Lords Sitting of 12 October 1976

Preamble
The House met at a quarter-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Oxford.

LORD RAYNE
Sir Max Rayne, Knight having been created Baron Rayne, of Prince's Meadow in Greater London, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Moore and the Lord Goodman.
The Earl of Macclesfield—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

IATA: TRAVEL AGENCY LICENCES
2.32 p.m.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have received advice from the Office of Fair Trading as to whether or not the IATA agreement and procedure concerning the withdrawal of licences from small travel agencies is a restrictive practice; if so, what subsequent action has been taken; if not, when such advice may be expected.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, the question whether an agreement is registrable under the restrictive trade practices legislation is a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading and ultimately for the courts. I understand that the Director General considers that the withdrawal of licences by IATA does not fall within the scope of the legislation. Since my noble friend's Question clearly relates to the problem debated on 12th July, I should also say that 21 of 22 travel agency locations whose appointments were withdrawn by IATA have now been reinstated, and action against a further four agencies
200
has been suspended. One agency declined the offer of reinstatement.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, I am delighted at the successful and very speedy outcome of what was raised in your Lordships' House by Members on all sides on the date to which my noble friend has just referred. Does he not agree that in this case it would have been nice to pay tribute to noble Lords in all parts of the House who raised this matter, who got it put through, bearing in mind that without their raising it nothing at all would have been done?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I have no hesitation in paying the tribute which my noble friend asks me to pay. Perhaps it would not have been easy to do that within the opening Answer, but that does not detract from the warmth of my congratulations.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, might I include in that list of people to be congratulated the Minister who really did help us very much on that occasion?
Earl AMHERST: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us whether, in view of all this, IATA is to issue a new travel agency rule book, and if so, when? Will it, apart from embracing Europe, extend to other parts of the civilised world?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, we should not be mistaken as to how far the action has gone as a result of the debate in your Lordships' House. This was action taken by the Civil Aviation Authority which withdrew its approval of the relevant provisions of Resolution 810a of IATA. So the rather widesweeping conclusion about which the noble Earl asks does not follow from what has happened.

MADGE AND DEFENCE EXPENDITURE
2.35 p.m.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: 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 it is true, as reported in the

201
Daily Telegraph of 24th August, that they have cancelled their order for MADGE (Microwave Aircraft Digitial Guidance Equipment).
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: No, my Lords. Her Majesty's Government have never placed a production order for MADGE. Government expenditure on its development was curtailed—but not cancelled—in May 1975 as a necessary measure in the context of the Defence Review. However, we have continued to fund limited further development of this very good landing aid.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does he not agree that this is probably yet another example of what has happened many times in this country? We invent something. We produce it. It is the best in the world, and because we do not push it and use it ourselves we cannot even export it to NATO or to any other country.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the project is being kept alive to the point,
believe—subject to correction—of a pre-production model; so that if it were required overseas the actual device would be available for sale.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, is it not a fact that this device MADGE won the competition among the NATO countries for the best landing device? That being so, is it not odd that NATO countries have not adopted it? What are Her Majesty's Government doing to ensure that they do?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the actual winning of the competition was in 1971 and, subsequently, other countries—for instance, France and Germany—preferred to continue with their own national developments. But we are making good progress in achieving harmonisation and we still retain the options for MADGE to be sold internationally.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, is it still not true, though, that the RAF particularly would like to have this landing aid for their advanced helicopters and their Harriers, because this landing aid can even he dropped on a parachute?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, if the noble Earl is basing his question on, I think, the Daily Telegraph article, I should say that the RAF, although obviously interested, does not place a particularly high priority on this device.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, the noble Lord says that they are making progress with harmonisation; can he say harmonisation with whom?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: Throughout NATO, my Lords.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, is it not the case that this equipment provides the facility for curved approaches, which is of considerable value in noise abatement procedures, and, therefore, it has a very real possibility in the world of civil aviation? Can the noble Lord say what work is being done to develop this aid for use at civil airports?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: That is another Question, my Lords.
Lord CARRINGTON: But, my Lords, does not the Minister agree that the fact that the Germans and the French went on developing their own equipment is an indication that no country in Europe is taking standardisation seriously?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, this is entirely untrue. Let us take simply Tornado. This is an aircraft which has been developed by three of the major NATO partners. Since we live in an imperfect world, we cannot agree at this moment to standardise everything on British equipment in 1971.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, can my noble friend say how much money has been saved by curtailing this equipment?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, it is not a question of saving. How shall I express this to my noble friend so that he will understand it? If one is spending very little money indeed, and that little amount is cut to slightly less, the saving is not really relevant to the total Defence expenditure.
Lord SHINWELL: Well, my Lords, if I may put it another way, how much money has been unspent?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have spent, believe, £3 million in addition to what the company responsible has spent itself; what that amount was I cannot tell your Lordships.

FOOTBALL SUPPORTERS AND HOOLIGANISM
2.38 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: 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 what further action they now propose to curb hooliganism connected with football, taking into account the present availability of special railway trains for club supporters.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, my right honourable friends the Home Secretary, the Minister for Sport, and the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Transport discussed last night what action should be taken following the outbreak of violence at the Aston Villa/Glasgow Rangers match. The Chief Constables of West Midlands and Strathclyde have been asked to submit detailed reports and the Football Association is carrying out its own inquiry. Special trains run by British Rail are usually chartered and stewarded by football clubs and supporters' clubs. However, no special trains were run last Saturday to that game. The scheduled trains carrying supporters from Glasgow to Birmingham were effectively policed and the sale of alcohol strictly controlled.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. Is she aware that most of the deplorable trouble that occurred last Saturday was at matches known as "friendlies"? If football is not to be spoilt for millions in this country, does the noble Baroness not agree that urgent action by the Government is required, including legislation if necessary, to provide stiffer penalties, fines having been
204
proved ineffective? One remedy might be for culprits to report to the police at four o'clock on Saturday afternoons. Furthermore, is not more control required on buses? For example, drinking is prohibited on buses in Scotland, but it is not prohibited on buses South of the Border.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord that it seems an extraordinary interpretation of the word "friendly" if that is how one describes that match. The Government are well aware of the need for further action, but I think the noble Lord will agree that the right way to go about it is to get at the facts first. That is why the two inquiries are taking place, and my right honourable friends have asked for detailed reports. So far as fines and penalties generally are concerned, the scope within the sentencing system is quite wide enough to cover any of these offences. In fact, over the last year sentencing has been rather more severe that it had been in the past. As I think the noble Lord is aware, it is a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions and the police as to what charges are brought, and then for the judiciary to decide on how they should be dealt with.
As regards alcohol, as I pointed out, on these special trains it is not allowed. So far as coaches are concerned, the noble Lord is quite right; it is not allowed on them in Scotland. On the other hand, until we get the report of the inquiries we are not sure how much was in fact taken on in secret or whether the supporters got out in England and then bought it. This is something which is being looked into; and my right honourable friends have it very much in mind that if, at the end of the day, there is a need for legislation on any of these points it will be given consideration.
Lord PANNELL: My Lords, does the forthcoming legislation on devolution mean that the Glasgow Rangers supporters will be kept within their own domain, to the great benefit of the British public?
Lord BYERS: My Lords, in order that the House might better understand exactly what does happen on these occasions, can consideration be given to showing at some appropriate moment the film which

205
was taken by the Home Office Working Party? I do not press for it immediately, but I understand that a film was taken and it might help us to understand.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, the film was not in fact taken by the Home Office; I think it was taken, if I remember, by the local police. But I will certainly consider that suggestion and write to the noble Lord.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that if the Scots carry on in this fashion, then not only shall we give them devolution but agree to independence?
Lord SOPER: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that in the matter of alcohol one of the pre-disposing causes of trouble is the instant availability of the liquid in the beer can? Is there any proposal that the Government can think of which would restrict the availability for youngsters, who are already half drunk before they get to the ground, and thus prevent them from continuing the process when they get there?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, one of the things that I know my right honourable friends are considering (although this is really a matter for the authorities at the football grounds themselves) is the refusal of admittance to people who, on arrival, are already partly or wholly drunk. That is one of the points. The other points so far as trains and coaches are concerned I think I covered in my previous answers.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, could the noble Baroness accept what I believe are due to the people of Birmingham and I have not seen in any immediate communication or indeed heard expressed in this House, and that is apologies to the people of Birmingham from everybody who is a football supporter or who calls himself a Scot? Nowhere have I seen any apology for this conduct. Also, would the noble Baroness accept that, while liquor caused many of the problems at the game and that it was chiefly teenagers who were concerned, the main problem was caused by lack of segregation of the respective supporters? I believe that nothing has been brought out about this point although a great deal has been said about liquor.
206
As the noble Baroness will know, in Scotland rival supporters are very closely watched and segregated. Would she accept that?
Baroness BIRK: Yes, my Lords. There was a problem at Aston Villa because, whereas segregation would normally take place—and this has been proved to be one of the most successful deterrents since the Working Party recommendations were implemented by many clubs—on this occasion the part of the ground that was set aside for the Rangers supporters was being covered, in the midst of being repaired, and the supporters dashed in and were able to get to the other side, where they should not have been; and then the Aston Villa people arrived. This was very unfortunate, but it certainly was not planned; it was due to unfortunate circumstances. So far as the noble Lord's other points are concerned, I am sure that what he said will be noted by the people in Birmingham and that they will be grateful for it. It is a whole series of things working together which creates these situations, and it is to try to get at these facts that my right honourable friends have been meeting and have instituted these inquiries. If noble Lords will be patient and wait for the outcome, so that we have the facts at our disposal, we shall perhaps know how to proceed.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that a battle between the spectators was for many years the traditional climax of the Eton and Harrow match at Lords? Might not a practice ground be assigned on which the aggressive spectators could after the match work off their aggression without injury to anybody except themselves, subject to notices that the National Health authority would charge for repairs?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, that is a very intriguing idea.
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, would the noble Baroness accept as a practical and serious suggestion that there should be printed on the back of each ticket and announced by loudspeaker at the beginning of a match that at the first sign of disorder the match would be suspended?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I will take note of that but, as I think the noble

207
Lord is aware, this match was in fact suspended at this time because of the pressures. But I think this is acting as a warning.
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, would the noble Baroness tell us whether the railways make any money out of these special trains, given the cost of repair to the trains of the damage done by the supporters?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I think this is a slightly different question and a matter in detail for British Rail, but on this occasion, as I pointed out, there were no special trains, and a lot of the trouble was created by people who had in fact arrived on the ordinary, scheduled trains, although British Rail had withdrawn the half fares and had, to be fair to them, taken all the precautions they possibly could.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, would the noble Baroness take note of the point that was raised earlier about detaining these offenders, these hooligans, on Saturday afternoons? Is she satisfied that the magistrates' courts have sufficient powers to impose a repeated penalty of that sort for a considerable time in addition to any other penalty which may be imposed?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I think my noble friend, when talking about Saturday afternoons, is probably referring to attendance centres. I think the magistrates have sufficient powers, but the trouble is that we do not have sufficient centres or a sufficient range of these places.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, did the noble Baroness by any chance see on television last night the interviews with some of these young persons who were convicted in the courts, in which, without exception, they expressed no remorse or penitence for the offences they had committed? Does that not show that even very heavy fines of up to £100 are not having any deterrent effect, and that the kind of suggestion which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Janner, ought to be introduced without delay?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I think that this question of penalties, which I have already referred to, is also something
208
which is being discussed. I did not see these interviews on television because I was sitting in my room worrying about answering this Question.
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, have we not reached the half-time interval yet?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I have not got a whistle, or I might blow it.

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

COMMUNITY RELATIONS BILL
(formerly the Race Relations Bill)
2.50 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, I beg to move that the Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 3 [Interpretation.]:
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, leave out line 35.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we had some discussions of the structure of the interpretation provisions of the Bill in Committee, and I have since been in correspondence with those noble Lords who took part in the debate. As they will know, I have reached the conclusion that it may be confusing to have two interpretation clauses by that name, both applying to the whole Bill, especially when the second provision defines one of the three terms "nationality" in the first in exactly the same terms as the first, while it defines the other two, "racial grounds" and "racial group", by reference to the first.
This Amendment will ensure consistency: it will leave Clause 3 defining two terms, "racial grounds" and "racial group", of which the meaning is essential to the understanding of Part I; and it will leave "nationality" to be defined only in Clause 74. We shall also be making what I hope your Lordships will agree is a helpful change to the side note to Clause 3, which will read: "Meaning of 'racial grounds', 'racial group' etc." I would add that these changes will ensure that the relationship between Clauses 3 and 74 corresponds more closely with the formula approved by the Renton Committee.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, this is an improvement and a sign of grace. I am grateful to the noble Lord for having paid attention to some of the criticisms. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord on the Cross-Benches who joined with some of us in making them, will be grateful too. I wish that the Government would consider actually putting the interpretation clause at the beginning of the Bill, when these problems would not arise.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Exceptions for genuine occupational qualifications]:
2.53 p.m.
Lord JACQUES Lord JACQUES moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 4, line 25, leave out ("style or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are back to the subject of special ambience. At the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, moved an Amendment to substitute "particular style or setting" for "special ambience". We want to simplify it further by omitting "style or" and merely leaving it as "particular setting". Apart from the simplification, it would get rid of the possibility that "style" could mean the style in which the food was eaten and would have to be taken into account in deciding whether or not the exception applied. To avoid this we propose this Amendment which I beg to move.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I think that this is another improvement. We are getting on.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 23 [Further exceptions from ss. 20(1) and 21]:
Lord JACQUES Lord JACQUES moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 16, line 10, after ("6") insert ("7(4),").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 3, 5, 8 and 26. At the Committee stage I moved a technical Amendment which was accepted by the Committee and I spoke in these terms:
"This is a technical Amendment to ensure that principals of contract workers are in the event of a complaint of unlawful discrimination afforded the same defences as are available to employers under Clause 6 of the Bill."
This was accepted by the Committee without debate. Amendments Nos. 3, 5, 8 and 26 are merely consequential Amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
2.55 p.m.
Lord MONSON Lord MONSON moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 16, line 15, 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 noble Lord said: My Lords, at the Committee stage I drew attention to the apparent paradox whereby the Government had excepted from the scope of the Bill certain types of semi-private behaviour embracing clubs with 24 or fewer members, partnerships with six or fewer partners, domestic servants (even those employed outside the house), boarding houses with accommodation for fewer than six persons other than the owner and his family, and so on. I asked why, in view of this, the Government had not exempted services and facilities provided by a person in his own private dwelling-house.
I moved a similar, although not identical, Amendment to the Amendment I move today to rectify this anomaly. The Government reply was twofold. First, they said that under Section 2 of the 1968 Race Relations Act there was no exception similar to that which I was proposing. They then went on to say

211
that in any case in their view there was no material difference between somebody offering facilities and services in a public place like a shop or in the street and providing them from the privacy of his own home.
So far as the first reply is concerned, I find this hard to accept. The 1968 Act is only eight years old. It is too short a time to establish whether the implied inclusion of private homes is a good thing or not; furthermore, the 1968 Act provides that a person who feels that he is discriminated against must take the initiative and go to make a complaint to the Race Relations Board. In contrast, the present Bill sets up a Board with wide ranging powers of investigation. Parkinson's Law seems to dictate that the Commission will proliferate and that people will be going all out to seek discrimination in every nook and cranny. As to the extraordinary assertion that there was no material difference between providing facilities or services in public or in a private house, if the Government really believe that, there is no meeting of minds on this.
My Lords, let me try to convince the House. Let us consider the people who might call at the door of the average housewife one morning: a Jehovah's Witness dishing out Biblical tracts, an Encyclopaedia Britannica salesman, canvassers from the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Parties, the man who comes to mend or service the television and a market researcher who calls to carry out a survey on the use of soapflakes or detergents. The point is that the housewife has the absolute right to choose whom she admits into her house. She can decide to admit one or another and, even if she has made an appointment beforehand, she might say that she has changed her mind or has a headache, or she can admit and later say that she is sorry but she is busy and, "I am afraid that you must leave".
The point is that a woman is mistress in her own home. Within the four walls of a person's house there is no obligation to behave in a socially acceptable way, and still less to conform with the officially approved attitudes of the moment. A person's right is to be eccentric, inconsistent and even bloody-minded if he or she so wishes. Behaviour which may seem eccentric to an outsider may make sense
212
to the individual because of that individual's past experience.
My Lords, in Committee I spoke of a lady who ran a boarding house. She had no racial prejudice as such, she admitted people of every race and nationality; but she had a phobia about turbans and would not admit Sikhs and got into trouble. This may seem funny. Phobias often seem funny to people who are not suffering from them. But let me put a hypothetical, but understandable case. Let us assume that a lady called Miss Greenberg living in North West London wishes to give piano lessons which she advertises in the local Press or by means of a card in the local newsagent's window. She gets a telephone call asking if she is free to give lessons during the next few weeks. She says, "I believe so. Certainly. Could I have your name?" The man says, "My name is Adolf Schmidt", let us say. Miss Greenberg is a lady of 50 years or more and she hesitates a moment and then says, "I am terribly sorry, Herr Schmidt, but I have just checked my diary and have suddenly realised that I am booked solidly for the next three months". It is not difficult to understand the reasons why.
How on earth can the Community Relations Commission investigate such a case and take action against Miss Greenberg in such circumstances? Do they call upon a neighbour and ask whether they can put their ear against a party wall to see if indeed the sounds of a piano being played can be heard through the wall? Do they send somebody in disguised as a gas meter reader? Do they have a van parked across the street with spyholes bored in it so that people can observe the comings and goings at Miss Greenberg's front door? If that were to happen, I suggest that the furore over VAT inspectors raiding people's houses in the small hours of the morning and the powers given to the Inland Revenue recently would fade into insignificance by comparison. The Relf case would be like a storm in an egg cup. I think that this would be handing propaganda to the National Front on a plate.
It is not as if the Government were determined to revoke what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, described the other day as the right of a citizen to retain some semblance of what he has fought to gain throughout our history, to subordinate

213
or to sweep away all considerations of freedom of choice, freedom of association, freedom of the Press, in favour of some distant Utopia in which every aspect of racial consciousness was swept from the face of Britain. Not at all; common sense has in many parts of the Bill, although not in nearly enough, triumphed over dogma. That is the reason why the Government's attitude in this is all the more inexplicable.
It is not as if this Amendment were in any way biased against the immigrant population, because I can assure noble Lords that the average Jamaican whom I know regards his home as his castle just as much as does the average Englishman; the same is true of the average Asian. Indeed, I think that, in a devout Pakistani or Bangladeshi family, the sanctity of the home is even more highly prized than it is in this country. I have redrafted the Amendment to exclude the limitation of six because the more one thinks about it the more one realises that monitoring the movements of people to see whether somebody is taking more than six people into his or her home would be even more reminiscent of 1984 than the possible procedures I described earlier. I have deliberately excluded stately homes and gardens that are open to the public on either a permanent or an occasional basis, because they are of course mainly public rather than mainly private places. I have demonstrated, I hope, that the Bill as it stands in this respect is counter-productive; I also believe that it is purely and simply wrong. I beg to move.
3.5 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: I will support this Amendment. I think that Clause 23(2) does not go far enough. As your Lordships know, I believe that much of this Bill is unenforceable, anyway. I also think that it tends to erode the freedom of some people in order to establish the freedom of others. One has to keep that exercise very much in balance to avoid leaning too far in one direction. There are some things that the citizen should be permitted to decide for himself. However wrong he may be, unless he is doing wrong to others, unless his behaviour is harmful to relationships or community harmony or social peace, there are some things that must be reserved to the individual, and the closer one gets to a person's home, the nearer one gets to that reserved position. It seems to me that the
214
noble Lord, Lord Monson, has made out a case for extending slightly the range of exceptions which is already provided for in Clause 23.
In all these measures to do with discrimination the temptation is to overkill all the time, to provide for every conceivable eventuality. How well we remember some of these things in the recent discussion on the Sex Discrimination Act when we had a long debate on whether it was reasonable to exclude women from the galley of a ship on the ground that there was not really a loo there for a woman. One wondered how many women were clamouring to serve on the galleys of ships and how many might even think that they should be excluded merely because there was not separate toilet accommodation. We went on in that discussion to try to establish rights and to narrow down the possibility of avoiding action and evasion. Is it worth it?
Are not the main issues with which we should deal the major and broad questions of discrimination, the elimination of them from the public life of the country without pursuing every minute detail in an effort to enforce a law which would be extremely difficult to enforce and which could, in certain circumstances, bring the law into ridicule—it has done that already—or set up reactions which did the cause of racial equality positive harm? Those are the broad considerations that influence me in connection not only with this Amendment but with others that come later. So, unless the Minister has some very convincing reason indeed for not pursuing this Amendment, I hope that your Lordships will give it favourable consideration.
Lord AVEBURY: I am very sad that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has taken this attitude, because I know that he is a great defender of civil liberties and I should have thought that he would be even more concerned about the civil liberties of people who are discriminated against, and who have been suffering grave injustices throughout the years, than about the rights of a person to carry on a discriminatory business within his own home, because that is what we are talking about. If he discusses the matter with community relations officers and those who are advising members of ethnic

215
minorities, I do not think that the noble Lord will find there that is a threat to overkill at all. I think that the very reverse has been true and that is one of the reasons that we have this Rill in front of us now, because it is so very difficult for persons to make a complaint, have it upheld and get any sort of redress.
If we are talking about the provision of goods, facilities and services by an individual and it happens that these things are done within his own home, what is the difference from the recipient's point of view whether it is somebody's home or his office?
If we take the example that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, gave, of the piano lessons provided by Miss Greenberg, it so happens that she is giving the piano lessons from her own home, but it might just as well be that she was Greenberg and Partners and providing piano lessons from a business address somewhere adjacent to her own home. What the noble Lord, Lord Monson, was saying was that she is perfectly entitled to discriminate against Herr Schmidt so long as she does this within her own home. As soon as she has an office from which she conducts the business of piano teaching, then she is not entitled to discriminate. By doing that the noble Lord is introducing grave anomalies into the Bill.
No one is saying that a person should not be, as he put it, "eccentric, inconsistent and bloody-minded" so far as their own domestic affairs are concerned. I defend that exception from the general provisions of the Bill; but we are not talking about his internal domestic affairs, we are talking about something which he, as a householder or a member of his family, does for the general public at large. One can think of many other examples besides the one that the noble Lord gave, of the piano lessons; not the ones he quoted, incidentally, because those were not the provision of facilities or services by a person in his home. The examples which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, talked about were the provision of services by someone outside the home to the person who was in it. They were not all services or facilities. I do not think it will be right, to pursue this matter, to say that the Jehovah's Witness or the canvasser is providing goods, facilities or services. The encyclopaedia
216
salesmen or TV maintenance men—two other examples that he quoted—would be providing a service, but they would not be covered by the Amendment in any case because they are not the person in his home, they are a person outside the home providing services to someone in it.
I do not wish to prolong this discussion. I was only moved to speak by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. If one is considering this, as one should, from the civil liberties point of view, to make them subject to the general provisions of the Bill would be a greater breach of the civil liberties of the person who is likely to be discriminated against if we accept this Amendment, than of the persons who conduct businesses from their own homes.
3.12 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I fear I am not going to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Monson, because correspondence has passed between us and it it quite clear that the letter I sent to him on advice has not satisfied him. We have given a great deal of consideration to this matter. I do not think any Government takes lightly a matter raised by a Member of your Lordships' House. We have gone into this matter carefully between Committee and Report stage. to see whether it is reasonable to meet this Amendment or, for that matter, to do something in the direction that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, requested the Government to take.
The Government take the view that the need to keep essentially personal and intimate relationships outside the scope of Clause 20 is adequately provided for by the words
"… concerned with the provision (for payment or not) to the public or a section of the public"
in subsection (1) of Clause 20. These words are of course the same as those in Section 2 of the 1968 Act, and the only criticism to which those words have been subjected is that they go much too wide. I am of course referring here to the interpretation placed on them in the two club cases which came before your Lordships' House in its Judicial capacity. The point here is, to take the music teacher example, that if the music teacher provides his services only to those whom he knows well and whom he selects on the basis of

217
personal acceptability to him, he will be in any case outside Clause 20 because he will not be providing to the public or a section of the public. If, however, he holds himself out to provide his services to the public or a section of the public—if, for example, he puts his card up on a notice board somewhere or other where those likely to be interested in taking piano lessons will see it—then, even though he may conduct his business in his own home, we see no justification at all for removing him from the scope of Clause 20. We see no reason at all why he should he permitted to discriminate on the ground of colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins.
The noble Lord has sought to persuade your Lordships that there is something special about a person's home. So far as the Bill is concerned the answer is that there may or may not be. It is not good enough just to look at where facilities or services are provided. The question is whether they are provided to the general public or to a section of the general public. This is the acid test. The exception proposed by the noble Lord would be limited to situations in which the provider's house was not open to the general public. The provider would therefore be within the exception if his home was open only to a section of the public. This does not seem to us to be a very satisfactory distinction: there would be many ways in which a person could place himself outside the scope of the exception merely by excluding from his home some limited class of person whom he knew would never want to enter his home in any event, thereby ensuring that his home was not open to the general public. In conclusion, I would only say that we see no reason to change from Section 2 of the 1968 Act, and that the limitation in Section 2 and in Clause 20 to which I have referred seems to us to be quite adequate to ensure that the Bill's provision does not apply to exclusively private and personal relationships.
The noble Lord referred to the example of the housewife. This is irrelevant. The housewife to whom he referred would not be providing facilities or services in her home. If she does—for example, in taking pupils for piano lessons, or coaching and offers her services to the public at large—the principle of the Bill should apply. He mentioned the example of Mrs.
218
Greenberg. I am fully aware that there are difficulties and they were emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. We have to trust the Commission not to act oppressively in this type of personal circumstance envisaged by both noble Lords. I am sorry that I cannot take the matter any further other than to say we have given it a good deal of consideration, but we are not able to accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
3.19 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, this seems to be a matter of absolutely minute importance, I am sorry to say. This would have been an opportunity for the Government to show a certain degree of flexibility instead of providing us with a long exposition of how right they are. It can only conceivably apply, I suppose, to a case of somebody who, for instance, provides piano lessons, language lessons, dress-making facilities or takes in a lodger or two in her own home.
With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, if I were a Jewish lady—which I am not—and I was approached by a very keen Palestinian or Arab, I should probably prefer not to have them in my own home. I do not really see why one should not. The idea that Parliament should waste its time for hour after hour arguing about such matters of minute importance does not appeal to me. I cannot turn this into a matter of Party difference, but I can only say that, so far as the Conservative Party are concerned, they can vote as they like, if the noble Lord pushes this minute matter to a Division. If the Government are beaten, it will be only because of their intransigence and stupidity.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I am profoundly disappointed at the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. I thought I might be able to get across this point of view to them, and also to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who stood the whole concept of civil liberties on its head by implying that other people had the right to enter people's homes even when they were not wanted there. The Government have made exceptions throughout the Bill. The door is the point at which a person can say, " Thus

219
far and no further." It is really no different from the case of somebody ringing the doorbell and saying, "Have you got a room to spare?" and a landlady with fewer than six rooms to let saying" I am afraid not." It is the same as a club with 24 people where the same thing can apply perfectly legitimately. It is the same as someone applying for the post of cook or gardener. An employer is perfectly entitled, under the Bill as drafted, to say: I am afraid I do not want a Pakistani gardener." That is perfectly legitimate.
Noble Lords on the Government Benches are concerned, I know, that people may be offended, but in most cases that is not going to happen. People are going to be tactful when they turn other people away. That is the British way of doing things, and I think that is a totally
irrelevant consideration. The Government have not explained why it is all right to turn people away from your front door in some cases but not in others, where a far more intimate relationship is involved—because I am sure they would agree that sitting beside someone on a piano stool is far more intimate than giving orders to a gardener who may not even come into the house. I have had support from every quarter of the House because, after all, this is not a Party political matter. Therefore I am afraid I must divide the House.
3.22 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 111; Not-Contents, 67.

CONTENTS

Alport, L.

Exeter, M.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Amory, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Munster, E.

Ampthill, L.

Gisborough, L.

Newall, L.

Arbuthnott, V.

Glasgow, E.

Northchurch, B.

Arran, E.

Gore-Booth, L.

Onslow, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Gray, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Balerno, L.

Greenway, L.

Platt, L.

Barnby, L.

Gridley, L.

Porritt, L.

Belstead, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Powis, E.

Berkeley, B.

Hankey, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Braye, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Redesdale, L.

Brock, L.

Hatherton, L.

Reigate, L.

Caccia, L.

Hawke, L.

Rochdale, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hives, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Sackville, L.

Carrington, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

St. Davids, V.

Clancarty, E.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Sandys, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L. [Teller.]

Hunt, L.

Selwyn-Lloyd, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Clwyd, L.

Ilchester, E.

Shannon, E.

Cole, L.

Ironside, L.

Sharples, B.

Cottesloe, L.

Kimberley, E.

Sligo, M.

Craigavon, V.

Kinloss, Ly.

Spens, L.

Cromartie, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Stamp, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Strang, L.

Daventry, V.

Long, V.

Strathcarron, L.

Davidson, V.

Loudoun, C.

Strathclyde, L.

de Clifford, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Strathspey, L.

Denham, L.

Lyell, L.

Terrington, L.

Deramore, L.

Mancroft, L.

Thomas, L.

Derwent, L.

Marley, L.

Tranmire, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Melville, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Dundee, E.

Merrivale, L.

Vernon, L.

Eccles, V.

Monck, V.

Vickers, B.

Effingham, E.

Monson, L. [Teller.]

Vivian, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Morris, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Mottistone, L.

Wellington, D.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Energlyn, L.

Pargiter, L.

Amherst, E.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Parry, L.

Avebury, L.

Gardiner, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Aylestone, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Phillips, B.

Banks, L.

Grey, L.

Raglan, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Blyton, L.

Henderson, L.

Rusholme, L.

Brockway, L.

Jacobson, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

Seear, B.

Burntwood, L.

Kaldor, L.

Segal, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Shinwell, L.

Byers, L.

Leatherland, L.

Simon, V.

Champion, L.

Lee of Asheridge, B.

Slater, L.

Chorley, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Southwark, Bp.

Collison, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stedman, B. [Teller.]

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Lyons of Brighton, L.

Stone, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

McCluskey, L.

Strabolgi, L,

Davies of Leek, L.

Melchett, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

White, B.

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

Oram, L.

Wigoder, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Wilson of High Wray, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Pannell, L.

Winterbottom, L.

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

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 27 [Discriminatory advertisements]:
3.31 p.m.
Lord JACQUES Lord JACQUES moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 18, line 17, after ("7(3)") insert ("and (4)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 3, I spoke to Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE move Amendment No. 6:
Page 18, line 17, leave out ("26,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment. It is a purely technical one necessitated by previous Amendments made at Committee stage.
Lord MONSON Lord MONSON moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 18, line 18, after ("or") insert ("because it involves private relationships exclusively; or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is not an issue of principle in the same way that my previous Amendment was. There is, of course, a principle involved, because any diminution in the right to free speech must be watched
222
closely and guarded against if possible. The purpose of the Amendment is to exclude advertising which relates to purely, solely, private person relationships. For the reasons I gave in speaking to the last Amendment, I do not believe that if this Amendment were agreed to there would be any rash of offensive advertisements, which the Government Front Bench felt might happen when we discussed Clause 29, as it then was, at Committee stage. I do not think you are going to get people putting up advertisements saying "No blacks wanted". That is not what would happen in the present climate at all. Newspapers will not accept such advertisements, neither will newsagents, for the most part. I can well understand the fear of the Government in this matter but I think it is totally unfounded.
The purpose of the Amendment is to permit people to advertise mainly on grounds of nationality, because, for the first time, nationality, although not citizenship, is included within the scope of the Bill and it would, for instance, almost certainly make it illegal for a Frenchman to advertise for another Frenchman to share a flat with him, or a Brazilian for another Brazilian, or a Canadian for another Canadian, or some other nationality, whatever it might be. There is such a shortage of accommodation in London that demand exceeds supply; therefore such an advertisement would be caught by subsection (1)(b) of Clause 1. It is not a matter of tremendous importance, but the liberty of the individual

223
would be enlarged if this Amendment were to be carried, and a lot of nonsensical cases, such as that of the Scottish cook, which tend to bring laws such as this into total disrepute, would be avoided.
3.35 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, this clause was fully discussed at Committee stage and there will inevitably be some repetition in my remarks, for which I apologise. We are at one with the noble Lord, Lord Monson, when he says that the Bill should not apply to personal and intimate relations and it is for that reason that we have made exceptions, such as employment in private households, small partnerships and the letting of small dwellings. We have made those exceptions. But what we are talking about here is not personal and intimate relations but advertising, which is something different. The present law—that is to say, the 1968 Act—forbids discriminatory advertising, whether the intended act is lawful or not. We had a good look at this matter to see whether there could be some easement, so we are thinking along very similar lines, at least in principle, to those of the noble lord. We came to the conclusion that there were some exceptions that were possible, in particular where the intended act was accepted because it was a genuine occupational qualification. For example, if someone was wanted for a theatrical part and for that part it was essential to have somebody of a particular race, then we saw no reason why there should not be an advertisement inviting applications from people of that race. We felt that in such cases the terms of the advertisement itself would show the good reason for discrimination.
However, we could not find similar reasons when it came to exceptions on grounds of personal and intimate relations. We felt that if we made exceptions here we should be opening the door very wide for discriminatory advertisements which could have a great effect upon race relations in this country. I would emphasise, as I have done at earlier stages in this Bill, that the professionals who are appointed for the purposes of keeping observation on things that happen from day to day to see how far the Act is effective have reported to us that one of the most successful parts of the 1968 Act,
224
so far as race relations are concerned, is the banning of discriminatory advertisements. They believe that that has been fairly successful, that it has been one of the success points in the Act. We do not want to throw away that success.
Furthermore, it would, for example in the case of partnerships, undermine the compromise that has already been reached. There is a difference of opinion as to whether or not partnerships should come within the scope of the Bill. We have reached a compromise of six. Where the partnership is fewer than six, it does not come within the scope of the Bill. Where it is six or more than six, it does come within the scope of the Bill. But those who have agreed to the smaller partnerships not coming within the scope of the Bill have done so in some cases because in the case of advertising there would be no discriminatory advertising. We would adhere to the law as it is now. We would not give way on advertising. We believe that if you allowed discriminatory advertising for the small partnerships it would certainly undermine the spirit of the compromise which has been reached on partnerships.
Finally, there is the question of small dwellings. I should have thought, as I said in Committee, that nobody in this House would look with favour upon the possibility of the kind of advertisements which you could get if this Amendment were carried—for example, "One room available. No blacks". That is the kind of advertisement which would be permitted. I should have thought nobody wanted that. We feel we have reached a very fair and reasonable compromise. We have said that in the letting of small dwellings there is personal and intimate relations. The intended act will be accepted but not the advertising, which could be discriminatory and which could disturb race relations. We believe that this Amendment, if carried, would do infinite harm to race relations. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will see his way clear to withdraw his Amendment.
3.40 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I must say that if the speech against the Amendment were the only reason for opposing it I should remain wholly unconvinced. I cannot

225
believe that the matter will do infinite harm to anything, whether it is carried or rejected, and it is precisely this solemn-faced approach to rather small points which, in itself is doing a great deal of harm to race relations. However, I cannot advise my noble friends to support this Amendment because I simply cannot define the words "private relationships". I have racked my brains as to what it means in this connection and I think it would cover the kind of advertisement you see in Private Eye—" Good looking male wishes to meet blond female under 25. Photograph supplied". But I cannot think of any other relationship which could properly be described as a "private relationship" which could also be advertised.
So, being on my crusade against the unenforceable in both directions—the unenforceable by the Government and the unenforceable by the enthusiasts for privacy—I cannot really advise my noble friends to support this Amendment, and I think it could have been said even more shortly than I have done.
Lord MONSON: If I could explain to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, and indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, my Amendment is not meant to include partnerships or small dwellings or any of the other things, which he mentions, but concerns purely private relationships—in other words, those not involving a business transaction and, quite possibly the Private Eye advertisements. But, after all, why not?
Supposing a New Zealander puts an advertisement in an Earls' Court window seeking a fellow antipodean to travel across Afghanistan and India and to share expenses, that is not a business relationship but a personal one, but it would be illegal. I referred in Committee to the matrimonial columns in Indian newspapers which, as every noble Lord who has travelled on that sub-continent knows, do, more often than not, state that the advertisers are seeking a relatively fair-complexioned bride or groom. Again, if anybody were to act upon that or to make a complaint about it, it would have to be taken up. It is not discrimination that is illegal in itself under the Bill, but the advertising would be discriminatory.
226
The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, talked about offensive advertisements, but I specifically said that I did not think there was the remotest possibility of such advertisements being published nowadays, because very few newsagents would accept them and certainly no newspaper would publish them. I do not think that is at all likely. He overlooks the fact that nationality has been included for the first time, and there are all sorts of reasons why persons should meet or wish to do things with people of a certain nationality. That is the main motive behind the Amendment.
Reverting again to the question of offensive advertisements, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, I think I am right in saying, said on Second Reading that such advertisements were almost certainly covered by common law anyway. This is not a matter on which it is worth dividing the House. The Government will find themselves in hot water at some future date over this. If the experience of recent years is anything to go by, the improbable always happens and the unthinkable very frequently does. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

RHODESIA
3.44 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, I will, with permission, repeat to your Lordships' House a Statement on Rhodesia made today in another place by my right honourable friend the Secterary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The Statement is as follows:
"Mr. Speaker, I will, with permission, make a statement on Rhodesia.
On the 22nd of March my right honourable friend, now Prime Minister, told the House that no settlement in Rhodesia was possible until all the parties concerned accepted the principle of majority rule, to be attained within eighteen months to two years; and that

227
only when that principle had been accepted would Her Majesty's Government be prepared to play a constructive part in any negotiations.
During the summer months, a number of Ministerial visits to Southern Africa took place, both British and American. These included two by my honourable friend the Minister of State, and in particular a prolonged and crucial tour by Dr. Kissinger to whose forceful diplomacy I now pay tribute. The Prime Minister and I saw Dr. Kissinger both before and after his shuttle, and I have been in almost continuous touch with him during the whole of this period.
On the 24th of September Mr. Smith announced that his régime now accepted the principle of majority rule within two years. This long-awaited development demonstrated at last a realistic understanding of the true situation in Southern Africa, and has presented us with a real opportunity of achieving a rapid and peaceful transfer of power in Rhodesia.
The next step was rapidly to organise a meeting between the Smith régime and the African Nationalists to discuss the formation of an interim Government. Accordingly I announced on the 29th of September that I would convene an early conference for this purpose, and that the Chairman would be Mr. Ivor Richard Q.C. acting as the Government's special representative. Last Friday, as the House will be aware, I announced my intention that the conference would assemble in Geneva on the 21st of October, with a view to a formal opening on the 25th of October.
I have decided to invite to this conference, on behalf of the Nationalist interests, Mr. Robert Mugabe, Bishop Abel Muzorewa and Mr. Joshua Nkomo, I am asking them to nominate additional delegates. I have invited Mr. Smith to nominate representatives of the Rhodesia Front. These invitations were despatched this morning.
Mr. Speaker, there have been many statements by many people in the last few days about the forthcoming conference. I hope the House will not press me to comment on these statements, nor on the negotiating positions of the
228
parties to the conference. It would not be helpful to become embroiled, before the conference has opened, in a public discussion of issues which can only be decided at the conference itself.
I am of course most anxious to do everything within my power to ensure a successful outcome to the conference. I have had most useful exchanges of views in New York and in London with a number of Africa Foreign Ministers in the last few days; and I have sent my Special Adviser on Africa Affairs, Mr. Dennis Drennan, to Lusaka, to assist the process of liaison during the run-up to the conference. The prize within our grasp is a free, prosperous and multi-racial Zimbabwe. Her Majesty's Government are determined to do all in their power to bring a peace to Zimbabwe which is firmly rooted in majority rule and thus in equality and social justice".
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, though the noble Lord has not told your Lordships anything they did not know before, the House will be grateful to him for having repeated that Statement and will welcome the news that the conference is to take place, opening on 25th October. I wonder if I might ask the noble Lord whether it is the Government's intention to press the African representatives at that conference to cease guerrilla activities during the time that the conference is taking place. That would have a considerable effect on the atmosphere in which the conference took place.
For the rest, I agree with the noble Lord that this is not the moment to get embroiled in the sort of discussions which will take place at the conference itself. If we do not get embroiled in it, it might equally be true that those who are going to take part in it will save up what they are going to say until they get to Geneva.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the progress that has been achieved so far. The convening of a Conference with all the interested parties present under British chairmanship is a matter for real satisfaction. We agree that comment on the pre-Conference negotiating positions would not be helpful at the present time. What really matters, in our view, is that at no time should the negotiating parties be allowed to forget

229
that their main objective from now on is majority rule within 18 months to two years and the creation of an independent and viable multiracial Zimbabwe.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for those two statements, and most certainly I will personally draw the attention of my right honourable friend to them.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, is not the whole situation a little naive? Arms have been put into the hands of these guerrillas by the Russians and the Chinese. Does anybody seriously imagine that the guerrillas will give back those arms or that anybody at this Conference will be in a position to tell them to do so? Does anybody seriously imagine that these five Presidents of one-Party States are in a position to go beyond their tribal consensus or to implement the kind of agreements which effective civilised Governments can make? We have a number of people drawn together here who themselves know that they cannot implement any undertaking that they are asked to implement and who therefore are going to avoid displaying their impotence by taking up positions of extreme intransigence. We are simply going to see the Conference break down. This is certain to happen and the situation will be worse at the end than it was at the beginning.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am bound to say that my noble friend's interjection, not for the first time in connection with issues of this kind, has been totally unhelpful and in marked contrast to the very statesmanlike contributions which have been made by the representatives of both Opposition Front Benches.
Lord HOME of the HIRSEL: My Lords, I am not quite sure that I understood the noble Lord. Does the noble Lord's confident forecast about the Conference actually taking place mean that the preconditions about which we have read have been dropped? If so, that is very good news.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, my right honourable friend has
230
said that it is his intention to convene the Conference on 25th October and to get the members of the Conference together on the 21st for an immediate run up. I think we can assume that despite a number of statements which my right honourable friend intimated he did not want to discuss unduly in public at this stage, a certain subsidence of objection on various details has taken place and there is fair confidence that people will come to this Conference without too many preconditions.
Lord TRANMIRE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the withdrawal of their agreement by the four or five Presidents on responsibility for law and order and defence has caused very grave concern throughout Southern Africa, and will he make it quite clear that that agreement still remains a condition of any settlement?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I should prefer to put it in this way: that the immediate objective is to convene this Conference, or meeting as I would call it in contradistinction to a constitutional Conference, so that an interim Government by agreement should be set up. In that process the details, as indeed Dr. Kissinger himself has recently said, as to the structure and functions of the interim Government would be matters for negotiation. I hope that at this stage we would not take up irreversible positions on either side regarding the details of either the Council of State or, indeed, the apportionment of Ministries.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I will resist making a comment upon some of the things which have been said because I do not think that it would be useful to do so now. However, may I ask the Minister this question: If he is considering the suggestion that with the setting up of an interim Government armed conflict should cease, would he also consider that it ought to be urged upon Mr. Ian Smith that political prisoners in Zimbabwe should be released?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I said last week—I think with the agreement of the entire House—that any voluntary concession from any quarter in regard to the cessation of guerrilla

231
fighting or the release of detainees would greatly help the efficacy of this Conference.
Lord ALPORT: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the delegations which are being invited from Rhodesia include any Europeans other than those who are nominated by Mr. Smith from the Rhodesian Front and, secondly, whether any undertaking has been given by the so-called Front Line Presidents that they will be represented at a high level by observers at Geneva during the Conference?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, regarding the noble Lord's second question, I am afraid that I have no information. However, it is an important point and I will look into the possible representation by observers of the African Front Line Presidents. I will let the noble Lord know—and, indeed, the House if it wishes me to do it in that way—what is the position on that point. Regarding the noble Lord's first question, the Rhodesian Front monopolises the elective position in the Rhodesian Parliament, so-called. However, subject to further consultation my right honourable friend would be prepared to consider other invitations to attend the Conference, if that would increase the chances of success of the Conference. That applies not only to a possible variation of the white Rhodesian representation but also to a possible variation of the black Rhodesian representation.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, some of us have noted with interest that my noble friend has used the word "Zimbabwe" on two occasions in place of the word "Rhodesia". Does this indicate that in future Her Majesty's Government intend to drop the name "Rhodesia" in all official communications?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Not in the least, my Lords. In his Statement my right honourable friend has used the term "Zimbabwe" fewer times than he has used the term "Rhodesia". In Wales we refer to "Wales" and also to "Cymru". We shall for the foreseeable future, in the case of both Wales and Rhodesia, refer to those countries by both terms.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, is the Minister able to say what is the contemplated number of the committee? With regard to the three black African names that the noble Lord has mentioned and remembering that the Pearce Commission considered that there was representation of only 6 per cent. of the African population, are these three names to be understood to be selections by Her Majesty's Government or nominations by the African side? If so, what kind of constitutional procedure preceded the supply to Her Majesty's Government of those three names if they were not selected?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the invitations to the three gentlemen mentioned in the Statement were issued after our Government had consulted the Front Line African Presidents. As to the probable number of those attending the Conference, I really could not hazard a guess. The basis is there but, as my noble friend Lord Alport mentioned, it is perfectly possible that before the Conference finally convenes other names will have been added by agreement.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that Mr. Ian Smith announced a package deal which had been proposed by Dr. Kissinger and endorsed and discussed with the British Government, and that this package deal, including the handing over of power to a black majority within a limited period of time, had two other important factors: the cessation of sanctions and the stopping of guerrilla activity? Whereas we are now beginning to hear that the first factor is negotiable, very little is said about the other two factors upon which the agreement was made. Would he stress that we have every intention, if an agreement is brought about, which everyone in every part of the House would wish to have, that the sanctions will be lifted and that we shall do all in our power to see that the trained guerrillas and the massive invasion ceases as soon as conceivably possible?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: I am very glad to give that assurance. As I am sure the noble Lord realises, it is not within the power of this Government, and I wonder in whose power it is, to guarantee

233
the cessation of irregular activity. We have experience of these situations in various parts of the world and it has not been possible to guarantee that they cease as soon as ever a negotiated settlement is reached. Ireland, in 1920–21, is an example. However, we shall do our utmost. Clearly, the future of Rhodesia, and in a larger sense the future peace and progress of Southern and Central Africa, depends on there being as speedily as possible a cessation of irregular activity and of external interference with the continent, and also, of course, a pacification of population within these territories by an imaginative and humane approach to the question of detainees.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the strength of the statement he has just made is that it has made quite clear that Her Majesty's Government are not moving away from the basis of the agreement that was presented to both sides in private, and as long as they maintain, before the Conference takes place, that posture of keeping strictly to the terms that were made clear to both sides they are likely to get support? If they show any sort of weakness at any time before the Conference takes place in wanting to amend what they originally said, that would be a sign of weakness that could develop into an avalanche. At this minute they are standing firm and I know your Lordships will wish that to remain the position right up to the commencement of the Conference.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will agree with me that it is for this conference, if and when we get it, and I think we shall get it—this meeting as I prefer to call it, in contra-distinction once more with the constitutional conference which is a later stage and in which this country will be centrally concerned because it has an obligation to take part in that. I hope the noble Lord will agree that any amendment of terms which have generally been assumed to be the basis for the discussion at this meeting will be for the meeting or the conference itself. Certainly there will be no initiatives from us; they must come from within the meeting.
Lord MERRIVALE: My Lords, as this problem of Rhodesia does not concern
234
Anglophone Africa only—the noble Lord the Minister referred to front line presidents—and, in effect, as the outcome of these discussions in Geneva and the following discussions concern the peace and stability of Africa as a whole, can the noble Lord say to what extent leading statesmen of Francophone West Africa, of which there are two of world stature at the present time, have been consulted on an unofficial basis and to what extent they will be involved?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, yes indeed we have been in consultation both with our friends and Allies in the Community, and that subsumes the special French Anglophone interest and advice which we are always very glad to seek and accept, and also with our friends in the Commonwealth.

COMMUNITY RELATIONS BILL
4.5 p.m.
Report stage resumed.
Lord JACQUES Lord JACQUES moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 18, line 22, after ("7(3)") insert ("or(4)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this Amendment when moving Amendment number 3. I beg to move.
Clause 30 [Liability of Employers and Principals]:
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 19, line 14, at beginning insert ("For the purposes of any civil but not of any criminal liability under this Act").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move this Amendment which I shall not pursue if I can get the assurance of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that the object of my Amendment is attained by the two next Amendments, numbers 10 and 11, which stand in his name. I look forward to the time when the Parliamentary draftsmen will accept a small piece of my draftsmanship. Perhaps when my birthday comes round next year I may be given a present, but in the meantime I look for the assurance which I have sought and then I will

235
seek leave to withdraw my own Amendment in favour of the Government Amendment. I beg to move.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I give the assurance which the noble and learned Lord has asked for, but I would point out that we could not accept his Amendment because he overlooks the consequential deletion of the words "for the purposes of this Act" in line 15.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for his assurance, and in pursuance of my undertaking I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord JACQUES Lord JACQUES moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 19, line 15, after ("Act") insert ("(except as regards offences thereunder)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 10.
Lord JACQUES Lord JACQUES moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 19, line 21, after ("Act") insert ("(except as regards offences thereunder)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 11.
Clause 41 [Establishment and Duties of Commission]:
Lord BROCKWAY Lord BROCKWAY moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 24, line 33, after ("individuals") insert ("and including representatives of Local Community Relations Councils,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 12 and perhaps to spare the time of the House I can also speak to Amendment No. 13. The purpose of both these Amendments is to emphasise the importance of the local community relations councils. This Amendment suggests that on the Commission there should be representatives of the local community relations councils and Amendment No. 13 suggests that they should be mentioned when financial assistance is given to bodies which are seeking the purposes of this Bill.
If this Bill is to be effective in, I will not say ending but decreasing racial feeling in this country, it will in the main be due to the work of the local community relations councils. They are the bedrock of seeking harmony between the races in this country. I have been quite astonished by the influence which they have. They generally represent not only all the political parties and all the Churches but also the organisations of the different races in their locality. It has been quite astonishing how the association in this way has led to a decrease of racial feeling in those localities. They have not merely had their discussions; they have had their social occasions, they have had their exhibitions, they have had their dances together, they have had their outings, and in many places where there has been racial antagonism they have succeeded in replacing that by racial harmony. They are the instrument at the grass roots by which the intentions of this Bill will be carried out. I suggest that their activities should be recognised by giving them representation upon the Commission.
My Lords, in the succeeding Amendment I also ask that they should be particularly mentioned when financial assistance is given to co-operative bodies. I know from contact with some of their representatives that they feel a little hurt that in this Bill there is no mention at all of the local community relations councils. They were mentioned in the 1968 Act and they were recognised in that Act. Now they are omitted. They are omitted after years of fundamental service given to the ending of racial antagonism. Particularly due to the fact that they are now omitted from this Bill when reference was made to them in the 1968 Act, I hope that Her Majesty's Government, even if they had a different view when I began to speak, may now consider the proposals I have made. I beg to move.
4.11 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Brockway moved a similar Amendment to this one at Committee stage. Your Lordships will not misunderstand me if I say that I tried to deal with the Amendment at that stage. However, may I just say this, because I think it needs to be said in view of what has been said by my noble

237
friend. The Government are not unmindful of the value of the contribution which community relations councils have made, and the part that they have played in the community in fostering a much better relationship between different groups within our own community. It is not just something to say when I say that the Government consider the role of these councils is of considerable importance. Let us face the fact that if we are going to achieve what we have set out to achieve in the Bill, then it will depend very largely upon the competence, expertise and ability of community relations councils.
Having said all that, I hope my noble friend will not misunderstand me when I remind him of Clause 41 which says that there must be not more than 15 individuals who form the body of the Commissioners named as the Community Relations Commission. Of necessity, a very substantial number of members obviously have to be able to represent the different ethnic groups within the community, but I think it really must be left to the Commission to decide on the basis of the merit and experience of the individual, the competence and ability of the person, and the kind of contribution which the person can make. The Government—and I believe the Government are quite right in this matter, because there is no one more concerned about this than I am—are quite right when they say that the members of the Commission who are representatives of particular sections of the Community, or of a particular interest, should not be seen as having, shall I say, specific interests which they alone are going to pursue.
My Lords, we want to get a group of people who will be able to take a broad view, who will be able to look at this from a very broad canvas. If this Amendment is inserted:
"… include representatives of the local community relations councils",
then, I think, the Bill in some measure will restrict the value of the community. My noble friend Lord Brockway also spoke in support of his Amendment No. 13: that is, to include local community relations councils. I can deal briefly with this, though I hope that my noble friend will not think, because I am dealing briefly with it, that one has no sympathy for what my noble friend is trying to do.
238
But I would refer him to Clause 42(1), which says:
"The Commission may give financial or other assistance to any organisation appearing to the Commission to be concerned with the promotion of equality of opportunity, and good relations, between persons of different racial groups,…".
With the greatest respect, I do not think it can be spelt out more clearly than that. The purpose of the Amendment of my noble friend to include local community relations councils is already contained in Clause 41. I do not think, and the Government do not think, that it is necessary to spell it out, because in point of fact it is already there. I hope my noble friend will feel that what I have said really meets his point. There is no point in putting into the Bill something which is already there, even if one wants to put it in for emphasis.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, if I may just intervene for about three sentences. By a slip of the tongue the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said that the appointment of the membership of the Commission was a matter for the Commission. Of course, the Bill prescribes that it should be for the Secretary of State, and that is how we think it should be. Secondly, I agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken that it is a matter for the Secretary of State. From this side of the House, I endorse what he said about local community relations councils, and I endorse what he said about the value of their work, which is perfectly accepted by us. In agreeing with the conclusions which the noble Lord has arrived at, I would only say that I hope that the members of this Commission will not be regarded as representatives, but as individuals, however wide, in a broad and popular sense, the spectrum of communities of which they may be notable examples, in that they will be individuals. I hope that their loyalty will be to the Commission and its purpose, not to any community from which they come.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, for correcting my omission about the Secretary of State. It is important that this should go in.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, with regret, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 42 [Assistance to organizations.]:
4.19 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY Lord BROCKWAY moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 25, line 19, after ("organisation") insert ("including local Community Relations Councils,")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I make a special appeal to the Government to be ready to accept this Amendment. It does not imply that decisions should be reached about actual representation of the community councils on the Commission. It argues only that where financial contributions are made to organisations supporting the purpose of this Bill there shall be particular attention to the local community councils. They were mentioned in the 1968 Act, and they are not mentioned now. They feel a little hurt that there is no mention of them.
Surely, when financial contributions are being made to those who are supporting the purposes of this Bill, the first contribution that should be made in the localities should be up to the local community councils who are a part of the whole administration of this Bill. It is a comparatively small point. All I am asking is that the words "including local Community Relations Councils" should be added. Surely that is a very modest request to make. I hope the Government will accede to it.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I was perhaps in error in trying to deal with Amendment No. 13 at the same time as I dealt with No. 12. I only want to repeat very briefly what I said then; that is, that the Government recognise the feelings of the bodies to which the noble Lord has referred but do not think it is necessary to spell it out in the terms of his Amendment in the Bill. I pointed out that Clause 42 sets out very clearly what the Commission may do; they may give financial aid to a whole variety of bodies with a whole variety of contributions, which must of necessity include the community relations councils. Because it is implicit in Clause 42, the
240
Government do not feel that it should be spelled out. I hope the noble Lord will feel that the situation is met, while recognising the valuable contribution which the Community Relations Councils are making.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, if the intention is that the community relations councils should be treated in this way, what harm could it possibly do to include them in the Bill in three or four words? That is nothing compared to the length of Bills that come before your Lordships' House today. If the intention is there, and if it would reassure the community relations councils, who are naturally concerned that they appeared in the 1968 Act and do not appear in this Act, surely it would be a reasonable gesture on the part of the Government, in recognition of what they have done, to include these four words.
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I just want to add my support to my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, by saying that I think it would be a very small concession to make to recognise something that has been working for years. Speaking as one of the original members of the Community Relations Commission, I know, as does my noble friend Lord Pitt, the enormous amount of work that we put into building up these local community relations councils, and the enormous amount of self-sacrifice which has been put into this cause and how successful they have been. I think it would be less than generous, in fact a positive insult, if this Amendment was not accepted.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder takes that point of view. It is not the intention to slight the community relations councils in any way. If something is implicit in a Bill—and this, I suggest, is—there is no need to spell it out. My noble friend says, "Well, why not include it?" If we were to do that, we should be adding things to almost every clause and Bills would become twice as long and would take twice as long to discuss. If there was any suggestion whatever that community relations councils would not be covered by Clause 42, then I would say there is very good reason for doing it. But I really think we have got

241
to get away from spelling out every mortal thing when the procedure and the opportunity and the facilities are there to meet their need. I cannot say more than that; that it is quite unnecessary.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I feel very much inclined to divide the House on this. I am completely dissatified with the answer which has come from the Front Bench. What I will do is to ask the Government to consider this point before the final decision about the Act is taken. I think the case which has been put, the inclusion of the reference in the 1968 Act and the exclusion of the reference now, the recognition that these local councils are the effective bodies for good race relations in the country, is unanswerable. If I may say so, what has been said from the Front Bench does not answer it in the least. Therefore, I ask the Government to give an assurance that this matter will be considered before the final draft of the Bill is secured. Otherwise, I shall divide the House on the subject.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I think it is obligatory on a Government, when they are asked to consider a matter, to do so. From my own point of view, I would give an assurance, and I will see to it that very careful consideration is given to this. But I must make it quite clear that it does not follow that this Amendment or one similar to it will be accepted. However, I give my noble friend and your Lordships an assurance that we will certainly look at it.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, in view of that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 45 [Codes of practice]:
4.25 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY Lord AVEBURY moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 26, line 12, after ("may") insert ("after consultation with representatives of employers and trade unions").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this Amendment it might be convenient to discuss the two following Amendments,
242
Nos. 15 and 16, which are concerned with the same or related matters; that is, the codes of practice which are to be issued under Clause 45. The first of the three Amendments arises from a point which was made at Second Reading by my noble friend Lady Seear; that is, that there is far more likelihood of codes of practice being accepted and properly operated if they arise from a process of consultation with those who have to make them work. In suggesting that the Commission should not merely tell industry what codes of practice it shall operate but shall first engage in consultations with employers and trade unions, we are following the precedent of the Health and Safety at Work Act, where, generally speaking, the consultations can be said to work fairly well. People are behind the codes of practice once they are issued.
It may be said, as the noble Lord said on the previous Amendment, that obviously the Commission intends to consult representatives of employers and trade unions and it is not necessary to write it into the Bill. I certainly hope that will not be the answer we get from the Minister, because even if it is the present intention to engage in that sort of consultation, we could not he certain that future Secretaries of State would follow the practice that is intended to be followed by this Government. I think it would be far safer if we were to have it written into the Bill so that everyone would know exactly where they stand.
The second and third Amendments arise from a short discussion we had on Committee when we discussed the words, "reasonably practicable". The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said to the Committee that the phrase is well known to the law, and he pointed to legislation such as workmen's compensation and the Factory Acts as examples of legislation where everybody understands what those words mean. I beg leave to dispute whether in fact employers do understand those words.
Much of the criticism made of the Factory Acts is that they are not properly enforced, that with a small number of inspectors you cannot get round to see that everybody is properly observing the provisions. They get fairly widely ignored. There are not enough prosecutions and, when there are, quite often it

243
is discovered that the employers are amazingly ignorant of the provisions of the Act and of the steps they should have taken in the terms that we are discussing now; that is, reasonably practicable steps to secure the health and safety of their employees. I am afraid that incorporating the same words in the Bill on the grounds that they have stood the test of time will not be satisfactory from the point of view of the employers or of those in industry who have to make the provisions work. So I feel that it would be desirable to widen the terms of Clause 45 to include the codes of practice on this matter as a third heading.
I remind your Lordships that we are talking about a permissive clause. We are not saying that the Commission has to issue codes of practice under any of these headings but simply that it may do so. On the basis that we are enlarging the powers of the Commission in an area which may be of tremendous importance to employers, I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment, as well as the two subsequent Amendments. I beg to move.
4.31 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, with permission I, too, should like to speak to all three Amendments at the same time. The first Amendment, Amendment No. 14, would lay a statutory duty on the Commission to consult representatives of employers and trade unions before issuing a code of practice. We accept that there must be consultations with appropriate bodies which are concerned with the practical application of codes of practice. I therefore undertake that, on Third Reading, the Government will introduce a suitable Amendment to that effect and I hope that, with that assurance, the noble Lord will withdraw the Amendment.
I turn to the second and third Amendments—Amendments Nos. 15 and 16—which seek to add to the list of purposes for which codes may be issued guidance on the reasonably practicable steps an employer may take to prevent his employees from doing anything unlawful under this Bill in the course of their employment. These Amendments reflect the concern expressed during our discussion of what is now Clause 30 of the Bill in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that
244
guidance should be given to employers on the meaning of "reasonably practicable". There is a need for an employer to be given such guidance as the Commission feels able to provide on the steps that he can take to ensure that his actions and those of his employees are lawful. However, in practice it may be very difficult for the Commission to provide comprehensive guidance of the kind proposed in the Amendments, because of the diversity of circumstances between one employer and another. For example, the circumstances to be covered in the case of a small manufacturer may have little in common with those of a large public sector employer.
Finally, the Amendments seek to authorise the Commission to give guidance on the matter set out in Amendment No. 16. I would assure the House that the Commission already has that power under Clause 45(1)(a). We feel that that amply covers the point raised that the Commission could, if it felt it necessary, issue the kind of advice which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, have in mind. We believe that the discussion that we have had will serve a useful purpose because we know that the Commission takes note of what is said in this House. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the Amendments.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: I wish briefly to speak on Amendment No. 16. I believe that it would be extremely helpful if any codes of practice formulated by the Commission contained guidance on the kind of steps which employers could usefully take in order to discharge their duty. In a way, I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has left the Woolsack for his distinguished successor because this is a matter of which I believe he would have taken particular note. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, will draw it to his attention. I do not believe that it is possible to define what is reasonably practicable over the whole range of possible contingencies. What is reasonably practicable is a question of fact and not of law. Questions of fact are not susceptible to legal definition.
Unfortunately, the Amendment confines itself to the opportunity to give what is described as "the"—not even "a"—

245
definition of what is reasonably practicable. I do not believe that the Government can be expected to put that into the Bill. On the other hand, I should have been a little happier if the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, had considered putting in on Third Reading an Amendment of his own adding to the powers of the Commission the opportunity to give guidance, both as to the types of step which an employer could reasonably be expected to take and as to the way in which he could reasonably be expected to discharge the obligation imposed upon him by the Act if he is to avail himself of the defence to which the Amendment relates. I should have been a little happier had the noble Lord undertaken to consider putting down an Amendment to that effect on Third Reading. I heard him say that it is not necessary, but I am not sure that it would not be helpful. I wonder whether the noble Lord would be willing to go as far as I have suggested.
Baroness SEEAR: I believe that both my noble friend Lord Avebury and I would agree that the Amendment, as worded, is neither necessarily the only way to achieve what we had in mind nor even the best way to do so. However, what the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has said does not entirely meet the point we are trying to get at. This has to be seen in relation to what we have previously said about consultation in codes of practice. Indeed, I see what we are proposing here as part of the code practice.
The reason why I think that it would be extremely valuable to have this spelt out, and to have it spelt out after the consultative process has been gone through, is that, as my noble friend said, one is much more likely to get policies followed out if the people who have to operate them have to bend their minds through the consultative process to the steps which ought to be taken. Ideally, what I should like to see happen here is not separate consultation with the TUC and the CBI but a joint committee of trade unionists and employers getting down and working on the code and on the steps necessary to implement the intentions of the Bill, and submitting this to the Secretary of State. It will then be their work. Their minds will have gone into it and they will be committing themselves to a line of action which they will have subsequently to
246
adopt and which is not imposed from above. The more they themselves spell out what needs to be done, the more likely it is that it will be done.
I feel that we may perhaps forget how much people in industry now have to implement in terms of legislation. Indeed, although we pass all this legislation and believe in consequence that it is being observed on the floor of the factory, I know already from looking at what is happening in connection with the Equal Pay and Sex Discrimination Acts that, rightly or wrongly, a great deal of it leaves people at factory level totally cold. They do not really know what is contained in the legislation. They have a great many other things to do and they are simply ignoring what we are saying here in Parliament. If they have been involved in working this out they will be that much less likely to ignore it. That is why I should like to see it included in the code of practice and submitted to the whole process of consultation on the lines that we have suggested.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I have already undertaken to submit an Amendment in lieu of Amendment No. 14, if that Amendment is withdrawn. I give an undertaking to have a good look at what has been said in the House today on Amendments Nos. 15 and 16, to see whether we can find ground for changing our minds and submitting an Amendment at Third Reading to cover the points raised in those two Amendments.
4.40 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, for accepting the spirit of Amendment No. 14 and we look forward to seeing the results of his work on Third Reading. With regard to Amendment No. 16, I am perfectly happy with what he said, and I am quite prepared to accept that, instead of having the "reasonably practicable steps" defined as a separate category and code of practice, which the Commission may issue,
"after consultation with representatives of employers and trade unions",
the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, might be accepted as an alternative; that is to say, that in subsection (1)(a) where

247
the code of practice relating to the elimination of discrimination is mentioned, that could also be extended to cover the kind of provision which we had in mind in the separate paragraph. If the noble Lord will give consideration to that, as he has already undertaken to do, then I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.42 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE moved Amendment No. 17:
After Clause 47, insert the following new clause:
Notice of allegation and other matters.
When a person is made the subject of an adverse enquiry by the Commission under this part of the Act he shall be given notice by the Commission containing sufficient particulars and at a sufficient time before the date of his attendance to enable him to prepare his answer, and on the date of his attendance he shall be entitled to bring with him a solicitor, barrister or other friend to assist and advise him, and he or such person shall be entitled to speak on his behalf, and either he or such person shall he entitled to question any witness or produce any evidence or documents which he may consider necessary to support his answer.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this matter arose out of a discussion which we had at the Committee stage and therefore it is so fresh in the mind of the House that I need not elaborate on what was said. A difference of principle arose between the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and myself. We both agreed that a person who is the subject of adverse inquiry should be entitled to natural justice, and I think we both agreed, though I am not seeking to put words into the noble Lord's mouth, that natural justice consisted of two things. One was that adequate notice of the nature of the inquiry should be made with sufficient particulars to enable the person concerned to prepare his answer and to make it at the appropriate time. The second point was that he would be entitled to reinforce his answer by giving evidence himself, by examining any witnesses with whom he was confronted, and by giving any supporting evidence, whether it be documentary evidence or oral evidence.
That is what I have sought to include in the Amendment. There were defects in the two Amendments which my noble friend Lady Elles and I put forward at the
248
Committee stage, so I have not attempted to follow the drafting of those Amendments. In particular, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, pointed out that there was an anomaly introduced into one of them by reason of the fact that I had introduced the concept of legal aid which was not appropriate before an industrial tribunal. There was an obvious defect, either of my own penmanship or of the printer, in the wording of my Amendment.
Therefore I have started, as it were, from the drawing board again and have tried to include both the previous Amendments in one draft. I am not wedded to my own drafting and experience has taught me humility in this respect. If the noble Lord will only say that he will put into the Bill something of his own, I certainly will not press this to a Division. But if there remains a division of principle between us, as to whether the requirement of natural justice should be in the Act when it becomes an Act, or left out and so trust the Commission, then I would seek to press these Amendments. But as I say, to me the actual drafting is immaterial; the question is one of principle. I beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, a few minutes ago the noble and learned Lord said that he hoped very much that on, I think he said, a future birthday the draftsman and possibly the Government of the time would celebrate the noble and learned Lord's birthday by agreeing to some form of words that he put forward. Having inadvertently been present with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary recently at a very agreeable occasion to celebrate the noble and learned Lord's birthday, I should like to be in a position today to say that we were able to accept the totality of what the noble and learned Lord is putting forward to the House.
I hope that I will be able to offer him at least half a loaf, and I hope that he might take the view that it is even two-thirds of a loaf. I will, if I may, deploy the argument to see whether I can persuade the noble and learned Lord' that we are prepared to move at least to some extent to meet the point he made when we discussed this matter in Committee, as well as the case he deployed this afternoon. If the House will forgive me for

249
going over the ground—briefly, I hope—of our last discussion, it will create a framework for the discussion we have this afternoon.
There has been a considerable amount of time devoted, both in this House and in another place, to discussing the question of the powers of the new Commission in relation to formal investigations, and this is absolutely right because these are important powers, as the noble and learned Lord said on the last occasion. But it is necessary for us to bear in mind just what an investigation will amount to. Those who have opposed these powers have likened them in some cases—though the noble and learned Lord did not in fact do so this afternoon—to full-blown civil proceedings and have attempted to build into the Bill a variety of procedural devices to limit the scope of the Commission's powers.
The Government, on the other hand, have emphasised that a formal investigation is nothing like civil proceedings; an investigation is the start of the process from which proceedings may conceivably arise. It is the way in which the Commission forms a view on whether action under the legislation is called for. In itself an investigation involves no penalty. Proceedings arise at the end of a fairly lengthy sequence involving the Commission satisfying itself that the person concerned has discriminated, being minded to serve a non-discrimination notice upon him, informing him that it is so minded, and giving him the opportunity to comment. The person concerned then has a right of appeal against the notice, and it is only if the notice becomes final and he commits further contraventions of the Bill that the Commission can institute proceedings for an injunction. Protection for the respondent is thus built into the process before anything to his detriment is done.
It is essential that the rights of people whose actions are under investigation should be safeguarded. The Government have been at pains to point out that the Commission will have to obey the requirements of natural justice in carrying out its investigations—indeed, I spent a fair amount of time saying this myself during the Committee stage—and that if the Commission failed to do this the courts would be prepared to step in. But we have emphasised the need to avoid
250
procedural pitfalls of a kind which might for no good reason invalidate the formal investigations and any ensuing nondiscrimination notices.
I cannot recommend that the House should accept the clause as drafted. It is formulated in a way which is appropriate only for a process involving formal hearings on the lines of a trial. The fact is that formal investigations will not take this form, and I believe that it would be undesirable if they were to do so. It is also not clear just what an adverse inquiry would cover. But in many respects the new clause embodies what we have been saying all along, indeed what I tried to say during our discussion in the Committee stage. It embodies what we have been saying would be the Commission's practice. We did not think that this needed to be spelt out, but since there is a widespread feeling that it should be shown on the face of the Bill we are certainly willing to try to meet the object of the noble and learned Lord.
Therefore, if the Amendment is withdrawn, I would undertake that we would bring forward an Amendment on Third Reading. What we have in mind is an Amendment which would make it clear that in the course of an investigation into the activities of persons named in its terms of reference, the Commission must inform those persons of any act of unlawful discrimination which it thinks they may have committed, and, secondly, requiring the Commission to offer such persons an opportunity to make representations, assisted if they wish by a solicitor, barrister or other suitable person. I think this meets the principle which the noble and learned Lord has in mind, and meets a very substantial amount of the case which he deployed in the House this afternoon.
Corning back to this point again, I take it that by "adverse enquiry" the noble and learned Lord has in mind an investigation into the activities of someone who is suspected of an act of unlawful discrimination. The Government Amendment would reflect the right of such a person to know what action of his is being investigated and to have an opportunity to make representations about it. However, I should not pretend to your Lordships that such an Amendment would reflect every element in the noble

251
and learned Lord's new clause. To take one important example, it does not provide, and would not provide, for formal hearings and a cross-examination of witnesses. This is not, as I have explained, an investigation. The occasion for such a formal proceeding is in the courts and tribunals after the Commission has invoked its powers under the legislation, and not during the process of investigation when it is forming its view on the issue concerned. What we propose would, I think, incorporate the safeguards appropriate at that stage. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will recognise that at least a very substantial element of the case which he deployed in Committee and, indeed, this afternoon has been met. I hope that he will take that view.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, they say that "half a loaf is better than no bread", and certainly experience has taught me the virtue of humility in relation to my own draftsmanship. I would ask the noble Lord, before I proceed further, whether he will not include in his proposed Amendment the right to bring forward evidence in some form in support of whatever the person under investigation may wish to say. It may very well be that he requires to produce documents in support of his case; it may very well he that, although he may not wish formally to call a witness, he will want to produce letters or statements by a witness to support his account of the matter. I would ask the noble Lord either to say now or to consider carefully whether that could not be incorporated in the Amendment. I am grateful for the spirit in which the noble Lord has sought to meet me, and since lie has now agreed on the matter of principle which divided us—that is to say, that the right to natural justice should be incorporated in the Bill—I do not think it would be right for me to divide the House. I therefore ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 48 [Power to obtain information]:
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 29, line 3, at end insert ("and the County Court Rules Committee shall have power to draft Rules for the making by the Commission of an
252
application for such an order, and such rules shall provide for the form and service of notice of such application and the time which must elapse between the service of the notice and the hearing of the application and in proceedings in Scotland analogous rules shall be prescribed by Act of Sederunt.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this matter arose from an Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, at a slightly earlier stage of the Committee proceedings which I did not think appropriate. This relates to the proposal that attendance should be made compulsory under pain of contempt, and seeks to ensure that the County Court Rules Committee or the appropriate body in Scotland should provide that adequate notice should be given before an application is made, and for the 1/13/2007 of such an application. I am not myself altogether happy—I will be perfectly frank—about the drafting of this Amendment so far as it relates to Scotland; nor am I absolutely certain that it is what I intended to put down. I am not sure that the reference to the Act of Sederunt is appropriate, because my recollection about the Act of Sederunt is that it is limited to the Court of Session and does not apply to lower courts. At any rate, the House will know what I mean, and I shall be interested to know whether the noble Lord can again give me at any rate part of what I am seeking. I beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am glad to say to the noble and learned Lord that the rules of court which he wants to see made are indeed in existence and will apply to applications under Clause 48(4). An application to a county court will be an "originating application" within the meaning of the County Court Rules, Order 6, Rule 4, which regulates the form of such application, for the fixing of a time for the hearing of the application and for serving the application on, and notifying the time of the hearing to, the respondent. Order 8, Rule 8, also applies to such applications. So far as Scotland is concerned, there are provisions in Schedule 1 of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1907 which will regulate applications under Clause 48 (4) in a way which is appropriate for the determination of the application by a sheriff court.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, in view of that

253
information, for which I am grateful and which gives me a good deal of comfort, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.55 p.m.
Clause 69 [Power to amend certain provisions of Act.]:
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 45, line 8, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a substantial matter, and it may be that it gives rise to controversy. May I remind the House that it arises out of a discussion we had in Committee about the powers of the Secretary of State to remodel the Bill when it passes into an Act of Parliament. I promised at that discussion to give the noble Lord his repeal of Section 9, which is the seamen's section, and to give him paragraph (c), which is a provision giving him power to render lawful acts which, apart from the Amendment, would be unlawful. Then, on reflection and with some hesitation as to whether I was right to do so, I gave him paragraph (d) as well, which gives him the right to alter, I suppose up or down, the number of partners or members specified in the provision. I then went through the numerous provisions of paragraph (a). Again, it is very difficult to form an absolutely concluded view about each one of them, but in the end I came to the conclusion that if he wanted to achieve the purposes of paragraph (a), which might very well turn out to be necessary in experience, he must come to Parliament by a Bill and not by a Resolution, because the Resolution procedure, even the Affirmative Resolution procedure, in fact renders the proposal incapable of amendment and must be either taken as a whole or rejected as a whole.
The noble Lord, except for his references to the Sex Discrimination Act, about which we have now agreed to differ, I hope for the last time, could provide absolutely no precedent for giving to the Secretary of State by Statutory Order what is in effect the power to take away what are virtually all the safeguards and exceptions in an Act of Parliament. I must say frankly that my views about
254
this Bill, which I have expressed more than once and will not reiterate now, are broadly those expressed earlier this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I think the Government have over-egged this omelette and the result will be counterproductive; but I feel quite certain that where Parliament, after careful debate, has introduced safeguards into a Bill, in so far as it has safeguards, the Secretary of State should not have carte blanche to remove them all as a matter of fact by one Order in Council which cannot be amended. Unless the Government can really give me some comfort about this—and rather more this time than half a loaf—then we shall have to take the opinion of the House on it. On the other hand, I do not want to belabour the noble Lord. I am sure his intentions are excellent, but so are mine; these are to preserve the supremacy of Parliament over Ministers.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, let me begin by agreeing with the noble and learned Lord on two points. First, that this is a substantial matter and, secondly, that his intentions are excellent. I would not in any way doubt that; although I regret to say that we differ on this point this afternoon as we did during our discussion at Committee stage. As the House will recall, we had quite a long discussion on this particular clause when in Committee and I do not want to weary your Lordships by going over the whole of the argument again. However, I should like to make one or two points in response to what the noble and learned Lord has said.
First, I would accept that the scope of the power in Clause 69 is wide. We agree about that. However, it is not unlimited. It only permits Amendments to existing exceptions or to create new exceptions to the principal non-discrimination requirements in the Bill. I think that this is a significant limitation of powers, but I accept that, leaving aside the precedent of the Sex Discrimination Act, a power with such wide scope is undoubtedly unusual.
I accept certainly that it is incumbent upon the Government to show that powers of this sort are justifiable before they are allowed to pass. I believe that power of this sort is justifiable in the context of anti-discrimination legislation. Such

255
legislation is, in my view, a special case and I rather think the debates which have taken place in your Lordships' House and in another place in 1965 and 1968 on the then Race Relations Bills, last year on the Sex Discrimination Act, and this year on this present Bill, bear this out. It is extremely difficult to deal satisfactorily with the problem of discrimination, which, as Part I of the Bill shows, is not a simple concept, especially over such a wide area of human activity: in employment, training and related matters, in education, in housing, and in the generality of goods, services and facilities. Some will say of course that we should not even attempt to do this, but I do not think this is the majority view of the House. We have tried in this Bill to deal with the problem comprehensively because we believe it should be tackled in this way.
Comprehensive legislation does not mean pressing the abstract principle of non-discrimination in all contexts. Appropriate exceptions must be provided. This we have endeavoured to do in the context of this Bill; and that was true of last year's debate on the Sex Discrimination Bill. But we cannot be sure how the exceptions will stand up over the coming years. What we are saying in Clause 69 is that Parliament should be able, on the recommendation of the Secretary of State (after consultation with the new Commission) to alter the exceptions should it prove necessary to do so. The Amendment would prevent us, should the need arise, from amending, for example, Clause 5, which seems to me to be one of the more likely candidates for change in years to come; or Clause 33, the special needs exception, which has already been the subject of some discussion in your Lordships' House, particularly on the question of whether it is too wide or too narrow.
It may be said—and indeed it has been said by the noble and learned Lord this afternoon—that should such a situation arise new legislation should promptly be brought forward; but your Lordships know only too well that it is very difficult to find Parliamentary time for Bills of this kind, particularly when they may apply to a particularly narrow issue in one particular area. This problem is, I
256
think, a fact of Parliamentary life and one that we have to accept.
If we do not provide for amendment by way of Affirmative Resolution procedure (which is provided for in this clause) we shall be confronting Parliament with the prospect of having to put up with what I think could be a profoundly unsatisfactory situation in a particular area; particularly, as I have indicated an area where it may be a significant problem has arisen and clearly there is need for amendment, but because the issue is a narrow one it is particularly difficult for the Government to take action although it is recognised on all sides that some form of amendment is necessary.
The procedure which is laid down in this clause meets this point. There is still Parliamentary control as far as the Affirmative Resolution procedure is concerned for it will have to be carried by both Houses of Parliament. That is a safeguard. I recognise that this is a major new power being conferred on the Government. Nevertheless, in the circumstances that I have outlined, I think that it is not an unreasonable one.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, I believe that the argument put forward plausibly and persuasively, as is his wont, by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is an extremely dangerous and unacceptable one. He has said that the Government have a very great deal of legislation and will continue to have a great deal of legislation. Some of us consider that the Government are putting forward a great deal too much legislation and that less legislation would mean better legislation. We are asked to accept that the Government have to have a great deal of legislation—which many of us do not accept.
The noble Lord then goes on to say on the basis of what is a false assumption, that we have to put up with the consequences of this, in our view, undesirable activity on the part of the Government and increase the power of the Executive over the Legislative. In the first place, we do not accept that it is necessary to have so much legislation; and if we do not have to have it, we are not prepared, many of us, to follow through and say that this means for this reason the Government ought to have greater powers than at present over Parliament. On the contrary, it should be the other way

257
round. When there is so much legislation the power of Parliament over the Government should be greater and not less.
Lord SANDFORD: Furthermore, my Lords, those of your Lordships who were here last week dealing with the Education Bill will readily recognise that what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has said is entirely inconsistent with what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, was saying about the Education Bill. The Government cannot possibly have it both ways.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I think this kind of provision would be more acceptable if the provisions for the laying of orders and dealing with them in both Houses of Parliament were more satisfactory. I think that the mischief of powers given to the Government to lay orders for approval by both Houses of Parliament is that they are not subject to amendment. You swallow them whole or you reject them. Our experience tells us that attempts to get variations in orders very rarely succeed. They have been drafted behind the scenes, consultations have taken place, as the Bill requires the Government to do before they lay any orders of this kind, but attempts to amend them have usually been fruitless.
I think that this question of devolved legislation requires consideration in connection with the more general review of the procedures of Parliament. I think that the whole process of a Bill to become an Act is a lengthy one, especially when it is dealing with matters of relative detail, or attempts to relieve difficult situations which have arisen in a particular area, hardly justifying the full procedure of a Bill before both Houses of Parliament. Yet this clause permits the Government to lay draft orders on matters which may have been the subject of detailed discussion in the Committee and Report stages, and in this House at the Third Reading stage of a Bill.
We have gone into these matters in great detail. We have tried to anticipate the difficulties that may arise in particular areas. We have tried to examine whether exceptions and provisions will stand up. This is really part of the process of wise legislation properly scrutinised in your
258
Lordships' House. Then, when we have done all that—and we have had an example of that this afternoon—when there has been refinement of words and of intention in order to try and get the Bill right, the Secretary of State after a short period of experience says, "I must put this right; I must put that right". Of course, there are other Bills in which Ministers would like to put their mistakes right, but are we always going to do it this way? If mistakes have to be put right then the putting of them right should be subject to as much scrutiny as the original proposals, even though we were to find some procedure less lengthy than the full range of first, second, Committee and Report stages and Third Reading of a Bill.
That is why I hesitate to accede to the request in Clause 69 to give these really sweeping powers. When one looks at the clauses that can he amended it is clear that, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, said, these are the safeguards, these are the exceptions, these are the things which make the Bill acceptable in some quarters; these are the provisions that stop the proposers of the Bill trespassing too far upon other principles and other civil liberties. There is a balance here all the time. We do not exist in this country solely for the purpose of making it comfortable for others to live here. We live here ourselves and have a right to liberties and our own way of dealing with human relationships. We have to harmonise the rights of those who are here with the rights of those who have come and are now living here. Let us be honest about this. So I always feel that we are justified in reserving to ourselves something of the concept of freedom of speech, freedom of relationship between individuals which we have built up over the years. Therefore I think that we should look with close attention at proposals which enable the Government to nibble away here and nibble away there, and alter here and change there, without full discussion in Parliament.
If this Amendment is put to the vote I shall support its rejection, not because I am anxious to put difficulties in the way of any Government in amending the nondiscrimination law to meet new conditions or loopholes or difficulties which have arisen, but because I believe that it is now desirable, many years after a Lord Chief Justice wrote on the new despotism, to

259
get a little more satisfactory the way in which the Executive may get changes of the law through both Houses of Parliament, a procedure which is less satisfactory than the opportunities which full legislation gives to both Houses.
5.14 p.m.
Lord PARGITER: My Lords, there is just one small point I should like to make and I think it is a safeguard. The Secretary of State has the power to amend subject to an order and subject to approval. He has no power to remove anything from these clauses. I think it is rather important: if you cannot remove something, you want to amend it. It seems to me that there is a fairly considerable safeguard there. If the Secretary of State did not like something he might say he would move to take it out, but I do not think he could do that under any circumstances; he could only amend. In other words, he can look at a particular section of the Act and move the amendment of it in the light of experience, and so on, which he puts in the form of a Motion to the House. It seems to me in those circumstances to be not unreasonable that the Secretary of State should be able to do that.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, may I add just one word to this discussion in order to endorse everything that my noble friend said. It is not very often during the course of proceedings on this Bill that I have found myself in agreement with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. Here we are not dealing with an Amendment which weakens any of the anti-discrimination provisions of the Bill but we are, I suggest to your Lordships, introducing a fundamental Parliamentary innovation which should not be done sideways as part of the proceedings on a Bill which does not give the fullest possible opportunity for discussing the principles of that innovation quite separately from the issues to which it happens to be related in the Bill. That is my objection to Clause 69(1) as a whole, and I am only afraid that in deleting paragraph (a) we are allowing the principle to slip through, so that on future occasions Governments will be able to say that Parliament did incorporate provisions amending the Bill in this Bill and therefore the precedent
260
has been established for all future occasions.
At the same time I see the difficulty in which the noble and learned Lord was placed. Everybody, for instance, wants to see the amendment or repeal of Section 9 as contained in paragraph (b) kept in force because of the discussions that have taken place on the issue of seamen. So in a way we cannot have the ideal situation, dealing with the position of the seamen, and yet not introducing what is, I am afraid, a rather dangerous constitutional innovation. In this position the only thing we can do is to register our opposition to such an extension of the powers of the Executive by voting on paragraph (a), and hoping that whenever this matter comes up in future legislation the Government will not be able to use it as a powerful argument in pushing through amending provisions within a Bill itself. I think that really would be highly undesirable and if we do not take a stand and resist this now we may find ourselves in a similar position on all sorts of future legislation. Always this argument will be produced that my noble friend fastened on, that we have so much legislation of great importance to the nation that we must incorporate these provisions in orders.
I agree wholeheartedly with my noble friend. I think we have far too much legislation going through both Houses at the moment. The way in which the Government are forcing through so many Bills just at this moment is absolutely appalling and I think it is an insult to your Lordships to bring this argument before us, that we have so much valuable legislation that we need to make space by giving subordinate powers to Ministers. On any other occasion, I suggest, we should have been wise to scrutinise that argument carefully, but this is not the moment, I suggest to your Lordships, for that point to be put and to convince the House, and we should reject it now.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 25 and 29 are identical to ones I moved in Committee and I do not propose to go through again all the arguments that I then advanced, but I should like to put just one point to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. The Government must surely realise that the man in the street has got to be won over to this very wide-ranging and, in many respects,

261
draconian Bill if it is to have any chance of widespread public acceptance. I do not believe that he will be so reconciled once he suspects that it is the Government's intention to chip away, little by little, all the safeguards and exceptions that have been granted in the Bill as it stands. I therefore very much hope that this Amendment will be accepted.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I agree so wholeheartedly with almost everything that has been said, with the exception of the brief intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, that I really am, I think, exonerated from making a long speech in reply. It really is precisely because of the precedent point made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that I feel that we have got to call a halt here, because I am sure that if we do not it will be cited as a precedent in case after case until it becomes almost a convention of Parliament that all the Bills introduced by a Government should contain a widespread provision of this kind.
I totally agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, when she says that for this Government or any Government—and I have been on the other side, too—to put forward the argument of the absence of Parliamentary time, which the noble Lord put forward (I suppose for want of a better argument) is really not good enough.
Governments can get Parliamentary time by not passing, as they did in 1975, three volumes of Statutes of 1,000 pages each, coupled with 10,000 pages of subordinate legislation.
It is not possible for Governments with this volume of legislation going through Parliament—much of it of a highly controversial nature and much of it under the guillotine—to say that they ought to take to themselves a power in effect to remove all the safeguards out of an Act of Parliament. I respectfully agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, said: that there may be in future some way of amending things of a subordinate character which does not face one with the alternative of a Bill or order which cannot be amended. That remains in the womb of the future, if it ever comes to birth at all. So far as I am concerned, I have gone out of my way to give the Government three-quarters of a loaf of bread. I am afraid I must ask them now to lose the remaining quarter and I therefore call upon my noble friends to press this Amendment.
5.22 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 25) shall he agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 121; Not-Contents, 58.

CONTENTS

Alport, L.

Davidson, V.

Hives, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

de Clifford, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Amory, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ampthill, L.

Deramore, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Armstrong, L.

Derwent, L.

Ilchester, E.

Arran, E.

Dundee, E.

Jessel, L.

Auckland, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Killearn, L.

Avebury, L.

Elles, B.

Kings Norton, L.

Balerno, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Banks, L.

Elton, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Barnby, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Enniskillen, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Belstead, L.

Exeter, M.

Lloyd, L.

Berkeley, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Birdwood, L.

Gage, V.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Byers, L.

Gisborough, L.

Long, V.

Caccia, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Loudoun, C.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Glasgow, E.

Lyell, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Glendevon, L.

Mancroft, L.

Carrington, L.

Gowrie, E.

Marley, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Gray, L.

Merrivale, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Meston, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hale, L.

Monck, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Halsbury, E.

Monson, L.

Cromartie, E.

Harcourt, V.

Morris, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Mottistone, L.

Daventry, V.

Hawke, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

St. Aldwyn, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

St. Davids, V.

Strathspey, L.

Newall, L.

Sandford, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Northchurch, B.

Sandys, L.

Terrington, L.

Onslow, E.

Seear, B.

Teviot, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Selkirk, E.

Teynham, L.

Platt, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Tranmire, L.

Porritt, L.

Sharples, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Simon, V.

Vernon, L.

Redesdale, L.

Somers, L.

Vickers, B.

Reigate, L.

Stamp, L.

Vivian, L.

Roberthall, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Rochdale, V.

Strang, L.

Wigoder, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Strathclyde, L.

Wolverton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aylestone, L.

Jacques, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Birk,B.

Janner, E.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Blyton, L.

Kaldor, L.

Raglan, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Brimelow, L.

Leatherland, L.

Rusholme, L.

Brockway, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Champion, L.

Longford, E.

Segal, L.

Chorley, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Shinwell, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Lyons of Brighton, L.

Slater, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

McCluskey, L.

Snow, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Maelor, L.

Stedman, B. [Teller.]

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

Mais, L.

Stone, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Melchett, L.

Strabolgi, L.

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

Oram, L. [Teller.]

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Energlyn, L.

Pannell, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Pargiter, L.

Willis, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Parry, L.

Wilson of High Wray, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Peart, L. (Lord Privy Seal.)

Winterbottom, L.

Henderson, L.

Phillips, B.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Jacobson, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.32 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 45, line l6, leave out ("24 or 25") and insert ("or 24").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 28 is simply a technical Amendment. I beg to move.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (The Earl of Listowel): My Lords, before I call Amendment No. 29, I should point out to the House that if this Amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 30.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 29:
Page 45, line 17, leave out paragraph (d).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I said perhaps wrongly—but I did so and I shall stick to it—that I would
264
not insist on Amendment No. 29. I am very doubtful whether I was right. But, having said that, I shall stick to it. Therefore I do not move this Amendment.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 45, line 17, leave out ("or 25(1)(a)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I think this is a technical Amendment. I beg to move.
Clause 76 [Short title and extent]:
5.30 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 52, line 15, leave out ("Community") and insert ("Race").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is to restore the original Title of the Bill following its change to Community Relations Bill as a result of one of a series of Amendments which were tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady

265
Vickers, to change the title of the new Commission to "Community Relations Commission". On that occasion the noble Baroness had quite a substantial victory in changing the Title and what I want to do now is to ask the House to put it back to what it was originally. I hope that I can give your Lordships good and sufficient reasons for asking you to do that.
What I am seeking to do is to suggest to your Lordships that it would be wrong to draw the concluson that calling the new Commission the "Community Relations Commission" means that the Bill itself should be called the Community Relations Bill. It is perfectly true that in Committee we did not specifically discuss this aspect of the proposals made by the noble Baroness, and I feel I ought to say to your Lordships that it was entirely my fault. I was going to do so, but had to leave the Chamber for a while; and I got back too late. That is why the Government expressed no opinion at that time.
The new Commission, with its powers and duties, forms an important part of the Bill. The responsibility for local community relations councils, to which the noble Baroness appealed in justification for calling the Commission the "Community Relations Commission" is, however, only one aspect of the legislation. The greater part of this Bill—and, if I may say so, it is no good running away from it—is concerned with racial discrimination. This is a race relations Bill, out of which will be born a new Commission, the Community Relations Commission.
The Bill itself is about race relations. I accept that it is invidious to base distinctions between people on the grounds of their race. I do not think many of us like it at all, but the fact is that in all matters of this kind one has to do so. Racial discrimination is a real and important problem. It is what this Bill is all about and that is the reason for needing this legislation. Inevitably, the Bill must be full of references to race. It could not tackle the problem of racial discrimination if that were not so.
The Government do not believe that the Bill—and I must stress that I am talking only about the Bill and not about the title of the Commission which the
266
noble Baroness succeeded in persuading your Lordships that it was right and proper to change—should have the Title of Community Relations Bill. We do not think that will do. "Community relations" may well find favour in emphasising the object of social cohesion. Harmony is our objective and justice is our object: a whole variety of things are our object. But the Bill seeks to remove the invidious distinctions based on race which cause disharmony. If I may say so without being misunderstood, I do not see that it helps to gloss over this issue in the Title we choose for the Bill itself. Let us be frank and honest about it and say: "This is the right Title for the Bill, even though your Lordships have decided to change the title of the Commission for Racial Equality." As the Bill is about race relations, the Government feel—and I must say it appears quite reasonable—that we should face up to that and not run away from it. We are trying to do everything to put right race relations. Therefore, let the Bill bear that name, although the Commission may well have another name. My Lords, I beg to move.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, first I accept what the noble Lord said about having missed the bus and not having arrived in the Chamber in time; and of course I was rather astonished at being allowed to get this Amendment through "on the nod". I was also rather surprised to see this particular Amendment No. 31 on the Marshalled List, because no one had had the courtesy to mention it to me. It is, after all, quite easy to miss something on the Marchalled List and I would have thought, considering that my Amendment had gone through without any hesitation or demur from anyone, that I might have been given a note of some sort to say that it was now intended to change it.
I should like to express my thanks at this stage to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, for the many points he has answered in respect of this Bill and which has saved my putting down other Amendments. I am sorry that the Title will not be accepted, because I notice that in the proceedings in another place on 1st July, 1976 reference was made to the need to change the emphasis on the name, and I thought we were getting away from the emphasis on

267
race. Keeping this word, "race" is like having a running sore: it is exactly what we want to get away from. We are a community in this House, although we are of several different races. There have been noble Lords of different races in this House, and different races in the House of Commons, but we are a community. We do not think of ourselves as racialist at all. I was very grateful when the other name was changed to the Race Relations Commission but I was deeply disappointed when this was changed too. I am very anxious to get away from the word "race".
Mention was made in the previous debate by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, of the understanding of this Bill, but what I want is for the general public to understand what it is about. I am sure the general public are anxious that community relations should become stronger. I think most noble Lords in this House wish that, too. When we are told that at least two out of every five people born in this country are of different races, we want each of them to think right from the beginning that he is one of us, not one of another race, because this is the only way, as mentioned by the noble Lord, that we are going to get harmony in the future. Therefore, I feel strongly that we ought to try to keep this name.
When we think about different races coming to live in this country we realise that we are becoming more and more a multiracial society, but we want to get a community relationship and not a racial relationship. This is going to be extremely difficult. We are going to harp on it all the time. It is not so much for the noble Lords who have to implement the Bill in the House but for the general public, who need to understand how we are going to improve community relations. I therefore hope I may get some support from other people in this House. I should like to know their views, because I deeply regret that this name has been changed.
The other day in a debate, I mentioned that when I fought Poplar my opponent was called Mr. Guy, and they even trained the children to go around saying, "Vote, vote, vote for Mr. Guy! Swipe Joan Vickers in the eye!". I feel I am getting a swipe tonight, and I hope the noble Lord might change his mind. He cannot, anyhow,
268
refer to the question of reprinting. This Bill has been reprinted as the Community Relations Bill and it is definitely stated on the top "Race Relations Bill, now Community Relations Bill". I do not know whether the noble Lord has, but I have a number of letters and messages from people stating that they are very pleased at the change of the name, and I hope that today we shall be able to keep something which I think is going to be worth-while to the general public.
5.43 p.m.
Lord DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, may I support my noble friend, Lady Vickers, in this matter? I feel that the Government have rather the wrong approach to this question. This is a matter which we have to sell to people who are living in closely knit communities throughout the country. We are not talking so much about individual races as about how they are to live in their communities, and one of the things which I feel has been missed in this Bill all the way through is the fact that we are talking about people who live in communities. The moment you put the word "race" in you immediately establish a polarisation. One thing which we do not want to do in this country is to polarise races, and, my Lords, we come down to the fact that we shall have a Race Relations Bill as a Statute and then we shall start on devolution. We are establishing race relations, not only with the people who have come into this country but also with the people who are here already. I support my noble friend most strongly on this matter. We are trying to establish community relations. Please do not let us hinder things with race relations and get our efforts off to a poor start.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, I also should like to support my noble friend Lady Vickers. I listened to the last debate and it appeared to be very acceptable, except to the Government. One understands the difficulties of a Government when the Minister does not happen to be available, but I should have thought that somebody might have rushed out and said, "Can you come in and listen to the arguments that are being put forward?" Fortunately, though we have many very

269
grievous and difficult problems up in my part of the world, at any rate we do not really have these problems at all. We have people coming in in ships. We have many families from all over the world who are connected with shipping. The children go to schools. They are very welcome indeed. If I went up there and talked to them I am sure I should be told that they like being felt to be part of the community. It does not occur to any people in my part of the world that there is a race problem at all. It gives me great pleasure to be able to say that, because I always seem to have to be fighting for the part of the world which I have the honour to represent, and have had the honour to represent for so many years.
We are a community and we are very proud of it and nobody would ever dream of saying to anybody else in my part of the world that he was not a member of a community. It is a very happy relationship. Although I myself am not at all experienced in these matters because, as I say, the problem has not arisen, fortunately, in my part of the world, from all that one heard after my noble friend's Amendment was accepted in the last debate, one thought that most people considered it a marvellous speech and a marvellous suggestion; and I take pleasure in saying that. There cannot be many people in this House, unless they have been connected in official capacities as Secretaries of State or Ministers or something, who know as much about this matter as my noble friend and others of us who have tried to do what we can for the people who come over here or for people all over the world, because she has a very great knowledge indeed. Although I like to consider that I am a very loyal supporter of my own Party, and I usually am on general principles, I sometimes think that people forget to take advice or to discuss with others who have detailed knowledge. Sometimes policies stem from very worthwhile people, but they have not really gone into all the details of life, of industry or whatever it may be.
I am delighted to have this opportunity of supporting my noble friend and I hope there will be a Division, when I shall enjoy supporting her in the Division. If we do not have a Division, I am looking forward to going back to the North of England and telling them that our efforts
270
at community and friendship and good relations did not seem to commend themselves, perhaps, either to some of my own side or, certainly, the Government side. It all seems to me very odd indeed. I am not really qualified to talk about these matters, although I have travelled in every country of the world except Japan, which perhaps gives me a bit of knowledge. I believe that the ordinary public want to think that community matters; that we want to get a friendly and happy relationship. So what on earth has bitten the Government, and perhaps some of my own side, I really do not know. But, having been about for more years than I care to remember, I think I am right in saying that sometimes one wonders what people do think and why they vote one way or vote another, or why policies develop in one way or another. I have the greatest possible pleasure in supporting my noble friend and, considering that she had such a success, I hope that we may be able to get back to "Community" rather than "Race".
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I hope I may be allowed to say something and I hope my noble friends will forgive me for saying it if they slightly resent what I am going to say. The first thing is that if I thought by saying it or by the Government having put down this Amendment on Report, they intended to give or I was going to give my noble friend Lady Vickers, a blow in the eye—I forget the actual phrase she used—I certainly would not be going to say what I am going to say. I am sure it was not the intention of the Government to do that, nor is it mine. On the contrary, we have fought together, she and I, on numerous issues, I suppose, for the best part of 20 or 30 years, and in the case of my noble friend Lady Ward of Tyneside, the distance of time which has spelt our alliance on many bloody fields of political battle, extends further back than that.
But in the first place I must say that I felt great sympathy for the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. He came to this House very honestly and he said very frankly that he had failed to spot in time that this was not a consequential Amendment on the other success which my noble friend gained. Although she did so without active support, she gained a very

271
notable success on the name of the Commission. I do not think it follows at all that, because she has changed the name of the Commission successfully, it is simply consequential that she should change the name of the Bill. That is quite a different question to which rather different considerations apply. Although I am sorry, of course, on her behalf that she did not receive a note of warning from the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, I am sure that he did not mean any discourtesy to her and would like to express his regret when he comes to reply for having failed, even inadvertently, to tell her.
I have tried in the course of this series of debates to confine my opposition to the Government to matters of what I regard as principle. If I had not done so, I would have changed a very great deal in the Bill because there is a very great deal in the Bill I do not agree with. But I laid down at the outset, when I put down a series of Amendments in Committee, that I would confine myself to four main points, all of them of principle.
Whatever else this name question may be, it is not a question of principle, with great respect; it is a question of opinion. I daresay that if I were to express an opinion I should be slightly more inclined to agree with my noble friend than with the Government, but it is not a question of principle and I am very much afraid that, when we come to send our Amendments down to another place, when the Bill came down, if it did come down with another name attached to it, people would be saying that it was in a sense a factious opposition on the part of the House of Lords, imposing their judgment on matters which are essentially matters of judgment rather than matters of principle. So far in almost every case, and in every case when my Party has divided as a Party, we have had something to say on a matter of principle, and I would hope that we would stick to that.
On this question of name, I have always taken the view that the sponsors of the Bill ought prima facie to have the right of christening it so far as regards the Short Title. I have often had to interfere with the Long Title to a Bill—either trying to curtail it or to extend it—but so far as
272
regards the Short Title, it is for the parents of the child to give it its name and as I do not particularly like the brat I am very reluctant to impose a name upon it. I feel that its sponsors ought to be responsible for its christening and those who issue maledictions, even as mild as my own, ought to keep respectfully away from the baptism. That is what I would ask my noble friend to do on second thoughts. I hope she would not press this matter to a Division. She has had a very considerable and conspicuous triumph on the question of the name of the subordinate body, but I feel she might gain the reputation for perhaps being a little unchivalrous to the Government if she pressed this matter on this Amendment. I hope she does not feel too strongly about what I am saying.
A noble Lord: Somebody might even call her "the Godmother".
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: That I do not think she would wish to be, though I can imagine no better Godmother either for anything or anybody than my noble friend Lady Vickers. But I am very anxious not to appear to be ungenerous to the Government simply because I am opposed to them on a variety of different issues on this piece of legislation. I hope, therefore, that even if she does not wholly agree with what I am saying—and she very likely will not—my noble friend will feel there is a certain grey area in which discretion takes the better part of valour. I do not feel that any principle is involved and I rather hope that she will not press this to a Division.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I was beginning to regret that I had admitted appearing before you in a white sheet, but I know your Lordships will accept what I am going to say now. I made some notes while certain things were happening—not while the noble and learned Lord was speaking—so what I am saying I intended to say before the noble and learned Lord spoke. I do not want to go over what the noble and learned Lord said. It is perfectly true that this Amendment went through because it was considered to be a consequential Amendment. My recollection is that there was no discussion about it at all. All I have got up to say, however, is that it was my

273
intention to say to the noble Baroness, whom I have known for a good many years, too, that no discourtesy was intended. If I was discourteous in not sending her a note—on reflection I wish I had done so, but there are only a few of us on this Front Bench and we are working at tremendous pressure; we may not be doing it very well, nevertheless we are working and there is a good deal of correspondence which had to be sent to members arising out of the Committee stage—I want to say quite frankly that I did not intend any discourtesy and I should like to apologise to her.
6.2 p.m.
Schedule 1 [The Community Relations Commission]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 55, 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 subparagraph 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
274
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 noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 32. This Amendment will make it possible for an employee of the Community Relations Commission to continue his present pension arrangements when he is employed by the new Commission. Schedule 1 to the Bill provides that staff of the new Commission shall be treated as civil servants for pension purposes. Staff of the Race Relations Board are similarly treated now, and when they join the new Commission their membership of the principal civil service pension scheme will continue. Normally staff with other pension arrangements joining the new Commission for employment would be expected to transfer or freeze their existing rights and join the civil service scheme. In some cases this might mean less advantageous terms, and since the Government's intention is that any offer to existing staff of employment in the new Commission should be on terms which, taken as a whole, are not less favourable than the terms of their existing employment, we have considered it right to make available this option. I beg to move Amendment No. 32.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, we certainly agree that this is a sensible addition to the provisions already made in Schedule 1.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 56, line 3, leave out ("or 8") and insert (", 8 or 9A").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is purely a drafting Amendment and it is consequential upon Amendment No. 32 which your Lordships have just passed. I beg to move.

SEXUAL OFFENCES (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
6.5 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill): My Lords, I

275
beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on Recommitment on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee on Recommitment.—(Lord Kirkhill.)
Lord SIMON of GLAISDALE: My Lords, before your Lordships' voices are collected on that question, may I say a word as Chairman of the Joint Select Committee on Consolidation Bills. There is one matter relating to this Bill that ought to be drawn to the attention of your Lordships. Your Lordships know that there is universal pressure nowadays to press on with the process of consolidation as an assistance to the rule of law so that persons can find their way about the Statute Book more easily than they do at present.
The essence of the procedure is that the House of Commons by its Standing Orders forgoes discussion on the merits of the measure—I say that because I view the presence here of my noble friend Lord Boothby with some alarm—and refer the Consolidation Bill, after a formal Second Reading, to a Joint Committee of both Houses who go through the Bill line by line primarily to ensure that it does not alter, in so far as it is pure consolidation, the enacted law as pre-existing. If the Committee have done their job properly there ought to be very little call for amendment of a Bill as reported. There are some exceptions to that. Occasionally the Committee suggest a possible improvement to the form of the Bill and leave it to the draftsmen to consider how that should be done and to propose the necessary Amendment at recommittal stage in order to avoid the dangers of instant drafting in Committee. All of the Amendments which are on the Marshalled List, except one, as to which I shall, if I may, say something shortly when we reach it, fall into that category. They are all purely drafting Amendments arising out of suggestions made by the Committee.
There is, however, one matter that I should draw to the attention of your Lordships. If noble Lords will look at the Bill they will see that it is shown, as reported by the Joint Committee, with Clause 4 consisting of two subsections and
276
a Clause 5 and a Clause 6. That was a mistake. The Bill as reported by the Committee consisted of three subsections in Clause 4. The Committee has amended Clause 4(2), and what is now Clause 5 was Clause 4(3). The Committee added a new clause after Clause 4 but that now appears as Clause 6. The draftsman divided Clause 4 into two parts. I do not think he is really to be greatly blamed for that. It is undoubtedly an improvement in the Bill and I do not doubt at all that if the Committee had been asked to accede to that it would have done so.
On the other hand, I think it should be clearly established that it is only by order of one of the Houses of Parliament, or its appropriate committee or joint committee, that a clause in a Bill can be severed. The reason for that is that the severance may affect the interpretation of the measure and the question is now, what should be done about that? By a misfortune the letter which the draftsman wrote to me about the Amendment which he wished to make at this stage miscarried, so that I did not see the Bill as it had been wrongly printed until the Amendments proposed were already on the Marshalled List. If your Lordships chose to be sticklers, I do not doubt that you would be fully entitled to send the Bill back for reprinting; but that would be an extremely expensive course and I think it would mean that the Bill would be lost to this Session, and it is in fact the only Scottish consolidation measure of this Session.
So my respectful advice to your Lordships is to make clear that this is not a precedent and to accept the Bill as it is printed. I have tried to seek what advice I can on that matter. I know that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack agrees with that. The noble Lord, Lord Janner, intended to be present but this business has come on rather earlier than he expected. He is the longest serving Member of the Committee, taking his service from both Houses into account. I know that he approves. I have been able to consult the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and he approves. I have also managed to consult the longest serving member on the Committee who is at present in the House of Commons, and he approves. So I hope your Lordships will agree that that is the right course to take.
6.13 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, may I from this position say that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, mentioned this matter to me at an earlier stage. He has applied his highly expert mind to this matter and is of the opinion that the House would be well advised to proceed, in spite of a certain procedural defect. I entirely agree with him, and I hope we may now proceed to the Committee stage of this Bill.
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, I rise to say that I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and that he need feel no cause for alarm so far as I am concerned. I wanted to move an Amendment to Clause 7 but I was advised that it would be out of order in a consolidation Bill. I accepted that advice, much against my will, and did not move any Amendment, and do not propose to do so. All I would ask the noble Lord who is to reply is that before we pass this Bill he should give me an assurance that the Government will give serious consideration, or at least take note of the Question which I put to your Lordships' House on 8th October, 1976, and in particular to the two subsequent questions put by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, who as a former Lord Advocate commands great authority in your Lordships' House.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, before the Minister replies may I say that for my part, and speaking from these Benches, I see no objection to the procedure proposed. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has explained how it has come to pass that a clause has been split, and certainly I would not be in favour of the Bill being rejected at this stage and having to be reprinted. But arising from what the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, has just said, may I ask, not on the substance of the Bill but just as a matter of practice, whether the Government would normally expect a consolidation Bill to include not only all the law as it stands in Scotland at present, which is expected to continue, but also any law which it is expected in the foreseeable or near future might be altered?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I did not intend to intervene at this point at all. I though that as we proceeded through the Amendments the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, might raise the point which he mentioned.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am not sure whether there is going to be any answer to the noble Lord's question.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, if we are drifting into this position I can certainly advise the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that consolidation is often a prelude to reform; but of course the consolidation must precede the reform, and if it facilitates the business of your Lordships' House I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, that the Government have taken careful note of the point he made in his Question last Friday, as indeed they have of the points additionally made by other noble Lords.
House in Committee on Recommitment accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Procuring]:
6.18 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 6, leave out from ("any") to ("to") and insert ("woman under 21 years of age or girl").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment which arises out of the examination of the Bill by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. It brings the wording of paragraph (a) of Clause 1 into line with the wording of paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of the clause. I beg to move.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Intercourse with girl between 13 and 16]:
6.19 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 40, leave out from ("1885") to ("with") in line 41 and insert—
("(the provisions replaced for Scotland by subsection (1) above and section 10(1) of this Act); or
(iii) section 6 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (the provision for England and Wales corresponding to subsection (1) above), or").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment arising out of the examination of the Bill by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. It makes it clear that Sections 5 and 6 of the 1885 Act arc replaced by Clause 4(1) and Clause 10(1) of the Bill, and that Section 6 of the 1956 Act is the provision for England and Wales equivalent to Clause 4(1). I beg to move.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Abduction of girl under 18 with intent to have sexual intercourse]:
6.20 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 30, leave out ("if it shall be made to appear to the court or jury").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment arises from a suggestion made after the Joint Committee hearing.
It brings the statement of the defence of reasonable cause to believe that a girl was of a certain age into line with the form in which similar defences under Clauses 4, 6 and 10 are already set out. I am advised that this Amendment does not make any change in the law since the defence in question cannot be upheld unless it appears to the court or jury that, on a balance of probability, the defence has been made out. The onus of proving the substantive charge nevertheless remains on the Crown.
Lord SIMON of GLAISDALE: This Amendment as proposed by the Government arises out of a suggestion I made to the draftsman, but I omitted to make in Committee, that he should reconsider these words. The words as printed in the Bill do no more than reproduce the existing law, but once that provision is consolidated, the terminology appears in odd contrast with Clauses 4, 6 and 10,
280
and I think will raise a question as to whether the difference in terminology was intentional, and might affect the onus of proof. On thinking it over, the draftsman thought the words that are proposed to be left out are unnecessary. I venture to agree with him, and, therefore, I would support the Amendment.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Permitting girl to use premises for intercourse]:
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 4, line 36, after ("1885") insert ("(the provisions replaced for Scotland by section 4(1) of this Act and subsection (1) above)").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 4. This also arises from the examination of the Bill by the Joint Committee. The words to be added make it clear that Sections 5 and 6 of the 1885 Act are replaced by Clause 4(1) and Clause 10(1).
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 11 and 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Proceedings against brothel keeper, etc.]:
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 6, line 41, leave out from ("1885") to ("any") in line 42 and insert ("(the provision replaced for Scotland by subsection (1) above) or under sections 33, 34, 35 or 36 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (the corresponding provisions for England and Wales) as well as").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 5. This Amendment, like most of the others, arises from the examination of the Bill by the Joint Committee. It makes it clear that Section 13 of the 1885 Act is replaced by Clause 13(1), and that the Sections of the 1956 Act referred to are the corresponding provisions for England and Wales.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses and the Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFITS BILL [H.L.]
6.25 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR rose to move, That the Bill be re-committed to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I should explain briefly to your Lordships the reasons why I propose this small departure from the normal procedure for Consolidation Bills. Your Lordships' House gave this Bill a Second Reading on 17th May, and it was referred to the Joint Committee in the usual way. The Joint Committee considered the Bill on 19th May. Shortly after that—indeed, a week later—the Supplementary Benefit (Amendment) Bill was introduced in another place. It has completed all its stages there and is now awaiting Second Reading in this House. If that Bill becomes law, it will necessitate a large number of consequential Amendments to the Bill which we are now considering.
Since we depend so heavily on the scrutiny, expertise and advice of the Joint Committee as to whether a Consolidation Bill truly represents the existing law, and in view of the very large number of changes now required, having regard to the Supplementary Benefit (Amendment) Bill which I have mentioned, I think that it is right to propose that the Bill should be referred back to the Joint Committee where these matters can be considered in detail with the draftsman. My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, was kind enough to intimate to me privately earlier today that he approved of what I proposed. I am greatly strengthened by that expert advice and approval. Accordingly, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be re-committed to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord SIMON of GLAISDALE: My Lords, I venture to think that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has taken entirely the right course. As this matter originally appeared on the Order Paper, it involved no fewer than 67 Amendments, which must be quite unprecedented on a Recommittal stage after consideration by the Joint Committee. Some of those Amendments, though extensive in number, were within the sort of quality of Amendment which can properly and desirably be made at this stage; but some arose out of the Bill mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, which has not even yet had a Second Reading in your Lordships' House, and was not, indeed, introduced into Parliament until after the Joint Committee had considered the consolidation Bill. It involves a substantial rewriting of a very difficult Schedule. I am sure that the second thoughts of the noble and learned Lord are better, and that the matter ought to be considered by the Joint Committee. We will do our best to deal with the consolidation Bill and pass it into law this Session, although it will be rather a tight schedule.
My Lords, perhaps I might venture to draw two lessons from what has happened. The first is that it ought to be quite exceptional that there is any attempt at consolidating a measure that is currently before Parliament. When it is done, very careful attention should be paid to the order of introduction of the current measure altering the law, and the consolidation measure. The second is that what has happened on this Bill is another example of the ills we suffer when we attempt to over-legislate.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity of supporting what the noble and learned Lord has said. In our experience in the courts of the proceedings relating to consolidation—and f have had the privilege of being a member of that Committee for very many years under the excellent chairmanship of many people, not least of whom was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale—we have endeavoured to carry out the functions which have been placed in our hands, to consolidate measures which have already been passed, and not to interfere with legislation that is already on the Statute Book. Certain exceptions are allowed but they are very small in

283
extent. We are particularly anxious that we should not overstep the duties that are placed upon us, to consolidate what is in fact the law of the land. As my noble and learned friend (I hope I may call him) Lord Simon said, the Amendments proposed here, putting it mildly, go far beyond anything that a Committee like ours could be expected, dare I say, to tolerate. I hope that in future note will be taken of this. We are restricted to our particular duty, which is to consolidate Acts and not to participate in amending legislation.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, from this side of the House I should like to welcome what the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, has said, and echo the thoughts of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I think it is very clear, looking at the Bill before us, that the Schedules, taken together with the tables of derivations, amount to no fewer than 40 pages. In an area where legislation is comparatively recent—when I say "comparatively recent" I mean it is over the last 25 or 30 years—this is an astonishing amount of legislation. If we look at Schedule I, we see that the over-complication is such that no other course could possibly be taken than to follow the advice of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. The proposals made in the Amendments are to place certain limits on the benefits, and to seek that the powers given to the Secretary of State are necessary, and in the circumstances they could be taken to be desirable. I believe that what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said is the predicament in which we find ourselves, and I hope it will not be repeated again another year.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am very grateful for the response given to the Motion which I have moved, if only because I have been spared the pleasure of steering 66 Amendments on Consolidation through Committee. I take note of the cautionary note which has been struck, but I hope that it will not discourage the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, from soldiering on with the task of consolidation. I do not know that that comes into the category of over-legislating to which the House normally refers. Consolidation renders a
284
very great service to the state of the law itself and the users of the law. So I hope this experience will not in any way discourage the excellent work that is done by the noble and learned Lord and by his Committee, with such distinction. I agree, of course, that the purpose of consolidation is to state the law. On the other hand, we have recently had experience, on the basis of some precedens, of using consolidation to deal modestly with a bit of spent law as well. I do not regard that as a dangerous innovation. I hope, therefore, salutary as this experience has been, that it will not in any way discourage further progress towards consolidation.

PARLIAMENTARY AND OTHER PENSIONS AND SALARIES BILL
Message from the Commons to acquaint this House that, in pursuance of the Parliament Act 1911, they have directed that the provisions of Section 1(1) of that Act shall not apply to the Parliamentary and Other Pensions and Salaries Bill.

ROYAL ASSENT
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:

Stock Exchange (Completion of Bargains) Act 1976,

Pamentary and other Pensions and Salaries Act 1976,

Great Northern London Cemetery Act 1976,

Greater London Council (Money) Act 1976.

ROYAL COUNTY OF BERKSHIRE (PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENT) PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the whole House.