LORDS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 16 November 1976)

§ Lord CARR of HADLEY
My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on Amendment No. 33, but doth propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof: (or professional organisation and any other independent trade union as defined in section 30(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1189 1974 which appears to the Corporation to represent a substantial proportion of its employees or of those of its wholly-owned subsidiaries"). My Lords, this Amendment is exactly the same Amendment as that dealt with before in Amendment No. 24A, and again, as in that Amendment, the words "professional organisation" crept in by mistake owing to the rush in which we are working. I do not think that I need repeat any of the arguments and I do not expect the noble Lord to repeat any of his arguments. I simply want to say two things to him: this really is an area in which it is extremely important, not only for the good will of the employees concerned but also for the prosperity of the Corporations, that the consultation should be with everybody. The Amendment concerns Clause 7, whose subject is the formulation of the Corporation's plans and policies and the conduct of their operations and it covers such things as capital investment, research and development,et cetera.
These are matters on which people like engineers, technical experts of all kinds, accountants and other highly specialised people have a great deal to contribute and on which it is essential that they should contribute. Of course these are the very people for whom the "relevant trade unions" are not the appropriate trade unions. Unless they are consulted—although they have no legal right to be consulted—the whole of this will be made an absolute nonsense. So I hope that the noble Lord will say that the Government will make sure that, in this area, the Corporations consult everybody because, if they do not, they will be leaving out the very people who have the greatest responsibility for contributing to the most important subjects of the Corporations' future plans.
The only other point to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention is that, once again, the Reason given refers to professional organisations which, again, have no relevance to my Amendment and to one of the two Amendments to which No. 36 replies.
May I just say for the sake of the professional organisations that we have not suddenly lost interest in them? We are simply taking the words of the Government's reply at their face value because wherever it is relevant they say that professional organisations do not have 1190 to be included because it is unnecessary to impose a statutory obligation. By this, I think that it is implied that the professional organisations will of course be consulted where it is appropriate. I thought that I ought to say that lest the professional organisations, reading through our proceedings, were to think that we had suddenly come to believe them to have no importance at all. That is of course not the case. We are in difficulty because where the Commons replies refer to them it is usually in appropriate and it has been difficult to say at any moment in an appropriate way that we are accepting at its face value the Government's use of the word "unnecessary" as meaning that the professional organisations will of course be consulted. I beg to move.

§ Lord ROBBINS
My Lords, may I ask for an elucidation? I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will give some reply to the noble Lord, Lord Carr. I have been sitting here a little perplexed by the printing mishaps which have added slightly to the confusion, but I have been much more confused by the fundamental controversy. The other place used the phrase, …because it is unnecessary…to consult professional organisations". and I ask myself, what does that mean? Does it mean that it is a law of nature that professional organisations will be consulted and that therefore it is unnecessary to impose a statutory obligation because this will automatically take place? Or does it mean something else?
It is quite clear that other provisions in the Bill confer a legal right to be consulted on organisations which, from the legal point of view, are technically slightly different organisations, but it is not plain to me that, according to the principles of natural justice, the difference is so great as to warrant the distinction that seems to obsess the other place in commenting on the Lords Amendments.

§ Lord MELCHETT
My Lords, to be honest, I had not intended to reply to the noble Lord because, as he pointed out, this is the third identical Amendment and I had really said all I had constructively to say on the first Amendment. When I replied to the noble Lord on the second Amendment I am not sure that he heard 1191 everything that I said to him and I really felt that to continue to prolong the debate on the Third Amendment might be keeping your Lordships here longer than some noble Lords would wish, particularly as I understand from an earlier discussion that there may be a Division during the later stages of our deliberations.
Of course it is important that professional organisations should be consulted by the management and the boards of these two new Corporations. None of use has ever pretended that that was not so, nor that the Corporations could be run sensibly and efficiently unless professional organisations of many sorts were regularly consulted and unless the boards of the Corporations were readily in touch with a great many people—professional organisations and others. It is for that reason that it was thought unnecessary to put a statutory obligation on the two Corporations to this effect. I am not sure that there is a statutory obligation on other Corporations or, indeed, on private companies to consult professional organisations in this way and no doubt they go on very well without a statutory obligation being placed upon them. It is for those reasons that the Commons have suggested that your Lordships should not insist upon the Amendment.

§ Lord CARR of HADLEY
My Lords, I believe that I have a right to wind up on this Amendment. May I ask the noble Lord whether he can tell us—perhaps not on the present Amendment but when he comes to the next one—whether he regards professional organisations as being in a different category in this respect to independent trade unions? The answer given by the Government is in different terms when it speaks about professional organisations and when it speaks about "other independent trade unions". I believe that the House would like to understand the inwardness of the different terms used by the Government in relation to the two types of body.