Lords Sitting of 8 March 1988

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

South Africa: Oil Exports Embargo
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are refusing to provide information to the United Nations team investigating violations of the embargo on oil exports to South Africa.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, yes, but we adhere to the agreement by European Council Foreign Ministers in September 1985 and the Commonwealth Accord of the same year which ban the export of oil to South Africa.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, if the British Government were serious about what the Minister has just said about the ban imposed at Luxembourg three years ago by the European Community and the Commonwealth Accord, would they not be trying to assist the intergovernmental organisation set up to monitor how the ban, with which they agree, is being circumvented?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, that may be the noble Lord's point of view, but we disagree with it. The resolution to which he refers is not binding. There is no obligation upon us to respond to alleged violations of an embargo to which we do not subscribe.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the Minister say whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to supply information to the Commonwealth Foreign Ministers group which was set up in Vancouver? Secondly, are they satisfied that no North Sea oil is reaching South Africa via third parties?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, on the latter part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, the agreements which were reached and which concern United Kingdom guidelines have excluded exports of United Kingdom Continental Shelf crude oil to South Africa since 1979. It would be difficult to be certain that no oil gets through under any circumstances; but nevertheless the guidelines which were then established remain firm today. I am not sure that I followed the drift of the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question. If he would repeat it, I should be prepared and happy to answer it.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, as the noble Lord will recall, at the Vancouver conference a Commonwealth Foreign Ministers group was set up
560
to monitor the position in South Africa. As I understand it, it has been reported that Her Majesty's Government are not supplying the information that the group wants. Will the Minister confirm that Her Majesty's Government are complying with the request?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Lord reverts to the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, unless I have misunderstood him. The answer is that we do not co-operate with that group. We disagree with the basis of the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, because the resolution to which it referred was not binding.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the resolution may not have been binding, but will the noble Lord return to my original Question? If the Government are sincere about the EC and Commonwealth embargo on oil, what are they doing to prevent an evasion of the decision? If they are not giving evidence to the intergovernmental committee, what are they doing? What is their line when that intergovernmental group makes a report which suggests that British industrial interests, such as the BP subsidiary in South Africa and Trafalgar House, are making, and hoping to make further profits from South African efforts to get round the embargo by converting offshore gas into oil? Is it the British Government's view that the profits of British companies are more important than international authority?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Lord invites me to suggest ways in which we might take stronger measures to prevent the supply and shipment of oil and petroleum products to South Africa. The existing measures that we have taken are intended to send political signals to the South African Government of our strong opposition to apartheid and to the need for urgent fundamental change. The noble Lord knows full well that further punitive economic sanctions would only hurt those whom we wish to help and furthermore would prolong the conflict. He may not agree but nevertheless that is the view of the Government. It may seem to the noble Lord to be a long haul but there are no alternatives to working for peaceful change. I recommend it to him.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, may I ask a simple and more direct question? Since the Government have made clear that they are not in favour of sanctions against South Africa, are the Government in favour of the breach of sanctions applied by others?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, what I am concerned about at this Dispatch Box is to advocate Her Majesty's Government's policy, not necessarily the policies of other nations. What I have said stands. We oppose a comprehensive oil embargo; furthermore, we maintain that the United Kingdom guidelines on oil are effective.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord has misinterpreted what I said. I said nothing about punitive sanctions nor any additional sanctions. I asked the Government quite straightforwardly

561
whether they had agreed on an embargo. If so, is it not common sense to make that embargo effective by monitoring it and for the British Government to give evidence to the organisation which is monitoring it?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Lord seems to have somewhat changed the tenor of his question, unless I have misunderstood him. What I said is that we have made it clear to oil companies that they are expected to abide by the guidelines of the European Community and Commonwealth undertakings. We would take a serious view of any breaches. As I said earlier, however, there is no evidence to suggest that companies are not complying.

Middle East Conflict: Refugee Aid
2.44 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether in concert with the United Kingdom's allies they will seek to provide food and medicaments to the people in the refugee camps of Gaza and the West Bank in Palestine.
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords. Our national contribution to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency whose programmes include supplementary feeding will be £5·25 million in 1988, 5 per cent. more than in 1987. Our share of planned 1988 Community contributions amounts to a further £5 million. Since December 1987, the Community has also provided directly £450,000-worth of emergency medical supplies and food. We are ready to consider requests for special funding, both nationally and with our colleagues in the Community.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, may I thank the Minister for that very encouraging reply? It certainly stands our Government in good stead and gives them a good name in the terrible tragedy in the Middle East.
However, there are some countries among our allies which do not seem to be pulling their weight. According to the Red Cross, some European voluntary organisations appear to be in need of a little more co-ordination, both in respect of medicaments and of food supplies. Would the Minister not agree that there could be a closer examination of whether or not the relief dispatched from Great Britain and our allies reaches the proper places and fulfils the proper purposes?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we believe it to be effective but if we can see ways of improving it we shall use them.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, recognising that the conditions in the refugee camps are appalling, can the Minister say whether any money has been offered by the very wealthy Arab states that have made billions of pounds out of oil? Have they tried to help their fellow countrymen in the resettlement camps? Or do they desire to keep them in appalling conditions—a constant eyesore to the rest of the world because of their hatred of Israel?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think it is fair to say that not a lot has been forthcoming. Nevertheless, I am certain that they would share in some respects at least the noble Lord's concern about the conditions.
Lord McNair: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his original Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, has our full support? Would he perhaps also agree that the camps in the Lebanon are every bit as deserving and perhaps more so than those in Gaza and the occupied territories?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, that is a point of view. The Lebanon is a matter which concerns us. Of course, we support Lebanon's sovereignty, its unity, independence and territorial integrity. As regards my original Answer, the way in which the United Nations Relief and Works Agency disburses its funds is a matter for that organisation.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I warmly welcome the practical assistance described by the noble Lord. But can he confirm that it is getting through to the occupied territories?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, so far as I am aware, the answer is yes. Perhaps I should say, in amplification of my answer to the noble Lord, Lord McNair, that the United Nations Relief and Works Agency does not predetermine the funding levels by area.
Returning to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, I have no evidence to suppose that it is not getting through. We have also a bilateral programme for Gaza and the West Bank outside the refugee camps which approaches £1 million per year. The story is encouraging.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that there is a great deal of truth in what the noble Lord, Lord McNair, said about the situation in the Lebanon? Many of us who have been there and to the Middle East have seen the terrible tragedies. We are irritated that those who could contribute are not contributing. It is almost like saying that the problem of Ethiopia, the great drought and the starvation affecting thousands if not millions of refugees is the fault of the Almighty for allowing the drought to happen. Will the Minister take on board the proposition I made initially that, with our allies, we want to see that what we are giving so generously to help those in urgent need is arriving at the intended destination?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. We certainly do not want to see going adrift the money of an agency such as the United Nations Relief and Works Agency to which we and our partners donate much for the benefit of these unfortunate people. We believe that it is getting through.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, will the noble Lord not agree that in very difficult circumstances UNRWA is doing a first class job and fully deserves the support of the European Community?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, yes, I agree entirely with the noble Lord. I am grateful to him for making that point. In fact, that agency held a consultation with donors only last week in Vienna. We await further proposals and its latest plans which we shall also consider sympathetically.

Capital Taxation Structure
2.50 p.m.
Lord Monson Lord Monson asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the present structure of capital taxation encourages insider trading.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I am not aware of any reason why the present structure of capital taxation should encourage insider trading.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. However, is he aware that whereas short-term capital gains are taxed at 30 per cent., long-term capital gains can effectively be taxed at several hundred or even several thousand per cent. because of the failure to index gains arising prior to 31st March 1982? Does that not encourage investors to go for short-term rather than long-term gains, and are not the people best placed to make short-term gains by definition insiders?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I am not sure that I follow the noble Lord's logic. No doubt many investors wish to make gains and perhaps wish to make them in the short term. But that is absolutely no reason to say that they wish to make profits from insider dealing.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I too find the logic of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, rather difficult to follow? Perhaps the Minister can answer this question: how effective are the new arrangements under the Financial Services Act for detecting and prosecuting in insider dealing cases?
If the noble Lord has figures available, can he give us figures for a period prior to the commencement of the Financial Services Act arrangements on insider dealing and subsequent figures so that we can see how we are getting on? If he does not have the figures, perhaps he will be kind enough to write to me.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I shall look into this and find out whether figures are available. The fact is that the Financial Services Act provided for new powers of investigation of insider dealing and for certain substantive amendments to the insider dealing legislation. Your Lordships will be aware that the Stock Exchange introduced computer assisted surveillance in 1986, and I believe that that, together with the possibility of investigation by inspectors, means that the chances of detection and successful prosecution in such cases are much enhanced.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, the Minister gives some assurances with regard to expediting these investigations. A number of individuals have been
564
under suspicion and some have been removed from office during the investigations, which have lasted more than 18 months. Will the Minister give the House some assurance that progress will be made in investigations so that the matter may be clear and individuals and organisations may know where they stand?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, it is in no one's interest for any such investigation to be rather slow or tardy in coming to a conclusion. However, I can say to the noble Lord that my noble friend the Secretary of State naturally wishes that inspectors making such investigations should report to him as quickly as possible.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, taking what I am afraid is precisely the opposite view to that of the noble Lord who asked this Question on the impact of short-term versus long-term capital gains tax, perhaps I may ask whether the noble Lord is aware that there is still considerable anxiety with regard to insider trading. Is he also aware that there is a considerable body of opinion which takes the view that the first major step to be taken with regard to insider trading is to freeze the capital dealings of directors of companies during the period that they hold their directorships of those shares in that company?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I am not sure whether I completely follow the noble Lord in that opinion, but I would say to your Lordships that the Criminal Justice Bill which is now in another place seeks to increase the maximum term of imprisonment that can be imposed on someone convicted of insider dealing from two years to seven years. That makes it an arrestable offence and an extradition crime.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the problem is not so much whether this is an arrestable offence or what the prison sentence is but whether the mechanism for detection and subsequent prosecution is effective? It was lamentably ineffective under the previous regime when the Stock Exchange reported to the DTI, as the noble Lord's predecessor at the Government Dispatch Box has pointed out. Are the present arrangements any more effective?
Lord Beaverbrook: Yes, my Lords. As I said earlier to the noble Lord, I believe that the ability of the Stock Exchange to detect instances of insider dealing has been enhanced by computer assisted surveillance. I also believe that the collection of evidence has been made very much easier. The appointment of inspectors to look into such allegations is a great step forward. I think that it is still too early to say exactly what impact the Financial Services Act has had on our ability to bring those guilty parties to court and have, it is hoped, a successful conclusion if they are found guilty. At the moment we have no plans to amend the provisions in the Financial Services Act and I believe that we are making progress in that respect.

Professor Brzezinski: Lecture
2.55 p.m.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow Lord Greenhill of Harrow asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have taken note of the views on possible developments in Eastern Europe expressed in a recent lecture by Professor Brzezinski (Independent, 4th February), and whether the situation is under departmental review.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we share many of the views expressed in Professor Brzezinski's lecture. Professor Brzezinski drew attention to sources of possible instability in the region, and to the effect which it could have on East-West developments. We agree with him that the aim of Western policy should be to encourage evolutionary change. The situation in Eastern Europe is kept under continuous study, both within the Government and jointly with our allies and partners.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he agree that although there are immediate tasks to be undertaken in NATO and in the EC, more urgent thought should be given to the possibility of radical changes over a much wider area of Europe—indeed, from the Atlantic to the Urals, an area in which we have historical and cultural links?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I can say to the noble Lord that we are paying close attention to developments in Eastern Europe both nationally and with our NATO allies and our European partners. This regular process of consultation includes discussion at ministerial level. I think that our aims should continue to be to develop contacts, encourage reform and better observance of human rights, and point out that repression is inconsistent with glasnost and perestroika. All countries have the ultimate right of self-determination.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the Minister agree that Professor Brzezinski's lecture underlined the importance of cultural diplomacy which was recently debated in this House? Will he now tell the House that the Government have agreed to give more support to cultural diplomacy in our embassies abroad and also to the BBC's Overseas Service?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, although the Question of the noble Lord refers to the Brzezinski lecture it goes slightly wide of the immediate subject of that lecture. As I said when I spoke in a recent debate on the subject, the matter of cultural diplomacy should not be seen in isolation from our other forms of diplomacy. They run together, and we shall continue to devote our energies to all forms of diplomacy for the benefit of this country.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, if the Minister has read the Brzezinski lecture in full he will have noted that the BBC's Overseas Service is very relevant to what he was saying.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think that I covered the BBC in considerable detail in the earlier debate we had. I should be happy to answer any specific question the noble Lord has about funding for the BBC External Service should he put down a question on that matter.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, however hard one tries, how is it possible to reconcile the failure of the Soviet Government to abandon the Brezhnev doctrine under which it promises fraternal international assistance to the Socialist countries which were formerly independent in Eastern and Central Europe—there were examples of that in Prague and Budapest—with its international obligations under the United Nations Charter, under the two covenants on the Declaration of Human Rights and for that matter under YALTA and the peace treaties with Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary? Is that possible?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think that outsiders can only have limited influence on internal developments in the area. I suggest that high level visits can be useful in pressing the case for change. The visit of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to Poland and that of the Hungarian Prime Minister to London later this year will be opportunities for just that kind of thing.
Lord Oram: My Lords, the article to which the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, has called attention deals mainly with Europe and the Soviet Union, as have the questions which have been put. Perhaps I may ask whether the Minister will take note of the paragraph which deals with China and the developments there as being even more significant than the developments in Europe? Will he ensure that his department takes due note of Professor Brzezinski's views on Chinese developments?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we shall of course note all comments. However, the Question referred to Eastern Europe.

Business
3.3 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Employment Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during that adjournment the Unemployment Benefit (Disqualification Period) Order 1988 will be taken.

Business of the House: Debate, 23rd March
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Ennals set down for 23rd March shall be limited to 5 hours and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of

567
Short Debates shall apply to the debate with the substitution of "5 hours" for "2½ hours" and "25 minutes" for "20 minutes".—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency Bill
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Employment Bill
3.4 p.m.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 12 [Extension to non-voting positions of duty to hold elections]:
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): If Amendment No. 63 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 64 to 72 inclusive.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 14, line 16, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) After subsection (6) of the 1984 Act (duty to hold election of voting members of a trade union's principal executive committee) there shall be inserted the following subsections—
"(6A) Notwithstanding anything in the rules or practice of any trade union, the person who holds the position of president of the union, or in the case of a union with no such position, any equivalent position, shall (if the rules do not otherwise provide for him to be a voting member of the union's principal executive committee) be deemed for the purposes of this section to be a voting member of the committee.
(6B) Notwithstanding anything in the rules or practice of any trade union, the person who holds the position of general secretary of the union, or in the case of a union with no such position, the position in the union which is the equivalent, or nearest equivalent, to that of general secretary, shall, (if the rules do not otherwise provide for him to be a voting member of the union's principal executive commmittee) be deemed for the purposes of this section to be a voting member of the committee except where the post of general secretary (or nearest equivalent) is subject to appointment by the union." ").
The noble Baroness said: We now reach Clause 12 of this important Bill. The clause is very significant because it seeks to impose upon unions the obligation to elect officials who in many instances have normal contracts of employment. Amendment No. 63 standing in my name proposes two different
568
subsections from those which are in the Bill. The object of the subsections is to try to preserve the position which currently exists in many unions and which was found to be acceptable in the 1983 Green Paper, Democracy in Trade Unions.
In most unions, and certainly in large numbers of white collar unions, the position is that the president—subsection (6A) deals with presidents—is a full member of the national executive council and normally has a vote. He would in almost all cases have had to be elected under the terms of the 1984 Act. Subsection (6A) of the amendment preserves that position.
However, the general secretary is often in a very different position. In many unions he is an official who is appointed with a normal contract of employment. He is the chief executive of the union. He is responsible to the national executive committee or council, which is itself electable and accountable to the members for the administration of the union and the employment of staff, who are themselves responsible to the general secretary and, through him, to the national executive committee.
In recent years unions have attempted to become, and in many cases have largely succeeded in becoming, increasingly professional. They have legal and research departments; they have publicity departments; they run education courses and provide training in industrial law and industrial relations as well as job evaluation and pay bargaining. In order to provide those services they employ full-time professional staff. The chief executive must have the capacity to manage those enterprises.
When the Green Paper to which I have referred looked at the situation in 1983, it came to the conclusion that that type of individual was not always readily available or even willing to submit himself to the vagaries of the electoral process. That is very true. It is particularly true in the white collar field. Many such unions look outside their ranks for suitable chief executives. Such a person could not be expected to win an election since at the time of appointment he would not be a member. Some unions have attracted the officials of other unions when advertising their more senior posts. There seems to be no reason why they should not continue to be able to do so.
There are unions, notably in the craft or manual field, where it has been traditional to elect all officials, including general secretaries. That is a matter for them if they wish to do so. However, unions are not all the same. In the craft and manual area it used to be possible—although probably it is less true now—for a defeated official who had had a craft training to go back to the production line or, as it used to be said, go back to the tools. He would of course then get the rate for the job.
In white collar employment the situation is very different. If a white collar union is to be able to persuade a bright young technician, chemist, supervisor or banking executive to become a union official, it has to offer him the job security which he could expect if he stayed in his present employment. In other words, he or she would not expect a job for life. However, he or she would expect to have the

569
same employment cover—the right not to be unfairly dismissed and not to be made redundant without compensation and the right to have pension rights and so on—as if he or she had stayed in his or her original employment.
Moreover, career opportunities must include, as they would have included had those people stayed where they were, the chance eventually to be considered for the top job. Some people may not be willing to hazard their future every five years by resorting to the hustings. If they are defeated, they are not able in a white collar career simply to go back to the tools as a manual worker might have been able to do. They have to begin their careers all over again in private industry. Because they will have lost a number of years, that cannot be done easily.
For people within striking distance of retirement the situation is even more impossible. The Bill proposes that people who have formerly been appointed should have their contracts negated and should have to stand for election up to within two years of retirement. That is a very malicious clause. No defeated candidate could possibly hope to get another job for that short time. And what about pension rights?
There is another aspect which I do not think that the Government have considered in putting forward the proposals in the Bill. A general secretary who is accountable to his executive has to do what that executive says. Sometimes he may not like it. He may give advice which the executive rejects. I have seen examples of that in my career. Nevertheless, he has to do what the national executive council tells him to do. However, if he is elected by the entire membership his power is immeasurably enhanced. He does not have to do what the executive tells him to do. He can say that he is elected by the entire membership and responsible only to the members. Moreover, the staff would continue to be directly responsible to him as chief executive. Therefore, the executive council could find itself powerless. That is a matter which has worried the CBI, since employers prefer to deal with unions where there is a substantial degree of internal stability.
I think that the clause was originally introduced in order, as I said at Second Reading, to catch one particular union president. However, I do not think that it has had that effect. In any event, pursuing individuals is no way to legislate. During yesterday's debate, I listened to what Members of the Committee opposite said about the way in which the trade union movement operates. I must say that I did not recognise the movement in which I am proud to have spent my working life. The image was projected of powerful despotic officials whose main job appeared to be to intimidate their members. That has not been my experience. My colleagues and I have never intimidated any members. We should not even try. We should think it entirely counterproductive. We have built our union upon the philosophy of membership involvement and of taking people with us as a result of persuasion and argument; nor are we alone in that. Other unions operate in a very similar way.
As I said at Second Reading, unions unfortunately have had a very bad press which they do not deserve.
570
Members opposite should be wary of putting too much reliance on press reports of union activity. The good things that unions do are never reported; only disputes and crises are reported and in a slanted way at that.
If unamended Clause 12 will have an immensely destabilising effect upon trade union administration. Perhaps that is what the Government want. It is certainly not to the advantage or in the interests of union members and I urge the Committee to accept my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: Before the noble Baroness sits down perhaps I may ask whether she is speaking only to Amendment No. 63. I thought that Amendment No. 74 and my Amendment No. 78 were grouped with it.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I hope to have an opportunity to say a few words about the amendments which are in the group when they are moved. I believe that both those amendments aim to protect contracts of employment in some other way and to that extent I support them.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: The noble Baroness speaks from great experience. I defer without reserve to her own experience. However, I hold that the views that she has expressed are related in the main to experience of her own union and do not have general application. Alas there are some unions which do not subscribe to the very edifying views that are always expressed by her.
Amendment No. 63, which is grouped with Amendments Nos. 74 and 78, envisages a derogation from the very important principle of Clause 12 as amended. It is a derogation which should not be allowed to run counter to the intendment of Clause 12 as it is proposed to be amended.
In due course let us examine what is proposed in the amendment. We return to the situation that notice has been given to oppose this clause and are faced with another hull-down firing position not of the noble Baroness but of the hard Left of the trade union membership.
On any objective analysis, Section 19 of the Act of 1984 says that the "principal executive committee" means the principal committee of the trade union concerned with the executive functions, by whatever name it is known. Clause 12 as it stands extends Section 1 of the Act of 1984 (which requires the reelection after five years of a voting member of the PEC) to include persons who attend and speak at some or all of those meetings by a process of amendment to subsections (1) and (83) of Section 1 of the Act of 1984 by the inclusion, in the noble Baroness's amendment, of subsection (6A) and (6B).
It is an intricate pattern of statutory patchwork. Government Amendment No. 73 proposes a new subsection (6C), which contains reasonable measures of safeguard to non-voting members of the PEC or employees of the union who hold a position under the rules for a year and did not hold that position in the previous year. This is designed to meet an opposition amendment tabled in another place.
The justification for Clause 12 as it stands—and it has to be faced now although this is not a debate on

571
whether the clause should stand part of the Bill—is enhanced by the measure of safeguard afforded by Amendment No. 73. It is essential to close the escape route for the avoidance of the principle at stake, which under the Act of 1974 is limited to voting members of the PEC standing for election—avoidance by changes in the rules to provide that certain members of the PEC should avoid standing for election thus depriving members of a vote. It is an obvious, well-designed and intelligently applied escape route. In this regard the NUM has already changed its rules and it is understood that some other unions which I do not wish to name may do the same. If asked to name them I could do so.
The effect of Clause 12 is to include members of the PEC already covered by the Act of 1984, those members who by virtue of the rules do not at present have the right to vote and also the de facto members who attend meetings and play a part in the decision-making process but do not vote. Yet again these amendments would open the door to evasion and abuse. Although I accept the good intentions of the noble Baroness I feel that it would be dangerous to accept this amendment. I hope that the committee will not accept it.
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Seear: I speak in support of the amendment. Those people who attend and have a right to speak or who speak on occasion are virtually the civil service of the trade union movement. It would be very odd to suggest in this Chamber that civil servants should be elected by the general body of voters.
There is another and more practical point. As the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, has said, modern unions employ an increasing number of professionally trained people from a variety of different professions. If we want modern, efficient and well-organised unions, they must be serviced by properly trained professional people who feel free to speak their minds according to their professional knowledge and to guide their union into more modern and appropriate ways of behaving. If those professionals have constantly to look over their shoulder to see in what way they are pleasing or displeasing the membership, many of whom may not be fully aware of the importance of such developments, their position as professionals who can make the unions more efficient and effective will be seriously undermined.
It is because we on this side of the Chamber believe in trade unions but want them to be modern, up to date and efficient that we should like to see this amendment accepted. I am bound to say, having listened to the debate today and yesterday that one wonders whether Members on the other side of the Committee want good, reformed unions, as we do, or whether they do not want any unions at all.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I should like to say to the noble Baroness that there are many on this side of the Committee—I am one of them—who totally agree with her. She is wrong in her accusations.
Lord Mottistone: Perhaps I may now speak to my amendment, Amendment No. 78, which is grouped with Amendment No. 63. First, however, I should like to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that it seems to me, from long experience in this area, that it is obviously important that the trade unions with which one deals should be properly organised and truly efficient.
At Second Reading I said that I thought Clause 12 was directed too much towards dealing with Mr. Scargill and that perhaps it was unwise to overdo the act of trying to deal with him as a special case. More significantly—the point was made by both the noble Baroness, Lady Turner and Lady Seear—there is the very important matter of being able to preserve the position of people who have served their unions well but who have not been elected and who probably would not be the kind of people suitable for election. Indeed, as I said at Second Reading, that would apply to many of the best noble Lords.
Turning for a moment from Amendment No. 63, which perhaps goes a little far, and looking at Amendment No. 74 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and Amendment No. 78 in my name, both appear very similar. Some parts of the noble Baroness's amendment are perhaps more directly associated with the Act in picking out general secretaries and presidents. I have not done that; I have sought to cover anyone who might inadvertently be caught by Clause 12. I have also included people who have not been elected to any trade union position during the preceding 12 years. That would catch Mr. Scargill and may catch other people who have shifted from one sort of background to another. I have met such people.
Both amendments apply only to people under contract of employment before 22nd October, which is the date that this Bill first saw the light of day in another place, and would not apply for the future. I have done that to encourage the Government to accept the proposal. They could feel that whatever they had in mind for the future would apply but would not immediately affect people who have served their unions for many years with great skill and devotion.
I wish to impress upon the Committee that these amendments are very modest. If the Government do not like the wording either of my amendment or of Amendment No. 74, which would not in the least surprise me, it would be very encouraging to think that they would be able to give consideration to the principle behind them and give us some hope that they might be able to come back at a later stage in the Bill with something similar.
Whatever the Committee may think about Amendment No. 63 and the comments of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway—on most occasions I agree with my noble friend but, this time, I think, he overstated his case—I hope that special care may be given to considering the sense and purport of Amendments Nos. 74 and 78
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Before the noble Lord sits down, I accept that it is inevitable that any advocate can overstate his case. I did not intend to do so. However, in all sincerity, I hope that my noble

573
friend the Minister will not consider these amendments.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: I think that it is common ground that we want to see trade union leaders, general secretaries and other officials accountable and responsive to their members. Presumably that is the objective of all of us. What puzzles me about the proposal from the government side is that it seems that it will have directly the contrary effect. All general secretaries or presidents are accountable to the membership of the union in two ways: through the operation of the rule book and through the elected executive committee.
Appointed general secretaries are more stringently bound by their executive committee than are elected general secretaries who can point to their recent appeal to the whole membership and who can claim that the sanction on them comes from their next appeal to the membership in two, three, or five years' time—whatever it may be. To that extent, if they so choose and wish, they can withstand pressure from the elected executive.
The effect of this proposal would be twofold so far as concerns those general secretaries whose members have decided through conscious decision and through their executives that they prefer the method of appointment rather than election. It would weaken the confidence of the members in the rule book. It overrides the rule book and the decisions that are taken by conference to modify, change, amend, improve and bring it up to date. The delegates modify the rule book over a number of years. It is a considered decision by the members themselves mediated through their conference.
Those members are now being told: "You must have that much less confidence in your own ability to make the rules. We do not trust you to make the rules. We do not allow you to make the rules in this respect. We intend to impose a single unitary system on you, whatever your wishes may be". To that extent, their regard for the rule book and their attachment to it are diminished. That is a sad weakening of their rights as members—rights of which we heard a great deal yesterday and no doubt shall hear more today. That is my first point.
My second point relates to the role of the elected executive council in relation to the general secretary or president. Obviously, willy-nilly, whether he wishes it or not, the power and authority of the general secretary will be greatly enhanced by the provisions of this clause. Frankly, most general secretaries of my acquaintance would not wish to take any advantage of that situation. They would not wish to assert their authority vis-à-vis their executive as it meets month by month in order to claim that their view was superior to that of the elected members of the executive. The fact remains that the effect and consequence of this clause are to enhance the authority of any general secretary, however exceptional may be his conduct, who wishes to lower the quality of the control of elected members of the executive over the union.
574
That is why I am so puzzled by the argument that in some ways this proposal enhances the control by the membership and the rights of trade union members. It seems to me that the proposal contained in the amendment is eminently commonsensical. I hope that the committee will accept that.
I leave aside any question of playing politics, although that is a very real problem. It is not one which will come immediately to the fore. However, over a period of time, I think it will come to play a much greater part than it does now in the activities of some unions. It will come to play a greater part in those activities because there is always a group within a union which wants to play politics, however unrepresentative and boring those people may be. Such a group may seize this provision as an opportunity to introduce into a stable situation something which it would regard as helping to destabilise the elected decision. That group regards the general secretary or other officials as coming between the members and their aspirations, along well-known ultra-left lines. That is a contingent danger but not one that I would advance as being the main danger. I have sought to put the main consideration before Members of the Committee. I hope that in replying the Minister will take on hoard the real danger that, because of some preoccupation, they are not advancing the cause that they purport to support.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he can explain one thing. He has said that Clause 12 overrides the rule book. He is therefore suggesting (is he not?) that the rule book should dominate the law. He is suggesting that it should take precedence over the law. That is the natural consequence of what the noble Lord has said. Is he going the stage further? Is he saying that if a law is passed which a union does not like it has only to alter its rule book and then the rule book would take precedence? That would seem to be the corollary of what he is suggesting.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: Perhaps the distinction that I draw between the existing role of the courts in relation to the rule book, on the one hand, and the putting on to the statute book of this entirely new piece of legislation, on the other hand, is not obvious or clear.
I accept very readily that the courts have an obligation to ensure that the rules of a union, even those adopted by the conference of the union—however they may be adopted—must be in conformity with natural justice. The courts should be able to strike down rules which do not pass that test. I accept very readily that in judging a particular interpretation of those rules by an executive or an official the courts must apply the same test of natural justice that has been applied heretofore. That same test of natural justice should continue to apply. It is right; it is proper and it is acceptable. However, it is entirely different to introduce this proposition which seems to indicate that this Chamber does not have much confidence in the ability of the courts to ensure that justice is done in relation to rule books.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Does the noble Lord recognise that in this context—as my noble friend Lord Renton was seeking to explain—we are not concerned with the traditional position with regard to the rules of natural justice or with breaches of the rules? We are concerned with the situation that is away from those two control factors of the High Court according to common law tradition. We are entering into a new dimension. In the new dimension, as my noble friend asks, are we to assume that the rules of the trade union in some way are to fetter the discretion of the High Court? That is the question.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: I must not weary the Committee. I simply put this suggestion to the noble Lord, Lord Cambell of Alloway, as a method of meeting both our worries. When this law is passed—in whichever form it is adopted—the members of a union through secret ballot should be able to say whether or not they wish this law to apply to them, or whether they wish to continue to be governed by their own rules. This would be quite consistent with the dignity of this Chamber and of another place. If the noble Lord would like to meet me on that common ground I should be delighted if he would draft an amendment to that effect to which we would both subscribe at Report stage.
Lord Trefgarne: The Government have made clear that Clause 12 is intended to ensure that union leaders are representative of the membership. It therefore extends the 1984 Trade Union Act's election requirements to all members of the principal executive committee, general secretaries and presidents, and to those who have the right under the rules or by custom and practice to attend and speak at some or all meetings of the PEC other than in a genuinely advisory capacity;
In this way, all those who are members or act as though they are members of the PEC will have to be elected and thus be better able to represent the views of the membership.
The clause closes a loophole in the 1984 Act by means of which certain union leaders have been able to give up their vote on the PEC and so evade the election requirement. The clause is therefore drafted quite tightly to reduce to a minimum any opportunity for evasion. It is important therefore to avoid providing any new loopholes, as I fear would be the case under Amendment No. 63.
I welcome the general acceptance of the principle that general secretaries and presidents should be elected. Indeed, even Mr, Scargill belatedly came to grips with the practicalities of that principle when he offered himself for election towards the end of last year.
I see no reason though—as Amendment No. 63 provides why some unions should be allowed to continue appointing their general secretaries rather than have them elected. General secretaries are often the individuals people think of first when they hear a union's name, and they can wield more influence than a non-elected post might suggest. For that reason I cannot agree to the amendment. Indeed, Clive Jenkins of ASTMS, Ken Gill of TASS, Fred Jarvis of the National Union of Teachers and Rodney
576
Bickerstaffe of the National Union of Public Employees are all appointed officials and would therefore be exempted from the election requirement under Amendment No. 63.
Amendment No. 63 is also unacceptable because it would leave the unions free to have almost anyone attend meetings and take part in the decision-making irrespective of whether members knew or approved. It would leave a significant loophole by means of which individuals could formally relinquish membership of the PEC and yet continue to attend meetings and influence events.
I realise there is a real point of principle underlying Amendments Nos. 74 and 78, but I am afraid I cannot accept them either. If members are to be sure that the leadership is truly representative, it is important that all PEC members, general secretaries and presidents are elected in accordance with these provisions. We cannot have protected categories able to see out terms of office which might consist of 10 or 20 years without the need for election. Mr. Scargill has already been mentioned, not only by me but by others. Under Amendment No. 74, for example, Mr. Scargill would be able to stay in post until retirement age, as might individuals such as Mr. Sapper of ACTT and Mr. Bickerstaffe of NUPE.
The Government are not being unreasonable in the way that this election requirement is imposed, however, as various transition and exemption provisions are provided in the Bill. Non-voting members whose election satisfied the workplace requirements of Section 3 of the 1984 Act will be able to see out a five-year term of office, as will non-voters who have been elected under any other form of election in the five years before the Bill's provisions came into force. Section 8 of the 1984 Act will continue to provide an exemption for certain elected PEC members nearing retirement age. In addition, Clause 12(4) would exempt from the extended election requirement most employed PEC members who are within two years of retirement age when the provisions come into force irrespective of whether or not they have previously been through an election.
I am afraid, therefore, that I see considerable difficulty with all three of these amendments. These provisions ensure that individuals are not treated harshly by the new election requirement. I cannot therefore agree that any of the amendments is either desirable or necessary. I hope that in the light of those considerations they will not be pressed.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: Does the Minister agree with me, as he has mentioned Mr. Scargill, that the decision by Mr. Scargill to seek election was precisely based on the grounds that it would strengthen his position vis-à-vis his elected executive committee? Will he further agree with me that the decisions taken by the executive since then and the result of the ballot vote last week by the membership demonstrate the nonsense of thinking that an enforced election can in some way bring the actions of particular unions into line with government thinking?
Lord Trefgarne: If the noble Lord is asking me to look into the mind of Mr. Scargill and to explain why

577
he carried out some particular action or other, I am afraid I have to tell him that I have long since ceased to be able to do that.
Lord Jacques: I am one of those who has taken a very close interest in the trade union movement from the outside. I have always been a member of a union but I have never taken an active part in a union. My job was to manage a business. I spent a lifetime doing that. I feel that in this matter the Government are wrong in principle and will get results which are quite the opposite of what they require.
First, why is it wrong in principle? Every organisation which is based upon membership elects officers and those officers are always given the authority to appoint officials to advise them. We are not concerned with names or whether they are called "president" or "secretary". The question is whether they are elected and are responsible to the membership or whether they are appointed by the board which the members have elected.
The Government will not be dictating to any other organisation which is based upon membership what it can do but they will be telling the trade union movement that it will not be allowed to choose officials who will be appointed because of their ability, who will not vote but who will advise the members. They must be elected. The Government are not interfering in that way with any other organisation, so why is it to happen with the trade union movement?
It would have been a disaster in the business in which I was employed if I had had to be elected. I would have had to appeal to the membership. I was appointed because of my ability to do the job and to manage the business, not because I had some appeal to the membership of the society.
This is entirely wrong in principle, and it will give entirely the wrong results. One has only to look at this Chamber and another place to understand why it will give the opposite results. The people in the other place are always looking over their shoulders and wondering what their constituents will think. Very often their conduct is guided by what their constituents will think. They are concerned with the immediate future. But in this Chamber, where we do not have constituents, we can take a different view.
We are not elected and we do not have to look over our shoulders. We are appointed and consequently there is an important difference. We are inclined to take a long view whereas in the other place a short view is taken. That is exactly what will happen in an organisation based upon membership. Those who are elected know that in a year or two they will come up for re-election and are therefore concerned with the short term, pleasing the members to get their votes. But those who are appointed can take an entirely different view.
If one has observed the trade union movement over the last 50 years one has seen trade union leaders appear to be very much to the Left while being elected but once they have retired they are inclined to be very much to the Right as they are no longer dependent on their members' votes. There is first-class evidence of
578
the foolish thing that the Government are trying to do.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: That is an interesting—
Lord Chapple: It was not my intention to speak in this debate, primarily because I was not here when it began. My other reason was that I did not want anything I said to embarrass my former colleagues on the Opposition Benches. However the last contribution compels me to say that in principle in this matter the Government are absolutely right. There can be no doubt that trade union presidents and general secretaries have great power. They have power over the appointment of officials. They have power over the purse and the expenses that are paid to officials and over the pension rights of officials. They have great power, and that is a power that ought not to be bestowed upon them because they were appointed by an elected executive, albeit elected by very dubious means anyway. That will be put right by the rest of the Bill.
I have spent the last 30 years of my life arguing that all union officials who have the power of decisions in unions should be elected. Only the appointed officials who do not take part in making decisions are entitled to stay without an election. Despite my disagreements yesterday with the Government's proposals I profoundly agree with the suggestion that all trade union officials should be appointed, particularly if they are members of an executive or general presidents or general secretaries.
I am sorry that I have had to say what I have because I did not want to embarrass my former colleagues on this matter, but I could have gone into a great deal of detail on the validity of appointing people to become general secretaries if I had known that this would be the tenor of the arguments from the Opposition Front Benches.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am glad that I gave way to—
Lord Sefton of Garston: Let me—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: This side!
Noble Lords: Campbell!
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I gave way to the noble Lord. This side.
Noble Lords: Campbell!
Lord Sefton of Garston: I am not giving way at all.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I gave way to the other side; it should be this side.
Lord Sefton of Garston: No.
The Earl of Dundee: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but it is the turn of this side to speak.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I give way. What else can one do?
Lord Sefton of Garston: Let me put another point of view. I heard the last speech and it seems to me that the ego of the noble Lord, Lord Chapple, is considerably bigger than I ever thought it was. I do not think anybody here will be embarrassed by something that we quite candidly expected. I certanly am not embarrassed, but I watched Committee Members opposite when the appeal was being made by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques. I thought I detected a sense of appreciating the basis of that appeal. I am sure it will not convince the Minister, however.
I put another point of view. Once again I make no apology for going back into the history of the trade union movement, which some people on the Government Benches do not seem to appreciate. The position in relation to the appointed officers of a trade union arose because the trade unions themselves were determined many years ago that they would have the best of civil servants, if I may use that phrase, to service them. You cannot possibly get the best out of a person if, as has been pointed out, somebody is looking over his shoulder all the time and the threat of the sack is there. One has to establish what we in this country boast of—a decent civil service. The amendment will take that ability away from the trade unions.
What in effect will be created if the amendment is carried, whether we like it or not, will be a situation in which the responsible officers of trade unions sooner or later will be at the beck and call of all the extremists in the the trade union movement.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am very glad that I gave way to the noble Lord, Lord Chapple, and also to the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, but not for precisely the same reasons.
The noble Lord, Lord Chapple, said everything that I wished to say but with far greater experience, with far greater authority and to much greater effect.
He suggested that this is a question of the Government being authoritarian as regards trade unions. I am not sure that I have used the right word but that was the sense of what he said. All I ask is whether he remembers the winter of discontent when the trade unions were seeking to be authoritarian as regards government. Surely we must have this debate—
Lord Basnett: Will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: May I finish and then of course I shall give way? Surely we must keep the debate in some perspective. All I can say is "Thank you" to the noble Lord, Lord Chapple, for having kept it in such perspective.
Lord Basnett: The noble Lord mentioned the winter of discontent. Is he aware that during that time there were occasions, about which none of us was proud, when members disobeyed their union's instructions and undertook acts which were regrettable? My own union was concerned. However, the executive of my union, and those of others
580
concerned, obtained control of the situation because we wished to act responsibly. I raised that matter in question form and I hope that Members of the Committee will allow me to continue.
I should like to pick up the implication that perhaps my noble friend Lady Turner did not reflect the major responsible part of the British trade union movement. I believe that she does; I am sure that she does. I was general secretary of a trade union which represented approximately 12 per cent. of the trade union movement. Together with the union of which she is a member we represented some 20 per cent. of the movement and our view is that of the movement. Would the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, care to estimate the percentage represented in the trade union movement in the examples he gave? It is a very small percentage.
I believe that two issues are involved. The noble Lord, Lord Chapple, says that there must be elections to keep the powerful general secretaries in rein. I never knew anyone to act with such authority of power as did Frank Chapple. Indeed, he embodies—
Lord Chapple: Give the Committee an example.
Lord Basnett: Yes, certainly; on the general council. That underlines the point made by my noble friend Lord Murray as to how one constrains the power of people in authority. General secretaries and presidents have power and there is no doubt about that but which is the best way to restrain it? Is it by making them subject to an executive and a congress which determines what they do, or is it making them subject to re-election every five years? I was a general secretary elected to office and thereby not subject to re-election. Every two weeks I met my executive, which could and did tell me on occasions exactly what to do. Every year I held a congress which decided the fundamental policies of the union. I had to follow those policies whether or not I agreed with them.
If I had been re-elected every five years and stood on a platform with which my executive and congress did not agree, there would immediately have been friction and a dilemma between us and I would then be relieved of some of the authority which they exercised over me. I agree totally with my noble friend Lord Murray about the issue.
I should like to pick up one further point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, concerning the election of certain professional officers attending an executive. Unions are constantly making themselves more professional. I had in attendance on my executive, for example, a finance officer who was an accountant, an education officer who was an educationist and a research officer who was a graduate. They were appointed by me and were not in rule. They spoke at the executive, could answer questions and in doing so they obviously developed views. However, the responsibility was ultimately mine. This Bill would require them to be elected. That would create a nonsense for the unions. How could I have such qualified people in a union where I wanted professional advice if they had to be subject to election every five years? I could have them by

581
appointing politically-motivated people, the only people one can get. The issues raised by the Government will have completely the opposite effect to what is intended.
Finally I should like to echo what was said by my noble friend Lady Turner at he beginning of her speech. I believe that there are in this country two trade union movements. There is the movement which she and I have experienced, which wants to carry out a job and which is responsible. There is also the movement which is reflected in some of the speeches of Members opposite.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps the Committee will allow me to answer one point. The noble Lord challenged me on the question of percentages. I am unable to answer; I have no expertise. I should like to make my position plain by saying that I accept that the vast majority of trade union activities in this country are wholly responsible. This legislation is designed to deal only with the irresponsible element.
Lord Basnett: Does the noble Lord realise that in trying to control a minority of the movement, as he suggests, the Government are creating loopholes for irresponsibility in the movement? They are under-mining the responsible activities of trade union leaders at the moment. That is the effect.
4 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: The action being taken this afternoon is entirely without precedent in the history of our voluntary institutions. Never before has the legislature interfered with the administration of voluntary societies in the way that is intended under this clause. The question raised is: how far is this Parliament entitled to intrude upon the freedom of societies and combinations of individuals which are running affairs in their interests in the context of a free society? Why was this proposal not ventilated at the outset of the Government's attempt to reform trade union law nine years ago? This is the most important change of all.
Part of the difficulty of the step-by-step approach is the ease with which we forget what has gone before. I wish to put it to the Committee that the essential step taken in this matter was to strengthen the representativeness of the executive council. That was the important step. Whatever the individual temperament, personality or assumed power of general secretaries, they have executive committees to control them. They have the voting strength. They go to conferences and decide union policy. Therefore, we have already strengthened the representativeness of the trade unions by insisting on election of executive committees.
That has already made a profound difference in some unions. Some anticipated the change in the law in this respect, including my union; others did not do so but are now complying with the law. Having handed executive committee membership back to the membership of the unions, it is now proposed to do the same with all the full-time officers of any note in an organisation.
582
I believe that sometimes there is an exaggerated notion about the power held by a general secretary or president. In many cases they receive a good deal of public notice. In these days of television they receive a good deal of exposure and nearly always come to the fore in the event of industrial disputes. None of us can deny that some reprehensible behaviour has been a feature of some trade union activities in the past. I believe a new climate is being created, partly by changes in legislation and partly by changes in public attitude.
Do Members of the Committee think that the electoral message of the past three elections has been lost upon the trade union movement? Do Members not understand that the decision of the electorate over the past three elections has indicated to the Labour Party that one of its great electoral disadvantages has been the unpopularity of the trade union movement? Those matters are altering attitudes. Why is it that the Trades Union Congress and the Labour Party are embarking on major reviews of their policies and the presentation of them? The reason is that they have taken to heart what has happened in three elections.
That is good from the point of view of an elected democracy. Let us examine what is happening now. Not all unions are alike. At Second Reading I referred to the fact that Civil Service unions, local government officers and similar organisations in the public sector have different methods of appointment and different conditions of service for their full-time officers.
When I was asked to leave the Civil Service at the age of 22 to become the secretary of a very small Inland Revenue staff federation, I asked for the same security of tenure that my members would have and did have. Therefore, I was given a life tenure subject to the upper retirement age and subject to the power of removal in the hands of the annual delegate conference. That was sufficient for a union of that sort. Throughout the 38 years that I was the general secretary of the Inland Revenue Staff Federation I never went to re-election and, what is more, there was never any political dispute over my position within the organisation.
Now what is going to happen? Appointed officers subject to the decision of the executive council and approved by a delegate conference or by ballot will have to go to election every five years and stir up political divisions which are latent in most unions today over the personality and the nature of the appointment in prospect. There will be political battles and controversies over the personality of the general secretary or candidates up for election every five years which have been completely absent from the union over the last generation. That is no contribution to the stability of the trade union movement. It tends to encourage and push it into a quinquennial recurrence of political agitation and controversy. Who will get the job? Is he on the Right or is he on the Left? Is he a militant or what is he or she? In those circumstances, there is a disservice to be done to the trade union movement by the proposal before the Committee today.
If one goes further, the proposal in this clause is to interfere with the appointment of what I would

583
describe as the civil service of the trade union movement. Trade unions require administrative officers, as do government departments, and usually they are appointed and usually are not up for election. However, this clause would put them in the field for election and re-election. I can tell the Committee that on a vacancy of which I am fully aware candidates are asking, "Will I have to stand for election? If so, I am not a candidate for this job. I am not in that arena. I am coming in with specialised knowledge of administration and finance and I do not expect to be thrown to the electoral wolves every five years. I do not expect to have to contest for my position, possibly not with a person of my qualifications but somebody representing a political point of view which they assume is preferable to mine". That is the injury which can be done to trade unions which know how to conduct their affairs and which do so with great efficiency in peace and free of political conflict.
All this is being done this afternoon without any real examination of the power, the use of that power and the checks and balances within unions. None of that has been fully inquired into. This is a superficial judgment of the Conservative Party about what is wrong with the unions. It believes that the way to cure it is to insist that those people must go to election in circumstances which are quite unsuitable to the work they do or the method of their appointment.
In conclusion, I ask the Committee to consider whether we are justified in carrying interference in the affairs of the trade union to this extent? Where do you draw the line? Are you drawing no real line at all, apart from the clerical and secretarial staff and executive officers? What about those who are departmental managers, not of policy but in administration, but who are free to attend meetings of the executive council to give account of their stewardship or offer opinion on matters before the executive?
I beseech the Committee to be careful before doing something this afternoon which is a breach of our freedom without full justification and with potential harm to a great movment which still exists and which is doing a job for the nation and for public administration as well as for its members. I believe this will be a reprehensible day in our history if Members of the Committee say, "We do not care what you say. We are going to throw all these jobs open to election by the membership and let that take care of itself. If there is political battle, let it go on. If there is turmoil let it go on". In the end I believe great harm will have been done to a great movement.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Before my noble friend leaps to his feet to bring this debate to a conclusion, I must say that it has left me in some confusion of mind. I have been a warm supporter of the Government's legislation on trade unions to date. On the other hand, I have always doubted the efficacy and effectiveness of statute law to remedy every defect in human affairs.
There are two assurances which I should like from my noble friend before I make up my mind on this issue. First, is he confident that the Bill as it now
584
stands will not lead to an increase of political activity within the unions? Secondly, is he confident that the Bill as it now stands will not inhibit the access of those who have the difficult task of running a union to the best advice available?
Lord Beloff: I do not interpret Clause 12 to the same extent as noble Lords opposite suggested. I believe everyone here agrees with the noble Baroness who moved the amendment that the trade union movement, like any other important national institution which seeks efficiency, must be able to employ persons of competence and expert knowledge to perform both the advisory and, in some cases, the administrative tasks which are called for.
I cannot see that that process is inhibited by the terms of Clause 12. It does not seem to me inevitable that the person known as the general secretary should be the equivalent—I think this was in the mind of the noble Baroness—of, say, the permanent secretary of a government department. It is, if you like, a hybrid position. It is partly that, and in some unions it is very largely that. In other unions, as I believe has been made clear, it is a more political appointment; that is, the general secretary takes an active part in framing policy. He may be deferred to, because of his long experience and particular qualities, by his elected colleagues on the executive.
The term "general secretary" after all is the one by which Stalin maintained himself in power without, as I remember, holding any other office. Therefore, it is an ambiguous term. It is true that the shift, as it were, towards the political kind of general secretary would be increased, as the noble Lord, Lord Murray, said, because people who have to seek suffrages are themselves likely to be political in their outlook and habits. However, nothing inhibits the appointment of specialists—including specialists who may attend meetings of the governing body. If they attend to give advice or to receive instructions their presence is permissible under Clause 12. That is what we are used to in many other aspects of our national life.
The Cabinet, or a Cabinet Committee, may summon a civil servant or, say, a military chief, to give advice or even to receive instructions. It does not make that person part of the ruling group. A bogey has been built up about this clause. It would make a change but it would not inhibit the development of the specialist and professional services which the noble Baroness is right to see as one of the foundations of a modernising trade union movement.
Baroness Turner of Camden: In replying from these Benches to the debate on the amendment, I should like first to say that much of the discussion has not been absolutely directed to the amendment. The proposed subsection (6A) specifically deals with the position of president, as I said in my opening remarks. The presidency of the NUM has been bothering many noble Lords on the opposite Benches. That is specifically dealt with in subsection (6A) which makes clear that it is an elected position.
The proposed subsection (6B) deals with the position of general secretaries. My noble friends have dealt in great detail with those arguments. The

585
Minister has certainly not responded to the main arguments that we have put forward. For example, he has not dealt with the Civil Service argument. Again, this is a strong argument. If one is to have specialist services, as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, who seemed to agree, said, there must be someone in charge of those services who is likely to understand what they are all about. Therefore, a chief executive who has some administrative skills is necessary.
It is possible, of course, that such a chief executive will have a high political "profile" because that is the way in which public life operates in this country. He may be making television appearances, and so on. But that does not mean to say that he is not an administrator responsible directly to his executive.
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Chapple, that not all unions are the same. Not all general secretaries of unions have the powers that he says exist in the ETU. In this amendment we say that because of the diversity of union practice, it should be left to the unions themselves to decide whether they want to appoint an official to administer affairs for them, to organise their specialist services, to represent them and to have the capacity to represent them on television, and so on, or whether they want to have an elected official.
The clause is an unwarrantable interference with the rights of voluntary organisations in a way so well put to the Committee by my noble friend Lord Houghton. It is wrong for the Government to come along with this legislation and seek to cut across all the standard practices, all the contracts of employment that currently exist, and to raise all sorts of ambiguities in relation to people attending the executives of unions who are not themselves general secretaries.
It has been mentioned that a number of officials regularly attend executive meetings. I did so for a long time during my trade union career. I do not know whether I could be said to have given professional advice, but certainly I had to produce papers for the executive and certainly I had to speak to those papers. Ultimately, if my recommendations were not accepted I had to abide, and did abide, by the decisions of that elected executive.
The clause expands the position very widely to cover that range of officials and to interfere with their employment contracts in a quite unjustifiable way. No criticism has yet been voiced in the Committee about the way those officials carry out their work or about their lack of accountability to the membership. For all those reasons I intend to press this amendment to a Division and I ask the Committee to support it.
4.17 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 63) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 118; Not-Contents, 152.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Ardwick, L.

Amherst, E.

Attlee, E.

586

Banks, L.

Longford, E.

Basnett, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Birk, B.

McCarthy, L.

Blackstone, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Blease, L.

McNair, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mayhew, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mishcon, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Molloy, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Morris, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mottistone, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Mulley, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L

Carter, L.

Nicol, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Oram, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

David, B.

Peston, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Dean of Beswick, L. [Teller.]

Phillips, B.

Diamond, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Dormand of Easington, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ennals, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Rea, L.

Falkland, V.

Richardson, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Fitt, L.

Rochester, L.

Foot, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Gallacher, L.

Seear, B.

Galpern, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Glenamara, L.

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shackleton, L.

Grey, E.

Shaughnessy, L.

Grimond, L.

Simon, V.

Hampton, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hanworth, V.

Stedman, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hayter, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Heycock, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hooson, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hughes, L.

Thurlow, L.

Hunt, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Underhill, L.

Jacques, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jay, L.

Walston, L.

Jeger, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Whaddon, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Wigoder, L.

Leatherland, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Broxbourne, L.

Aldington, L.

Butterworth, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Caccia, L.

Allerton, L.

Caithness, E.

Ampthill, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Arran, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Auckland, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Bauer, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Beaverbrook, L.

Carnock, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cayzer, L.

Beloff, L.

Chapple, L.

Belstead, L.

Chelwood, L.

Birdwood, L.

Clinton, L.

Blake, L.

Coleraine, L.

Blatch, B.

Colnbrook, L.

Blyth, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Cowley, E.

Brentford, V.

Craigavon, V.

Broadbridge, L.

Crawshaw, L.

587

Crickhowell, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Nairne, Ly.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Nelson, E.

Dulverton, L.

Norfolk, D.

Dundee, E.

Norrie, L.

Eccles, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Elibank, L.

Orkney, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Ferrier, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Pender, L.

Gainford, L.

Quinton, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Reilly, L.

Goold, L.

Renton, L.

Grantchester, L.

Rochdale, V.

Gray, L.

Rodney, L.

Gridley, L.

Rugby, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

St. Davids, V.

Haddington, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Sandford, L.

Halsbury, E.

Sandys, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Shannon, E.

Harvington, L.

Sharples, B.

Havers, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Hemphill, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Henley, L.

Slim, V.

Hesketh, L.

Somers, L.

Hives, L.

Stockton, E.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Hood, V.

Strange, B.

Hooper, B.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Jessel, L.

Strathspey, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Sudeley, L.

Joseph, L.

Suffield, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Swinton, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Terrington, L.

Kitchener, E.

Teviot, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Teynham, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Layton, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Long, V.

Trafford, L.

Luke, L.

Tranmire, L.

Lurgan, L.

Trefgarne, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Trumpington, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Tryon, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Mansfield, E.

Vinson, L.

Margadale, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Marley, L.

Westbury, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Wise, L.

Merrivale, L.

Wolfson, L.

Mersey, V.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 14, line 23, leave out ("except in the case of a special register body").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 64, and I shall speak also to Amendment No. 72. This amendment deletes from the clause which the Committee has just been discussing, and the purport of which I need not repeat, the exception in respect of a special register body. The Minister made a remark that was of particular interest in the context of this amendment. He said that we cannot have protected categories. He and I know that one comes across special, exempted and protected categories in this Bill as in any other. It is right to look carefully at all the exempt categories from the new regulation which is
588
being put into force with such rigour, as my noble friends made clear in the debate.
Indeed, the more rigorous the regulation the more need there is to consider the rationality and the reasonableness of the exemptions. Throughout this clause and the clauses to come my noble friends and I will be seeking to inquire into the manner in which exempted classes are constructed. If the Government come close to that line of exempting a class from the new obligations, which is not in technical terms a genuine class but is a special class aimed at particular interests or people, then the question of the nature of the Bill may well arise.
As regards the special register body, I can put the point quickly and make progress in this way. The special register was invented by the Industrial Relations Act 1971 to accommodate those bodies that had trade union functions but wished to have a special corporate status. The 1971 Act was more complex than that, but the relevant point is that when the Industrial Relations Act was repealed in 1974 the then Labour Government had to face the question of what to do with the special status of those bodies. They are usually thought of as bodies like the British Medical Association, although in a moment I shall show the Committee that on my information that is perhaps rather wide of the mark.
In their wisdom or unwisdom—and it may have been a mistake—the Labour Government of 1974 responded to the appeals of these bodies and retained the special register to allow them to keep in a quite anomalous fashion their corporate status which is not allowed to any other trade union. The register was closed and therefore they remain as a kind of ossified bequest of the Industrial Relations Act 1971.
The question therefore arises: why should these bodies, the category of which arose through those fortuitous circumstances, be exempt from the obligations now being imposed upon other trade unions? I wish to make it quite clear that in putting down the amendment my noble friends and I wish no harm to any of the bodies. What we wish to do is to investigate again the Government's mind and to probe the dark corners of that mentality to discover why they have taken this step of exempting that group of special register bodies.
In another place the Government gave two answers. They first set out the history of the matter, which is much as I have described it. That justifies nothing. They then suggested that these were professional bodies that needed special treatment. After the debate the Committee has just had, I need spend no time on that argument in broad terms because as my noble friend Lord Houghton and others have just said, the way in which trade unions are organised differs so much that quite patently the idea of these bodies being different in category in terms of professionality from all other trade unions is quite absurd, especially when one reads the list
The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but it is my information that there are 15 unions on the special register. They are the Association of Clinical Biochemists; the Association of Optometrists; the British Association of Occupational Therapists; the British Dental Association; the British Dietetic Association; the British Medical Association; the

589
Chartered Society of Physiotherapy; the Education Institute of Scotland; the Headmasters' Conference; the Institute of Journalists; the Royal College of Midwives; the Royal College of Nursing; the Society of Authors; the Society of Chiripodists; and the Society of Radiographers.
The bodies on the list are not connected by any natural link. Indeed, it is not even true, as is sometimes thought, that they are all medical associations or the like. The Education Institute of Scotland is on the list and so too is the Headmasters' Conference. I ask the Government this specific practical question which arises from the debate my noble friends have initiated. Why should the National League for the Blind and Disabled be bound by the obligations of Clause 12 but not the BMA, the Society of Authors, the Institute of Journalists or the Association of Optometrists? What possible logic can there be in distinguishing all the varied kinds of trade unions which are and are not affiliated to the Trades Union Congress and in saying that these bodies can do things, such as putting people on the executive committee, which trade unions not on the special register cannot do?
Therefore what appears to be a small point in the legislative process in Committee surely begins to assume a rather bigger appearance. All the Government have done is to select a group of exemptions which have some historical basis without considering the function. Is that parallel with the rest of the Bill? They do not consider the different functions of different trade unions. They lump them all together and regulate them. They do not consider the functions of the bodies on the list. They know that the BMA is on it and they know that one or two other bodies are on it. Presumably they wanted to do them a favour and so they kept them out of the regulation.
It may be that the Minister can tell me why the National League for the Blind and Disabled has to fall under the rigours of the clause but the Society of Authors and the other bodies I have named do not. If there is a functional explanation which we have missed we shall be happy to make no more of it. I repeat, this is the first of the inquiries into the exempted categories in the Government's Bill. I invite the Minister to accept that this tiny one has been put in by mistake and that we could get rid of it by accepting the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: Special register bodies have been part of the industrial relations scheme since the early 1970s. They are primarily professional associations with incorporated status which also conduct negotiations with employers about terms and conditions of employment. As the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, has already made clear, the BMA and the Royal College of Nursing are two of the better known examples. In essence, they have evolved from their original status as professional bodies and now have a dual role as professional bodies and independent trade unions. They are also bodies corporate. This dual role puts them in a unique position in legislation, and legislation has long made a distinction between them and other unions.
590
In the present case, this distinction is being recognised because some of the members of their PEC and other members who attend it do so only to deal with certain aspects of their professional role. I am a little puzzled that some Members of the Committee should seek to remove the exemption, given their dislike of the requirement for unions to elect their leaders at regular intervals. Whatever the reasons for the amendment, the fact remains that SRBs exist. They are different from other unions. They have been accepted as such by governments of both parties and they have made representations which Ministers felt able to accept. It would be both wrong and damaging to go back on that commitment.
The noble Lord read out the list of organisations which are presently on the special register. As he will be aware, the register is now closed so no new organisations can join it. He read out the list of those which are members, and I understand that list was the correct one. He then asked why it was that certain other bodies which he judged to be equally deserving were not on the register. I presume the answer is that they did not seek to be members of the special register when that was a possibility open to them some years ago. Therefore, they have the status of the regular trade union as recognised in legislation and by this Bill.
I have said that the Government have accepted—as indeed have successive governments that those organisations have a unique status and that the relevant legislation should take account of that status. If we were to accept the amendments proposed we should be going back on undertakings given to recognise that unique status—recognition and undertakings given by governments of both political parties. I do not think that that would be an appropriate way to proceed, and I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am naturally disappointed with the Minister's answer, not merely for its conclusion but because of its reasoning. The first and main argument that he appeared to use was that we must exempt the special register bodies from the relevant parts of Clause 12 because the list is there. I might call this the Everest argument: "Why do it? Because there is a special register". I never know how to deal with the Everest argument. You either like it or you do not. But there is a more important attachment to the Everest argument which tries to tie us in to the ascent; that is to say that governments of both parties have given undertakings to the special register body.
No Labour or Conservative Government until this one, certainly not in terms of some things that have happened since, ever gave the special register bodies an undertaking that they would be exempt, as it were, as special chums from obligations imposed on all other trade unions of a new kind. The issue did not arise. What the Labour Government did, perhaps unwisely but out of the goodness of their heart because the arguments were not very strong, was to allow the BMA and one or two other bodies to keep their corporate identity.

591
The noble Lord referred again to the fact that they are bodies corporate, rather suggesting that they therefore have to be special. They are special already, and the mere fact that they are bodies corporate does not mean that they can be exempt from Clause 12(2). You can invent many kinds of corporate bodies. There are private companies, limited companies, companies limited by guarantee. The law is different in respect of each of them. There is no reason why a body corporate cannot be told that it must assume that all those who attend its executive meetings should be elected just like anybody else.
With what are we left? We are left with the comment that they have evolved into a dual role. One really does not know where to begin. First of all, they have not evolved into this dual role in terms of the special register. They were on it in 1971, and that was it. In so far as their functions are concerned, the Minister said they are primarily professional associations and they negotiate with employers. If the Minister could think of a distinction in those terms between most of the bodies on that list and the Health Visitors' Association, which is to be treated now under this clause as a trade union, I would give him a prize, even if it were not a very large prize, because it would be a response which would be ingenious in the extreme. The Health Visitors' Association have to do as they are told, but the other associations, including the Royal College of Nursing, can do as they like on this point. That seems to make no sense at all.
Finally—I do not think the Minister meant to misrepresent us on this but he expressed puzzlement—I insist that we offer no thought of harm to any of the bodies on this list. In the Committee stage of legislation if there is an exemption, we are entitled to ask the reason for it. The Government have given no reason. Their attitude on this matter will make us examine the exemptions that have been put into later clauses with even greater care than we intended from the beginning. We are very disappointed, but in view of the need to make progress with this clause I think it right to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Trefgarne: Before the noble Lord does that, I hope he will pause to reflect for a moment that the reason why we have agreed to perpetuate the special arrangements for these organisations is that we have given them an undertaking that we shall do that. The noble Lord is perfectly entitled to abrogate the undertakings given by the Government of which he was not a member but certainly a supporter some years ago. I prefer to stand by the undertakings given by my right honourable and honourable friends. That is the reason why I oppose the amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: With the Committee's leave, perhaps I may comment upon that. I feel sure that the Minister did not mean that in some way I was abrogating vicariously the undertakings of the Labour Government. That government gave no undertakings to special register bodies except that they could maintain their corporate status, and there is no question about their maintaining that.
592
The noble Lord's other point is even more important. This Bill has been in existence only since its publication date last October, so the issue of whether special register bodies should or should not fall fully within Clause 12 has been alive only since last October. In the Committee stage in another place or in any pronouncements that I have seen, I do not recall public undertakings to those bodies. It may be that the Government in their wisdom, by way of policy, decided to exempt the special register bodies to give those bodies an entirely new dimension. The logic should be clear about this. There has been nothing like this in the past. The special register bodies are exempt from these great obligations. If the noble Lord says the Government have given undertakings to the special register bodies I quite understand that. No doubt at some time or other privately they gave them and then they put forward this clause, but you cannot justify a clause merely on the basis that you promised to make it. There has to be some reason other than what was said last Wednesday, and we have not heard anything. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 14, line 24, after ("body") insert ("and subject to subsection (6C) below").
The noble Lord said: These government amendments fulfil a commitment given by Ministers in another place. They reflect consideration of the principle behind the opposition amendment to exempt from the election requirement general secretaries and presidents if their,
"position is occupied under the rules of the union by a different person annually and that person is not a voting member of the committee".
The essence of the amendment is that individuals who hold a position as general secretary or president which is honorary and theirs by virtue of Buggins' turn should not have to be elected. Individuals who benefit from this exemption will be lay members of the union appointed or elected, perhaps by a union's conference, to act as its president.
The Opposition is another place described their amendment as a moderate one. It is, however, a significant concession from the Government's expressed intention that all who act as members of the PEC should be elected. It is made on the basis that the positions involved are normally honorary ones and do not carry the power and authority usually connnected with such positions. I hope that your Lordships will welcome this significant concession from the Government. I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: We welcome the amendment. The Government would have been foolish to insist on applying the clause to people in the category covered by the amendment.
If I may follow up the point made by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn, it is being made increasingly difficult to understand the theoretical principle behind the clause. This is a point which we shall have to make on several subsequent amendments. It is only fair to use this opportunity to state where we think the difficulty lies.

593
The people covered by the amendment have no vote and are not employees. They have the job for a year, after which they give it up. Under those tests they are not covered by the Bill. An amendment that will be discussed later states that a person who has no vote, is a 10-year employee, is going within five years and is elected by a postal ballot does not have to have an election.
However, there is another case—a third example—in the Bill of a person who has no vote, is a 10-year employee and is going within five years but, because he is elected in a workplace ballot, he must have an election. There are more cases—in fact, six. There is the case of the 10-year employee, the general secretary or president, who is going within five years but was elected in a workplace ballot. Because he has a vote, presumably he will not be covered by Amendment No. 133. We cannot understand all this. The fifth case is that of the man who has no vote, is a 10-year employee, is going in three years and is elected by annual conference so that he has to be covered by an election.
There seem to be four criteria—votes, whether a person was an employee, whether he had the job for a certain period and whether the ballot was workplace or postal. I ask the Minister to start working out how one fits them all together and makes sense of it.
Lord Trefgarne: I confined my remarks to the amendment and was careful not to stray on to topics in other amendments. Despite that, perhaps I should have said that the amendment paves the way for Amendments Nos. 73 and 134, which I hope I shall be able to move formally.
This is a comparatively narrow amendment and represents the honouring of an undertaking given in another place. I hope that the Committee will agree to it.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Perhaps the Minister could give an example or two. The Government must have in mind some positions that are covered by substantive Amendment No. 73.
I am interested in members' trustees, for example. They are not officers of the union. They are not employees. They are appointed by the annual delegate conference as trustees. They hold office at the will and pleasure of the annual delegate conference. For the most part they are retired civil servants. They attend meetings of the executive council because they are the watchdogs on expenditure under the rules and can intervene if the executive council appears to trespass on their responsibilities in the matter. Do they have to go for election under the clause or are they covered by the concession?
There are also certain honorary officers who may be receiving an honorarium but who are not employees of the union. They may be members of the union. They hold a non-elected office for a period because they are given some responsibility for the development of the technical side. I think particularly of the taxation side of a union like my own where
594
advice is wanted from people who are inside and who will accept some responsibility for it. Such people attend meetings of the executive council. If they are making grading claims or considering a re-appraisal of the value of work, they are in a position to indicate from their experience what kind of work it is. What does the Minister make of that? These are not positions of power and responsibility; they are ancillary to the government of the union. It is absurd if the requirement for re-election is to apply to them.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: Perhaps the Minister can throw some light on the case of a trustee who satisfies all the requirements in the clause except that, as the union holds its conference biennially and not annually, he is elected by the conference on a two-year basis, largely because of the cost of bringing members together. He will presumably require to satisfy the electoral and ballot requirement contained in other provisions of the Bill. Can the Minister confirm whether that is so?
Lord Trefgarne: If I may speak slightly off the cuff in reply to the noble Lord, a president, an honorary president or an honorary general secretary who is not involved in the decision-making process of the union—
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: If I may intervene, I referred to a trustee, not an honorary president.
Lord Trefgarne: As I understand it, if he holds office for more than a year he is not covered by the benefits of the amendment, which is specifically directed at those who hold office for a year. The subsection provides for a period of 13 months so that individuals can hold their positions from one annual conference to another as annual conferences do not always take place exactly one year apart. If there is a biennial conference, I fear that the person who wanted to hold office between the two conferences would not enjoy the benefits of the amendment.
Lord McCarthy: The Government appear to have no consistent set of principles behind the exceptions. The Minister is right. Amendment No. 73 says:
"holds that position for a period which under the rules of the union cannot end more than thirteen months after he took up that position; has held neither that position nor any other position so mentioned at any time in the period of twelve months ending with the day before he took up that position".
The position put by my noble friend Lord Murray of Epping Forest is quite clear: a person who was made an honorary president by an annual conference would not be covered. Do the Government really think that they are granting this concession for one year only? What is the basis for that?
Lord Trefgarne: The basis is that this is a response to a request from the Opposition in the other place, who were apparently anxious to receive the concession. They would of course have preferred the concession to go wider, but we felt unable to agree to that. We have moved in the direction of the Opposition, and I hope that that at least will be recognised.

595
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, raised a specific point about trustees. Perhaps I may study what he said. If I can add anything, I shall write to him.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 66 not moved.]
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 14, line 32, after ("technical") insert ("financial, legal").
The noble Baroness said: I hope that this simple amendment will commend itself to the Government. We are hoping that persons attending union executive meetings for the purpose of offering financial or legal advice will be granted exemption from the requirement to stand for election.
In our previous debate, I and a number of noble Lords said that unions were becoming more and more professional, and that it was necessary for union executives to have recourse to financial advice fairly continuously. With the legislation affecting trade unions that we have had and are now having in increasing amounts from the Government, unions will have to have continuous legal advice.
Many unions make it a practice to have their national finance officer attend executive meetings to ensure that the members are properly advised as to the financial implications of their decisions. It therefore seems reasonable to add to the clause an exemption for people who attend to give factual information or technical, financial, legal or professional advice. With those few words, I commend the amendment to the Committee. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: I do not intend to reply immediately to the noble Baroness, but the Committee might find it convenient if we also discussed Amendments Nos. 68 and 69, tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, and Amendment No. 70, tabled by my noble friend Lord Brentford.
Viscount Hanworth: It may be convenient if I speak now on the other two amendments. As we know, Clause 12(6A) defines the circumstances in which a union member attending a principal executive committee must be elected. However paragraph (b) makes an exception,
"for the purpose of providing the committee with factual information or with technical or professional advice with respect to matters incidental to the carrying out by the committee of its functions".
My amendment seeks to make that exemption a little less stringent by adding the words "or opinions". In trade unions and many other organisations, including local authority specialist committees, senior officers act as the organisation's principal spokesmen in committee. In a union, such officials may express opinions on the effect of alternative courses of action, and give general advice. But they can do so only at the executive committee's request.
The situation in the unions is different from that in government where Ministers are always advised by
596
their civil servants, and the latter seldom speak at committee meetings. As I have said, that is not the procedure for unions. Elected members of the executive committee are usually full-time employees in another occupation. They often need verbal briefing and advice, but the committee alone makes the policy. The effect of the subsection, as it stands, would make the decision process and operation of many trade unions difficult. It would help me greatly in deciding whether to pursue the matter, possibly at another stage, if the Minister would describe the circumstances in which he feels that that limitation is important and how it may be abused.
Viscount Brentford: In speaking to Amendment No. 70, I should like to make it clear that all I am trying to do is to implement the Government's intention, which I fear is not the case with the Bill as at present drawn. The amendment seeks to clarify the meaning of a provision which purports to exclude from election those giving professional advice, including solicitors. The clause excludes from election those who provide the committee,
"with factual information or with technical or professional advice with respect to matters incidental to the carrying out by the committee of its functions".
The Government have stated clearly that it is not their intention to require the election of professional advisers such as solicitors. The problem hinges on the word "incidental". Although the Government do not want to have professional advisers elected, the clause as drafted may make it necessary for them to be so.
I shall quote from Standing Committee in another place when my honourable friend the Minister of State who was dealing with this issue said:
"The word 'incidental' has been used to ensure that those attending meetings to give advice and information needed by the PEC to make its decisions, rather than to take part in the decisions themselves, are not covered. The Bill expresses that as clearly and as accurately as possible. The advice on incidents in the main decision—for example, advice on the legal aspects of a decision—is one of the incidents leading up to the final decision".
If that were the drafting of the Bill, I should be happy with it.
Later my honourable friend said:
"'incidental' does not mean trivial in this respect, or partial, which it can sometimes be taken to mean … that legal meaning of 'incidental' is one of the incidents on the road to making a decision".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee F, 17/12/87; cols. 373, 391.]
My dictionary says that incidental means casual, not essential. I accept that the word "incident" has a much wider meaning, but it is not the word "incident" in the Bill, but "incidental". In common usage, according to my thinking and that of my dictionary, that means casual, not essential. I fear that as drafted the Bill will make it essential for a professional adviser, such as a solicitor, who attends to give legal advice on an essential matter to be made subject to an election.
I am sorry for being technical. I believe, and it is the view of many other lawyers, that the wording of Clause 12 does not implement the Government's intention. My proposal is designed to clarify the position to ensure that my noble friend's intentions are fulfilled.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Before the noble Viscount sits down, I accept and endorse the views he put. Many lawyers are interested in that phrase. In our view, his amendment is helpful. It is something to which we shall clearly return on Report because it is a difficult area. I wonder whether the noble Viscount would answer two slightly critical questions about his wording to clarify the point before we return to the issue on Report.
I have in mind solicitors who are employed by a union. It is becoming more common for solicitors, or even barristers, to be in-house, as it were, than it was many years ago. If there is such a person—I can think of two unions where it is so, and there are more—could one say that he was employed or engaged solely to give professional advice, in the sense that one of the people about whom I am thinking, for example, witnesses affidavits? In-house solicitors perfectly properly do other jobs. They are not precisely giving advice. Therefore,
"solely for the purpose of providing"
advice might meet a criticism, although not as strong as the noble Viscount's criticism of the Government's words, that the wording does not cover the job done by the solicitor in-house whom he wants to protect.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps I may—
Viscount Brentford: If I may answer that question briefly, the example given by Lord Wedderburn is of witnessing affidavits which would surely not be done at the meeting of the PEC. I should have thought that my wording probably covered what was basically in my mind.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I apologise to the noble Lord, I always give way to everybody, but I did not see him rise. There is a distinction which has been drawn between in-house and non-in-house lawyers. That in a sense could in certain very exceptional circumstances be a crucial distinction because the ordinary lawyer who is called in to advise, I would have thought, subject to the views of the Committee, would clearly fall within subsection (6A)(b), and there is no problem. Then the in-house lawyer who becomes part of the establishment and eventually after years becomes part of the decision-making process, falls into a sort of grey area. In that grey area, subject to the opinion of noble Lords, I should have thought it was better to leave Clause 12(6A)(b) as it stands rather than to accept the amendment.
Lord McCarthy: We took the view generally, before hearing the detailed arguments, that all three of these amendments, though not the biggest amendments in the world, were helpful. We believe that it would be perfectly reasonable for someone not to serve in an election and have to have regular elections because they are not just providing facts and information of a technical and professional character. They are occasionally asked to express their opinion. If you have experts, you ask for their opinion. You say, "What do you think is the best thing to do?" Anybody who is paid for being a consultant or expert is asked, "What do you think we ought to do?" If it be the case that not having the
598
word "opinion" in the clause makes it more difficult, then I should have thought that we have to thank the noble Viscount for suggesting it to the Government. I hope that the Government will find a way to accept the amendment.
Also "to matters incidental": again it seems to us that if we take out the words "matters incidental" in subsection (6A)(b) we just make it more straightforward. It is technical or professional advice with respect to the carrying out by the committee of its functions. What does the phrase "matters incidental" add to the significance of the clause? We do not think it adds anything and we would hope that the Government could accept the amendment.
Finally, with the third amendment put forward by the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, I must say that the idea that unless something is done with the clause we may get a situation in which a solicitor giving advice to a trade union has to stand for election is quite ludicrous. It is one more ludicrous example of the ludicrous nature of this clause in this ludicrous Bill. I hope that the Minister will improve it.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I hope that my noble friend will pay particular attention to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Viscount Brentford. It seems to me that he has made a valid point on the rather curious use of the word "incidental". To take the obvious case, if a solicitor attends a meeting in order to advise a union on whether to fight a certain issue or to settle or give way, he is then giving advice, not incidental to the decision but crucial to it. His advice will bear on the decision which that committee ought to take.
I think it is straining the English language somewhat to describe that sort of advice as being merely "incidental" to the functions. Therefore whatever view my noble friend takes on the other amendments on which I express no opinion, I hope that he will take seriously the amendment in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford.
Viscount Hanworth: I just want to make one further point on "incidental". It seems to me that even taking into account what has been said in another place, it does not in any way restrict the clause. The very fact that it is there seems to me that it might be a wonderful arguing point for lawyers. If you omit it, I do not think subsection (6A)(b) loses anything at all from the Government's point of view.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Where does the word "incidental" appear in Amendment No. 70?
Lord Trefgarne: The word "incidental" appears in the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, Amendment No. 69. I imagine it was that to which my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter was referring.
Clause 12 is intended to ensure that union leaders are representative of the membership. As we have already discussed, the clause extends the 1984 Trade Union Act's election requirements to all members of the PEC, general secretaries and presidents and to those who have the right under the rules or by custom

599
and practice to attend and speak at some or all meetings of the PEC.
In this way, all those who are members or act as though they were members of the PEC will have to be elected and thus be better able to represent the views of the membership. The clause closes a loophole to which I have already referred in the 1984 Act, by means of which certain union leaders have been able to give up their vote on the PEC and so evade the election requirement.
Amendment No. 67 seeks to ensure that individuals who attend PEC meetings only to give financial or legal advice will not be subject to the election requirement. But under the clause as drafted, as long as an individual is supplying factual information or technical or professional advice for the purpose of assisting the PEC to make decisions, as distinct from actually taking part in the taking of decisions, there will be no election requirement. This includes financial and legal advice and I believe therefore that Amendment No. 67 is unnecessary.
Turning to Amendment No. 70 which would add a new subsection defining the phrase "professional advice" in subsection (6A)(b) as included in any advice given to a union by a professional person who is engaged or employed "solely for the pupose of providing that professional advice", it is unnecessary because the clause as drafted includes those who attend for the purpose of giving professional advice, whatever their relationship with the union. I quite take the point made by my noble friend. He is right to raise that concern. But I believe that the clause as drafted meets the point which he made. I hope that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter will accept that as well.
Let me turn specifically now to Amendments Nos. 68 and 69 in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth. The addition of the word "opinions" after "advice" in Amendment No. 68 is again unnecessary, I am told, as "advice" automatically includes "opinions". However I presume Amendments Nos. 68 and 69 are intended to operate together. Thus the use of "incidental" in subsection (6A)(b) ensures that those to be exempted from the election requirement are not concerned with matters which are the primary function of the PEC; that is, deciding whether and when to do something as opposed to how to do it.
Removal of "to matters incidental" would therefore have the effect of permitting individuals to play a fuller role in the activities of the PEC while still being exempted from the election requirement. I do not think that is quite what the noble Lord intended, and it is certainly not what the Government have in mind. I agree with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that sometimes the advice tendered by professional advisers can be very important indeed in persuading the principal executive committee or other senior officials of the union which way they might decide in any matter. But I believe that we have drafted the clause sufficiently tightly to ensure that those who are tempted to stray beyond—
Baroness Seear: If the noble Lord will permit me—
Lord Trefgarne: Perhaps I may just finish this sentence—tempted to stray beyond the professional advisory capacity will find themselves outside the ambit of the protection which we provide here.
Baroness Seear: I am really extremely confused. That is probably my fault. But let us suppose that the executive committee is considering whether or not to take strike action and it turns to the legal adviser and asks whether such action would be within the law. The legal adviser then gives his opinion. Is that to be regarded as incidental?
Lord Trefgarne: I am very reluctant to give a legal opinion on a particular hypothetical situation about which the noble Baroness has given me just one sentence. If I were a legal adviser advising a trade union I should not be content to give advice on the basis of instructions represented by one or two sentences. I believe, however, that in the kind of situation that the noble Baroness has indicated where the action that an executive committee had in mind was likely to be secondary action and therefore outlawed by a particular provision, it could properly question a legal adviser on that matter. I think that such an adviser, asked just such a question, would enjoy the protection of this clause.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am sorry to press my noble friend a little further but I am not happy about the word "incidental" in subsection (6A)(b). I wish to refer to the example that I put to the Minister earlier which he did not deal with. If a union is faced with a possibility of legal proceedings will it decide to fight? The legal adviser turns up to advise. That is not,
"technical or professional advice with respect to matters incidental to the carrying out by the committee of functions".
That, surely, is legal advice bearing on the substance of the decision which the committee is going to take. I do think it is stretching the language a little to describe that as "incidental".
Lord Renton: I join with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter in making this request to my noble friend on the Front Bench. There are two difficulties that I see about this provision. First, the addition of these apparently innocent words broadens the scope of the subsection very much indeed. Secondly, in doing so, I can imagine cases in which there will be a wrangle before the courts as to whether a matter was incidental to the carrying out by the committee of its functions or was not incidental. I do not think that we should be legislating in such a way as to give rise to that situation. There is a very strong case for my noble friend to consider further Amendment No. 69 of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: With considerable diffidence, I disagree with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and my dear sponsor the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I cannot see in all objectivity that the clause creates any difficulty at all. I take the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. It is, frankly, the crucial point. The noble Baroness always makes the crucial point. One gets the solicitor. Never mind for a moment whether he is in-house or not

601
in-house; there he is. One says to him, "Look, Jones, this is the form. Can we take this action or not?" He says "yes" or "no" or in all probability, "I do not know. You will have to make your own decision." That is the usual kind of legal advice that one receives.
In any event, whatever he says he will express it, as I understand ordinary English construction, in the following manner. I am seeking to answer the noble Baroness. He will say that it will be incidental to the carrying out by the committee of its functions. Good heavens! Lawyers never make any decisions. That is why they always survive. They just advise. Whatever they do is merely incidental to something that someone else does on that advice.
Baroness Seear: The noble Lord seems to think that a decision is taken at a particular moment on the clock. But, of course, it is a process. That opinion is a very important part of the process of making the decision.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I take the point made by the noble Baroness. I agree with her, as I usually do. But the legal advice is, as I understand it—I may be totally wrong and that is a matter for the Committee—purely incidental to the decision-making process of the committee. Some people rely on the legal advice they receive. Many people, perhaps for very good reasons and often to their advantage, reject it. Legal advice is asked for. It is given. It is incidental. It is not the decision. The decision is made by the committee. As it stands, this clause as I construe it—I say that with considerable deference in view of the fact that two members of the Bar are opposed to me—
Baroness Seear: But, really, if the lawyer says, "If you do this, you will go to jug", one cannot say that that is incidental in the process of making the decision.
Lord Trefgarne: I believe that my noble friend is right to say that on occasions legal advice, perhaps less categoric than the example given by the noble Baroness, is sometimes disregarded. The fact of the matter is that on the right of me I have three most distinguished members of the legal profession who disagree among themselves. I think that the right thing for me to do under these circumstances is to accept that there is room for more than one respectable view on this matter and to undertake to have it examined further between now and the next stage. I do so without commitment because I am not necessarily persuaded by one view or the other. But I shall ask for the matter to be considered by a further range of experts—if I may put it that way—and, if I think fit, bring forward a further amendment at a later stage.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Hanworth Viscount Hanworth had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 68:
Page 14, line 33, after ("advice") insert ("or opinions").
The noble Viscount said: I should just like to thank the noble Lord for his reassurance that "opinion" is not necessary in order to cover the kind of situation which I have described. I hope that the noble Lord does not feel differently before the next stage.
Viscount Brentford: I wish to thank my noble friend for offering to reconsider this matter. I hope that he will look at the meaning of the word "incidental" in the dictionary as well as studying the legal implications of this.
[Amendment No. 68 not moved.]
[Amendment Nos. 69 and 70 not moved.]
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 14, line 34, at end insert—
("( ) With the exception of persons falling within subsection (6B) below, a person is not a member of the principal executive committee of a trade union if—

(a) the rules of the union state that he or someone occupying his position is not such a member; and

(b) he has no right to vote at meetings of that committee.").

The noble Baroness said: I rise to put in the form of an amendment to the Committee the arguments which I have already produced when speaking to the original Amendment No. 63 in respect of people who attend meetings of the national executive council who are senior officials but who are not perhaps professional people in the sense of being solicitors, accountants, or whatever.
There is a large number of senior officials, assistant general secretaries, national officers and the like who have the obligation from time to time of attending every meeting. But national officials with particular industrial responsibilities attend meetings as required from time to time by the national executive council. They report on their activities and make recommendations to the national executive council in respect of various industrial problems that the union may be facing.
Furthermore, there are officials who attend executive councils who are responsible for the administration of the council under the general jurisdiction and authority of the general secretary and who have responsibility for ensuring that the administrative work of the council is effectively carried out, and also for ensuring that the administrative decisions are carried out.
I am not denying that that is a responsible and senior position. However, those people in general have normal contracts of employment—contracts which enable them to have normal notice periods and full cover of present employment law in regard to unfair dismissal, redundancy payments, pension entitlements and so on. They are often administrative personnel who would not join the staff of a union if they felt that they would have to stand for election every five years. Often they are not the kind of people who would see themselves as fighting on the hustings to maintain their positions.
It seems to me to be quite inequitable for unions to be put in the position of having to have those jobs balloted for by the general membership. It does not seem right that unions should be uniquely disadvantaged in that way. I know that the Government have said on a number of occasions that unions are unique organisations. However, that is a special disadvantage. As I said earlier, unions have been endeavouring to become more and more professional. In the last 10 or 15 years they have been attempting to recruit young people who perhaps have career opportunities in the positions they hold and to ensure that they have career opportunities similar to those which they would have had if they had stayed in those positions and not joined the staff of the union.
If we have a situation in which such people see, as they go up the promotion ladder, that they will get to the point of being considered for senior positions and will have to stand for election instead of being promoted on their merits by a national executive council, we shall not be able to have access to that talent and it will not be available to unions to utilise it in a professional trade union and administrative way. It will damage the structure and functions of trade unions. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Lord Renton: I hope that my noble friend the Minister will not accept the amendment. It seems to be manifestly a way of overcoming the provisions of the new subsection (6A) by changing the rules of the union. That goes back to the speech which we had on the first amendment which we considered today (Amendment No. 63) when the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, was asked by me at the end of his speech if he would give way. I then put to him the point that when he complained that the clause overrides union rules, he was suggesting that the rules should take precedence over the law. He came back at me with a plea for natural justice. He quite rightly mentioned that the rules can be approved or disapproved by the courts when there is a change if necessary.
The point we have to bear in mind on the amendment is that although the rule book has a sanctity—and properly so—it cannot be subject to the proposition that it overrides the sovereignty of Parliament. Legislation is an expression of that sovereignty. We should look carefully at any amendment that seems to attempt to overcome the law which Parliament makes.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I accept, as the noble Baroness has said, that trade unions have made vast progress of late. That is much to be welcomed and encouraged. The question of damage to the position and the status of trade unions is not readily understandable for the reasons which I sought to give earlier this afternoon and which I have no intention of repeating. The adverse effect on career structure for young people is again not readily understood.
One comes back full circle every time to the problem that the effect of Clause 12 is to include members of the PEC who are already covered by the
604
Act of 1984 and then to include those members who, by virtue of the rules, do not have a right to vote and de facto members who attend meetings and play a part in the decision-making progress. That is the essence of the matter. That was a consideration which affected the last amendment which my noble friend has taken back.
To accept the amendment—although I know and avow that it is not the intention of the noble Baroness and that it would not happen in the hands of her union or most unions—would, in the hands of some unions, open the door to evasion and abuse. For that reason and with the utmost regret I oppose the amendment.
Lord Trefgarne: I agree that the amendment is something of a Trojan horse. For that reason, I find it impossible to agree to it. The amendment would add a new subsection with the effect that, with the exception of general secretaries and presidents, individuals would not be members of the PEC and therefore not subject to the election requirement if the rules of their union stated that they or people occupying their positions were not principal executive committee members and had no right to vote at meetings of the PEC. That would leave all non-members free to act as if they were PEC members, other than voting, without being required to be elected. That is a Trojan horse if ever I saw one. I cannot accept the amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I find the arguments advanced against the amendment very strange. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that we are not suggesting that the rules should take precedence over the law. We are suggesting that Parliament should not pass unfair laws. Once the law is in position, unions have to abide by it. That is not in question. We are not suggesting that the rules should take precedence.
Our argument has been that there are classes of officials employed as what has been described by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, as civil servants of the trade union movement. Should those people have to stand for election? We say that they should not. It is destabilising to introduce the electoral process into administrative processes. It also politicises those processes in an unwelcome way.
Nor is the amendment a Trojan horse. Those people are responsible directly to an elected executive council and they are employed by it. There is no suggestion on our side that such people should be able to do exactly what they like without reference to anyone else. The national executive council is an elected body. Those people are employees of it and are responsible directly to it. They must do what the elected executive tells them to do. They administer the union on the instructions of the elected council. That seems to us to be a reasonable process.
That is the type of situation that applies in many institutions. Why should it be applied differently here? Why should there be discrimination in regard to unions? We do not understand, except that it seems to us that the Government are out to be as damaging as they possibly can to union organisation and

605
advancement. However, I shall not press the amendment to a Division and we shall look at the matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 72 not moved.]
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 14, line 47, at end insert—
("(6C) For the purposes of this section where any person who holds in any trade union any such position as is mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (6B) above—

(a) is, in respect of that position, neither a voting member of the principal executive committee of the union nor an employee of the union;

(b) holds that position for a period which under the rules of the union cannot end more than thirteen months after he took up that position;

(c) has held neither that position nor any other position so mentioned at any time in the period of twelve months ending with the day before he took up that position,

that position shall not be regarded for the purposes of this section as a position by virtue of holding which that person is a member of that committee or is deemed under that subsection to be such a member.")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 74 not moved.]
Lord Wyatt of Weeford Lord Wyatt of Weeford moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 15, line 5, leave out ("the period of five") and insert ("a period of less than five years but more than two")
The noble Lord said: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 75 and 76. This Bill will make all members of union executive councils stand for election in secret postal ballots. That will include presidents and general secretaries if they regularly attend their executive meetings. That being so, the sooner it happens the better. Surely we do not want a situation in which some union executives are elected by properly conducted secret postal ballots—in which we hope there can be no fiddle—while other union executives continue to rest on the insecure foundations of ballots which may or may not have been rigged.
The purpose of these amendments is to require all those who have not been elected in properly conducted secret postal ballot elections in the two years before the passing of this Bill to stand in such an election after the Bill becomes law. For the life of me, I cannot see the point of waiting for as long as the Bill suggests.
This is not ad hominem to Mr. Scargill, as was suggested on Second Reading, although he would be affected. Many other people are also concerned. Mr. Scargill chose to stand for election as president of the NUM on 22nd January although he did not have to do so. Firstly, the provision had not yet come into force requiring a non-voting member of an executive to stand for election even though general secretary. Secondly, at that time, there was no necessity to hold a ballot because the new law had not come into effect and there was no provision for it. As I explained at Second Reading, Mr. Scargill was trying to dodge the provisions of this Bill because he was frightened of the outcome of a secret postal ballot. The workplace
606
ballots in the NUM are easily manipulated and almost certainly were manipulated in the NUM election on 22nd January. We had a short discussion about that at Second Reading, and I do not think that there was much in the way of an answer.
As the proposed law stood, if the union retirement age had been lowered to 60 Mr. Scargill could have used the 22nd January election to stay in office for 10 years less 11 days before he reached the age of 60. I understand that the Government have altered that provision so that he would now be able to stay for only seven years less 11 days without an election if the retirement age were altered to 57. I think that a term of office of seven years less 11 days on the basis of a very dubious election is far too long in any case.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Will the noble Lord give way? The noble Lord keeps referring to the elections of the NUM and commenting on their legality. He has yet to spell out his case; he has generalised. He relies upon headlines in the Yorkshire Post and his own arithmetic, but I think that the Committee would be interested if he would go very carefully through that arithmetic. The arithmetic that I have seen concerning the ballot in no way substantiates the allegation that there was any illegality in the conduct of the election.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: I am not relying on headlines in the Yorkshire Post, I am relying on its content. I do not want to bore the Committee by going into that again. Nevertheless, it was clear that in some areas more miners voted than happened to be available in the workplace on that particular day.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Will the noble Lord give way? The noble Lord conveniently forgets that miners who may not be working and therefore not in the workplace are entitled to vote. If he had done his research properly for once, he would have found that it needed only 1,000 of the 4,000 miners, alleged to be missing because they were off work, to have gone into work to vote. It could very well have been that although they were not due to go to work they were sufficiently interested in the ballot to go to work to vote.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: The noble Lord is demonstrating clearly that there is a good deal of dispute about the election of the NUM which took place on 22nd January.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: There is no dispute at all.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: Not only was it made out clearly in the survey by the Yorkshire Post but also by members of the NUM who were very much afraid and saddened.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: Will the noble Lord give way? Is he not aware that the Yorkshire Post carried a statement the following day that the Electoral Reform Society was satisfied with the way in which the election had been conducted?
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: Oh dear! I did not know that the noble Baroness was quite so gullible. The Electoral Reform Society was only satisfied that it had counted what it had received. The Electoral Reform Society did not send out the ballot papers in the first place and had no idea how many had been printed or how many had been duplicated, substituted or added. All it did was to count those that came back.
Anyone who was watching television news programmes at that time could see the envelopes from the NUM branches being delivered to the place where the Electoral Reform Society was to count them. The envelopes were stuffed with the ballot papers which had been taken out of the ballot boxes—which were never sealed, nor locked—by branch officials. Therefore, it was prefectly easy to add or subtract ballot papers before they were put in the envelopes. What is more, the champions of Mr. Scargill were declaring 24 hours before the result of the count was announced that he had won, and that he had won by a narrower majority than usual. How the devil did they know if they had not already arranged for that to happen?
I am quite happy to engage in these rather puerile debates with Members opposite. They simply bear out the total uncertainty and unreliability of a workplace ballot conducted by the NUM. That is the reason why Mr. Scargill wanted a workplace ballot before this Bill came into effect. He had a much better chance of winning such a ballot, with lots of people sympathetic to him and manipulating the votes at branches and pitheads and taking them out of ballot boxes before they put them into envelopes to send to the Electoral Reform Society. He had a much better chance of winning that kind of ballot than of winning a properly conducted secret postal ballot.
Surely the noble Baroness—who I thought was extremely intelligent—must realise what his game is. It is obvious, is it not? Why dash into an election, which you do not have to have, on 22nd January if not for the fact that you know that you will have to hold it on the basis of a properly conducted secret postal ballot after the Bill becomes law? Perhaps we may dispense with that point for the moment.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: Will the noble Lord give way? At the expense of boring the Committee, which I suspect is deeply bored already, will the noble Lord explain why those on his national executive committee who are by no means the champions of Mr. Scargill have lent their support to the statements that that election was above board? Will he tell us how many Conservative laws are meant to dance on the point of a Scargill?
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: I am afraid that I do not understand the noble Lord's point at all. As is well known, the executive is rather afraid of Mr. Scargill. I do not expect much progress from that quarter. As for boring the Committee, some Members of the Committee seem to be quite interested.
The truth of the matter is that the principal victim of the 22nd January election—a Mr. Walsh—is not willing to rock the boat internally by standing up and
608
demanding a declaration from the certification officer that something was very much awry with that election. One reason is that his whole career is as an area officer, a paid official of the NUM. They would have him out in a brace of ticks if he dared to protest to the certification officer.
These amendments would also apply to members of the executive council of the Transport and General Workers' Union. Everyone has read about the extraordinary work place ballots held recently in the Transport and General Workers' Union. I hope that Members of the Committee will not be bored if I read out something from The Times of Saturday 27th February, which I found rather fascinating:
"A former prominent hard-left member of the union has signed an affidavit saying he saw widespread rigging and spelt out how it was done. The rigging is alleged to have taken place in an election of the general executive of the TGWU … The union member making the allegations has told officials that he saw new membership cards being pre-stamped when he attended a local union 'ballot stamping' party in the North-West".
I do not wish to embarrass Members on the Labour Benches too much and I shall not read on, but I must say—
Baroness Phillips: With his vast experience of newspapers surely the noble Lord does not believe what he reads in them. The ones with which he is concerned certainly do not speak the truth.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: As it happens, I believe statements from members of unions when they carry absolute verisimilitude.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to say something on that point. He quotes from a newspaper the words "a former prominent hard-left member". Does the noble Lord care to name that person? What he is relying upon is a scurrilous and made-up report, and if his remarks are designed simply to enliven the proceedings he should be thoroughly ashamed of himself.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: It is very touching to hear how Members opposite desperately go on trying to defend the extraordinary activities of the TGWU.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Name the man!
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: We have heard of ballots that have been re-run. They were all a shambles. They are workplace ballots which notoriously are rigged. Yet in a nice, old-fashioned, romantic way some Members of the Labour Benches go on desperately trying to pretend that ballots are always conducted like a Sunday school party. Well, they are not.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Scurrilous!
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: For example, there was a ludicrously high number of votes cast in Ireland-90 per cent. of the people voted. Has one ever heard of such a thing? Well, one hears of it only in Ireland. However, there are numerous complaints made about false voting and I understand that at least three complaints will be coming from members of the TGWU to the certification officer. That should clear

609
up the matter and we shall find out where we stand afterwards. However, if this amendment is accepted it will take care of those complaints by requiring a re-run in a secret postal ballot now.
Baroness Turner of Camden: Perhaps the noble Lord will give way. If there are complaints made to the certification officer, would it not be better to allow the certification officer to deal with them instead of having trial by newspaper?
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: I thought that this was the House of Lords. I did not know it was a newspaper. The certification officer will deal with the complaints in a proper manner when he receives them, and no doubt he will have lots of help from interested parties. My point is that if these amendments are accepted probably the certification officer will not have to act at all because the election will have to be re-run as soon as this Bill is enacted.
These amendments would affect people such as Mr. Ken Gill, who was formerly the general secretary of TASS and who has never stood in any kind of free and fair election. He has now become the joint general secretary of the merged ASTMS and TASS unions, which the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, knows well. I understand from her that the situation of Ken Gill will be taken care of as a result of the merger between TASS and ASTMS, which is her union, but that he will be required to stand in a properly conducted ballot according to the 1984 Act and the present Bill should it become law in time.
Incidentally, I should like to say that I have never heard any complaints about the conduct of elections in the noble Baroness's union. The fact that it conducts its elections fairly is no doubt one of the reasons she cannot understand or believe that other unions do not do the same.
There are also other unions which are affected by these amendments. Under this Bill, there are to be secret postal ballots, and in my judgment the sooner we have them the better. We do not want a two-tier system in which there are some union executives elected properly by secret postal ballot and others not so elected. Why should they not be all on the same footing? Our amendment would promptly validate or invalidate, as the case may be, all those who now sit on union executives. Over 40 unions now apply to the certification officer for refunds against the cost of postal ballots. It is a growing habit in the trade union movement. It is not difficult to arrange and I do not see any reason why there should be a long waiting period after this legislation is passed to validate all union executives by proper secret postal ballot of the kind that is now envisaged. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Unless my noble friend the Minister is able to give some compelling reason—and no doubt there may be one—I should like to support this amendment in principle. I agree that the periods of five and two years are a matter of impression and accommodation. If the logic of the principle is accepted, no doubt the measure should be implemented at once.
610
However, logic is not the yardstick with which one approaches the delicate problem of industrial relations. The trade unions must be accommodated. Before the noble Lord spoke, it seemed to me that the Government had got this matter more or less right, but having listened with great attention to everything that was said by the noble Lord I wonder what will be the views of my noble friend the Minister.
Lord Trefgarne: I should like to start by saying that I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, for the further explanation that he gave of the reasons behind his amendment. He gave us a foretaste of what he had in mind during the course of our debate at Second Reading. I shall address the substance of his comments in a moment. First of all, however, I should perhaps point out that I do not think that his proposed amendments would achieve the intended result.
To cite the case of Mr. Scargill, who was referred to earlier this afternoon, he could claim that his election satisfied the workplace requirements of the 1984 Act and that he was thus entitled to stay in office for five years. Whatever amendment was made to the transitional provision in Clause 12(2) would not therefore affect him.
It would, however, affect many others who, perfectly genuinely, have held elections which did not conflict in any way with the statutory requirements at that time and who have every expectation that they can remain in post for the full term of office.
The Bill will already cut that period short if it were for longer than five years. I think that it would be highly undesirable to reduce it still further by requiring those elected in the two years preceding the clause coming into force to stand again.
The Government believe, therefore, that the amendment has undesirable effects while failing to hit the target at which it is aimed. But even taking the stated aim of the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, of requiring Mr. Scargill to stand again for election, and assuming that an amendment could be devised to do that, I ask the noble Lord whether that is really desirable. If there is evidence of malpractice in his election then let it be brought into the daylight by individual members for all to see, in particular the Electoral Reform Society, which oversaw the count, rather than amending the Bill.
If there is no evidence of malpractice and yet Mr. Scargill were picked out and forced to stand for re-election, would he not be able to present himself as a martyr and so gain the support of many tens of thousands who would otherwise perhaps not have voted for him? I suspect that the last thing the noble Lord would wish to see is Mr. Scargill re-elected in a carefully stage-managed vote of confidence. If he were to be re-elected in a fully postal ballot the prophecy of the noble Lord about Mr. Scargill remaining in office until retirement without further re-election would become self-fulfilling. That is because Mr. Scargill would certainly be able to benefit from the retirement exemption in Section 8 of the 1984 Act since the intention is that the exemption should be available to those whose previous election was fully postal.

611
I hope the noble Lord will therefore accept that his proposal goes too far and would not be in the overall interests of the end that he is seeking to achieve.
Baroness Turner of Camden: It is unusual for Members on this side of the Chamber to agree with the Minister, but we do so on this occasion. What he said is very sensible. I also believe that it is unwise to embark upon legislation aimed at specific individuals, which is what this measure does. The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, made it abundantly clear in moving the amendment that that was what he was after. I therefore support the Minister in his comments on this amendment.
6 p.m.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: One is in a very difficult position when the leading spokesman of the Opposition agrees with the spokesman for the Government; and they are both wrong! However, I feel helpless in the matter because clearly if we have a Division it will go against us. However, I should like the Government to have another look at this amendment. It is not directed simply at Mr. Scargill, as I carefully pointed out. It is directed towards a great many other executives which have been elected under somewhat dubious methods, such as the TGWU, which regularly elects its executive under very doubtful methods.
It is a little casual for the Government to say, "That does not matter. After all, we have only to put up with these unfortunate results of improper election for a few years".
Lord Trefgarne: I understand the feeling that the noble Lord has expressed on this matter. I shall certainly ensure that further consideration is given to this point. Frankly, I cannot hold out much hope that we shall reach any different conclusion, but if the noble Lord would like to continue his discussion with my honourable or right honourable friends on this matter I am certain that they would be more than happy to do so.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: On that understanding—rather a weak one—I shall withdraw the amendment and return to another charge on Amendment No. 93. I hope that the Government may then be more receptive, having had further time to reflect.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 76 not moved.]
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 15, line 29, leave out ("two") and insert ("five").
The noble Baroness said: The objective of this amendment is to try to remove what seems to be an anomaly. The 1984 Act specifies that individuals who are covered by its provisions do not have to stand for election within five years of retirement. This is a reasonable provision covering officials who are elected, because if people have to stand for election five years before retirement, and they lose their positions as a result of that election, it becomes
612
difficult for them to rejoin their previous occupation and to be employed. Therefore it was a reasonable provision when the 1984 Act was put on the statute book. The provision complied with the rules of one of our major unions which has for many years had elections as the normal way of deciding upon its officials.
The new legislation before us, however, proposes that where officials who have been appointed have now to stand for election they should have to do so up to within two years of retirement age. This seems to us to be a quite malicious provision. After years of working in a post, if after an election the individual loses his position, is it really imagined that he is able easily to find alternative employment within two years of retirement? Most unions which employ officials and clerical staff endeavour to be reasonably good employers and certainly would not wish to put employees—even senior employees—in such a situation.
Moreover, there seems no reason to have one stipulation with regard to people who were elected under the 1984 Act and quite another with regard to people who were appointed and who now are to have their contracts of employment negated. They have to stand for election up to within two years of retirement. I can only assume that what has happened here is that the Government have looked at the ages of a few general secretaries whom they wish to catch in the electoral net and have decided that it would be a good idea to provide for two years instead of five years because that will enable them to catch a few more.
As I said earlier on previous amendments, it is not a very good idea to legislate with individuals in mind rather than principles. For those reasons, I commend the amendment to Members of the Committee.
Lord Trefgarne: There can be no serious argument against the principle of Clause 12 that all those who bear the responsibility for the running of a union should submit themselves for regular election in a proper ballot.
The existing legislation already recognises the difficulties which transition to the new regime may pose as well as the need to make special arrangements as in Section 8 of the 1984 Act for those approaching retirement. These will continue with appropriate modifications alongside this new subsection which caters for the particular extension effected by Clause 12.
It is important, however, that the effective implementation of the clause should not be unreasonably delayed, and any extension of the pre-retirement exemption would be likely—given the age profile of those in scope—to have a disproportionate effect.
In short, I do not think that we can agree to the amendment of the noble Baroness. It would unduly delay the proper implementation of the provisions of Clause 12. I hope that on reflection she will not insist upon it.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Before the noble Lord sits down, can he give us a little more

613
information about what he called the age profile of those in scope? This class refers to those who will reach retirement age within two years. Will he explain what he means by the age profile of those in scope?
Lord Trefgarne: When I saw those words I feared that the noble Lord might rise to his feet in response to them; and he has. Given the number of people involved—which is not enormous—it is fairly easy to ascertain how old particular people are and therefore to form a view on the broad effect of such a provision on the range of people involved.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Perhaps I may detain the Committee a moment longer. We are very grateful to the Minister. We may assume that this class has been ascertained by reference to the ages of particular people.
Lord Trefgarne: As I understand it, yes.
Baroness Phillips: Can the Minister explain whether retirement age has the same meaning as in Section 8? In other words, is it one age for women and another for men?
Lord Trefgarne: Given the appointments that we are considering, the retirement age is generally spelt out specifically regardless of whether it is a man or a woman.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: In order to help the Committee in its further consideration of this interesting matter, will the Minister publish the list of the people who have been considered, together with their ages?
Lord Trefgarne: Perhaps I can reflect upon that request. Off the cuff I cannot think of any reason why we should not.
Lord McCarthy: Will the noble Lord tell us whether he picked the age by looking at the people or whether he looked at the people to pick the age? Did he look down a list and say, "If we pick that age we will get that person". Is that the way it happened?
Lord Trefgarne: No, the noble Lord oversimplifies the process by which the Government arrive at these legislative proposals.
Lord McCarthy: I know that you are very crafty!
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I hope that I am out of the crossfire just for a moment. I hope also that we appreciate that we are being asked to interfere all the time with the law of contract. This is a serious matter. In the Government's pursuit of their aims to put trade union leaders on the footing of delinquents requiring some kind of condonation of their activities by ballot, the effect on individuals is being entirely ignored. To submit to a ballot after a considerable period of appointment and within three years of retirement is I think very cruel treatment of someone who has done nothing wrong and who has been looking forward to the continuation of his
614
employment. All kinds of considerations come into a ballot for election within three years of retirement. Surely some consideration can be given to people in that position. They were not expecting it. It was not part of their terms of service, but the law intervenes for Parliament has decided that it is inappropriate for them to continue in the office that they have held honourably for a number of years without submitting themselves to re-election even though retirement is within only a few years.
In a number of cases anybody who has any self-respect would not wish to undergo that ordeal and be challenged possibly for his last three years of office. He would rather take his pension and leave. I do not think that this is a fair way of dealing with the matter. The Government are so relentless—
Lord Trefgarne: I hope the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. There is another side to this matter. The noble Lord says that it is not fair upon the official concerned to have to subject himself to an election. However, he is also saying that it is therefore fair for the thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of members of trade unions to continue to have the services of a senior official who may or may not reflect their views or wishes for a period of perhaps two or three years. The Government therefore have to tread a rather careful path between the two.
If we were to accept wholly the view that trade union members could express their view instantly, we should then have accepted the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, and agreed that there should have been a new election instantly upon the Bill becoming an Act. But we had regard to the special concerns of people such as those to whom the noble Lord referred. If they were in the last two years or so of office they should not be asked to submit themselves to an election in the way that the Bill provides.
I also refer to our recent discussion about the "age profile of those in scope". Those were the words which caused the noble Lords, Lord Wedderburn and Lord Murray, to rise to their feet. I am advised that the class concerned was not determined by reference to the ages of individuals, as perhaps I inadvertently suggested to the Committee. However, it is clear that most of those in scope will be relatively aged. Having arrived at the position, when faced with the amendment the Government were bound to consider what the impact would be in the light of the known facts. I ought to make it clear that we did not conduct a survey of likely candidates for this provision in the way that I might have inadvertently suggested earlier.
Lord McCarthy: I hope that the noble Lord will make himself absolutely clear. I have written him down as saying that "most in scope were aged". Is that right? How did he know that they were aged if he did not find out their age?
Lord Trefgarne: I said "relatively aged".
Lord McCarthy: How did he know that they were relatively aged if he did not find out their relative age?
Lord Trefgarne: Generally, by looking at their faces.
Lord McCarthy: Does the Minister believe that he could perhaps find a better answer before we return on Report?
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: I think that all we are anxious to know is what the Minister means—I think I am quoting him correctly—by "the known facts"? Will he publish "the known facts" to which he has referred in his subsequent answer?
Lord Trefgarne: The known facts are largely published already because there are many books of reference in which the names of distinguished general secretaries appear and most of them put in their age. I daresay that their ages are accurately entered, although equally I daresay that lady general secretaries often decline to do that, and quite right too.
Baroness Turner of Camden: Shame!
Lord McCarthy: Shame!
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Disgraceful!
Lord Blease: The Minister has said that he attempted to be fair. I am accepting him at his word that he wants to be fair in such a situation. We are dealing with people who for a period have been in office in a trade union. I am not sure what happens in other organisations, but it is my experience that trade unions have a practice when people are coming up for retirement of considering their retirement pensions, their superannuation.
We are dealing with human beings and I am asking the Minister to consider this matter with a sense of fairness. We are dealing with people who are coming into their last days of service in a particular post. Surely that service merits more thought about the fairness of giving a reduced pension and the other aspects concerned.
Lord Trefgarne: I agree and the Government agree that these people are not to be abandoned in the way that the noble Lord is perhaps suggesting. There are transitional provisions in the 1984 Act which apply equally to the cases that we are referring to under the Bill. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord will accept that, while the transitional provisions are perhaps not as extensive or as generous as some would wish, equally they go further than others would wish. The Government have to take a median path between the two positions and I hope the noble Lord will agree that we have taken the right one.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: The name of Arthur Scargill is writ on almost every page of the discussions on the Bill. It is about time that we rid our discussions of references to him. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, to introduce a Private Member's Bill called King Arthur (Deposition) Bill and let us discuss Arthur Scargill, all his works and all his implications at one go. That would relieve us
616
of this constant allusion to what happens in the NUM and with Arthur Scargill. He is a very decent fellow. The Committee has no idea how personable he is. He is a good husband, he loves his dog, so what is the matter with him? He is the leader of a difficult union and has accomplished much. Speaking as one old trade unionist to another, I have a certain sympathy with him.
However, the Minister seems to want to apply the test provided in the clause to the officers concerned. The test is: Does he represent the views of the members? Let us invent a breathalyser to apply to these gentlemen to see whether they represent the views of their members. What does he mean when he says "the views of their members"? It does not really matter very much in nine cases out of 10 whether he does or not, because he has an executive council duly elected fresh from the ballot, reinforced by the confidence of the members, who represent the members.
How can one person represent the views of the members when so many of their views are continually plaguing him and when the organisation may have split feeings about this or that? Unions are not the same as parochial councils. They are active, and are often divided and engaged in controversial debate. I believe that the Government have an obsession about the views of the members.
There is something in the art of government. Does this Government represent the views of the electorate? Let them try to prove that they represent the views of the electorate. If they are counting heads—and that is what is done in ballots—let us see the voting of the country at the last general election. It was not to give a mandate to the noble Lord sitting on the Bench opposite. I believe that we must strip some of the humbug from all this and get down to the reality of the matter. I think that is enough.
Baroness Turner of Camden: Yes, I think that it probably is. I am disappointed at the way in which the Minister has reacted to what I thought was a moderate, reasonable and compassionate proposition. People approaching the end of their working careers should not suddenly have the goalposts changed, their contracts of employment negated, and have to stand for election when their careers were based on the assumption that they had appointments and contracts of employment and were responsible to elected executive councils.
My noble friends Lord Wedderburn and Lord McCarthy have dealt with the age profile comment made by the Minister. I should like to know whether he has particular names in mind. Perhaps he will tell us that at Report, because it is important. We on this side of the Committee believe that in introducing the legislation the Government have looked and decided that there are a number of people they need to catch in their legislation, not only Arthur Scargill. As regards Arthur Scargill, I should like to say in passing that one of the reasons I believe that he would easily be elected, even with a postal vote, is that the policies of this Government towards the National Coal Board have so alienated the feelings of young miners in particular that they would vote for him because he articulates their concerns in that area.

617
Returning to the amendment, it has been said by the Minister that the views of members are important. Of course they are, but in many unions they have been expressed through annual conference decisions when discussing the question of whether they should have appointed or elected officials to run their administration. That matter has been discussed in my union and in many others.
In annual conference my union decided that it wants professional union officials who are appointed rather than elected. Therefore the members of that union have given their views as to the type of official they wish to have working for them. It is not good enough to say to all unions, as though they were all the same, "This is what you must do". Moreover it is not good enough to insist that union officials must stand for election up to within two years of retirement. I shall not press the amendment at this stage. However, I am disappointed at the response from the Government and I shall look at the matter again at Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 78 and 79 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 12, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Turner of Camden: I rise to oppose the Motion that the clause stand part of the Bill. During the course of the debate we on this side of the Committee have attempted to demonstrate how misdirected and malicious is Clause 12. As we have tried to show, it would produce unstable situations in many unions. It would introduce elections for officials who are civil servants of the trade union movement. It would prevent unions from developing the professional skills and expertise that are so necessary nowadays. Unions are constantly being told to modernise and clean up their act, and this clause would inhibit them from doing so.
Every large institution must be administered, and that requires full-time staff. Democratic institutions such as unions have elected national executive councils whose task it is to represent the views of the members and to make policy decisions in between annual conferences. That body is responsible to the membership, but in order to carry out those policies and provide services to members the executive must have an apparatus responsive to its will.
As has been said by a number of Members on this side of the Committee, by compelling officials who provide such administrative services to stand for election the Government will be undermining the authority of the national executive council. Elected officials will be able to say that they are not accountable to the executive but to the general membership. The CBI was right to point out to the Government that this would have a disruptive effect. Employers like to deal with stable unions. If unions are riven by internal dissension and disputation, fuelled by the press and with constant elections for officials, it will make industrial relations very difficult.
618
At one point in the debate the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said that he believed the hard Left would support our view on Clause 12. I must say to the Committee that that is not the case at all. In my experience the hard Left wants elections all the time because it wants to destabilise unions internally, to run elections and caucuses for elections, and to politicise the administrative apparatus of unions. It is not the hard Left which supports our views on Clause 12, but the Government are assisting destabilising elements in unions in this type of clause.
There is also the important point about contracts of employment and career prospects for union staff. As has been said on a number of occasions in the debate, unions are trying to become more professional. Therefore why should this type of employee, and only this type of employee, have his employment contract changed by parliamentary edict? As I said earlier in the debate, we are not out to say that our rules should take precedence over Parliament. However, we are saying that Parliament should not enact laws which are so unfair to particular institutions—to unions. The unions may be unique institutions, but in our view they should not be uniquely disadvantaged in this way.
I do not wish to repeat a number of the arguments that have been made forcefully from these Benches. It is because of the comments that have been made and the reasons that have been given during the debate that I oppose the Motion that Clause 12 stand part of the Bill.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Baroness is normally extremely fair in what she says. I believe that she has earned the respect of the Committee for the way in which she has led the opposition to this measure. I was therefore the more surprised when she described the clause as malicious. I believe that that description is quite unjustified. It is surely not malice but a sensible view of our society that the role of trade unions, particularly the major unions, is so important that it is necessary to see that they are led by responsible people who are responsible to their members and to our country. Surely it is reasonable to provide, as has been increasingly provided for in successive Bills, that the principal positions of those who control trade unions should be held by people who have been freely and honestly elected by the members.
The noble Baroness has said that that would be destabilising. I believe that a man or a woman can lead a trade union much more effectively, and with much more confidence, if they know that they have been elected by a majority of the members and that they have their confidence. Surely that is an important matter for the leadership of such publicly important bodies. Members opposite are always talking about democracy and the value of popular support, and yet when we come to these important bodies—very important to the whole working of our national economy—they seem to hesitate before they will agree to the matter being put on a proper democratic basis, with those responsible for running the unions to be elected by the members, responsible

619
to the members, answerable to them and in due course having to consider the possibility of re-election.
Whatever view one takes of this clause, it is a very important part of the Bill. I think it is a very important part of the changes that the Government are effecting in our society. I welcome it and I hope the Committee will make sure that it stands part of the Bill.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Rochester: I rise only to support the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. I wish to support her in opposing this clause. I feel that it should not stand part of the Bill for reasons which she has given and which were confirmed by my noble friend Lady Seear earlier in the afternoon. In our view, there is a distinction between the election of members of principal executive committees—as will become plain when we discuss the next amendment—and the sort of civil servants and professional advisers to which this clause relates.
At the risk of turning out old pennies, I wish to revert to the criticism that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, of some of the things said by those on the Labour Benches—and I have in mind in particular the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, although I am sure he is well able to look after himself. However, the allegation was made that in opposing this clause people were concerned to see that the law should not take precedence over the union rule book but rather the reverse. I am quite satisfied, having listened to the debates earlier on, that that was not the desire of people on this side of the Committee. They are happy to observe the law and do not wish to flout it. On the contrary, their desire is to see that laws should not be enacted which are undesirable. It is our view that this clause is undesirable and I support the noble Baroness.
Lord Renton: I do not believe that the noble Lord understood the noble Lord, Lord Murray—and I noted down the words of the noble Lord, Lord Murray, at the time. He complained that this clause overrides the rule book, and therefore I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, has it wrong.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I hope that the Committee will permit a brief intervention as my name has been mentioned by two Members of the Committee. Without reservation, I wish to associate myself with remarks made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter about the invaluable contribution that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, has made to this debate and her objective approach. It is very much appreciated on this side of the Committee, on the Back-Benches at all events.
There is a problem with the hard Left, and I merely put this across the Committee to the noble Baroness and those who sit with her to consider. The main evasional tactic from the plain intendment of the provisions of Clause 12 which evoked the response of the Government in these amendments was Mr. Scargill. Is he a soft Left, middle of the road moderate?
Lord Trefgarne: My noble friend will forgive me if I do not follow him down that particular road. However, perhaps I could echo the words of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter when he said that this was a very important part of this Bill and one which lies at the heart of government policy in this area.
I believe the proposition that senior, powerful and influential people in the trade union movement or in particular trade unions should seek the approval of the members of the trade union is an unexceptionable one. In general terms, I do not think it is a proposition which is wholly opposed even within the trade union movement itself, although listening to some of the speeches in connection with this clause one could be forgiven for wondering whether that was the case. Nevertheless, I bring this proposition before the Committee in the confident expectation that it will further strengthen the management and respectability of the trade unions concerned. Of course, many trade unions already use the principles and the electoral processes set out in this measure. They do not all do so; and those that do not will now be obliged to do so. I believe that is a great benefit to the members of those trade unions and I hope the Committee will agree.
6.36 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 12, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 140; Not-Contents, 90.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Diamond, L.

Ampthill, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Arran, E.

Dulverton, L.

Attlee, E.

Dundee, E.

Bauer, L.

Elibank, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Faithfull, B.

Beloff, L.

Ferrier, L.

Belstead, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Bessborough, E.

Gisborough, L.

Blake, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Blatch, B.

Goold, L.

Blyth, L.

Gray, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Greenway, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gridley, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L

Buckmaster, V.

Haddington, E.

Butterworth, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Caccia, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Caithness, E.

Harvington, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Havers, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hemphill, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Henley, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hesketh, L.

Carnock, L.

Hives, L.

Chapple, L.

Holderness, L.

Chelwood, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Coleraine, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Colwyn, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Joseph, L.

Cowley, E.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Killearn, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Kinloss, Ly.

621

Kitchener, E.

Renwick, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Rochdale, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Rugby, L.

Layton, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Long, V.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sandford, L.

Mackay of Clashfern. L.

Sandys, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Sharples, B.

Margadale, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Marley, L.

Stedman, B.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Stockton, E.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Strange, B.

Merrivale, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Mersey, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Morris, L.

Mottistone, L.

Sudeley, L.

Mountbatten of Burma, C.

Suffield, L.

Mountevans, L.

Swinton, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Moyne, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Nelson, E.

Torrington, V.

Newall, L.

Trafford, L.

Norfolk, D.

Tranmire, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Orkney, E.

Trumpington, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Tryon, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Pender, L.

Vinson, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Windlesham, L.

Prior, L.

Wise, L.

Raglan, L.

Wolfson, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Renton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Amherst, E.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Ardwick, L.

Jay, L.

Banks, L.

Jeger, B.

Barnett, L.

John Mackie, L.

Basnett, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Birk, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Blackstone, B.

Listowel, E.

Blease, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Bottomley, L.

Longford, E.

Briginshaw, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McCarthy, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

McNair, L.

Carter, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Molloy, L.

David, B.

Mulley, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

Dormand of Easington, L.

Oram, L.

Elwvn-Jones, L.

Parry, L.

Ennals, L.

Peston, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Phillips, B.

Gallacher, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Galpern, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Glenamara, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Cregson, L.

Rea, L.

Grey, E.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Grimond, L.

Rochester, L.

Hampton, L.

Seear, B.

Hanworth, V.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Serota, B.

Hart of South Lanark, B.

Shackleton, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Simon, V.

Heycock, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hughes, L.

Tordoff, L.

622

Turner of Camden, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Underhill, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 12, as amended, agreed to accordingly.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 80:
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause:
("Election addresses
.—(1) The requirements which are to be satisfied for the purposes of Part I of the 1984 Act (elections for certain positions) shall, in relation to any election held after the coming into force of this section, include the requirements of subsection (2) below.
(2) The trade union in question must—

(a) subject to subsection (3) below, provide every candidate in the election with an opportunity of preparing an election address in his own words and of submitting it to the union to be distributed to the persons who are accorded entitlement to vote in the election;

(b) so far as reasonably practicable, secure that copies of every election address submitted to the union before such time as it may have determined are distributed by the sending of a copy of each such address, with the voting paper for the election, by post to each of those persons at his proper address;

(c) make such arrangements for the production of the copies to be so distributed as secure that none of the candidates is required to bear any of the expense of producing those copies;

(d) secure that no modification of any election address so submitted is made by any person in any copy of the address to be distributed except, subject to paragraphs (e) and (f) below, at the request or with the consent of the candidate or where the modification is necessarily incidental to the method adopted for producing that copy;

(e) secure that the same method of producing copies is applied in the same way to every election address so submitted and, so far as reasonably practicable, that no such facility or information as would enable a candidate to gain any benefit from—

(i) the method by which copies of the election addresses are produced; or

(ii) the modifications which are necessarily incidental to that method,

is provided to any candidate without being provided equally to all the others; and

(f) so far as reasonably practicable, secure that the same facilities and restrictions with respect to the preparation, submission, length or modification of an election address and with respect to the incorporation in any such address of a photograph or of any other matter not in words are provided or applied equally to each of the candidates.

(3) Subject to subsection (2)(f) above, a trade union may for the purposes of this section provide that election addresses submitted to it for distribution—

(a) must not exceed such length, not being less than one hundred words, as may be determined by the union; and

(b) may incorporate only such photographs and other matter not in words as the union may determine.

(4) A time determined for the purposes of subsection (2) above as the time by which election addresses for an election must be submitted to the union shall be no earlier than the latest time at which a person may become a candidate in that election.
(5) No person other than the candidate himself shall be subject to any civil or criminal liability in respect of any publication of a candidate's election address, or of any copy of such an address, which is required to be made for the purposes of this section.
(6) In this section "post" and "proper address" have the same meanings as in Part I of the 1984 Act.").
The noble Lord said: The Committee has three amendments on election addresses before it: the Government's amendment, the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford. Apart from a change

623
in the permitted number of words in the case of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, these amendments are identical to those tabled during the Committee stage in another place. My honourable friend said then that the Government were sympathetic to the principle behind the amendments and told the Committee that the Government were working on proposals to be introduced later. The Government's new clause and consequential amendments are the end result of that deliberation. I do not think I need go further at this stage except to invite the Committee to agree with the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: As the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said, there are three amendments; and the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Seear, and other of my noble friends, is the second. I think there is nothing between us on this issue. As the Minister rightly said, it was dealt with in Committee elsewhere when the Minister indicated that he was broadly sympathetic to the principle proposed.
One of the matters which troubled the Committee in the other place was the issue dealt with in subsection (5) of the government amendment we are now discussing; namely, the question of libel. Broadly speaking, what the Government propose here is right. Accordingly, we are wholly persuaded that the government amendment contains a better form of words than our own and therefore we shall not be moving our amendment.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: I think that my Amendment No. 86 is included for discussion in this group of amendments. I welcome the Government's amendment. It will save me a great deal of time because I have to answer many letters from readers of the News of the World who want to know something about the people who are standing in various elections with a postal ballot or perhaps even a workplace ballot. They have no information as to who they are or what they stand for.
I know that noble Lords on the Labour Benches sneer at the News of the World but it has a somewhat larger circulation than the New Statesman and is read by trade union members who do not read the New Statesman, Marxism Today, the New Left Review or any other such publication. It is one of the reasons of course why so many trade union leaders are completely out of touch with their members. They do not have a clue as to what their members are thinking. They believe they are living in some rarefied political atmosphere, when they are not.
The amendment will greatly help trade union members to understand what the people for whom they are invited to vote stand for, what their objectives are, and to smell out the ruffians. Most trade unionists are extremely decent people who do not want to be run by extremist lunatics.
Lord McCarthy: Our proceedings get more and more amazing as the hour gets later and later. The Minister has made no case at all. He does not feel the need to make any case. He says he is sympathetic with the case made elsewhere and then sits down. That is
624
the Government's case. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, spoke for not more than one-and-a-half minutes. He said that the new clause is okay because the part about libel is okay. He makes no case.
Without trying to be difficult, I do not believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, would have given me half a minute or so and said that libel would be okay. She would have set out the case. The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, welcomes it and the main reason he gives is that he receives letters from people who read the News of the World. As a result of the public writing to him, he comes to this House and an amendment is put down to the Bill. To quote the noble Lord, "They will smell out the ruffians." How simple the ruffians must be!— 150 words and an answer from the News of the World and "They will smell out the ruffians".
The fact is that there is absolutely no case for this clause. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, sitting over there straining at the bit, may invent one subsequently but the Government have invented none. The Government did not make a case in another place and they have not made one tonight, except that of course this measure is part of the continual attack upon trade unions. It is curious that it was not included at the beginning. I suppose that the Government are becoming less efficient. They think of as many matters as they can but they cannot think of everything. It certainly was not mentioned in the Green Paper and it was not in the election address. Nor was the provision added in the other place. In the other place it was thought to be enough to make postal ballots essential and mandatory; to introduce independent supervision of elections; to extend all elections even when they are non-voting members; and to do all the other things which are in the Bill. Now they are saying that they are going to regulate the election campaign and smell out the ruffians with a minimum election address of 150 words.
The second heading of my case in saying that there is no argument for the clause is that there was a reserve power. The Government may have included something about election addresses which was more flexible than the long list of requirements for election addresses which are included in Amendment No. 80. It could have been included in the code of practice. I should have thought that the code of practice dealing with ballots would have been the appropriate place to make one or two flexible suggestions. Those suggestions about election addresses which may be used in trade union elections need not be of a precise and legal kind. Nothing was done about that but we are going to have legislation.
I am aware of no evidence in any of the considerable literature about trade union democracy, or the lack of it, and fiddled elections that the election address is a crucial element in the smelling out, or non-smelling out, of ruffians. As far as I am aware, no one has ever said that all those things which are in the Bill actually happened. For example, there are unauthorised modifications in election addresses. That is not a scandal about which I have heard anywhere. I am not aware, as the Bill suggests, that

625
some election candidates have unequal access to distribution facilities. Again, this is not a public scandal. There is nothing in any of the evidence or any of the literature to suggest that one of the more significant mechanisms for manipulating trade union elections is through election addresses.
The great majority of trade unions that are subjected to the election process on a regular basis issue election addresses. Of course they do. They issue election addresses which very often are considerably longer than 150 words; it is part of the election process. What reason is there that this aspect of trade union behaviour, in addition to all the other aspects of their behaviour, should be regulated in this draconic way? What other reason can there be? Some people may ask why we protest. We protest for general reasons and because we see this as part of a continuing process. In particular we protest because of the way in which this clause and the schedule which accompanies it are written. They will add considerably to the number of minor offences in regard to which the CROTUM will be able to help trade union dissidents and in particular those who lose elections who always complain. It will help them to complain about the way in which their election has been undertaken. People who fail to receive an election address would be encouraged to go to the CROTUM. People who believe that there have been minor modifications to their election addresses which were probably necessary for editorial purposes will believe that there has been change to their limpid prose. They will also go to the CROTUM and the trade unions will have to answer these matters. It will waste the time of the trade unions and that is probably what it is all about.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I find it difficult to understand why the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, should find so simple a clause setting out such very simple rules so difficult to swallow. I had no intention of speaking until I heard him speak just now. I say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that I very much hope that the rebuke he received from the noble Lord opposite about his brevity will leave him comparatively unscathed and that in the future we shall hear from him again as shortly as we did just now.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am sorry to trouble the Committee again, but as the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, was kind enough to refer also to the brevity of my speech and believes that that is some cause for complaint, perhaps I may intervene and explain very briefly why I made a very short speech. It seems to me remarkable that anyone can be against a proposition of this kind. All that is being asked is that there should be an election address yet the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, interpreted this as a devastating attack upon the trade union movement. I do not begin to understand the logic of his argument.
Lord Trefgarne: I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, for not making a longer speech. I had no idea that he was opposed to this provision. I had erroneously understood that the views of his
626
honourable friend in another place, which were broadly in support of this measure, would be reflected in his own utterings. I am sorry if that is not the case. I still believe this to be a good proposal and I hope that the Committee will agree to it.
Lord McCarthy: Perhaps Members of the Committee can say whether they would be in favour of this clause, or something similar to it, being imposed upon their club, their professional association or their company?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I wonder why the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, gets so excited about this matter. The Committee has decided that there should be elections and it surely makes sense that those who are to vote have some idea of the policies and proposals that the various candidates adopt. They should be helped to know what they are voting for. It seems quite extraordinary that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, should work himself up into almost hysterical excitement at the idea that those who vote in trade unions should actually be assisted to know what they are voting about and what the candidates stand for. For some reason it may be that the noble Lord believes such a measure will undermine the trade union movement.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I apologise to the Committee for being absent for the first short part of this debate. I understand that I missed very little owing to the short speeches. What the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and other noble Lords have said emboldens me to put a question before the Committee. It is being said that wherever persons are being proposed for election there should by law be a severe structure—and that is my view of this clause—of election addresses incidental to the process.
If persons come forward and say that this should happen in the form suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, for those who are proposed for election wherever that may be—for example, in companies, in clubs, in building societies—that would not be objectionable. Our lives are composed of myriad forms of association and societies in which we all take part. If the measure were put forward in that way, I would probably want to debate the form in which it was put forward. However, I am not sure that I would find it all that objectionable. What I find objectionable is the singling out of the trade unions. To my knowledge no one has explained why that should be so. When that is done and it is in a form which we see as capable of being harassment—those who do not know anything about what happens in union administrative offices may not understand it but this is capable of being harassment; and harassment only of trade unions—why are noble Lords surprised that we oppose it?
7 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: There is a simple answer to the noble Lord's question. In this case—we have discussed it at length and I shall not go on doing so—Parliament has laid down that there shall be

627
elections. Therefore, it surely makes sense that Parliament should go further and lay down that those who vote in the elections which Parliament has provided should be given some information about the people they are voting for. I do not see why the noble Lord objects to that.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: And for companies?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Parliament is not at the moment legislating about voting for companies. It is no use the noble Lord dragging in companies as he has done, I suppose, half a dozen times in the past 48 hours. We are not legislating for companies at the moment. When we come to a Companies Bill we can talk about that.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Perhaps I may—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Lord is very agile but he must restrain his physical agility for a moment. We do not want any dialectical abseiling in this particular debate. We are legislating. Parliament has decided and the Committee has decided that there shall be elections in trade unions. It is therefore relevant to decide the conditions under which those elections shall take place. I find it difficult to understand why Members of the Committee opposite want to deprive the voters in those elections of the information which this clause will give them.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: We need, not dialectical abseiling, but a few more intellectual gymnasts on the other side. We have put a point and I repeat it to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. It is no good telling us that we are only debating trade unions today. If the noble Lord were to give us a guarantee that a Bill about companies would be introduced tomorrow his argument would stand up. We have reached a point where the mystification about trade unions has become so pronounced that people do not know when they are victimising trade unions as opposed to any other kind of association.
Lord Beloff: I was not straining at the leash, as the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, implied. However, after hearing the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, it is worth pointing out that the arguments of the intellectual gymnasts who oppose this clause need to be looked at.
I well remember four years ago—and a lot of trouble would have been saved if the Government had taken notice—that a combination of Cross-Benchers, Tory Peers and one or two Labour Peers voted to make postal ballots mandatory. If the Government had stuck by the decision of this Chamber we would have become used to postal ballots by now and the kind of discussion that we have been having would have been otiose. Presumably, in the course of practice and of running such ballots in bodies whose membership was widespread and whose members did not meet each other daily as members of clubs, which is one of the less fortunate comparisons of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, people would be inclined
628
to demand some knowledge of the candidates for whom they were voting. However, as I understand it, and as far as it is possible to penetrate the argument behind the rhetoric of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, his main argument is that this is in some way a method of bashing trade unions because it will give dissidents opportunities for saying that their election addresses have been tampered with, have not been issued properly and so on.
It is said that the amendment would add to the possibilities of the losers making complaints. That is quite extraordinarily contrary to everything we have been told in the course of our previous debates on this Bill. It has been the contention of Members of the Committee opposite that the trade unions function with admirable smoothness and that there are never allegations of wrongdoing or that, if there are such allegations, they are due to the malice of the News of the World or some other major organ of opinion. It is said that there are never contested elections, that the Transport and General Workers' Union did not run its last election twice and that all this is imaginary. If all this is imaginary, and if trade unionists are so disinclined to challenge the result of elections, why should the mere fact of having to issue election addresses suddenly produce the kind of backbiting and the kind of aspersions on each other from which hitherto they have been wholly exempt? It really will not do, and if noble Lords will not treat the subject seriously, the country will.
Lord Trefgarne: I apologise to the noble Lord and to the Committee if originally I moved this amendment less than adequately. I have in front of me one, two, three, four, five pages of notes. The Committee is welcome to all five if it so wishes. I believe that on balance the Committee preferred the rather shorter opening that I offered given that this amendment has attracted wide support, if not from the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. I beg to move.
7.6 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 80) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 130; Not-Contents, 60.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Butterworth, L.

Airedale, L.

Caithness, E.

Amherst, E.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Ampthill, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Arran, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Attlee, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Banks, L.

Carnock, L.

Bauer, L.

Chapple, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Chelwood, L.

Beloff, L.

Coleraine, L.

Belstead, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L

Bessborough, E.

Cowley, E.

Blake, L.

Craigavon, V.

Blatch, B.

Craigmyle, L.

Blyth, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Bonham-Carter, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Dilhorne, V

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Dulverton, L.

629

Dundee, E.

Nelson, E.

Elibank, L.

Norfolk, D.

Ferrier, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Gisborough, L.

Orkney, E.

Goold, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Gray, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Gray of Contin, L.

Pender, L.

Grey, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Gridley, L.

Raglan, L.

Grimond, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Renton, L.

Haddington, E.

Renwick, L.

Hampton, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Rochdale, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Rochester, L.

Hemphill, L.

Rugby, L.

Henley, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hesketh, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Hives, L.

Sandford, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Sandys, L.

Hooson, L.

Seear, B.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Sharples, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Simon, V.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Joseph, L.

Stockton, E.

Killearn, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Strange, B.

Kinnoull, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Kitchener, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Lawrence, L.

Suffield, L.

Layton, L.

Swinton, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Long, V.

Tordoff, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L

Trafford, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Tranmire, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Trefgarne, L.

McNair, L.

Trumpington, B.

Margadale, L.

Tryon, L.

Marley, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Walston, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Ward of Witley, V.

Mersey, V.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Morris, L.

Mottistone, L.

Windlesham, L.

Mountevans, L.

Wise, L.

Moyne, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Jay, L.

Barnett, L.

Jeger, B.

Basnett, L.

John Mackie, L.

Birk, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Blackstone, B.

Listowel, E.

Blease, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Longford, E.

Buckmaster, V.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

McCarthy, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Carter, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Molloy, L.

David, B.

Mulley, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Nicol, B. [Teller]

Dormand of Easington, L.

Parry, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Peston, L.

Ennals, L.

Phillips, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Glenamara, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rea, L.

Gregson, L.

Serota, B.

Hart of South Lanark, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Heycock, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

630

Underhill, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
7.15 p.m.
Clause 13 [Requirement of postal ballot for certain ballots and elections]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 15, line 45, after ("paper") ("either (i)").
The noble Baroness said: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 81, and I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 82 at the same time. For the convenience of the Committee, I shall speak to just those two amendments. I do not intend to move Amendments Nos. 83 and 84.
The purpose of the amendments is to preserve for unions the option which currently exists to hold workplace ballots. The current position with workplace balloting is that a union has to provide the same sort of security for the individual voter as if the member had a ballot paper coming to him through his letterbox. In political fund ballots, for example, many unions conducted the ballot with a mixture of workplace and postal ballots. In my opinion—and I believe in others—we were very careful indeed to ensure that workplace ballots were properly conducted. In some large companies facilities were provided for us by the employers. Polling booths were set up and members were able to go into the booth. They were given a voting paper, and they voted just as if they were at a general election. We had a high turnout because people were able to vote at their place of work, and facilities were provided for them.
I have never seen any evidence of intimidation, although no doubt the Minister will dip into his reservoir and produce some examples which we are unable to check. However, in the Green Paper the only examples given were of situations which the unions themselves had investigated and put matters right. As far as the Transport and General Workers' Union was concerned (I mention that because it has already featured in the debate this evening, notably at the instance of the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford), my understanding is that when the last election was re-run, which was following an investigation conducted by Mr. John Garnett of the Industrial Society, a well-known and highly respected figure in the industrial relations world, Mr. Garnett found irregularities in eight out of what were then 9,500 branches. Although he did not find sufficient evidence of abuse to warrant a re-run, nevertheless to put the matter beyond all doubt the union did in fact carry out a re-run. There really is a great deal of misinformation in the press about union elections, and it is unwise to base legislation on those allegations.
The amendment actually allows the member to trigger whether or not he wants a workplace vote. In that respect, it is a little different from existing legislation. I believe that the option should still be available, because there are many instances when it is

631
possible to get a higher participation by members if they have an opportunity to vote at their workplace, in particular if there is co-operation from employers. I know employers who will co-operate in elections, who have certainly done so for my union and for others. If we are concerned to broaden as much as possible the area of membership involvement, it is a good idea still to maintain the option. I therefore move.
The Earl of Dundee: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her explanation, and I accept that a case can certainly be made for preferring workplace ballots to our proposal, which is the postal voting system. However, I would just say that your Lordships' House held the view when considering the 1984 Trade Union Bill that all executive elections should be conducted by fully postal ballot. The Government agreed that ballot papers being sent out and returned by post constituted by far the best method, but were conscious that many unions did not at the time have precise details of their members. It would therefore have been both unreasonable and impracticable to have expected them to move in one stage to fully postal balloting.
The 1984 Act therefore permitted unions to use workplace ballots where they were satisfied that all other requirements of the Act would be met. However, the Act required unions to compile and maintain a register of their members' names and postal addresses. Therefore unions should now be in a position to hold fully postal ballots. Schedule 3 reinforces this by placing a duty on unions to allow their members to check that they are included in the union register and to obtain copies of the relevant entries.
I am sure your Lordships would agree that union members are entitled to expect fair and democractic balloting arrangements. Workplace ballots cannot guarantee this and can all too often be open to abuse, as the Green Paper indicated. The allegations currently being made about recent TGWU executive elections add fuel to this conviction.
In regard to other problems with workplace and semi-postal ballots, the turnout is not the most important factor in executive elections. Members must have the assurance that ballots have been conducted properly. I think that that eclipses the other consideration. Workplace and semi-postal ballots do not provide this, nor can they be adequately scrutinised by independent bodies because of the number of workplaces involved. This means there can be no certainty that ballot papers have actually been given to the members concerned and no others. The continuation of those systems would mean also that individuals would remain vulnerable to the risk that unfair pressures could be brought to bear on them—pressures that just cannot arise in an independently scrutinised postal system. Members could also be required to attend meetings so as to collect their ballot papers and thus be able to vote.
I think that the time is right to improve the balloting process. Unions have had plenty of time to
632
compile registers of their members' names and addresses. The time is now right to move to a fully postal, independently scrutinised system for election ballots. Only then will there be any hope of putting behind us the controversy that has accompanied some recent workplace ballots.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I do not accept the arguments advanced by the Minister. The number of people voting is not the main consideration, but it is a substantial consideration if we are concerned to ensure maximum participation by union members. Moreover, under the present legislation it is necessary for unions to guarantee exactly the same degree of security for workplace voting as can be guaranteed for postal voting. That is why unions are so careful about the way in which arrangements are made in that respect.
As to the Transport and General Workers' Union, as has already been indicated, allegations have been made in the press that have not yet been investigated. It does not seem appropriate to me that we should base our views about workplace balloting on one instance in one union that has not yet been adequately investigated. The previous incident in the TGWU referred to in the Green Paper, as I have already said, has been investigated by the Industrial Society with the results that I gave.
Moreover, there already exists in legislation a substantial encouragement to unions to switch from workplace balloting to postal voting because one cannot claim public funds for running elections if they are a mixture of workplace and post. The financial inducement for unions to switch to postal voting therefore already exists. The only reason for maintaining the workplace provision is because it can give greater freedom of membership participation.
The amendment provides for the workplace balloting to be triggered by the member himself. There is no question of people having to attend a meeting in order to have a ballot paper. The individual can request the supply of a voting paper at his place of work or a place more convenient for him immediately before or after his working hours. That seems a reasonable suggestion, as indeed the amendment is a reasonable one. It maintains the option for unions to have a workplace vote or for the individual member to have a vote at his workplace.
I note what the Minister said. In view of the time I shall not press the amendment to a Division. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Dundee: The Committee may consider that we have reached a suitable moment at which to break in order to return to the business at 8.25 p.m. I beg to move that the House be now resumed.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Unemployment Benefit (Disqualification Period) Order 1988
7.25 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th February be approved [17th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are all agreed, I am sure, that someone who is responsible for his or her own unemployment should not be able to draw the same amount of benefit as someone who has the misfortune of being out of work through no fault of their own, so the draft order is a simple one. It will, if the House approves it, further extend the current maximum 13-week period during which someone who brings about his or her own unemployment may be disqualified for receiving unemployment benefit. Disqualification arises where a claimant for benefit has left a job voluntarily without just cause, refused a suitable job vacancy, lost a job through misconduct, failed to take advantage of a reasonable opportunity of job training or failed without good cause to carry out official recommendations to help him or her find suitable employment.
The Employment Bill presently under consideration in your Lordships' House extends disqualification to people who lose a place on an approved training scheme through misconduct or who leave such a place voluntarily without good cause and also to those who refuse without good cause to apply for or to accept such a place. The maximum period of disqualification is presently 13 weeks. The draft order increases it to 26 weeks. The principle of disqualification is not new. It has been a characteristic of unemployment insurance since 1911 and was confirmed by Beveridge in his now often quoted report. It has been followed by successive governments since. I should stress, my Lords, that we are talking about a maximum. Adjudication authorities determine the appropriate period in the light of all the circumstances. We also intend that anyone who is disqualified for benefit on the grounds of voluntary unemployment will have any income support to which he or she may be due reduced for the same period. Again that principle is not new; it has existed ever since the introduction of national assistance in 1948.
The current maximum period of 13 weeks was increased from six weeks in 1986. One would have expected that the percentage of unemployed people claiming benefit in situations of voluntary unemployment would have fallen after that increase. This did not happen. The number of disqualifications rose at a time when there was more work around and overall claims for benefit from unemployed people were dropping significantly. The Government therefore concluded that more effective measures are required to discourage voluntary unemployment and to encourage people to think and act responsibly. Hence the present draft order that we are considering tonight.
I emphasised that the maximum period that I have described is just that, a maximum. Disqualifications
634
are not imposed as a matter of course and without regard to individual circumstances. Decisions on entitlement to benefit and on whether or not there should be a disqualification are taken by the independent adjudicating authorities. The adjudication system is longstanding and is much respected. Decisions are reached by applying the law, both statute law and case law, built up over the years, to the circumstances of the case. Inquiries are made of the former employer and the claimant has the chance to comment and to offer his or her own account of what happened. The adjudication officer then decides whether disqualification is appropriate and, if so, for how long it should last. Anyone who is dissatisfied with the adjudication officer's decision either as to disqualification itself or to the length of disqualification has the right of appeal to an independent social security appeal tribunal and from there on a point of law to a social security commissioner. In view of the quite proper independence of the adjudicating authorities neither I nor any other minister or departmental official can influence or interfere with their decisions.
This order is concerned with disqualification for unemployment benefit. However, as noble Lords will be aware, and as I mentioned earlier, if in a case of voluntary unemployment a claim is made for supplementary benefit or, from next month, income support, entitlement to that benefit is reduced. The normal rule applies a deduction of 40 per cent. to the claimant's personal benefit rate. Amounts for dependants are not reduced. The deduction is by 20 per cent. if any member of the household is either pregnant or seriously ill and the claimant's capital does not exceed £100, to be increased to £200 from next month.
There is nothing new in principle in this draft order. All it does is to increase the maximum period of disqualification that can be imposed. The consistent thrust of the Government's philosophy is positive. Major initiatives in the area of employment and training are helping people to find jobs and to undertake a suitable training which will enable them to return to employment. The benefit system should not offer an alternative where useful training or employment are available. We must discourage voluntary unemployment and the purpose of the order is to do just that. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th February be approved. [17th Report from the Joint Committee]—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, this is an important Motion, and I shall take a little time to say why I think that is so. I was doing some homework the other night when I came across an interesting quotation from Sir Winston Churchill when he was President of the Board of Trade in 1909 and this question was being discussed. He said:
"I do not feel convinced that we are entitled to refuse benefit to a qualified man who loses his employment through drunkenness. He has paid his contributions; he has insured himself against the facts of unemployment, and I think it arguable that his foresight should be rewarded irrespective of the cause of his dismissal … I do not like mixing up moralities with mathematics … Our concern is with the evil, not with the causes, with the fact of unemployment, not with the character of the unemployed".

635
Churchill, with his usual amplitude of mind, was making a statement with which I do not think we would wholly agree nowadays, because it was decided that there should be a penalty for people who became voluntarily unemployed. That was an insurance limitation rather than a punishment for people who had left their jobs.
All parties agreed at first that there should be a six-week suspension of benefit. It was increased to 13 weeks. Now, for some reason which I cannot fathom we have an increase to six months. I have a series of questions for the Minister. What evidence is there of an increase in voluntary unemployment between when the limit was six weeks and when it became 13 weeks? My understanding is that in the quarter ended September 1986 there were 113,000 cases. By June 1987, that figure had decreased to 98,000. If the numbers are decreasing, why is the penalty being increased?
In another place the Minister said that the penalty was being increased because job opportunities were increasing. That is not true of every locality. Why should we penalise people who live in an area of high unemployment because it is thought that people in other parts of the country can more easily find jobs? Does the Minister have regional figures to make clear why the Government are doing that? I hope the Government have in mind housing problems. People may lose their jobs, voluntarily or otherwise, in one area. They would go somewhere else to look for a job if only they could find somewhere to live. Why has 26 weeks been chosen? What is special about 26 weeks except that it is six months, which doubles the period of withdrawal of unemployment pay?
Will the Minister tell the House about the length of waiting lists for appeals? Is the number of adjudication officers being increased? How many appeals have been in favour of the claimant? I understand that in 1985 the chief adjudication officer's report found that one in four decisions were defective; in 1986, one in three were defective. Those figures were based on random cases.
After many years of experience in an area of great difficulty in central London, I can assure your Lordships that many people lack the confidence and experience to appeal. They take the bad luck as one of the discouraging features of their lives. I am sure that there are many people who have not appealed who might have won had they done so.
How much will the Government save as a result of these new penal laws? Will the National Insurance contributions of the person concerned be credited? What is the average time between registering an appeal and its hearing? I understand that it is about 15 weeks. If that is the average, there must be people who suffer for a much longer period. If a person is deprived of unemployment pay for at least 15 weeks, what happens to him in the meantime? What consideration are the Government giving to people who may be trapped in unsuitable jobs with poor conditions, or who have personal problems about which they may be reticent?
The question of voluntarily dismissing oneself is complicated, because many people are shy about
636
explaining their problems. They have other strictures to face. There may be difficult domestic circumstances. I came across an example of a man with two children whose wife had left him, and so he left his job to look after his children. The party of the family now says that he has to lose unemployment benefit because he voluntarily dismissed himself.
There is evidence of a policy of penalisation and coercion of the unemployed. Instead, the Government should look at the causes of people leaving their jobs. Why are the Government not concerned about whether there are bad conditions, inadequate preparation at school or afterwards, or personal strains in a job?
Employers can be capricious. I have come across cases where a person has been offered a new job and so leaves his present job. The employer then changes his mind and says that he is not taking on that person for some unknown reason. That person then becomes a victim of the new laws. There is danger that people who are too active as shop stewards may be made to feel that the sooner they leave a job the better.
The situation may be difficult for people who are not articulate or who may have language difficulties. One needs to look sensitively and carefully at the extent to which their leaving was voluntary, and whether it was due to circumstances which they found unbearable. That sympathetic attitude is missing at present. Unless there are many more officers to take appeals and a quicker way to deal with them, there will be great hardship.
It is easy to use the words "leaving employment without good cause". Who can work out what are good causes? There cannot be a mathematical rule. The problem must be given the clearest and most sympathetic thought. It may be that to somebody the reason for leaving is frivolous, but sometimes reasons which seem frivolous to outsiders are very real to those who are concerned with them.
When the Government increased the six weeks' penalty to 13 weeks, can the Minister say whether there was a drop in the number of people who were deprived of benefit? If that did not reduce the numbers, why on earth should 26 weeks reduce them even more? I am not sure that that is the right way to measure voluntary unemployment. The number of weeks cannot be the basic reason. If a man cannot stand his job or if a woman cannot stand her job, the question whether he or she is going to be deprived of 13 weeks' benefit or 26 weeks' benefit cannot be the ultimate and decisive reason. I know that the Government are concerned about all these recalcitrant, shiftless scroungers, but if they have not been taught a lesson in 13 weeks, how will 26 weeks help?
There is another question which I have to ask. I do not apologise for taking this time because it affects thousands of people—I think over 400,000 people last year. What about constructive dismissal? Is it true that claims under this heading have to wait for about two years before they are processed? Is this not just a charter for bad employers? We are hearing a great deal about bad employees; I wish we could hear more from the Government about bad employers. If

637
13 weeks is enough punishment, why should six months be taken to carry out the Government's policy?
I have looked up the guide to the adjudication officers. The Ministry states to the officers who have to hear these appeals that conditions which prompt a claimant to leave his employment were known to him when he began the employment and he accepted it in spite of them; that he cannot turn the clock back and say he has just cause for leaving simply because the employment was unsuitable in the first place. I think that that is very harsh and unfair. When a man who has been unemployed for a long time seeks a job and the employer says: "Well, it will be like this and like that", a man desperate to get a job will be inclined to say, "All right, I'll put up with that". But then, after he has been there for a time, he finds that it is almost unbearable and he must leave. According to these instructions he is disqualified from unemployment benefit.
So I cannot think otherwise than that this is really an attack on the unemployed. I want to know how much money the Government will save. We are told that, although the man concerned might lose his benefit up to a certain 40 per cent., the family will still receive their benefits if they are so entitled. But you cannot separate a husband's money from that of the family. The fact is that the family's income will be less, for six months the children's feet will grow and the retail price index might go up or down, but there will be a diminution in the family's income. Therefore, this must be regarded as an attack by the Government on the unemployed and an insensitivity to their difficulties. On behalf of my noble friends I must say that I think that this is a totally disgraceful and unjustifiable measure. We very much regret it.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for explaining the content and purpose of this order. Nevertheless, I want to reinforce the arguments which have been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger.
The first point to bear in mind is that for 75 years the disqualification period for voluntary unemployment stood at six weeks. As recently as 1986 the present Government altered that to 13 weeks—more than doubling it. Now the Government come back to the House and say that they wish to increase it to 26 weeks, which is doubling it again. As the noble Lord himself mentioned in explaining the order, people who are disqualified if they are lucky enough to get supplementary benefit, lose 40 per cent. of their benefit unless there are special circumstances.
Why do the Government want to proceed with this? The only reason given is to discourage people from acting in a way which leaves them unnecessarily out of work. How will stiffer sanctions help, the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, asks. The Government seem to say, "Well, after we raised it last time it had no effect"—the noble Lord said that this evening—"so we must increase it further." But why, the noble Baroness asked, should it have any more effect than
638
doubling it in 1986? I suppose the Government might reply to that, "We must do something; the numbers are increasing."
In another place on 1st March Mr. Portillo explained that the total number disqualified in the year to October 1986 was 414,000 and that to October 1987 the number was 420,000. That was a total increase of 6,000, which is an increase of 1.4 per cent. The Government will say "Ah, but the total number of claimants has fallen. In the first of those years, it was 5.35 million; in the second of those years it was 4.9 million." However we then have to look at the ratio between those disqualified and the total number of claimants. We find that in the first year it is 7.7 per cent. and in the second year it is 8.6 per cent. In other words, there has been a 0.9 per cent. increase. It scarcely seems that that small increase is justification for a stiffer sanction. In any case, the evidence suggests that the sanction has no effect on the numbers disqualified. As the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, explained to us, that is the experience of the increase to 13 weeks. Most claimants are unaware of the effect that leaving a job will have on their benefit. The social security policy inspectorate in a report on voluntary employment deductions in July 1983 said:
"Over three-quarters of the claimants we saw did not know before they left their jobs that their supplementary benefit would be reduced and, had they known, most said that the deductions would not have influenced their decision".
So to lengthen the disqualification period is unlikely to effect the Government's aim, but it will cause extra hardship. I say that because living on 60 per cent. supplementary benefit, if you get it for six months, is a heavy burden for those legitimately caught by the rule. But many are caught without justification. Disqualification is implemented automatically before any evidence is gathered to support the decision.
A citizens' advice bureau manager in Cheshire has pointed out:
"In our area a 13-week suspension of unemployment benefit automatically applies in all cases other than those of redundancy. This is causing hardship for our clients and is quite unfair in particular circumstances."
CABs throughout the country have reported that the maximum penalty is being imposed automatically as the norm. The noble Lord emphasised that we are talking about the maximum penalty but in much of the country that is being applied automatically as the norm. A social security commissioner in a recent disqualification case said:
"Adjudication officers … still seem to impose the maximum period in practically every case".
There is a high incidence of wrong and unfair decisions. The chief adjudication officer reported in his annual report on adjudication standards in 1985 to 1986:
"35 per cent. of misconduct decisions and 31 per cent. of voluntary leaving decisions are defective".
The average waiting time for an appeal is 17·3 weeks. In other words, the present maximum disqualification period is over before the appeal is heard. The money may be recovered in due course but in the meantime the period of unjust privation has been endured.

639
So this provision is unlikely to achieve the Government's aim and is certain to cause greater hardship, much of it unjustifiable. Why, then, do the Government press ahead? Is it in order to get the cash saving? I understand that the increase of the maximum disqualification period to 13 weeks produced a cash saving of £25 to £30 million. How much will this measure produce in this way? Or are the Government wanting to reduce the scope of universal benefits such as unemployment benefit and put more people on to means-tested benefits? If that is the reason, I believe it is a very unsound one and the Government are moving down the wrong road
I do not believe that the Government have justified the increase from six weeks before 1986 to 26 weeks now. I believe that the evidence suggests that voluntary unemployment disqualification is being applied in an indiscriminate fashion and without doing justice to individuals. It would be much more sensible for the Government to institute an inquiry into the working of the voluntary unemployment disqualification before going ahead with this order.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I wish briefly to make one or two comments. I wonder who the linguistic sadist was who coined the words "voluntary unemployment". I wonder whether the 1.3 million people who are long-term unemployed consider that they are voluntarily unemployed? Most of them, or a large proportion of them, were forced on to the dole queue and on to the supplementary benefit by the policies of the existing Government. To use the term "voluntary unemployed" is a complete butchery of language. It is a complete nonsense. People do not volunteer to go on to the dole queue. I think that the Government coined those words to suit their particular situation or to fit the bill on this occasion.
Let us make no mistake about it. This is part of the deliberate intention of the Government's policies. Some noble Lords will recall that a short time ago—I think it was in the penultimate Session of Parliament—we bitterly opposed the dissolution of such bodies as wage councils because they provided a somewhat reasonable minimum wage—I say only a somewhat reasonable minimum—for a great number of people in the service industries. That was removed quite arbitrarily by the Government. One of the instigators of fair wages councils and that kind of thing was a very distinguished ex-Prime Minister mentioned by my noble friend Lady Jeger—Winston Churchill.
There is no question that this provision is just a one-off and that it is being done in isolation. It is not being done in isolation. It is part of a particular policy of the Government to try and force people into very low paid jobs where the difference in some cases between their benefit entitlement and the remuneration for the job would be almost minuscule. This provision is being introduced to force people to take jobs on the basis that the Government are supposed to be creating real employment.
I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Banks, give £25 to £30 million as the saving when the last exercise was carried out. In terms of finance, that
640
is postage stamp money. The newspapers are full again today of the tremendous sums of money that the Chancellor will have available to distribute in the Budget next week. He will not be distributing that money at the bottom end of the scale; if he were, the Government would not be indulging in this kind of tawdry action.
This provision hits at one of the most defenceless, one of the poorest sections of our community. The Government should be ashamed of themselves. To dare to inject into this matter the notion of voluntary unemployment is absolute nonsense. I do not suppose that we shall get any joy from the Minister. This is part of the Government's overall strategy. But it is yet another indication of where the Government have exacerbated the concept of two nations. Their action shows that they intend to create a wider division between the haves and the have-nots in society.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the draft order we have been debating has a role to play in encouraging people to think and act responsibly as well as providing a penalty for those who bear a measure of blame for their own lack of a job.
I should remind the House that we are debating this matter at a time when unemployment has fallen by roughly 550,000 in the past 12 months. The provision does not prevent anyone from seeking to better himself or herself or from leaving a job which he or she no longer finds congenial. But the important thing is that they should have full realisation of their future decisions.
Adjudication officers obtain information both from the claimant and from the employer about reasons for leaving. They decide then whether the situation is one of voluntary unemployment. I would say in passing to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, that I do not know who coined the phrase "voluntary unemployment" on which he based his remarks. However, I am prepared to bet without further advice that it was not coined by anyone serving this Government. I think that it goes back many years before that.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, why are the Government persisting in the use of that phrase when there is no such thing as "voluntary unemployment"? People do not volunteer for unemployment. The overwhelming number of people who are unemployed in this country do not have any say or any choice in the matter.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, if they have no say or no choice in the matter, this order would not apply to them. That is exactly the point.
As I have said, there is nothing new in encouraging people to act responsibly in finding another job before giving up the one they already have. Someone who contributes to his or her own unemployment without good reason should not expect to receive benefit immediately and without penalty. That would not be fair on other contributors to the insurance scheme.

641
Entitlement to benefit is not automatic solely on payment of a certain number of contributions or amount of money or following a certain period of employment. It is also dependent on the person having taken every reasonable precaution to avoid the contingency insured against.
We have first and foremost a duty to maintain ourselves and our families. The social security system is there to help those who cannot fulfil that duty. Its role is not, and should not be, to take over that duty when the individual is quite capable of fulfilling it himself.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, made a most interesting and thoughtful speech. She questioned me on the rationale of this provision, as did the noble Lord, Lord Banks. I would confirm that from October 1986 to September 1987 there were 4,895,587 claims for unemployment benefit. From October 1985 to September 1986, there were 5,367,654 claims for the same benefit. Claims were therefore reduced significantly.
However, what actually matters is the number of disqualifications. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, appreciated the fact that disqualifications over the same period increased from 413,389 to 420,654. I accept his next step in the mathematical argument that disqualifications as a percentage of claims increased from 7.7 per cent. to 8.59 per cent. However, I part company with the noble Lord when he speaks of that as being a 0.9 per cent. increase. In fact, the increase is 12 per cent.—in other words, an increase of roughly 1.9 per cent. on 7.7 per cent.
8 p.m.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I accept that in purely mathematical terms that is correct. However, let us suppose that the figure is 1 per cent. and is increased to 1.5 per cent. That would be an increase of 50 per cent. I imagine that the noble Lord would not set the alarm bells ringing because of that. Conversely, had the figure risen from 24 per cent. to 24.9 per cent., which is a comparable rise, I imagine that he would not have gone to panic stations in those circumstances. The question is whether the figure of 12 per cent. has any significance at all. I rather think that it does not.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I dispute that. The fact is that if there was an increase of 10 per cent. or more, I would immediately argue that the current sanctions or penalties, as the noble Baroness called them, were not working. That is the rationale for the order, as I explained in my opening speech.
It is refreshing to listen to particular cases. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for producing one of which she had personal knowledge. That case concerned a person with two children whose wife had left him. He therefore left work to look after the children. However, the noble Baroness did not finish the case. What matters is whether there was any abatement of unemployment benefit in that case and, if so, what abatement followed and what appeals are in progress as a result of that. I do not have the full
642
facts and I should not like to comment further on that matter. It is important to have the full facts before one comments.
The noble Baroness inquired about regional figures for disqualifications. Those figures are not readily available and they will take some time to analyse. Even though levels of unemployment may vary regionally, we are not seeking to penalise anyone who is unemployed through no fault of his own. As I keep saying, it is only those who are voluntarily unemployed; although the noble Lord, Lord Dean, does not like that term and perhaps would prefer something like "constructively self-dismissed", which would be a bit of a misnomer.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister suggesting as a substitute the word "malingering"? If he is, why does he not have the courage to say so instead of masking that word with "voluntary unemployment"?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, to me, voluntary unemployment means a condition into which people put themselves through no fault of their own, and I believe—
Baroness Jeger: Through no fault of their own?
Lord Skelmersdale: Through not fault of their own. I think that that definition will be acceptable to the House.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister, in explaining his position, has stood on his head. Perhaps he would like to correct that.
Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords. I do not think that I have stood on my head. If I am to sit down at all on a long-term basis tonight, perhaps I may continue to answer the various points put to me, or at least as many of them as possible. I am sure that there will be one or two points which I miss, and I shall write to noble Lords who are concerned.
The employed labour force is estimated to have increased by 75,000 in the third quarter of 1987, which contributes to overall increases of 453,000 in the year to September 1987 and of slightly over 1½ million since March 1983. Also, the level of unemployment has gone down at a time when we have an increasing number of people in the labour force.
The noble Baroness went on to talk about the waiting lists for appeals. The legislation giving effect to income support is simpler than that relating to supplementary benefit. We expect that that will lead to a significant reduction in the delay before appeals are heard. The president of the social security appeal tribunals is responsible for the organisation of the tribunal's work. I understand that he agrees with that view.
So far as concerns delays in the hearing of appeals, the operation is as fast as it possibly can be. I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, that on a long-term basis claimants do not lose out if an appeal is

643
successful. They get arrears of unemployment benefit and income support. They always have done, and it is right that they should.
As regards the increase in the number of disqualifications, perhaps I have dealt with that matter fairly fully. However, the amount of savings concerned all noble Lords. There will be savings which are estimated at up to £37 million in this case. But the main reason for change is that it is not in the public interest or in the interests of the individual to subsidise voluntary unemployment. The increase in voluntary unemployment has demonstrated the need for more effective measures both to penalise those who unnecessarily seek to claim public funds and to encourage people to take a responsible attitude towards maintaining themselves and their families.
I confirm that national insurance contributions are not credited during the period of disqualification. To award such credits would partly nullify the imposition of penalties. As regards the question of whether a husband's income is separated from that of the rest of the family, as I said in my opening speech the answer is yes.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, naturally spoke about the report of the Low Pay Unit, which criticised this proposal. We have listened to and learnt from what that unit has said and we shall naturally be monitoring the effects of the new longer maximum disqualification period. If noble Lords opposite are to be believed, it will not be long before we come back to the House with an order to reduce that period. If it works properly, I hope that we shall be in a position to do just that. However, as regards the report, Although I do not want to be drawn too much into the details of it, it says that one in three disqualifications are wrong and the evidence for that is said to be the Government's own figures. I am advised that there were some 1·8 billion decisions by adjudication officers on all questions of entitlement to unemployment benefit in 1986. About 36,000 decisions were appealed against and about 30 per cent. of the appeals went in the claimant's favour.
As regards defective decisions, the statistics quoted are based on a representative sample of cases examined by monitoring teams. Decisions that are recorded as defective may be so because it is considered that the evidence was incomplete rather than that the decision was wrong. Because of the small number of cases, a small change in that number will show up as a significant change in percentage terms.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, cross-questioned me about the maximum period being applied in all cases. Adjudication officers receive guidance from the chief adjudication officer, and he has emphasised that where disqualification of some kind is called for it is important to exercise a proper judicial discretion when deciding the appropriate period. Any aggrieved claimant has the right of appeal to a social security appeal tribunal, and this is made quite clear in the letter to the applicant giving the decision in the initial appeal.
As I have made clear, at present sanctions seem to have had little or no effect in encouraging people to
644
act more responsibly. Between 1981 and 1987 disqualifications imposed by adjudication officers went up by 20 per cent. although the number of claims rose by only 8 per cent. That was despite the increase in the maximum period from 13 to 26 weeks in October 1986. The operation of the new provisions will be monitored. The extension to 26 weeks gives more room for the adjudicating authorities to adjust the period of disqualification according to the extent to which they consider that there were good reasons for the individual to act, or fail to act, as he or she did. We expect that discretion to be carefully used. If it is not, I can imagine the howls of protest there will be from the Benches opposite, and I should add to those howls.
The chief adjudication officer's advice to local adjudication officers is that in each case a,
"sensible discretion has to be exercised in such a manner as the justice of the case requires. All the circumstances must be taken into account".
He also points out that,
"the statutory authorities have a complete, unfettered discretion provided it is exercised judicially".
It cannot be right for someone to slip unnecessarily into reliance on benefit. We hope that the provisions of this draft order will help to reverse the trend and give the right signal to everyone who might otherwise be tempted to behave irresponsibly. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. I commend the order to the House.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I know I asked the Minister a number of questions, but before he sits down I should like to raise the subject of constructive dismissal. I am informed that appeals against constructive dismissal charges take about two years. This point is important to the people concerned. If the noble Lord is unable to answer me tonight I am sure that he will write to me, though I should have preferred to have his reply on the record of the proceedings of this House.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness. That is the one point for which I did not come prepared this evening. If the noble Baroness wants this matter included in the record of the House I suggest that she puts down a Question for Written Answer, in which case it would be on the record.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.25 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.14 to 8.25 p.m.]

Employment Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 13.
[Amendments Nos. 82 to 86 not moved.]
Clause 13 agreed to
Clause 14 [Independent scrutiny of certain ballots and elections]:
[Amendments Nos. 87 to 89 not moved.]
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 16, line 38, at end insert ("he is approved by the Certification Officer as suitably qualified and his name is entered on a list maintained by that Officer for the purpose, and")
The noble Lord said: We have now reached, after dinner, the clause concerning scrutiny of ballots and the rules which are laid down in the Bill for the scrutiny to be undertaken by the union. In dealing with the Question whether Clause 14 shall stand part of the Bill, my noble friend will say something on other aspects of the clause. However, the amendment that we have chosen to move relates to the fundamental character of the scrutineer, having in mind the functions that the Bill puts upon him under subsection (2) and the way in which the trade union must ensure that all those functions are carried out. In passing I must add that, although we have not moved an amendment in this connection, we still put to the Government that the absolute character of the trade union's obligations under subsection (2) are too heavy, especially in the light of the points that arise from this amendment.
If one is to have a scrutineer forced by the state upon the elections or ballots of an organisation, and if one is to take seriously the question that he should be independent, then in our submission the legislation should go so far as possible in the direction of avoiding interventions directly by governmental state machinery. Indeed, it is rather surprising to find that that is not so in this clause.
The subsection to which this amendment relates and which would be deleted is subsection (3). It gives the Secretary of State the power to make an order setting out any conditions that he wishes with regard to the qualification of the scrutineer. The scrutineer will be someone set up by the state under qualifications imposed by the Secretary of State without, necessarily, consultation—at least in this Bill as drafted. It is possible—I do not say that it will happen— under this Bill as drafted that the qualifications the Secretary of State imposed were such that, inevitably, the scrutineer would be someone to whom trade unions were not particularly palatable organisations. There is nothing in the Bill to stop that.
It is odd that the Government, I suspect, have fallen into a trap that they had always avoided. They have always taken the line—and it has been much noted in their literature upon legislation—that they were not going down the road of the Industrial Relations Act 1971. One of the reasons that has always come through in their discussions on that, put shortly, is that they were not going to go in for some neo-corporatist legislation setting up a registrar to organise and supervise the trade unions. Some of us have felt that that is now rather more a pretence than a reality. Nevertheless, in the form of their institutions they have always made that distinction.
It is very odd that the Government do not now put forward one of the many very easy solutions that would have avoided this charge. Our amendment suggests that the certification officer is the person who should set up the qualifications and maintain a list of those who might be chosen for the purpose,
646
purely for convenience. We say that the certification officer—a person established under statute, that is true—is someone who in reality has a certain independence. It is an independence that is remarkable through its maintenance in view of the legislation that we have seen since 1980. He has a remarkable degree of trust in the trade union world despite a few tiffs—but that happens in all relationships—and we say that the certification officer is more likely to avoid the charge that these are state imposed scrutineers than if the Bill remains in its present form.
Here I repeat the burden of the point. Subsection (3)(a) gives the Secretary of State the right to establish any condition that he wishes, by order, albeit that the condition has to be put before each House of Parliament. That is not worth a great deal in the terms of parliamentary majorities these days. From that group of people, who meet those qualifications, the scrutineer can be chosen.
It may seem a small point. I suspect that it is a small point which marks a divide. A line is thin but one can still cross it. I move this amendment in the belief that if we are to have this structure it would be better all round that the certification officer played a central role and maintained both the independence of the scrutineers and some independence in the machinery that set them up. I beg to move.
The Earl of Dundee: The Green Paper canvassed in paragraph 5.21 onwards—if my reference is correct—a possible role for the certification officer in independent scrutiny and gave some reasoned argument to draw attention to the drawbacks against it. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, for giving us an opportunity to go over the matter again.
In response to his query on why the certification officer should not be given the job of scrutiny, the disadvantages that we considered include the danger of upsetting the important impartiality of his role in other areas, for example, certifying the independence of the union, and the fact that he already has a quasi judicial role under the 1984 Act that would be bound to lead to a conflict of interests. Nor would he be able to issue statutory orders of his own. These would still have to be made by the Secretary of State. I therefore do not think that there is a good reason for the change proposed in Amendments Nos. 90 and 91.
The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, also gave the view that what we are proposing comes down to an unnecessary intervention by government machinery. However, I do not think in context that that can be said because unions will be free to appoint any of those specified, subject to the provisions of Clause 14(3)(b). I am quite sure that within the categories to be specified—whatever the fears expressed now about the specification by the Secretary of State—some will be found who are sympathetic to the unions.
Nor do I think that we need to worry that the Secretary of State will be partisan in his choice of categories. No decision has been made yet but these persons are likely to be bodies with an established reputation in the field—for example, the Electoral Reform Society. The specified conditions are likely to

647
be such as to enable unions to appoint scrutineers from the ranks of solicitors and accountants.
With these few remarks that I hope set the context, perhaps the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: On another occasion, and at some other hour. I do not think that I would do so. The Minister made four points to me; I make four back to him; First, he said that the certification officer has quasi judicial functions. I accept that. He also has administrative functions. For example, he keeps the list of trade unions and he has many other administrative functions. He is the repository of the annual accounts. He publishes an annual report that is the major source of information about union affairs. Between those two it is not found that his quasi judicial functions are vitiated by his administrative functions; and it is difficult to see why this task should bring about a greater conflict of interest.
Secondly, it is said that this would upset the impartiality of the role of the certification officer. I find that rather odd, as though there is something about the job that would upset someone's impartiality. If that is so, then, even more than before, I do not want the Secretary of State undertaking that task. I do not trust a Secretary of State—I do not mean this Secretary of State; of course one never distrusts this Secretary of State. One looks at the power and asks, "What would another Secretary of State do?" Perhaps we did not distrust enough some of the powers that the Government began to take in the realm of education, and higher education in particular. However, we have seen that other Secretaries of State move more quickly to use the power that they have. The power here is without qualification. The noble Lord says that there would have to be orders in the end. There might well have to be regulations setting up the scheme; but, if the Secretary of State could make orders or regulations only on the proposal of the certification officer, then the point is met.
I deliberately did not use the arguments in the Green Paper because I did not think that they were very good. There are better arguments than those in the Green Paper, although the Green Paper discussion seemed to leave the question in the balance. This may seem a small point but it is very serious indeed. It is the first time that the Secretary of State will move in to impose conditions upon the functioning of trade unions in any way that he wishes.
I am rather disappointed that the Government will not consider this again. We have tried to move it in the sense, "We have lost the rest; but what about being constructive here concerning the independence of the scrutineers?" The Government may perhaps underestimate the mistake that they make in putting the Secretary of State in as the engine and the motive power behind the list of scrutineers. However, in view of the hour and the state of the Bill, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 91 and 92 not moved.]
8.45 p.m.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford Lord Wyatt of Weeford moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 17, line 3, leave out from ("person") to end of line 4 and insert ("by whom all voting papers for the purposes of the ballot or election are distributed to those voting, and to whom all such voting papers are returned by those voting;").
The noble Lord said: This is an extremely important amendment. The person who counts the ballot papers must be the person who sends them out; otherwise there are avenues for fraud which are very wide and would undoubtedly be followed. First, if the union concerned prints the ballot papers, there is always the temptation (which will certainly be acted on in many cases) to print more than are necessary. The surplus will be used by unscrupulous members of a union to distribute to people whose votes they feel will be favourable to the candidate they want, or they will fill them in themselves and send them into the scrutineer.
For example, that used to be the practice in the old ETU. I know that noble Lords on the Labour Benches do not like us to mention the ETU because it was a disgraceful episode in the history of the trade union movement. The trade union movement and the TUC preferred to do nothing about it for years and a group of people including myself, the noble Lord, Lord Chapple, the late Sir Les Cannon and others worked for years to try to get the TUC to put its own house in order and it would not. Finally we went to the courts and received that famous judgment in 1961.
Part of that court case centred on what was called Cobbett's rides, because a gentleman called Cobbett was concerned in one of the malpractices involved. Cobbett's rides consisted of overprinted ballot papers being taken by unscrupulous branch officials, filled in wrongly and posted in a variety of pillarboxes in various districts to make it look as though they had been genuinely posted by the appropriate people, which they had not been. That was part of the fraud.
The kind of fraud that can arise is very difficult to predict because some people will commit fraud if they have control of the printing and distribution of ballot papers. They will be selective sometimes in sending them out. They will not send them to people they feel will vote the wrong way, or they will multiply them in various other ways. It is possible, no doubt, to have sequential numbering of ballot papers as envisaged in the Bill, but it would be quite easy to duplicate the numbers by overprinting, to use them unscrupulously and not even to send out the originals.
My noble friend Lord Chapple knows a great deal about this kind of activity because he was in the thick of it at the receiving end, and perhaps at one time at the transmitting end in the old ETU.
We have gone so far with all this. We have almost everything tied up. We have the independent scrutineer counting the ballot papers, but why can we not finally fix the other end and make sure that he is the person who prints and distributes those ballot papers according to the list of addresses that he is given by the union? That may not be perfect because people may find tricks around it, but it is a great deal more secure than what is envisaged at the moment.
I hope that the Government will consider the amendment seriously. In fact, I hope that they will accept it. What is the point of going to all this trouble to devise a clear and foolproof method to secure a secret postal ballot if one of the ends is not tied up properly?
Ballot rigging is not always confined to extremist, Trotskyists and communists. I fear that even moderate union officials, who are very enthusiastic for their cause, have been tempted from time to time give judicious nudges in favour of their own candidates. This is a quite evenhanded provision. I do not claim that the moderate Right-wing (or whatever one calls them) members of unions are always pure, but there is no sense at all in not having an independent scrutineer in charge of the whole operation from the start. It is true that the independent scrutineer may not have a complete set of addresses from the union, but if the union does not have them it will not have a complete set of its own.
However, it will be a great deal better than the present system. Having to send the addresses to the independent scrutineer also helps to make the unions more efficient. Efficiency in union administration has gone up considerably since the 1984 Act when unions were forced to keep registers of their own members. Sometimes they did not know who they were. It has also forced them to tidy up their administration. This will be not only in the cause of democracy but also in the cause of greater efficiency.
I hope that we can agree the amendment. It is so self-evident that it makes sense. I hope that we shall not have another exhibition of the feudal approach to elections from noble Lords on the Labour Benches, who began with the approach to union elections by saying that there should be none at all.
Lord McCarthy: No.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: Oh, yes. This used to be done by a show of hands where the landlords, as it were, being the union bosses, made sure that people voted the right way. Then it progressed further to block votes for the branches, and that was manipulated too. In some cases it was advanced a little towards workplaces, but every time the union rulers were asked to advance and extend the suffrage of their members they resisted. They have gone on resisting it. It is so absurd because they must know by now that it is what their members want. It is the history of mankind that those who have power are very reluctant to give it up.
It was the same with the old landlord. We had to have a Reform Act several times in England to have the suffrage properly arranged here; otherwise the wretched tenants or employees of the local landlord were forced to show how they intended to vote. It is exactly the same kind of thing in the trade unions. I implore the Committee to come up to date a little, to stop being like an old feudal baron and realise that we are now nearly in the 21st century and where members are totally different from what in the past
650
we supposed them to be. I hope that there will be no disagreement about this and that the Government will accept the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I rise to give the amendment the strongest possible support. I am surprised that it is even contentious because it seems to me that it is in the interests of all those people voting, whatever way they vote, that the result should be truly reflected. I suspect that we shall be challenged before the end of the debate on the amendment as to whether irregularities can be proved, or whether it is necessary to pursue the question of irregularities in recent elections. I believe there is disquiet in the minds of the public and certainly in the minds of some voting members of the unions. Therefore, we must have a vested interest in seeing that not only should this operation be done properly but that it should be seen to be done properly.
The area that has given rise to most disquiet is the issuing of the ballot papers, the part of the process which is not overseen, and the counting of the ballot papers when they are returned. I should like to see a consensus from this Chamber that the whole of that process should be done consistent with this amendment. The people we shall serve best are those who vote in the ballots, but the interest is far wider because of the voting impact on the public. One wishes to see a vote democratically cast and processed and then counted so that the result is a true reflection of the intentions of the individuals who exercised their votes. I stress that simple point and hope that the amendment will be supported.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Now we are deciding on the form of ballot I hope that the Committee will do its best to make a good job of it. Since 1984 the unions have been a little uncertain about what it is that Parliament may ultimately require. Members will recall the uncertainty into which we were plunged when the noble Lord opposite moved an amendment on postal ballots which prevailed. The Government then discovered that practical difficulties existed. The unions said that they were not ready for postal votes because they did not have the necessary equipment or material. They persuaded the Government to suggest workplace ballots if postal ballots were not possible. Since that time most ballots have taken place at the workplace.
I should like to ask the Minister whether an inquiry or survey has been carried out into the state of play in the administration of trade unions to meet the new requirement. We have not had a great deal of experience of postal ballots on a large scale. In the conduct of the ultimate system adopted, we wish to avoid the recurrence of complaints about ballot rigging or irregularities of one kind or another. The system must be designed to be and look efficient.
All parliamentary candidates will remember the backlog of returned envelopes following the issue of election material. I do not know what the returned envelopes amount to for the electoral officers in the local authorities but many undelivered ballot papers will be around somewhere. Where will they be? Will ballot paper envelopes state that if they are undelivered they must be returned? If so, to where?

651
What will happen to them when they arrive? Many administrative details must be carefully considered in order to make the system efficient and as free from irregularity as possible.
I hope that some assurance has been received from the unions that they will be able to meet this requirement. If not, I believe that they must be assisted to do so; that is important. I do not see that the custody of returned ballot papers is particularly useful by itself. However, control over the issue and identification of bona fide ballot papers, as against those which may be used irregularly, is another factor. The safeguards which must be made are probably more elaborate than appear at first sight, and that is important.
Many unions will not have a stable electoral roll. In some respects they may be less stable than the parliamentary electoral register because many people move in and out of unions. The register of members must be the basis upon which ballot papers are issued. There must be a closing date and also a date when they must be delivered to the scrutineer. All such matters must be taken care of, but we are used only to physical voting at a polling station. If we were to adopt the conventional method, and it was practical to do so, that would be the best idea for all ballots, whether for unions, local authorities, parliamentary elections and so forth.
However, the kind of ballot about which we are talking will, in some unions, be widely spread. I constantly think of my small constituency of years ago. There are 1,500 offices throughout the country, including those in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and they have so far been the voting stations. The ballot papers have been received there by the local officer who is a serving civil servant. They have been distributed according to his instructions, collected and then returned to a central point. I believe that that has been as watertight a method as one could obtain. However, there we are speaking of electoral rolls of 70,000. But what about 700,000, or over one million? It is not quite the problem which the building societies used to pose in asking, "How does one run a democratic system with eight million members? How does one communicate with them all?".
I believe that, on the whole, building societies probably have a more stable electoral register than have the unions. It would be reassuring to know that this is not merely blowing into the wind and expecting the unions to comply without an assurance that they are prepared and can effectively carry it out. It would be useful for the department to have an idea of how the balloting will be done. Can they provide a model which will satisfy conventional standards of security and efficiency? I am keen on balloting for many issues, and I am keen on efficient balloting. There are dangers in all elections but in some they are very real.
Lord Renton: The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, wisely said that if we are to have postal ballots we had better do the job properly. Although he did not expressly say so, I hope that it was implicit in all that he said that he agrees with the amendment.
652
It naturally follows that if the job is to be done properly we must close the gap that exists in the Bill. It is for that reason that this amendment is important.
It would be absurd if the various purposes for which ballots are to be held under the Bill, and under the 1984 Act, were to be frustrated by our failure to accept the amendment and thus close the gap. I hope I am not being too frivolous when I say that my only regret about accepting the amendment is that it would put an end to all "ballot stamping" parties, to which the noble Lord referred at an earlier stage.
Perhaps I may go back to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. He said that we have no experience of postal ballots on a large scale. In parliamentary elections we have had postal votes for absent voters on a fairly large scale; sometimes it involves as many as several thousand in a constituency. That has worked extremely well. Of course, we know that in those cases it is the electoral registration officer who issues the ballot paper; it is not the parties who do that. That is an important factor to bear in mind and is, I believe, the answer to the point raised by the noble Lord.
He also raised another important point which is fundamental to this matter. It happens to be a point which I raised at Second Reading; namely, that no union elections, whether by secret postal ballot or in any other way, can be regarded as properly conducted unless there is a complete and accurate register of those entitled to vote—an electoral roll.
In answer to the point I raised at Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Dundee gave an assurance that the unions had made very good progress indeed in compiling their electoral registers. He said that only one complaint had been made to the certification officer and that was unfounded. As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, rightly said, we must have electoral rolls and the unions must be prepared for the system. I believe we may take it that he can feel well satisfied on that point.
9 p.m.
Lord Beloff: I hope that the Government will accept this amendment. Indeed, I hope that everyone will accept it for one very simple reason which has nothing to do with the possibility of manipulation, ballot-rigging or whatever it is called. It is normal and customary in all elections in all bodies—and the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, is keen to call our attention to bodies other than trade unions—that the function of issuing ballot papers and compiling a list of candidates is the responsibility of the same person who is responsible for seeing that these are collected and properly counted. In parliamentary elections the returning officer has been a major feature of the British scene for a century and more, and other smaller electorates—for example, clubs—normaly follow the same procedure.
I believe that it would be necessary for the Government or anyone else opposing this amendment to give a specific reason why there should be a departure from the normal practice governing the issue and collection of ballot papers. No such suggestion has so far emerged.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I should like to support this amendment. We have had democracy in this country now—to a lesser degree a long time ago—for about 140 years. You cannot have democracy if you do not have a completely secure system where the vote of the individual cannot be mishandled before it is counted or even when it is counted because accidents happen. It is not only the unions that are involved in this. On the whole the unions today are very responsible although there may be a few exceptions. I have often wondered how the ancient Greeks, who invented democracy, voted. I presume that they voted by their hands but I do not know. Of course, it was quite a different type of democracy because it was the democracy of the elite.
Lord Renton: In fact, they voted by means of tokens.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: That might be very dangerous because all sorts of things can happen. Amendment No. 82, tabled by the noble Baroness, suggested that members of a union could have their ballot papers sent to their workplace. I have some knowledge of industry and I do not believe that that is a good idea because votes can easily be changed when members reach their workplace; I do not say that is prevalent but it has happened. Therefore, I congratulate the noble Lord who tabled this amendment. Provided that it can be made foolproof—andI do not see why it cannot—I think that the Government should view it very sympathetically.
Lord McCarthy: I thank the noble, Lord Wyatt, for his amendment—not for its substance but for the opportunity it gives us to clear up a number of misapprehensions. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, on this side of the Committee we are not saying that there should not be a returning officer to control ballot papers. We are not saying that ballot papers should go adrift. We are not saying that there should be ballot-rigging. We know what people say about trade unions whenever any example of ballot-rigging, however small or slight reaches the newspaper.
We want to prevent ballot-rigging as much as anybody else. That is not the issue. The issue is whether there is so much ballot-rigging and so much evidence of it that we are justified at this point in time not just in accepting this amendment but in accepting the whole function and thrust of Clause 14, which is to create a scrutineer. The issue is whether to create this scrutineer and put into the body of this legislation a compulsory move from a mixture of postal ballots and workplace ballots to a situation in which all ballots are to be postal ballots.
It is in that context that we say that the case is not made. It is perfectly true that most other organisations besides trade unions—and it happens in trade unions, in clubs, in professional associations and so on—have returning officers who control the ballots. But that is not specified by law.They do not have an equivalent of Clause 14 to make them do that. Even in companies, where the secretary of the
654
company is involved in the actual ballot process, a scrutineer is not brought in from the outside. A scrutineer is not imposed on the organisation in the way in which a scrutineer will be imposed on a trade union under the terms of Clause 14.
Therefore, in the context of this amendment, we have to look at what Clause 14 says, because this is the only substantive amendment at this time of night which we intend to press on this clause. In answering the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, I ask the Minister to tell us how he sees the amendment, and even the clause without the amendment, operating.
There are many aspects about the scrutineer which are of concern to us. There are a series of characteristics that he has to exhibit. He must be independent. He must be competent. He must be qualified. But from where does he obtain his independence, his competence and his qualifications? What sort of person do the Government believe will be a typical scrutineer? I thought I heard the Minister say that the scrutineer could be sympathetic. Does that mean that he could be a trade unionist? Would the Government think it reasonable, for example, to go to the top of the tree and for a trade union to appoint my noble friend Lord Murray as a scrutineer, or could he be said to be too sympathetic, too involved? Let us suppose that it was my noble friend's old union. What kind of people do the Government think will be scrutineers? Must they all be members of the Electoral Reform Society? Must they all be solicitors? Those are the questions we want the Government to answer. It is in that context and that framework that the Committee should look at this amendment.
Lord Rochester: It would be wrong if, after this great debate, there had been no contribution from these Benches. Therefore, I should like to repeat what I said on earlier occasions; namely, that my noble friends and I are clear that trade unions should use the full postal voting procedures under independent supervision for elections to their principal executive committees and that that should extend to the distribution, receipt and counting of ballot papers.
As I see it, the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, is a means of ensuring that that independent supervision extends in an acceptable way to the distribution of ballot papers. Therefore, in general terms, I support this amendment.
The Earl of Dundee: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, I appreciate the need, which he draws to our attention, for debating and discussing in general whether it is a good idea to have a scrutineer, but with respect to the noble Lord what we are debating in this amendment is, on the assumption that we have a scrutineer, whether that scrutineer is the best person to send out ballot papers.
I should say straightaway to the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, that I have a great deal of sympathy with what he proposes. However, the noble Lord will understand when I tell him that there are a

655
number of practical difficulties which need to be considered and ironed out before the next stage of the Bill. Having said that, I can assure him that I am prepared to take away his amendment and give it serious consideration to see whether we can come back with amended proposals to those currently contained in the Bill.
Lord Blease: Before the Minister sits down perhaps I may make this point. We have had over 80 amendments dealing with ballot arrangements. We are now on Clause 14 and debating returning officers and scrutineers; we have given thought to the office staff, the postal arrangements and the register. There has been preoccupation with an office of a trade union organisation dealing with ballots, elections and all that pertains thereto.
There are practical difficulties. Will the Government give consideration to the objective of a trade union organisation? They are to give service to its members, to engage in collective bargaining in the interests of production in this country, and to carry on a relationship between workers and management in the interests of its members' wages and working conditions. In this Bill we have been concentrating our minds in connection with suitable ballots, but the practical issues and difficulties arising for trade unions where machinery is being imposed upon them by this legislation must be looked at in a practical manner. Trade unions are denied the right to carry on their ordinary working services for their members.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: Do I understand from the Minister that the Government will seriously work out a practical scheme for implementing my amendment? If that is the case, I am sure that my noble friends who have been supporting this amendment would be willing for it to be withdrawn. I should like a double assurance to make assurance doubly sure before we take the dramatic step of not dividing the Committee. Perhaps we may hear once more from the Minister?
9.15 p.m.
Lord Chapple: Perhaps the noble Lord will listen to my experience on this matter since my union is the one that is generally mentioned and which is often dismissed by intellectuals in the Labour movement as being a special case. The way in which we conducted ballots after ending the ballot-rigging that took place in our union was to provide for the Electoral Reform Society to send out ballot papers and to receive them. In return the society receives any papers that are misdirected or sent to addresses which are unknown. The union simply provides the electoral roll and pays for the ballot. The society tells the union who has won but it sends out the ballot papers and collects them. It works perfectly well but I do not believe that it works well with the scrutineers missing. If the scrutineers do not send them out or get them back the system will not work.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may be permitted before the Minister replies—
Lord Trefgarne: If my noble friend will permit me, the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, has put a question to my noble friend and perhaps he would like to reply to it.
The Earl of Dundee: Before replying to the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, I wish to say that I am grateful for the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Chapple. It is very useful indeed at this stage and in this context to hear from him about the direct experience in his own union.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, I certainly repeat again the assurance that I gave a moment ago that we will do everything we can to see whether we can find a way of accommodating his amendment.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: In view of that assurance, which can be followed up if it does not materialise at Report stage, I happily withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 94 and 95 not moved.]
Lord Rochester Lord Rochester moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 18, line 16, at end insert—
("(8) The Secretary of State may, under regulations authorised by section I of the 1980 Act, provide for payment by the certification officer towards expenditure incurred by independent trade unions in respect of ballots satisfying the requirements of subsections (2) to (7) above.").
The noble Lord said: This is a straightforward amendment that I hope the Government will feel able to accept. The Committee has now agreed that without exception trade unions should use secret postal voting procedures under independent supervison for elections to their principal executive committees and that this practice should extend to the distribution, receipt and counting of the ballot papers, as we have just been discussing. We have also accepted as a Committee this afternoon that the chief officers of unions will be required to submit themselves for re-appointment at regular intervals by the same electoral means.
When this matter was discussed in the debate on the Green Paper which was initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, last year, I pointed out that the cost to unions of employing outside agents to supervise ballots in this way would be very considerable. I suggest that the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, in particular a little while ago emphasised that point this evening.
At the time of the debate on the Green Paper last year I asked the noble Lord, Lord Young, who was to respond to the debate, to say whether, as in Section 1 of the Employment Act 1980, the Government contemplated trade unions being able to recover such costs from public funds. In reply the noble Lord said that the Government's intention was,
"that this scheme should continue to operate broadly as of now. Since our proposals would require trade unions to make more use of postal ballots, they would be in a position to claim larger refunds from public funds."—[Official Report, 29/4/87; col. 1551.]

657
He thought that that would be a sensible response to the Government's proposals. Section 1 of the Employment Act 1980 states:
"The Secretary of State may by regulations make a scheme … providing for payments by the Certification Officer towards expenditure incurred by independent trade unions in respect of such ballots to which this section applies as may be prescribed by the scheme".
It goes on to say:
"This section applies to a ballot if the purpose of the question to be voted upon … falls within the purposes",
which are then specified.
It seems to me that those purposes may not adequately cover the extended use of postal ballots which this Bill will now require. The aim of the amendment is simply to ensure that, to avoid any uncertainty, the verbal assurance given on an earlier occasion by the noble Lord, Lord Young, as I understood it, is written into the Bill. I beg to move.
The Earl of Dundee: The Government already provide substantial financial assistance to unions under the ballot refund scheme, and have done so since 1980. This assistance was offered despite opposition from the TUC and the Labour Party. Some unions came close to being expelled because they dared to apply for assistance. Even now some unions still oppose the scheme.
I am certainly happy to give an assurance that the ballot refund scheme will continue to be available where unions wish to apply for a refund in respect of postal voting. We fully expect the number and size of claims to increase as a result of Clauses 12 and 13, and the Government have therefore set aside considerable extra sums of money—£1.5 million in 1988–89 and £1.7 million in 1989–90 and 1990–91. Unions which change from workplace to postal ballots will become eligible for the first time to apply for refunds for the costs of printing ballot papers which they would otherwise have to bear themselves. This will help them to meet the cost of scrutiny and they will also be able to obtain a refund in respect of the election addresses that they will be required to send to members.
I do not see a reason in principle for relieving unions of the cost which many already bear voluntarily and which is fully justifiable as expenditure by the unions to secure the democratic rights of their members.
Lord Rochester: I am a little disappointed that the noble Earl has not found it possible to accept the
658
amendment. In other words, he is unwilling to agree that the amendment should form part of the Bill. However, as the Government do not see any need for this point to be included in the Bill, I suppose that at this time of night I must be content with the assurance he has given that the substance of this amendment— that there will be reimbursement of expenses incurred in this way—is acceptable to the Government. On that basis, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 14 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McCarthy: I do not wish to detain the Committee on this issue at this time of night. I should merely like to ask the Minister whether he will answer the questions which I put to him when he considered the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt. The trade union movement is very concerned about this point and is particularly concerned in the light of the answer he gave to the previous amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester.
The employment of independent, qualified, competent scrutineers, if they are to be paid at the rates of the Electoral Reform Society or at the rates of solicitors, barristers and people of that kind, will be very costly. How do the Government see the role of the scrutineer? How far can he be a layman, a retired trade union official, let us say, or someone broadly sympathetic to the trade union movement? Will that be a disqualification? What is independent, qualified and competent?
The Earl of Dundee: Clause 14 does not itself specify the qualifications required of an independent scrutineer; but, as we have already discussed, it gives the Secretary of State the power to issue a statutory order specifying named scrutineers and/or the qualifications others should meet. As is indicated in the Green Paper, we intend that qualified scrutineers will be largely drawn from the ranks of solicitors and accountants. All will have to be independent of the union concerned. Power to specify named bodies will ensure that those already active in the field, such as the Electoral Reform Society, to which the noble Lord, Lord Chapple, has already referred, need not be excluded.
Clause 14 agreed to.
9.30 p.m.
Clause 15 [Remedy with respect to ballot on use of funds for political purposes]:
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 19, line 4, leave out ("subsections (2) to (7) of section") and insert ("sections (Election addresses) and").
The noble Lord said: This amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 [Ballots on industrial action affecting different places of work]:
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 19, line 17, leave out ("called upon") and insert ("induced").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 99 not moved.]
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 19, line 31, at end insert—

("( ) that all the members entitled to vote constitute all of its members employed by one employer;

( ) that all the members entitled to vote constitute persons employed in the same occupational description or grade in a number of employers taken together;").

The noble Lord said: We now come to Clause 16 of the Bill. Having not moved one of our amendments (and we shall match it by not moving a few others), we wish to say at the outset how important we think Clause 16 is. Indeed, it would be very wrong of the Committee not to debate this clause properly, whatever the hour. We are prepared to debate it, just as we are prepared to debate the amendments and clauses which other people think are more important.
I see that the noble Lord, Lord Chapple, has left us; but if I address an intellectual argument in the course of my remarks it will only be because I often feel that in any movement, whatever its label, it is sometimes quite a good thing to have the intellect infuse a little assistance to gut reactions.
This clause requires in its development a great deal of agility. As an introduction, let us position the clause in its place in the scheme of things. Hitherto, in reducing the area of lawful liberty to withdraw labour organised by workers in a union, the Government have had as one of their main themes the division of workers in different units of employment. I am not saying this in any contentious spirit. Of course we have opposed that.
The second reaction: the restriction of picketing to one's own place of work, the re-definition of "trade dispute" in 1982, Part II of the 1982 Act and a number of other provisions, all have in common the refusal to allow lawful industrial action by workers in one employment unit in support of or in sympathy with or in solidarity with workers in another unit of employment with a different employer. There has been a tendency to confine lawful industrial action
660
within the employment unit. One does not say a right to strike because in this country there is no "right to strike" in positive legal terms.
What is alarmingly new about Clause 16 is that it begins from a different base; that is, that there shall be, not employment unit confinement, but workplace confinement with the basic rule that lawful industrial action be allowed only where there is a majority in each separate workplace. That is the starting point of the clause in the new subsection (1A) of Section 11 of the 1984 Act that it seeks to introduce. One must have what I might call briefly—it is not exactly brief, but it is briefer than the proper long phrase—a separate ballot, a separate majority principle, for different workplaces.
Not only do we oppose this but we would say that it is rather silly—and many employers have begun to worry about it as well as trade unionists—because it must lead to fragmentation of bargaining structures. Where there is a majority in one plant, a "no vote" in the next plant and a speckled result across a multi-plant bargaining unit the imagination boggles at the horrendous possibility of fragmentation and chaos in terms of bargaining structures. It may be that the Government regard this as being in line with their policy to decentralise bargaining. It will be interesting to learn how far that is true. So far they have not said so.
Because of all that, the exceptions to the principle of different workplace, separate majority, separate ballot, become critical. It is round the exceptions that the debates have revolved. We submit that only through the exceptions will work managers to company directors and shop stewards to trade union national officials keep their sanity, and only if the exceptions to this quite extraordinary new principle are sufficiently wide. It is a principle for which no justification has ever been advanced except for selective balloting. So far in another place the Government have been unable to produce one example. They had a reservoir of imaginative ideas, but no real facts.
Let us turn to the exceptions in regard to which the amendment is important. It is mostly the unions which suffer for the simple reason that, at the bargaining table, it is the implied threat of industrial action—as any book on industrial relations would tell one, written by whosoever, on the ideological spectrum—that is a very important part of their position and power. That implied threat can be met by injunction at any time if there exists a wide area of illegality and a speckling of majorities. Losing the immunity here and keeping it there would allow for injunctions. Once again, the lawyers are already rubbing their hands—though not the defendant's lawyers.
What does the amendment attempt to do? It would put into the Bill what the Government have said on at least eight or nine occasions should be in the Bill. We say that it is not there. If the Government are serious about these propositions, as we thought they were at one point because they cover some—not all—of the area involved in the difficulty, they do not solve the bargaining unit problem to which my noble friend will come on the next amendment.
I shall explain what I mean. Perhaps I may summarise the clause in this way. It introduced the separate workplace, separate ballot, separate majority principle, with exceptions. However, one was not an exception. It provided that if one had the same place of work it did not apply. Of course it does not apply. It applies only at different workplaces, but I can put that aside. The Government introduced an exception where the workers were called upon to take part in the action. They are of course the workers entitled to vote, and only they are entitled to vote under Section 11 of the 1984 Act.
Those whom the union reasonably considers it will induce or call out are those entitled to vote. That is what I call the voting constituency established by Section 11. There, there must be separate ballots and separate majorities unless in different workplaces the workers were employed by one employer and were either of the same grade or were of the same occupational description.
I put the occupational description and grade point aside because it relates to the bargaining unit point which comes in the next amendment. Therefore, what is left? At first sight, nothing. But if one listened to the Government's understanding of their Bill, there is a great deal more. I wish to quote. I shall refer to every source of my quotations. In view of the hour, unless anyone would like me to read them all, I shall assert what they are. However, I wish to quote the first one or two to give the idea.
The Minister of State, Mr. Cope, wrote a letter to my honourable friend Mr. Strang. It had a considerable distribution without the Minister's objection. He was asked about the matter we are discussing, and in November last year the Minister said:
"Ballots where the union properly gives entitlement to vote to all of its members (i.e. the 'balloting constituency' consists of all its members) will not be affected at all by the provisions of clause 16. Nor will any ballot be affected where the union properly gives entitlement to vote—
(a) to all of its members employed by one employer".
That is the first point. He continues:
"or by each of a number of employers taken together".
That has formed the basis of our amendment. That is what I should call (a) and (b); (a) is in the words of Mr. Cope, but (b) is not in his words because we thought that they were a little ambiguous. We have therefore limited the exception to occupational description and grade. As the Committee will see, the amendment provides for,
"the same occupational description or grade in a number of employers taken together".
Given that amendment to make the provision a little narrower, that is Mr. Cope. The letter is quoted on 10th February at col. 394 of Hansard in another place.
Mr. Cope spoke in response to that letter being quoted. He talked about an amendment that he is going to move. He said:
662
"The amendment does not affect the ability of unions—provided by the clause as it stands"—
that is, before there is any amendment on the bargaining unit:
"to aggregate ballot votes across groups of employers, provided that the conditions of the new subsection are met for the groups within the balloting constituency".
He seemed to confirm what he said a little more.
In Committee on 14th January (at col. 472 of the Official Report) the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Mr. Nicholls, used the same formula. He talked about the exceptions, how the selective balloting procedure is to be prohibited and what the exceptions are. He said:
"it is simply a question of one workplace being balloted, all the workplaces being balloted, or a certain grade or occupational description of employee being balloted". —[Official Report, Standing Committee F. 14/1/88; col. 472.]
You cannot have it clearer than that: all the workplaces; one workplace or a certain grade. We have all the workplaces in the sense of all the members employed by one employer which we think is more or less the same thing for the union. That is because ballots under Clauses 16 and 11 are union-specific. We cannot have a multi-union ballot so it has to be phrased in terms—I make no complaint about Mr. Nicholls who was using very short phraseology in the debate—that it means the same thing.
At col. 473 he says the same:
"selective balloting will not apply if one is dealing with all the workplaces; one workplace; or a particular grade or occupation".
At col. 476 there are more or less the same words. At col. 477 he said:
"If the only exceptions from the 'new procedure' were to be one workplace or all workplaces, I suspect we should hear even more … about 'bargaining unit'".
But he assumed that "all workplaces" was an exception. At col. 480 he said the same thing; at col. 484 he said:
"it is not a question of balloting everyone in all the workplaces, that exemption does not apply."
In other words, he is rebutting an example given to him because he says, "You are not balloting all the workplaces of the one employer with all the members". Then at col. 504 on 19th January he ends the discussion more or less.
Lord Trefgarne: I wonder whether the noble Lord would allow me to intervene. Is he making the case for his amendment by quoting the Minister in another place, or is he about to make a case which we can understand?
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I thought we did understand Ministers in another place. I shall reply to the noble Lord in this way. I understand the Minister in another place; if the noble Lord does not, then I suggest that he looks at these quotations and the wording around them. I am trying to cut down my quotations. Yes, I am making my case on the basis that the Government's speeches were more sensible than their Bill, and that what they said was in the Bill

663
is not in the Bill. Perhaps the Minister can tell me that it is in the Bill and show me where—and I mean this Bill; I do not mean Section 11 of the 1984 Act, which is sometimes brought in and which is quite irrelevant to this argument. I am utterly astonished by the Minister's intervention. It has taken me aback. The idea that he should object to my praying in aid of an amendment moved the arguments put by his right honourable and honourable friends in another place is quite extraordinary.
Lord Trefgarne: I am afraid that the noble Lord misunderstood me. What I was puzzled about was the noble Lord moving his amendment and then quoting at length the speeches given in the Committee stage in another place which actually rebutted some similar amendments at that time. If the noble Lord will give me the opportunity, I shall be able to do the same now.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Let me try and put it rather more clearly to the Minister. The argument for the amendment is that the clause as it stands is rather silly: that it will fragment bargaining units, that it will have all sorts of consequences which are quite clear in terms of industrial relations. Secondly, therefore, there should be wider exceptions than are in the clause as it stands. That is until we get to the bargaining unit point which the Government put in in another place. I am not dealing with the bargaining unit as such; I am dealing with all the other matters with which the Government dealt separately from the bargaining unit in another place. I am following their drift. I am saying, "If a union says, 'We want to ballot all the members employed by company X in our membership and its employment', how sensible of the Minister to say that that should escape the selective balloting principle". I do not know how to put it to the Minister more clearly than that. It is sensible without reference to the bargaining unit.
It is not the same problem as bargaining units or common factors. Of course, the next problem is what on earth we are going to do about common factors and bargaining units? I am not dealing with that. I am dealing with what Mr. Cope dealt with. I do not think the Minister takes it seriously enough. The statements have gone out and round the industry. It was not just a letter to my honourable friend Mr. Strang. All kinds of people have received this tripartite statement about what is in the Bill. But those things are not in the Bill.
I cannot find a quotation from the Secretary of State himself but I do not think that he has actually pronounced upon this precise matter. All Government statements that I can find say that there should be and is an exception to separate balloting where:
"all the members entitled to vote constitute all of its members employed by one employer".
The above quotation is taken from our Amendment No. 100. The "members" refer to members of a particular union. That is clear. That provision comes in all of the Government statements. A Government statement suggests that all the members entitled to vote constitute persons
664
employed in a number of employers taken together. But where that provision appears—mainly in the statements of Mr. Cope—it seems a little uncertain. We consider that, in the interests of certainty, to that statement should be added the words of our amendment:
"in the same occupational description or grade".
Those words are taken from the Government's old amendment which was substituted on Report in another place.
The Government know perfectly well that they are in trouble with this. They know that having started from the basis of selective balloting, they then drafted a clause which does not really deal with that. They started with a problem which I think they invented. However, never mind about that. Let us suppose that there was more selective balloting then ever was the case. The Government then say, "We shall not deal with selective balloting. We shall start with the principle of separate majority and separate ballots in different workplaces."
Having reached that point the Government then got into a fix. Sensible people in industry said to them, "Do you really mean that if the Transport and General or the Sheffield Wool Shearers actually wanted to ballot all their members, and they were not all of the same grade or they were not all of the same description or in the new formulation they did not have sufficient common factors, they could not do that?"
The important point is that unless one falls in an exception one cannot aggregate the ballot. One must say to a member on the Liberal Benches "You can strike if your people voted yes." One would have to say to someone on the Labour Benches, "You can vote if your people voted yes." Of course on the Minister's Bench there would be no yes votes for a strike. But if those members on the Ministerial Bench wanted to strike they could all do so if they voted yes.
I suggest that we all think too much of industrial conflict in this matter. It is very often a case of people meeting round the negotiating table. In that situation there is very often an implied threat but stability is not inconsistent with conflicting roles. Anyone who thinks that is a paradox cannot have been very close to collective bargaining.
Stable collective bargaining is obviously threatened here. Everything depends on the exceptions. To help the Minister, again I say that we base this particular amendment on the words used again and again by the Government because we think that they were very sensible. The Minister saw the point here. Ministers wanted to have certain provisions. The only trouble is that those provisions are not in the Bill. We ask the Government tonight to give us some hope that they will put into the Bill what their own Ministers have said should be within it. I beg to move.
Lord Rochester: I share many of the concerns which have been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton. This may be a convenient moment at which to express my misgivings more generally about the clause as a whole. On Second

665
Reading I said that, even in the form in which it was amended on Report in another place, I found the clause very difficult to understand.
I further suggested that it was highly undesirable that we should pass legislation couched in language so obscure that it might not be comprehensible to those who would be affected by it. I went on to say why the Institute of Personnel Management feared that the provisions of the clause would prove in practice to be a double-edged weapon of such potential damage to employers that it should be omitted altogether from the Bill.
Since then I have come to be even more unhappy about what is proposed. I do not think that the Government have taken sufficient account of the practical difficulties which employers and trade unions will have, first in explaining the clause to employees and then in operating it. Multi-unions in a multi-site situation make for extremely complicated balloting arrangements. Some may perhaps choose to hold site-by-site ballots and others a company-wide ballot concerned with the same issue. Ballots may take place and the results may he announced at different times.
I suggest that the difficulties will now be compounded further. As I understand the position, unions may at present vary the constituency within a site and may still do so in future while adhering to the provisions of Section 11 of the 1984 Act, which is the operative section. My fear is that those further detailed regulations which the Government now have in mind will eventually culminate in a bonanza for lawyers.
Under Clause 17 of the Bill the Secretary of State is to he empowered to issue codes of practice on the conduct of trade union ballots and elections. Surely, it would be better to address the main points at issue through such a code rather than embroiling industry in further statutory provisions of that kind.
As the Government well know, another organisation worried about the operation of Clause 16 is the Engineering Employers' Federation. I am advised that notwithstanding two attempts it has made to explain the amended clause to its associations, concern about the confusion it will cause remains unabated. That is typified by one association which has written:
"If the legislation appears in the form in which it is currently drafted, it is beyond comprehension. A working guide for both union and management practitioners will be necessary in order to make clear the spirit and the intention of the law".
In my considered view the wisest course for the Government to pursue now would be to withdraw the clause altogether pending further discussion with both sides of industry about its likely effects in practice.
Lord Trefgarne: We shall not do that, I am afraid. The aim of Clause 16 is to prevent the situation where a union, wishing to ensure that a certain group of workers at one place of work are included in a strike, includes with them in the balloting constituency on an ad hoc basis one or more larger workplaces where the members are known to be in favour of industrial
666
action. The union will not be required to hold separate place-of-work ballots if the members it ballots all have the same workplace. Where the members to be balloted have more than one place of work, separate ballots will be required where the choice of those to be balloted is selective. This means that unless the balloting constituency is exhaustive in certain specified circumstances—that is, if the union properly ballots all its members or all its members who are employed by a particular employer, or if all the members of the union accorded entitlement to a vote employed by the same employer have a factor or factors in common relating to their terms or conditions of employment or occupational description not common to any other member employed by the same employer who is accorded entitlement to vote and only where there are other members of the union employed by the same employers not in the balloting constituency—it is not a factor which employees of that employer have in common because of the place or places of work. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I think that my question still stands. I am trying to save time. Will the Minister respond to the question whether the formulae which he read out applied to all the members of a union employed by an employer (I think he also said a group of employers, but I am not sure) without any reference to "common factor". Putting "common factor" aside, does he say that there is an exception—as Mr. Cope did—to separate balloting, separate majorities, where all the members of the union are employed by the same employer? If he says that, please will he point to the place in the Bill where that is set out?
Lord Trefgarne: I think that I can help the noble Lord. Where a balloting or voting constituency covers a number of employers a separate balloting requirement would apply only if the criteria of subsection (1B) to which I referred failed to be satisfied in respect of one or more of those voting. The main criterion is the common distinguishing factor which is to be tested against other employees of the same employer. To test it against employees of other employers would be more burdensome for the union. That is the sole function of the reference to the same employer. I hope that that answers the noble Lord's question.
Having responded to the noble Lord's question, I shall now continue. As can therefore be seen, it is not our intention that a union should have to hold a separate place of work ballot where it gives entitlement to vote to every member of the union who is employed by the same employer.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am very sorry, but that was my question to the Minister. He has just said again that the union does not have to hold separate ballots at different workplaces where it gives entitlement to vote to all of its members employed by the same employer, and I hope that I am getting it right. Will he please tell me where that appears in the Bill? It is not in subsection (1B) because that is about the "common factor"; nor is it in subsection (1B) (a)

667
or (b) because they refer to "the same place of work". It is not in subsection (1A) because that is about separate ballots. So where is it?
Lord Trefgarne: If I may say so, I think that the difficulty is in the mind of the noble Lord. I do not see the difficulty that the noble Lord describes. Perhaps I may continue with what I have to say and in so doing I may be able to help the noble Lord further.
Subsection (1B) of the clause clearly allows an exception for persons of the same occupational description, provided that every member of the union employed by the same employer in the same occupational description is given entitlement to vote. The term "grade", which appeared in an earlier version of the Bill, is no longer needed since grade is clearly a factor relating to members' terms and conditions of employment.
The clause does not, and did not previously, affect the ability of unions to aggregate ballot votes across groups of members or across employers, provided that the conditions of subsection (1B) are met for each of the groups within the balloting constituency. I recognise that this is a difficult and complicated provision, but I believe that it is necessary. I believe that it is clear to those who study it carefully. I recognise that it needs careful study and I believe that the noble Lord has given it that attention. I hope that he is now satisfied with the explanation that I have given.
Lord Rochester: I realise that it was perhaps unduly optimistic of me to ask the Government to withdraw this clause. However, I hope that the Minister will recognise that there is very considerable concern about this clause in the minds of employers and unions who will have to operate it. Although he may not be able to enter into any firm commitment tonight for reasons that we all understand, I hope that at least he will feel able to say that the Government will give consideration to the kind of difficulties to which the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, has already given expression and which I have tried to adumbrate on behalf of those who will have to operate the clause.
Perhaps at least he would consider before the next stage of the Bill, in the light of the complexity of the clause, which he himself has now admitted, whether the Government might bring forward something which both takes account of the difficulties that have been expressed and is couched in language that is more easily comprehensible than is the clause at present.
10 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: I am not willing to agree that we should amend the Bill, as I think the noble Lord is asking, because I do not believe that it would be appropriate or necessary. It is important for the Bill to spell out in proper legal terms exactly what is wanted and required. However, there may be some scope for providing some guidance to employers' organisations, for example, and if that is what the noble Lord has in mind I shall certainly be willing to consider it.
Baroness Seear: Is it impossible for the Minister to look at this matter to see whether the issues can be clarified? If the Engineering Employers' Federation, which is not a rabid Left-wing body ranged to attack the Government, the Institute of Personnel Management, which is made up of people who spend their lives interpreting these matters day in and day out, and the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, with whom I disagree on many occasions but who is an expert lawyer in these fields and widely accepted as such, all say that this is not clear, will the Minister not have the modesty to admit that there may conceivably be something lacking in the drafting of this clause?
Lord Trefgarne: Frankly, if I were to accept every proposition advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, that a particular proposal was not clear, I think I would find that there was very little left to any of the trade union and other legislation that we bring before the Chamber. While the noble Lord is indeed an acknowledged expert in these matters, he is also the principal Opposition spokesman on these issues, and the duty of the Opposition is to oppose however meritorious are the proposals that we bring forward.
Baroness Seear: I ask the Minister also to recognise that it is not the opinion only of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, with whom, as I said, I frequently disagree. It is the view of bodies like the Engineering Employers' Federation and other people who are very much more expert in this field than is the noble Lord himself. I am sorry to have to say it so bluntly but that is the position. If those people are experiencing serious difficulties, we are once again in the position of passing legislation which will cause a great deal of confusion for the people who will have to operate it.
Lord Trefgarne: I repeat that it is necessary for the legislation to spell out the proposition in proper legal terms. I have accepted the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, that there may be a case for guidance to employers' federations. I have undertaken to look at that matter and I think that that specifically meets the point which the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, made.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Perhaps I may say a final word about our amendments, which I can see will not get very far. First, the day on which the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, accepts one of my propositions, let alone all of them, I should, if it were not bribery, buy him a drink. However, it is a much more important matter than that.
Secondly, most people with whom I have discussed the matter—and that does not only include members of the TUC, the trade union movement or curious and odd people—think that in both its structure and its drafting this clause is dotty. They really think that. The idea is laughable that this clause can be defended on the grounds that it must be drafted in the proper legal terms.
However, a more serious point is hidden in what the noble Lord said, and at this point I part company

669
with the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. I do not agree at all that the way to pursue these matters is to draft a Bill and not be sure what it means, to put a law on the statute book and then give guidance about it, or, if one likes, to accept that to some people the clause means one thing and to some another and then to give guidance. Not a bit of it! Perhaps that is because—and I admit to it—I have the trade unions more in mind than the employers. It is the trade union that will be on the receiving end of the writ; it is the trade union which is at risk of losing its protection. It will be told that the Minister may well have stated this in the House, and there are his notes of guidance, but that is useless. I should not be in favour of a code of practice here. We ought to have this clearly stated.
I shall withdraw the amendment but I ask the Minister to reflect on this. This is a very serious issue. Is this not the way in which our debate has proceeded tonight, in spite of the technicalities? It is a technical area of the law. First, the Minister has not said that he does not like what our amendments say. He has never resisted the substance of them. Secondly, he says that it is already provided for in the Bill. I admit that if we sat down and dissected the Bill, as it is now drafted, after the latest amendments in another place, we would find that there is a little of our amendment in the Bill—there is a little overlap—the whole of it is not included. Thirdly, and lastly, does not our amendment state it a little more clearly? It could be improved; certainly the second limb could be improved. I should be happy with the first limb. But the first limb is what the Government Ministers said; the first limb appears to be what the Government still want; the Government say it is in the clause. There is enormous disagreement and confusion throughout industry and the academic and legal world as to what it means. The first limb of our amendment states the position clearly. I should have thought that the Government could at least consider the position further before the Report stage. We must wait and see. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 19, line 31, at end insert—
("( ) that all the members who are accorded entitlement to vote in the ballot are in the same bargaining unit, that is to say are persons on behalf of whom the union negotiated terms and conditions to he inserted in the same collective agreement;").
The noble Lord said: It is a remarkable tribute to the tenacity and seriousness of the Members of this Chamber that there are any people left after the debate that we have just had on this part of the clause. It may please some Members to know that I differ with the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, on this. I do not think that any sense can be made of this clause. The best thing to do with it is to read it.
We have to go back to the beginning of the story. The Government began, without reference to the Green Paper, by trying to change the concept of the area of the ballot. Therefore they got themselves into a position in which they wanted to have ballots on industrial action affecting different places of work. It may be that if the noble Lord had his time over again
670
he would have said that they should not have done this, but they allowed themselves some exceptions. At least ballots on industrial action affecting different places of work which required different ballots in different places might be chaotic but the position would be clear. However, the Government allowed themselves exceptions in certain circumstances. Subsequently, in another place, and in correspondence with the Government by the EEF and other institutions, we have all been trying to discover what those circumstances are.
At the moment I find—as I am sure will Members of the Committee when reading it—that the central part of this clause, which is supposed to deal with the problem of different factors and which is the Government's final amendment on this matter, is extraordinarily delphic. It is a constant series of references to different factors. It states that there is to be,
"in relation to each of the members of the union who is accorded entitlement to vote in the ballot, some factor"—
and we start now—
"(whether or not the same factor) which—

(i) relates to the terms or conditions of that member's employment or to the occupation description which is applicable to that member in his employment;

(ii) is a factor"—

the factor is back again—
"which that member has in common with some or all of the other members of the union who are accorded that entitlement and have the same employer as that member; and
(iii) in a case where there are individuals employed by that employer who arc members of the union but are not accorded that entitlement, is neither a factor which that member has in common with any of those individuals nor a factor which individuals employed by that employer have in common as a consequence of having the same place of work".
I do not say that the Minister cannot tell you what that means. He may even put it better in other words. It would be difficult to put it worse. One may even be wiser, a lot wiser, as to the Government's intentions as a result of listening to the Minister. But one will never be able to find the intention of the Minister in the words. No matter how long one looks at the words, they will never mean what the Minister says they mean.
My noble friend Lord Wedderburn says that he understands bits of them. And those bits mean some bits that the Minister says they mean. I say that they are gibberish. No man or woman can derive what is meant from the words. It is because of the gibberish that industry is so worried. That is why we move our amendment.
The amendment is somewhat broader than the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn. I justify it by saying that it focuses on the most sensible thing said by the Minister, Mr. Cope, in another place. After various attempts to tell the House what the gibberish meant, he said:
"In Committee, we promised to consider whether it was possible to amend the clause to enable an aggregate ballot of members employed at different places of work if they were in the same bargaining unit or bargaining group. We pointed out that, although the terms 'bargaining unit' and 'bargaining group' are well understood in general parlance"—
they are universally understood in industrial relations on both sides of the bargaining table—
"they are not easy to write into legislation".

671
If the clause is an example, they are indeed difficult.
Mr. Cope added:
"That is why we propose the definition in the amendment. It retains the general intended effect of clause 16, but I hope it will go some way to meet the concerns expressed in Committee in favour of a greater element of flexibility".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/2/1988; col. 397.]
In other words I understand the Minister to be saying, "I should like to clear all this up by giving you a bargaining unit. You tell me that that is what everybody understands, but unfortunately it is very difficult to put into words."
Well, we have put it into words. Our amendment is a definition of a bargaining unit. The amendment states:
"that all the members who are accorded entitlement to vote in the ballot are in the same bargaining unit".
So as not to be unclear we define it; that is to say, they are,
"persons on behalf of whom the union negotiated terms and conditions to be inserted in the same collective agreement".
That is a simple working definition of what a "bargaining unit" means. It is charitable to assume that the Minister believes that what I term the floating factor element in the new clause is a kind of bargaining unit definition. This item, which is related in some way to terms and conditions or to occupational descriptions of those who have the same employer if there are enough common factors, will for him cover some bargaining units. Our difficulty is that we cannot tell what bargaining units are covered by it.
I am afraid that this brings us to the reasons why we are in this position. We have to speculate because there was nothing in the Green Paper. But it is worth speculating. We have to ask ourselves why the Government engaged upon an attempt to find ballots on industrial action affecting different places of work. How did they get themselves into all these factors?
If I can take it from what the Minister has said tonight and from what was said in another place, I think that they had two ideas in mind. There were two kinds of devils. There were the mobile militant groups that unions knew about and wanted to grab hold of by the scruff of the neck and shove into the great dough of an unmilitant group to get a vote for a strike. The Government did not want that, so they had to have separate ballots at separate places of work. It reminds one of the Liverpool dockers. Where are they today? That is the kind of mobile militant group that the Government have in mind. They were not going to have that and so they embarked upon ballots of industrial action affecting different places of work.
As was made clear by Mr. Cope in another place, it is not merely the militant group; there is also the mobile coercive group. It is a powerful group which, if it gave its strike effect, would paralyse the company. Nowadays it tends to be computer terminal operators or systems analysts. If one could remove them and pop them into the middle of a factory, one would have a powerful group where, if one could produce a majority in favour, one would be in a wonderful position.
Noble Lords will say that this is fairyland. They are quite right; this is fairyland. In an attempt to justify their position when they were pushed far enough in another place they misread—I do not say that that was intentional—a perfectly reasonable publication of the Institute of Personnel Management when they brought up two cases from the reservoir. The first case was a 22-site ballot which was followed by a strike, which was followed by an improved offer, which referred only to six sites and which resulted in a settlement.
The second case was a first ballot of 800 permanent staff which produced an improved offer. A second ballot was put not only to the 800 permanent staff but also to 300 temporary staff. Nowhere does the IPM suggest that that was done in order to produce a strike. It states that such things can be used although they produce no evidence. It states that selection of constituencies can be a powerful weapon in the armoury of the union manager. However, no evidence is put forward.
If one looks closely at those two cases, the most likely explanation is that the second offer affected different people from the first. It usually does. Therefore the bargaining unit changed and so the ballot had to change. That brings us back to our amendment.
In the real world, trade unions ballot the bargaining group. They ballot all the workers affected by a particular set of negotiations. Who else would they ballot? What fairyland is it when they remove a militant group from somewhere and pop it into the ballot? In fact, that cannot be done. If one has our amendment one is safe because a bargaining unit is defined by the employer as well as the union. If the area of the ballot is the area of the bargaining unit the employer has at least as much say in who goes into it and who does not. He can be relied upon to keep out the semi-militant group or the powerful coercive group. At any rate, it is a matter for industry. If only the Government could bear to accept our amendment, at least industry would understand.
Lord Trefgarne: I explained to the Committee the aim of Clause 16, and the way in which it will operate, in relation to the previous amendment. It is worth repeating the effect of subsection (1B)(b). I repeat that the union will not be required to hold separate place of work ballots if all the members of the union accorded entitlement to vote, who are employed by the same employer, have factors in common Which relate to their terms or conditions of employment or occupational description and are not factors common to any other member employed by the same employer who is not accorded entitlement to vote, and only where other members of the union employed by the same employers not in the balloting constituency is not a factor which employees of that employer have in common because of their place or places of work. I am sorry if that is not clear to Members of the Committee opposite; but it is reasonably clear to me, even with my inexperience and ignorance of these matters, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, referred.

673
During the consideration of the Bill in another place, the Government were pressed to agree to amend the clause to cover the terms "bargaining unit" and "bargaining group". Although these terms are well understood in general parlance, they cannot easily be written into the legislation. The difficulty is defining these terms in a suitable and sufficient way.
The subsection I have described which was agreed on Report in the Commons provides for a greater element of flexibility by covering situations where there is no settled pattern of collective bargaining. The main point is that if the proper balloting constituency consists of members in the same bargaining group, it would be reasonable for the union to believe that these members had a factor in common which would satisfy the requirements of the new subsection.
As I have said, the clause does not and did not previously affect the ability of unions to aggregate ballot votes across groups of members or employers providing that the conditions of subsection (1A) are met for each of the groups within the balloting constituency. Subsection (1B)(b) will clearly allow an aggregated ballot covering different types of bargaining unit to be held where they satisfy the conditions of what will be the new subsection (11)(1B)(i) of the 1984 Act. I hope that puts the matter clearly for the noble Lord and that he will not wish to press the amendment.
Lord McCarthy: The noble Lord does it again. He is a very slow learner. It is like the Bellman in the Hunting of the Snark:
"What I tell you three times is true".
He says that he has told us this before and has told other people before, and then gives a much better and clearer view of what the clause means. However, it is not in the Bill and it is not derived from the Bill. No one ever does because it is not in the Bill. Secondly, he says that it is impossible to draft "bargaining unit". That is exactly what our amendment does. However, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 102 and 103 not moved.]
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 20, line 21, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 105 to 107 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 16, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McCarthy: I have no wish to make a speech on this matter. We oppose this, and we have said enough about it. This clause is as bad as it ever was and we wish the Government had never thought of it.
Lord Rochester: I wish to concur with what the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, has said.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 [Codes of practice as to ballots and elections]:
[Amendment No. 108 not moved.]
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Appointment etc. of the Commissioner]:
[Amendments Nos. 109 and 110 not moved.]
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Assistance by the Commissioner]:
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 21, line II, after ("practicable") insert ("(i) where the individual is a prospective party to proceedings, to consult with the relevant union or unions; and (ii)").
The noble Lord said: I shall say just a brief few words on this amendment. We were going so fast that one saw amendments flying through. But perhaps that is in the general interest of the Committee. However, there is a small point—perhaps a tiny point—to catch our breaths before we speed on. That relates to the new commissioner.
The new commissioner is obviously likely to be rather important; someone to whom the individual member, often a dissident member, may well go. He may well go to the commissioner with all sorts of complaints and stories on which obviously the commissioner will want to form a view. Indeed, it is the essence of Clause 19 that he must form a view at various stages.
Given the structure of the clause (to which we object very strongly in many ways but taking the Bill as it is) it is understandable that the commissioner should not be obliged to take any steps in talking with the union after there is (how shall I put it?) the reality of a possibility or the prospect of legal proceedings where there is, even on the horizon, an adversary relationship.
Amendment No. 111 poses this question to the Government. Is not the commissioner in a position, having had just the first complaint made to him, where it would be sensible, in the public interest and—I suppose I could stress this more with this Government—in the interests of the public purse, not to waste time and public money? Where the individual is only a prospective party to proceedings —perhaps it should be even more away from that possibility than the words of the amendment propose—and where the commissioner feels there might be a case, surely his first action should be to consult the relevant union to see whether it wishes to say anything to him. He is not asked to say anything to the union but to obtain the view of the union or unions. This is a small point which nevertheless encapsulates a point of principle in the sense that we do not believe public money should be wasted on a case where the commissioner forges ahead, and it turns out to be quite valueless when it could have been set right had he communicated with the union at the beginning.
I suspect that the Government will say that the amendment is not necessary and that the commissioner will of course do that. I can only say that among many trade unionists and workers there

675
is already a very reserved attitude—not to say hostility—towards this new commissioner. The idea is not liked. I object to it and I understand those who also object to it. Therefore, it might be in the Government's interest to show that they understand this tiny point and say that if there is a complaint the first move of the commissioner should be to consult the union to see what it has to say about the matter.
As I said, it is a small point but it could have big dividends for those who believe in the structure. It could also be fairer and less costly. They are good grounds—
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord concludes, I should like to say that I thought that this interesting amendment, for which I have some sympathy, was a paving amendment for the next amendment, for which I also have some sympathy. I should have thought that there would be advantages in discussing the two together, bearing in mind that before there can be an agreed settlement, as envisaged in Amendment No. 112, there would necessarily have to be consultation as mentioned in Amendment No. 111.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am grateful to the noble Lord. He will understand that I was consulting with my noble friends because we divide the work. There are points which perhaps fall to be made rather differently in regard to the two amendments. I am often in a minority and that is why I always understand problems about minorities. My noble friends tell me that I am wrong in believing that the amendments go together. They are not grouped together on the suggested groupings before the Committee.
At the moment I shall simply address the first amendment, although it has consequences throughout. Amendment No. 111 expresses a spirit, a procedure or an approach. I quite agree that some of the other suggestions that we are making are to get rid of the element of hostility which is in the Bill as it stands. As it is drafted, the commissioner is someone who is an engine of adversarial proceedings against the trade unions. One cannot expect the trade union majority, administrators and officials to like that.
Here is a beginning and if the Government are serious in wanting a good relationship, they can express a favourable view of something like Amendment No. 111. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: I was delighted when I saw the reference in the Bill to the commissioner. It seemed to me that the commissioner was to be a kind of ombudsman for trade union members. In addition to that, he is to have the advantage, which the ombudsman does not normally have, of having the power to assist in the institution of proceedings. I have used my words rather guardedly because I do not wish to give a false impression of the meaning of the powers which are described in the Bill.
I do not suppose anyone will wish to dispute those two propositions. It would seem to be only right that,
676
in order to get to the bottom of the problem and for no other reason, the commissioner should be required to consult the trade union. I do not see how he will get his work done well unless his aim is to resolve the difference between the union and the member without going to court if he can possibly avoid it. That is why I was attracted by the proposition in Amendment No. 112, which I agree could well stand own its on feet. I was attracted to the idea of an agreed settlement.
Given this cautious welcome to the spirit of Amendments No. 111 and 112, although Amendment No. 111 achieves its object, I do not believe from the drafting point of view that it has been put in the right place. I would have put it a little later on in the clause. That is a technical matter which can be attended to. The request which I am making to my noble friend is not to give a negative answer at this late hour to Amendment No. 111 or to Amendment No. 112 when we come to it, but, if the commissioner is to be as good a man as we want him to be, then reconciliation should be one of his main objectives. If that is to be achieved, there must be consultation followed by an agreed settlement. I hope that I am not over-simplifying the matter.
The Earl of Dundee: I am grateful to the Committee for the contributions on this matter. I agree both with the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, and with my noble friend Lord Renton, but out of context. I have much sympathy with the proposition that the commissioner should be a man who tries to conciliate with the union and to bring matters to a conclusion as swiftly as possible.
Having said that, I should like to outline one or two reasons why I think that in context this would not be the right way in which to proceed. We can see quite clearly that there would be damaging effects if there were a requirement to consult.
A requirement to consult could complicate the commissioner's task to no useful purpose. The commissioner should not be drawn into adjudicating between the parties. That is the task of the court. Such a requirement could lead to delay in dealing with applications where speed was of the essence; for example, a complaint about inducement to take industrial action without the support of a proper ballot. If consultation required the commissioner to reveal the identity of the applicant, that could put the person at risk with adverse consequences in certain circumstances. There are sound reasons for enabling the anonymity of the assisted person to be preserved up to the stage when court proceedings commence. Applicants might well be put off applying to the commissioner if they knew that their identity might have to be revealed then.
On the nature and function of the commissioner, I should perhaps mention that the commissioner will be able to provide assistance only in connection with specified proceedings, and that relevant complaints will have distinct features and needs. All proceedings will relate to complaints to be heard at first instance in the High Court. We have conflicting considerations which (if I may come back to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Renton) would

677
amount to an oversimplification if we were to be in favour of the commissioner concentrating on conciliation. Much the best course is to allow discretion in this matter to rest with the commissioner. The clause neither precludes the commissioner from consulting anybody nor requires him to do so before coming to a decision about whether to provide assistance. That is the right approach and I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Seear: Perhaps the noble Earl has not understood what it is that we are after. He said that it was not part of the functions of the commissioner to adjudicate. Of course it is not part of the functions of the commissioner to adjudicate; but in any difficulty, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, was implying, it is sensible to attempt to conciliate, which is something quite different from adjudicating. By saying that the commissioner should not adjudicate, the noble Earl has not answered the case for saying that he should have a conciliation role. They are two quite different functions.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, replies to my noble friend, I wonder whether I may make one or two comments on what my noble friend has said. I appreciate the point that he has made about anonymity, but that will not apply in every case. There will be cases in which it may be very important for anonymity to be preserved. I can understand that it must be respected unless of course the applicant, the member of the trade union, says to the commissioner, "If you feel strongly that you should disclose my name, go ahead". But if the applicant says, "No, I don't want my name disclosed", the commissioner could still consult the union on a hypothetical basis and without revealing the name of the applicant. With great respect to my noble friend, that was his main point and I do not think that it was a complete answer.
However, I am reassured by what he said on another point. In the clause (which perhaps I have not studied as closely as I thought I had) there is power to consult the union but no compulsion to do so. It would not be a bad thing if we were to aim at consultation where practicable. We have the expression "as soon as reasonably practicable". We could have the expression "if practicable", especially if Amendment No. 111 or something like it were placed later in the clause, which I think would be better.
What I am really stressing is that having listened carefully to my noble friend, and having I believe fully understood the points that he was making, I still feel that it would be to the Government's advantage and to the advantage of the trade unions and everybody else if some further thought were given to this matter between now and the Report stage.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I said in moving this amendment that although it was very small, I suspected it led to matters that were larger. The debate your Lordships have had shows that to be true. I find it quite extraordinary that an amendment that asks that the commissioner who is going to assist
678
individual members of unions to bring proceedings against their union using public funds should not be told that as soon as reasonably practicable. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, without going into all the aspects that are coming in later amendments, there should be some formula that made it reasonably practicable. I would wish to maintain a duty upon him as soon as proper and practicable to discuss the matter or consult with the other side to see what it had to say. The idea that the noble Minister should present that as a duty to an adjudicator is baffling.
I know the Minister may say that this is not a clause about an employer; but if you are a worker you may be on bad terms with your union; and it is conceivable that you could be on bad terms with your employer, and you look around and weigh up what your prospects are. If you are on bad terms with your union and want to sue it, there will be the commissioner when this is enacted. He has no duty to consult with the union, and you can get him up to the point of issuing a writ, apparently just on your own say-so, because from where else other than from the unions is he to find information?
If you are going to be dismissed, first of all you may not have two years' continuity, and if you are going to be thrown out on your ear you will have no more income coming in. You are going to get no legal aid if you go; you have no commissioner to go to. No government of this sort are going to give you a commissioner. They are not even going to give you legal aid. You are going to have a pre-hearing assessment, when you may be knocked out if they think your case is not very good and told you will be liable in costs if you go ahead. There is no help for you unless you are a member of a trade union. As a matter of fact, it is a rather important function of trade unions to help individuals in industrial tribunals. Everyone seems to think trade unions do not help individuals. That is what they do. They give major assistance to those who are grossly, unfairly dismissed. What is more—and perhaps this is more relevant to the amendment—the industrial tribunal will have attached to it a conciliation officer. The first thing that happens is that the tribunal will know that you will go and try and conciliate. That is a very sensible procedure, and trade union officers and managers and people with the conciliation officer try to find a solution.
What a contrast! On the one hand are the unfair dismissal provisions giving no help to the worker; and on the other hand it is sensibly building in conciliation. Here there is no conciliation or consultation so far but a maximum expenditure of public funds which may all be quite useless. Suddenly the writ is about to be issued, and the union writes a letter saying "As a matter of fact, terribly sorry, but he's got it all wrong. It wasn't his fault. He was telling the truth as far as he saw it but he just happened to get it all wrong".
For a Government that believe in saving their money and in economy this is quite a staggering proposal to put; and then to resist a tiny wee amendment of my own of this sort is quite remarkable. However, I have to beg leave to withdraw it. That is all I can do.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.45 p.m.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 112.
Page 22, line 7, after ("shall") insert ("(i) have a duty to make all reasonable efforts to secure an agreed settlement between a person to whom he is granting his assistance and the relevant trade union before assisting in an application to any court, and the court shall not permit any application from a person receiving the assistance of the Commissioner to proceed until such efforts have been made; (ii)").
The noble Lord said: I cannot say this is quite such a wee amendment. In fact, it tries to take us back to the industrial tribunal model. We say that it should be the duty of the commissioner to make all reasonable efforts to secure an agreed settlement between the person to whom he grants his assistance and the relevant trade union before assisting in the application to any court; in other words, to act as a kind of conciliator. I do not see how that rules out his acting as assistant and aid to the individual trade unionist if the case goes forward to be tried.
What kind of disputes will come before the commissioner and what will his business be? There will be the trade union member who says that the executive council was not properly elected; the candidate who says that he should have won but that the ballots were fiddled; the member who says that he did not get a chance to vote; the person who says that he had the wrong election address or no election address. Quite small things will be brought before the commissioner of trade union affairs. In many ways they will be the type of dispute that, if the matter were not one of unfair dismissal, may well come before industrial tribunals.
From the beginning industrial tribunals took a certain view. They wanted to reduce the caseload and to facilitate an agreed settlement between the parties if they could find one. They thought that it would help if they could bring the parties together, first, in two rooms and eventually in one room to enable discussion to take place to resolve the matter. If the Government had suggested that, we should not have objected, especially if it had been other than in the context of the Bill. When we on these Benches say with enthusiasm that we are not totally, unreservedly in favour of no regulation of trade unions by the state, it always seems to happen very late at night when few Members are present.
In 1968 the Donovan Commission advocated a series of provisions that would have regulated the problems of trade union members who felt that, in closed shop situations in particular, they had a case against the union. I have never been against workers having the right to go to a special tribunal if they believe that their trade union is treating them in some unsatisfactory way, whether under the rules or under some principles laid down by the Government. It is a question of how it is done. In the case of a man who has no conciliation or mediation functions and who, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, is supposed not even to get in touch with the union in the first place, we are bound to view what might otherwise be a reasonable proposal as part and parcel of the Bill. If the Government are interested in what people feel, they should take note of the amendment.
Lord Renton: I have already expressed my views about the advantage of what is envisaged in the amendment. Although the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, did not ask the Government to consider the matter further when speaking to Amendment No. 111, I still say that the Government should do so. I hope that they will also agree to consider the matter that arises in this amendment.
The Earl of Dundee: The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, suggested that the commission should have a duty to conciliate. That is to be distinguished from the suggestion under the previous amendment that the commissioner should have a duty to consult the union. Perhaps I may say, out of context, that I have a great deal of sympathy with that, as has my noble friend Lord Renton.
I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for what will be a partial repetition, but I should like to say a word about the role of the commissioner.
There is no need for the commissioner to be required as a matter of course to attempt to conciliate between unions and members. The ability to do so is a different matter from a requirement to do so.
The commissioner's assistance is to be available to ensure that union members are not prevented from taking certain legal proceedings against their union because they lack the necessary resources or legal advice. The Green Paper explained why such special assistance was required. No similar case was made out for a new conciliation agency.
It might be that there are inadequate facilities for conciliation, and that is essentially what we are considering. Do we have adequate facilities for conciliation? I think that the answer is that we have. Insofar as conciliation is necessary or useful, it can already be done by other bodies; for example, union arrangements and rules which might involve specific agencies with experience in such activities. They are permitted by union rules.
I come to what I see as the objection against trying to combine the commissioner's function as a conciliator with that of an officer, whose post it is proposed to create, to assist union members when they have special difficulties which need to be linked to the courts. Given that the commissioner's proper function need not require him to make efforts to secure a settlement between an applicant and his union, it is clearly inappropriate to impose a requirement on the court, as the amendment proposes.
There may be cases where it is vital that the court deal quickly with an application made to it. That could be the case if the application is made under various clauses of the Bill. A union member may well need the commissioner's assistance to make such an application to the court. It would be wrong to attach conditions to the award of that assistance which might limit the member's ability to get the quick response from the court that is needed.
I do not think that I need go further into the matter. With those few remarks, I hope that the noble Lord might see fit to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Renton: I am sorry to take up time and to be so persistent. I feel strongly, however, that we may be missing an opportunity. It is not a question of the court being required to have a settlement made before it; it is a question, among other things, of the commissioner being able to save large amounts of public money by preventing proceedings going to the court. It should be an earnest concern of the Government to save public money. God knows, the legal aid fund at the moment is costing hundreds of millions of pounds. We do not want to add unnecessarily to the amount of money that is spent on it—because that is what it comes to—if we can have it clearly understood that conciliation is clearly a function of the commissioner.
I am terribly apologetic, because I like to help my noble friends get their business through. I know that yet again it is awfully late. We were here until midnight last night. I think this matter so important that I ask my noble friend to consider it further. That is not much to ask.
Lord McCarthy: I join the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in that request. I found some aspects of the Minister's answer helpful. He was speaking almost as quickly as my noble friend Lord Wedderburn earlier in the evening, and I am not good at writing it down. It seemed to me that he was making a distinction between what the commissioner needed to do, was required to do, had to do, and what our amendment would force him to do, as against what he might do if he thought it appropriate.
I would settle for that. I would say that it was an advance. If the Minister would say that although he does not like our amendment—I agree we say that there should be a requirement to conciliate—he would respond favourably towards an amendment which said that part of the commissioner's function was to conciliate where he thought it useful, we should be going quite a long way.
But later on the Minister said something else which in some ways might be even more helpful. He said that it was open to the union to ask for conciliation. It is late at night for us to start thinking of ways of changing Bills, but that might be an even better way. For example, would the Minister say that it would be open to a union to go to ACAS? After all, the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service has a great deal of experience in these matters; it knows unions very well; it is one part of—I cannot say the government machine because it is an independent agency—the institution of industrial relations which has managed to keep itself quite outside any political in-fighting in industrial relations. It is very much respected by both sides. Could it be a case for the Minister to say, "Maybe if a union found itself brought before the CROTUM," as we call him, "it might say it would like conciliation and go to ACAS"? Would the Minister think about that?
The Earl of Dundee: To respond to the three themes which have been mentioned, my noble friend Lord Renton made the point that we want to ensure that money is in no way wasted over what is proposed. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, picked up my
682
reference to how the commissioner could perfectly well consult, if he wished to, but we do not require him to consult. He referred to how the unions should have the facility to refer to outside agencies.
I am in sympathy with all these points; I do not want money to be wasted. The Government clearly wish there to be as much conciliation as possible and in that the commissioner is already enabled to consult and conciliate if he wishes to, the Government in no way wish to impede the commissioner in so doing. I hope that those few remarks may be of some help to noble Lords opposite in establishing what the Government's attitude is to those three themes which have been raised.
Lord McCarthy: I thank the Minister and am very pleased indeed to withdraw this amendment. I can tell the Committee that he says that he wants to save money, he says that he wants conciliation and he says that he is in favour of consultation. I hope that the Government will look favourably on an amendment which we might move at the Report stage to try to facilitate those three ideas.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 113 and 114 not moved.]
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 agreed to.
11 p.m.
Clause 21: [Procedure before the Certification Officer]:
Lord Wyatt of Weeford Lord Wyatt of Weeford moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 23, line 48, at end insert—
("(4 On any application to the Certification Officer under section 5 of the 1984 Act, he shall, where requested by the applicant, take all reasonable steps to preserve the anonymity of the applicant.")
The noble Lord said: Perhaps it may be convenient also to speak to Amendment No. 116, as these two amendments are somewhat allied. Of course, listening to the debate on the last amendment, I wonder whether it is realised how much conciliation the certification officer already does. That is what I have found out in my investigation of what goes on there. He tries to reconcile the parties in a dispute before the matter goes too far. So in a way the point which has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, is to some extent already answered in practice. The purpose of these two amendments is to make it easier for the timid union member to exercise his rights of complaint. One has to be exceptionally brave to stand up against one's own union, particularly when it is in the control of extremists. One can put not only oneself at risk but one's car, house and family. During the miners' strike working miners in areas where other miners were on strike were treated vilely, not just verbally but physically.
The strain of standing up for one's rights can be unbearable. In 1986 the certification officer had only 17 complaints about the conduct of union elections. I would have expected there to be rather more considering the number of union elections which take place and the very large number of unions that are

683
involved. We still have over 400 unions in this country.
I put the small number of complaints about elections made to the certification officer down to a reluctance and unwillingness to be victimised. Of those complaints in 1986 about elections, nine were upheld by the certification officer and eight were rejected. In 1987 however the number had gone down to only 10 complaints of which eight were upheld and two were rejected. That is a very small number. In two cases, TASS and NALGO, the certification officer was unhappy with the response of the unions to the declaration he made about the defects of their election procedures and his call upon them to put them right.
I understand from NALGO that it will soon be complying with the law—it has taken a long time to do it—and that it now intends at its next conference this year to make proper arrangements to come within the terms of the 1984 Act as regards the conduct of its elections. I presume that if this Bill is passed in time it will also be complied with as regards the conduct of elections.
TASS on the other hand, before its merger with the ASTMS, took no notice whatever of the declaration of the certification officer. Although the certification officer had issued a declaration against it on a complaint from within the union no one was then brave enough to stand out and take TASS to court. I assume that they were frightened because TASS is a very tough and unpleasant union run by communists, as I have had to say before in this Chamber.
That is why the second amendment is so important. The declaration having been made by the certification officer and defied, it should be for him to go to the court and ask for the court to give effect to it. He knows all the facts. He has great experience in case law and in sifting the solidly-founded complaints from the shallow ones. It is unreasonable to expect a poor simple ordinary trade union member to then go to court himself. He will not do that unless he is a very brave, very unusual and very exceptional person. One cannot expect such a person to go to court himself and go through all these procedures when all the certification officer has to do is to go down to the court and say, "Here is my declaration. I issued it. The union took no notice. Will you now give an order that they must comply with it?" That is all that has to be done. That would incidentally remove the need for a commissioner in respect of complaints about union elections. I have serious doubts about the work of that commissioner which I think may be a work of supererogation in many respects and certainly as regards elections. If these amendments were accepted, we could save a lot of money.
At the same time it should be possible for a complainant to be able to preserve his anonymity if he so wishes and if it is possible. Otherwise he may be subject to a campaign of vilification, bodily assault and damage to his property which could last for years. Working miners in Scargill areas are still being victimised today.
Of course it is not possible for anonymity always to be maintained if someone is the sole complainant over a particular incident because the union would have no chance of investigating that incident unless the complainant could be identified. Then it would be up to the certification officer to say, "I am sorry. If you want to go on with this case, it is not possible to preserve your anonymity. So you either drop it or reveal who you are".
But apart from that, it is very important to take as much of the burden of hostility and of conducting strange and difficult procedures off the shoulders of simple people who may (and often do) live far from London and who do not understand the ways of lawyers—I am blowed if I understand them myself—or legal proceedings and who are terrified of the whole process.
If the Government would accept these amendments, they would find that there would be more justified complaints. I am not asking for frivolous complaints to be considered because I have a great regard for the certification officer. He throws out a lot of complaints when they come to him, and he tries to get conciliation. But there would be more justified complaints which are now not being brought because people are too frightened to do so. It would make the certification officer responsible, when his declaration has been defied, for going to the court and asking for the court to uphold that declaration. That will cut out the commissioner altogether on such matters, save an enormous amount of expense and take a burden away from the poor ordinary union member who is absolutely petrified. Members of the Committee cannot comprehend what an appalling ordeal it is for ordinary people to go to those fearsome places. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Dundee: With the leave of the Committee, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 115 and 116. I take it that the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, has spoken to both. In regard to the first of those amendments (which seeks to preserve the anonymity of the complainant with the certification officer) I say straightaway that I have a great deal of sympathy with the aim of the amendment. However, I should like for a moment to put the matter into perspective.
A union member should certainly not be put off making complaints about breach of statutory duty by a union and taking them up with the certification officer because he fears the consequences of so doing. Clause 3 of the Bill can be expected to help. It provides that union discipline, imposed because a member has sought the assistance of the certification officer in connection with a complaint against his union, is to be considered as being unjustifiably disciplined. If a member—
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: Perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. Does he realise that it is not the union officially which may necessarily victimise the person concerned but rather activists and enthusiastic fanatics who take the matter into their own hands? That is one of the reasons why people are frightened to come forward and be out of line with their union. It is not necessarily the union officials who are concerned.
The Earl of Dundee: I do not dispute that at all. As I said earlier, I have great sympathy with the concern of the noble Lord about preventing intimidation. All I was attempting to do was to give the background which forms the Bill now before the Committee, which gives a slightly different balance than had previously obtained.
Moving on from the subject of redress for unjustifiable discipline, if a member faces some other kind of intimidation because it is known that he has made such a complaint, that may be a matter for the criminal law. However, the main point that I wish to make to the Committee is that the amendment is not compatible with our present enforcement system. Part I of the 1984 Act gives rights to persons who are members of the union concerned and were members at the time of the breach complained of. That preserves the important principle consistently followed in the Government's reform of industrial relations and trade union law since 1979 that enforcement is left to those directly affected by an unlawful act of a trade union. Under the law the union must be entitled to challenge the locus standi of the complainant and it would not be enough for a certification officer to be satisfied that a particular complainant was eligible to bring the complainant concerned.
Perhaps I may move on to the second theme in the remarks of the noble Lord, and to the question of whether the certification officer should have the right to initiate a complaint directly with the union. I say to him that the legislation guarantees the rights of ordinary union members and candidates in union elections. It must be for those members and candidates themselves and not some third party to decide when and how to use those rights. The Government's view has always been that it is far better for enforcement of election and register duties to be in the hands of those directly affected by a union's unlawful actions, such as union members themselves, and not of some external, government sponsored institution. Governments should not risk the benefits of legislation by making its operation depend on action by a government sponsored supervisory agency, or even associating it with action by such an agency. We should not allow union leaders to present their unions as victims of unwarranted state interference in their affairs. The experience of intervention by ACAS in the context of union recognition shows the difficulty of imposing duties on state agencies in respect of inquiries into industrial relations matters.
At this time of night I am reluctant to go very much further into the matter. I should perhaps add that the position of members is not as weak as one might imagine. Complaining to their certification officer is simple, cheap and informal. It is an alternative to, not a substitute for, complaining directly to the High Court. It has been used and used effectively in many cases and experience indicates that there are certain union members who are neither timid nor intimidated when it comes to making applications to the certification officer.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: Perhaps I may try to explain to the Minister what I mean. I am not asking
686
the certification officer to interfere. I am asking him to finish off something that he has begun. He has already made a declaration to the union that in his judgment it has not complied with the law and would it kindly do so. It has defied that declaration. All he has to do is to walk down to the court, give the facts as he sees them and say, "Will you please enforce my declaration?" Instead, for some insane reason, the Government want to introduce a commissioner and high powered and very expensive lawyers, and put the unfortunate complainant—we assume by this time he is not anonymous—through the trouble and hazard of a hopeless reading of papers and God knows what else all over again in a case which has already been settled by the certification officer. What is the point of the second shot? The commissioner is being made into a kind of appeal body for the certification officer.
So far as I have been able to observe his working, the certification officer is a highly sensible and intelligent person who has been using his own case law and understands the position. He does not take up phoney cases; he rejects them. So why should the Government want another state commissioner to overpower and terrify the simple complainant in election cases when it is not necessary?
11.15 p.m.
Lord Rochester: If, among other things, the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, is saying that we should do better without this commissioner at all, I for one am happy to agree with him.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Airedale): Is the noble Lord asking leave to withdraw the amendment?
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: No, not at all. Well, I suppose that I shall have to ask leave to withdrawn it, but I think that it has not been given sufficient consideration. However, it is much too late at night and everybody wants to go home, which I understand completely.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: But this is not the correct way to deal with something that is so important and fundamental to the legislation. It ought to be given serious thought. I hoped that it could have been postponed to another day instead of our trying to deal with it when only about 10 Members of the Committee are present.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Is the noble Lord asking leave to withdraw the amendment?
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: I suppose it might be interpreted as that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 116 not moved.]
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Interlocutory and interim orders.]:
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton had given notice of his intention to move Amendments Nos. 117, 118 and 119:
Page 24, line 4, after ("applies") insert ("on not less than three days' notice save where the court after notification to the defendant gives leave for further notice")
Page 24, line 8, at end insert—
("(2A) In section 17 (1) of the 1974 Act there shall be added at the end the following words 'and an affidavit shall be provided to the court at the hearing if an application that all such steps have been taken and setting out what those steps were'.")
Page 24, line 8, at end insert—
("( ) In section 17(2) of the 1974 Act—

(a) after the words "trade dispute" there shall be added the following words, "or resists an application made under section 1, 6, 9, or 15 above, or section 5 of the 1984 Act", and

(b) for the words "have regard to the likelihood of that party's succeeding" there shall be substituted the words "not grant the injunction unless that party appears to it to be likely to succeed".")

The noble Lord said: The night is young and although we now come to what, in our view, is perhaps the most important clause in the entire Bill because it concerns injuctions—I see the Minister disapproves but perhaps he will first just listen to the consequential part of the long sentence on which I am embarked. Although the clause is about the most important part of the Bill, because the injunction is the engine which puts into motion all the big wheels of the law against trade unions, and although the clause must be debated, perhaps I may put to the Committee our view that the context in which these amendments come (and they are relevant to so many different areas) is or may be changing. Indeed, in our view much that has been said tonight makes it sensible to debate the function of injunctions more properly when the Bill comes to the Report stage.
Therefore, so long as the Ministers and the Government have no objection to our doing that in the light of the changing perspective and context—that is to say, debating these matters fully
688
and properly on Report, when they can be discussed more widely by the House—we should be prepared not to move Amendments Nos. 117, 118 and 119 tonight. Perhaps I may leave the matter there; it is a conditional offer not to move the amendments. It is a somewhat unusual proposition but one which I am sure Ministers will appreciate since the decision lies in their hands.
Lord Trefgarne: I am sure that I am wholly out of order in rising to speak at this moment, but of course the noble Lord is entitled to table what amendments he thinks fit at Report stage, provided that they do not deal with a matter on which the Chamber has already reached a decision. If, therefore, the noble Lord decides not to move his amendments tonight, he will be perfectly at liberty to table them at the Report stage.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Finally, at long last the Minister and I have reached agreement on a small point. I propose that none of these three amendments be moved.
[Amendments Nos. 117 to 119 not moved.]
Clause 22 agreed to.
House resumed.

Liverpool Exchange Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.

Whitchurch Bridge Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes past eleven o'clock.