement or condition been applied to the complainant; secondly, has he failed to comply with it; thirdly, has his failure to comply with it operated to his detriment: fourthly, is the condition or requirement such that the proportion of those of the complainant's racial group who can comply with it considerably smaller than the proportion of those not of his racial group who can do so; and fifthly, is the condition or requirement justifiable irrespective of the racial group of those to whom it is applied?
Of these five questions, the Bill requires the complainant to satisfy the court or tribunal on the balance of probabilities that the answer to the first four are in the affirmative. This is a substantial task which should not be underestimated. What the Government are saying is that if, and only if, the complainant can prove on the balance or probabilities that the answer to these four questions is in the affirmative, then it is reasonable to require the respondent to prove in answer to the fifth that the condition or requirement was justifiable. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 2.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I have been much concerned as to how to deal with these wretched Reasons put forward by the Commons and how to handle the debate in general. It might be for the convenience of the House if I made in effect one speech on this Amendment indicating my general approach to the matter, and then perhaps we can take the others rather more shortly.
When the Bill came up for Second Reading, I prophesied that it would do damage to race relations instead of achieving the object we all have in mind, which is to improve race relations. Rather to my surprise, it can already be shown to have had that effect; I do not want to rub the recent by-elections in the
1060
nose of the Government because I do not want to intrude on private grief. On the other hand, I must remind the Government of the fact that the National Front so vastly increased its support at them and that some of the other fringe candidates had a racialist tinge to the rather peculiar descriptions of their candidature. That is exactly what I prophesied would happen. If one looks for the causes, it is almost certain that the cause was the introduction of and the publicity given to this Bill through Parliament. That is what has caused the disquiet, which these extreme Right-Wing elements, if that is the right description, have used as a source of recruitment.
This, I fear, will reproduce itself because the supporters of the principal contentious features of the Bill proceed, I believe, on a totally false conception of what will improve and what will damage race relations in this country. I have never sought to deny that legislation has some valuable role to play in the improvement of race relations; I have wearied the House and previous Parliaments on this subject for so long that I will not rehearse the ways in which I think it can improve race relations. But in order to improve race relations one must have a fairly clear idea as to what is the unease which has spread throughout the country and how it can be allayed or further exacerbated.
A recent example of the mistaken view which has prevailed so widely and which has produced the Bill and the Amendment was seen in the way in which Mr. Powell's recent speech was treated in the country. First, the prominent leader of a racial minority produced a trailer which advertised the speech in advance. Before it was delivered, he said how dreadful it was going to be, with the result that every newspaper took it up. When it was delivered it received the publicity which was largely due to the trailer and when it had been delivered the same individual gave it a follow-up by saying that Mr. Powell ought to be prosecuted for it—a situation to which we shall revert when we come to the Amendments relating to old Clause 70—thus giving him three times the amount of publicity he would otherwise have had.
The truth of the matter is not that the great majority of the people of this country are racialists or "racists" as one

1061
Member would insist in calling them in Committee; they are not. They are, as are all other human communities, disturbed by a large incursion from various other sources coming into the country. They are afraid that the fundamental values of life which they have come to prize will be subverted by this incursion. This does not imply any degree of racialism whatever. It may indeed be very largely irrational. I think it is to a very large extent irrational, but it is something that is far more deeply seated than is racialism. The Greeks had a word for it. It was xenophobia. Once you have recognised it for what it is, the thing to do is to allay the fears that have been aroused and not exacerbate them.
If you introduce legislation the effect of which is to subvert the burden of proof in even one respect, as this particular Amendment does; if you bring in legislation which will give people the impression that you will interfere with the freedom to elect members to clubs, as another part of this legislation does; if you are going to introduce indictable offences that do not contain a guilty mind as an essential ingredient in the prosecution's case, you will not merely not allay but actually confirm the fears that the people who belong to the racial majority of the country feel. In that way, you will make race relations worse, not better. That is what is happening in front of our eyes. That is what I predicted would happen when we introduced the existing legislation in 1968. It happened—in introducing the Second Reading, the then Home Secretary said clearly that race relations had deteriorated. That is what is happening as the result of the introduction of the present Bill.
I would say with great respect to the proponents of the Bill that they are setting about it in the wrong way. They think that, by legislation which is repressive, which undermines well-established British traditions and which is unintelligible in parts and unenforceable in other parts, they will improve the situation. Not at all. We shall find that in four or five years' time those who find that race relations have further deteriorated will say that we must have another Bill with even bigger teeth and so we shall go on with the Rake's Progress in which this Government and the Labour Party in particular (though it is not only the Labour Party, for other people are also involved) have
1062
been engaged ever since 1965. Race relations will, in consequence, get worse and worse.
Having said that and, I hope, said it fairly plainly, the question remains, what are we to do with the Commons' contemptuous disposal of our Amendments? These were designed to remove some of the evils of this Bill and when one looks at the reasons given for their rejection one sees that they are not reasons at all. One looks at the present reason. We changed the burden of proof in a particular respect back to the traditional view that the burden of proof rests on those who are making the assertion. The Government say that they disagree to that Amendment,
"because the Commons consider it appropriate that the onus of establishing that a requirement or condition which has been shown to be discriminatory is justifiable should rest upon the respondent."
In other words, they say that their reason is, "We are right and you are wrong". That is no way to conduct a rational or civilised argument and the Commons are pursuing their course of thinking that, as an elected dictatorship, they can dictate to the great majority of the people of this country. The mistake that the Government are making is to encourage the Commons in that belief, which leads to the kind of humiliation to which they will continue to be subjected by the population whenever the latter is given a chance to vote.
However, the question remains, what are your Lordships to do? I have given the matter as careful attention as I could after consulting my right honourable and honourable friends and my noble friends in this House. For what it is worth, my view is that I would have divided on almost all the contentious Amendments had this House been an effective control over or court of appeal from the Commons. I have never tried to treat it like that, despite some of the scutterings and squeakings which go on behind the wainscots down the corridor. I have tried to treat it as a revising chamber whose exact composition prevents it from wielding a very high degree of authority. My conclusion is—and I shall have to reiterate it at intervals during the course of the, I hope, relatively short passage of this Commons Message—that we did not

1063
get enough support in the Commons to justify sending it back again to the Commons for their reconsideration.
That is not to say that we were wrong in our opinion, nor that if we had had a differently constituted Second Chamber we should not have been justified in vetoing it, but it is to say that in the present constitutional situation we believe that we should be both misrepresented and misunderstood if we used the fact that the Government have so mismanaged their business that it comes at the very end of the Session to give them the unpleasant alternative of choosing a quite different Bill (which is what it would be if our Amendments were insisted upon) or abandoning it altogether. For these reasons, we on these Benches do not propose to divide on these Amendments. We simply point to the defects of the Bill and consider that the arguments that have led us to introduce the Amendments have never been answered and are not being answered by the Commons on this particular occasion. However, as I said, we did not get enough support in the Commons to justify sending the Bill back again. I believe that the present Amendment was defeated by 53 votes or something similar, so I propose to leave it at that, with these few—I hope not inappropriate but I fear somewhat opprobrious—words.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I am very disappointed to hear that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, has no intention of dividing the House on any of the Amendments and I hope that he may reconsider this later. I said on Third Reading that all your Lordships, whatever your individual views on the Bill, had supported wholly moderate and reasonable Amendments and that none of them were in any way wrecking Amendments. Despite this, the other place accepted only two Amendments of ours of any substance—or two and a half, depending on the importance which one attaches to the Amendment to Clause 49. Of these two only one is of much practical value, as opposed to philosophical importance. I very much hope that the House may divide —not on all the Amendments because I do not think that there is a case for doing so—on the first Amendment, on Amendment
1064
No. 14, and on Amendment No. 28, all of which involve individual freedom in a very serious way.
I read very carefully indeed through the Official Report of the Commons proceedings when they were considering your Lordships' Amendments. I tried to see whether there was any validity in the Government's case on Amendment No. 1 and at first I thought that they said one or two things which merited consideration. But in the end one comes back to the totally conclusive remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, speaking from the Liberal Benches. Postulating a case in which the court was faced with an equally balanced argument between a respondent and a claimant, unable to decide which case had the greater merit, he pointed out that the court would have to decide against the respondent unless he could prove his case conclusively, innocent though he might be; in other words, unless there was a definite balance of probability in favour of the respondent. The court might be well aware that the man was likely to be innocent of any discrimination, but because he had not had the intelligence, or had not been able to afford to employ a good enough barrister to prove his case, he might well be found guilty of discrimination, whereas in fact he was not guilty. To my mind that is totally conclusive, and I believe that for that reason alone your Lordships should insist upon the first Amendment.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, this matter raises once again the question of whether we have got the right Parliamentary system. We have not. In my view, and I think in the view of many people, it ought to be possible to have a Second Chamber which has some power. I do not suggest for one moment that we should do anything other than what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, has suggested, but I should like to take this case in point as being just one other where the need to reform our Parliamentary system is emphasised. If we do not do this, I am certain that our democratic system as we know it—whatever "democratic" now means—will not endure.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I should like to respond briefly to the points made, not because the points

1065
made are unworthy of discussion, but because they have inevitably ranged rather wider than the confines of the Amendment. As the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, will appreciate, although it would no doubt be profitable to discuss the question of the type of Parliamentary system we have, I think it is difficult to do it in relation to Amendment No. 1 This is a matter which has, perfectly properly, occupied a great deal of the time in recent weeks, and I had the pleasure of hearing the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, on this subject during his Dimbleby lecture. He referred in passing in his speech today to the question of an elective dictatorship, which was a point which he discussed with characteristic verve on the occasion I have mentioned. But I am bound to say that on the basis of the events of the last few days, an elected dictatorship is not a form of words which I would apply to the situation now confronting the Government. That is the first point.
The second substantial matter which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, raised comes down to the fundamental question of whether it is a good idea to have anti-discrimination legislation at all; whether it could arguably make the position a good deal worse than it otherwise would be. I accept at once that it is possible to speak with power and conviction on both sides of this argument, but I must say, as I think I said in the winding-up speech on the Second Reading of the Bill, that I do not believe that the situation in this country would be better at the moment in terms of race relations, in terms of community relations, if there had in fact not been race relations legislation on the Statute Book. I think the situation would have been a good deal worse. One has to take only one particular example, to look at the serious problem faced by many coloured school-leavers confronted with the very clear evidence of prejudice which exists—possibly among only a handful of employers, but which nevertheless exists—to see the need to have proper legislation to defend the rights of those coloured teenagers trying to get jobs. Had there not been legislation I believe the situation would have been worse in that respect.
We have only to look at the example of the United States. There has been substantial legislation by Congress in this
1066
area. Looking at the community relations in the United States today, as compared with the situation 10 or 15 years ago, most of us would come to the conclusion that one of the principal reasons, though not the only one, for that employment was the civil rights legislation passed during the presidency of Mr. Johnson. I have myself, I feared, trespassed rather outside the terms of the first Amendment, but I thought that it was right to do so, given the fact that the noble and learned Lord ranged rather more widely than he should have done—perfectly reasonably—and I will seek to limit my own comments on later Amendments to avoid going over the same ground again.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
3 Page 2, line 16, after "brought" insert "in good faith".
4 Page 2, line 18, after "given" insert "in good faith"
5 Page 2, line 18, after "given" insert "accurate".
6 Page 2, line 21, leave out paragraph (c).
7 Page 2, line 24, after "alleged" insert "in good faith".
8 Page 2, line 26, leave out from "things" to end of line 29.
9 Page 2, line 30, leave out subsection (2).
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
10 Because these Amendments extend the circumstances in which discrimination against persons who have had recourse to rights under the Bill is lawful beyond what the Commons consider justifiable.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 3 to 9 en bloc to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 10. I should like to deal first with Amendments Nos 3, 4, 5, 7 and 9. I think it fair to say that there is general agreement with the proposition embodied in Clause 2(1) that where a person has asserted rights under the legislation, or otherwise been involved in its enforcement, he should be protected from less favourable treatment on account of his actions. I think it also fair to say that there is general agreement that it would not be right for the protection to extend to a situation in which the action taken, on account of which the less favourable treatment was given, was false and not made in good faith. The

1067
issue is whether the burden of proof in relation to the question of accuracy and good faith should fall on the complainant or on the respondent. The questions of fact which are involved in victimisation proceedings are these. First, has the complainant been treated less favourably in a situation within Parts II to IV? Secondly, is the reason for the less favourable treatment the fact that he did one of the things specified in Clause 2(1)(a) to (d)?
In relation to both of these questions, the burden of proof is, quite rightly, on the complainant. But he has a formidable task, for it will often be very difficult for him to prove the connection between the action he took and the less favourable treatment he received. The third question arises only after the complainant has made our a prima facie case on the first two questions, and it arises only where the complainant's action involved an allegation. The question is: Was the allegation false and not made in good faith? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, contended that it should be for the complainant to show that the answer to this question was in the negative. We believe that it should be for the respondent to show that the answer is in the affirmative. The reason for this is that unless the respondent is satisfied that an allegation against him is false and not made in good faith, he should clearly not treat the complainant less favourably for having made it, and he should be liable if in this situation he does treat him less favourably. In the circumstances, we think it right and proper that the question of the truth and bona fides of an allegation is more appropriately incorporated in the victimisation clause as a defence rather than as a substantive part of the definition.
I come now, if I may, to Amendments Nos. 6 and 8. Both are similar in purpose to the Amendments I have just considered, inasmuch as they are intended to limit the scope of Clause 2. The effect of deleting Clause 2(1)(c), as proposed in Amendment No. 6, would be to deny the protection of the clause to persons who are victimised; for example, because they have given information to the Commission in the course of a formal investigation. We regard this Amendment as an unacceptable limitation on the clause. Amendment No. 8 would have the effect that, whereas
1068
it would count as victimisation if an employer were to treat an employee less favourably because he knows the employee has, for example, made an allegation against him, it would not count as victimisation if he were to treat the employee less favourably because he merely suspects that he has made an allegation. Again, we regard this as unjustifiable, and for those reasons I submit these Amendments to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendments, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 10.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
6.42 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, the dialogue with the Commons is once again a dialogue with the deaf. All they have said in their Reason numbered 10 is that they are right and we are wrong, without giving any additional reasons for it. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, showed, I thought, the weakness of his position (although I do not complain of the course he took, because it was directly in response to the course I took) by citing the position as regards employment, which can have, I think, very little relation to the burden of proof. He said that the position has been improved by race relations legislation in the field of employment. I prefaced my remarks by saying that I have never denied that there was a limited function which legislation can perform in this field, and on a previous occasion, though not on this one, I cited employment and tenancy as two examples where this might very well be the case: and if anyone is interested to research into the very boring discussions which we had in the Commons in 1968, he will see that I said so then at much greater length than I am saying so now.
Here we have another situation where the well-tried principle of the burden of proof is turned round, and turned round, as I submit, for no good reason at all. The noble Lord said—and I am quoting him—that it is clearly for the respondent to establish the falsity of the information or the bad faith of the informer. I do not think it is clear at all. Whenever I hear the word "clearly" or the word "obviously" in a political argument, I know that somebody is skating round a difficulty, and I immediately draw out my

1069
intellectual six-shooter. However, I do not want to do the noble Lord any harm, and so I will not underline it more than by saying this.
An employer—suppose he is a farmer, or suppose he is a landlord—is not bound to take any other kind of tenant who has informed against him or who he believes to have informed against him to the police or to the law enforcement agency. Your Lordships may think that it is right or your Lordships may think it is wrong. Personally, I think it is right, because I think that this country remains basically a free country, and all kinds of morally wrong and unreasonable behaviour are lawful in a free country. Indeed, it is arguable that the only freedom which it is worth having is the freedom to do that to which other people object. If they do not object to it, there is no reason to demand the freedom. In every other case discrimination is to be allowed, but not in the case of race relations. Now it can be seen why it is that the white majority in this country find that, by legislation of this kind, their fears for their future, their fears for their set of values, are not being allayed by proposals of this kind but are actually being exasperated and corroborated by legislation of this kind; because they see that, whereas in every other case they are free to discriminate against persons who they think have done them a wrong, in this case they are not, and in this case they have to prove their innocence or else they are assumed to be guilty. However, the same reasons which I gave on my first intervention seem to me to apply in this case, too, so I have nothing more again to say except that this will make race relations worse.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
11 Clause 11, page 8, after "applies" insert "or any person concerned with the affairs of such an organisation,"
12 Clause 11, page 8, line 9, after "applies" insert "or any person concerned with the affairs of such an organisation,"
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason,"
13 Because the Commons do not consider it appropriate that Clause 11 should cover persons who are not acting as agents with the authority of the organisations to which the Clause applies.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, I beg to move, that this House doth insist on their Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 to which the
1070
Commons have disagreed. I have of course looked very carefully at the arguments put forward in another place by the Minister who led in discussing this Amendment. He made a number of points as to why these Amendments of the Lords should be rejected. In the first place, he said that these Amendments were unnecessary. The whole purpose of these two Amendments—because we are taking the two Amendments together—is to put personal responsibility on individuals concerned with organisations, and not merely on the organisations themselves. This is the gravamen of the Amendments. Of course, the persons referred to in this particular clause are the shop stewards in a trade union organisation.
So far from being unnecessary, I would argue that the shop steward is in fact the key figure in race relations at factory floor level. He is able to make or to break so far as good relations on the factory floor are concerned—and, of course, in matters of employment within a place of work it is the factory floor which really matters. I know, and many of your Lordships know, that there are many shop stewards up and down the country who are 100 per cent. on the side of good relations and who are doing all they possibly can to see that the spirit of the legislation, as well as the letter, is implemented. But, of course, among shop stewards, as among all other human beings, there are some who have contrary views; and this is well known inside industry and inside the trade union movement itself. It is because the shop steward is so important, it is because his power and his influence is so great, that it is far from unnecessary that these Amendments that your Lordships put in should be retained.
In another place it was also said by the Minister that, if a member of a racial minority felt that he was being unfairly treated by the person in the organisation, the thing to do was to take his case to the trade union, because the trade union, of course, will have legal responsibility under this legislation. As an argument in the Palace of Westminster this may sound very convincing, but let us look at the reality of what is likely to happen. Suppose an individual Pakistani or Wes Indian, or some person not very conversant with the English language, has a strong

1071
suspicion that he is not being adequately treated, and that that is so for racial reasons, by the shop steward. Is it really likely that in most cases that individual, by definition not supported by his shop steward, will make his way to the trade union, to the branch, to the district organiser, and will channel his own case all by himself and take it up with the trade union? What could be more unreal? Yet that is the argument which is used. We are urging that responsibility should not be put on the person in the place of work, the person who is there in front of the individual concerned, who is the person who in his eyes is in fact the trade union—because that is what the shop steward is to the great mass of ordinary people on the shop floor—to proceed on his own to get the trade union to act for him. It is quite unnecessary, because you can rely on the trade union doing it. It was said in another place, absolutely rightly, that the trade union movement as a whole is entirely in favour of good race relations and entirely opposed to discrimination. I believe that. I believe Mr. Len Murray and those who work with him when they say that they will do all in their power to see that on the factory floor race relations are handled on a basis of complete equity. But we know from experience in many other fields that in fact it is extremely difficult for the trade union movement to reach down to the factory floor—that was the whole burden of the Donovan Report—to see that the policies put forward on the factory floor and supported in all sincerity at higher levels are in fact implemented. In many cases they will be, but in the minority of cases they will not be. It is in those minority of cases where it is so very important to pin the responsibility on the person who is actually inside the factory.
Among the reasons put forward in another place, it was said that if responsibility was put on to the shop steward—and here I quote from the Minister in another place, which I believe is permissible:
"the shop steward might be subjected to close and extensive examination of his actions and motives."
But that is precisely what everybody else is to be exposed to as a result of this legislation, and quite rightly. If we are going to have the Race Relations Act and to use
1072
this means—and I support it with modifications—then it is inevitable that all persons in a position to be responsible for race relations legislation will be exposed before an industrial tribunal to:
"… a close and extensive examination of his actions and motives."
If everybody else, if the publican in the pub, if the person letting lodgings and if the supervisor, why not the shop steward?
It is not even that there is no good justification in ethics for making this exemption. It does not even make sense, because no one is going to be able to shield him from that examination of his actions and motives. If the case is taken up by the trade union organisation—and this is what has been recommended—and if the trade union is taken to the industrial tribunal, then the actions and motives of the shop steward will have to be examined. It will be the only way in which the industrial tribunal can reach a conclusion as to whether or not justice has been done inside the plant. Ultimately, if an appeal is made to a court of law, the same thing must inevitably happen.
As no doubt everybody in your Lord ships' House will know, this clause existed in the 1968 Act and, in theory (though not in practice for many reasons) it was said during the discussion in another place that it made such a great difference that the case would go to a conciliation committee. But then it was perfectly possible that from such a committee it would go to a court of law and so examination of motives and actions would have taken place in that court of law in exactly the same way; so there is absolutely nothing new about this. It is further said—and here again I quote from the speech in another place:
"If it so happened that a shop steward was determined to disregard the tribunal decision, there could be serious industrial relations problems stemming from that action."
What are we doing? We are passing legislation, apparently, which, because it may be difficult, inconvenient and embarrassing to implement, we then proceed, in the very moment of passing the legislation, to make special exemptions. What sort of legislation is it which you have to pass and then say that because it is inconvenient you are going to exempt certain categories of people from the operation of the legislation. The principle being undermined here is one of a very

1073
high order—of the same order, indeed, as that which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, was defending in another context.
These two Amendments in the Bill have been pressed very strongly by persons outside your Lordships' House and they have great experience in race relations. It is well known that no less a person than Sir Geoffrey Wilson of the Race Relations Board was extremely anxious to see this clause—which, I repeat, was in the 1968 Act—carried forward into this legislation. Inside the trade union movement, I know, there are supporters for having this clause incorporated. I therefore beg to move that this Amendment from the Commons be rejected and that we insist upon our original Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth insist on Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 13.—(Baroness Seear.)
Lord MONSON: My Lords, if I do not follow the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, into the Division Lobby on this matter I assure her that it is not by reason of any sour grapes because of the fact that the Liberals, with one exception, did not support the Amendment I moved on Report, but because I genuinely and sincerely cannot make up my mind as to the merits of her Amendment. I think the arguments for and against are very finely balanced; but I am certain that the noble Baroness has every constitutional right to divide the House on this if she so wishes. I believe that the majority in another place against this Amendment was only 26, which was very much less than the majority against the preceding Amendments we have been talking about.
Having said that, I would ask the Liberal Benches to consider one thing. Would it not be slightly tactless if the only Amendment insisted upon by your Lordships tonight was seen to be one which imposed obligations upon shop stewards? If the Liberals succeed in carrying this Amendment, might I urge them to support also one liberalising Amendment—preferably No. 28—which, as your Lordships will know, was supported by over 71 per cent. of Liberals in another place on 27th October.
Lord HACKING: My Lords, like many noble Lords in this House, I have
1074
been enormously impressed by the argument put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, at the beginning of the consideration of these Amendments. I recognise that there is a grave danger that this House could be misrepresented and misunderstood, but I would submit to your Lordships that it is even more important for each individual Member of this House to do what he believes to be right. For that reason, I shall be supporting the noble Baroness.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I rise to oppose this Motion. The Amendments are worded similarly, but the reasons for opposing them are quite different. As the noble Baroness foresaw, we regard the first Amendment as unnecessary. The only people who can discriminate in regard to membership of a trade union are those who have the authority to receive applications and to decide whether or not the person who applies can or cannot be a member. If the shop steward has that authority, both he and the trade union are liable if there is discrimination. But if the shop steward does not have that authority, then he cannot discriminate. He cannot discriminate over something for which he has no authority. Those are the reasons why we regard the first Amendment as unnecessary.
I come now to the second and more important Amendment. We oppose this because we believe that, on balance, it would do more harm than good. This Bill is different from the 1968 Act, which allowed only the Race Relations Board to make the investigations and to pursue proceedings. But this Bill is quite different, and allows the individual worker to take action against another worker. Consequently, we believe that this Amendment could do more harm than good. It could result in the position where worker is versus worker before the industrial tribunal. That would not do good to race relations or to industrial relations in a factory.
The trade union movement is going along with the spirit of this Bill. The noble Baroness will be aware of the recent campaign to which the TUC was a party. It has set up special committees—the Equal Rights Committee and the Race Relations Advisory Committee—and the Government have asked it what further steps they might take to eliminate all forms

1075
of discrimination on the workers' side of industry, and the Council of the TUC is at present considering that. We appreciate the intentions of the noble Baroness, but we are convinced from past experience that this would do more harm than good to race relations and industrial relations, and I ask her not to run the risk of losing this Bill for the sake of these Amendments.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I must say that that is a very odd argument. I have been arguing from the start that the provisions of this Bill will do more harm than good to race relations, and I am bound to say I have argued in certain contexts that it will do more harm than good to industrial relations, too. The funny thing is that, according to the Government, it never happens to he true unless you try to touch a shop steward. Then it becomes apparent that what I have been saying all along is true, but only in relation to the trade unions and the shop stewards, because they can be trusted never to do anything wrong. If we believe that, we can believe anything.
But I would make one or two comments of my own, which are rather different from those of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques. Incidentally, I rather hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, was not suggesting that any Member of this House, whether on this side or the other, is not doing what, individually, he believes to be right in this context. Obviously, every Peer acts according to his own conscience even when he is whipped, unlike Members of another place who sometimes, as we have now learned, act contrary to their conscience when they are being whipped, except when one or two of them actually take the bit between their teeth.
However, there are other arguments which can be presented. To begin with, I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that if I was going to fight on one issue in this Bill, I would fight on the old
Clause 70, and not on this one, for the reason that he gave and also because Clause 70 is a much worse provision than the provision which the noble Baroness wants to cure by her insistence on this Amendment. The second point is that I am not quite sure, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, said, that the Amendment affects a very important purpose. I have been looking at it quite a lot since I supported it—and I think rightly supported it—the first time around. If you look at Part IV of the Bill, I think you are bound to come to the concluson that if a shop steward, whether with or without the authority of a trade union behind him, instructs anybody—and I suppose that that includes a union, as well as an employer or a fellow worker—to do any act which is unlawful by virtue of Parts II or III, or induces or attempts to induce anybody to do an act which is unlawful by virtue of Parts II or III, or acts as an agent for another person with authority, express or implied, to do an act which is unlawful by this Bill, then he is liable himself.
I am not at all clear whether there is, in fact, an area of country where the noble Baroness, in either part of her Amendment, either that which the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, says is unnecessary, or that which he says is deleterious, will make a great deal of difference. At the end of the day I am not, for technical reasons, particularly keen on fighting this one. If I was going to fight any, I would fight Clause 70, which I think is fundamental, and if I were going to fight according to what would be my conscience if there were not constitutional difficulties, I would fight every one. But I cannot see myself selecting this one as the battle which I would choose to wage, and I think we should be misunderstood if we did.
7.7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 14; Not-Contents, 50.

CONTENTS

Banks, L.

Byers, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Barrington, V.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Seear, B. [Teller.]

Beaumont of Whitley, L.[Teller.]

Gladwyn, L.

Swaythling, L.

Grey, E.

Wade, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Hacking, L.

Wigoder, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Bernstein, L.

Henderson, L.

Oram, L.

Birk, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Pannell, L.

Blyton, L.

Jacques, L.

Parry, L.

Brimelow, L.

Janner, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Brockway, L.

Kaldor, L.

Peddie, L.

Champion, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Phillips, B.

Collison, L.

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

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Darwen, L.

Popplewell, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Rhodes, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Longford, E.

Slater, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stedman, B.

Gordon-Walker, L.

McCarthy, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

McCluskey, L.

Stone, L.

Hale, L.

Maelor, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Hanworth, V.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Morris, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Hayter, L.

Northfield, L.

Winterbottom, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

7.15 p.m.

LORDS AMENDMENT
14 Clause 23, page 16, line 20, at end insert—
"(3) Section 20(1) does not apply to the provision of facilities or services by a person in his home, not being a place open (for payment or not) to members of the public generally."
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
15 Because the Commons do not consider that the fact that facilities or services are provided from a person's home justifies permitting discrimination when they are made available to the public or a section of the public.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 14, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 15. The Commons do not consider that the fact that facilities or services are provided from a person's home justifies permitting discrimination when they are made available to the public or a section of the public.
This is the third occasion on which we have considered this, and recently I have written at some length to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, trying to set out in detail the Government's point of view. The Amendment says, broadly speaking, that a person who provides in his home facilities and services should not be within the scope of Clause 20. I think nobody will disagree that the Bill should not interfere in essentially private and personal relationships and this, of course, is why the Amendment is, at any rate at first glance, attractive. It carries the suggestion that, unless it is made, the Bill will blunder into
1078
private and personal relationships in the home. However, this is not the case, as I shall try to explain.
The issue is basically this. Should a person who provides facilities or services in his home be excepted from Clause 20? Leaving aside for the moment the limitations which have been built into the exception, the answer of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is in the affirmative. The Government's answer is also in the affirmative, but only where the transactions involved are in fact of an essentially private character. The Amendment is not necessary to secure an exception for these transactions because the result is achieved by the limitation of the clause to persons concerned with the provision of goods, facilities or services "to the public or a section of the public".
I am fully aware that on three previous occasions I failed to persuade your Lord ships that the Amendment was not acceptable and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, was certainly disinclined to accept the argument that this limitation in Section 2 of the 1968 Act had worked satisfactorily for the last eight years. I am sure that if the noble Lord is familiar with that Act he will know that these words have been lifted almost entirely from it. The Government's view is that it has worked very well indeed during that period. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 15.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, I have had the privilege now of sitting for 23 years in your Lordships' House and this evening

1079
is the first time that I have ever heard the House insist upon one of its Amendments which has been questioned by the other place. I had an idea that there must be an unwritten Standing Order that we should never do so but I am very glad to have heard the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, break that impression this evening. I feel that this Amendment No. 14 is even more important. I should like to read to your Lordships some words which were spoken in the other place by the right honourable gentleman Mr. Patrick Mayhew when they were discussing this Amendment on 27th October. He said—and I quote—
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but I think he is out of order in quoting from the speech of a Member of the other place who is not a Minister.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, if it is out of order, of course, I shall not do so.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, I think it is in order for the noble Lord to paraphrase it, is it not?
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I think if the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches takes out the inverted commas and does not quote ipsissima verba he will be in order.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, I will so as well as I can in that way. The right honourable gentlemen was implying that we would be losing all sense of reality if we felt there was some uncertainty as to whether one had the right to say who should or who should not enter one's own home, and I entirely agree with him. If we lose this privilege of saying who shall or who shall not enter our homes then it seems to me that the last vestige of freedom will have gone. Therefore I sincerely hope that the House will insist upon this Amendment.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I am glad to tell my noble friend Lord Somers that I intend to try to persuade the House to insist upon this Amendment, for six reasons. First, there is the question of the sanctity of the home. I take the view that a person's home is essentially sacrosanct. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-
1080
Pestell at the Report stage, in the letter which he so kindly wrote to me later, and again this evening took a partially contrary view, if I am not being unfair. If I may try to summarise the gist of what the Government were getting at, it was that the home was normally a private place but once you started providing facilities or services to people, however infrequently or for however short a time, it became temporarily a public place. I think that fairly sums up the attitude of the Government. I quite accept that the Government hold these views just as sincerely as I hold my views, but I am fortified by the belief that were there to be a referendum on this point at least 95 per cent. of the population would support my interpretation of the sanctity of the home.
The second reason is that the Commons Reason is actually inaccurate because the Commons Reason numbered 15 is given as follows:
"Because the Commons do not consider that the fact that facilities or services are provided from a person's home justifies permitting discrimination…".
I said nothing about permitting discrimination from a person's home. I am not talking about self-employed plumbers or electricians who receive a telephone call and go out in their van or pickup truck to repair somebody's plumbing or fuses. I am talking about facilities provided in a private part of a person's home. The third reason is that both in the letter written by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and in another place as the issue of doctors and dentists was brought into the Government's reasoning, I believe that a doctor's surgery and a dentist's waiting room are in fact public places and not private: also, I know it was pointed out in another place that a doctor had the right to decide who should or should not be on his list. If I may say so, I think this is a little bit of a red herring. Solicitors were also mentioned; I suppose there may be a solicitor who occasionally operates from his home but it must be a very rare thing indeed.
Far more important is the misunderstanding of human nature which comes very surprisingly, if I may say so, from the Labour Party; because on 27th October the Minister of State—and I take it I am allowed to quote him—at column 564 of the Official Report said:

1081
"If a piano teacher or anyone else advertises lessons to a wide section of the public it is repugnant for a little coloured girl who goes along for her first piano lesson to be told, 'I am having 25 or 30 other pupils and you are coloured and cannot come in'."
Really, if one thinks of all the people in this country who are unlikely to use such offensive language, surely music teachers of all people are the least likely to speak in that way. I am sure my noble friend Lord Somers would confirm that.
None of us wants people to talk in that way; but there is inconsistency in the Government's attitude, because it is specifically provided in this Bill that a man wanting to employ a cook is perfectly entitled, in the Bill as it left the Commons, to say, "I am not going to employ you; I do not want a Pakistani cook"—or a Venezuelan cook or a Bulgarian cook, or whatever it may be. The secretary of a club of 24 people is perfectly entitled to say, "I am not having Asians or black people in this club". One of the partners in a partnership of under six people is perfectly entitled to use such offensive language, if he feels inclined to do so. Then there is the landlord or the landlady of a small boarding house who can say, "No blacks". I think very few people use that sort of language, but if anybody does I am sure it is far more likely to be the landlady or the landlord of a boarding house than the unfortunate music teacher. I am sure that argument is not in accord with reality.
The final reason is that this Amendment was not considered, as were other Amendments, by another place for any length of time; and for that reason I suggest it ought to be returned to them in order that they may have another look at it and give it further consideration. If they reject it a second time, all well and good. It did not go to the Standing Committee, although there were 13 sittings of the Standing Committee; it did not go through the Report or Third Reading stage in another place because it originated in this House as recently as the 12th October and although it was not supported by the Opposition Front Bench in this House it received support from all quarters—from the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby from the Labour Benches and from the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, from the Liberal Benches as well as from the Cross-Benches and from the Conservatives.
1082
Now that the other place has had an opportunity of considering it, it is a fact that an honourable and learned Member on the Conservative Front Bench in another place thought that it was a worthwhile and sensible Amendment and consistent with the scheme of the Bill as drafted and with a pattern of exemptions from liability which it already contained. The Conservatives went on to say that they were happy to support it and, if truth be told, rather wished that they had drafted it themselves. Every Conservative present, including Mr. William White-law and other distinguished Conservatives, supported it in another place and I hope your Lordships will agree that it ought to return to the Commons for further consideration.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I do not think we shall be able to take this much further tonight. As I said earlier, we have been over the ground three times. In a lengthy letter I have tried to explain the Government's point of view. The only thing I can say is that one must have in the forefront of one's mind whether the transactions are of an essentially public character. As I understand the Amendment of the noble Lord, if this were to go through, then it would mean that a good many services which are essentially of a public character would become impossible. The noble Lord has quite rightly mentioned that we have talked about solicitors, doctors and dentists, many of whom operate from their homes, from the places where they live. I suppose most dentists do, for that matter, and also a large number of doctors. We are concerned as to whether the person is publicly providing facilities and services. We recognise that within the privacy of the home, certain things come outside this.
Let us take the situation of a man who is retired; I have in mind a man who perhaps has been a tailor. He has retired and does not want to engage in work, but obviously he is prepared to help out his friends when they need help with repairs, alterations, perhaps even to the extent of making a suit. But he is operating simply for his next door neighbours and friends. In my view, and in the view of the Government, this is not supplying services and facilities for the public. We are saying that immediately that man is prepared to offer these facilities over a much wider field to the public at

1083
large, then he comes within the scope of Clause 20.
I do not think I can add more to it than that. The noble Lord has to see that there is a clear dividing line between the privacy of the home, the private side of the matter, and the public side. If the Amendment of the noble Lord is carried, it would completely eliminate a large number of services to which I have referred which, of course, would be disastrous.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I must say again that I am completely unconvinced by all this. I think that the noble Lord who has just spoken has greatly exaggerated the number of cases to which this could possibly refer, both as regards the dental and the medical professions. It is just another example of how race relations will he damaged by this Bill.
In my time, I have known lots of old ladies, having been the representative for various constituencies. Some old ladies are convinced that all Irishmen are wicked, lascivious and drunken—and I daresay the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, has confirmatory evidence of that from his previous experience as a Minister. Others think that all Indians have unpleasant characteristics. I daresay that if an old Hebrew lady offered me lessons in Hebrew, when she discovered what an un-Kosher name I once had, she would not have me in the house—which only goes to show what rubbish this Bill really is. I fancy that there is only a minute number of cases where this kind of situation can exist, and although I think it is another example of the nonsense that the Government are making of race relations by this idiotic legislation, this is not one to fight on.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to say three things in response to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, because he is always very reasonable about these things. I do not agree that a dentist's waiting room or a doctor's surgery is a private place. It is not what I was getting at: the proviso covers this. I do not think the other place has had a chance to really study it. They spent only about 45 minutes on it in another place. The fact that they have not comprehended it—
Several noble Lords: Order! Order!

LORDS AMENDMENT
16 Leave out Clause 25.
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment and proposed the following Amendments to the words so restored to the Bill:
17 Page 17, line 39, leave out from "section" to "he" in line 42, and insert—

'(a) a person is a member of an association if he belongs to it by virtue of his admission to any sort of membership provided for by its constitution (and is not merely a person with certain rights under its constitution by virtue of his membership of some other association), and references to membership of an association shall be construed accordingly;

(b) a person is an associate of an association to which this section applies if not being a member of it,'.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 16 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 17.
With the leave of the House I will discuss Amendment No. 18 with Reason numbered 19, Amendment No. 20 with Reason numbered 21, and Amendments Nos. 33, 34 and 35 with Reason numbered 36. We come again to the club clauses of the Bill. I am not sure that there are any new arguments on either side of the issue, and therefore I do not propose to rehearse in any detail arguments which have been advanced in earlier debates on the Bill in another place, in this House, and then again in another place.
Briefly, the purpose of Clause 25 is to change the criterion on which the question of whether or not a club or association is within the scope of legislation is deter mined. As it stands, following the decision of your Lordships' House sitting in a judicial capacity, the test is whether there is a genuine selection procedure. The Government reached the conclusion that, for reasons we set out in the White Paper, this test was unacceptable as a matter of policy. Our problem then was to devise a more acceptable one. The solution embodied in Clause 25 is that the legislation should apply to all clubs except those with fewer than 25 members.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on the said Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 17.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: Lords, the only effect of the attitude of the Government, of course, will be that this clause will apply to working men's clubs where it will be greatly resented, and not to Pall Mall clubs where it will be quite unenforceable. If they like to introduce this discriminatory class of legislation, we should not press the matter any further.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, it is a great shame that the Commons rejected your Lordships' Amendment. Their insistence on the retention of Clause 25 is a blow for the concept of freedom of association because, of course, freedom to associate necessarily implies freedom not to associate. I agree, however, that it is perhaps not an Amendment on which we ought to fight.
7.38 p.m.

LORDS AMENDMENT
18 Leave out Clause 26.
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
19 Because the Commons consider that, while it should be unlawful for associations of 25 or more members to discriminate, there should be an exception for associations whose main object is to confer the benefits of membership on persons of a particular racial group defined otherwise than by reference to colour.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 18 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 19.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 19.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, the only thing I wish to say is that this is the only Reason of the Commons with which I agree. It is consequential on the last.

LORDS AMENDMENT
20 Page 19, line 29, leave out "26,"
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
21 Because the Amendment is consequential upon the Amendment made by the Lords to
1086
leave out Clause 26, to which the commons have disagreed.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 20 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 21.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 21.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)

LORDS AMENDMENT
22 Page 26, line 7, leave out "Commission for Racial Equality" and insert "Community Relations Commission".
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
23 Because the Commons do not consider that the name Community Relations Commission appropriately reflects the responsibilities which the Commission established under Clause 43 will have.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 22 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 23. With the leave of your Lordships, I will speak to Amendment No. 24 and Reason numbered 25, Amendment No. 37 and Reason numbered 38, Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 and Reason numbered 41; Commons Amendments Nos. 43, 44 and 45 to Lords Amendment No. 42; Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 and Reason numbered 48, and Amendments Nos. 49 to 55 inclusive and Reason numbered 56.
These are all consequential Amendments. As your Lordships know, the name of the new Commission has been the subject of a good deal of debate in both Houses and I do not want to rehearse all the arguments that have taken place. However, I would draw your Lordships' attention to two points which have not emerged clearly in our debates. First, the title, "Commission for Racial Equality" was a compromise accepted on all sides in another place. The original title proposed by the Government was Race Relations Commission. It was objected to partly because of the word "race" and partly because it failed to emphasise the positive role of the new Commission. On the use of "Race" the Government have stood firm. However, we came forward with Commission

1087
for Racial Equality to meet the criticisms that Race Relations Commission was too negative.
The second point—and it is one to which importance was attached in another place—is that the new name is needed for a new body whose fuctions will encompass and go wider than those of the present Race Relations Board and the Community Relations Committee. In our view, it would he a mistake to give the new body the name of one of its predecessors. We would risk confusing the public about the role of the new body, and for the reason that the existing Community Relations Commission functions are so much narrower than those of the new body, we would risk underplaying the contribution which we all hope and expect that the new Commission will make.
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers—who I know from the discussions we have had feels very strongly about this—will accept that there is some force in the argument. I wrote to the noble Baroness a short time ago setting out the reasons why these Amendments could not be accepted. I hope she will understand the situation, and I trust your Lordships will also understand the position and not insist on these Amendments. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 23.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, may I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for the kind letter he wrote to me. However, I feel that I have been deceived on two occasions. The first time we got the name of the Bill changed on the nod. The Bill was reprinted and then, of course, changed in this House. I got the other Amendment on the Commission through by eight votes, and it was changed in the other House. I do not think that the Reason given by the House of Commons is very sensible. Clause 43(a) reads, "to work towards the elimination of discrimination." We already have the Sex Discrimination Act, the Equal Opportunities and Employment Protection Act which, surely should eliminate discrimination. In regard to
1088
the "equal opportunity", I should have thought that would be taken into consideration in those Bills too.
In regard to the final words, "and good relations between persons in different racial groups", one cannot make good relations satisfactory by law. Good relations are achieving a good understanding of people, and I suggest start in the schools, in movements like the Boy Scouts, in activities undertaken in the community and in various organisations like the British Council, the Commonwealth Countries League, the Women's Corona Society and others working towards getting the community to mix together. Therefore, I do not accept—though I presume I cannot do anything about it tonight—what the House of Commons has said; that is, that this will establish better relations.
As to the words, "racial equality", when I think of the years it took women to achieve equality—they did not even get a vote until 1919—how are you going to get equality by legislation of this kind? I think it is very damaging indeed. I do not like the word "racial". We want to be considered one community, particularly in view of the fact that a large percentage of the people who are of different race from ourselves have been born and brought up in this country. We want them to be citizens of this country and to get away from the word "race". I think it is very detrimental to name a body "Commission for Racial Equality".
I do not know whether the noble Lord can give me an answer tonight, but I should like to ask whether the Commission has managed to get its full number of persons to serve. As I understood it, there has been a great deal of, shall we say, racial difficulty in getting members of the Commission together. That is one of the reasons why I dislike this term. If we cannot have "community relations", I should have been happier if we had left out the word "race" and left "Commission for Equality". I feel it is very unfortunate to have the Bill going forward with the title, "Race Relations Bill". It is not going to help in the future. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, said that since the Bill has been printed, and since we have had discussions, race relations have certainly not improved, and I know from the number of letters I have

1089
received that many people are very sad that we are again going to incorporate into legislation the word "race".
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Baroness any information with regard to the Commission. It is rather outside the purpose of our being here tonight. I would call her attention to the fact that this Amendment was passed without a Division in another place.

LORDS AMENDMENT
24 Page 26, line 30, after "Commission" insert "established by section 25 of the Race Relations Act 1968".
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
25 Because the Amendment is consequential upon the Amendment made by the Lords in page 26, line 7, to which the Commons have disagreed.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on its Amendment No. 24, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 25.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasonnumbered25.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)

LORDS AMENDMENT
26 Leave out Clause 65.
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
27 Because the Commons consider that it is appropriate to make special provisions to enable persons who suspect that they have been discriminated against to obtain relevant information.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on its Amendment No. 26 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 27. When we debated this question in Committee, I explained in some detail the considerations which had led us in the Sex Discrimination Act, but more particularly in relation to this Bill, to put forward the "questions procedure". I certainly do not propose to go over that ground again. I shall confine myself to replying to the main criticisms which have been levelled at this clause.
1090
The main criticism to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham directed attention is that the kind of innovation which the "questions procedure" embodies should apply either to all litigation or to none at all. The Government do not agree that this "all or nothing" argument is valid. I was about to say that in my view there was a clear justification for the provision before remembering that the noble and learned Lord had expressed himself as having strong feelings about the use of the words "clear" or "obvious". I think he said that he would pull out his six-shooter if the words were used again, so I shall certainly not use either. I shall therefore use the more neutral term and say that I think there is a justification for our position.
The principal factors are these. First, the complexity of the concept of discrimination; I do not think that anybody who has heard our debates would disagree with that. Secondly, the difficulty of knowing and of proving that character of discrimination. And, thirdly, the fact that we are in this Bill transferring the responsibility of enforcement by legal powers from a statutory agency to the individual victim. I think it is right to mention a fourth consideration, and this is that we are doing away with the statutory conciliation procedure which is incorporated in the 1968 Act, because we are restructuring and improving the enforcement provisions of the legislation, but there is an important place for conciliation. The industrial tribunal system incorporates conciliation machinery, and there are usually informal attempts at conciliation and settlement before ordinary county court litigation commences. We believe that the questions procedure will go some way towards filling the gap which will inevitably be left when the statutory conciliation machinery of the 1968 Act ends, for it will afford an opportunity to both parties to identify and reflect upon the issues between them, and we think that this will be valuable. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 26, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 27.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I do not want to say very much about this. It is, I think,

1091
an abominable but relatively unimportant procedure upon which the Government insists. It is just another example of the way in which race relations will be damaged as a result of this foolish piece of legislation. In every other kind of wrongdoing, in the criminal courts and in the civil courts, you cannot do this kind of thing to your opponent; you cannot interrogate him; you cannot draw inferences from his silence. But this time you can do it. It is aimed at the majority of the inhabitants of this island to assist minorities, but in fact it will operate in reverse, as the Government found under their Race Relations Act 1965. The only valid prosecutions that were ever taken were taken against black men for abusing whites, and this is the way it will work this time in relation to this interrogation procedure. I will not take up the time of the House. This is another example of the folly of this type of legislation.

LORDS AMENDMENT
28 Clause 70, page 45, line 13, leave out from beginning to "be" in line 14 and insert "with the intention that hatred shall".
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
29 Because the Commons do not consider that it is appropriate to limit the offence of inciting racial hatred only to cases where the person concerned is proved to have intended to stir up hatred.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 28, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 29. Once again I do not think there is any need for me to repeat the reasons why, in this particular case as well, the Government came to the conclusion that they did. We came to the conclusion that it was right that the element of intention to stir up racial hatred should be removed from the offence of incitement to racial hatred. Instead, I should like to deal with one or two of the arguments to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, directed himself on the last occasion. Of course, like him, I recognise that this is an important matter and it deserves serious consideration by the House. The main objection raised by the noble and learned Lord was that it conflicted with,
1092
"…a fundamental principle of the English criminal law that a crime should consist of two elements, the actus reas and the mens rea".
The noble and learned Lord made clear that he was not concerned with summary offences, but only with indictable ones like Section 6 of the Race Relations Act 1965, and Clause 70 of the Bill, which would replace Section 6. He went on to say that he could see no reason why the fundamental principle to which he had referred should not apply in the case of incitement to racial hatred. In reply to this argument I should like to make two points. First, it is not, I think, as though the fundamental principle to which the noble and learned Lord referred is without exception. Indeed, Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1936 is just such an exception. It makes it an offence to use threatening, abusive or insulting language which is likely to cause a breach of the peace, irrespective of any intention on the part of the person concerned to cause a breach of the peace. And, second, the link between Section 5 of the 1936 Act and incitement to racial hatred is not simply that the absence of an element of intention in the former is a precedent for the proposal in Clause 70: there is a clear parallel between the evil against which Section 5 is directed—namely, public disorder—and the evil of racial hatred, which contains not far below the surface the seeds of public disorder. In fact, this was among the considerations which led us, on a suggestion made by members of the Opposition in another place, to transfer the offence of incitement to racial hatred from the Bill to the Public Order Act. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 28, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 29.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, if there were an an Amendment which I should like to fight about at this stage of the exchange between the two Houses it would be this particular Amendment. I see no reason why I should withdraw what I said on an earlier occasion, that to create an indictable offence in which the mental element is wholly lacking is a constitutional outrage and an undermining of our principles of the criminal law. To make it one on which

1093
the guilty person could be liable to a penalty of two years' imprisonment is, to my mind, little short of abominable, and far worse than anything else in the Bill. It has also the merit, or demerit, of being totally inappropriate to the rest of the Bill. This Bill is concerned in other sections solely with relations in a civil sense, except for offences which are created ancillary to those relations, but this has to do with the Public Order Act 1936, and constitutes, therefore, an excrescence on the rest of the Bill. To my mind, therefore the Government could perfectly well have omitted it from this legislation altogether, and all the more so because at Committee in another place the Government spokesmen declared that they have in contemplation a revision of the Public Order Act 1936. We could perfectly well have then discussed this particular question at our leisure, instead of trying to rush it through at the end of a Session when we are faced with the alternative of making the Government drop their Bill or accept what they do not want to accept. That again is a constitutional outrage.
Thirdly, I think that the Government have not fully realised the mess into which this new offence will bring them, or any other Government who may inherit their foolish legislation. Let us imagine that a certain Mr. Enoch Powell makes a speech about race relations in the country. Well, he has a friend called Mr. Patel, who gives him unmerited advertisement by advertising the speech before he makes it. He makes it, and it attracts headlines in all the local and national newspapers. Afterwards, Mr. Patel demands that he be prosecuted under this new draconian provision. Of course, under the existing legislation the Attorney-General is under no difficulty; he can say, "We cannot prove intent". That would quash such a foolish suggestion. Under this new legislation, it is the effect that counts, not the intent. We have all seen the effect last week on "Any Questions". So, Mr. Patel may say, "Let Mr. Powell be prosecuted". I know that the Attorney-General has to consent to a prosecution before it takes place, but think of the embarrassment that poor Mr. Silkin will be in when this happens should this Bill become law. If he says, "I will not prosecute", when there is a viable case against Mr. Powell, then of course there will be a tremendous howl of indignation from the Patels of this world,
1094
because he will be giving preference to Privy Councillors and Members of Parliament rather than other, ordinary members of the public. It will be said that it is just another example of Front Benchers scratching one another's backs. So Mr. Silkin will be in for a very rough ride if he refuses to prosecute, because the case will be unanswerable.
Let us assume that he does his strict duty according to Roman principles of impartiality and sternness at breaches of law, and prosecutes Mr. Powell. Mr. Powell goes to the Old Bailey; cheering crowds, led on by the National Front, greet him on the way; flower petals are thrown to show enthusiasm for his speech. He becomes a martyr, a national hero; and of course nobody will be better pleased than Mr. Powell. This is the kind of thing which makes the Government ridiculous and illustrates above all things the folly of trying to interfere with general principles of law.
It is quite true that tucked away in Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1936 there is this precedent. I wonder how often it has been used in the 40 years since it was introduced, and, if it has not been used very often during the whole of the Mosley attack on Jews, I wonder why it has not been used. I think I can tell the noble Lords of the Government why it has not been used. It is because it was no use anyway and if it had been used it would have caused a cry of indignation and aroused sympathy for the very man whom it was wished to punish. That is why it has not been used.
The truth is that the safety of minorities in this country—the safety of Jews and that of coloured people—depends upon an observance of the rules of law and the principle of liberty. That is their protection. If one starts trying to make martyrs of the people who attack them, then it will be found that the sympathy to which they are justly entitled is transferred. Even that is not the end of the folly of this thing. Let us suppose that Mr. Powell's speech is published in The Times. Of course there is an escape clause for the publication of speeches: if they are made in Parliament or if they are made in legal proceedings the editor of The Times is protected. But if Mr. Powell speaks to the City of London Young Conservatives, or to the Eastbourne

1095
Chamber of Commerce or the other places which seem to solicit his attentions—although the invitation is not always persisted in when they discover exactly how he is going to abuse their hospitality—if he speaks anywhere except in the House of Commons or in a court of law, then the editor of The Times has to join him in the dock at the Old Bailey for publishing it.
That is the situation which the Government have created. Are the Government really not able to understand why it is that the President of the Guild of Newspaper Editors was so cut up about this clause, so anxious that our Amendment should be carried? Of course, it is now going to be said that if we persist in it we are defying the will of the people. Some little twit down the corridor, who will not get in the next time, is going to accuse us of defying the popular will. I must say, I am very much tempted to do so. However, I have said what I have said; I am not going to say it again. I do not think we shall gain any more or do much good by taking it any further, except just to tell them where they get off.
8.5 p.m.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, I have a very high respect, as the noble and learned Lord knows, for him and for his views about racial discrimination. I have every cause to know that and I publicly acknowledge it, but I am afraid that I cannot accept the argument that he has put forward because of an experience which dates back many years. I came to the conclusion long ago, as one who fought against racial discrimination in the 1930s, that the law was not strong enough to prevent the kind of vicious and terrible propaganda that was being preached at that time under the leadership of Mosley, a man who had opened a synagogue at one time and who had even put up a candidate against myself, one who happened to be of Jewish persuasion. He was using his new movement purely for the purpose of obtaining some return in support of gangsters for the vilification of Jewish people.
First of all, to me, there was considerable difficulty in getting any law passed at all. There was the question for example of stopping the use of uniforms. I remember discussing the matter with
1096
Lord Simon and others at that time. They also presented a similar case to that which the noble and learned Lord is putting forward this evening—honestly, of course, and believing that the effect of any legislation would be contrary to the interests of those whom it was intended to protect. Certain legislation was passed—the 1936 Act. As Members of this House will readily remember, it was passed but it was not sufficiently effective because, although in fact everybody knew that there was intent on the part of the villainous Fascists of that time they could not be prosecuted. It is hard for me to speak about this, because it ultimately resulted in the murder and torture of some six million Jewish people. We came to the conclusion that the Act as it stood then—and unfortunately, in my view, repeated in the Race Relations Act of 1965—was not sufficient to stop the dangerous and inhuman actions that were being used by those who were vilifying Jewish people and determined to destroy their good name because of the political ambitions of those Fascists.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord's speech, but he is overlooking the fact that Section 5 of that Act is the precise model upon which this section is framed and it was cited in favour of it by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. This section does not really carry the matter much further.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, if I may say so with respect, it carries the matter further to the extent that the Attorney-General will have the right to institute prosecutions against people who are inciting racial hatred and who are not able to satisfy a jury that there was no intent. Indeed, I think that the noble and learned Lord will remember a number of occasions on which intent should in fact be clear to any reasonable person but in which juries have returned "not guilty" verdicts.
I feel difficulty in speaking against the contentions which are put forward by the noble and learned Lord, who I know has this matter deeply at heart. But I cannot help but feel that if people go (as they did in those days into the East End and other places in London) into areas where racial discrimination can be stirred

1097
up, it would not be a breach of the principles of law. I am a lawyer myself, and I realise what is underlying the arguments put forward. I think that this kind of case is very exceptional. I do not think that people should be allowed to act in the way that criminals of those days did, and I do not believe that a clause of this sort would have the effect that some noble Lords believe that it will. I think, on the contrary, that leaving it in the hands of the Attorney-General—and after all it is not a matter which can be brought without his consent—to decide whether an action should be brought is sufficient safeguard against anyone bringing a prosecution which is not based on thorough grounds.
There are cases, as the noble and learned Lord knows—and I feel bound to repeat something which has already been said—in which the onus of proof has been put upon the respondent or defendant. I think that the crimes that this Bill intends to deal with are crimes within the category where similar action should be taken.
8.13 p.m.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, I fully understand and have much sympathy with the argument put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord Janner, that there should now be legislation which makes it an offence if a person at a public meeting, for example, uses insulting words which are likely to cause racial hatred, and that it should not be necessary that intention should have to be specifically proved as an ingredient of the offence. My anxiety about this clause is not so much on that aspect of it as the other aspect touched on by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, as to the possible effect upon the restriction of the freedom of the Press.
If a distinguished public figure is making a speech of this nature which, in itself, qualifies for prosecution under this clause, it might be very much in the public interest that the public as a whole should know what was being said and who was saying it. As this subsection stands, the newspaper is just as much liable to prosecution as the individual speaker. I can only hope that it might be possible for the noble Lord, Lord Harris, to indicate that when the Attorney-General comes to consider whether to give his consent to the prosecution of a newspaper, he will
1098
be very slow indeed to consent to the prosecution of a newspaper which is in good faith doing its duty in informing the public of matters which the public has every right to know.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I believe that this is the clause above all others that your Lordships should insist upon tonight. I fully appreciate the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Janner, but I believe that the clause as unamended would be counter-productive, and would not achieve the objectives or the safeguards which he rightly looks for: partly for the reasons advanced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and partly for the reasons advanced by an honourable and learned Member in another place on 27th October, who pointed out that the effect of the clause as unamended is to render a man liable to up to two years' imprisonment when he is innocent of any intention to stir up hatred against any racial group. It will allow the conviction of a man who is genuinely innocent of any racialist intent. He went on to say that it would introduce into English law a principle which undermines civil liberties. I am sure that none of your Lordships would wish this to happen.
Another honourable and learned Member reminded the House that many years ago a Labour Party spokesman, speaking from the Dispatch Box in another place, demanded a Bill to make it a criminal offence to say that coloured immigration into this country should be totally stopped. Of course, no Labour spokesman speaking from the Dispatch Box today would say such a thing—but who knows what may happen in a few years time?
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, spoke of the fears expressed by the Guild of British Newspaper Editors. I have heard today that the Insitute of Journalists are equally concerned about the effects of the clause if left unamended. Another Front Bench speaker in another place spoke about the clause as unamended as possibly bringing the whole of Parliament, and our civil and criminal law, into disrepute. In another place the great majority of the Liberal Party voted with the Conservatives for this Amendment, including Mr. Emlyn Hooson, who has in the normal way supported most of the clauses of this Bill, taking the side of the

1099
Government against the Opposition. The majority against the Amendment was a narrow one.
I remember well a few weeks ago the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, speaking from the Benches on my left, in opposing a subsection of this Bill, speaking of the freedoms for which the British people have fought throughout the centuries. I believe that freedom of speech and the freedom of the Press are the principles that we ought to fight for tonight.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, may I say that I have been reflecting upon a certain expression I used which might be thought to express a lack of respect for Members of another place. I do not think I was within the rules of order, and I should like to withdraw that expression and substitute the expression "honourable Member" for the expression which I in fact employed.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, if I may say so, that was done with particular delicacy. The noble and learned Lord has rehearsed—and I make no objection to this, obviously—the points which he made on an earlier occasion. I am well aware that he takes that view of the matter, as do his honourable friends in another place. I hope that the experience we have with the Bill on the Statute Book will prove him wrong, and that is the Government's belief.
Regarding the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wigoder, he will realise that I have to speak with some caution in giving an undertaking not only on behalf of the current Attorney-General but as to the attitude future Attorneys-General may take on the question of a prosecution, but the intention is that they should reflect on the facts of a particular case, and I am sure that they will bear in mind the considerations which the noble and learned Lord advanced, but clearly I cannot go beyond that.
I am well aware also of some of the anxieties that have been expressed by the Guild of British Newspaper Editors, but I believe that some of the arguments they have advanced are unjustified. At the moment, newspapers often use their own
1100
discretion to omit language of that sort and, if using an example from the United States is not amiss, it is interesting to note that in the remarks which were attributed to the late Secretary of Agriculture in the United States, only one American newspaper thought it appropriate to tell their readers what in fact he had said. They did not take the view that it was their high public duty to publish words which later required him to resign his office as Secretary of Agriculture. This is an indication that the Press at present exercise a substantial amount of restraint when vulgar and abusive language is used and I do not therefore believe that this raises fundamental questions affecting the liberty of the Press. Nevertheless, there are certainly anxieties among some journalists I would not put it higher than that—and, again, I hope they will prove to be unjustified.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
30 Leave out Clause 71.
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment and proposed the following Amendments to the words so restored to the Bill:
31 Page 46, line 30, leave out "its" and insert "their".
32 Page 46, line 32, leave out "work towards the elimination of discrimination and" and insert "make appropriate arrangements with a view to securing that their various functions are carried out with due regard to the need—

(a) to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination; and

(b)".

8.22 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 30 to which the Commons have disagreed, and agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 to the words so restored to the Bill. Your Lordship know that the Government had reservations about this clause. They had them when they were defeated in Standing Committee in another place and when they were discussed in this House only a few weeks ago. I made it plain that the Government are at one with the supporters of Clause 71 in believing that local authorities have an important role to play in race relations. The way the local authorities exercise their responsibilities is very important to how the minority communities

1101
fare in our society. The Government believe that it is essential that they should co-operate fully with the new Commission in seeking to promote racial justice and harmony.
The view on both sides in another place was that the Bill should contain a local authority clause, and the Government accepted that view. The Amendment to delete Clause 71 was disagreed to without a division. The Government then did what I said they would do if the clause were not deleted; we moved what are now Commons Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 to clarify the nature of the obligation swhich the clause imposes on local authorities. I hope that these Amendments, which clarify what is expected of local authorities, will make the clause more acceptable to those Members of your Lordships' House who were initially opposed to the clause.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 30 to which the Commons have disagreed, and agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 to the words so restored to the Bill.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, we seem to be in the curious position that when the Minister spoke on the clause in Committee it appeared that the Government were not terribly enthusiastic about it. Nevertheless, apparently the elected representatives of the people seem to have had their voice override the Government in this case and we now find the clause back in the Bill. Of course it is pointless at this stage in the proceedings to object to the inclusion of the clause, but we see very little point of having it included in that local authorities have obligations to the people living in their community. There seems to be no guidance from the Government as to what sort of policy local authorities are to have and what sort of priority they are to give to race relations. Presumably it will be more and more difficult because even since the introduction of the Bill local authorities have less and less money to use on vital matters apart from race relations. Nobody denies that race relations is an extremely important part of the work of local authorities and one would hope that any local authority would realise that it is the commitment of such a body to encourage good relations. However, in the present position we do not object to
1102
the clause but we think it is quite unnecessary in the Bill.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, loath though I am to cross swords with the noble Baroness, it is difficult to please the Opposition who, in another place, were keen to have it. The Government acceded to their request and now the noble Baroness says she is not sure that the Amendment is necessary. I think that on this matter, as I hope on others, we have attempted to listen to the views expressed in both Houses and to come to a decision on the matter which carries with it the approval of as many people on both sides of the House as possible because in this field of race relations legislation I hope there are not major Party issues involved, and we are anxious to ensure that we carry the consent of the largest number of people possible.
The words which appeared in the previous clause were objectionable to the Government and I indicated that if the clause were written into the Bill the Government would wish to come forward with Amendments to deal with the clause as then drafted. In another place it was decided that, as a result of pressure from all sides of the House, a clause along these lines should be written in the Bill and the Government then proposed the Amendments with which we are now dealing.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
33 Clause 73, page 47,1ine 35, leave out "24 or 25" and insert "or 24".
34 Clause 73, page 47, line 36, leave out "or 25(1)(a)".
35 Clause 73, page 47, line 37, leave out "or members".
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
36 Because these Amendments are consequential upon the Amendment made by the Lords to leave out Clause 25, to which the Commons have disagreed.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 33, 34 and 35 en bloc, to which the Commons have disagreed for Reason numbered 36. We discussed these Amendments with Amendment No. 16.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on the said Amendments, to which

1103
the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 36.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)

LORDS AMENDMENT
37 Clause 78, page 51, line 8, leave out "Commission for Racial Equality" and insert "Community Relations Commission".
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
38 Because the said Amendment is consequential upon the Amendment made by the Lords in page 26, line 7, to which the Commons have disagreed.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 37, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 38. Amendment No. 37 is one in the group dealing with the name of the Commission, which we have already discussed.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 38.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)

LORDS AMENDMENTS
39 Schedule 1, page 55, line 3, leave out "COMMISSION FOR RACIAL EQUALITY" and insert "COMMUNITY RELATIONS COMMISSION".
40 Page 57, line 10, leave out ""Commission for Racial Equality"" and insert ""Community Relations Commission"".
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reasons:
41 Because the said Amendments are consequential upon the Amendment made by the Lords in page 26, line 7, to which the Commons have disagreed.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 39 and 40, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 41. These, too, relate to the name of the Commission and have been discussed.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on the said Amendments, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 41.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)

LORDS AMENDMENT
42 Schedule 1, page 57, line 18, leave out from "Commission" to end of line 19 and insert—
"9A.—(1) In this paragraph—
"the new Commission" means the Community Relations Commission;
"present Commission employee" means a person who immediately before the repeal date is employed by the Community Relations Commission established by section 25 of the Race Relations Act 1968;
"private pension scheme" means a scheme for the payment of pensions, allowances or gratuities other than one made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972;
"the repeal date" means the date on which the repeal of the Race Relations Act 1968 by this Act takes effect.
(2) If a present Commission employee enters the employment of the new Commission on the repeal date and on so doing elects to be covered for his service in that employment by a private pension scheme in which he was a participant in respect of his service in the employment of the Community Relations Commission established as aforesaid, the new Commission may make such payments towards the provision of benefits to or in respect of him under that scheme (or any other private pension scheme replacing it) as may be determined by the new Commission with the consent of the Secretary of State given with the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service; and it shall be the duty of the new Commission and those Ministers in the exercise of their functions under this sub-paragraph to ensure that his rights under the scheme do not become less advantageous than they were when he entered the employment of the new Commission.
(3) Where a person who is employed by the new Commission and is in respect of that employment a participant in a private pension scheme becomes a Commissioner or an additional Commissioner, his service as a Commissioner or additional Commissioner may be treated for the purposes of the scheme as service as an employee of the new Commission."
The Commons agreed to this Amendment but propose following Amendments thereto:
43 Line 4, leave out "Community Relations Commission" and insert "Commission for Racial Equality ".
44 Line 8, leave out from "Commission" to end of line 9.
45 Line 20, leave out "established as aforesaid".
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords. I beg to move that this House cloth agree with Commons Amendments Nos. 43, 44 and 45 to the Lords Amendment No. 42. Your Lordships agreed to Amendment No. 42 on Report, by which time we had decided to change the name of the Commission. Amendments Nos. 43, 44 and

1105
45 to Amendment No. 42 are consequential on the restoration of the name Commission for Racial Equality.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the said Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendment No. 42.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)

LORDS AMENDMENTS
46 Schedule 1, page 58, line 30, leave out "Commission for Racial Equality" and insert "Community Relations Commission".
47 Schedule 1, page 58, line 34, leave out "Commission for Racial Equality" and insert "Community Relations Commission".
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
48 Because the said Amendments are consequential upon the Amendment made by the Lords in page 26, line 7, to which the Commons have disagreed.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 46 and 47, to which the Commons had disagreed for the Reason numbered 48.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 46 and 47, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 48.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
49 Schedule 2, page 60, line 48, leave out from "Commission" to "by" in line 49 and insert "established by section 25 of the Race Relations Act 1968 shall vest in the Community Relations Commission".
50 Page 61, line 4, leave out "Commission for Racial Equality" and insert "Community Relations Commission".
51 Page 61, line 11, at end insert "established by section 25 of the Race Relations Act 1968."
52 Page 61, line 24, after "Commission" insert "established by section 25 of the Race Relations Act 1968".
53 Page 61, line 35, after "Commission" insert "established by section 25 of the Race Relations Act 1968".
54 Page 61, line 40, at end insert "established by section 25 of the Race Relations Act 1968".
55 Page 61, line 41, leave out "Commission for Racial Equality" and insert Community Relations Commission".
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
56 Because the said Amendments are consequential upon the Amendment made by the Lords in page 26, line 7, to which the Commons have disagreed.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I beg to move that this House doth not insist on Amendments Nos. 49 to 55 en bloc, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 56.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on the said Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 56.

TYNE AND WEAR BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with Amendments; the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
LONDON TRANSPORT BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.