Lords Sitting of 14 July 1980

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

MONEY SUPPLY AND PRODUCTION ASSUMPTIONS
Lord BESWICK: 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 assumptions about national production were made when deciding money supply targets for the current year.
The MINISTER of STATE, TREASURY (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, the present money supply target range was announced in the Budget speech on 26th March. Forecasts of output were published on the same day in the Financial Statement and Budget Report.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Even if we accept the proposition of Her Majesty's present Government that we can meaningfully measure the supply of money, if the policy adopted to restrain money supply also has the effect of reducing the production of goods, are we not left with a situation where less money is chasing even fewer goods and therefore we are not advancing the fight against inflation?
Lord COCKFIELD: No, my Lords, the fall in output is due to three main factors. First, the world recession which affects everybody as well as ourselves. Secondly, the long-term declining trend in productivity in this country; and, thirdly, the failure of wage bargainers to respond to the tighter monetary conditions. I have repeatedly made clear in speeches in your Lordships' House that the effects of excessive wage settlements will be a loss of output and a loss of jobs.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, in making their assumptions, did Her Majesty's Government take the view that our competitive edge is blunted as much by outmoded restrictive practices and failures to meet delivery times as by the high pound and rising wage costs?
Lord COCKFIELD: Yes, my Lords; that is a point of great importance—we shall only get a higher standard of living if we earn it through a higher level of output. We can get a higher level of output only if we improve our level of productivity, and that means the removing of restrictive practices and excessive manning levels.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, will the noble Lord also tell his noble friend that a much more important influence as regards getting productivity up is to improve the utilisation of equipment, and that if the noble Lord really thinks that the action taken by Her Majesty's Government in reducing money supply in this country is not affecting manufacturing industry, then he really is not looking at the world outside?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, of course we need to improve the effective use of capital equipment, and that is why the point made by my noble friend is so important; namely, that we should improve on restrictive practices and remove excessive manning. As regards the remainder of the noble Lord's supplementary question, the vital thing is to reduce and ultimately to eliminate inflation, and that is the only way in which we and other countries will succeed in resuming a path of growth.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, does that answer mean that the noble Lord subscribes to the thesis that high rates of interest are good for investment?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, high rates of interest are an essential part of a strategy to reduce the level of inflation and, when we reduce the level of inflation, that will give us stimulus to profitable investment.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, can the Minister tell us to what extent his Government's policy has resulted in the reduction of inflation during their first 12 months of office?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, in the course of the next few months we shall see a substantial improvement so far as inflation is concerned.

LOW PAY IN NORTHERN IRELAND
2.41 p.m.
Lord BLEASE: 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 any statement to make arising from the report Low Pay in Northern Ireland on 30th June by the Low Pay Unit.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Elton): My Lords, the question of pay levels in Northern Ireland raises a number of difficult and complex issues, and the contribution to the problem by the pamphlet Low Pay in Northern Ireland produced by the Low Pay Unit is currently being studied.
Lord BLEASE: My Lords, while I thank the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that the Low pay Unit pamphlet recommends a number of matters that the Government could usefully implement to help those caught in the poverty trap and the low pay bracket? Is he aware that one-third of full-time workers in Northern Ireland are paid less than the recognised living wage and that, compared with the United Kingdom, six times as many families in Northern Ireland rely on family income supplement?
Even within the statutory social security payments scheme, could the Government not undertake some way of helping and alleviating the problem? Has the noble Lord given attention to at least one form of assistance?—namely, the suggestion in the pamphlet that a single client—orientated form might be more usefully implemented than the various departmental schemes whereby a person seeking social security or welfare benefits has continually to pursue various offices.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I regret that I cannot retain all the questions which the noble Lord, Lord Blease, asked me.
Several noble Lords: Why not?
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I think there were seven questions. The principal one, with which the noble Lord concluded, was on the question of the simplification of forms, which is something with which I sympathise. Simplification and integration of benefits is a worthy goal, but as the supplementary benefits review and various studies on housing benefits have indicated, cost is likely to be a determining factor. Nevertheless, the Government will keep this aspect under review.
The noble Lord also raised a number of points about the relative incidence of poverty in the Province and in Great Britain, and made a comparison between the two areas as regards low pay. Earnings in some industries are higher than in others. Average earnings in an area such as the Province, therefore, will be dependent on the area's occupational mix within industries. As an example, higher paid executives normally work in centralised head offices rather than regionalised branch offices. In Northern Ireland, with its preponderance of low-paying industries—such as, agriculture, construction, clothing and footwear—and its lack of large head offices, average earnings can be expected to be lower than those in Great Britain. The lower level of earnings does not necessarily mean that a lower rate is being paid for an equivalent job.
Lord BLEASE: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that to cite that there are persons with higher earnings in Northern Ireland does not really touch the problem that I have raised? The problem is that there are six times as many people in Northern Ireland as there are in Great Britain who are caught in the poverty trap. Will the noble Lord not agree that there are ways in which the Government could alleviate the position—particularly in relation to school meals and school uniforms—of persons who are caught in this trap as regards the cutoff rate and the incomes of which they are in receipt?
Lord ELTON: My Lords, yes, there is a difference in the aggregate between the Province and Great Britain. This is also reflected by the higher volume of payments of assistance in family income supplement and supplementary benefits. Therefore, the Government are aware of this, and the machinery takes account of it. As regards school meals and school uniforms, I would ask the noble Lord to bear in mind that the free school meals and the uniform allowance will continue to be available to all those families in receipt of supplementary benefit and family income supplement. Therefore, account is taken of the poorest sector of the community. Will the noble Lord further remember that there will be an increase in the family income supplement scales in November?

POLARIS: FUTURE MEASURES
2.46 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have decided on the measures to be taken when the Polaris submarines become obsolescent.
The MINISTER of STATE, MINISTRY of DEFENCE (Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal): My Lords, as we have already made clear, a decision will be announced just as soon as it is possible to do so.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, will the Government very carefully consider the replacement of Polaris by Trident, which, optimistically, would cost £5,000 million, for two reasons? First, is it not likely that in the next few years an agreement will be reached as the result of the visit of the West German Chancellor to Moscow and the discussions at Geneva regarding missiles? Secondly, will not a general election take place before the replacement could occur, with the probability that we shall have a Labour Government which, I emphasise, are united in favour of not replacing Polaris? This is not only the decision of the recent Labour conference, by a
1534
majority of 5,000, but is stated in the pamphlet published today by Mr. William Rodgers, which declares against a replacement of Polaris.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I think that perhaps the House is capable of judging better than I am how united the Opposition is on this issue. As to the care with which this decision is being taken, I can assure the noble Lord that it is being studied with the greatest possible care, because I would not demur from the facts that he adduces regarding the magnitude of the decision that we face.
As regards the question of its becoming redundant by virtue of an agreement, which was implicit in the second part of his question, we believe that the best chance of getting an agreement is to be in a posture where we can argue from a position of relative strength. To be forced to argue from a position of unilateral disarmament we believe greatly diminishes the chance of achieving an agreement.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, why cannot the Government consider consulting Parliament on the basis of a Green Paper, clearly setting out the various options, before reaching a conclusion on this extremely important matter?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, my right honourable friend in another place has said many times that he intends to publish a comprehensive document as soon as the Government's decision is announced.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, will the Minister further confirm that both Houses have been assured that when the decision is made there will be an opportunity for discussing that decision, possibly in a full-scale debate? Adverting to his former Answer, will the Minister confirm that, even though the decision may be imminent, nevertheless that does not affect the possibility of continuing discussions with whoever is interested, with a view to negotiating a better disarmament or arms control situation in this field than at present seems to be possible? That is to say, will he confirm that the announcement of the decision will not preclude the possibility of further negotiation?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, the matter of a debate would be a subject to be discussed with the usual channels. So far as I am concerned I would welcome the opportunity to discuss the matter once the decision has been announced. I agree with the noble Lord that the announcement of a decision does not in any way preclude the possibilities of continuing to discuss. Of course one of the difficulties about this type of decision is that the whole thing takes such a long time between the moment of decision and the moment of arrival of the hardware.

NUCLEAR TEST BAN TREATY: GENEVA TALKS
2.51 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made in the tenth round of talks at Geneva on a comprehensive nuclear weapons test ban treaty.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the final plenary meeting of the tenth round took place on 1st April. Progress was made on provisions for verifying an eventual treaty. The eleventh round began on 16th June.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, is it not the case that these discussions have now been taking place for three years? Is there not a more immediate danger even than war? Is there not evidence that these underground tests had some responsibility for the disastrous volcanic eruptions in America and in the Balkans? May I ask whether, in the case of verification, it might be possible to have unaligned observers in order to prevent any agreement from being disrupted?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I do not think it is proven that underground explosions have caused the volcanic eruptions to which the noble Lord refers. As for criticism about the time taken for a conclusion of these negotiations, I should say that the issues are complex and indeed vital to the
1536
security of the United Kingdom and the other negotiating partners. The negotiators are currently working on a full report for the Committee on Disarmament. We hope that this will be ready soon and will be available indeed before the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in August.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I agree of course that the Geneva discussions, necessarily technical and protracted as they must be, will take some more time before we may expect results in this field. Nevertheless, may I put a question to the Minister and hope that he will take it up with his right honourable friend? Could he suggest that there might be made a definitive statement of the progress already made in the INFCE discussions—I hope that the House will not expect me to elucidate that particular acronym; it would take the scope of a full supplementary question to do so—in which we are, I think, co-chairmen with the Japanese on this aspect of nuclear arms control, though my memory does not serve me very well on this? These discussions address themselves not only to the question of proliferation, which is the great danger today, but also to the point raised by my noble friend, which cannot be brushed aside as being fanciful; namely, the interference of certain underground tests with the environment and even with climatic conditions.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I certainly do not say that the suggestions of the noble Lord are fanciful. I simply say that they are, for the moment, not proven, although perhaps they will be one day. As for the connection between these negotiations and non-proliferation generally, I can say that we hope that a test ban will be supported by most states, both nuclear and non-nuclear, and that it will he recognised as a genuine measure of self-restraint on the part of nuclear weapon states by those who, among the developing nations, argue that the nonproliferation treaty discriminates in the nuclear weapons states' favour.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, would the noble Lord ask his right honourable friend to consider a definitive statement on the progress in the discussions which I mentioned, INFCE, on proliferation? No doubt he is aware that

1537
one of the conditions that promotes proliferation is the sluggishness of the nuclear powers as regard sharing nuclear knowledge for civilian purposes with the non-nuclear powers. The whole thing is bound together.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I shall certainly consider whether a further statement could be made as the noble Lord suggests, but of course the forthcoming review conference, to which I referred, will doubtless issue a communiqué or report when it ends.

BRITISH RAIL: FUTURE OF SUBSIDIARIES
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton will repeat, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, a Statement that is to be made in another place on the future of British Rail subsidiaries.

FILMS BILL
2.56 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Films Bill be now read a third time. This Bill has been described as a "modest Bill". Indeed, I have used the phrase myself. Moreover, it has been said that the several extensions of powers which it contains—including the provisions for the National Film Finance Corporation—all of which are limited to five years, are too short. But the Government do not feel that this is a valid criticism of the Bill.
Indeed if we were now claiming that we had settled all the problems of the British film industry—at a time when technological advances are obscuring the future—and moreover that we proposed to enshrine our solutions in legislation for say 10 or 20 years, then indeed we might justifiably be accused of complacency, or of a desire to evade difficult decisions. What we have chosen to do in this Bill is to deal in the limited legislative time available with matters of the first priority.
We propose to extend the life of the levy, which is a proven inducement to film-making in this country, and which
1538
would otherwise expire in September of this year. This deadline, incidentally, is in itself a restriction on our considering more far-reaching matters at this moment. Similarly, we propose to renew the film quota system, which would otherwise expire at the end of this year. We propose to give the National Film Finance Corporation a new lease of life—to write off its debts—and to ensure to it a guaranteed annual income for the next five years.
What happens after the five years have expired? As my honourable friend Mr. Tebbit and I have both explained, this Bill deliberately does not attempt to look further ahead than five years. The film industry is an energetic, thrusting, inventive and constantly evolving one—perhaps an example to others—and we cannot tell what developments there will have been by 1985, nor indeed what our responses to them will need to be. It is because all the implications of these developments are not yet clear that the Government have chosen to deal primarily with matters of urgency to the film industry in this Bill and to limit the time extensions it contains to five years. Before then your Lordships will have to consider various aspects of film policy once more, by which time we should be able to see our way more clearly than is possible today.
I have mentioned the main matters of urgency with which the Bill deals. This Bill does not deal with two matters about which your Lordships have expressed—if I may say so, very properly expressed—interest or concern. A matter of interest to us all is the proposal for a British Film Authority. We have not yet come to a decision on this matter. The formation of such an authority on the lines proposed would involve what are at present the responsibilities of several Government departments, and would thus require complex legislation. The method by which such an authority would be adequately financed is far from clear. It is certain therefore that more examination and consideration of this proposal is required—and this is in hand.
Concern has been voiced at the problems posed—and the potential benefits offered —by the development of such technologies as those of video discs and tapes; satellite

1539
transmissions and cable distribution; and the resultant impact of these on the cinema and television film industry and on copyright interests. The Government departments whose responsibilities are involved are now consulting the industry and considering what action may be required.
This Bill, then, is something of a holding measure. It deals mainly with matters of great concern to the British film industry—matters which cannot wait upon developing events. I am grateful to your Lordships for endorsing its modest but necessary provisions. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a— (Lord Trefgarne.)
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his remarks. We on this side have not tabled any amendments to the Bill on the assurance of the noble Lord, which he has repeated, that this is an interim measure, that the Government do not regard it as something which will deal with the film industry for the next 20 years, that they are fully aware that there are very serious problems concerning the film industry, and that this country needs, and above all has the talent for, a good film industry but at the moment the money is lacking. How to produce that in anything as speculative as the film business is a problem; and I, not having the answer, am not able to criticise the Government for wanting to look at the matter further.
I would make only one comment about a British film authority. If, in the end, the Government decided there should be such an authority, I am anxious that the British Film Institute, which deals with the film as an art as opposed to the film as something commercial, should be at any rate not totally absorbed into any new organisation. With those few words, we think the Bill is necessary and we are happy to see it enacted.
On Question, Bill read 3a and passed.

EMPLOYMENT BILL
3.2 p.m.
Read 3a, with the amendments.
Clause 16 [Picketing]
Lord RENTON Lord RENTON moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 20, line 38, leave out ("in section 13 of the 1974 Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the first of a group of drafting amendments standing in my name and I suggest they all be discussed together. I have received from my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor a characteristically courteous note explaining that he has a statutory duty to perform this afternoon, so that the reply to my amendments will come from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. But as the Lord Chancellor is a good rifleman, I suggest to him that if he were able to stay and hear what I have to say, he might think that I had scored five bullseyes, four inners and failed to reload for the tenth round, as may be seen as I develop my theme.
None of these amendments is designed to alter the policy underlying the Bill or its legal effect; they are designed to simplify the drafting of Clause 17, which has caused great problems of understanding in both Houses and among both branches of the legal profession, and among others too. The misunderstanding has been caused mainly, although not entirely, because the drafting of Clause 17 relates back to and hinges upon Section 13 of the 1974 Act, and that itself was amended by Section 3(2) of the 1976 Act.
The ultimate users of Clause 17 will be trade union officials and managers of companies large and small, and it would be of great service to them as well as to lawyers, including judges, if it were not only made more easily understandable but if the essentials of the law relating to secondary action were gathered together in one clause, and that is what I have attempted to do.
It has been largely a scissors and paste job, but to the minor extent that redrafting was necessary, I have retained the present wording so far as possible, and when I say the present wording, I mean the present wording not only of Clause 17 but of the 1974 and 1976 Acts. The important thing it seemed to me was to get rid of subsection (1) of Section 13 of the 1974 Act which has, anyway, largely ceased to represent Government policy; and if that is so, it does not seem

1541
wise to keep it. It can only be confusing to do so. By common consent, subsections (2) and (4) of Section 13 of the 1974 Act are to be retained, so they would become subsections (9) and (10) of Clause 17 if my Amendment No. 2 were accepted.
However, Section 13 of the 1974 Act is also mentioned in two other clauses in the Bill—Clauses 16(2) and 18(1)—so I have had to amend them by omitting the references in them to Section 13. That has been done by its simple omission from Clause 16(2), as will be seen by my Amendment No. 1, which I am now moving; and by slightly redrafting the first part of Clause 18(1), and the result will be seen in my Amendment No. 3.
In a new subsection (8) of Clause 17, in my Amendment No. 2, I have inserted the existing definition of "associated employer" so that it can be seen in Clause 17, as it would be redrafted, without having to turn to Section 30(5) of the 1974 Act. I have not proposed the repeal of that subsection because it might be needed for other purposes, although a scrutiny of the 1974 Act did not enable me to see why it should be retained. However, if it is not necessary to retain it, it could easily be deleted from the 1974 Act in the repealing schedule of this Bill in another place where, as many of us in your Lordships' House know from experience, purely drafting amendments consequential to Lords amendments are in order and are frequently made. But if it is not deleted, no harm will have been done by a brief repetition of the kind which would occur because brief repetition is sometimes done for the benefit of ultimate users.
I confess to an omission from my drafting, and this accounts for my reference to my failing to reload for the tenth round, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Gowrie for pointing it out to me. In my zeal to deal with Clause 17 as drafted and to get its secondary action provisions right, I failed to observe a hidden minefield, although not the type of hidden minefield to which the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, has from time to time referred during the earlier stages of the Bill. I failed to ensure that immunity was preserved against an employer who is a party to a dispute in relation to primary action. I am sorry
1542
about this, my Lords, but I suggest that the omission need not be fatal, since, again, it is a drafting consequence of the repeal of Section 13(1) of the 1974 Act, and so it could easily be put right in another place by means of a consequential amendment to a Lords amendment.
Although I am not without a great deal of experience of legislation over the past 35 years in various capacities, I am not a member of what the Lord Chancellor a little while ago referred to as "the sacred priesthood" of parliamentary draftsmen, whom we all admire but do not envy. So I cannot claim that my amendments are perfect. I certainly do not do so, but I suggest that they are helpful. They are a genuine attempt to help the ultimate users, whose interests we should constantly have in mind. Therefore, I trust that the Government will accept these amendments in the spirit in which they are put forward and will agree to table in another place any necessary corrections or consequential amendments. Finally, I must stress that this is the only hope of overcoming the drafting difficulties which have already been so widely experienced by so many people in attempting to understand Clause 17. I beg to move.
3.12 p.m.
The Lord ADVOCATE (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, it would be convenient if I were to speak to the later amendments besides dealing with Amendment No. 1, as my noble friend Lord Renton has done. The Government are extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton for taking such trouble with the consideration of the drafting of these provisions. The drafting has not been at all easy. Perhaps I should take the opportunity to clarify a point mentioned by my noble friend Lord Gowrie in relation to the drafting when this clause was considered on Report. He said, as reported at column 1081 of the Official Report of 8th July:
"I would just say in the draftsmen's defence that after six months' hard work no one has been able to suggest a better way…".
That was rather taken up as suggesting that the draftsman had six months in which to prepare his draft, but of course what my noble friend was referring to was the period of six months that had elapsed since the McShane judgment, and he was pointing out that up until that time—that

1543
was before my noble friend Lord Renton came forward with his proposals—no one had been able to put forward a better draft to embody the policy proposals, in particular those in Clause 17.
Our view of the matter is that the policy requirements are such that the drafting is necessarily somewhat complicated. During the debate on Report some reference was made to a letter about this matter, written by Sir John Stebbings in his private capacity, although he was then President of the Law Society. It might be of help in this connection if I quote a reply sent to Sir John on 4th July by my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General. A copy of the letter has gone to the chairman of the Bar Council. I quote part of that letter:
"I am aware that the clause"—
he is referring to Clause 17—
"is very complex, but that is an unavoidable result of giving clear expression to the policy, which cannot be done in simple terms. I have been closely in touch with the draftsman of the clause and you should know that we have tried to simplify it; but in each case it has become clear that there would be side effects which are inconsistent with the intent; and this has led us to conclude that the work of the draftsman cannot be improved upon within the limits set by the policy.
"Having said this, I accept that the clause will not yield a clear and predictable conclusion on every set of facts. The circumstances which arise in trade disputes are many and varied and there are bound to be the odd marginal cases where it will not be obvious whether or not there is immunity. There may be litigation and appeals on difficult points, but that is not a justifiable criticism of the clause; it will be the result of the interaction of a necessarily complex clause with complex facts. I am satisfied that there is no way of avoiding this within the terms of the policy".
My noble friend Lord Renton has attacked this difficult problem with his usual care and as a result has presented these amendments, and I only wish that we could feel that they make the clause easier to understand, but I am sorry to say that, as a result of careful consideration of the draft, we have reached a contrary conclusion. I say that in no spirit of criticism. I am very well aware of the difficulties, and I wish briefly to say a few words about the difficulties which seem to us to persist in the amendments of my noble friend.
The starting point of our drafting in relation to both Clause 17 and the other
1544
clauses in this Part of the Bill is Section 13 of the 1974 Act, as amended. The approach of my noble friend Lord Renton is to try to dispense with that and to put into this clause what he takes as the substance of that provision. But the difficulty about that is that one does not have an introduction to these provisions which Section 13 gives. I should like to ask your Lordships to look with me briefly at my noble friend's proposal in relation to Clause 17—that is, Amendment No. 2. Without any reference to Section 13, the proposed amendment refers to,
"An act done by a person in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute"—
as—
"actionable in tort only when it consists of secondary action as set out in subsection (2) below and occurs in any case where—
(a) the contract concerned is not a contract of employment".
Up to that point in the provision there is no reference to any contract concerned, and therefore one would expect to look forward to subsection (2) to discover what that contract concerned is. However subsection (2) of the clause refers to a contract which is a contract of employment. Accordingly, if one does not have the benefit of starting with Section 13, it is extremely difficult to see how there can be a contract concerned which is not a contract of employment in the context of subsection (2). So if one removes Section 13 from the introduction to this proposal, there is very little left in the way of a signpost pointing to the contract which is in question.
The next point that arises on my noble friend's drafting is that it is not clear whether the clause is concerned with the torts of interference with contracts, as in Section 13(1), or whether it goes wider to cover other torts, such as nuisance, trespass, or even defamation, for which, of course, there has never been any immunity, either under the 1906 Act or under Section 13 of the 1974 Act. If one reads the amendments that are proposed by my noble friend, I think it is at least eminently arguable that any act, whether actionable in relation to inducing breach of contract or otherwise, is covered by the clause; and this, I think contrary to the intention which my noble friend has in relation to this clause, would open up a very large area of immunity which did not exist before. On the other hand, I think

1545
it is also eminently arguable that the effect of my noble friend's amendment would be to leave very doubtful whether there is immunity for any tort committed in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute, and this is a matter of very considerable difference in policy from that which is attempted to be followed.
As I understood my noble friend, he accepted that there was some difficulty on this score and suggested that it could be corrected by a clause which would have the effect of preventing the employer in dispute from suing. I doubt very much whether that of itself would be sufficient because, of course, the important question is whether action lies on it, not who it is that can take that action. So if the act is actionable at all, it does not have the benefit of immunity. It looks as though the amendments which my noble friend proposes would have the effect, once Section 13(1) has gone, of restoring the common law position, and it is for that reason, of course, that some parts of Section 13 are reinstated.
The third difficulty is one which, in a sense, is evident from the fact that my noble friend has tabled amendments to Clauses 16 and 18. The repeal of Section 13 of the 1974 Act would affect more than just Clause 17 of the Bill. This is because Clause 17 and Clause 18, and to a lesser extent Clause 16, all take Section 13 as their starting point and have a common structure based on it. For similar reasons, it would also be necessary to amend Section 17 of the 1974 Act, which is not dealt with in my noble friend's amendment. That is the section restricting the right of the court to grant an interim order in such a dispute. In short, if Section 13 were repealed all these provisions would need to be substantially redrafted.
Perhaps I should add that we also believe (but I need not go into this in detail) that the amendments in relation to Clauses 16 and 18 are defective in themselves. Perhaps I could content myself with one example. Let me take the example of picketing. My noble friend's amendment would remove from Clause 16 of the Bill the reference to Section 13. This would leave the word "nothing" completely unqualified. The effect of this could be the removal of the immunity for trade unions themselves under Section 14 of the 1974 Act in cases
1546
of unlawful picketing. This would of course go well beyond the policy set out in the Bill—the policy which I understand my noble friend is seeking to give effect to by his redrafting.
I mention these matters, not in any spirit of carping criticism (because, as I said at the beginning, I am well aware of the difficulties of satisfactory drafting against the background of this policy) but because it is with great regret that I have to say that, in our view, these amendments do not in fact improve the drafting. While grateful to my noble friend for the care that he has taken with them, I would have to invite him to be good enough to withdraw these amendments.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like very briefly to support my noble friend on this amendment, while accepting what the Government have said. The legal difficulty of Clause 17 is recognised, but the main thing about a Bill is that it should be simple, or reasonably simple, so that people can understand it. I wonder whether the Government could not agree to look at this again, and perhaps leave Section 13 in as it stands but duplicate to some extent the wording of it, so that when Section 17 is read it can be better understood.
Lord RENTON: My Lords, I fear that the opportunity to do what my noble friend Lord Gisborough has just suggested has passed. We are now making Lords' amendments to the Bill, which will go back to the Commons; and in the Commons they can only suggest amendments which are consequential to those which we have made, or which would negative them.
I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for his very abstruse reply. I hope he will forgive me if I say that, so far as I was able to follow what he was saying, I do not accept it all. He points out that in the Bill as drafted the starting point for the drafting of Clause 17 is to be found in subsection (1) of Clause 13 of the 1974 Act. But, as I pointed out when moving this amendment, I think that is a very strange starting point because the Government are abandoning a large part of the policy which underlies Section 13(1), so why keep it? My noble and learned friend's comments about my redrafting of Clause 17(1)—and I will not

1547
weary your Lordships with a detailed attempt to answer them—seemed to overlook the fact that subsection (2) of it, as well as subsections (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7), are being retained. However, although I feel that the Government are making heavy weather of this and I deeply regret that they are sticking to this particular form of very complicated and convoluted drafting, I feel that in the circumstances I have no option but regretfully to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, does the noble Lord move the other amendments?
Lord RENTON: My Lords, my remaining amendments will not be moved.
[Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EMPLOYMENT (The Earl of Gowrie)The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EMPLOYMENT (The Earl of Gowrie) moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 27, line 32, leave out ("(3D)") and insert ("(3E)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this change to paragraph 24 of Schedule 1 is entirely consequential upon an amendment your Lordships accepted at Report stage on 7th July. The House agreed then, as part of Clause 7, to insert a new subsection to Section 58 of the 1978 Act—subsection (3E). The paragraph of the schedule purports to cover all the new subsections to Section 58 introduced by the Bill, and so it should properly now refer to"58 (3) to (3E), 58A". This is what the amendment achieves. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 not moved.]
3.29 p.m.
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass. —(The Earl of Gowrie.)
Lord McCARTHY: My Lords, I am sure that on this Motion the House would want us to congratulate the noble Earl for having reached the end of the road on this Bill, which he has piloted through with his usual combination of urbanity and competence. We on our side of the House would only wish that such competence had been put to better use. To us, this remains a reactionary, an unrealistic and an irrelevant mixture of measures, and the noble Earl would not want us to join him in the restrained jubilation which he will no doubt show. The emotions running through our minds at this time—at least running through mine—really are three: a feeling of frustration, a feeling of despair, and a feeling of foreboding.
The frustration is easy enough to understand. If one has bowled 150 balls without taking a single wicket, one is entitled to feel frustration. If one has been met each time with what we on our side of the House have come to call "Gowrie's fork" then one is entitled to feel frustration. "Gowrie's fork", I should say, has two prongs. The first prong is labelled, "It's there already, so you don't need it; we know what we're doing". The second prong is labelled, "It's not there already; therefore it's not a good thing; therefore we don't intend to accept it". As I say, we have been met with "Gowrie's fork" on 150 or so separate occasions. The most elegant guise in which we met "Gowrie's fork" was in the reply of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in the form of Ronnie Knox's parable of the new sin. It, too, had two forks if it is not new, it is not a new sin; and if it is new, then it is not a sin anyway. So we have been met with Gowrie's fork" throughout, and for that reason we feel a little frustrated.
I would say, however, in reply to the remarks of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who, at the Report stage, likened the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, and I to Don Quixote and Sancho Panza, in the most well-known passage in Cerventes, that this seemed to me a little inapposite. I thought much more of a lesser known work of the same author, the Minds of Algeria, where it is the fate of a group of young men to be captured by brigands and to suffer the torments of the damned, largely because of their total inability to communicate

1549
with their captors. So that is how it has felt for us. Meanwhile, of course, while we have felt frustrated the Bill has got worse—worse in the sense that the only two amendments which the Government have felt themselves able to accept have been the amendments which take out references to trade unions in the definition of a UMA, and which from our point of view make the Bill more difficult from the point of view of trade unions and union security agreements; and the amendment relating to compensation for pressure in relation to non-union sub-contractors, which again, from our point of view, makes the Bill less acceptable.
We do admit—I readily admit—that some of our amendments, from the Government's point of view, did not deserve to succeed because they quite legitimately went to the heart of the Bill; or, if not to the heart of the Bill, to the liver of the Bill. I can mention, for example, our attempt to replace the position in relation to union membership agreements; our attempt to abolish an unrealistic and unnecessary distinction between primary and secondary action; our amendment which was aimed to set aside the Government's attempt to make a distinction between off-site and on-site picketing. We opposed these things and we put down amendments on them because we argued that they would not work; because we argued that they would take this country back to the dark days of the 1971 Industrial Relations Act; because we believed that such proposals would undermine the functions of responsible representative trade union officials.
Those were indeed our amendments which, as I have said, went to the heart of the Bill. What I think produced more frustration were other amendments which were equally unacceptable to the Government, but which I should have thought were much more minimal in their scope and intentions. There were two groups, really—one group of amendments which we sought to advance to protect and clarify trade union practices which both in another place, and in this place at Second Reading, on Committee and on Report, the Government said they valued. Examples are our amendments designed to do something about the relationship between trade union rules and the ballot proposal; or the question of the position of the trade union constitutions as regards
1550
their position as legal contracts at common law; our belief that there was a contradiction and a potential conflict between the position of trade union rule books in common law and the position that they would be in as a result of this Bill; or the amendments that we put down successively to deal with the position of the Bridlington Agreement and the way in which the Bridlington Agreement seeks to deal with the problem of inter-union conflict; or the need for practical lapsing rules which was accepted by many noble Lords on the other side and, indeed, on all sides of the House; or, most particularly, the amendment we put down to deal with the role of trade union officials on the picket line, particularly the role of conveners.
All these amendments, I should have thought, were reasonable, moderate amendments which did not go to the heart or the liver or the guts of the Bill, but they found no acceptance. One might say, "But they were all really related in some way to the central aim of the Government, which is to redress the balance of power in industry, and you can't expect the Government to accept amendments of this kind coming from this side of the House which they feel, rightly or wrongly, may affect their central purpose. "In that case I would say to noble Lords," What about the other amendments which we sought to put down to mitigate the effect of the denial of individual rights, in particular in relation to small firms; the amendments concerning the onus of proof; the amendments we put down about the basic award and its abolition; the amendments we put down regarding the right to dismiss unfairly in small firms and the weakening of maternity rights? "We said, for example, "If you take away unfair dismissal rights, surely the employer should write and tell people in advance that those rights are being taken away. After all, you almost agreed to that in another place". "No", we were told, "it's bureaucracy".
We said, "If you multiply and complicate the notification arrangements, so that women in maternity cases may not know precisely what their rights are, surely it is only reasonable to put them in a standard form, to send out a standard form in which this is specified". "No," we were told, "the small employer won't like that". The smallest one of all was where we said, "Take the example

1551
which everyone would accept, the case of the swindling of part-time women out of their maternity pay by the multiple deduction of social security pay; surely something can be done about that". "Don't ring us," we were told, "we'll ring you". This really is where despair sets in. I suppose deep despair came to me on two occasions. The first occasion was when the noble Earl was telling us how, on the picket lines, shop stewards—I think it was senior shop stewards—should keep in touch with small shop stewards by telephone. That was my first moment of deep despair.
The second occurred when we were talking about individual rights and he flourished, as indeed the Minister in another place had flourished, a letter from the chairman of the Scottish Development Council, which was, we were told, the answer to all the statistics of the PSI, the ORC, the Warwick survey and so on. It so happens that on Wednesday 9th June the chief executive of the Scottish Development Council, Mr. John Robertson, appeared in this House before the Select Committee on long-term unemployment chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. He was asked on that occasion whether he could develop this point about the problem in relation to the Employment Protection Act with particular reference to employment in Scotland. I made a note of what he said. He said that he could not usefully give us any evidence. There might, he said, be some impression of this in Scotland; but, he said:
"There was no supporting evidence to offer".
It was at that moment, once again, that I felt deep despair; because we are forced to believe, as a result of this debate, that noble Lords opposite actually are still convinced of two extremely over-simple contentions and that that is why they press on with this Bill. First, they are convinced that what they are pleased to call the extension of trade union rights in 1974 to 1976 were not only unjustified but actually in some way caused the winter of discontent. I think that I am being fair to the noble Earl when I say that when I read again yesterday his Second Reading speech it seemed to me that what he said bears that construction: that the extension of the trade union rights—if it exists; and we do not accept that it was an
1552
extension—between 1974 and 1976 was not merely unjustified but in some way caused the winter of discontent. Secondly, they are convinced that the Employment Protection Act, again in ways unspecified and unjustified by reference to surveys and so on has prevented a development of the animal spirits of the small employers who would otherwise have done all kinds of things to solve the problem of unemployment in this country. Therefore, despite anything which anyone might say, because of these two simple beliefs this Bill must go forward.
That is where I get a sense of foreboding; because if this is what is believed, what is likely to happen in October of the year or in December of the year or in the spring of the year when this Bill becomes an Act, when this Bill is on the statute book, when it is found to be (as we believe it will be found to be) totally irrelevant from the point of view of the problems that face this country, as unemployment rises, as investment continues to decline, as, given the position which the Government now adopt (and which they say they adopt) in relation to public sector pay we have a series of set-piece conflicts in the public sector in an attempt to get public sector settlements down to somewhere in the region of 10 per cent.?
I always believed that the world under this Government was becoming more like n—I' every day, more like the first two years of the Heath Administration; and that it would end in much the same way; that, in two years or so, there would be an attempt to do again what was attempted after two years of that administration; that it would end in the same way. But it may be that this is wrong. It may be that there will not be a U-turn of this kind. It may be that it is much more like 1927 than 1972: that this Government will press on with their measures and will press on with their policies and with their irrelevant legislation, so that when this Bill is found to be irrelevant to the problems of winter and of spring, they will press on with further legislation in this field.
We all know what this legislation will look like. The Government will turn, if they do this, to what has always been, from their point of view, the logical thing to do—which we have been told about on several occasions. The noble Lord,

1553
Lord Carr, said this on Second Reading. They will turn to consider the relevance of trying to levy directly against trade union funds; they will try to make trade unions directly responsible for breaches of the law by their authorised agents. This may be the next step. Of course, we shall be told (and we have been told in this House) that this is all justified and that we are completely out of step because public opinion is on the side of the Government; that arguments based on the impracticality and dangerous nature of policies of this sort are beside the point because the Government have public opinion on their side.
I am prepared to accept that there has been a certain lack of coherence on this side of the House in the argument which has been put up to answer this view. Therefore, in the few moments left to me I should like to say a few words about public opinion and this Bill. The first point to make—and it is a point which should have been made before—is that opposition to this Bill, the mixture of frustration, despair and foreboding which I have said that I and my noble friends on this side of the House have had is not confined to this side of the House. Nor is it confined to trade union bureaucrats, trade union officials and to the denizens of Congress House. It is in fact I find widespread among practical, practising management.
The fact is that the support for legal regulation as a cure for the so-called abuses of trade unionism is in inverse proportion to the day-to-day involvement of management in the problems of dispute settlement. As you move away from day-to-day involvement in dispute settlements up, in particular, into the higher echelons of the board room, you find more and more support for legal regulation as a cure for the so-called abuses of trade union government and policy. As you move down, in particular as you move towards the specialists and, most particularly, as you move towards middle management and personnel management, you find more and more scepticism about the value and the utility of measures of this kind.
I make no secret of the fact that it was this process of osmosis, of throwing them in at the deep end, making them listen to those who were involved in the day-to-
1554
day problems of dispute settlements, as against those who were not involved in the day-to-day problems of dispute settlements, which finally produced a majority on the Donovan Commission in favour of the proposals they advanced. It was only by taking people to listen to those who wanted legal remedies that the case against legal remedies was made.
Similarly, today, if we look at the evidence that the Government have received about this Bill and the degree of support for this Bill, there is an invariable relationship between the degree of involvement of management in the day-to-day processes of dispute settlements and their expectations in relation to this Bill. So that we can move from the Institute of Personnel Management, who are worried about many of its aspects, through the Engineering, Employers' Federation, on to the CBI and up to the higher, rarefied atmosphere of the Institute of Directors, who are very much in favour.
So the first point is that scepticism, this fear, this foreboding, is not confined to this side of the House; nor is it confined to trade unionists; it is, above all, shared (as it was in 1971) by informed management. The second point about public opinion in relation to trade unions is that it is very much more complicated than the Government admit. The noble Earl on several occasions has offered us sight of his surveys. I must admit that we have not taken up the offer. He has told us that he has many surveys about the closed shop and so on. I accept that such surveys exist. I also note that the ORC says that 86 per cent. of its latest survey would like to restrict picketing to off-site picketing; it says that 71 per cent. of its latest survey would like to outlaw secondary strike action; the ORC says (most notably of all; and this is the one that is used most frequently by the supporters of the Bill) that in 1979, 80 per cent. of those surveyed in a perfectly respectable, structured sample, said that the trade unions were too powerful. These are all factors which have been prayed in aid to support the Government in relation to this Bill.
A number of points could be made. First of all similar figures can be shown from ORC and other surveys to show that the public in general and trade unionists

1555
in particular, also believe that membership of a trade union is essential to protect workers' rights. They also believe, particularly in relation to their own union—but in relation to trade unions generally by slightly smaller figures—that trade unions are on the whole doing a good job. The fact is that the public is divided about trade unions.
The public distinguishes between trade unions in general and its own trade union. The public is against secondary action when it is done by other people. The public is against picketing when other people picket. The public is against other peoples' wage claims. Their wage claims are "reasonable"; other people's wage claims are "unreasonable". So the public is split in its attitude towards trade union action.
Secondly, if you want government by surveys or government by ground swells, there are just as large majorities in favour of certain other aspects of economic policy which this Government do not propose to follow. For example, any time you have an incomes policy you can always get 70 per cent. or 80 per cent. of the public saying it is an extremely good thing, saying that it is a very good thing for trade unions and Government to get together to settle the level of wages.
Thirdly and finally, the evidence of the 1970s shows, for example in relation to the 1971 Industrial Relations Act, that whereas there may be a large amount of support in public opinion polls for a particular proposal when the public feels that it is going to effect what the public hopes it will do, this support quickly erodes when it turns out that in practice the consequences are somewhat different.
That was the point that I was trying to make, perhaps not very well, in the debate on picketing at the Committee stage. We accept and we admit—we do not enjoy it, but we accept and we admit—that the position which we have adopted in relation to certain crucial aspects in this Bill—picketing, secondary action and union membership agreements—are not popular with the public at large. It is a serious thing for a great political party to take up unpopular measures and to stick to them. They are going to misunderstood and they are going to be
1556
exploited by their opponents. This is legitimate; I make no complaint about it. All I ask is that it should be understood that we all of us from time to time in political life oppose things which the majority at that moment in time appear to believe are necessary, and we oppose them because we think they are wrong; we oppose them because we think they will do more harm than good; we oppose them because we think that they will not effect what they intend to effect. That is our view of this Bill, and that explains our sense of foreboding.
I have one final point to make—not, I hope, a note of foreboding but a note of hope. I link it to the correct role, as I see it, of law in collective labour relations, because perhaps it is incumbent upon us to say a word about how we see the role of law in collective labour relations. It is sometimes suggested that we believe that there is no role for law in collective labour relations. A noble Lord who spoke at the Committee stage in the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross—I am sorry he is not in his place today—read a quotation from Martin Seymour Lipsett which he had actually taken from a publication of mine. I would never dream of quoting my own publications in this House, but since Martin Seymour Lipsett has been quoted out of context, and since quoting him in context enables me to make the point I want to make about the correct role of law in labour relations, I want to end on this point.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, quoted from Martin Seymour Lipsett in the following way. He said:
"The significance of law does not necessarily lie in the extent to which it is obeyed. One of its major functions is to set a moral code or standard which society considers proper but whole parts can be violated within certain limits … People may engage in illegal or immoral actions, but the fact that they know these actions are illegal reduces the extent to which they occur, even if violators are rarely prosecuted."
That was quoted against the position that I had adopted in relation to the closed shop. But I do not think it goes against what we have said and I do not wish to unsay what it says. No one says that you can pass only laws which will be universally obeyed. Laws are there as standards; of coures they are. But Seymour Lipsett also went on to

1557
say, in a passage which Lord Harris of High Cross did not quote:
"It is important to recognise, therefore, that the function of labour legislation may not be as much to create viable laws that can be used ' against' unions, as to set moral standards in an area of institutional behaviour that previousy was outside the realm of explicit moral standards".
After a criticism of the American right-to-work laws, which in many ways resemble both the Industrial Relations Act and this Bill so far as closed shops are concerned, Seymour Lipsett said this:
"If it is to succeed, legislation of this sort ought to encourage self-regulation by unions themselves, and ought not to be obviously intended to impair the collective bargaining strength of the unions '. It should also be concerned with the more moderate task of laying down certain minimum pre-conditions' within which the unions can work".
That would be my attitude and our attitude towards labour legislation, and it is, in finality, because we submit that this Government still do not realise that this Bill violates these principles that we believe that it will come to the same end as its unholy mother the 1971 Industrial Relations Act. Therefore it will have to be, as it will he, repealed by a future Labour Government in the same way as the 1971 Act was repealed. In the meantime interested parties will need to discuss what is to take the place of this Bill, based on a realistic appraisal of mutual needs and interests and not on impractical and mean attempts to return to the law as it was thought to be in 1905.

BRITISH RAIL FUTURE OF SUBSIDIARIES
3.58 p.m,
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat the Statement made a short while ago in the other place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport. The Statement runs as follows:
"With permission Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the future of British Railways subsidiaries.
"I told the House on 17th March that I intended to find ways to involve private risk capital in the major subsidiary companies of British Railways and that
1558
I would make a further statement in the light of a joint examination of the prospects which I have been carrying out with the chairman of the British Railways Board. The Government and the chairman have now completed a preliminary examination of the opportunities for involving private risk capital to a significant extent in financing these subsidiaries. We both believe that it will be to the advantage of British Rail, as a significant element in the economy, its workforce and the public using its services, to take advantage of these opportunities. The businesses invoved are Sealink UK Limited, British Transport Hotels, British Rail Hovercraft Limited and British Rail property holdings.
"The Government and the Board recognise that these subsidiary enterprises will not secure essential commercial freedom unless private capital is attracted in sufficient volume and unless private investors are assured of sufficient control through their shareholdings to ensure that the enterprises will be able to operate on equal terms with competitors in their respective markets.
"We are satisfied that the important existing trading relationships between British Railways and the subsidiary enterprises can be sustained by commercial contracts. These arrangements cannot hut work to the advantage of British Railways and the subsidiary enterprises. We are also convinced that it is only by maximising the opportunities for profitable service to the public that the workforce at every level in these enterprises can look forward confidently to sharing in improving returns.
"I intend therefore to seek the approval of Parliament at the first opportunity for the changes necessary in British Railways' present powers in order to secure the potential advantages to the fullest extent and from the earliest moment.
"The Board will propose the steps which will be necessary to achieve the purpose as quickly as possible and will agree them with the Government. The Government will introduce the necessary legislation to ensure that any foreseeable obstacles are overcome.

1559
"I believe that the policy I have outlined will provide significant new opportunities for the subsidiary companies to develop and expand their businesses."
My Lords, that completes the Statement of my right honourable friend.
4.2 p.m.
Lord UNDERHILL: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for repeating this Statement. I must say that it is an amazing Statement because it gives the House very little information as to the Government's actual proposals. On the surface, it looks as if it is another repetition of a doctrinaire policy on which we have no information as to what is actually proposed, except that it suggests the disposal of what appear to be to us very valuable public assets. Four subsidiaries are involved which, according to the 1979 report of British Rail, made an operating surplus of about £40 million. Further, the BR report states that the property subsidiary contributed no fewer than £41 million to the cashflow of British Rail. A lot is involved: 29 hotels in the hotel subsidiary; in the Sealink subsidiary, 51 ships and 11 harbours. The hovercraft subsidiary operates the Seaspeed service, I believe, jointly with French Rail and Belgian Rail. That is a very important undertaking and doubled the number of passengers and cars in 1979 over and above 1978.
The Statement gives such little information that I must ask the noble Lord a number of questions. Will the finance that will be raised by this proposal be available to British Rail for its own investment for rail purposes: electrification and other ways of further improving the ever-improving British Rail services? The document refers to the introduction of necessary legislation. But there is no information given in the document as to the nature of the legislation. Can the Minister tell the House what is to be the nature of the legislation to be introduced? We are not told, but is there to be one holding company with four subsidiaries, or are four separate new companies to be formed?
The document says that private investors must he assured of sufficient control. Does this mean that in whatever com-
1560
panies that are set up British Rail will not have a majority holding? If British Rail is to have a majority holding, will the Government have power to instruct British Rail to see that any of the assets are sold off? This must also be referred to: if any profitable assets are to be sold off, what will be the effect on British Rail should it require further capital at any time? In 1979 British Rail mileage was the highest recorded since 1961, when the British Rail services were 30 per cent. larger. In other words, we are talking about a public enterprise which is making good progress, yet four of its subsidiaries are proposed to be disposed of. If it is not to be BR-owned, not to be a majority holding for BR, how will the sale of any valuable assets be prevented?
The document implies that the workforce itself will be in support of these proposals. I do not know from where the Government have that assurance. We should like to ask what arrangements will be made to ensure the continuance of British Rail staff conditions. Obviously, we shall need detailed answers to many of these matters, because until we know what is in the legislation we have no idea what is being proposed, except that the Government are suggesting disposing of four valuable national assets.
4.6 p.m.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, we on these Benches wish also to thank the noble Lord the Minister for repeating this Statement. In principle, we are not averse to the idea of sales of elements of nationalised industries. However, we are bound to say in relation to this Statement, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has said, that it is extremely difficult to see what the Government intend. In these circumstances, we cannot make a response which has any great meaning. We must instead ask the noble Lord to answer certain questions. For instance, it is not plain where the controlling interests will ultimately reside. There is a phrase in the Statement which suggests that it will he with the private enterprise sector to whom the assets are sold. But this is by no means clear. It is also not clear whether this is a once-and-for-all sale or whether there will be continuing instalments of private money into these undertakings. Further, what kind of management is proposed for the assets when they are sold?

1561
Another aspect on which we should like clarification is this. There is very little point in selling parts of a nationalised industry in a free sector if it is sold to become a monopoly in the private sector instead of a monopoly in the public sector. In the case of Sealink, for example, it would be perfectly possible, if Sealink were ultimately acquired by EuroFerries or if Euro-Ferries had a major holding in Sealink, that there would be something very like a monopoly in the Channel crossing business. This is very unlikely to be an improvement on what is already a very expensive crossing for the many customers who wish to take it. There is a vague reference to the interests of the employees in the undertaking. May we ask the Minister whether it is intended, in relation to this disposal of the assets of the nationalised industry, that employees should be given opportunities to acquire shares in the new undertakings which will be formed, or whether this is not to be included in this transaction?
4.8 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for in turn thanking me for the introduction of this Statement. This Statement is a declaration of intent about which Parliament has heard for some time. The Minister thought it right that this should be made. There will be, as the Statement said, a holding company formed. This will be organised by the Minister and the British Railways Board. The noble Lord asked whether it would be one or several holding companies. It will be one holding company. As it disposes of assets it will gradually lose control of those assets. The question has been asked about Sealink which, as the noble Baroness said, is one of the most obviously profitable of these companies.
On the general figures, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, gave the impression that these are very valuable assets. They are valuable assets and are valued, I understand, at about £383 million; but the noble Lord gave a figure of £41 million or £40 million. My understanding is that that applies to all the property, some of which is not in these four companies. As I understand it, in 1979 the actual profit for these four companies was only £21 million. If you take into account the total
1562
cash flow, it has been negative for many years, so there is a cash-flow problem. We are in a period of capital constraint at this moment and, given the Government's intention to try to help the reduction of the inflation rate by Government constraints on capital spending, it is essential if these enterprises are to go forward for the benefit of the public and of the staff concerned, that fresh capital should be injected into them. That would benefit all of us.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked what legislation was envisaged. The Board already have certain powers but they will need others, and the Minister is going to need reserve powers. We hope to introduce legislation fairly early in the next Parliamentary Session. The noble Lord also asked whether the British Railways Board would lose their majority holding. It is possible that would be the case.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, inquired about the staff side of the matter. Up to this moment, they have not been involved in detailed discussions because we have been discussing principles of management. There will be discussions with the unions at the Rail Council. These conversations have begun already and they will continue. The Minister is talking to the unions and we think that private capital is going to give these businesses opportunities for growth which at the moment probably would not be available. I think that the staff, taking the overall picture, will probably he reassured that there is going to be more growth from these sections than there is at the moment. At present the overall profit picture in these four companies is negative, although there is a technical profit, because investmentwise the outflow is too great.
I was asked what sort of management there will be. Sealink lends itself perhaps most easily to a single management, and if unions and staff wish to invest they would be able to put in offers. The board has financial advisers, as has the Minister. The holding company will take advice on the amount to sell, bearing in mind the object of the exercise. There is no limit to the number of shares that have to be sold, or indeed which do not have to he sold. This is a general picture. At the

1563
end of the day the financial advisers will be giving advice. It is no use asking me for details because the actual worked-out details are not complete at the moment. I am giving your Lordships the earliest possible notice of our intentions, and we believe they will be to the general advantage of us all.
Lord KALDOR: My Lords, I think it is only fair that those who are invited to subscribe risk capital for these enterprises should he properly warned that if these enterprises are transferred to private ownership, or any share of them, without agreement of the position, if a Labour Government were returned steps would be taken to restore the state interest to what it was before these acts of de-nationalisation took place. I am not saying that this means de-nationalisation without any compensation, but it means that the total private interest will be no larger than it would have been had the de-nationalisation not taken place; so the issue is state shares.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I do not know to what extent the noble Lord, Lord Kaldor, is entitled to speak for the official Opposition, but I take note of what he has said. Our primary interest is to take these four sections of the British Railways picture. At the moment there is not sufficient capital to enable them to operate as well as we would wish. I do wish the noble Lord would take the general picture, that there is an outgoing cash flow to these four companies. They are not bringing in glorious "lolly"; they are costing the country money, and we are trying to reduce the inflation rate by cutting down Government expenditure. The staff should gain. We are going to have full discussions with the staff and I would be very surprised if, at the end of the day, the staff are not totally happy with what we are going to do.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, before the Minister ends this discussion, may I make an appeal to him, since this matter seems to be very much in the embryo stage, to remind his right honourable friend that in particular the hotels provide not merely a profit but also a service? As one who has the misfortune to spend a fair amount of time in the hotels provided
1564
by the private monopoly groups, may I say that while they may be profitable they are not often very comfortable or efficient, whereas the British Transport hotels have a remarkable record. I hope that the Minister will bear in mind when he is talking about the "good", that there is something more in life than mere profit.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, for her comments. I, too, enjoy many of the railway hotels. They are splendidly run, the service is good and I think they are admirable in every way. Nevertheless, from the Government's point of view of trying to cut public costs, I should like to give her some figures which I happen to have before me. Their asset value, I am informed, is £27 million; their turnover is £38 million. They employ a staff of 4,500, and I am informed that their actual profit is only £300,000 a year. One cannot pretend that that is a very exciting return for the money that is spent.
Lord KALDOR: My Lords, if you sell off those parts of British Railways that make a profit—and I find it difficult to believe you can sell off those that make a loss—then the loss on the remainder is bound to become larger and not smaller. It is a great mistake to say that you are trying to save loss-making enterprises like the railways by selling off the profitable bits. If the unprofitable bits are sold off, who on earth would buy them, except for asset-stripping purposes?—that is, for the physical assets. I feel that selling capital assets in order to meet revenue losses is the economics of the madhouse.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I thought I had explained to the noble Lord, Lord Kaldor, earlier, that this is not a great, exciting, profitable area. I know it is fashionable to talk about the wonderful profits which are coming to the railways from this area, but I have tried to explain that this is not the case. There is a cash outflow from the Government. The noble Lord asked how, if they are not so profitable, people will want to buy them. The simple fact is that in a time of capital investment constraint we are not going to he able to help them. Therefore, if you invite in whatever percentage the holding company recommends, with private capital to invest,

1565
they may be able to expand and make greater profits percentagewise than might otherwise be the case.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: My Lords, could the noble Lord answer a simple question: are all the hotels to be included? If they are all to be included, are the golf courses to be included as well? I should have thought that this was a week in which we might concentrate a little on those. Could he tell me who is going to make an assessment of the value of a course that is fit to carry the Open Championship? I am talking about Turnberry. And what about Gleneagles? Are these all to be sold off?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, this will really be for the holding company to decide. The golf courses are, of course, part of the hotels, and I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Ross, says, in that Gleneagles and Turn-berry could not be better. Whether or not they are sold is a matter for the management of the holding company concerned.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: My Lords, will the Government inform Mr. Biggs, the train robber who is now in Brazil, that he can return home safely, since the practice of transferring public property to private hands is now regarded as respectable?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I think that I may have missed out one of the questions which was asked of me originally by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. I should have said that all profits accruing from this exercise will go to the British Railways Board. I think that in the last question the noble Lord seemed to indicate that the Government were somehow going to filch them.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, can the Minister really tell the House what purpose—commercial, economic or industrial—is served by announcing this so-called declaration of intent now? It will produce nothing but uncertainty for months and months on the part of those who are running these enterprises and serving the public—and at a profit. Is the purpose no more than to appease the ideologies and prejudices of a portion of the Tory Cabinet?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is far too clever to believe his own words. He knows as well as I do that we believe that these enterprises, with added capital put into them, will do better than they are doing at the moment. I cannot but repeat that, at this moment of capital investment constraint, we want private enterprise to come and invest money in them. If I were an employee in them, given a period of Government investment constraint, I should have thought I would be only too willing to see rich people who were good businessmen putting in money with the intention of making higher profits. That way come higher wages.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, I think my noble friend has not made it absolutely clear that one of the objects of this exercise is to reduce the public sector borrowing requirements, which are extremely high, and to get down the frightful rate of interest. I have stayed occasionally in British Rail hotels, and it is quite obvious to me that an awful lot of money needs to be spent on them to bring them really up to date. Also, of course, the cross-Channel ferries and so on are an absolute sink for money. The Government would have to put in very many millions of pounds in both those directions to bring all the services up to date, so why not bring in some private capital, whether by shares, debentures or whatever?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hawke is, indeed, a gentleman who understands money. He has been in the money market for a long time and his words of advice are very sensible.

EMPLOYMENT BILL
Debate resumed.
4.23 p.m.
Lord ROCHESTER: My Lords, if it is now appropriate to continue our discussion on the Employment Bill, the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, said that he had bowled a number of balls and failed to take any wickets. I am not altogether surprised, because I do not think that the pitch has been quite suited to his type of bowling. Like the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, it has occurred to me that,

1567
in the week in which the British Open Championship starts at Muirfield, it might be appropriate to say a few words about golf.
I am not sure how many of your Lordships are players of the game. I myself am not very proficient but, in so far as I play with any proficiency at all, I think it is due to my mother who had what might be called a three-quarter swing. But she made up for this by always going absolutely straight from the tee to the hole, and it often transpired when we got there that she had arrived having played rather fewer strokes than had I, because I have always been prone to slice the ball quite considerably.
Your Lordships may wonder what all this has to do with the Employment Bill. I can only say that when my noble friends and I considered what our general attitude to this Bill should be, we concluded that we would wish to play the ball as straight down the middle of the course as we could. I do not suppose that the noble Lord, Lord Spens, has regarded his interventions as being in the nature of deep bunkers on the right of the course. But I must say that that is how I regarded them, and I think I have been more apprehensive on that score because of this tendency to slice which I have already confessed to your Lordships.
On the other hand, the noble Lords, Lord McCarthy and Lord Wedderburn, in their argument have been a constant reminder to me of the almost impenetrable rough that resides to the left of the course, in which it would, it has seemed to me, be very easy to lose one's ball altogether. Indeed, if I may be allowed to say so, it has seemed to me on occasion that the noble Lords have spent quite a lot of time looking for their ball.
I think that our decision to deal with the Bill in this way has been justified by the attitude that has been taken by your Lordships' House during its passage. In support of that, I would claim two things. First there have been the interventions made, in turn, by noble Lords and Baronesses as respected as Lady Burton of Coventry, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, Lord Taylor of Gryfe and Lord Collison, not to mention ex-Ministers of the standing of the noble Lord, Lord Robens, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris
1568
of Greenwich, coupled with the fact that other noble Lords on the Labour Benches, whom one might have expected to make some contribution to our discussions on a Bill of this kind, have been absent from the Division Lobbies and, indeed, in some cases, from the House altogether.
Second, and equally significant for me, is the point that there was an overwhelming defeat for the attempt so to limit secondary action at this juncture as to mean that that would effectively have curbed the long-held right of trade unions to take action designed to stop supplies going to the employer with whom they were engaged in a primary dispute.
Our attitude to the Bill on these Benches is much as it was at Second Reading. It seems to us that the winter before last demonstrated that there were certain very serious problems in this area that had to be dealt with. The Government selected three or four of them to deal with. They set out their proposals for legislation in their election manifesto, and they were endorsed by the people.
Practical experience has taught me that if you are trying to solve industrial problems—and I do not see much point in just talking about them—before you take decisions it is best to consult, so far as you can, with all those having a stake in the problems. That, it seems to me, is what has been done by the Secretary of State and the decisions that the Government then took feature in the Bill that we are now asked to pass.
We retain reservations about some parts of the Bill, as indeed we do about other aspects of the Government's industrial policy. We continue to wonder why the Government have thought it worth while to make some of the changes proposed in the clauses concerning maternity, to which the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, referred. We think they might have conceded a point or two on Clause 4, that is the clause which deals with unreasonable exclusion or expulsion from trade unions. In my view, it would have been a sign of strength, not of weakness to have done so. It remains to be seen what practical difficulties will now arise over picketing and secondary action and for tribunals in determining what are genuine objections on grounds of conscience or other deeply-held personal convictions to membership of a particular trade union.

1569
However, if events show that the Government have gone too far in any of these matters, the country should not come to too much harm, it seems to me, provided that the general body of trade unionists behave reasonably, as I hope and trust they will. Should it transpire, on the other hand, that the Government have not gone far enough, then more can be done following further consultation after publication of the Green Paper on immunities that we are promised in the autumn.
For our part, we on these Benches—and I feel sure that on this I speak for my noble friends as well as myself—hope there will be no need for further legislation of this kind. In our view, it is now of vital importance that this legislation should be made to work and supplemented as far as possible by codes of practice. That is in the interests not just of this Government but of future Governments, not even excluding the possibility to which the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, understandably referred the other day of a future Liberal Government.
I believe that there is now a heavy responsibility on trade union leaders in this because our industrial relations cannot be improved without their help. I beg them to exercise that responsibility in the long-term interests of their members. In fact, given the slightest encouragement from some of the experienced trade union leaders in this House, I would be delighted to put down a Motion couched in the most constructive terms I can think of to call attention to the essential part trade unions can play in improving this country's industrial and economic performance. I say that as one who at the Second Reading went out of his way to reaffirm his continued belief in the need for trade unions.
I should like from these Benches to join in thanking the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, for the able, patient and especially the open way in which he has handled this Bill, particularly in making available to us as much information as he reasonably could and for his kindness to me personally both inside and outside the Chamber. I am rather sorry that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is not on the Woolsack, I am sure for a very good reason, because the other day he said that one of the draw-
1570
backs to sitting there was that he felt cut off from the Government Front Bench. We, on the other hand, feel that he is much better in closer proximity to the Liberal Benches. For one thing, if he were to bang on that trolley in quite the same way as he sometimes bangs on that Dispatch Box it would simply run away from him and his papers would then become even more scattered than they sometimes seem to be.
For another thing, we would he robbed of those delightful asides to which we are privy on these Benches. I would not dream of disseminating those more widely within the House because I think they are safeguarded in some odd way by a special kind of parliamentary privilege, but I can assure your Lordships that they are not only witty but even-handed in the sense that on occasion they take in those on the Conservative Benches as much as those on the Labour Benches. Liberals, of course, enjoy complete immunity in this respect and that has nothing, I would assure the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, to do with the year 1906. We have also relished the lucidity and humour of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Advocate, and on occasions the light touch from the noble Lord, Lord Lyell.
I should like also to compliment the noble Lords, Lord McCarthy and Lord Wedderburn, on their contributions, if I may, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, for the generous response he made to a particular procedural suggestion I made early in the Committee stage and which I hope may have been of some benefit to the House as a whole.
I have often found when engaged with others in some major enterprise that the process of how things are done is of as much significance as what is done, and even when, as in this case, the undertaking is of an adversarial kind, it sometimes happens that the things which bound those involved together count for just as much in the end as the things which keep them apart. I hope that that may be so at the end of this Bill; that it will soon become an Act, and that it will help to promote that co-operation between management and employees which we so badly need. With those few remarks, my Lords, we on these Benches are glad to give our continued support to this Bill in the form in which it has now been revised.
4.38 p.m.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, was puzzled some time ago as to why more Members did not speak from this side of the House. May I tell him that the main reason is that we think that this is a Bill which in no way adds anything at all to the problems with which this nation is confronted on the industrial front. If there was ever a time in the long, complicated industrial history of Britain when a united front in all parts was essential, it is now. This miserable Bill will divide it further. That is the basic reason why many of my noble friends have not felt that it was worth a contribution anyway. We heard expressions about the winter of discontent, and changing the balance of power of industry and that this Bill is going to do something about that. My Lords, it will do precisely nothing.
I ventured a few words the other day about this so-called winter of discontent and the feeling that enormous trade union powers were exercised at that time. All we saw was the weakest trade union in Britain, NUPE, more than half of whose members are part-time workers pursuing such honourable occupations as those of dinner ladies at schools, and that kind of job. Will somebody tell me what great industrial power they can wield? The fact is that no industrial power at all was wielded, but because of shockingly bad leadership they got themselves on to a hook which they could not get off. Then, foolishly, because of their frustration, they attacked the public, which was a disgraceful thing to do. But it had nothing whatever to do with the wielding of industrial power.
I recall that when we had our debates in the other place on the 1971 Act we heard that it was going to transform the whole basis of power in industry, but it was a dismal failure. At the end of the day, the Government which enacted it wanted to forget it, no big employer would use it and the trade unions hated the sight of it. In the end, by mutual consent, it was dispensed with.
Certain elements have not been mentioned when we have discussed the trade unions. For instance, you cannot have an election in which trade unions take the place of employers, and vice versa. In that sense, trade unions are a permanent
1572
opposition. Some of us have spent most of our adult lives trying to get a change of atmosphere in that respect, but it will always be the same; trade unions will always be in opposition. However, we have tried hard to get them to surmount certain barriers and to adopt a constructive, helpful approach to the great industrial problems of this nation. I could recount to noble Lords many occasions upon which that has happened, but while the attitude "We're going to change the basis of power" obtains, how can the trade unions possibly trust any Government which treat them in that rather stupid and disgraceful manner?
There are elements in the Bill to which I have very little objection. As I said the other day, I do not object to taking public money for ballots. In my union, we ballot for everything, and it is nice to see that the Tory Party has discovered ballots. They used to have a system by which their leaders "emerged". Now, with all the enthusiasm of the convert, they are forcing ballots upon everybody. I do not know whether those who benefited from the last ballot in the Tory Party would like to look back at it; I think I know one or two who would not.
Turning to the closed shop issue, when I was a convenor in industry I never asked for a closed shop. However, if you act on the principle that closed shops are bad you will get into awful trouble in a number of industries. I should not like to feel that a number of free riders on a coal seam were going to cause disruption in a coal mine, where safety should be the dominant feature; nor should I like to feel that a row at sea in a merchant ship, because of free riders there, was going to endanger the lives of the crew.
I do not think that the closed shop is necessary in some industries, but I noticed that the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, said the other day:
"Over 5 million workers are in closed shops and for them union membership is necessary to get or keep a job, or even to pursue a career at all" —[Official Report, 7/7/80; col. 898.]
Does the noble Earl really believe that nonsense? Is lie really saying that 5 million members of trade unions are members only because of the fear that they will lose their job? It is sheer waffle. In the huge enterprises which I know quite a bit about I doubt whether 1 or 2 per cent.

1573
of the people there objected to the closed shop. This Bill widens the scope from religious conviction to other matters. When I interviewed people, I found that what they really objected to was paying their "subs". That is what it boils down to with most of them. To put that kind of construction on the reasons for men wanting a closed shop is very wrong of the noble Earl, and I hope that he will take the opportunity now to withdraw that kind of construction.
I want the time to come when we have a far closer liaison between employers, trade unions and Governments. I am very serious when I say that throughout industry in this country there is greater fear now among employers and unions than I have ever known in my lifetime. In my area, firms which we looked upon as permanent are folding up. The unemployment problem is putting people on the defensive. They will not risk some of the things which all of us ought to be risking in order to pull this nation out of the difficulties we are in.
It is for these reasons that I am somewhat contemptuous of this so-called transfer of power, which has nothing to do with it. Power is transferred in industry not by laws of this sort but by changes in production methods. We have reached the stage at which 20 people can stop 20,000. This is not because of laws but because of changes in production methods. It is that kind of problem which this Government ought to be facing and which we in this party ought to be facing. The time when a trade union leader could instruct his members about what to do has gone. Rightly or wrongly, power has gone from the executives of trade unions, from the centre, into the factories. It was brought about, for the very best of reasons, by people like my old friend Jack Jones.
As I have tried to say before in this place, the problem is that we have divorced power from responsibility. This is what we should all be looking at and trying to tackle. Ten years ago, having heard of the great changes that the 1971 Act was going to bring, we all wanted to forget it. I guarantee that a year or two from now the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, will lead us all in forgetfulness.
4.49 p.m.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I said some time ago that my heart bled
1574
for the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, and then I was interrupted by a Statement. I now find that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, has left us; but, luckily, the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, is here. My heart bleeds for him, too. As the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, said, they bowled 150 balls which were all blocked. I remember very well that very much the same thing happened to us in 1976 and 1977 when we were sitting on the Benches opposite. All sorts of ridiculous legislation was passed by the then Government, the principles of which we thought were quite disgraceful, et cetera. So my heart does bleed for them.
If I may reply to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Newton, it seems to me that the Bill, which I very much commend my noble friends on the Front Bench for having taken this far and so well, is an attempt to set a sort of picture in which people's attitudes can be changed. The Bill is not attempting to do more. It does not need to be compared with the 1971 Act. The noble Lord, Lord Lee of Newton, will remember that Acts passed in 1974 and 1976 by the Government which he supported have to be taken into account when he speaks about industrial relations.
The point about this Bill is that it is an endeavour to create a position in which bullies shall be curbed. I said this at Second Reading, and I say it again. The encouragement that there was within the trade union movement as a whole to those people who cared to take advantage of it by the legislation which had built up over the years, starting, if you like, in 1906, had put us in a position where two years ago people were being bullied. It did not matter whether they were third parties like the public, or third parties like subsidiary companies which were supplying goods to a major company, or even if they were ordinary humble trade unionists —there were all sorts of examples of bullying and, to my mind, this Bill is designed to create an atmosphere to combat bullying. It is as simple as that. The value of this Bill will be proved by the effect that it has, and it is sad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Newton, saying that it is a terrible Bill which will encourage everybody to do all sorts of dreadful things. I do not believe it will. Part of the merit of this Bill, perhaps, is that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn,

1575
thinks it is disastrous because it takes all the powers away from the trade unions, and my noble friend Lord Renton thinks it is disastrous because it does not take anything away at all.
There is something in the middle, and what is being attempted is to create an atmosphere in which people will say to themselves, "Is it wise to take industrial action? Have I got the powers to do it? Is the feeling of the country against my doing it? Is it reasonable to bully other people? Should I not think about whether there are third parties, such as the travelling public or like the poor people who are employed by suppliers and who may find themselves cut off through some vague strike miles away in another part of the country?" Is it not a good thing that we should try to get people to think in a different way from the way in which they were thinking two years ago? As I see it, that is all that this Bill is trying to do, and I think it is splendid.
4.53 p.m.
Lord SPENS: My Lords, it is always difficult for a Cross-Bencher to get a hearing, but I think I have one now! I do not think that the members of my group really consider ourselves as having been a "bunker", in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. Rather, I would say that we think we drove very straight down the fairway, whereas the Government, particularly on Clause 17, decided to take a much more difficult path which has taken them through the rough. I only hope that they reach the green easily: and I want to say that we support this Bill to the greatest possible extent. Meanwhile, I hope that we shall be able to keep our little group together because we want to look at the codes of practice when they come out and particularly to see whether they deal with two very objectionable situations which we were not able to put right. The first: the fair list of the print unions which they use as a black list to try to enforce membership of a closed shop; and the second, the practice of certain public organisations when they put contracts out to tender to include a clause which insists that the contractors only use members of a trade union. In other words, again trying to get a closed shop operation in that way. Also I hope in
1576
due course we shall keep together to discuss the Green Paper on immunities when that appears.
Having said that, my Lords, I also want to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, on the magnificent way in which he has taken this Bill and all its clauses, and I am quite certain that the Bill is going to be successful and I believe that our little group has helped in a way towards that success. I suggest that, in particular, when we chose to divide the House on Clause 17 we had an excellent degree of publicity before that Division and we had a very good explanation of the results of that Division. I should like to suggest to your Lordships that the public at large must now believe that all sides of the House are behind the Government on Clause 17. With those words, I should like to wish the Bill all success.
4.56 p.m.
Lord KALDOR: My Lords, I did not intend to speak again, as I gave my views on this Bill on Second Reading. If I speak now, it is not so much about the Bill or its merits but because I feel that I have listened to a really notable and exciting debate which was conducted at a very high level on both sides, and I should like to add my congratulations for the admirable way in which the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, conducted it for the Government side and my noble friends Lord McCarthy and Lord Wedderburn displayed expert knowledge of a very high order. I think in some ways it brought out the best in this House as a Chamber in which issues can be discussed less in the heat of party controversy and more on their merits with this expert knowledge. That is the justification, if there is one, for the House of Lords, and I fear that the Government have not done this House justice by pushing through this Bill without allowing a single comma to be changed; without allowing any amendment, even on those issues where amendments have no other purpose but to clarify the express intentions of the Government.
During the Second Reading debate, I was assured by the noble Earl that the famous subsection (8) of what is now Clause 17 was not intended for any other purpose except secondary action; but when I suggested that this could be made clear in that case, if there was any doubt, even

1577
the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had to admit that there might be doubt. The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, argued, with the authority of a professor of law and an authority in this particular field, and that cannot just be dismissed as something which is a quite impossible interpretation and that a judge may not indeed use this clause in the sense in which my noble friend intended.
All that we suggested was, "If this is your intention, why not make it clear by adding these innocent few words, 'for the purposes of Section 3 of the 1976 Act subsection (3) is withdrawn' "? The noble Earl promised me that the Government would look at it, but afterwards we were assured that it could not be done and the noble and learned Lord went into a long speech with all kinds of analogies with flying objects and this and that, which in the end added very little to the clarification of the problem and certainly did not explain why the Government was so opposed to making the rule clear.
What I have against this Bill is what a good many others on both sides have against it; that its provisions are far from clear, that it will be the subject of endless litigation, that it will be a lawyer's paradise. Therefore, it is not something that is not capable of improvement, and I do feel that, if you want to maintain the second Chamber and have these debates and all this apparatus, the Government, whichever Government they are, ought to be ready to listen when a case is made out for improvement and should not reject it, in the same way as the Government—I must say, for better reason—rejected all amendments to the European Communities Act 1973 and would not allow a single comma to be changed in the original draft. I feel this was a great pity. I do not know why it was done this way. I do not say the noble Earl is personally responsible; it was probably a result of a certain balance of power which has to be kept in view, not to upset the balance one way or the other.
My Lords, I must not speak too long, but I do want to say this: I think this Government are engaged on a crazy course economically. This is my conviction. It does not make it any different that, as I am quite ready to believe, their beliefs, however misguided, are sincere. They are engaged in trying to get rid of inflation
1578
by bringing down wages, by getting wages settlements well below the rate of inflation. In order to do that they have to create more unemployment, and the more unemployment they create the less is the fund, so to speak and if I may use a classical expression, the true wages fund, for paying wages, In other words, the worse their task will be, the worse the problem of getting rid of inflation will be. Therefore, it is a vicious circle. I do not see any end to it.
This Bill will not do very much, because, when it comes to really powerful groups such as the miners, Clauses 16 and 17 will not prevent the miners doing exactly what they did in 1972 and 1974 and having mass pickets to stop all sorts of things from going on. If the Government try to enforce these provisions they will be up against impossible problems of prosecuting thousands and thousands of people, putting them in prison, and creating situations in which the law cannot really be carried out, as indeed the 1971 Act remained a dead letter. So I do not think it will make much difference.
I think as this process goes on, and the economic situation steadily worsens and unemployment increases, the expenses of maintaining unemployment will increase. They will then have to take steps to curtail unemployment benefits one way or another. We have already had preliminary statements in that direction last week. It may be denied now, but, after all, not so many weeks ago in this House the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, denied that the Government had any intention of wishing to reduce real wages, and only a few days afterwards the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that it was absolutely essential to bring down real wages if inflation was to be stopped. So we shall see further steps in this direction.
All I am saying is you are always trying to catch your own tail and you never succeed. You reach a stage where this is not enough and you have to do something more. When you reach the next stage, that is not enough and you have to do something more. I do not see wages coming down quickly enough and unemployment rising fast enough to get the whole thing over within a reasonable spell of time. I see ahead growing misery, tension and dissatisfaction, and

1579
several winters and summers of discontent, in this crazy process of trying to stop inflation by creating more unemployment and by reducing real production, real output.
I feel that in comparison with these things this present Bill will not add very much and will not take away very much. There will be cases, like the motor car workers, where the Government will get their way without a strike and all this Bill will be unnecessary. They will get their way because the workers will know that unless they give up part of their real wages the factories will be closed down and they will become unemployed, whether it he a question of 1,000, 200,000 or a million workers. When it is a question of closing down employment, and the threat is real, the workers will give way. They are quite prepared to accept a lower standard of living rather than lose their livelihood altogether.
So there will be weak sectors of the economy, which will ruin British industry, where I think the workers will give way because the firms are bankrupt or the Government would close them down, as in the case of British Leyland, or the French in the case of Talbot. There will be other cases, like the miners, whose place of work cannot just be closed down. This country cannot do without a mining industry. It can do without a motor car industry, but it cannot do without a mining industry. It cannot do without electricity. I could mention a lot of other things. In all these cases again the Bill will not be any good at all, for the opposite reason, because it will not be possible to enforce it.
5.9 p.m.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, I but rarely trouble your Lordships with my voice; I feel this Bill should not pass without some Back-Bencher from here saying two things. I am conscious that my voice can count very little because I am old, pretty deaf, and, temporarily I hope, rather blind. But nevertheless I do want to make two points. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, a general condemnation of the Bill given with great enthusiasm, great fluency, maybe not great brevity. I think we should realise—I hope the other
1580
side do realise—that this Bill is the implementation of what the electorate was told would be done as regards the alteration of union power. It was voted upon and this Government was returned.
The second point I want to put forward is this: I believe that this Bill is not really so disliked, so unpopular, deserving of such derision as many trade union leaders have labelled it. I believe that, in regard to this particular part of Government policy, the alteration of union power, literally millions of trade unionists who voted for this Government at the last election support the action of the Government and support the proposals in this Bill. The Bill is not perfect; no Bill ever is. It may well be that in the future the Bill will have to be modified. But its main principles remain, and I repeat that I believe many—it would be impertinent of me to say many of their Lordships on the other side, but I believe so, in their heart of hearts—do not deride the provisions in this Bill as the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, did, but welcome it because it is right, broadly speaking just, broadly speaking wanted by the country. So the sooner this Bill passes the happier, I believe, will he millions of people in this country, beyond the members of my party, that that has occurred.
5.10 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, in my view the debate on this Motion should serve two purposes. The first is to express our gratitude to those on both sides of the House whose talents have been brought so generously and so ably to the service of the House. The second is to try to get a final appraisal of the Bill that we are now asked to pass.
As regards the first point, I should like to join with my noble friend Lord McCarthy and other noble Lords in expressing great appreciation of the ability, the urbanity, the patience and good humour of the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, in all that he has done as regards this Bill for so many hours and days of our time. We should also pay a very warm tribute to the ability of the partnership which the Opposition were able to field on the Bill. I pay tribute to the talents of my two noble friends—indeed talents of so high an order that, as I

1581
listened to them on the numerous occasions when they spoke, I realised how much people like me have missed through never having experienced the intellectual thrill of academic life. One feels that there is so much that an academic study of the Bill can bring to our consideration of its complexities, although on the other hand I think that a certain amount of experience does not come amiss. However, if the two were brought together in an integrated wisdom, then probably the best consideration would be brought to bear on the matter.
This debate began 10 years ago. It is 12 years since the Donovan Commission reported, and we have been debating this topic ever since. In the meantime, two Labour Governments and one Conservative Government have gone through a great deal of suffering on this question. Now the new Conservative Government have come up for more. Surely our debates have shown, and the Bill itself reveals, how difficult, even intractable are the problems of statutory regulation of industrial life. We are told that this Bill is part of the step-by-step approach to the matter. One is entitled to ask: if this is the first of a step-by-step approach, to where will the other steps lead? Where are we going? One is not sure how much weight this first step will bear, and we are certainly not very well informed about where the Government's goal actually lies.
In the last three general elections the major political parties have all made pledges about industrial relations and the reform of trade union law. They have all had something to say about those matters in their manifestos. This Bill is the outcome of the most recent swing of the political pendulum. As my noble friend Lord McCarthy said, the Labour Party says that it will repeal this Bill. Indeed, in the draft manifesto which has recently appeared amid a certain amount of controversy, but a copy of which I have obtained for greater accuracy, it says:
"We will: … repeal, in its entirety, the Tory Employment Bill."
So, off we go again. An Act of Parliament is made and then another Act of Parliament is repealed. How much longer can the country go on with this kind of legislative see-saw on one of the most sensitive problems in our industrial and social life?
1582
Before some of my noble friends become too enthusiastic about what I have just said, I shall remind them that another part of the draft manifesto says:
"The next Labour Government will proceed immediately to abolish the House of Lords. It will ensure the passage of the necessary legislation and secure a majority for that purpose."
We are to be flooded with quislings in order that we may be abolished! I set those two promises side by side, and it is open to noble Lords on both sides of the House to decide how to vote. However, I take the view that if a fraction of the time that we spent on doing and undoing trade union law in the last decade had been devoted to the promotion of a sounder base for industrial relations and cooperation and to establishing a more lasting relationship on both sides of industry, we should have been in a much better state today than we are.
The Bullock Report with all its faults should have been the subject of the step-by-step approach to something better. It could have gone quite a distance by now had we taken it up when it first came out. But these days it is not cooperation that we hear much about; it is disputes, threats, and so-called industrial action. People became so sick of it at the beginning of last year that undoubtedly they expressed their discontent politically at the general election.
We are told that this Bill is what the people want; that it is what the Government promised to do and that it is their considered view on how far it is right and practicable to go. I am not surprised that the Government have had to restrain themselves and disappoint many of their supporters in framing the Bill. The Government believe that the Bill stops short of being unworkable. They believe that to go further might prove unworkable and might generate a concerted campaign to wreck it, which shows how difficult it is to decide how far to go. But at least the Government feel that the Bill, if not welcomed universally, will nevertheless be accepted. Although some militant trade unions have already said that they will not take a blind hit of notice of the Bill, I personally do not think that that will start the revolution.
Clauses 16 and 17 are the sensitive clauses of the Bill. The rest of the Bill is either benign, as in the case of trade

1583
union ballots at public expense; or a little mean, as in the case of maternity benefits in Clauses 11 to 13; or deals with overdue reforms like the clauses on expulsion or exclusion from membership and the conditions of unfair dismissal in Clauses 4 to 10, which I warmly support. I think that Clauses 16 and 17 are still almost unenforceable. Much depends upon the code of practice and whether or not it will be generally observed. Presumably the code of practice, under, I think, Clause 3 of the Bill, will reflect its contents and, therefore, will be the guide to those concerned in the conduct of disputes and matters connected therewith. I think that all will depend upon the adjustment of attitudes towards the intentions of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, suggested that this Bill was more an influence than a law; at any rate, he suggested that it could be influential on public opinion. I am not sure that legislation for education is the best form of legislation. Nevertheless, we have tried it in the past in various very sensitive areas like race relations and sex equality. Both of those Acts of Parliament had a degree of educational purpose as well as the introduction of statute law. I think that it is on the code of practice that the trade unions will be tested. It is their attitude to that which we shall watch with close interest and perhaps a little apprehension. I think that, again, the prestige of Parliament will be at stake, as it was in 1971.
Applying such tests as seem to be available to a layman as to whether or not Clauses 16 and 17 are workable and enforceable, I turn to the report in the June issue of the magazine of the Police Federation, Police, where. Chief Constable Brownlow of South Yorkshire gave a report on experiences at the Hadfields Steel Works earlier this year. He reported on 14th February:
"Police were in Vulcan Road in strength by 4 a.m. along with 12 pickets. By 5.26 a.m. 1,000 demonstrators had arrived, including a contingent from the National Union of Mineworkers…".
A little later 1,500 demonstrators had arrived. So one asks the question: What is the difference between a picket and a demonstrator? Pickets can be on the line in modest numbers; demonstrators may
1584
be there in very large numbers, but they may not seek peacefully to persuade anyone. They may not, in fact, be vocally attempting to persuade anyone; they are merely demonstrating. If scenes such as occurred outside Hadfields works in Sheffield earlier this year are possible when this Bill has passed, it will surely have failed in one of its objects. At the time Hadfields was not involved in the dispute, but the demonstrators turned up, apparently to reinforce the pickets who were quite properly there to try to persuade the workers at Hadfields to stop work.
Another question arising within the operation of the Bill is: If an employer tries to fix responsibility on a certain person for infringement of the provisions of Clause 17 and obtains an injunction to restrain that person from repeating his activities, what does everybody else do meantime? Is it necessary to obtain an injunction against everybody who may be in this position, or is it expected that an injunction secured against one person will be sufficient to deter many more persons? I think that those are all questions of doubt on how the Bill, when it becomes an Act, will actually work.
Some employers are already beginning to feel that there is nothing in the Bill which they will he able to enforce. I certainly believe that a great many members of the public want to be spared the episodes that we had just over a year ago. They want to know whether they can rely on this Bill to achieve that, or whether they will have to continue to rely upon the good sense and decency of trade unionists and their leaders.
I agree with my noble friends when they have said that by itself this Bill achieves very little. I would not say that it is irrelevant because it will he part of the general compendium of industrial law. But it makes one wonder whether the next stage in the Government's thinking on industrial relations can be fruitful unless they try to find an integrated edition of Bullock and Donovan in order to provide a more acceptable and stable basis for industrial relations. If they cannot, I think that we shall continue to devote ourselves to the problems of interruption and disruption to the flow of industry, to productivity and efficiency, which will leave us in no better position

1585
than we are now to withstand the challenge of what is on offer both here and overseas.
I do not think that the prospect is so full of despair as my noble friend Lord McCarthy suggested. Nevertheless, I think that there is very little joy to be obtained from the passing of this Bill unless there is some avowal by the Government that, having undertaken this legislation as an interim measure, they will bring forward something much more profound, something much more acceptable and something more lasting than we have had so far. I think that that is the questionmark hanging over this Bill at present.
5.28 p.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I should like to agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, said, about injunctions being taken out against pickets as individuals. In my Second Reading speech I said that I thought that would lead to great difficulties, but I shall not go into that now. It must be apparent to everybody in the House that this Bill is not aimed at the moderate trade unionists. If a good fairy, a fairy godmother or some such person came along and could guarantee that all unions would be controlled by the moderates, there would be no need for this Bill at all. However, unfortunately that is not the case. It is the militants—not the noble Lords opposite—who are the great danger. I have come across militants from time to time.
Briefly, I should like to take up a point which the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Newton, made. He said—and I may have got it wrong—that our lack of productivity was not due to very high wage claims by unions or restrictive practices but was due to poor machinery. That is complete nonsense because the majority of our factories now have the most up-to-date machinery. I once installed a brand new machine in a small works of mine which would have been a great boon to production, but the workers would not work it. You cannot put low productivity down to machinery. The unions have a great deal to answer for regarding our low productivity. I do not think anyone would argue against that contention.
1586
I should like to say why I voted against secondary picketing. If the Government were in any danger of defeat—it was obvious they were going to have a vast majority—I probably would not have done that. But, as it was, I would certainly vote against secondary picketing because it does great damage to our exports. Every noble Lord must surely know that, with late deliveries and the rest.
My noble friend Lord Mottistone said—and, of course, he is quite right—that this Bill is aimed at the bullies. With the small amount of teeth that this Bill has, I rather doubt whether it will have much effect on the bullies, but I hope that it does. Therefore, I give every welcome to this Bill, and hope that it will do something towards increasing our productivity and helping the economic position of this country.
5.31 p.m.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, on the Second Reading of this Bill I tried to persuade your Lordships to put it in its economic context, and I was immediately challenged on the facts that I was quoting. I do not think that the challenge—and I am sorry to speak in his absence—that the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, made to me on unemployment figures would be sustained if he were here today. Certainly not after the figures have been published later this week. It seems to me that unless we consider the effects of this Bill within the social and economic context of our time we have no chance of estimating its effects.
During the Second Reading debate I pointed out that not only is unemployment increasing rapidly—and one might add in parenthesis, bankruptcies too—but that those institutions which have been set up to assist the unemployed have also been undermined by this Government. I quoted the instance of the Manpower Services Commission. This appeared to annoy the noble Earl the Minister who interrupted me on the issue within a few minutes of my speaking. This puzzles me somewhat. There must be some lack of communication within the Ministry of Employment. Perhaps it is the same lack of communication which we have witnessed over the past few days, because the figures I quoted at that time and the

1587
evidence that he challenged me to produce to show that the Manpower Services Commission was being undermined were taken from press handouts from his own department, the Department of Employment.
I drew this to his attention at the debate, and he courteously replied. If I may summarise his reply as I understood it, it was that it was the expansion of the Manpower Services Commisson that was being curtailed rather than the absolute amount. This hardly seems to me to justify a challenge to my assertion that the work of the Manpower Services Commission was being undermined by this Government. Since then this assertion has been reinforced by the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission himself. Sir Richard O'Brien, who, in introducing his annual review on 5th June 1980, and speaking, according to reports, with the support both of the CBI and of the TUC, said that this year Manpower Services Commission spending would be reduced by £114 million, rising to £207 million in 1983–84. He added that this would lead to cuts in staff and spending, which had meant that the objectives set out by the Manpower Services Commission over the last four years had not been fulfilled. If this does not justify the assertion that the actions of the Government have been undermining the work of the Manpower Services Commission, then what does?
As I understand it, the Government have, from the introduction of this Bill, defended it on two grounds. First, that it represented public opinion on which the Government were elected 12 months ago, and, secondly, that it removed certain obstructions to production. I would briefly address myself to these two propositions. Are we so sure that this Bill is the kind of Bill that was envisaged by the electorate of this country 12 months ago? Did the electorate of this country vote for a reduction in the right of pregnant women to return to their work? Was this taken from the Conservative Party manifesto? Was the electorate told that the Government would increase the power of employers to dismiss their employees without giving them the right of appeal on unfair dismissal? I doubt it.
The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, whose sincerity I totally respect, hopes
1588
that this Bill will create an atmosphere in which co-operation and persuasion will become dominant in industrial relations. I believe that he will be disappointed. I believe he will be disappointed for this reason; unfortunately, the Conservative Party last year identified to the public the winter of discontent with trade union power. This was totally incorrect. If anything, one could argue that it was lack of trade union power, lack of trade union discipline, that led to the winter of discontent.
I can assure your Lordships now, as I did on Second Reading, that none of those incidents which were in the public mind and which naturally and rightly worried the public and worried us all during the winter of 1978–79—the kind of scenes outside Grunwick; the kind of scenes at the Charing Cross Hospital as my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has pointed out with more recent instances would have been touched by this Bill. The law has power to deal with disturbance, but not the law of industrial relations, because the two things are quite separate. But they were identified during the election by the Conservative Party as, "These are the things that happen unless you curb union power". I believe that by the introduction of this Bill the Government are going to disappoint the vast majority of their supporters who supported them on these grounds.
Secondly, if, as my noble friend Lord Lee said so eloquently with his long experience, we are going to face and tackle the basic productive problems of this country, surely we can only do so by a tripartite co-operation between Government, trade unions and employers. Is there any other way? What have the Government and all their supporters been saying throughout the passage of this Bill? I have been listening and sometimes participating during these long hours, hoping that something would happen to this Bill to take away my fears. If we are expecting that the cries of the representatives of the Government and their supporters to reduce trade union power will increase production, we are living in Cloud Cuckoo land. Noble Lords in all parts of the House try frequently to face up to the desperate issues created by changes in productive methods and in our industrial system. We must

1589
face up to the social changes which are essential if we are to achieve that mobility of labour which is needed for a new industrial revival in this country.
If the Government use their position, through their supporters and through the media, to tell the country that they propose to reduce the power of one of the institutions on which the future productive power of the nation rests, what they are in fact doing is sabotaging production. The fact that the Bill has been introduced without consultation with the TUC, or without the TUC having any influence on its drafting; the fact that the Government can quote no trade union or no trade union leader who has given his public support to it; and the fact that the General Secretary of the TUC has gone on public record as saying, like my noble friend Lord Lee, that the Bill is irrelevant to the industrial problems of this country, are matters which should disturb the Government. But, unfortunately, we have seen during the passage of the Bill very little concern and consciousness of the dangers the Government are getting themselves into by, as I said on Second Reading, apparently provoking worker resistance to their economic and anti-inflation policy.
If, when he replies, the Minister can give us any assurance that the trade union movement or any section of it is giving public support to the Bill, I am sure we shall be prepared to withdraw that part of our criticism. I do not believe the noble Earl will be able to do so. But until the Government recognise that they must get together with the TUC and all concerned, we shall drift steadily downwards, as every one of the economic indicators is showing we are doing now.
5.44 p.m.
Lord RENTON: My Lords, there was a good deal with which I disagreed in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, but I am sure he will be better answered by my noble friend Lord Gowrie than by me. I wish to be brief, so I move to other matters. Having taken part in the proceedings in another place on the 1974 and 1976 Acts, it has been a great privilege as well as interesting for me to have taken part in the proceedings in your Lordships' House in these calm, informative and constructive debates, which in my opinion have lost
1590
nothing by sometimes cutting across parties. It has been rightly said how much we owe to the Front Benches on both sides, and I need not repeat it. But I wish also, as others have, to pay a special tribute to my noble friend Lord Gowrie, more especially because he has been so patient behind the scenes, sometimes when I and others have wished to exchange views with him, and we have appreciated that very much indeed.
The Government deserve to be congratulated on the Bill and I have been glad to support them on every provision except Clause 17, about which I shall say more later. But meanwhile I wish them well, even on that. The Government are especially wise to have dealt with the difficult and complex issue of the closed shop in the way they have, and now that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is, happily, on the Woolsack again, may I say I believe that my noble and gallant friend Lord De L'Isle did a useful service in starting that debate on Clause 7 which enabled the Lord Chancellor to remove the genuine doubts which had been held on both sides as to whether a deeply held personal conviction included a political one.
Alas—and it is sometimes a pity—the Lord Chancellor does not make the law. When he gave an assurance that the employment tribunals would give the same interpretation to that phrase as he gave, I confess I began to wonder how they would get to know of the Lord Chancellor's opinion; and if the Government have any idea as to how that is to be brought about, I am sure that that information would be of interest and benefit to your Lordships.
On Clause 17, I have no regrets about having been in a small minority in that respect. I have voted occasionally with minorities of the Right, of the Left and of the Centre, and sometimes minorities containing all three. Sometimes those minorities have eventually been proved right, and sometimes not within so very many years. However, on this occasion I earnestly hope we shall be proved wrong, and I say that in all sincerity and not apologetically. Meanwhile, I accept the Government's judgment on that very difficult matter.
Perhaps the most important clause is the one to which the noble Lord, Lord

1591
Houghton of Sowerby, referred—namely, Clause 16 dealing with picketing—because it deals with what so many people have regarded as the disgraceful menace of flying pickets and especially because of the way the flying pickets have behaved. Lord Houghton did a valuable service in drawing a distinction between genuine flying pickets and demonstrators because, of course, the implication there is that the demonstrators will not be breaking the law if they demonstrate peacefully and cause no breach of the peace, but the flying pickets will be breaking the law if they are in contravention of what is now Clause 16, formerly Section 15 of the 1974 Act. We must be vigilant about that matter and the police will require all the responsible help they can be given by the whole community.
I hope trade union leaders, officials and shop stewards will bear in mind that the Bill calls for a great sense of responsibility on their part, because it is needed to prevent abuses which harm so many of their fellow workers. I remember those fellow workers in my constituency when I was in another place, and I say again, as I said on Second Reading, that I could never have been elected to the other place without the support of very large numbers, indeed thousands, of members of trade unions, as well as workers who were not members of trade unions, and their families. So on this matter one speaks with a little feeling, as well as experience.
Those fellow workers are often annoyed and sometimes frightened by the abuses, some of which this Bill should check. Those abuses not only frighten and annoy them, but may even cause them to lose several weeks' pay, and may even bring about unemployment. May I say in passing that that is what worried me most in regard to Clause 17, though I did not have time to stress it. Surely what are now needed are responsibility and restraint, above all else. I hope that my right honourable friend Mr. Prior will receive the support that he deserves for the stand he has taken on so many issues in the Bill. The step-by-step approach is surely right. One must remind all those in the Labour movement who claim, quite wrongly, that everything is lovely in the garden so far as their movement is concerned—they do not all feel that; I know that the noble Lord, Lord
1592
Houghton or Sowerby, does not—that Mr. Prior and the Cabinet were democratically elected to do the things which the Bill is designed to do; and so I wish them well.
5.52 p.m.
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, since Second Reading on 20th May we have debated the Bill for four days in Committee and for two days on Report. In addition, there has been a day's debate on Second Reading and today's debate. Nearly 180 amendments were tabled at the Committee stage, and more than 60 on Report, and the bulk of these amendments were debated fully. The noble Lord, Lord Kaldor, though he made some kind remarks for which I thank him, castigated me for not having altered the Bill or not having accepted any alteration to it in any way. The noble Lord is not quite right there. The most substantial Government amendment was brought to our attention by the noble Lord, Lord Robens of Woldingham, and we followed his advice and altered the Bill accordingly. There was a considerable and important amendment on joinder in the name of my noble friend Lord De La Warr, which we also accepted.
Of course I understand the frustration, and at times irritation, usually admirably contained, which the Opposition felt and which the noble Lords, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton and Lord McCarthy, had especially to bear. I want to pay my own tribute to the very great industry and learning that both noble Lords demonstrated, and to the lucidity and, in almost every case, good humour with which they pressed their amendments. It would be improper for me to quote remarks made behind the scenes by my own officials on the contributions of the noble Lords, but let us say that we in the department were all extremely impressed.
I appreciate that both noble Lords must have found the debates frustrating. It is a matter of personal regret to me that we were not able to accept any of their amendments, and yet the explanation is quite simple: the Government approach this whole subject in a way that is radically different from that of the noble Lords, and that is a matter of honest difference of opinion. It is not that we have not listened to their arguments, or that we

1593
have failed to understand their worries. We simply do not believe that the Bill would achieve its declared overall purposes if it were amended as they wish. I must add in fairness to both noble Lords that they have had a fairly good run, because not only were they regaling your Lordships' House with their expertise on the Bill during the various stages of its progress, but they were also appearing for about one hour a week on national television on the same matter. So I do not think that they have done too badly.
In thanking the noble Lords who spoke for the Opposition, I wish to thank, too, those many noble Lords on all sides of the House who have made some very kind and flattering remarks about those of my noble friends, as well as myself, who have carried the Bill through your Lordships' House. Those remarks were especially pleasurable to me today, since over the last two days I have been somewhat in the wars on matters of public and employment policy. I should like to take this opportunity to say that I wish that the newspapers, if they are kind enough to notice my speeches at all, would attend to what I actually say. After all, in my case they do not have the excuse that people use when listening to Miss Anna Ford.
However, that point apart, I wish in particular to join in the tribute paid by my noble friend Lord Renton to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. Perhaps your Lordships feel that you wish to follow the remarks made in a totally different context by Miss Mandy Rice-Davies, who said, "Well, he would, wouldn't he?" However, apart from that obvious coalition of interest, within the Government, and without it, we have been immensely impressed by the tenacity with which my right honourable friend has fought his case and, above all, by the six years' hard labour that he has given to this enormously difficult and contentious subject. I believe that even those who feel that he has got the Bill wrong would wish him well; and of course I certainly do not think that he has got it wrong.
Reverting to our realm, I believe that the Bill will return to another place as a better Bill than that which reached us in May. We have strengthened the encouragement which the Bill gives to union ballots by inserting a provision obliging employers to provide facilities for such
1594
ballots to take place. We have tightened up the closed shop provisions by making it clear that everyone in the relevant group of employees—both trade unionists and non-trade unionists—has the right to vote in a closed shop ballot. As I said earlier, we have added a new joinder provision which will make anyone who enforces union-labour only clauses in commercial contracts and thereby causes unfair dismissal, liable for the sums payable in compensation to any employees dismissed; and we have made a number of changes to clarify other parts of the Bill.
I believe in all that we have strengthened the purposes of the Bill while remaining faithful to its underlying principle of changing the law to correct manifest abuses and injustices. As I said on Report, this is not simply the step-by-step approach. It is really the abuse-by-abuse approach—not tackling matters in this difficult collective field by way of legislation, except where there is an overwhelming need to do so, and except where in our judgment there is overwhelming consent that we should do so.
The Bill restores the right of workers to claim unfair dismissal if they are sacked through the improper imposition and operation of a closed shop; and I am enormously grateful for the support given to the Bill in that respect by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. It restores the right of an employer to seek a legal remedy when his business or livelihood, and the jobs of his employees, are threatened by secondary picketing. It places strict and specific limitations on immunity for spreading industrial disruption far and wide beyond those concerned in a dispute.
At this point, may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch—and I shall come to his point about the MSC a little later—that he has indeed put his finger on a difficulty in public relations here. It is broadly true that most people in this country, when they think of law at all, or when they think of laws being passed to provide redress for specific abuses, think in the main of criminal law, and are anxious about the provisions which may be needed, or may need to be changed, in respect of criminal law. We have to convince people that, in addition to the extant laws on demonstration and mass

1595
behaviour, it is useful and proper for there to be civil remedies and civil redresses in a field where people will not usually wish, when they can avoid it, to make use of these remedies, but which are there when they feel they have no alternative but to do so. So one must look at both the civil and the criminal provisions (not of this Bill, of course, but provisions overall) in that context.
We have removed the immunity for coercive recruitment tactics, as were famously associated with SLADE, and the Bill encourages the use of secret ballots by trade unions. Again, I am pleased that not only the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, but the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Newton, had some pleasure there, though one of the most cherished moments that I found during these stages in Parliament on the Employment Bill—and I hope I am not spoiling the speech day atmosphere or the prize-giving atmosphere by referring to it—was when the entire Labour Party in the House of Lords went through the Lobbies in protest at massive extensions of public spending for the provision of secret ballots by trade unions.
All these reforms that I have mentioned are long overdue. I do not think that many people seriously doubt that the steps we are taking in this Bill have the support of a large majority of people in this country. I believe passionately that, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, a Minister of State in the previous Government, said, this is a moderate Bill; yet it is decisive and incisive in its approach to specific abuses—to what my noble friend Lord Mottistone called the abuses of the bully.
There has been much talk about the degree of support among trade unionists for the Government at the last election, and therefore, by inference, for this Bill; and there have been subsequent opinion polls to show that a majority of trade unionists agree that the proposals in the Bill are right and necessary. I still stand on my own scepticism, in really many fields, about polls and surveys. I find that the PSI survey, for instance, gives considerable support to our approach on employment protection, while the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, finds the very reverse. In the long run what we
1596
must rest on is our parliamentary sovereignty and our parliamentary judgment. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, that from time to time Governments have to do what they think is right, regardless of popularity; and in the end have to be judged on the quality of their own performance. But, that said, I agree with my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye that we have been careful to consult every step of the way here and to seek consent for what we are doing, and I believe that we have achieved this consent.
My Lords, I want to come quickly to some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, in respect of the overall economic context in which we are approaching the Bill, and particularly our attitude towards the Manpower Services Commission. The noble Lord said that when I intervened when he raised this at an earlier stage I showed some irritation, and indeed I still feel it. The irritation was simply because it seemed to me that the noble Lord was claiming that we had reduced expenditure on the Manpower Services Commission, whereas in fact net expenditure in real terms—not adjusted for inflation, but expenditure in real terms—is (and I have figures here to prove it) up this year on last year. I say that with no sense of gratification, because the Government are trying to reduce expenditure overall, and I would much prefer to be able to tell the House that it was down this year on last year. Nevertheless, in spite of wishing to achieve that aim (and we are confident that we shall be able to in time, but cutting out waste and reducing the fat, and so forth) many of the Manpower Services Commission's programmes are related to demand in the fields of youth unemployment and the like, and, as youth unemployment has grown, so I am proud to say that we have been able to increase the overall provision. Indeed, in that particular respect we have increased it by 25 per cent. to meet the need.
I want finally to say that we have not set out in this Bill to create an entirely new legal framework for industrial relations in this country, but I believe we have established the necessary ground rules, and the right ground rules, for the day-to-day conduct of good management—trade union relations. That is the role of law in industrial relations, to be applied

1597
as seldom as possible but to provide the right context. It is really more a redress of a balance of power than a reduction in powers of unions that we have been after in our approach.
I hope that no one who has followed our debates will make the mistake of thinking that legislation alone can bring about the improvements in procedures and institutions, or in habits or in practices, which we all know are so needed; but, as far as the foreboding of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, is concerned, I should like to say to him again, as I said to him on Report, that he overestimates the degree of opposition that exists to this Bill within the union movement itself, and under-estimates the desire of most people on all sides of industry to see it work.
The noble Lord, Lord Lee of Newton, said we had divorced power from responsibility, but the point of civil law in this whole field is to target upon individuals, and individual responsibilities, for their action. I would have thought that we are really doing what he wanted in this regard by proceeding against individual abuses committed by individuals, rather than trying to move against the union movement collectively.
The responsibility for improving industrial relations rests squarely with employers and trade unions, and with managers and workers. If we have learned nothing else from the last decade, it is that no one else—not Parliament, not the Government, nor the courts—can assume that responsibility. It is inseparable from the responsibility for the day-to-day conduct of industry; and, as my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft said in a remarkable speech when we were debating Clause 17 on 8th July—and I am quoting my noble friend from col. 1093—
"what happens this winter is not going to be decided by this clause, however it is drafted or amended. It is going to be decided by the individual decisions of trade unions and managers up and down this country in the public sector, in the private sector. May I say that an enormous responsibility rests on their shoulders".
Laws can shape behaviour over time, but they do not transform deep-rooted attitudes overnight—hence the step-by-step approach. The will to put right what is wrong with our industrial relations must not of course stop with this Bill, and the real task lies ahead.
1598
On the subject of the complexity of Clause 17, may I say this to my noble friend Lord Renton and to the noble Lord, Lord Spens? For reasons which were explained this afternoon by my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate, the drafting may be highly complex, but the industrial situation, the industrial reality and the industrial abuse we are trying to tackle are in fact perfectly simple, and we think everybody in industry understands them.
Finally, my Lords, the Bill takes an essentially reasonable approach to remedying abuses that the vast majority of people in this country, including most trade unionists, want to see stopped. I do not believe the people of this country want to see, or are prepared to see, the purposes of the Bill frustrated or subverted. If that were to happen there would, of course —I say this with all seriousness—be great pressure for us to take much stronger action, and we would not flinch from that pressure.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, hit the nail on the head when he said that it has been 12 years since the Donovan Commission reported. Much suffering has taken place affecting Governments of both parties and affecting industry while we have wrestled with the difficulties of reforming our industrial relations law. But no one—certainly not the noble Lords opposite, who were responsible for very substantial alterations under the previous Administration—can think that any of us could have shrunk from or shirked this task. We think we have got it right. We think now that we have legislation that will stick. The commitment of this Bill to reform is—how may I put it most politely?—enshrined in a manifesto which has not yet had a papal imprimatur on the part of the Labour Party, and we think the Bill is going to last. We also think that the Labour Party would be most unwise from the point of view of its own interests, even if it would be wise from the point of view of ours, to make too solid a commitment to repeal. Our job now in this country is to get on with the job and to tackle the real problems of industrial regrouping and reorganisation which, however the noble Lord, Lord Kaldor, and I may differ in terms of our analysis of what needs to be done, we both agree is the primary task.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

FALMOUTH CONTAINER TERMINAL BILL
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with an amendment.
GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) (NO. 2) BILL
Bill committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.