Sitting of 25 June 1984

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  WALES

    Road Accidents
    Mr. Hoosonasked the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the number of road accidents on motorways and trunk roads in Wales in each year since 1981; and what is his strategy for reducing their incidence.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. John Stradling Thomas): The available information relates solely to accidents that caused death and personal injury. The figures are as follows: 1981, 2,041; 1982, 1,998; and 1983, 1,972. The trunk road improvement programme is the chief means of reducing road accidents. In addition, we are encouraging better road safety education and training.
    Mr. Hooson: It is good to know that the accident statistics have been decreasing each year. Is my hon. Friend aware that there is strong Welsh approval for the high priority that Ministers give to trunk road improvements, because they mean improved driving safety and contribute to a stronger Welsh economy?
    Mr. Stradling Thomas: I agree with my hon. Friend. Expenditure on new construction, improvement and maintenance of trunk roads and motorways in Wales is an important part of that strategy.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Does the Minister believe that police time is being used to the best effect in view of the findings of the Gifford report, which was published in Wales today, and the serious allegations made against the police? Will the hon. Gentleman press the Home Secretary for an official inquiry into these allegations?
    Mr. Stradling Thomas: I have taken careful note of the point. I have looked at the press reports and shall give further consideration to the matter.
    Sir Raymond Gower: Does my hon. Friend agree that road construction is not the only answer to the problem? Will he, in co-operation with the Secretary of State for Transport, take account of the fact that all over the world lower speed limits than in Britain are implemented, leading to a marked decrease in serious accidents? I hope that my hon. Friend will look at that matter.
    Mr. Stradling Thomas: I shall certainly give consideration to my hon. Friend's point. In addition, we attach great importance to better road safety education and training. I shall look carefully at my hon. Friend's point about speed limits.
    Mr. Wigley: On the matter of better education and training, is the Minister aware that there are misgivings in some parts of Wales because insufficient literature is available for schools, especially where the Welsh language is the normal vehicle of education? Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with the current provisions for this education by the Welsh Office? Should not the Welsh Office be giving a greater lead to the counties in this respect?
    Mr. Stradling Thomas: The Welsh Office provides considerable funds towards the cost of the road safety activities of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents in Wales. Those activities place a special emphasis on children's safety and make special provision for the disabled. We are contributing to the society's road safety exhibition at the Royal Welsh show. I have taken note of the hon. Gentleman's point about Welsh language provision and will look carefully into that aspect.
    Dr. Roger Thomas: Assuming the direct relationship between driver fatigue and motorway accidents, what are the Minister's plans to improve motorway service facilities within the 80-odd miles of the M4 west of the Severn bridge?
    Mr. Stradling Thomas: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, through no one's fault, certain difficulties have arisen. We shall try to sort matters out as rapidly, as possible. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, there have been considerable improvements in facilities as, for example, at Pont Abraham in his constituency.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: How can the Government be so complacent about the vital matter of road maintenance when there are such persistent complaints from individuals and motoring organisations? Is it not yet another example of the Government's penny wise, pound foolish strategy, which is impairing economic efficiency as well as endangering life?
    Mr. Stradling Thomas: Of course that does not relate directly to the question, which is about motorways and trunk roads. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is referring to road maintenance generally. I assure him that there is no complacency about that matter.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Gareth Wardellasked the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of people were registered as unemployed in Wales under 25 years of age in April 1980 and April 1984, respectively.
    Mr. Wigleyasked the Secretary of State for Wales what are the most recent figures for the number of people aged under 25 years in Wales who are out of work; and how this compares with the figures of 12 months earlier.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): The latest information relates to April, when there were 67,085 unemployed claimants under 25 years of age in Wales, a percentage of 39·5. The figure for 1983 was 70,041. Comparable figures for April 1980 are not available.
    Mr. Wardell: In April 1980, 17 per cent. of those 'who were unemployed under the age of 25 had been unemployed for more than one year. The equivalent figure in April 1984 was 31 per cent. Will the Secretary of State

    669
    therefore follow the example of his counterpart in the Scottish Office and introduce a youth enterprise fund, which he has set up at the cost of about £400,000 to encourage youngsters between the ages of 16 and 25 to set up in their own businesses?
    Mr. Edwards: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will at least welcome the fact that recently there has been some reduction in this sector of unemployment. We have, as he is aware, a wide range of schemes to assist the development of new businesses and enterprise schemes generally. I do not believe that that age group is neglected in that respect. I shall certainly consider whether there is any lesson to be learnt from the Scottish experience that we could extend to Wales. We always seek to see whether we can learn from these experiments in different parts of the country.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the Secretary of State feel, in view of the tremendous emphasis placed 12 months ago on getting young people into the new scheme which the Manpower Services Commission was developing, that this comparison shows a bleak prospect, and that by September it is likely that a large number of young people under 25 will have come off MSC schemes with no jobs in prospect? Can he not announce a new initiative?
    Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the youth training scheme is still new. If one considers some of the other schemes, one sees that about 50 per cent. of the entrants of the commmunity programme fall into that category. We have a wide range of schemes. It is striking, in all the factories that I have visited during the past three or four weeks, such as AB electronics, which is currently taking on more than 1,000 new people, and British Telecom, which is producing new products, how many young people are being taken on to work in the new technologies. That is much more important in the long run than any new schemes we can introduce, and it is the best prospect for the future.
    Mr. Raffan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the MSC survey of youth training scheme leavers published in April, showing over 40 per cent. of them in work, illustrates the success of the scheme and is a tremendous tribute to those running it? Does he agree also that it completely refutes the shameful and shoddy attack on the scheme by the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), who said that thousands of youngsters in Wales were being conned into fraudulent schemes for which no real jobs exist?
    Mr. Edwards: I am sure that anyone who has studied these schemes will realise their value. I should like to join in paying tribute to those from the trade unions, industry, local government and the voluntary sector who are making them such a success. I agree with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Rogers: Before the Secretary of State gets carried away, with the help of his boys from behind, to the position where he says that there is probably no unemployment in Wales, will he say what practical steps he is taking about the continually rising unemployment figures?
    Mr. Edwards: A range of measures are in operation, through the Welsh Development Agency, in conjunction with other Government organisations. I could spell out at great length, but you would bring me up short, Mr. Speaker, the record levels of new factory applications and
    670
    SFA applications, as well as many new projects and inward investment programmes. They will all provide jobs for the future.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Will the Minister undertake to read a very sobering report from Clwyd's principal careers officer, who expressed his fears last week that as many as 1,250 youngsters will return to the dole queue after their youth training scheme courses? Does the Minister comprehend that, with 23,000 Clwyd citizens jobless, the long-term unemployment figures are higher than 40 per cent.? We are very grateful for the contribution of the youth training scheme, but parents in Clwyd very much wish their youngsters to have real jobs.
    Mr. Edwards: Yes, I shall read the report. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we are looking for real jobs. That is why I very much welcome the employment provided by a range of new companies, of which Sharp is probably the most spectacular in that part of Wales.

    Secondary School Cost
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Wales how much was spent per pupil in secondary schools in Wales in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what was the figure in 1979–80, at constant prices.
    Mr. John Stradling Thomas: At November 1982 prices the figures are £925 and £900 respectively.
    Mr. Knox: Do not those figures show that there has been a satisfactory increase in the resources devoted to the education of each pupil in secondary schools in Wales since the Government took office? Is my hon. Friend satisfied that that fact is sufficiently well publicised?
    Mr. Stradling Thomas: I am certainly not satisfied that the figures are well enough publicised. They make nonsense of the alarmist claims of Opposition Members that we have made heavy cuts in expenditure on schools.
    Mr. Ron Davies: Are not the figures that we have been given being used as a cosmetic to hide the reduction in expenditure on education in Wales? Does the Minister accept that the apparent improvement of which he has told us comes about only because of falling rolls, and that we have tremendous problems in our secondary schools in Wales, where teachers are preparing their young people for life after school? The Government are following an economic policy which makes such a task that much more difficult, and does the Minister accept that if teachers and education authorities, who are struggling with a very difficult task, are to be successful they need many more resources than they have at present?
    Mr. Stradling Thomas: The short answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is no, Sir. I accept none of his propositions. I am not saying that the position is not difficult, but with proper management of resources it will be possible to make adequate educational provision as well as to improve standards.

    Coal Industry Dispute
    Mr. Ray Powellasked the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to meet the chairman of the National Coal Board to discuss the effects in Wales of the miners' strike.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I have no immediate plans to do so.
    Mr. Powell: We well understand the reply that we get continually from the Secretary of State for Wales. Does he not share the Prime Minister's view, expressed at Porthcawl on Saturday, that for all our sakes the miners' strike should be over soon? What input is the right hon. Gentleman giving to get the two sides together? Does he not appreciate that the strike is affecting the economy of Wales and is a further threat to the Welsh steel industry? When the Prime Minister left that conference she had egg on her face, thrown not by miners but by farmers, the supporters of the Government. Why were the farmers' wives not arrested, as they would have been had they been miners?
    Mr. Edwards: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has come round to recognising that the strike is damaging jobs in the coal industry as well as threatening them in steel and on the railways. I hope that he will join in condemning those in his party, including his Deputy Leader, who are going out of their way to encourage this damaging strike.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: In view of the evident demonic determination of the leadership of the National Union of Mineworkers to destroy not only their industry but the steel industry and, come to that, the railway industry, as revealed by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), does my right hon. Friend think that the mere passage of time will suffice to bring the leaders of the union to their senses?
    Mr. Edwards: I do not intend to speculate, but it is clear that many in the coal industry and other industries recognise fully the damaging consequences of this political strike, and hope that it will end soon.
    Mr. Foot: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all of us in the Opposition understand that if the Government had done their job the strike need never have happened? Is he a member of the ministerial team that discusses the Government's attitude to the strike? At those meetings, has he discussed and supported the proposal made the other day by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Pendarth (Mr. Callaghan) for a mediator to be appointed to see whether the strike can be ended?
    Mr. Edwards: What I do know is that the Labour Governments, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member, closed far more pits in Britain, and in Wales, than this Government have ever closed. Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, I do not intend to disclose what goes on in the Cabinet or Cabinet Committees.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: As it now seems that Mr. Scargill is bent on destroying the steel as well as the coal industry, has my right hon. Friend seen the article in this morning's edition of the Western Mail, which states that Ravenscraig would be in the best position if a choice had to be made between Ravenscraig, Port Talbot and Llanwern?
    Mr. Edwards: I believe that the steel workers of Llanwern and Port Talbot, by their actions, have made their plants very competitive and efficient, and deserve to succeed. It would be tragic if the actions of Mr. Scargill and his cohorts, encouraged by the Labour Benches, put those plants at risk.
    Dr. Marek: Is the Secretary of State aware that probably well over half the country places responsibility
    672
    for the coal miners' strike fairly and squarely on the Government? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how much extra the people of Wales have had to pay through their rates because of the police operations which have supposedly been necessary during the strike?
    Mr. Edwards: I do not have the figures. However, I know that they are nothing like as much as the people of Wales have had to pay to keep uneconomic pits going, and which industry generally has had to pay. It makes sense for this country to produce coal and fuel economically so that we may be competitive and succeed in the world economy.
    Mr. Grist: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents worked in the Llanwern steel works before the 1980 steel strike, but that fewer of them now do so as a result of that strike? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that if the coal industry strike goes on, none will probably do so?
    Mr. Edwards: Of course, strikes such as this always destroy jobs not only in the strikers' own industry but in the other related industries. That is the tragedy of this strike, which is why we must hope that those who are apparently determined to continue will have second thoughts.
    Mr. Rogers: As the NUM seems to be the only body in Wales that is fighting for jobs, and as the Secretary of State obviously evaded the question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), will he take this second opportunity and answer my right hon. Friend's question rather than duck it as he so obviously did?
    Mr. Edwards: I have already answered the question by the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot).
    Mr. Rogers: The right hon. Gentleman has not.
    Mr. Edwards: I do not intend to answer it a second time.
    Mr. Terlezki: It is a tragedy that the Welsh economy—and, indeed, the British economy—is suffering so greatly because of the strike. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not for the rank and file politicians to settle the dispute but for those who work and are involved in the industry to do so?
    Mr. Edwards: It would be sensible if people sat down and discussed the great future that is available to this industry, which has been backed by record investment by the Government. It is tragic that that investment is being wasted and that the future of the industry is being put at risk by those who are not seeking to save jobs but are destroying them.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that neither he nor the Prime Minister should wash their hands of the dispute, but should organise an urgent, decisive intervention? Will the right hon. Gentleman, for the third time of asking, answer the question? Is he a member of the ministerial Committee handling the dispute?
    Mr. Edwards: The most decisive intervention is being provided by miners in the hon. Gentleman's area of Wales. I am glad that an increasing number of miners are at work at Point of Ayr. The way to settle the dispute is for the miners to go back to work.

    Milk Quota Scheme
    Mr Raffanasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will now make a detailed statement on the arrangements for dealing with special hardship cases in Wales resulting from the European Economic Community milk quota scheme.
    Sir Raymond Gowerasked the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made in completing arrangements for dealing with cases of hardship arising from the milk quota scheme of the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Milk producers have now been informed of the categories of special cases that will be considered for award of additional quota. Further details in the form of regulations will be laid before the House as soon as possible. We have also introduced an outgoers scheme to assist smaller producers. It is hoped to announce detailed arrangements for the scheme at the end of July.
    Mr. Raffan: It is now almost three months since the milk quota scheme was announced, yet its details are dribbling out with agonising slowness for the farming community. Will my right hon. Friend tell me when the producer-retailers will receive a provisional quota? At present they are completely in the dark. When will the outgoers scheme begin? Will he assure us that if it does not release sufficient extra quota for the small 40-cow dairy farmer, it will be extended?
    Mr. Edwards: On 20 June we wrote to producers giving guidance about the arrangements for direct sales. I hope that it will be possible to lay before the House the necessary order for the main quota scheme within the next week. I have already said that we hope to announce detailed arrangements for the outgoers scheme at the end of this month.
    Sir Raymond Gower: Does my right hon. Friend agree that some of the worst difficulties have arisen not because of the change of policy but because of its suddeness? When he considers the matter, will he pay special attention to the difficulties of those who, encouraged by Ministers, expanded their business with bank overdrafts or other forms of credit and who are now in a tricky position?
    Mr. Edwards: It is because the problems of expanders have been recognised that a main aim of the quota scheme is to help them. That category is covered. I hope that the leavers scheme that I announced will assist those in that position. We recognise the difficulties that many producers face in making this adjustment.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: Will the Secretary of State assure the House that Welsh dairy farmers will be adequately compensated for lost business caused by this Government's agricultural policy?
    Mr. Edwards: Clearly, the leavers scheme, which I have described, will be of particular value to Wales because of its emphasis on the small 40-cow unit. That will be of great benefit. The hon. Gentleman talked about the policy of "this Government", but I agree with the Farmers Weekly, which on 8 June pointed out that the other parties were the severest critics of EC overspending. It said that they would have attacked the absence of a dairy surplus control policy with the same gleeful venom that they
    674
    display against its implementation, and that they do not suggest an alternative lifeline to dairy farmers, but argue loudly and often incoherently that they seek to give the impression that they are.
    Mr. Ron Davies: Does the Secretary of State accept that there is a glaring inconsistency in the Government's handling of the dairy industry? During the past three or four years small dairy farmers have been encouraged to embark on the farm and horticultural development scheme, but under the the new proposals many of those farmers who have committed themselves to many thousands of pounds of capital investment face cuts of 9 per cent. Will the Secretary of State say specifically when those farmers will be told whether they are special cases, and if they are, by how much the quota will be extended? Will he assure us that if that information is not available by the end of the summer the Government will accept responsibility for paying the super levy, to allow an even period of transition for the farmers who are most directly affected?
    Mr. Edwards: I have already said that we hope to lay the necessary parliamentary order within about a week, although it must then pass through the House. Therefore, it is unlikely that applications under the quota allocations scheme will be received before the middle of July. I am as anxious as is the hon. Gentleman that we should then deal with the applications as quickly as possible, and we are ready to set up the panel system as soon as possible. It is extremely important that people should have the fullest information before September, when the first tranche of levy becomes payable, although the payment is not due until about the middle of the following November.
    Mr. Harvey: Can my right hon. Friend guarantee that there will be no further large cuts in quotas in subsequent years so that dairy farmers, having absorbed the present blow with great difficulty, can plan with confidence for the future?
    Mr. Edwards: My hon. Friend knows that another 1 per cent. cut is built into the present arrangements, which were phased over two years. I cannot go beyond the agreement that has been reached.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Secretary of State aware of the grave uncertainty at present, with banks putting pressure on farmers who do not yet know their quotas? In those circumstances, will he now give an assurance that no farmer who, during the past couple of years, increased his milk output on the advice and with the agreement of Ministry officials will be allowed to go to the wall?
    Mr. Edwards: The people whom the hon. Gentleman described are those from whom we shall expect applications under the quota scheme. Until we know the number of applications and the amounts involved we cannot say whether they will come within the 2·5 per cent. that has been set aside under the rules of the agreement reached in Brussels. I take the opportunity of saying publicly what I have said to many banks privately: as we shall be laying the orders soon and operating the scheme as quickly as possible, I hope that they will not press too precipitately those customers who are still not fully aware of their position.
    Mr. John David Taylor: As it has been revealed that Southern Irish milk producers cannot produce enough milk

    675
    to take up the quota allocations for the Republic of Ireland, will it be in order for Welsh producers, as distinct from the Milk Marketing Board, to export milk to the Republic?
    Mr. Edwards: I have no evidence that Europe will ever return to having no substantial surpluses, and we must consider this matter on a Europe-wide basis.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Is it not time that the Government paid less attention to the better-off farmers, who have waxed fat for so long, and instead paid more attention to the less well-off farmers, so many of whom are in Wales and who are suffering badly as a result of the new quota system? Why is there no parity in this Common Market arrangement? Why should Eire have such a good deal? Is there not also a need for a bit of chwarae teg for Welsh farmers?
    Mr. Edwards: It is precisely because I agree with the hon. Gentleman, at least on the fact that smaller farmers are especially important for Wales, that we have introduced a scheme that will be of special benefit to those with 40 cows or fewer. They should be the first priority in the reallocation of quota.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Ron Daviesasked the Secretary of State for Wales how many unemployed people under 18 years of age there were in Mid-Glamorgan and Wales, respectively, at the latest available date.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The latest information available relates to April 1984, when in Mid-Glamorgan there were 1,711 unemployed claimants under 18 years of age and in Wales there were 8,096.
    Mr. Davies: Is the Secretary of State aware of a reply that I received from the Home Secretary on 4 June about the increase in convictions of youngsters aged under 18 for drug-related offences? Is he aware that in Wales there has been a 100 per cent. increase in convictions of youngsters aged under 18 since 1979? Does he accept that there must be a direct correlation between the increase in unemployment and the increase in drug abuse? Does he recognise that during the past 12 months four youngsters have died tragically as a result of solvent abuse? Will he undertake to establish an independent inquiry to examine the correlation between unemployment and the lack of prospects for young people and the incidence of drug and solvent abuse? If and when that inquiry shows that correlation, will he agree to take the necessary economic and social measures to deal with the problem?
    Mr. Edwards: I do not accept that there is a direct correlation, but, in so far as there is any relationship, I am sure the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that over the past year unemployment among the under-18 age group in Wales has fallen by a third and that in Mid-Glamorgan unemployment among the under-18 age group has fallen by almost a half.
    Mr. Raffan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the level of unfilled vacancies in Welsh jobcentres in March, the highest for any March since 1980, is yet another strong pointer to the economic recovery taking place? Does he also agree that in Clwyd, where the number of unfilled vacancies increased by nearly 50 per cent.——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This question is about Mid-Glamorgan.
    Mr. Edwards: I agree with what my hon. Friend says about the signs of the economic recovery. It is amply borne out by the CBI's monthly trend survey published only this morning.
    Mr. Barry Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Wales how many people, unadjusted and inclusive of school leavers, are unemployed in Wales; and by what percentage unemployment has increased since May 1979.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave him on 4 June.
    Mr. Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. For the convenience of the House, will the right hon. Gentleman, courteously, give us the answer in detail, as he usually does? Is he not evading the question?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State does what he wishes in this matter.
    Mr. Jones: Give us the figures.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Ian Grist, No. 11.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards rose——[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) did not have a reply. I have no reason to think that the Secretary of State would give any other reply. I have called Mr. Grist.
    Mr. Ray Powell rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I had a supplementary question which I had hoped to ask.
    Mr. Speaker: The question was from the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside.
    Mr. Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman has not given us the figures which, traditionally in this honourable House, all Secretaries of State have been prepared to come before us to give. We have witnessed a form of parliamentary cowardice. The right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to give the shameful figures for which he knows he has responsibility. Will you, Mr. Speaker, give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity to give the figures?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I can see that the Secretary of State wishes to respond.
    Mr. Edwards: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Naturally, I assumed that the hon. Gentleman would remember the figures that I gave him only three weeks ago. If he has such an appallingly bad memory and pays so little attention, I shall give the figures willingly now, if that is in order. The figures for May 1979 and May 1984 are 77,177 and 168,799 respectively—an increase of 118·7 per cent. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has such a bad memory.
    Mr. Speaker: I had called the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist), but I now propose to call the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) to ask a supplementary to his question No. 9.
    Mr. Jones: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Clearly the right hon. Gentleman did not wish to give those despairing, shameful and serious figures. Will he concede that he could give hope to the unemployed of Wales if he were to

    677
    announce the urgent building of a second crossing of the Severn, if he initiated a massive housing drive, if he enlarged the Welsh Development Agency's budget, and if new anthracite and coking coal mines were to be opened? Surely the right hon. Gentleman will concede, given the wretched and miserable figures which he wished to hide from the honourable House, that the people of Wales urgently need a change of policy.
    Mr. Edwards: I find it absolutely amazing that the hon. Gentleman is so slow on his feet and that his memory is so bad that he gives such a disastrous performance from the Opposition Front Bench. What will provide jobs for the future are the large number of new companies that are setting up in Wales, many in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

    Overseas Firms (Inquiries)
    Mr. Gristasked the Secretary of State for Wales how many inquiries from overseas firms have been received in the current calendar year by his Department and the Welsh Development Agency.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: During the first five months of 1984, WINvest—the organisation responsible for coordinating inward investment—received 123 inquiries from overseas companies.
    Mr. Grist: Does my right hon. Friend agree that our membership of the EEC is a vital factor in attracting these overseas firms which give so much employment in Wales, but that class-based and futile strikes are amazingly damaging?
    Mr. Edwards: I entirely agree, and, of course, the figures that I have given are, at least in large part, an answer to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones). Since WlNvest was established in April 1983, it has helped to secure 23 new projects by overseas companies, which promise up to 3,500 new jobs, and capital expenditure of £82 million, almost all of this because we are members of the European Community.
    Dr. Marek: The Secretary of State mentioned earlier the overseas company Sharp. Does he agree that it would need 200 companies like Sharp setting up in Wales to get the unemployment figures down to what they were in 1979 when the Tory Government took office?
    Mr. Edwards: I hope that the hon. Gentleman, of all people, who represents Wrexham, is not seeking to run down a project from a major international company which will initially employ about 250 people and expects to employ about 650 people in the next few years.
    Mr. Williams: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. Would a point of order relating to Welsh questions that have been asked be better left till 3.30 pm?
    Mr. Speaker: Most definitely. We may even go back to Welsh questions.
    Later——
    Mr. Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recollect, in connection with question No. 9, that the Secretary of State answered by a not unprecedented form of words, referring back. My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) objected to that answer, seeing it, quite rightly, as an evasion by the Secretary of State, who was trying to avoid spelling out to the people
    678
    of Wales that there had been a 118 per cent. increase in unemployment since this Government came into office. You then ruled, Sir, that supplementary questions should not be allowed from my hon. Friends, on the ground that the Secretary of State had not given an answer.
    Subsequently, after you called the question of the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist), the Secretary of State intervened and asked whether he could give a fuller answer to question No. 9. He gave that fuller answer, eventually spelling out the figures that he had sought to conceal, but when he had done so, although my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside was allowed to ask his supplementary question, all other supplementary questions on an issue that is of fundamental importance in Wales were precluded. May I ask you to consider, Sir, whether the Secretary of State could, after the private notice question, return to this matter, and face normal questioning from Opposition Members?
    Mr. Speaker: That would not be possible. All questions are of fundamental importance to the Member concerned and, in this instance, of fundamental importance to Wales. As the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) did not rise to ask a supplementary question, it was not unreasonable to move on to the next question, which is exactly what I did. I am anxious, especially during Welsh Question Time, to call as many hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies as possible.
    Mr. Ray Powell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to prolong the point of order, but it is of importance. Some of my hon. Friends and I were hoping to catch your eye to ask supplementary questions. We know that you have used your discretion to allow Back Benchers to ask supplementary questions, especially on unemployment and its effect on their constituncies. In my constituency unemployment has escalated from 3·7 to 19·7 per cent. since the Government took office. That is why I wanted to ask a supplementary question.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman would not be alone in wishing to ask a supplementary question. I try to get through a good range of Welsh questions and I think that the hon. Gentleman would wish me to do so. He was called during Welsh Question Time and I do not think that he has any complaints.

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Women (Ordination)
    Mr. Nicholas Bakerasked the hon. Member for Wokingham, as representing the Church Commissioners, whether the Church Commissioners have made any assessment of the potential financial and other consequences within their responsibilities of the ordination of women.
    The Second Church Estates Commissioner. Representing Church Commissioners (Sir William van Straubenzee): No, Sir.
    Mr. Baker: Will my hon. and episcopal Friend ask the Church Commissioners to make some plans about this? Is he aware that, in the opinion of many of us, the case for the ordination of women is strong, and we feel that they will be, and should be, ordained before long?
    Sir William van Straubenzee: I give all due note to my hon. Friend's opinions, but the matter will not be decided by the Church Commissioners. As and when it is decided, if it is decided, by the appropriate authority, the commissioners will have to give serious thought to what their responsibilities may be.
    Mr. Frank Field: As Synod has ruled that there is no theological objection to the ordination of women, and as the Synod is our Parliament, do not the commissioners believe that the calculations asked for in the question should be undertaken?
    Sir William van Straubenzee: With respect, no. I think that that would be to pre-empt any decision that the Synod may or may not make.
    Mr. Cormack: Will my hon. Friend assure us that, if the unfortunate day comes when women are ordained, they will at least be ordained by Bishops who believe in God?
    Sir William van Straubenzee: If this comes about, they will presumably be ordained by bishops of the Church of England. who, I understand on good authority, believe in God.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: Quite apart from the opinions of the bishop-elect of Durham, will due regard be had in this matter to the effect on relations between the Church of England and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic communions, which it always says it wants to improve?
    Sir William van Straubenzee: The Church Commissioners, for whom I answer, are not responsible for this decision. I must make that quite clear, without discourtesy to any hon. Member. I have been present at many such discussions, and that is certainly one of the considerations that I have often heard them put forward forcefully.
    Mr. Ryman: Would it be possible for the hon. Gentleman to consider this further? With regard to the proposed consecration of the new bishop of Durham on 6 July, is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is widespread concern in the north-east——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question relates to the ordination of women.
    Mr. Ryman: Have the Church Commissioners ascertained the views of the bishop-elect of Durham, whose proposed consecration on 6 July is giving widespread concern to many clergy in the north-east?
    Sir William van Straubenzee: The Church Commissioners of course have responsibilities to the Bishop of Durham for the time being, as for other diocesan bishops, but I think that they would not usually concern themselves to make inquiries of the kind that the hon. Gentleman has in mind.
    Mr. Stokes: Do not these exchanges show that my hon. Friend would be well advised to keep out of this most serious controversy, as such a revolutionary step as the ordination of women is far more serious than any mere financial consideration?
    Sir William van Straubenzee: I have generally worked through a reasonably lengthy life by handling women extremely carefully.

    Deceased Clergymen (Orphans)
    Mr. Greenwayasked the hon. Member for Wokingham, as representing the Church Commissioners, what financial and educational arrangements are made for the orphans of deceased clergymen; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir William van Straubenzee: While I am sympathetic to the needs of orphans of deceased clergymen, I must point out that the commissioners have no statutory authority to make direct financial provision for them. I am, however, sending my hon. Friend details of the pensions scheme administered by the Church of England Pensions Board and of the assistance which may be available from charitable sources.
    Mr. Greenway: I assume that it would be out of order to ask whether my hon. Friend agrees with the artist who considered that Jesus was a woman, but does he agree that clergymen—and perhaps, in future, clergywomen—are underpaid and so have difficulty in making provision for the educational, housing and financial needs of 'heir children? Will the Church Commissioners look at the whole problem sympathetically?
    Sir William van Straubenzee: I hope that the details that I shall send my hon. Friend today will assist him. I should draw attention to the stalwart and splendid work of the Clergy Orphans Corporation, which, in 1983, disbursed £157,000 on behalf of orphans. That is no mean figure. I should be very grateful if my hon. Friend would draw attention to that work.
    Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I am very sad to hear my hon. Friend's reply. These days extreme pressure is put on clergymen and it is a fact of life that some die in office. Many children who are now in school may have to leave because the Church Commissioners are unable to find the funds. I hope that something can be done by the Church Commissioners, because the education of those children could be interrupted. As one who went to a school attended by many clergymen's sons, I know that such schools are invaluable to them for their education. I hope that my hon. Friend will reconsider his decision.
    Sir William van Straubenzee: If my hon. Friend has an individual case in mind, I should be extremely sorry if he did not use me as his channel of inquiry. The commissioners are having discussions with the pensions board, and it may well be that further consideration can be given to that aspect of the matter.
    Mr. Cormack: Will my hon. and doctrinally sound Friend try to ensure that any clergymen's orphans within the diocese of Durham are brought up to believe in the virgin birth and the other essential tenets of the Christian faith?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that that question had much to do with orphans.

  WALES

    Regional Industrial Development
    Mr. Roy Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he intends to initiate discussions with local authorities in Gwent concerning proposals contained in Cmnd. 9111, "Regional Industrial Development".
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has, I understand, offered to meet a deputation from Gwent. I shall be represented at the meeting by my hon. Friend the Minister of State.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman not appreciate the concern of local authorities in Gwent about the thousands of jobs that have been lost, thus causing great poverty and hardship? Those local authorities have fought very hard to attract new jobs to their areas, but they now need a bit of stability in terms of regional aid, instead of further cuts and alterations. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that their voice is heard in the Cabinet when such matters are further discussed?
    Mr. Edwards: Of course I understand the concern of people in Gwent and elsewhere, but as for the case for stability, even the Labour party in Wales, which has made representations during the consultation period, has called for a more selective approach, a closer linking of aid to job creation, and cost per job limits on assistance as well as maintaining the desirability of bringing service industries fully within the scope of the system. Thus, there is clear agreement right across the political spectrum about some changes, and the Government are consulting on them.
    Mr. Hooson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that employment in Gwent can best be helped by protecting employment at the Llanwern steelworks?
    Mr. Edwards: Yes, Sir.

    Clwyd
    Dr. Marekasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will recommend to the European Community that Clwyd be designated an integrated operations area.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The future of integrated operations remains under discussion within the Commission. It is too early to be considering new decisions on designation.
    Dr. Marek: When the matter is considered, will the Secretary of State recommend to the European Community that Clwyd be designated an integrated operations area? Does he realise that infrastructure in Clwyd has fallen behind that in Wales generally? If he does not believe me, will he accompany me on a half-day trip so that he can see with his own eyes the point that I am making?
    Mr. Edwards: I note that a report has been submitted by independent consultants on behalf of the county council recommending integrated operations for Clwyd, but it is by no means clear what integrated operations have yet been achieved in the areas to which they apply. The Government are carrying out a massive infrastructure programme in Clwyd, which includes a major road-building programme.

    Council House Sales
    Mr. Gwilym Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received regarding the level of service charges which would be due from council tenants of flats, following the purchase of their homes from their local authorities; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): My Department has received nine letters, from or on behalf of council tenants, about the level of service charges. There is no evidence to suggest that in general the level of service charges levied by Welsh local authorities is unreasonable.
    Mr. Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he recognise that service charges are a great disincentive? Is there any evidence that service charges in Cardiff are too high? Will he consider encouraging exchanges in order to achieve greater mobility for council flat tenants? Will he examine the possibility of the cash discount being used to purchase from the local authority or on the open market?
    Mr. Roberts: Service charges cover repair and other charges. Provided that they are reasonable—that can be tested in the courts—I do not think that they are a major disincentive. The average level of service charge in Cardiff is £330 per annum. I know of three instances of service charges being as high as £900 per annum. In those cases the charge includes a substantial amount for central heating.
    My hon. Friend's suggestion on cash grants would add to public expenditure. It is already possible for council flat tenants to move to council houses.

  THE ARTS

    European Year of Music
    Sir David Priceasked the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State answering in respect of the Arts what steps the Government are taking to support the Council of Europe's promotion of 1985 as the European year of music.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave): I refer my hon. Friend to my answer to him on 26 March. The Government welcome the concept of the European music year and are confident that the United Kingdom committee, under the chairmanship of His Royal Highness the Duke of Kent, will produce a popular and diverse programme.
    Sir David Price: Is my hon. Friend aware that the recent Euro-election cost the British taxpayer about £20 million and produced a 32 per cent. response from the public? Does he accept that if the Government spent only 10 per cent. of that—£2 million—we would get a better response from the British public for the European year of music than for the Euro-elections? Does he agree that the British public would find that music was more the food of love than Euro-elections?
    Mr. Cormack: And better harmonisation too.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I shall leave the jokes to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack). I can find no ground on which to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price). The Arts Council has made resources available for administration and is considering continuing that.
    Mr. Fisher: Will the Under-Secretary acknowledge that this Government's and country's contribution to the European year of music represents a cut of nearly £1 million in the grant to opera and to music next year—a £711,000 cut for music and a £235,000 cut for opera? Will

    683
    the hon. Gentleman reconsider the decision, because it is an inappropriate way for the Government to celebrate the European year of music?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on making his political point. Overall, resources for the arts are being increased in the two years concerned. The distribution of resources is a matter for the Arts Council.
    Mr. Grist: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be a pretty strange way of celebrating the European year of music if we abolished one of London's orchestras, as called for in "The Glory of the Garden" by the Arts Council?
    Mr. Waldegrave: It is not the abolition of an orchestra that is spoken of in that document but the suggestion that it might move to another city. I understand that those discussions are continuing with the Arts Council.
    Mr. Meadowcroft: Will the Minister consider commending the possibility during this year of focusing attention on the need to encourage children to continue playing music after they have left school, given that on many occasions the encouragement given at school has no practical expression thereafter and that this is a gap in our musical system?
    Mr. Waldegrave: That is a sensible suggestion, but I am not sure whether it is for my noble Friend so much as for the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

    Arts Council (Subsidies)
    Mr. Proctorasked the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State answering in respect of the Arts how much has been spent by the Arts Council on subsidies to opera and ballet companies in each of the last three years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Waldegrave: Total Arts Council expenditure on opera and dance, including Scottish and Welsh Arts Council expenditure, was £25·07 million in 1981–82; £29·21 million in 1982–83; and £31·94 million in 1983–84.
    Mr. Proctor: In view of the large sums of public money spent on, and the high price of tickets for, opera and ballet, will my hon. Friend ask the Arts Council to look at this expenditure again? Will he, in particular, explain to the Arts Council that it might be better to get some private funding for opera and ballet?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Having spent last evening listening to "Cosi fan Tutti" at Glyndebourne, I assure my hon. Friend that there are considerable private resources going into opera. If my hon. Friend is asking me to speak to my noble Friend in the sense of diminishing those resources, I must give him a disappointing answer.
    Mr. Dalyell: What has been the Government's response to the representations that they have had both from Scottish Opera and Scottish Ballet on their financial future?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Those representations are, in the first instance, for the Arts Council. I have no doubt that if representations are made to my noble Friend he will consider them seriously.
    Mr. Maclean: For how long does my hon. Friend think the taxpayer can continue to subsidise Royal Opera to the
    684
    tune of £25 per ticket per performance? Does he think that it is part of his job and that of his Department to see that the many, who are taxpayers, should be made to pay for the pleasures of an elitist few?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I think that my hon. Friend must have missed the recent and welcome changes in the ticket structure at Covent Garden, where an increasing number of cheap tickets are now being made available, which is a sensible policy. No country in the world can put on opera without subsidy of some kind, either through tax or by way of direct Government subsidy, so that my answer to my hon. Friend is, yes, I regard it as part of my job.
    Mr. Buchan: Will the Minister take on board the fact that our objection is not so much to having almost one third of central Government allocations spent on opera as to the cut that that has meant for the rest of the arts in Britain? What is to happen in respect of the £34 million pledged this year to local authorities, which are the other supporters of the arts? Will that continue? The Minister for the Arts did not make that clear in the other place last week.
    Mr. Waldegrave: With respect, my noble Friend made it entirely clear that there was a commitment to future funding on the same sort of scale. The hon. Gentleman makes his usual cry for more money in general. Money was earmarked for opera and ballet and it was additional to the other money. Everybody would like more money for everything, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is asking us to diminish the amount that is spent on the great opera and ballet house.

    "The Glory of the Garden"
    Mr. Freudasked the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State answering in respect of the Arts if he will announce the number of (a) positive and (b) negative responses he has received consequent upon the publication of "The Glory of the Garden".
    Mr. Waldegrave: About 1,500 representations—mostly, as is perhaps natural, lobbying for particular organisations which are seen to be under threat—have been received.
    Mr. Freud: I am grateful to the Minister for that information. Will he make it his constant practice to announce—even if he does not put the letters in the Library—what the reaction is for and against following publication of White Papers? Is there not unnecessary secrecy about these matters?
    Mr. Waldegrave: If asked for, the information is always given to the House. We do not—this has come up in other contexts—make a practice of publishing responses, because it is not our responsibility to do that. We never disguise the weight of representations. In an exercise such as this, it is perhaps natural that there are more letters arguing for the maintenance of particular grants than there are welcoming new spending.
    Mr. Cormack: Will my hon. Friend conduct a tutorial with the Philistines behind me so that he can explain to them the importance of the Arts Council's interesting, challenging and slightly provocative document, and so that he can tell them that every £1 spent on these rather desirable pursuits has a much better return than most other Government expenditure?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I am not sure how one would calculate such a return, or whether it would be sensible to do so. I am sure that I can delegate this operation to my hon. Friend with great confidence.

    Architecture
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State answering in respect of the Arts what initiatives the Office of Arts and Libraries intends to take to promote architecture.
    Mr. Waldegrave: None at present, Sir.
    Mr. Chapman: As it could be argued that architecture is one of the most important of the arts, as the public
    686
    cannot avoid looking at buildings, and as there is increasing public debate about the merits and demerits of modern architecture, should not my hon. Friend's Department be doing more to increase public awareness about the design of new buildings and the materials used in them?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend's association, the Royal Institute of British Architects, is holding a festival of British architecture this year, at which my noble Friend is making a speech. I shall represent to my noble Friend my hon. Friend's suggestion that more should be done in this direction.

Parliamentary Questions (Allocation of Time)
3.31 pm
Mr. Norman Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This point of order relates to arts questions. It has been raised partially before and concerns what happens when questions to the Church Commissioners collapse before their allotted 10 minutes are over. The habit has been to revert then to the earlier questions, in today's case those on Wales. I assure my hon. Friends that I am not trying to cut out Welsh questions, but trying to draw attention to this problem, which continually diminishes the amount of time that is given to the arts at a time when there is extreme anxiety throughout the country about them, and when the Government failed dismally the week before last to give their views on the subject. Has not the time come to expand the time available for the arts, which are an important part of our civilisation?
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It will be in the memory of the House that when we had that admirable Gentleman, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), as Minister responsible for the Arts he was actively considering trying to arrange an extension of the period for arts questions. I think that there will be universal agreement in the House that we should have a longer time for arts questions.
Mr. Speaker: Order. These are matters not for the Chair, but for discussion between the usual channels.

Railway Accident (Morpeth)
3.34 pm
Mr. Peter Snape (by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement to the House about Saturday's railway accident at Morpeth, Northumberland.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): The accident involving Saturday's 19.50 hours sleeping car train from Aberdeen to London occurred on the tight curve on the east coast main line to the south of Morpeth station in Northumberland at about 20 minutes to 1 o'clock on Sunday 24 June. There were 76 passengers and a number of railway staff on the train. Initially 38 people were taken to hospital, but by Sunday evening only three men, all railway staff, were still detained. None of them is seriously injured.
The train left the rails near the start of the curve, which has a permanent speed restriction of 50 mph. It continued across the other line and down the embankment, turning on its side in the process. It struck two dwellings. The cause of the accident seems likely to have been excessive speed on entering the curve. The reason for this has not yet been established.
I have already appointed one of the Department of Transport's senior inspecting officers of railways to conduct an inquiry. The House will appreciate that it would be improper for me to say anything further on the reasons for the accident at this time. I naturally want to express our sympathy for those who were involved in the accident. I praise the way in which the situation was dealt with by the emergency services and local people, who immediately offered help.
Mr. Snape: The House will be grateful to the Minister for that reply. I ask him to reflect on his statement that the cause of the crash appears to be excessive speed. As his Department has appointed one of its inspectors to investigate the cause of the accident, are we not in danger of prejudging the issue by appearing to come to such a conclusion? Is it true that the site of the accident was the site of a similar and, regrettably, even more dangerous accident in 1969? Does the Minister know of any plans by British Rail to ease the curvature and increase the speed limit on the curve?
Bearing in mind the history of this stretch of line, may we have an assurance that the inquiry will be held in public?
Will there be compensation for householders whose property has been damaged as a result of the accident?
Finally, I ask the Minister to comment on the strength of modern British Rail rolling stock. Despite the apparent severity of the accident, every passenger has been released from hospital. Is that not a credit to British Rail Engineering Ltd., which built the rolling stock?
Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman is correct. A derailment took place on this stretch of line on 7 May 1969. It was inquired into by the then chief inspecting officer of railways, Colonel Robertson, who concluded that the accident was caused by a lapse of concentration on the part of the driver. It would be wrong for me to speculate further on the cause of the latest accident.

689
As to proposals for altering the line, we should await the result of the inquiry, which I assure the hon. Gentleman will be held in public.
Claims for compensation of this nature are met by British Rail, which has a good record for doing so responsibly.
The rolling stock involved was some of the new sleeping car rolling stock. I agree that it has been shown to have great strength. That is a matter on which those at British Rail Engineering Ltd. who built it should be congratulated, although it is a pity the strength of its construction has been demonstrated in such unfortunate circumstances.
Mr. Conal Gregory: I am sure that the whole House will share the deep sympathy that has been expressed for those involved in the accident.
As British Rail's safety record in 1982 was the best that it had ever had, I ask my hon. Friend to see that no pressure is put on the management of BR, as a result of this investigation, to tell staff to make up time. If it is found on any occasion that someone is falling behind time, the time should not be made up at the expense of safety. Safety should always be paramount.
Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's expression of sympathy to those injured and inconvenienced by what occurred. British Rail, the whole House and I share his sentiments.
The safety record of British Rail is outstanding. Both management and staff have reason to be proud of it. Whether BR's disciplinary procedures in relation to late trains may or may not be a contributory factor is a question for the inquiry, and it would not be right for me to comment on it today.
Mr. John Ryman: As the disaster occurred only a few miles from my constituency, may I endorse the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State's tribute to the ambulance and fire services and to the local people who gave their help?
Will the Minister clarify his statement on two points? In the 1969 disaster involving the Aberdonian, six people were killed and 120 injured on the same notorious Morpeth curve. Have any steps been taken by British Rail to make the curve less dangerous?
Secondly, why is it that the Minister, who is appointing a board of inquiry to investigate the disaster, has expressed an opinion about the possible cause of the disaster? He alluded to excess speed. There are many other causes that could have contributed to the disaster.
Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for concurring with my view about the help provided by the emergency services and by local people. I endorse his remarks.
As he says, a previous accident occurred on this curve. In this case the train was travelling south and before reaching the site of the accident would have passed speed limit indications saying "Reduce to 80 miles an hour", "Reduce to 70 miles an hour", and "Reduce to 50 miles an hour". The operating instructions should therefore be adequate to prevent an accident involving excessive speed. However, as the hon. Gentleman says, it may be better that
690
I should leave these matters to the inquiry than that I should speculate on them now or follow other hon. Members in doing so.
Mr. Robert Adley: Everyone feels sympathy for those involved in an accident such as this. Is it not an unspoken compliment to British Rail's safety record that accidents such as this are occasions for a private notice question, at a time when 16 people are killed and 900 maimed every day on our roads? When will we impose the same safety standards on road users as British Rail is forced to impose on its trains?
Mr. Mitchell: I do not think that may hon. Friend would expect me to give him a detailed answer, but I take his point. It is a sign of how safe rail travel is compared with other options.
Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: I wish to associate myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)—who is at the scene of the accident—with the congratulations and thanks expressed to the local people and emergency services.
The Minister referred to apparent excessive speed. Is any automatic train control device available that could give audible warning of excessive speed? In view of the security and amazing stability of the coaches made by BREL, will there be any impact on other services from the lack of availability of those vehicles? No doubt that has a deleterious effect elsewhere.
Will the Minister ensure that the report is published in good time, and that it will not take at as long as some reports? That is especially important because of the number of accidents at Morpeth. I understand that some reports have taken up to three years to publish.
Mr. Mitchell: On the hon. Gentleman's question about automatic devices relating to the speed of trains, we must wait for the inquiry. The non-availability of rolling stock is a matter for the management of BR. I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's concern to its attention. The inquiry will take place in July and we shall ensure that its results are published as soon as they are available.
Mr. Roland Boyes: I wish to associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) about the regrettable accident and the quality of the carriages that prevented an even greater disaster.
Will the Minister withdraw his outrageous and scandalous remark about the accident appearing to be due to excessive speed, and then saying that there will be an inquiry? The Opposition would be a great deal happier if he would withdraw his remark.
Mr. Mitchell: I cannot unsay what I have said. I am advised that I have given the correct information to the House. The inquiry will examine all aspects of the accident. However, we already know that there was no track failure, because we have had time to examine the track and assure ourselves on that point.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: As a regular user of that line, I should like to know when it is expected that repairs will be completed. I realise that that may be difficult.
The Minister has handsomely congratulated BREL on its excellent workmanship. Should we not, therefore, think

691
again about putting work to some of the outside contractors when that work has been traditionally carried out and could still be carried out by BREL with its expertise?
Mr. Mitchell: BR expects to open the line to traffic by early tomorrow morning. It should be congratulated on that. In the meantime, trains are being diverted to a route usually used only for freight trains, the Blythe Tyne line, which is adding about one hour to the journey——
Mr. Frank Dobson: It is a good thing that the line is still there.
Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government have given British Rail objectives which set out quite clearly that there is to be no programme of major route closures. Therefore, he should not be surprised that the line is still there.
It does not matter whether the purchase of rolling stock comes from one firm or another. The specifications on the strength and general requirements are those of BR's own designs.
Dr. John Marek: In view of BR's excellent safety record, can the Minister assure us that any new rolling stock for British Rail will be built to the same design, specification and strength as the carriages that crashed in this unfortunate accident?
Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot conceivably give him that assurance, because what is required for an express sleeper train is very different from that required for a rail bus on a provincial line, travelling at relatively low speed. I should mislead the House if I were to give the assurance that the hon. Gentleman seeks.
Mr. Richard Holt: Does my hon. Friend accept that people in my constituency in north-east England are worried about the disposal of nuclear waste? After the accident that could not happen at Abbeystead, and now this accident, will my hon. Friend do all in his power to persuade our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to seek an early decision in Cabinet on this vexed question, which is affecting every one of my constituents in north-east England?
Mr. Mitchell: That is a completely different question. I shall write to my hon. Friend about it.

Orders of the Day
  London Regional Transport Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  London Regional Transport Bill
    Clause 2

      PROVISION OF PASSENGER TRANSPORT SERVICES FOR GREATER LONDON
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 40, at end insert—
      '(7) The reference in subsection (2)(a) above to the transport needs of Greater London is a reference to the needs of Greater London with respect to public passenger transport service; for persons travelling within, to or from Greater London, including persons who are disabled.'
      Read a Second time.
      3.50 pm
      Mr. John Prescott: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, (a) in line 6, at end add
      'and where necessary, including the provisions of special transport facilities for people with particular disabilities. '.
      It is unfortunate that the timing of private business may split this debate on the Lords amendments. I shall therefore try to facilitate the procedures of the House by not taking too long in considering the amendments. There is a broad measure of agreement about many aspects of the amendments. That agreement reflects much of what was said in Committee and the views which the Government accepted in another place.
      We are talking about half the cake. The Committee discussed helping the disabled to be recognised as a special group of people requiring special assistance to deal with the problems which they face as a group. The disabled—I believe that there are a quarter of a million disabled people in London—believe that the amendment is essential so that their needs as Londoners are adequately met by the new London Regional Transport body and so that the LRT meets its obligations, for the time being, with regard to the transport needs of Greater London. The amendment to the Lords amendment was debated in another place and was rejected by the Government. We are now considering two parts of the same proposal. The original amendment was passed by the other place to improve the Bill.
      On 2 February 1984 the Minister of State told the Committee:
      "I have purposely resisted adding to LRT's general duties as proposed by amendment No. 16. My experience has been that this is not the best way to help these people, given all the other things that we shall be doing."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 2 February 1984; c. 195–96.]
      The general proposition put by the Minister was that it was not necessary to select the disabled for special treatment. Clause 2 deals with those matters that LRT'
      "shall have due regard to".
      We note that the Government have finally accepted our arguments in Committee and on the Floor of the House that there is a special reason for LRT to take particular account of the disabled so that the required changes and atmosphere are considered in LRT's decision-making process.
      One of the matters that concerned the various disablement groups—Dial-a-Ride was one of many—

      693
      was whether we would fundamentally change the duties of LRT, compared with the duties of London Transport, to meet the transport needs of Greater London. At present, a duty is imposed on London Transport. Under the legisation "due regard" is to be shown by LRT. The Government constantly resisted the idea of imposing a statutory duty on London Transport. "Due regard" is a weakened interpretation of the role, and many disablement groups feel that "due regard" is all that will be taken of their needs. They feel that special measures should be adopted to ensure they are treated properly and fairly in comparison with other Londoners in whatever transport provision is made for Londoners.
      The disabled refuse to accept that the relatively uncontroversial Lords amendment should be included in LRT's general duties. They feel that
      "special transport facilities should be provided for people with particular disabilities."
      I welcome the fact that the Government have gone some way at least towards accepting the first part of the case that disabled people should be given general consideration.
      Our amendment makes it clear that
      "the provision of special transport facilities for those with particular disabilities"
      should be added to the amendment from the other place. In another place, the Government took the view that it was not their responsibility to meet the needs in that way and argued that it was the responsibility of local authorities. Many of the 250,000 disabled Londoners feel that they are denied proper public transport facilities. They believe that LRT must not be able to duck out of its obligation to improve the design standard and service planning of buses and trains to meet the needs of the disabled. Such improvements benefit all public transport users.
      The Government argue that the London boroughs are the proper bodies to provide transport for disabled people, but we believe that that is a fallacious argument, because it is discriminatory. All other aspects of transport are dealt with by LRT. The obligation upon LRT is to provide for the needs of Londoners. Groups representing the disabled believe that special efforts must be made to meet their needs.
      The argument used in the other place against my amendment was that London local authorities had no experience of running public transport, and that is generally the case, but if we are looking to the integrated nature of London transport and to the disabled receiving proper and adequate treatment, we cannot leave it to the boroughs, whatever their political complexion, to determine the provision for the disabled in their areas. That is another argument against borough boundaries. It is felt that local authority boundaries tend to determine the services in an area. They are generally irrelevant to the transport needs of the disabled, who plainly wish to travel in areas of London beyond the immediate local authority boundaries.
      The Dial-a-Ride scheme must be funded centrally if it is to survive, let alone expand. One must consider how the scheme has been financed so far. Local authorities have been providing only about 6 or 8 per cent. of the money needed—£121,000 comes from three local authorities mainly—and the GLC provides about £1·6 million. There is a precept from the local authorities and therefore they all contribute, but those local authorities which have
      694
      contributed extra, such as Islington, have played a major part in establishing and maintaining the facilities which are much appreciated by the disabled.
      Most of the financial support comes from the GLC, which the Government are proposing to abolish. We have had no guarantees from the Government of other sources of funding for this important scheme. It is somewhat ironic that the Government should claim that running the scheme should be a function of the boroughs, at the same time as the Secretary of State for the Environment is taking what measures he can severely to restrict the spending of those boroughs.
      I have read the debates in the other place and the press notices published recently by the Department of Transport—I have one dated 22 June—and considerable sympathy was expressed in the House of Lords and by the Minister of State, who I see was speaking recently at a lunch financed by the GLC at Dean's yard, Westminster.
      The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): It was a press launch.
      4 pm
      Mr. Prescott: One to the Minister. The hon. Lady stressed at the launch of Westminster's Dial-a-Ride scheme that
      "this was not an occasion for political dissension".
      I am bound to say that it is. The difference comes when one votes on the matter. The Government can accept only half the amendments, which were advocated mainly by disablement groups. The Minister probably heard at the launch words to the effect that, although the Government do not accept the amendments, there should be a general responsibility for the disabled and that the Secretary of State should recognise the needs of disabled people. The Government have gone part of the way and have recognised and picked out the disabled as a special group of workers and a special obligation is placed upon London Regional Transport to provide for their needs. It will provide the special facilities needed by the disabled which, are not usually provided.
      We recognise that the measures proposed by the Minister, to which the hon. Lady, referred at the launch of the national advisory unit for community transport, will provide greater advice and co-ordination. That will be welcomed to all concerned, but the measures will create obligations and must be paid for. At the end of the day, such schemes cost money. I assume that if they did not cost money the Minister would look upon them more favourably. The hon. Lady tells us constantly, in Committee and from the Dispatch Box, that she spends much of her time dealing with disabled people, but I must tell her—the Secretary of State will know of this from a rough meeting that he attended—that the disabled are not at all happy with the way in which the Government are meeting the needs of the disabled in London.
      The Government now feel—perhaps the Secretary of State has some experience of the strength of feeling among the disabled following the rough ride that he had at that meeting—that "disabled" should be written into the Bill, despite refusing to do so in Committee or even in the House on previous occasions. I hope that the Government will give further consideration to that. I do not doubt the Minister of State's commitment to doing something for disabled people, but in reality the judgment of what needs to be done must be based on the views of the disabled.

      695
      The Minister has gone so far as to say that disabled people are a special category, so we ask her to recognise that the general powers to be imposed upon the transport authority provide a strong case for giving disabled people the limited means, within their disabilities, of travelling around London. Only if we discriminate in their favour can we hope to meet their transport needs, at least in some small measure, as we have done for all Londoners in the Bill.
      Mrs. Chalker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that it might be for the convenience of the House if you would agree that I should move that this House doth agree with Lords amendment No. 1 so that it can be taken in conjunction with amendment (a). That would allow for a proper debate on the whole issue.
      Mr. Speaker: The amendments are linked, and the hon. Lady may talk to the Lords amendment. There is no need, at this juncture, to move the Question suggested by the hon. Lady.
      Mrs. Chalker: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker, for your clarification.
      I understand why the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has moved the amendment to Lords amendment No. 1. I shall come to that in a moment, but first I shall speak to the Lords amendment, which contains an important provision. It fulfils an undertaking that was given in another place. There has been no doubt about the strong feeling about the Bill expressed on both sides of the House that disabled people should be referred to explicitly in the Bill.
      The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East reminded us that we did not feel able to agree to the suggestion, which was made at earlier stages of the Bill, that LRT should have a duty to meet the needs of the disabled. We felt that that would have been incompatible with the rest of the amendment and, indeed, with other groups.
      Lords amendment No. 1 makes it absolutely clear that the needs of disabled people, no matter how severe their disability, are included in the reference to the transport needs of Greater London and that LRT must have due regard to them in carrying out its general duty under clause 2.
      Lords amendment No. 1 is backed by other provisions that were put into the Bill. LRT is required to include in its annual report to the Secretary of State a specific statement of the action that it has taken in relation to public transport services and facilities for disabled people. That amendment was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) and will ensure that LRT has a clear remit to develop and improve those services within the resources available.
      I welcomed that amendment when it was introduced. There is a clear duty upon LRT in relation to the design of and access to different modes of transport to fulfil the needs of the disabled. There is also a clear duty, which will be spelt out for the members of the board in due course, to get on with all they can do to help.
      Mr. Nigel Spearing: I think that we must get this straight. The Minister says that LRT will have a duty, but I understand that she has resisted the use of that very word in the statute. Is she saying that "have
      696
      regard" will mean that LRT has a duty to continue the Dial-a-Ride scheme to the extent, say, that the GLC is doing now?
      Mrs. Chalker: I should know that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) can be very quick at twisting words. I do not think that he intended to do so. If I misled him, I must apologise.
      I must tell the hon Gentleman that LRT is required by the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter, which was taken on Report, to make a statement about its action in any previous year concerning its public transport services and facilities for disabled people.
      I went on to say—I was not using "duty" in the sense of the words in the statute per se—that it must be incumbent upon LRT in all common sense to examine the design of and access to the different modes of transport as part of its job. Otherwise, it could not make a report that would reflect its instructions and objectives. I do not think that there is any difference between us. I shall come to the point about Dial-a-Ride in a moment.
      It will be clear that LRT will work towards developing and improving services for the disabled. Some services are capable of improvement. I told the Committee, however, that some deep underground stations would not be accessible by wheelchair unless they were rebuilt completely at that point. Nobody has ever suggested that one could make the whole of the public transport system accessible to chairbound people.
      LRT will have a general duty under clause 2 to have due regard to the needs of disabled people. That duty already includes care for those who depend upon the special services, as well as those who are less severely disabled but who have difficulty in using buses or underground trains. It applies equally to the elderly and to mothers with prams and small children.
      I am well aware of the importance of LRT having powers to enable it, where appropriate, to offer technical assistance and advice, or even financial support if it deems that that is required, to those who provide specialist services for the disabled. Here, I include schemes such as the various Dial-a-Ride operations and the GLC's taxi card scheme for the disabled. It remains my view that it is for local authorities to identify the special needs of the severely disabled. I say this particularly because it is not reasonable to require the LRT board to identify those people and their special needs. The people who are best placed to do so are the London boroughs, which in any case deal with needs other than transport for the very same people.
      However, what we are after is getting LRT to play an active part in any provision that is subsequently made, to the extent that is appropriate in discharging its general duty. I believe that that is realistic in the light of the resources available and that it is the best that we can do to help those who are disabled, because——
      Mr. Harry Cohen: Will the Minister give way?
      Mrs. Chalker: I should like to finish what I am saying. The hon. Gentleman will have a chance to speak.
      It is absolutely clear that LRT will not be set up to identify the need, but the London boroughs can and should identify the need. At a later stage, the various ways of

      697
      fulfilling that need can be considered by both the London boroughs and LRT. There is no reason why that cannot happen.
      The hon. Member for Newham, South mentioned Dial-a-Ride straight away, which is understandable. There are good schemes, not just in, but outside, London. Some of them are very much more expensive than others, and I think that the hon. Gentleman realises that. A fund of good experience is available. The reason that I agreed to set up the London branch of the national advisory unit for community transport was to bring together the best practice and knowledge so that they can be used for all disabled people in London as well as outside and so that there is an exchange of that information.
      Hon. Members might have lost sight of the fact that the money that the GLC is currently using to fund the Dial-a-Ride services has come from the boroughs through the GLC precept. That resource will be available to the individual boroughs, and they can—I am certain that they will—allocate on the basis of their assessment of the needs and priorities.
      Mr. Frank Dobson: Really.
      Mrs. Chalker: However much the hon. Gentleman may tut-tut, I know full well that the London boroughs that are concerned about the issue and have Dial-a-Ride schemes in their areas are looking to the future of those schemes in a positive sense. For that reason the House would be well advised to agree with the Lords in amendment No. 1, but to resist the addition, which imposes an extra duty on LRT, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East said. There is no way in which that can be fully carried out by a nationalised industry, but there is every way in which the boroughs should identify the need. LRT can work, through design and access to its own modes of transport, towards increasing the number of people who can use its public transport over the years. If there were small adjustments in the facilities, many people would be able to use public transport in future.
      Therefore, I advise my colleagues to agree with the Lords in amendment No. 1, but I do not believe that we would serve any good purpose, other than raising expectations in a way that, practicably, cannot be fulfilled, by agreeing to amendment (a). Therefore, I advise the House to resist amendment (a), moved by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East.
      4.15 pm
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The fundamental reason why the Liberal party supports the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) is—the Secretary of State often used to disagree with our interpretation of what might happen—that we do not trust LRT to do things that, in statute, it is not bound to do or have due regard to. In Committee, on a regular basis, members of the Labour party and of my party, including my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), sought to move amendments that would write into the statute duties and considerations for LRT to bear in mind. One of the most important areas in which we sought to tie down the body that is to become LRT was in relation to the disabled.
      It has already been correctly established that we are talking not about a statutory duty but about a consideration
      698
      that the board must take into account. We know that, as the Bill stood before it was amended in the other place, it was a fairly broad-brush approach and the duty on LRT was much less demanding than all of us in the Opposition wished. It limited the new LRT to the least duty any transport authority has ever had in London, when catering for the needs of its people. LRT simply had to
      "have due regard to—

      (a) the transport needs for the time being of Greater London; and

      (b) efficiency, economy and safety of operation."

      The latter is the dangerous thin end of the wedge.
      The Lords added that the first words should be interpreted specifically as a reference
      "to the needs of Greater London with respect to public transport services for persons travelling within, to or from Greater London, including persons who are disabled."
      The amendment seeks to make sure that there is provision
      "of special transport facilities for people with particular disabilities."
      The tragedy is that the Minister's resistance to the amendment flies in the face of the logic of the argument that she advanced throughout the earlier stages of the Bill. The specific reason is this. The Government eventually accepted that if local authorities did not agree on a single concessionary fares scheme, there would have to be a reserve power in LRT—for the Secretary of State—to implement a single unitary scheme. The Government accepted that 32 boroughs plus the City of London could not have separate schemes.
      The Minister said that, in transport matters, she believed that it was proper that the local authorities should take into account and therefore seek to provide for the needs of the disabled. That is inconsistent because, first, they are not the transport authority and, second, it is ludicrous for one borough to be planning without regard to what the other boroughs are doing. We have all received letters from the Federation of London Dial-a-Rides. In my borough of Southwark, as in all other boroughs, there are disablement associations. Those bodies talk to each other, surprising though it may seem. They can agree on what they need and want on behalf of those with different types of disability across London. It is irrelevant and inconsistent—I exclude reasons of economic constraint, which have been alluded to—for the Government to say that the boroughs alone must be allowed to make provision.
      It is clear to all of us that borough boundaries are normally irrelevant for disabled as well as able people, when they are travelling. People do not decide to get off public transport if they know that they will cross from Southwark to Lambeth, Lewisham or Greenwich. They have work to do and friends and relatives to visit across London. That is why London Transport has grown to be a united transport system. Therefore, it is appropriate that the transport authority, whatever it be and whatever reservations many of us have about the new authority, has a co-ordinated approach, which is established in statute.
      I ask the Minister to think again and to apply logic to her case. Boroughs, through their social services departments or otherwise, will always arrange additional facilities, if they have the money. Where they can, they will support facilities for the disabled through grants, as they do for other groups in respect of which they have a duty. However, that does not mean that they exclusively must have that job. Amendments were accepted by the Government in Committee that stated that as long as the

      699
      GLC existed—the Bill will come into force when the GLC is still in existence, whatever happens later—we must take account of the fact that that body is there and plan for its continuation, unless and until the House of Commons and the other place decide otherwise. It is inconsistent for the Government to anticipate that after the GLC is abolished, only the boroughs will be involved. It is inconsistent with what the Minister eventually accepted as proper as a result of amendments tabled by her hon. Friends in Committee and, because it will not assist the coordination of transport facilities for the disabled in London.
      Two days before the European elections, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) and I visited an institution called Lambeth Accord, which was set up with funding from the European Community. It is temporarily housed in a hospital building in Lambeth and is about to move to its own premises. It seeks to allow the disabled to work and to provide the transport facilities necessary for them to get to work, and to get home easily. The disabled are an enormous resource for London in terms of services, work and provision, and they form a large group of people whose needs we should recognise more than we have done in the past.
      Generally the Minister has a good record on the disabled. Will she agree that it is consistent with what she accepted that we should do, with the Government's attitude in Committee and with trying to give the new nationalised industry a human face, that she should accept amendment (a) and not divide the House on it?
      Mr. Tom Cox: I give my full support to amendment (a). In Committee there were many debates about the provision of services for disabled people in London. Our country can take credit for the fact that recently much progress has been made in the development of a wide range of services for disabled people. That is how it should be. Disabled people have the same rights as able people. Many of them are taxpayers, almost all of them are ratepayers, and they therefore have a right to seek improved services to help them enjoy life more fully.
      However, I must remind the Minister, who talked about the role of local authorities in the development of transport services for the disabled, that in many debates on the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill hon. Members from all parties argued time and time again that if those services were left to certain local authorities to provide, nothing would ever be done. We know that for a fact. Throughout the country some authorities, irrespective of their political points of view, have provided services, but sadly many Conservative authorities have made only token improvements and done little to improve those services. Successive Governments have believed that services should be improved, but when they were pressed—as the Minister is being pressed—to include specific provisions in a Bill, those provisions were rejected. The outcome of that has been that authorities have said, "We have sympathy, but we cannot do anything about it."
      The weakness of the Minister's argument lies in leaving it to the 32 London boroughs to organise an economical service for the disabled. Although the hon. Lady is not a London Member, she is familiar with the London scene and has lived here for many years. She cannot believe in her heart of hearts that those 32 boroughs of different
      700
      political persuasions will agree that there is no need to write a particular provision into the Bill because they are committed to helping the disabled.
      It is to the credit of the Greater London council that it has made progress in providing services for the disabled, especially the Dial-a-Ride service. It does not operate in all boroughs, but that is no reason to criticise it, because services must be developed. Where it does exist, it has brought great benefits to the disabled. For the first time they have been able to leave their homes and travel across London to see friends and relatives. It has given them a great feeling of independence. Sadly, they know that the provision is now under threat. They cannot use the bus and underground services. I have received letters—many hon. Members who represent London constituencies will also have received letters—which have spoken in glowing terms of that service. That is why it is so tragic that we are still fighting the Minister for a provision which gives a clear commitment to the continuation of such services.
      Hon. Members need only look at the record of the 32 London boroughs to have the gravest doubts whether this service will continue. Many of them will say, "We are sympathetic, but because of the Government's policies on rate capping, we shall have less money available to spend on our responsibilities and we shall not have sufficient funds to continue to pay for a service such as Dial-a-Ride."
      The borough of Wandsworth, where the Minister once lived, even before we ask what contribution it will make to the continuation of the Dial-a-Ride service, is cutting its grants to services for the elderly, such as those provided by Age Concern and Taskforce. Those organisations have proved themselves in their work for the elderly. and their grants, which are essential if they are to provide the services needed by the elderly, are being cut. If that borough were asked to contribute, we know what its answer would be.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said that the GLC contributed about £1,600,000 to the Dial- a-Ride service from its rate precept. Because the GLC had the funds, it had the commitment to develop this service. Even if the GLC had not received the money by the rate precept and the money ramained in the hands of the local treasurers of the local authorities, the boroughs would not have met and said, "The GLC could have levied the rate precept on us to provide a service, but it did not, so we shall do it ourselves." The Minister of State knows that that is impossible. The record clearly shows that.
      4.30 pm
      This is our opportunity to write into the Bill a provision that will not only continue the existing service but allow for its development. If no such provision is inserted, there is no doubt that the service will begin to break down and that, in a matter of months, the service as we know it will no longer exist. Recently, the Federation of London Dial-a-Rides said:
      "London-wide services are the only way of providing us with the special services that many of us need and with the integration that all of us need, and on the basis of a lower overall cost than fragmented borough services. We need public transport services at public transport fares, not an approach which regards us as social service cases."
      That organisation is in daily contact with those who use the Dial-a-Ride service, and it strengthens the point that I made earlier: since the service was introduced, many

      701
      people are now independent enough to leave their homes and visit their friends, which was impossible for them previously.
      We spend enormous amounts of money on space development and employ many highly qualified people in it. Are we really saying that we cannot provide a properly integrated transport service for London that will meet the needs of the disabled? That is what we are being told by the Minister today. Anyone can become disabled—I hope that it does not happen to any of us in the House—and Members of Parliament constantly come across cases of people who were fit and active suddenly, through illness or an accident, becoming disabled. What right do we have to say to them, "Now that you are disabled you cannot expect services similar to those which you enjoyed when you were fit and active."? If the Government do not move towards obliging the new transport authority to provide those services, it will not be long before they disappear.
      If the Minister rejects the amendment, she and the Secretary of State should bow their heads in shame. By rejecting the amendment, they will serve a sentence on the disabled to be confined to their homes indefinitely. What the Minister will not accept is that once the provision is written into the Bill it will be the financial responsibility of an authority with the overall ability to run and develop services. Left to the boroughs, there can be no doubt—many Opposition Members can speak from experience of what already happens in their boroughs—that the service will be killed off. It will be a damning indictment of the Government if the services which the disabled wish to see extended and developed are allowed to die.
      Mr. Laurie Pavitt: This debate is on a short amendment and, with other hon. Members, I welcome Lords amendment No. 1. When pressure is put upon Members of Parliament by their constituents and by organisations, in many cases it results in us seeking to make it imperative for the Government to act. There are two classic ways out for the Government, one of which we are discussing now. Instead of using words such as "impose a duty", they prefer to use "have regard to". The other classic way out is that if an Act puts a statutory responsibility upon bodies, the Government's plea is to make that duty not obligatory but voluntary. More escape routes have been found with that plea than with any other.
      I must be telepathic because I start with a point similar to that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox). I draw a parallel between this amendment and the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 on which, like every other Bill concerned with health for the past 25 years, I served in Committee. This amendment seeks to do precisely what we sought to do in Committee and on Report of that Act with regard to local authorities catering for the needs of the disabled when granting planning permission. At that time a Labour Government were in power and they resisted their own Back-Bench amendment just as the Minister is resisting ours this afternoon. That is not a critical point, because Departments and Ministers tend always to resist such amendments, whichever party is in power.
      In the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act we sought to oblige local authorities to provide facilities for the disabled in every public place, but when the Act came
      702
      onto the statute book it contained a phrase similar to the ones put forward by the Minister this afternoon—"take into consideration" or "have regard to". That Act was passed 14 years ago, but planning permission is still given for supermarkets, stores and other public buildings without adequate consideration being given to the needs of the disabled. The Minister has come once again to the Dispatch Box and said things like, "We shall keep this in mind." I trust the hon. Lady and, with my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting, I hold her in high regard. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) appealed to her to use her logic. I hope that she will do that, and I believe that I can rely on her compassion. But she will be applying neither logic nor compassion to this amendment. She will apply the Whips, and we cannot win because when the Division is called the party vote will be mobilised against the amendment.
      I have been proud to be associated with the Greater London Association for the Disabled, which has the good fortune to have the acronym GLAD. I am even more proud of the association in Brent. Unfortunately its initials are BAD, but there is nothing bad about the Brent Association for the Disabled. It does a tremendous job of work. There is profound concern in both organisations about London Transport's facilities for those who are unfortunate enough to be disabled in one way or another and about the improvement of those facilities which is so necessary in a compassionate and affluent society.
      Let me give one example. Invariably, when we think of the disabled we think of those who are paraplegic or about access to places such as lavatories by those in wheelchairs. I am much involved with another group—the blind. As the House knows, I have introduced a number of measures in the House in order to help those people. Mobility for them creates a different set of problems. It is no good "having regard to" those problems. We have a duty to blind people. As has been mentioned, the disabled pay both taxes and rates. More important, such people should not be put into ghettos. As long as they can work, they should be treated as normal members of the community. The ability of the blind to work depends upon their mobility. Unfortunately, given the present unemployment, twice as many blind people are unemployed compared with the national average in every area where statistics are available. One reason for that is that when there is unemployment the disabled or the blind are likely to go to the wall first. Such people cannot continue in employment unless they can get there. Therefore, to talk about "having regard to" is no good. A duty must be laid upon the new London Transport organisation if we are to get what we want.
      I draw the attention of the House to the innovation just opposite St. Margaret's, where a section of the pavement has been altered. I give credit to the Minister because she had much influence in getting that experiment underway. If that experiment is a success for the blind—I believe that it will be—is it not incumbent upon the new LRT to take similar steps to assist people on underground stations so that they know where they can board the train?
      For 50 years my constituency built London Transport buses. Unfortunately, as a result of BL's mismanagement, although we were making £4 million a year profit, that factory had to be closed in order to make way for Minis. The London Transport Board was directly involved in the design of buses for the disabled, not just for the disabled of one borough but for the disabled all over London. There

      703
      were two major centres. One was the making of buses at Park Royal in my constituency and the other was at Chiswick, where buses were repaired, altered and adapted. There, time after time, I had some small influence in the building of buses, backed by organisations for the disabled and the trade unions. I was able to bring together the people who made the buses, the Vehicle Builders Trades Union, those who controlled them—the London Transport Executive—and the disabled who needed the services. That cannot be divided between 32 boroughs.
      The Minister chose her words carefully. I always listen to her with great care. She does not drop many bricks; like all of us, she drops a few from time to time, but rarely. She made it abundantly clear that diagnosis is the responsibility of 32 London boroughs but that treatment is for the centre. If one applied the logic of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that would not exist. Information should be correlated with those who have responsibility for building and running a transport system in order to produce treatment for the needs diagnosed.
      As I said, this has been a classic debate. I know of a number of statutes which have been passed by the House which include a similar escape clause, making something desirable but not obligatory. I was a member of the Committee which dealt with the legislation establishing the GLC, as was the Secretary of State for Education and Science. I understand that he is now engaged in disestablishing it. Precisely the same problem arose then. A centralised expertise was needed to deal with disabled people because there are areas which cannot be dealt with in a small community. Once the GLC was established there had to be liaison with local boroughs in order to marry the needs of the disabled in between six and 10 local boroughs. Why have more and more liaison committees? Like most hon. Members, I have my prejudices. One is against liaison committees which seem to create more and more work, minutes and administrators. If only one went to the heart of the problem they would not be needed.
      4.45 pm
      The Minister is resisting the opportunity to impose a duty upon the centre rather than having a series of liaison committees. I fear that the dreaded lurgi of the House—the Whips' Office—will impose the whip. The Prime Minister, with her majority in the country, will say that the Government have a mandate. But people do not want the facilities for the mobility of the disabled to be affected in such a way as to exclude them from the community. As far as possible, we try to treat both the mentally and physically disabled exactly the same as everybody else. I urge the Minister to have a rapid talk with the Chief Whip and to tell him that she cannot stand it any more and will concede the amendment.
      Mr. Tony Banks: I had hoped that some Conservative Members would have spoken on this matter. I cannot believe that every Conservative Member is opposed to amendment (a). It makes a lot of sense. We have had many such arguments in Committee. Then and again during the brief debate this afternoon, Labour Members have paid due credit to the Minister for her great concern for disabled people. Before I join in that chorus I want to suggest that the Minister cannot will the ends without also willing the means. If she really wants to go down in transport history as the person who had so much regard for the disabled, she should do something
      704
      more positive about it by writing into the Bill a statutory provision, to be imposed upon LRT. As far as I can see, the Minister wants it all ways. She wants to use the honeyed words but does not want to be seen to be delivering the goods—or perhaps she cannot. I certainly accept her good intentions, but, as has been said before, Ministers change.
      The Act is what we are then left with, and it has to be interpreted. Within a short space of time—who knows?—the Minister might become the Secretary of State for the Environment—I understand that the Government are looking round for one at the moment—and the new person in the Ministry of Transport might not have the current Minister's concern for people with disabilities. Thus there is no substitute for having this written into the Act. All the good intentions and words in the House amount to nothing when the Act is read at a later date. The Minister said that LRT will be required to make a statement on what it has done. However, as Opposition Members have said, a statement might amount to the fact that it has done nothing, or has considered the problems but found that it cannot afford to do anything.
      The Minister said that local authorities would have the responsibility of identifying the needs of the seriously disabled and those with disability in their areas. This will vary markedly from borough to borough. In any case, the boroughs are not transport authorities. People with disabilities have a right to have access to public transport. This should not be a bit of charity that is handed out to them as a concession. It is therefore the responsibility of the transport authority to identify the demands upon it by people with disabilities, and to provide transport resources accordingly. It is not the responsibility of the boroughs. A statutory obligation should be placed on the transport authority to preserve the schemes that already exist in London and to continue to develop them. In London, as elsewhere, it is clear that we do not do enough for the transport needs of people with disabilities. We compare unfavourably with countries and cities abroad. To its credit, the GLC launched a major programme of experimental initiatives in 1982. This has made great advances in the provision of transport facilities for people with disabilities. Little, if anything, was done previously. Much remains to be done.
      Opposition Members are concerned that all the work that has been done will begin to disappear as the individual boroughs are given responsibility. It is the responsibility of the transport undertaking to cater for the needs of all Londoners, including those with disabilities.
      The Minister said that the boroughs will consider ways of maintaining the various schemes. We know the difference in the attitude of the boroughs. The Minister said that, if the GLC is abolished, the boroughs will have that much more money in hand to maintain the schemes, thus making a crude trade-off between precept and extra balances in hand. It will not work out like that. The Minister ignores the redistributive effect of having a regional authority like the GLC. It is not just a question of taking from one borough in precept and giving it back by way of a scheme for people with disability. The GLC precepts across the whole of London, and some boroughs have greater problems than others. The GLC is able to use that large rate base provided by the City, Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea and Camden to redistribute across London as a whole. The boroughs will not have that much more money in hand to meet services that the GLC will

      705
      no longer provide if and when it is abolished. In addition, there is the prospect of rate capping, which will impose burdens upon the boroughs. My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) represents Wandsworth in this House, and I represent that borough at county hall. We know what that local authority is like. I can assure the House that any extra money that Wandsworth can get will go not towards providing transport schemes for the disabled or for the elderly, but towards reducing the rate demand.
      Mr. John Maples: The hon. Gentleman says that London boroughs will not have additional funds to meet such obligations, but the White Paper "Streamlining the Cities" makes it clear that the rate equalisation scheme will be adjusted to take account of the redistributive effect of the GLC rate, and no borough would be financially disadvantaged as a result of the change.
      Mr. Banks: I will believe that when I see it. The White Paper says nothing about rate-capping, because it was not envisaged at that time, but it must be added into the equation.
      Mrs. Chalker: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate. I do not think that any hon. Members, however generous and determined to help severely disabled people and disabled people to use London transport in its various forms, can lose sight of the fact that resources have to be made available and that the best people to decide what the needs of the disabled people are must be the local authorities nearest to them. I will not enter the discussion that started between my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) and the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). If the GLC ceases to exist, the money that is precepted by it from the boroughs at present will be available for the boroughs to allocate on the basis of their assessment of the priorities.
      I fully accept that Dial-a-Ride in the many different areas provides a valuable service, but the costs vary greatly between one area and another. That is one reason why I set up the London branch of the national advisory unit for community transport, to try to make better use of the resources that are already going into it. If its work comes to the fruition that I know that it can, many schemes will be able to bring down their costs, which will make the boroughs even more willing to carry on the schemes, and give them a long-term future.
      I understand the analogy that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) sought to make. To the extent that there is an analogy with concessionary fares, I would make the same comment that I made earlier on the subject. Local authorities should have the prime responsibility. The equivalent provision would have to be a fall-back scheme for the severely disabled, which is considerably different from what amendment (a) proposes. Even if such an amendment had been tabled, we could not have supported it. Provision for the severely disabled is not like concessionary fares, where the nature of the need is a simple financial one. The nature of the needs of severely disabled people is much more complicated. That is what I sought to say earlier.
      Disabled people are far better qualified to judge—and that means contact at the local authority level—how
      706
      the money should be spent upon them. I want the boroughs that have been pioneers to continue to take the lead. Perhaps one day a scheme will be organised jointly by the boroughs, but the Bill is not the place to introduce such a provision, let alone to introduce it as a duty on London regional transport. That is where the analogy falls down.
      The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) knows the reality of the situation. He made some kind remarks for which I thank him. I understand the anxieties of the Greater London Association for the Disabled and the Brent Association for the Disabled, and the anxieties of other severely disabled people. The hon. Gentleman made some valuable points. He gave an example of something which, thanks to the Transport and Road Research Laboratory, we are using in Westminster—the tactile pavement. It is for London Regional Transport at least to have knowledge of what can be done. We shall be encouraging it to do that. It is not for London Regional Transport to have a duty towards the severely disabled when the boroughs know best what can most assist the severely disabled.
      I suppose that it is not surprising in such a debate that the Opposition have ignored the positive advances that the Bill makes on transport for the disabled in London. For the first time, London Regional Transport, unlike LTE, will have to report annually on the steps that it has taken in respect of the disabled.
      Mr. Cohen rose——
      5 pm
      Mrs. Chalker: I shall not give way, as I know that the hon. Gentleman is anxious for me to conclude.
      I have already announced that the London Regional Passengers Committee will have representatives on it to put forward the needs of the disabled both to British Rail and LRT, whom it will serve. In Lords amendment No. 1, we take yet a further step to help the disabled. In addition, a member of the LRT board—that main board of 12 people—will be given the responsibility of paying due regard to the needs of the disabled as well as those of the rest of the travelling public. It is not a statutory requirement, but I have decided that what is proposed is reasonable. We have taken several very positive steps forward in providing a service for the disabled. It is unreasonable to add amendment (a), and I ask the House to reject it.
      Mr. Prescott: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate.
      The Minister has given us a lot of tea and sympathy. All the amendments, including the latest proposal that she has just mentioned, were moved by the Opposition in Committee, and rejected by her. All of the amendments and recommendations about the London Regional Passengers Committee having some responsibility for the disabled were debated at length in Committee. They were all rejected, with the support of Conservative Back Benchers. Now, without a murmur, they are put forward as being a successful aspect of the Government's policy and we are criticised for not understanding what the Government have done.
      It is difficult to understand, because no one knew anything about the latest proposal. In reality, none of the proposals costs the Government a penny. Those involved with the Dial-a-Ride scheme want money, organisation and support. If their needs are to be met, the Bill must first

      707
      recognise them. The Minister has gone part way towards recognition. It will now be recognised that due regard must be given to the transport needs of the disabled. Our amendment says that, given that there is a group of people to whom special attention should be given, it logically follows that the means should be provided with which to meet their special needs. In that way the obligation to meet all the needs of Londoners can be fulfilled.
      In this debate, every hon. Member has shown great concern and has recognised the problem for local authorities if the GLC is abolished. Even if, as the Minister says, the local authorities are pushed to fulfil the obligation, they will tell her—particularly with the rate-capping proposals—that they need the money with which to do so. Local authorities have plenty of duties imposed on them, but insufficient resources to carry them out. The Minister will be asking them to carry out a new duty, and none of us sees much sense in following that route.
      The disabled are the most important group in this regard, and I am very sorry that the Minister has not accepted our amendment. It should be realised that, however she feels, the hon. Lady cannot accept it because the Government are desperately rushing the Bill through. If any amendment is accepted tonight it will have to be dealt with in the other place, and that will delay the Bill. That factor is having a powerful effect in concentrating the Government's mind.
      The Minister says that the local authorities should look to the needs of the disabled, but she should recognise that LRT can do that job quite adequately. Indeed, the National Bus Company and some of the community schemes offer organisational and financial support in some of the areas in which bus trial area schemes have taken place. Thus, it is not unique for a nationalised body to assist. In the circumstances, to ask local authorities to undertake that duty is quite unacceptable.
      We cannot accept the Minister's rejection of our amendment. Many fine words have been spoken about her concern for the disabled, and it is true that she spends a considerable amount of time looking at the problems, but although her face may be the more acceptable face of Tory women, that will not be demonstrated in the Lobby tonight. Tonight she will be voting on as hard a line as any Conservative Member and will be denying the disabled people of London the opportunity of some basic mobility to meet their needs as a basic right. Without any hesitation, I ask the House to support our amendment.
      Question put, That the amendment to the proposed Lords amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 118, Noes 208.

      Division No. 380]

      [5.05 pm

      AYES

      Alton, David

      Buchan, Norman

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Caborn, Richard

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

      Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

      Cartwright, John

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Barnett, Guy

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Barron, Kevin

      Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

      Beckett, Mrs Margaret

      Cohen, Harry

      Benn, Tony

      Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

      Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

      Corbett, Robin

      Blair, Anthony

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Boyes, Roland

      Crowther, Stan

      Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      708

      Dalyell, Tam

      Marek, Dr John

      Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

      Meadowcroft, Michael

      Deakins, Eric

      Michie, William

      Dobson, Frank

      Mikardo, Ian

      Dormand, Jack

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Eadie, Alex

      O'Brien, William

      Eastham, Ken

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Ellis, Raymond

      Park, George

      Evans, John (St. Helens N)

      Patchett, Terry

      Fatchett, Derek

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Faulds, Andrew

      Pike, Peter

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

      Prescott, John

      Fisher, Mark

      Radice, Giles

      Flannery, Martin

      Redmond, M.

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

      Fraser, J. (Norwood)

      Richardson, Ms Jo

      Freud, Clement

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

      George, Bruce

      Rogers, Allan

      Golding, John

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Gould, Bryan

      Sheerman, Barry

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Skinner, Dennis

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'bury)

      Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

      Snape, Peter

      Howells, Geraint

      Soley, Clive

      Hoyle, Douglas

      Spearing, Nigel

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Stott, Roger

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Thorne, Stan (Preston)

      John, Brynmor

      Tinn, James

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Wainwright, R.

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Wareing, Robert

      Leighton, Ronald

      Welsh, Michael

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

      Williams, Rt Hon A.

      Litherland, Robert

      Winnick, David

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Don Dixon.

      McWilliam, John

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Carlisle, John (N Luton)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Alexander, Richard

      Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Cash, William

      Ashby, David

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

      Chapman, Sydney

      Batiste, Spencer

      Chope, Christopher

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Benyon, William

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Cockeram, Eric

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Coombs, Simon

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Cope, John

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Cormack, Patrick

      Bottomley, Peter

      Couchman, James

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)

      Critchley, Julian

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Crouch, David

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Dicks, Terry

      Bright, Graham

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Brinton, Tim

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

      Browne, John

      Dover, Den

      Bruinvels, Peter

      Dunn, Robert

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Durant, Tony

      Budgen, Nick

      Dykes, Hugh

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Burt, Alistair

      Evennett, David

      Butterfill, John

      Eyre, Sir Reginald

      709

      Fallon, Michael

      Neubert, Michael

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Fletcher, Alexander

      Norris, Steven

      Forman, Nigel

      Ottaway, Richard

      Fox, Marcus

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Franks, Cecil

      Parris, Matthew

      Freeman, Roger

      Pawsey, James

      Gale, Roger

      Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)

      Galley, Roy

      Price, Sir David

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Gorst, John

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Gow, Ian

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Gregory, Conal

      Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

      Grylls, Michael

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Rowe, Andrew

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Sackville, Hon Thomas

      Hannam, John

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Hargreaves, Kenneth

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Harris, David

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Harvey, Robert

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

      Silvester, Fred

      Hawksley, Warren

      Sims, Roger

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Hayward, Robert

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Speed, Keith

      Henderson, Barry

      Speller, Tony

      Hickmet, Richard

      Spencer, Derek

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

      Stern, Michael

      Holt, Richard

      Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

      Hooson, Tom

      Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

      Hordern, Peter

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      Howard, Michael

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

      Sumberg, David

      Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

      Tapsell, Peter

      Hubbard-Miles, Peter

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Hunter, Andrew

      Terlezki, Stefan

      Jackson, Robert

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

      Jones, Robert (W Herts)

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Thurnham, Peter

      Kershaw, Sir Anthony

      Tracey, Richard

      Key, Robert

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Knowles, Michael

      Viggers, Peter

      Latham, Michael

      Waddington, David

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Walden, George

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

      Lester, Jim

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

      Watson, John

      Maclean, David John

      Watts, John

      Major, John

      Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Wheeler, John

      Maples, John

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Mather, Carol

      Wolfson, Mark

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Wood, Timothy

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Woodcock, Michael

      Mayhew, Sir Patrick

      Yeo, Tim

      Merchant, Piers

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Miller, Hal (B'grove)

      Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Mr. Tim Sainsbury and Mr. Archie Hamilton.

      Moynihan, Hon C.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Lords amendment No. 1 agreed to.

    Clause 3

      GENERAL POWERS.
      Lords amendment: No. 2 in page 3, line 10, leave out from beginning to "any" in line 16 and insert—
      "(3) The duty of London Regional Transport and the Railways Board under section 2(3) of this Act to co-operate for the purpose mentioned in paragraph (a) of that subsection shall extend to any public passenger transport services provided by any person other than a subsidiary of London Regional Transport under an agreement entered into by London Regional Transport by virtue of subsection (2) above; and any such agreement shall include such provision as appears to London Regional Transport to be appropriate—

      (a) for securing the proper discharge of their general duty under subsection (1) of that section; and

      (b) for the purposes of the co-operation with the Railways Board required of them by subsection (3)(a) of that section.

      (3A) Without prejudice to subsection (3) above,"
      5.15 pm
      The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords Amendment No. 8.
      Mr. Ridley: I shall ask the House to agree also to Lords Amendment No. 8.
      Amendment No. 2 arises out of an undertaking that I gave on Report to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) to consider whether a stronger link could be made between LRT's duties under clause 2 and its power under clause 3(2) to make arrangements for others who provide services on its behalf.
      Amendment No. 2, although not necessary because the legislation makes the position clear, will ensure that link. On balance I thought it desirable to add the provision to the Bill. The amendment stresses the continuing nature of LRT's duties under clause 2, regardless of whether services are provided by LRT, its subsidiaries or by other operators under clause 3(2) agreements.
      We agreed in another place, after representations, that there was merit in amending clause 34 to place LRT under a specific requirement to show in its annual report what action it had taken in co-ordinating its services with British Rail services. I take the matter seriously and I shall take a personal interest in what happens. I thought it right that LRT should be asked to report. Amendment No. 8 provides for that.
      Mr. Nigel Spearing: The Minister may consider this to be a belt and braces amendment. We note that it extends the duty of LRT significantly to the "other persons" to whom reference is made. The object of the Bill is to enable London Transport, in some cases at the Minister's direction, to bring in private enterprise and create subsidiaries of LRT to run certain services. As it is some time since we discussed those matters, the Minister may care to remind us of the position.
      I presume that the subsidiaries will remain companies wholly owned, or be over 50 per cent. owned, by LRT, that the "other persons" will be persons in the sense of other companies, or perhaps individuals or contractors, and that we shall have, as it were, three levels of administration—four, taking the Minister into account—including 55 The Broadway in its new guise; the

      711
      subsidiaries, which, no doubt, will be partially book or accounting subsidiaries, with their head offices at that address, as they were prior to 1912; and the "other persons" referred to in the amendment.
      New subsection (3) places a duty on LRT to co-operate with these other persons. We assume that these persons would not have been selected to run services if they did not comply with conditions laid down by LRT or the Minister. I want to make sure that the recently introduced, and now successful, travelcard receives proper consideration. Will the Minister confirm that co-operation—if it is not included in the conditions of service of the "other persons" mentioned in the amendment—will include cooperation about facilities such as the travelcard?
      The travelcard in London enables people, according to what they have paid for in terms of zones, to use underground or bus services at any time as frequently as they wish. It is an extremely useful card. As one does not have to worry about paying additional fares, people use the services more. That is advantageous because the expense of running the services is not increased but the extent to which Londoners use the services is increased. I hope that co-operation with the "other persons" will include cooperating on matters of that kind.
      The Minister has powers of direction over LRT. New subsection (3) says:
      "any such agreement shall include such provision as appears to London Regional Transport to be appropriate".
      I am sure that LRT will do its best, but the Minister will always be behind it. I was interested to note that in answer to a written question from me on Friday the Minister replied at column 271 that he intended to recruit a further 24 staff at the Department of Transport to look after LRT and that that would cost about £580,000 per year.
      The Minister mentioned the railways. I hope that he will ensure that the co-operation that is to take place with other people will include steps already taken by the GLC which the London travelling public have found convenient and helpful. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will assure us that there will be full co-operation with whoever else may be involved in these services.
      While I suspect that those services will mainly concern the buses, I hope that there will be no reduction in the ingenious means by which London Transport and the GLC have helped the travelling public at no extra expense.
      The annual report will tell us the extent of the cooperation. It will also tell us, in a negative sort of way, what requests for co-operation have not been taken into account. I welcome the amendment because it will provide a somewhat greater safeguard than existed before, although it is clear to my hon. Friends and to me that the prospective disintegration of London transport will not be to the benefit of the travelling public.
      Mr. Maples: I understand that the purpose of the amendment is to make sure that the duty to co-ordinate services between British Rail and LRT shall extend not only to services which they or their subsidiaries provide, but to services which LRT might contract out under clause 3(2).
      The amendment appears to go somewhat further than that, and, in addition, imposes a duty on the contractor to discuss co-ordination, and I want to be sure that that is not the case. I want the co-ordinating to be done between LRT and the railways board and not between a person who becomes a contractor under clause 3(2) and the board.
      Mr. Peter Snape: Why not?
      Mr. Maples: I should have thought that the answer was clear. Many of us regard clause 3(2) as containing one of the most important provisions in the Bill, for it gives great scope for LRT to provide better, more efficient and cheaper services. Anything which imposed an open-ended duty on a contractor under that subsection would make such agreements unattractive to potential subcontractors. I hope that my right hon. Friend will confirm that it does not also extend to the actions of the contractor.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: guess that what we have just heard from the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) was a plea for privatisation to be allowed to go on as little hampered as possible.
      I welcome, in particular, amendment No. 8 because, as the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said, we on the Opposition Benches are in no doubt that as soon as the Bill receives the Royal Assent and the Secretary of State announces the date on which it is to be enacted—which is likely to be the day after it receives the Royal Assent—there will be massive fares increases, the first of which will be announced within a matter of days—increases which were to have been announced recently had the Secretary of State not been cautioned not to make an announcement before the Bill had completed its passage through the House.
      The hon. Member for Newham, South was right to say that the annual report will at least let us see the state of play. It will show us whether integrated London transport is happening—whether it is integrated between public and private provision, or whether it is becoming less integrated and is increasingly disintegrating as a public service. The duty to present an annual report is a good. step forward, because if the Secretary of State persists along the road down which he appears to be determined to take us we shall at least see, sooner rather than later, whether the chickens are coming home to roost.
      Mr. Prescott: We are continuing the Committee discussion about whether this is co-operation rather than integration, and perhaps the Secretary of State is realising that we should be thinking more about co-operation. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) was right to say that the Bill will lead more to disintegration than to co-operation. At least we welcome the announcement in a news release today that the Secretary of State has turned down the AMOS appeal. The alternative would have been particularly disintegrating for London's transport requirements.
      We have not been prepared statutorily to impose duties, and that leads us back to the "due regard" aspects of the discussion in Committee. Our fear is that people will have licence to do exactly what they wish. The amendment tightens the provision a little, and perhaps the arguments that my hon. Friends and I have adduced are beginning to sink in and the right hon. Gentleman is realising that the scheme as originally planned would not have turned out as well as he had thought.
      In the argument on whether bus services can be properly integrated, I draw to the Secretary of State's attention the fact that in these agreements to be drawn up between LRT and some transport company, such as a bus company, it may be that the bus passes and travelcards, perhaps even old-age pensioner passes, will not apply on every service that is maintained. There is an example of

      713
      this in the local authority bus service maintained by Hillingdon council, which is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), who again has missed the bus, or has perhaps just missed the debate, which affects his constituency.
      5.30 pm
      In Hillingdon, an arrangement has been arrived at between the local authority and London Transport, and I have before me the revised timetable of the 128 bus service, which makes it clear that bus passes and travelcards are not acceptable. I am glad that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington has joined us, as I am referring to a bus service in his constituency. Perhaps he has been delayed because it was late. I point out for his benefit that on that service, bus passes and travelcards, which are an important factor in integration, do not apply. As I understand it, the London Transport Passengers' Committee cannot get information on this service, as the local authority refuses to provide it. If that is happening in the system that we have now, given that many more of these individually negotiated contracts are to take place, it will not be surprising if this happens at the expense of the integrated service that has prevailed in London under London Transport.
      I welcome the fact that there will be greater coordination between the rail and bus services, although the amendment merely expresses the desire to see further coordination. We shall now have the opportunity to assess what is happening if the steps that have been taken in previous years are recorded regularly in the annual reports. We hope that sufficient time will be given in the House to debate success or failure of those moves.
      Mr. Ridley: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the points that have been raised. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) asked about the staff in my Department. Yes, 24 staff will be required to administer LRT, but many of them are already doing it, and others will be diverted from other activities, from which they will be released, so it does not mean that there will be a net increase of that size. The main subsidiaries of the bus and the underground are almost certain, for as far ahead as one can see, to remain 100 per cent. owned by LRT.
      The main point of the debate, which has been raised by most hon. Members who have spoken, concerns the position of routes that are contracted out under clause 3(2) to private operators. LRT may find that it can get tenders for running certain routes cheaper than it is able to run them itself, in which case I am sure that the House would agree that LRT should be encouraged to accept such tenders. The conditions that it may care to place on the invitation to bid will include the acceptance of travelcards and bus passes and any arrangements that might be necessary for liaison with British Rail.
      To my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) I point out that it might be that the timetable of one of these services should fit with the timetable of trains departing from a BR station, in which case, no doubt, LRT will make it clear in the invitation to bid that that is one of the conditions of the tender. The same will apply to travelcards, bus passes and so on, I would point out to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott).
      714
      The liaison with British Rail, however, will be done by LRT. LRT, having made the best liaison arrangements possible on a whole range of matters in which LRT and BR overlap, will put into its specification any requirements to make sure that that happens.
      Mr. Prescott: What effect will what the right hon. Gentleman has said have on the Hillingdon service, to which I referred? Does that mean that that service, if agreed with LRT, will have to carry the condition of recognising the travelcard and those provisions laid down by LRT?
      Mr. Ridley: I do not know about the service to which the hon. Gentleman refers, because I have only just heard about it, but it is possible that there can be licensed private operators in competition with LRT, in which case the conditions under which they operate will be laid down by the traffic commissioners. Secondly, it is possible that LRT will invite private operators to run some of its routes under clause 3(2), in which case it has the power to impose the conditions that bus passes and travelcards be accepted. It would be crazy if it did not impose those conditions, because such cards and passes are the main form of fare-paying currencies for a large number of passengers. To exclude those passengers, or ask them to pay cash as well as possessing a travelcard, would not be in the best interests of anybody. I should be surprised if, in any of these services, LRT did not impose that condition.
      Mr. Terry Dicks: The problem is that the bus service to which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) referred is run and paid for by the local authority. If it has to fund the free bus passes which are then used on the bus service, one wonders where the money would actually come from. However, to tie up with what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the bus service is not in competition with an LT bus service, but is run over routes on which LT does not run.
      Mr. Ridley: That is an example of a service that is not run by LT, and of a local authority that has made its own arrangements. It is a case of local discretion, and local authorities are free to make any arrangements that they wish, and decide on the conditions under which they should be operating. There is no doubt about that, and it is the same in the constituency of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East. I am sure that he would find plenty of similar bus routes.
      The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) should not believe everything that he reads in the newspapers. It is a bad Liberal habit to assume that what is in newspapers is true. What he can believe, if he would like to take it from me, is that last week the board of LT voted to accept a contract for £100,000 for political advertising for the GLC for the three months of September, October and November. That means that the buses will continue to be plastered with "Keep GLC Working for London" long after LT will have ceased to exist. Rates can be saved by not spending money on such political advertising.
      I have many more ways to save rates. The first thing that the House will hear about in our plans for LRT will be news of the great reduction in the cost of running it that it is possible to make without cutting out any large numbers of routes or closing down stations. All such

      715
      claims from the Opposition are rubbish. Also, I repeat that there will be no increase in fares significantly above the rate of inflation. I have said that so often, that perhaps I might be believed.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: If the Secretary of State were to say now that there will be no increase in fares this year, we would accept that as a categoric assurance. We would be grateful for a specific undertaking of that sort. In the absence of a specific undertaking we have sometimes to turn to the newspapers.
      Mr. Ridley: I should prefer to announce my plans for the future of LRT when the House has given its assent to the Bill and when it has received Royal Assent. If the hon. Gentleman is talking about the calendar year and not the financial year, I can tell him that I do not believe that there will be any increase in fares during the calendar year. I hope that that is of some comfort to him.
      The hon. Gentleman might care to ponder on what would be reasonable. If there is an increase in fares in due course equivalent to the inflation that has taken place since the Labour party took over at county hall it would have to be a 22 per cent. increase. That would be rather a heavy increase and I would not like that. If there is an increase that is commensurate with the inflation that has taken place since fares were last increased, which was May 1983, there would have to be a 7 per cent. increase. The hon. Gentleman can take his pick of what he thinks would be reasonable between those two percentages.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 7

      PLANNING OF PASSENGER TRANSPORT SERVICES FOR GREATER LONDON
      Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 7, line 28, at end insert—
      "( ) Any statement prepared under this section shall deal with the financial prospects of London Regional Transport and any subsidiaries of theirs for the period to which the statement relates, having regard to any financial objectives determined for them by the Secretary of State under section 16 of this Act which, at the time when the statement is prepared, apply in relation to that period or any part of it."
      Mr. Ridley: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following Lords amendments: No. 4, in Page 7, line 35, at end insert—
      "and shall have regard to any considerations to which the Secretary of State may from time to time draw their attention (including, in particular, considerations of national or regional transport policy) and to the development plan for any district which appears to London Regional Transport to be affected by any policies, proposals or plans which they propose to set out in the statement."
      No. 5, in page 8, line 25, at end insert—
      "and the reference in that subsection to the development plan for any district shall be construed in accordance with section 20 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971."
      Mr. Ridley: We accepted in Committee in another place that the strategy documents under clause 7 which LRT will be required to publish should contain some financial information. They would be of limited use if they did not do so. It seemed sensible to make the position clear in the Bill, and that is the purpose of Lords amendment No. 3.
      716
      Lords amendments Nos. 4 and 5 meet an undertaking which I gave in Committee to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I was unable to deliver on Report because of some legal difficulties, which have now been overcome. The effect is that LRT will have to have regard to any consideration which the Secretary of State—not necessarily me—may draw to its attention in preparing its strategy statement. The considerations may include issues which come within national or regional transport policy and any development plans for any area which appear to be affected by the matters dealt with in the statement. Lords amendment No. 4 draws on the requirements in the 1969 Act which currently apply to the GLC in preparing transport plans.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful to the Secretary of State. Liberals have always believed that in planning transport it is necessary to take into account whatever other plans exist for the time being. I know that there are proposals in the pipeline to change the nature of the planning system in London, but for the time being there is a development plan and other policy statements. We welcome the amendment as another sign of better integration, a plea which the right hon. Gentleman must by now be dreaming about, having heard the phrase so often.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Spearing: Whatever our views about the Bill, it must be recognised that most of the amendments are improvements. I commend the Secretary of State and his colleagues for accepting the amendment from another place. The few brief remarks which I intend to make may help them to carry out a task which they may not realise is coming to them. The amendments refer to a "regional transport policy" and transport policy is extremely important for London. At present it is the responsibility of the Greater London council, especially the strategic plan for London.
      If the GLC disappears—I hope that it will not—and the strategic responsibility goes with it, who will be responsible other than Her Majesty's Government for a regional transport policy for London? Presumably the responsibility will devolve upon the 24 or the 24-plus and the policy will be determined within Marsham street. As London will not have an elected body dealing with strategic planning, with which transport is closely associated, the Secretary of State will find himself handling policy matters which until now have not been his responsibility. He will become accountable to hon. Members for those matters.
      One example is the docklands light railway. Magically, it has the assent and support of the London Docklands Development Corporation, the London borough of Newham, the GLC and the Secretary of State for Transport. It is under the aegis of GLC planning and the subject of London Transport Bills that are considered in this place. It is a good example of agreed planning which is going ahead. It has not been a major responsibility of the right hon. Gentleman's Department.
      The Secretary of State will have to consider the construction of new railway lines in London. We read recently of the resuscitation of the Snow hill tunnel. The tunnel has been with us for a long time and it should have been reconnected, as should the Willesden-Clapham junction passenger service. These matters will come

      717
      within the right hon. Gentleman's responsibilities. Even more important than that, he will find that he will be approached on the economy of regional centres, especially on retail trade and employment. Until now it has been the responsibility of the GLC to determine what places should be encouraged and supported in the furtherance of important functions such as trade and employment. The right hon. Gentleman will be lobbied by many interests. I am not saying that he is not already, but I suspect that the lobbying will become more intense.
      It has been said that the travelcard should be extended to embrace British Rail. The GLC would implement that policy if the Secretary of State allowed it to do so. An all-London travelcard would be a tremendous boon and it would not be against British Rail's financial interests. Everyone knows that British Rail runs surburban services, empty or full. For a good part of each day there is capacity for additional passengers without incurring an extra outlay. If London had the integrated services that a proper regional transport policy would provide, we should have a system approaching those that are to be found, so I am told, in New York and Paris.
      Relatively cheap public transport provides accessibility to services within the central areas of a city, including the central business community. It would provide accessibility to the west end, Westminster, the City and the Festival hall. It would offer accessibility to all the functions that were available in pre-1918 London, as it were. Such travel would be easy, cheap and reasonably efficient. That is what everybody in London wants to see, irrespective of party.
      I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the forward-looking formulation of a London Regional Transport policy, which is the duty placed upon LRT and himself, should be of that sort. The facilities exist and they are publicly owned. The extension of the travelcard to London's railways would be a boon to everybody, irrespective of party and individual attitudes to the Bill.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 4 and 5 agreed to.

    Clause 27

      SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO TRANSFER SCHEMES
      Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 24, line 6, at end insert—
      "(2A) Without prejudice to section 46 of this Act and subject to subsection (2B) below, a transfer scheme may provide that any functions of the transferor under any statutory provision shall be transferred with the property, rights and liabilities affected by the scheme, if and so far as that statutory provision—

      (a) relates to the part of the transferor's undertaking, or to property, to be transferred by the scheme; or

      (b) authorises the carrying out of works designed to be used in connection with that part of the transferor's undertaking or the acquisition of land for the purpose of carrying out such works.

      (2B) Subsection (2A) above does not apply to any function of London Regional Transport, or of London Regional Transport or any subsidiary of theirs, under any provision of this Act or any other statutory provision specifically amended by any provision of this Act.
      (2C) A transfer scheme may define any functions of the transferor to be transferred by the scheme in accordance with subsection (2A) above—

      (a) by specifying the statutory provisions in question;

      718

      (b) by referring to all the statutory provisions (except those mentioned in subsection (2B) above) which relate to the part of the transferor's undertaking, or to property, to be transferred by the scheme or authorise the carrying out of works designed to be used in connection with that part of the transferor's undertaking or the acquisition of land for the purpose of carrying out such works; or

      (c) by referring to all the statutory provisions within paragraph (b) above, but specifying certain excepted provisons."

      Mr. Ridley: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      This is a technical amendment which applies to schemes under which property is transferred from LRT to one of its subsidiaries or from one subsidiary to another. This is really a drafting point. I shall be delighted to explain the amendment if the House wishes me to do so, but I can assure the House that there are no deep and unrevealed motives behind it.
      Mr. Prescott: Can the Secretary of State tell us which functions are to be carried across in that way? Can he differentiate between those functions and statutory provisions?
      Mr. Ridley: If LRT sets up a subsidiary to run the underground it will have to transfer the property associated with the underground to that subsidiary, and clearly the function of running the tube trains will have to be transferred as well. There may be other functions which will become the obligation of the subsidiary once it has been set up. The amendment is designed to ensure that both the property and the duties are transferred.
      Mr. Spearing: Although the amendment is technical, the Secretary of State, with his usual courtesy, has invited inquiries. I assume that the amendment will not apply to the other persons about whom we have been talking, but only to subsidiaries as defined by the legislation. A few moments ago the Secretary of State presented to the House the possibility of someone putting in a bid to run bus services more cheaply than London Transport runs them at the moment. One would assume that such a bid would not be associated with any property owned by London Transport at the moment, and that the bidder would use his own premises and equipment rather than transferred property. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that what is in question is the technical book transfer of the big subsidiaries, and that the amendment does not apply in any way to private people making bids?
      Secondly, the schemes are to be presented to the Secretary of State. Will such schemes be published before the Secretary of State assents to them? If they are not published before he assents to them, will notice of them be given in the annual report? As this is a statutory provision, one might suppose that such transfers should be open and transparent, that notice should be given of the application to the Secretary of State and that his decision should at least appear in the annual report.
      Mr. Ridley: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's second point is yes. Any schemes set up to create subsidiaries will be formal and public. They will require my consent, which will be made public and I am sure will be reproduced in the annual report.
      On the first point, it is unlikely that the amendment will refer in any way to agreements under clause 3(2). The amendment would apply not only to the duties that I have

      719
      mentioned to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), but to duties that arise under local Acts. Under such an Act, for instance, a duty to fence the railway might be attached to the underground service which is to be transferred. That duty would be transferred to the subsidiary, as well as the property.
      On reflection, is it most likely that nearly all the duties that will be transferred under the amendment will arise under local Acts. No duty will arise under a local Act in relation to a private bus contractor, although it is possible that some property could be transferred to a private bus operator, such as the bus stops and shelters. It would be sensible for the person running the bus route to maintain the shelters, but in that case what would be involved would be a property, not a duty.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 30

      INFORMATION AND PUBLICITY WITH RESPECT TO PLANS AS TO SERVICES, AND FARES
      Lords amendment: No. 7, in page 25, line 27, after "Act" insert
      ", and the general structure of routes of those services"
      Mr. Ridley: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      This amendment will ensure that local authorities and the passengers committee will be informed annually of LRT's plans as to the general structure of routes on services provided by LRT, by any of its subsidiaries or by anybody who contracts to operate a service under clause 3(2).
      As we discussed in Committee, LRT is required under clause 30 to provide information on its plans about the general level and structure of fares and the general level of services. This is an additional requirement that it should consult about the general structure of routes as well. I hope that the House will agree that the addition is desirable.
      Mr. Prescott: Clearly the House will agree on that point. Hon. Members who served on the Committee will remember that we spent some time discussing the structure and routes. The amendment is a further improvement, in that information about the structure of routes will now be given by LRT to the local authorities involved. Clearly, LRT and any subsidiary which has a negotiated agreement under clause 3 to provide a service will have an obligation to give information about the structure of routes. What will be required of bus operators who agree with the traffic commissioners to provide a service in London? Those operators may not necessarily need the agreement of LRT before they provide a service in the area; they can seek the agreement of the traffic commissioners.
      If, for instance, Associated Minibus Operators is allowed to develop such a service, will it be obliged to give this information to the local authority if its agreement is not with LRT but with the traffic commissioners?
      Mr. Ridley: No. It will not be required to give the information. However, in granting a licence, the traffic commissioners might well impose a series of conditions, which might include conditions that the traffic commissioners had seen fit to base on evidence given to them by LRT. In the event of an application for a competitive service, I have no doubt that the traffic
      720
      commissioners would listen to objections, that there would be objections from LRT, and that the traffic commissioners could then append conditions to the grant of a licence, which might well be very limiting, just as having to fulfil the requirements on services operated by LRT would be limiting.
      Mr. Prescott: The private services which may enter the market may be openly encouraged by LRT itself. Is this not an unfair situation? Should not the traffic commissioners be told that those applying for licences should have to supply information to the local authorities about structures of services? Why should LRT be obliged to do so while those providing similar services are not?
      Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman is a passionate believer in a co-ordinated, integrated, state-owned and monolithic transport service for London, in which everything is planned and everyone concerned is consulted. Roughly speaking, that is what he is going to get, but there is also the possibility of the private sector operating on a very different basis—providing the services that the customers want, and providing them cheaply and competitively. Very often, the customers are the only people who are not consulted.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 34

      ANNUAL REPORT
      Lords amendment made: No. 8, in page 28, line 39, at end insert—
      "( )include a statement of any action taken during that year by London Regional Transport and any subsidiaries of theirs for the purpose of co-ordinating the public passenger transport services provided by, or by any subsidiary of, the Railways Board and those provided by London Regional Transport, any subsidiary of London Regional Transport, or any other person under an agreement entered into by London Regional Transport by virtue of section 3(2) of this Act;"—[Mr. Ridley.]

    Clause 36

      PROVISION FOR ADDITIONAL FUNCTIONS OF LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT AS TO RAILWAY SERVICES.
      Lords amendment: No. 9, in page 30, line 9, at end insert
      "the accounting year of London Regional Transport current at the expiry of"
      Mr. Ridley: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: 'With this it will convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 10 to 13 and 31 and 32.
      Mr. Ridley: These are all minor drafting amendments, and they are all addressed to the same point. If part II were activated, after eight years it would have to be renewed, or it would lapse. It would not be desirable for that to happen half way or three quarters of the way through a financial year. The amendment simply provides that any such lapse or extension will take effect at the end of the accounting year in question.
      There are so many "ifs" in my presentation of the amendment, that the Opposition may say that it is so hypothetical that it is unnecessary, but it does tidy up the Bill.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 10 to 13 agreed to.

    Clause 43

      EXEMPTION OF LONDON BUS SERVICES UNDER CONTROL OF LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT FROM REQUIREMENT OF ROAD SERVICE LICENCE.
      Lords amendment: No. 14, in page 39, line 9, after "affected" insert ", with the Passengers' Committee"
      6 pm
      Mrs. Chalker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 15 and 16.
      Mrs. Chalker: The house will recall that in Committee we accepted the principle of including the passengers committee among the bodies to be consulted under clause 43. When our proceedings were concluded formally at a late stage in the debate, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) could not be in Committee and the amendment was not moved. Amendment No. 14 deals with the points made by the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he will be glad to support it.
      Amendment No. 15 is essentially a correction, the need for which came to light in the preparation of amendment No. 16. It will ensure that local authorities will be consulted under clause 43 about new bus services or variations of bus services even where only part of the particular bus route in question involves their areas.
      Amendment No. 16 meets an undertaking given to Lord Carmichael in another place. He drew attention to the fact that London Transport has been obliged since 1971, under a direction from the Greater London council, to consult local authorities over major variations and withdrawals of public passenger transport services. The Bill already sets out procedures for rail closures and for variations of bus services, but we accepted that it did not make parallel provision for consultation over the withdrawal of bus services. We therefore brought forward this amendment to extend consultation under clause 43 to withdrawals. LRT will be required to consult before any decisions are taken on withdrawals of bus services, whether they are operated by LRT, by its subsidiaries or by other operators under clause 3(2) agreements. The amendment represents a further measure to involve local authorities and the passengers committee in proposals that will affect local interests and the travelling public.
      I think that that is all I need to say about the amendments. They are all drafted in the spirit that was accepted in Committee. I hope that the House will accept them.
      Mr. Spearing: Once again we must be grateful to another place, and especially to Lord Carmichael.
      I wish to help the Minister and those who assist her in these complex matters. They may take on a load of trouble if certain policies are pursued. We accept that it is helpful, right and proper for local authorities, the Common Council and the Transport Users' Consultative Committee to be consulted about the withdrawal of any bus services. We all know that populations change, and with that the
      722
      demand for bus services. London Transport withdraws services in one place and adds to services in another. That has been done on the basis of what I call the 1933 settlement. LT was given a monopoly in exchange for providing a public service. The Bill will change that.
      Although LRT will have duties and obligations—and I shall not go over the arguments again—the monopoly position and the financial structure will not be the same. With the pressure from the Government to do well financially, LRT may feel unable to put the charges on the boroughs, although it will have the right to impose a precept on the boroughs to run the London services. There may be a temptation for LRT to say, "We want to save money by reducing bus services that are not paying, or even to take away a route which we think does not pay." LRT may even withdraw peak-hour services or Sunday services from certain areas.
      Until now, any changes have been dealt with by the GLC-LT network. The appropriate, publicly elected members of County Hall have argued with their colleagues and then crossed the river to 55 Broadway to say whether or not a bus route should be changed. Fortunately, it has not been a matter for the House, and, thank heavens, it has not been the concern of Marsham street. Yet I suspect that when the Bill becomes an Act it will become the concern of Marsham street.
      Consultation may be helpful. It may avoid the withdrawal of routes or it may make any adjustment to the optimum, but there may be arguments about money, in the same way as we had arguments about the withdrawal of railway services, how much was being lost, how much being saved and how to calculate that. Will we, through the withdrawal of a bus route, save on the administration of a garage or 55 Broadway? All those points are relevant.
      I warn the Minister that although consultation may be helpful, we hope that LRT or any of its subsidiaries will not get up to the sort of financial tricks that we have had from British Rail asking to close rail services. We hope that there will be no arguments about accounts. Of course, if an overwhelming case is made for a change, that will be a different matter.
      I hope that the clause will avoid the sort of friction which, alas, will come within the ambit of Members of Parliament. We do not want that—the decision-making should be retained within the existing GLC-LT network.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I, the Liberal party and, I hope, the whole House will be grateful to the Minister for accepting the principle of greater consultation with the body that will take over the role of representing the passenger faced with the new LRT authority. I must correct the Minister, to my detriment. It is not that I was not present when the original amendment was not moved in Committee, but rather that it was about the 60th in a bank of 90 amendments, which were all moved at such speed that I did not realise that we had passed my amendment until it was half a second too late.
      I am grateful for the fact that the amendment has now come forward from another place. It means that when it is proposed either to take away a route or to add to it the new passengers committee will be involved. Of course, as we have always made clear, that is not the same as passengers being represented on the board of LRT. Passengers are excluded from the decision-making body. It will be our perpetual regret, until matters change, that the representatives of transport users can only be consulted

      723
      and cannot vote or argue behind closed doors with those appointed by the Secretary of State as the management body of LRT.
      Until such time as we can persuade the Government that there should be more accountability in the running of London transport, we hope that the consultation on proposed changes to routes will result in a real listening to views. I read in the weekend papers that the Government are trying to change their image to the listening Government. I remember that a bank tried the same tack and that that was met with some amusement from not only its clients but many others.
      I hope that if the Government are serious in saying that they will begin to change course by listening to people in London—as the Government well know, the majority of Londoners are opposed to the Government's proposals to take over LRT—they will listen to the consumer watchdogs acting on behalf of the users of the service and do what they recommend. We may then be in for a slightly better deal than the one that we expect will come our way.
      Mr. Chris Smith: I shall comment especially on amendment No. 16 which specifies the consultation procedures involved in the withdrawal of a bus service. Consultation, especially with passengers and borough councils, is much better than no consultation. Consultation is, however, very much second best. My favoured scheme is for the Government to abandon the Bill and leave the running of and decisions by London Transport in the hands of elected people representing Londoners. That is the best form of consultation and accountability.
      I shall cite one example from my constituency. The No. 172 bus used to run from the Angel to Archway, providing a much valued and appreciated service to the people using it. It was not the most efficient service in the world. There were many complaints on that score, but none about its existence and the service that it provided. About a year and a half ago, London Transport terminated that service at Kings Cross. The gap between Kings Cross and Archway was left without any bus service for about a year and a half. Strong local protests were made. I took up the case and even tried to persuade the Ministers in the Department of the Environment to allow some partnership money to be spent on subsidising a bus service to cover that gap, but was unsuccessful.
      Thanks to the efforts and concern of the GLC, responding to the wishes of its electors, a replacement bus service, No. 153, started only two weeks ago. It is providing a much appreciated service to the people of the area. That is a clear example of the GLC—an elected body—responding to the wishes of its electors and the people who use a transport service over which they have some control.
      Although we welcome the Government's acceptance of the provisions inserted by the other place for improved consultation about the withdrawal of bus services, that procedure is very much second best. It is no real substitute for proper accountability and consultation via the ballot box by electors through the GLC.
      Mr. Prescott: Inevitably, comparisons were made during this debate with what was said in Committee. Discussions in Committee often began with a consideration of whether the GLC was the legitimate body to be consulted—whether, since its death was nigh, reference
      724
      to it should be included in the Bill. Increasingly, the amendments refer to the GLC being consulted, and that is, perhaps, a sign—we have noted this from rumours and press cuttings—that the GLC will be given an extended life. The idea of consulting the GLC is embodied in various amendments, although little time was given to that matter at the beginning of the Committee debates. I believe that all hon. Members welcome the fact that there will be consultation with the local authorities involved, including the London Regional Passengers Committee, about route changes and withdrawal of bus services.
      A curious point arises. We have just passed an amendment relating to LRT taking control over the London regional rail passenger network within eight years. That is a complicated formula, but the result is that LRT will take over the running of some railway lines.
      6.15 pm
      A distinction has been drawn between how we deal with closures and withdrawals, and the amendments address themselves to that point. If a railway line is closed, many procedures under the recommendations of the Transport Users Consultative Committee must be followed. The position is not the same with the closure of bus routes. I believe that we all welcome the fact that it is possible for people to express their views on the withdrawal of a bus service.
      We should bear in mind the recent announcement by the Secretary of State for Transport of a plan for railways whereby buses will take over from trains. He has suggested that when an appeal is made against the withdrawal of a railway service or an additional bus service taking over a rail service the procedure applying to the railways will be used. That is his intention, whether the service is run by bus or rail. If LRT controls a number of railway lines, what type of procedure will apply—the one applying to the buses or the one applying to the trains? Why should we not put them into the same system?
      The Secretary of State said that he had adopted the recommendations of the Transport Committee, which recommended that where a bus service replaced a railway service it should remain in operation for 10 years. That is not the statement given by the Secretary of State hi a parliamentary answer to an hon. Member. If the Secretary of State reads the report of the Transport Committee, he will find that he has adopted its suggestions not its recommendations. The Transport Committee had some encouraging words for the replacement of train services by buses, but it recommended that, if a bus service took the place of a rail service, that form of operation should not be removed for 10 years. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will take advice on what was spelt out. I could give him his reply to study.
      Since the amendments deal with the distinction between closure and withdrawal of bus and rail services, I hope that I can tempt the Minister of State to say how any new thinking in the Department will apply to that aspect.
      I have referred to the separate agreement reached in the provision of transport in Hillingdon. When debating the structure of routes, the Secretary of State confirmed that the obligations imposed on the public sector would be much greater than those imposed on the private sector. The right hon. Gentleman disappeared in a flight of rhetoric without answering my point. Why should there be differing requirements for information on routes to allow people to judge between the public and private sectors,

      725
      simply because the public sector is controlled by the Secretary of State and the private sector has to secure the agreement of the traffic commissioners? If the Secretary of State is not prepared to do so, will the Minister of State justify the reasons why, once again, the public sector, over which the Secretary of State will have direct responsibility because of the LRT measures, is obliged to give information about route structures and closures to local authorities when private operators are not?
      Mrs. Chalker: By leave of the House. I understand what the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) was saying at the beginning of his remarks, but I believe that the consultation will be beneficial. I believe that that is the intention of the amendments. I hope that he is wrong when he talks about a load of trouble. Good consultation often avoids a load of trouble. Lack of consultation sometimes leads to it.
      I am grateful to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for putting me right, but I know that it was late at night and a great deal was going on rather quickly. At least we have amendment No. 14 coming back from another place to deal with that point.
      The story that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) told us about the 172 bus may be perfectly correct—I am not seeking to dispute it in any way—but it is a little wearying to hear everything done in the name of London praised when it is done by the GLC although no account is taken of the ratepayers' money. I caution him that there is account at the end of the day of what the GLC costs the London ratepayer and taxpayer.
      I shall deal with the slightly convoluted description that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) gave of rail closures. I believe that I am right to say that if the rail services are being run by LRT, the closures will follow the same procedures as for LRT rail. There is no reason why they should be operated differently and, therefore, consulted upon differently.
      My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said at the end of last week, I believe, that the rail procedure for closures would apply to buses should British Rail come forward with a subsequent plan no longer to run that bus substitute for a British Rail service. My right hon. Friend was simply agreeing British Rail's detailed plan on that occasion and the rail closure procedure will apply to those buses substituted for railways.
      Those were the two main questions that I heard the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East ask.
      Mr. Prescott: What about LRT?
      Mrs. Chalker: As I said clearly when I spoke to amendment No. 16, the Bill already sets out procedures for rail closures and other variations in bus services. Without amendment No. 16, the Bill did not set out any procedure for withdrawal of bus services. We have accepted the amendment put forward by the noble Lord Carmichael, with some assistance in drafting, which puts that on an even footing.
      The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East asked me a further question about Hillingdon. LRT will continue to run bus services that are subsidised by the ratepayer and the taxpayer. Those private routes which are not part of a clause 3(2) agreement but which run separately under a
      726
      road service licence will not be dependent upon the ratepayer or taxpayer. In that sense, they are different, and I accept that they should be treated differently.
      Mr. Prescott: The point that I was making about private services was that they will be able to provide a range of bus services within the LRT region in competition with LRT buses or subsidiaries if the traffic commissioner has agreed that that should take place. In those circumstances, with "Jones the Bus" running down Oxford street in competition with LRT buses, LRT is required to give information about the structure of the routes, their closures and withdrawals to local authorities, but "Jones the Bus" is not. Why not?
      Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman will remember from Committee that "Jones the Bus" or, dare I say it, "Evans the Bus" would be operating entirely on their own account. They would not be operating with a subsidy from the taxpayer or the ratepayer. They will be required, as I remember we debated in Committee, to furnish information about bus stops and all manner of ther things. I should have thought it would be completely unreasonable that the traffic commissioners would not have information about variations in services, because they will immediately mean a variation in those matters that the traffic commissioners have to consider. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman's point has substance.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 15 and 16 agreed to.

    Clause 44

      APPLICATION OF PUBLIC PASSENGER VEHICLES ACT 1981 IN RELATION TO SERVICES IN GREATER LONDON
      Lords amendment: No. 17, in page 40, line 14, leave out "they apply" and insert "well as".
      Mrs. Chalker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 18, 33 and 34 in clause 66, page 62, line 31, at end insert—
      "() Section (Excursions and tours with stopping places in Greater London) of this Act shall come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed."
      and amendment (a) thereto, in line 3, leave out 'at the end of the period of two months beginning with' and insert 'on'.
      Mr. Snape: I beg to move, amendment (A)——
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member will move it when we come to it. It is an amendment to amendment No. 34, which is on page 14.
      Mr. Snape: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I shall merely comment on the amendment to Lords amendment No. 34 and move my amendment in due course.
      The Opposition welcome Lords amendment No. 34, which will at least give some power to control the use of stopping places by excursions and tour operators. Those hon. Members who served on Committee will be aware that I detained, if not entertained, the Committee for a considerable time by speaking about the difficulties that some private operators have caused.
      The House will be relieved, as I have no doubt you will be, Mr. Speaker, to hear that I do not intend once again

      727
      to relate the saga of how difficult it is for me to get away from my office on the Norman Shaw embankment, due to the problems caused by a number of private operators who persistently ignore parking regulations and leave their buses and coaches there for long periods despite the "No waiting" signs. I understand that—judging from the revelations from both sides in Committee—hon. Members have at various times, correctly, been issued with parking tickets for leaving their vehicles in that spot.
      Although we were somewhat churlishly treated at the end of that debate in Committee, because neither the Minister of State nor the Secretary of State seemed inclined to take our view seriously, it is with some pleasure that we note that in another place, presumably, similar arguments were advanced. Ministers there may be more receptive to arguments similar to those advanced in Committee. We feel, however, that the two-month delay in implementing the clause is not just unnecessary. It may allow operators to try to evade the new regulations by applying for a licence before this part comes into effect. Subsection (4) of the clause allows operators to apply for a licence before the end of the two-month period. As I understand it, that is without having recourse to the traffic commissioners. Existing operators, who were the main bones of contention in my speech in Committee, are exempted for five years after the Bill comes into force. If the two-month delay to which the amendment refers is accepted, it may enable operators to book extra starting points, if I can put it that way, either for immediate use or for use some time next year.
      6.30 pm
      I understand that at present no fewer than four local London tours are proposed by private operators. That could, and I submit should, give rise to objections about the starting and stopping points that are proposed along the routes of the tours. It has been the practice, since private tour operators first proliferated, for them to use the stopping places normally provided by the London Transport services. Private operators have always had the benefit of stopping facilities provided free by the ratepayers, a group of people for whom the Minister of State in particular professes to have great sympathy when she is talking about other public expenditure. Yet she seems anxious to ignore them in this respect.
      The Opposition believe that if private operators wish to run tours they should take the financial responsibility for providing proper facilities. We take exception to private operators using bus stops provided by London Transport when running stage carriage services, even in competition with London Transport. The position is much worse when it comes to tours of London, which are extremely popular. It is a custom and practice among those running the tours to make sure that, as far as possible, there is always a vehicle available so that those who wish to take a tour can book a ticket and wait until the tour departs. Often that happens a long time before the tour is due to leave, especially given the amount and proliferation of competition for tours within London.
      A tour may leave at, say, 11 o'clock in the morning and the next one at 11.30 am. The operator's drivers are instructed, and I am informed that they obey the instructions, that when the tour timed to leave at 11 am departs from its starting point—which is provided by London Transport at ratepayers' expense—the bus
      728
      scheduled to depart at 11.30 arrives. In that way, a vehicle is always at the starting point for those who wish to book for the following tour.
      I hope that the amendment that has been accepted in another place will enable the Department and, if necessary, the traffic commissioners and the Metropolitan police among others to tackle the problem. While we are debating this, may I ask the Minister of State whether there is any intention to start a tour outside the gates of the Palace of Westminster? I understand that an application was made recently to start such a tour from Parliament square. I make no plea for exceptions for hon. Members, but it might be interesting for us to know the Government's general reaction to such an application. Indeed, we should like to know whether the applicant will be required to provide his own facilities in Parliament square for parking his vehicles.
      The purpose of the amendment is to strike out the two-month provision. We appreciate that it was inserted in another place so that adequate consultation, or at least some consultations could take place between LRT and tour operators. It is well known that the Bill has been very contentious, and it has probably been thoroughly scrutinised by those who wish to operate tours. It seems to us that to leave the two-month period in the Bill, as the other place has seen fit to do, would merely enable tour operators to evade their responsibilities in future while those in another place had correctly insisted that tour operators should undertake such responsibilities.
      Regrettably, the Government—especially the Minister of State—declined to see the sense of such a procedure in Committee. I am not a vindictive type. I would not say to the Minister, "I told you so." But Ministers in the other place have at least shown some sense in trying to solve the problem. I hope that we shall persuade the Minister of State to go all the way, and drop what seems to us an unnecessary two-month delay.
      Mrs. Chalker: I shall deal with the new clause and comment upon the other amendments, as well as with the hon. Gentleman's wish to amend the new clause further. We have made available to hon. Members the notes on the new clause in the usual way. I hope that they have been helpful.
      Lords amendment No. 18 empowers the Metropolitan traffic commissioners to control the use of stopping places in Greater London for vehicles being used for excursion and tour services. They are one of three types of bus service defined for licensing purposes in section 35 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981.
      At present, the traffic commissioners have very limited powers under that Act to refuse to issue a road service licence to an excursion or tour operator. The hon. Gentleman knows that I listened carefully to his long speeches in Committee on the issue. I am sorry that we have not seen him at the Dispatch Box for a while. We welcome him back. I notice that he has lost none of his panache in seeking to persuade me to his point of view.
      I am eminently persuadable of something that is sensible and when it has been examined and properly worked out. As I said in Committee, we have noted the growing number of sightseeing tours that pick up and set down passengers in London. We know about the traffic management problems in a few central London locations.
      Traffic is already heavy in those place and there is limited scope to provide bus standing facilities. That is

      729
      why, after thorough examination and proper drafting of the new clause, we have concluded that the licensing system should be extended to take traffic management problems into account when issuing road service licences to operators of excursions and tours. That is in the new clause.
      Where a service applicant proposes that the service should pick up or set down passengers in Greater London, the Metropolitan traffic commissioners will judge whether the application is against the interests of the public. This test is not imposed on applications under the existing section 35. In order to judge whether the application under the new clause is against the interests of the public, the traffic commissioners must consider whether the proposed stopping places for the service are suitable; a stopping place is not to be regarded as suitable if they are satisfied that its use for the purpose would be prejudicial to the safety or convenience of the public.
      I shall take up the invitation of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) to comment on an application, of which I have not heard, for a picking up and setting down point in Parliament square. I am sure that, in the spirit of the new clause, those considering such a road service licence would not, given the current amount of traffic in Parliament square, consider it to be either a safe or convenient place. It may be convenient for those wishing to hop on or off the bus, but for everyone else who uses Parliament square there would be great inconveniences. I have no doubt that a more convenient picking up or setting down point could be found to give a similar service.
      The new clause gives local authorities and the police for the areas to be covered the right to make objections or representations. It gives the traffic commissioners power, in granting a licence, to attach such conditions as they think fit, having regard to the objections or representations, in order to ensure that passengers are picked up or set down only at specified points or are not picked up or set down between specified points. It also gives traffic commissioners power to alter, remove or attach additional conditions.
      The amendment to clause 44 simply modifies the declaratory statement in subsection (1), to take account of the fact that the new clause introduces another difference between Greater London and the rest of the country. The amendments to clause 66 provide for the new clause to come into effect two months after the Bill receives Royal Assent. That is the point with which the hon. Gentleman's amendment is concerned. He wishes to delete that two-month gap, as he fears that there might be pre-emptive applications under the existing power. It is possible that tour operators will apply under the existing powers to preempt the stricter powers. That always happens when the House passes legislation. But the proposals are already well known from the Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill. The opportunity for pre-emptive applications has always existed. The inclusion of the new controls in the Bill means that they are now likely to come into operation sooner than would otherwise have been the case. I have no reason to believe that there will be a pre-emptive rush. In any case, it would be quite unreasonable at this late stage to decide that an important new clause was to come into operation overnight and without more than a few weeks warning.
      730
      The new clause, which was put into the Bill in another place, is to be welcomed. It is reasonable that there should be a two-month gap after the Bill receives Royal Assent, to give all concerned a suitable opportunity to prepare themselves for the new system. I do not believe that it is unreasonable. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's amendment will help and I hope that he will withdraw it. However, I commend amendments Nos. 17, 18, 33 and 34 to the House.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Snape: With the leave of the House, may I say that the Minister correctly stated that, with regard to private operators, the "problem"—her word, not mine—was already well known. A sign that the action that has been discussed under the clause and the amendment was in the offing was provided in the Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill earlier this year. I should have thought that it weakened the Minister's case for an additional two-months' warning if it was fairly common knowledge earlier this year that such a provision was to be made.
      I am always anxious to help when I see that the Minister is in any difficulty. My attention has been drawn to amendment No. 18. I ask the hon. Lady whether, under amendment No. 18, it is possible to vary the terms of a road service licence retrospectively if the GLC or the Metropolitan police feel it necessary to ask the traffic commissioners to do so. I have neither the time nor the assistance that the Minister has to obtain such a definition as quickly as she can, but if it were possible to vary the terms of such a road service licence retrospectively, that would take care of the problems that I have outlined.
      Mrs. Chalker: I remind the hon. Gentleman that I said that the new clause gives the traffic commissioners the power to alter the terms of a licence or remove or attach additional conditions. Once the Bill receives Royal Assent, if there is a problem with an existing service, and in the interests of safety, it will be quite possible for the traffic commissioners to alter the conditions of a road service licence. One cannot change what has already happened. Therefore, the Commissioners will not have the power to alter the terms of the licence retrospectively. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands my meaning.
      Mr. Snape: That explanation was hardly a blinding revelation——
      Mrs. Chalker: Oh.
      Mr. Snape: The hon. Lady should not be too churlish. I am trying to be nice. If she wishes me to remain in this mood, she should accept compliments, however ungracious they seem, when they are tossed her way.
      I do not know whether it is correct to talk about such an alteration being made retrospectively. The terms of a road service licence might be subsequently altered by the traffic commissioners, perhaps as a result of an appeal made by either the GLC or the Metropolitan police. Again, I am anxious to help the Minister of State. If a problem arose in the two-month period to which the Opposition take exception, and an objection were made, surely it would be possible to vary the terms of a licence that had been issued to take care of that problem. I see that the cavalry, in the shape of various yellow flags, has arrived for the Minister of State——
      Mrs. Chalker: What cavalry?
      Mr. Snape: I do not suppose that the notes that one sees going backwards and forwards to Ministers during debates are anything but assistance of one sort or another. It might be paper cavalry, but some of us believe that this is a paper Administration.
      The Minister of State asked me to withdraw the amendment. However, I have been advised that as I have not yet moved the amendment, its withdrawal would present some difficulty. I shall look carefully at what the hon. Lady said. Who knows, when the proper time comes, she might be in luck.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 18 agreed to.

    Clause 46

      ORDERS FOR TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS, ETC., WITHIN LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT GROUP AND BETWEEN THAT GROUP AND RAILWAYS BOARD GROUP
      Lords amendment: No. 19, in page 43, line 23, at end insert—
      "(a) any reference to a transfer by or a vesting by virtue of that Act shall be read as a reference to a transfer by or a vesting by virtue of the order in question; and
      (b)"
      Mrs. Chalker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      This is a drafting amendment. It remedies a small omission in clause 46(9). I hope that the House will agree to the amendment.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 50

      RESERVE FREE TRAVEL SCHEME FOR LONDON RESIDENTS
      Lords amendment: No. 20, in page 50, line 6, leave out "off-peak"
      Mrs. Chalker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25.
      Mrs. Chalker: The House will be well aware of the basis on which we introduced in clauses 50 to 52 the reserve statutory scheme for free travel for London's elderly and disabled people. We are determined to safeguard the continuation of a free travel scheme if the boroughs fail to reach agreement on a voluntary, uniform scheme. We are not anxious to impose on the boroughs uniquely in statute the financial burden implied by such a generous scheme.
      On Report, we drew attention to the fact that under subsection (7) London Regional Transport could alter the powers when experience showed that it was desirable to do so. The House subsequently voted against the amendments, which were designed to remove the evening peak exclusion. Stong feeling during debates in this place and in the other place showed that the statutory reserve scheme should apply throughout the afternoon and evening peak periods, and the amendments tabled in the other place were carried.
      Many hon. Members have known for a long time how popular and important the concessionary fares scheme is to elderly people. Therefore, the Government have
      732
      decided to accept the amendment. LRT still has the powers to alter the periods outlined in subsection (6) if free travel during the evening peaks puts a serious strain on LRT's financial resources.
      The subject of concessionary fares has caused more anxiety than any other subject in the Bill. I hope that Opposition Members, who are always talking about democracy, will recognise that in recommending the amendment we are acknowledging and responding to the wishes expressed on all sides of the House. We are well aware of the additional costs that it could involve, and of what the Greater London council is doing at present. Because the amendments in the other place were accepted, I commend the amendments to the House.
      Mr. Prescott: That is a simple exercise in democracy. The matter that caused considerable anxiety on the Floor of the House, in Committee and in another place was the Government's contentious view that the pensioners would not be worse off under the Bill. The Opposition made it clear what would happen if London Regional Transport took control and left the provision of a pension pass service to local authorities. The Government believed that local authorities would accept that responsibility. However, we made it clear that experience showed that London boroughs would not provide such a uniform and generous scheme for pensioners as that presently financed by the GLC.
      The Government attacked Opposition Members, saying that we had no faith in local democracy or local authorities, and that we were scaremongering among the pensioners. However, the pensioners campaigned and complained bitterly that from their experience of different local authority pension schemes, which were introduced before the GLC introduced its uniform scheme. They knew what would happen in some London boroughs if it were left to the generosity of those authorities to provide them with a free pass. That pressure persuaded the Secretary of State to tell the House on Report that he had to move a reserve statutory scheme. He then claimed another victory, which was that the statutory scheme—the first one to be imposed—ensured that there would be no deterioration in pensioners' passes. On Report, the Secretary of State said of his new clauses:
      "There is, however, no reason why any local authority, if it so wishes, should not negotiate extra concessionary benefits, either over and above the statutory' scheme, if it comes into effect, or with operators who are outside it. I believe our scheme to be superior. It is backed by statute, as no scheme has ever been before. It has powers to prevent the boroughs or the GLC from charging a heavy fee for bus passes. It concentrates on off-peak periods—9.30 am to 4.30 pm and 6.30 pm to 1 am. That in itself will save the ratepayers £10 million in a full year."—[Official Report, 4 April 1984; Vol. 57, c. 978–9.]
      The difference between that scheme and the scheme presently enjoyed by pensioners and financed by the GLC, was that pensioners would not travel free during the evening peak period from 4.30 pm to 6 pm. The Government's only concession was that, in exchange for the loss of the off-peak period between 4.30 pm and 6 pm, pensioners' passes were extended from midnight to I am.
      The Opposition's amendment to restore those privileges to the pensioners, which was defeated by the Tories in the House of Commons on 4 April, was made to the Bill in the House of Lords. We all welcomed that, especially the pensioners. I had thought that tonight we would have had a controversial debate in view of the Secretary of State's

      733
      remarks at Transport Question Time on Monday. He made it clear that LRT still had the power to make changes in the hours if it wished.
      Through democratic pressure, the Government have accepted that the evening peak period should be restored to the pensioner's pass. Although I am unhappy that it was inserted in another place, it will be of great consolation to pensioners to know that, through pressure from them, the Opposition and the trade unions involved, we have established that they will not be worse off under the scheme. However, I warn the Secretary of State that if he tries to find a back door and to use LRT to do his dirty work, we shall with the pensioners, the GLC and the trade unions, fight him again.
      We accept what the Minister said, although we should have preferred to hear it from the Secretary of State. He is better known for telling the House about the good sides of his policies than about the dirty sides. We accept that after a long struggle we have restored to the pensioners their right to retain a free travel scheme to operate from 9.30 am to 1 am as introduced and financed by the Labour GLC. That is the Opposition's great victory and it was achieved against massive Tory majorities.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The concession accepted by the Government is logical and comes in due time. It would be wrong to say to pensioners who were setting out on a journey to shop or to visit their families or friends that they must go home early or wait until later to return home. They would not have had the freedom of travel to which they have recently become increasingly entitled in London. We have always believed that local authorities should decide what entitlement to public transport their communities should have. The Government have decided to introduce a Bill to remove the right of local government in London to make those decisions. The least they can do, and what they are now doing, is to ensure that pensioners are not immediately prejudiced by the change in authority and control of transport in Greater London.
      On behalf of the millions of constituents represented by London Members, may I say that we are glad that the Government have seen the error of their earlier ways, albeit reluctantly, and that at last pensioners will have nondiscriminatory rights to travel tomorrow as they have travelled in the recent past.
      It being Seven o'clock, and there being private business set down by direction of THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking private business), further proceeding stood postponed.

  Dartmoor Commons Bill (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  7 pm
  Mr. Anthony Steen: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Before I go through the detailed provisions of the Bill, I shall try to paint a picture of the moor. I shall then deal briefly with the background to the Bill and explain why legislation is needed. At the outset, I pay tribute to the promoters, Devon county council, and to Dartmoor national park authority and its parliamentary agent for the thorough, efficient and courteous way in which they have carried out consultations and for the flexibility with which they have approached amendments. I record my personal thanks to my hon. Friends the Members for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) and for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), who have played a formidable part in the negotiations behind the scenes, for their support, guidance and advice to me. I pay tribute to the research and secretarial help of the former secretary of the Dartmoor Preservation Association, who is currently the secretary of the Open Spaces Society. I welcome to the debate my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction, whose love of the countryside and concern for protecting the environment is well known.
  Dartmoor is one of Britain's 10 national parks. It covers about 365 square miles, of which the core is approximately 150 square miles of common land. The moorland plateau rises to more than 2,000 feet at its highest. It is a sweeping wilderness, covered with blanket peat bogs and devastating and dangerous mires. Spectacular outcrops of igneous rock, known as tors, crown many of the hills. The larger granite masses are Hay, Hound and Vixen tors. The weathering of granite over millions of years has created all sorts of variations. There are logan stones, massive granite slabs which rock to and fro, tolmen rocks with huge holes in the centre gouged out by water action, and shaped granite blocks resembling animals and people, such as Bowerman's nose.
  Dartmoor is one of the last great wildernesses in the south of England. It has the highest rainfall in England with more than 100 inches of rain, because it is the first upland that the rain-laden Atlantic winds encounter. The abundance of water, collected in the great sponge of the blanket bog on the Dartmoor plateau, pours off the moor and has carved deep valleys on the edges, clothed in rich and verdant woodland. The Dart, the Erme, the Plym, the Avon, the Teign and the Tavy all have their sources on Dartmoor. It is well known for its mists and its prisons; hon. Members may remember that Sherlock Holmes groped his way through the mists of Grimpen Mire to be confronted by the baying hound of the Baskervilles.
  Dartmoor was the home of neolithic man 4,000 years ago, with some of the best preserved stone rows such as Merrivale, hut circles such as Grimspound, and encampments such as Kes tor. Spinster's rock boasts the remains of a chambered tomb, and there are good examples of kistvaens at Blackslade and medieval field boundaries at Foales Arrishes. The northern plateau is a grade I site of special scientific interest. Ironically, it has been remorselessly pounded by the military, creating 50 craters to the acre in the blanket bog.

  735
  I have set the scene. I can hear that hon. Members have the feel of the place, so I shall move on to the background to the Bill. It has been talked about for eight years or more. The problem is the misuse of 100,000 acres of common land by massive overgrazing on the periphery and massive undergrazing in the more inaccessible parts of the moor. The deterioration in shepherding and an increase in the number of animals turned out have caused the problem. That has followed generous headage payments from the Government.
  By 1976, the 1,500 commoners were largely agreed that something had to be done, but the first Dartmoor Bill that was brought before the House in 1980 fell, largely because it got the balance wrong between agricultural interests and environmental and conservation interests. After a further four years of fine tuning, the new Bill in its present form enjoys the broad support of the Countryside Commission, the National Farmers Union, Dartmoor Commoners Association, the RSPCA, Dartmoor Livestock Protection Society, the Open Spaces Society, the Ramblers Association, the General Council for Physical Recreation, the Youth Hostels Association, the British Horse Society, the Dartmoor Preservation Association and the Devon Trust for Nature Conservation, just to mention a few.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I should make it clear that although many of those groups support the Bill, at least some of them have introduced petitions against the part dealing with criminal trespass. They might welcome the rest of the Bill, but they have strong reservations about that section.
  Mr. Steen: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important matter. When the Bill was deposited, objections were received on a range of matters. As a result of the skill of the promoters in accommodating many of the points made by the petitioners, many of the petitions, or parts of them, have been withdrawn. I shall mention criminal trespass in a moment; the hon. Gentleman was right to mention it because there is some misunderstanding on that point.
  I shall now address myself to the question: is legislation needed? All hon. Members must ask themselves that question when a private Bill comes before the House. I have repeatedly asked the commoners the same question. Do they really want more rules and regulations for Dartmoor? Does Dartmoor deserve a Bill? Is there no other way of sorting out their problems? The commoners, who have grazed the moor since the Black Prince restored their pre-Conquest rights in 1336, adamantly answer, "No. Legislation is the only way forward." That is largely because of the decline in, and the loss of impact of, the old manorial courts to which the commoners used to bring their grievances and which affected all the commons of Dartmoor.
  It would be as well for the House to understand a little about the commoners' rights. They have the right to graze, to cut peat and to collect wood, among other things, and those rights are fundamental to the Bill. These rights are usually attached to the most secure part of the commoners' holding, which is normally the hearth and the chimney breast. In Anglo-Saxon times the hearth and the chimney breast were the only parts of a cottage that were unlikely to blow away, the rights were attached to them. They go back to Anglo-Saxon times. They are expressed like this:
  736
  "Two cattle or horses, or Len sheep; peat and turves for fuel; stone, sand and gravel for repair of the holding; heath and fern for thatching."
  The great environmentalist and Dartmoor preservationist, Lady Sylvia Sayer, attached to the hearth of her cottage at Cator the words:
  "So long as the hearth is there, the rights go with it."
  I pay tribute to her for her outstanding contribution to the protection of Dartmoor.
  All commoners have their rights and quotas of animals recorded in registers that are set up and housed in the county council building in accordance with the Commons Registration Act 1965. The registers are now closed but there are disputes about ownership and rights. The Commons Commissioner is currently hearing such disputes and making decisions. Until those deliberations are concluded the Bill cannot bite because not all the commoners will have registered the number of animals that can be grazed. Will the Minister take steps to appoint a further Commons Commissioner to assist the present incumbent because that is obviously an important task that must be completed?
  Clause 8 is an important and interesting provision. It prevents common rights from being sold separately from the property to which they are attached. The clause is aimed at landowners who buy up all the common rights so that they can then free the land from its common status and do what they like with it.
  Although common rights are in theory enforceable, in practice no one will take the necessary action. Stories of cowboys unloading cattle trucks on the commons in the middle of the night are rife. But nothing is done to follow up those stories or to pursue the cattle that have been put out on the moor. Some farmers do not seem over-concerned about the sickly state of their animals, and that is not being challenged either. Without power to deal with overgrazing, the vegetation of many commons, especially those near the road, have been eroded so badly that besides looking unpleasant there is little nutrition left for the increasing numbers of stock. The less meticulous farmers are driving out the more conscientious grazers who will not risk their animals being affected by sheep scab or brucellosis.
  Not only are there no powers for the commoners to regulate the grazing of the commons, but the National Park Authority has no powers to protect the moor from the increasing number of city dwellers who visit the moor for its solitude and tranquillity. Once any one of the 8 million visitors sets foot on the commons he is technically trespassing. He enjoys no right to walk or ride there. Furthermore, the Litter Act 1958 does not apply since the commons are not a public place. There are no powers to stop anti-social pursuits such as motor cycle scrambling and crossbow shooting. The concentration of large numbers of people, vehicles and horses damages the terrain, scarring the landscape and making it unpleasant for walkers. That is obviously having a serious adverse effect on the natural beauty and wildlife of the moor. That is what the Bill seeks to remedy.
  Part I deals with animal welfare and good agricultural practice. Clause 3 establishes a Commoners' Council, totalling 26 people, of whom 16 will be commoners, four from each quarter of the moor. At the moment there are 31 commoners' associations covering all of the 100,000 acres of commons throughout the moor. They will be

  737
  allowed to elect 16 commoners from amongst their number, four from each quarter of the moor. They will represent those with grazing rights in each parish.
  In addition, there will be two small graziers from the Commoners' Council who graze fewer than 50 sheep, 10 horses or 10 cattle. There will be two representatives of the 55 landowners, one representative of the Duchy of Cornwall, which owns over half the common land, and two representatives of the Dartmoor national park authority, one a county councillor and the other an appointee of the Secretary of State for the Environment. There has been an additional member since the Bill was before the House, a vet—because part I deals with animal welfare. In addition, the council may co-opt two people as professional advisers.
  The attractiveness of the Commoners' Council is that it will be self-regulatory and self-financing. It is based on the old adage and Tory philosophy that self-help is probably best. The council will ensure that commoners do not graze more animals than they are entitled to graze. Once the registration process has been completed—I drew the Minister's attention to the problem of the delay in registration which means that the Bill cannot take effect—the finite number of animals which can be grazed on any one of the 93 common land units will be known. When necessary, for the well-being of the commons and the animals, the council may fix the number at a lower level as set out in clause 5(1)(b).
  Some commoners have rights, not just on their abutting or immediate common, but on all the commons of the Forest of Dartmoor. Those are known as venville rights. Historically, they are of great interest, but the Bill does not affect them.
  To carry out that work the Commoners' Council will appoint reeves. That is a nice historical term in clause 6. Probably the commoners will be the reeves. They will see that the regulations made by the council—in clause 5—are upheld. The reeves will be volunteers and the system will work well if the precedent at Spitchwick and Holne is anything to go by. There the old manorial courts still sit. When the Bill was before the House in 1980 there was quite a discussion because it was felt that the reeves would not work and hon. Members asked who would raise the money for them. The answer is that they will work because they are the commoners themselves, policing their own commons.
  The effectiveness of the reeves will depend on a second register set out in clause 7. Let me explain that. The first register, the one in county hall, lists all the 1,500 commoners with grazing rights. Under the Bill there will be a second register, which will be kept and maintained by the Commoners' Council, of those currently exercising their grazing rights. At the moment I am advised that that is about 450. There will be two registers, one dealing with who has rights, the other, which the Commoners' Council will maintain, telling people who is exercising his rights and what his animals and their markings are. That will be available for all to see. The reeves and the council will know what people are misusing their rights or what animals are straying.
  For each animal which is on the Commoners' Council register the owner will pay a 30p charge or levy which will go towards financing and paying for the council. There will probably not be enough to pay for the reeves. It is
  738
  worth mentioning that as the reeves will probably have their animals out on the common they will easily be able to identify animals that should not be there. The House is probably familiar with the practice of learing, whereby herds of cattle and sheep are trained at an early age to stay in close proximity to the commons on which they were reared. My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West, who is well known for his agricultural prowess, is obviously familiar with that particular problem.
  That is the first part of the Bill. It deals with animal welfare and good agricultural practice. It also has a bearing on the environmental interests. How the moor looks affects walkers, ramblers, riders and others.
  The second part of the Bill aims to give the public a right to walk and ride over the common land. That is clause 10. It sets an important precedent. The 1980 Bill gave that right only to walkers, but this Bill extends it to horse riders, who have enjoyed riding over the moor for centuries. Some have, unfortunately, ridden to their deaths, as Childe's Tomb in the middle of Fox tor mires bears witness. Land erosion has taken place as a result of the commercial riding stables following the same tracks. The national park authority will have powers to regulate which tracks are used in consultation with the horse riding interests.
  I should pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) who, unfortunately, could not be here this evening. He is a great horse rider and spoke with great passion and feeling in the proceedings on the earlier Bill about the need to include the horse riding interests as a statutory right. I am glad that the promoters have been able to accommodate him, and to include a statutory right for the horse to ride over the commons. It is only right to point out that the commercial riding stables have 30 or 40 horses going over the same track two or three time a day, and this badly erodes the land. This is why the national park authority will have powers to regulate where they go. It will not affect their statutory rights, but where they go will be determined by the national park authority.
  The statutory right of access was not challenged when the Bill previously came before the House. The Country Landowners Association, in a petition lodged in the House a few days before the closing date for which petitions have to be lodged, expressed disagreement with the concept for the first time. Although broadly supporting the Bill, the country landowners believe that every one of the 55 landowners on Dartmoor should be deemed to have entered into an access agreement with the county council. Those could be varied to reflect local needs and the demands of individual landowners.
  In practice, the difference between a statutory right and a deemed access agreement can best be illustrated by explaining what would happen if a walker were confronted by a landowner when walking across the moor. If there were a statutory right, which is what the Bill proposes, the owner could ask the walker to leave his land and the walker could say, "Parliament has given me a right by law to walk or ride over your land, and I am going to do that." But, if there were a deemed access agreement, the walker could say, "Although I have no right to be here, I am not a trespasser and you cannot throw me off." In practice, therefore, there is virtually no difference, other than the words, between the two except that "deemed access" bears potential for restriction and confusion.

  739
  I will explain why there would be confusion. It is because the common land units on Dartmoor are joined one and another in one block with no physical boundaries between the two. Therefore, if there were different access agreements for walkers and riders on the land of each of the 55 landowners, the walkers and riders would be unable to judge when they were moving from one common on to another common, and what conditions applied to each. I understand that the national park authority might then be compelled to erect notice boards at the boundaries of each common, saying exactly what the rights of the public would be. The House can imagine that the picture that I have given of this wilderness and beauty would be ruined if, on every occasion that one crossed on to another moor there were a big sign—there are enough signs already belonging to the Ministry of Defence—explaining what one might do and what one might not do. It is clear that deemed access agreements are not as attractive as the country landowners believe they are. I am advised that, of the 55 landowners on Dartmoor, about half are members of the Country Landowners Association, and half of those are opposed to a statutory right of access. Somewhere between 14 and 15 are opposed to a statutory right of access. The other 40 are in favour.
  Further, deemed access agreements are contrary to the recommendations of that august body, the Royal Commission on common land, which in 1958 stated that a legal right of access on commons would make the law simpler and give effect to a long-established custom. Consultations have taken place over the past four years on the basis that the statutory right of access would form part of the Bill.
  Environmental, conservation and recreation organisations agreed to the package. The Open Spaces Society, the Ramblers Association, the Central Council of Physical Recreation, the Youth Hostels Association, the British Horse Society, the Cyclists Touring Club—and the House may remember that, in a fit of pique, I suggested that there should be a statutory right for cyclists over the moor on the last occasion that the Bill came before the House—and the British hang-gliders organisation are all adamantly opposed to changes in the access provisions at this late stage. The deal was struck that there would be a statutory right of access for the walkers and the horse riders. The conservationists, the environmentalists and the animal-loving organisations have behaved in a most responsible and impeccable way on that basis. It was only at the eleventh hour that they were suddenly advised that there was a proposal to change it, and they have responded in consultations with the county council to the effect that they would be thoroughly opposed to it.
  Mr. W. Benyon: I do not know the area in the way that my hon. Friend does, but am I not right that the land ownings on the moor vary considerably, and that half the problem is that some farms lie within the common area, although they are not commons? Secondly, am I not right that the Duchy will enter into an agreement with the park authority? If it is possible for the Duchy, why is it not possible for the rest?
  Mr. Steen: The Duchy has approximately 50 per cent. of the commons. I am glad to advise my hon. Friend—and the country landowners may not know this yet—that the Duchy through its own Attorney-General, although the Duchy is outside the terms of the Bill, and
  740
  could not be involved if it did not want to be, has agreed recently that the same statutory right of access for the walker and for the rider should be given to riders and walkers over the Duchy land just as in the Bill they have a statutory right over the other land. Thus, the country landowners have expressed themselves as ready to follow the Duchy's lead. I am glad to say that the Duchy has now led by saying, "We shall follow the statutory right of access in the Bill for riders and walkers."
  My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon) may not know the moor as well as I do, and I should like him to come to the moor. I invite him to come and walk over the moor with hon. Members who represent Devon, and we will show him what the problems are. We could also take the Whips on duty, and show them just how it is. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his point, because it is an important and worrying one. I am much encouraged by the responsible attitude of the Duchy. It owns the commons in the highest, most remote part of the moor, and it has set this lead. I think that the country landowners will find it encouraging. The last thing that the House would wish to do is to pass legislation by agreeing to a deemed access arrangement which must make things more complex and open to all sorts of confusion.
  The House should know that a statutory right of access will help the landowners. They will no longer be liable for the injury of walkers or riders on their land. At present, if somebody has an accident, they are liable if that person does something that he should not do. The county council proposes to add a clause to the existing Bill making the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 not applicable here. 'The county council is also willing to add a clause making it clear that the national park authority will make good any damage caused by the public to a landowner's land. Again, this is a quid pro quo, and many landowners will he encouraged by such a provision.
  There are other advantages for landowners. Besides drawing up byelaws to regulate the public use and appointing wardens to enforce them, under clause 11 the national park authority may restrict access in certain circumstances. Indeed, the point was raised earlier in the debate about the restriction of access in certain circumstances. This is to protect ancient monuments, scientifically important sites, young trees and the like. The concern is that people who disregard these restrictions intentionally or not, are, according to the Bill, criminally liable under clause 10(8). The argument is that the criminal offence would take place when a member of the public deliberately ignored notices erected and approved by the county council to prohibit access for a limited period. This would be in extreme cases because there was some danger or special ecological reason that the space should not be entered.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman used some crucial words there by saying that someone would deliberately ignore notices. As I read the Bill, that is not included. It is possible for a person to do this accidentally, as I read the Bill, and still to commit a criminal offence.
  Mr. Steen: I am somewhat troubled by that remark because in the criminal law, as I recollect it, one needs two ingredients. One needs something called the actus reus, the going across that particular notice, and the mens rea, the intention to do so. If there was not the intention to cross the notice, and it was inadvertently crossed, I do not see

  741
  how a criminal offence could have been committed. It could have been committed only if there were the intention to defy the notice, and the defying of the notice.
  The idea is that the county council will not put up "No" notices. It does not want to see notices going up all over the moor. However, in exceptional cases it wants to protect against people going somewhere that they should not. I am advised by a Dartmoor national park officer that behind one of the information kiosks in the park there is an exceptional piece of bog land where certain frogs proliferate. The frogs are very rare and the last thing that he wants is for the public to go there while they are mating. He would like to put up a sign saying that children going to the information kiosk should not rush there and disturb frogs getting on with the job, and so ruin a piece of ecological and natural development. Perhaps that helps the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett).
  This issue has nothing to do with trespass. Trespass is, of course, a civil offence and no one is trespassing on anyone's land. The national park will put up a notice once it has gained the county council's approval. The notice will say that people should not walk on a certain part of the moor. Provided that the period involved is less than 28 days, there is no need for an advertisement. Several of my constituents have written to me on that point, and I am sure that it will be discussed further. However, I hope that that explanation will be of some help. Some organisations, including the Dartmoor Preservation Association and the Dartmoor Livestock Protection Society, feel that the Bill should include an out-wintering clause.
  Mr. Colin Shepherd: Does my hon. Friend accept that some owners on Dartmoor feel very strongly about access? Although the CLA has petitioned against the Bill, its objective is to achieve constructive solutions and it is not bent on sinking it.
  Mr. Steen: That was a most helpful intervention. Perhaps I should have explained that the country landowners were in favour of the first Bill. The problem of access has cropped up in the second Bill. The problem for the promoters is that some 40 of the landowners on Dartmoor believe that a statutory right is perfectly acceptable. For hundreds of years people have travelled over the moor by horse and by foot and no one has objected to it. It is only because of the legislation that the matter has raised its head. The question is whether the landowner should have his right extinguished by an Act, or whether he should have some agreement with the county council that affords the walker or rider the same protection, but gives him the freedom to say that it is his land: The only snag is all the ramifications involved. However, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having raised that point. I have dwelt for some time on that issue, but it is of great interest and it would be wrong not to deal with the Bill in its entirety.
  As I have said, some organisations feel that there should be an out-wintering clause. By that, it is meant that the commons should be cleared entirely of all livestock for three months in the winter, since the weather is particularly severe on the moor.
  Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Can be.
  Mr. Steen: Can be, and often is. Whereas in earlier days, there was sufficient space on the inbye land—land
  742
  attached to the farm or holding—for the animals out on the moor in the summer to be kept in those fields during the winter, nowadays, because of the increase in the number of animals that most commoners have as a result of the headage payments that the Government have generously given, there is insufficient space on the inbye land to accommodate them. There is a further problem that the farmers use the inbye land for making silage and for feeding the animals in winter, and they cannot put the animals there and create feed for them. Thus, as long as there are more animals on the moor than they have inbye land for out-wintering cannot be a practical solution. Furthermore, the animals are bred to be particularly tough on Dartmoor and are greatly sought after because of their strength and robustness. Once they are put on to inbye land in the winter, they will lose their strength and hardiness.
  The conservationists complain that as a result of the animals staying out on the moor in winter, some of the moorland becomes rutted because farm vehicles cross the wet terrain to feed the out-wintered cattle. They argue that the flora and fauna would improve if the moor were cleared of animals for a few months each year. However, the practicalities do not allow that. I have had to explain to the Dartmoor Preservation Association and the Dartmoor Livestock Protection Society that it is not a feasible provision to include in the Bill, even though it is an attractive idea.
  Although there is no out-wintering clause in the Bill, the Commoners' Council has powers under clause 5(1)(e)
  "to exclude from grazing on the commons … any animal which in the opinion of the Commoners' Council either has become unthrifty, or is in such a condition that to allow it to remain depastured on the commons would be likely to cause it unnecessary suffering".
  The county council has agreed to add
  "or cause offence to the public".
  At Easter, I was walking my constituency's boundaries and I had never before seen so many dead ponies or sheep. I raised the matter with the chairman of the Commoners Association, Herbert Whitley, who rightly pointed out that the first Bill included the words
  "or cause offence to the public"
  which had miraculously slipped out of the second Bill.
  Thanks to him, this Bill will include those words.
  The clause will thus deal with the problem of dead ponies and sheep that are scattered over the moor, particularly in late spring, and which are becoming increasingly offensive. The farmers and commoners will be responsible for clearing them. It is not a question of them being abandoned by the fanners. There are all sorts of reasons why the animals die. There are a lot of parasite problems on the moor, and by March or April the grass is extremely thin and the new grass has not started. The animals die from a mixture of under-nourishment and disease.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is there not yet another reason why we all die?
  Mr. Steen: I am most grateful for that helpful intervention. That is perfectly true, but most of the animals are not of that age. Many of them are in foal and just do not get the necessary nutrition from the moor. However, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful and, as always, useful intervention.
  I shall deal briefly with tree planting. The Bill gives powers to the Commoners' Council to plant clumps of trees. They have to be indigenous to Dartmoor, which

  743
  means hawthorn, ash or oak. They will be sited to give animals protection during the wild winter months. The environmentalists have expressed concern at the prospect of clumps of trees springing up all over the moor, albeit less than an acre in extent and over a mile apart. I should like to reassure the House that, since the commoners will have to pay for the trees, and fencing them will continue to be subject to ministerial consent under section 194 of the Law of Property Act 1925, it is most unlikely that Dartmoor will become Dartmoor forest again.
  The Bill is intended to deal with a serious and longstanding problem, which affects a national asset of great importance. The Bill will benefit the public, the livestock industry and the wildlife which has its habitat on the moor. The Bill also demonstrates that agricultural and environmental interests can be compatible and symbiotic.
  The conservationists need the commoners to maintain their livestock and so keep the commons accessible. The commoners need the ramblers, the Open Spaces Society and other conservation groups to ensure that the land is safeguarded. I believe that the Bill may pave the way for more general legislation affecting common land.
  It has been a great privilege to be given the opportunity to promote the Bill for a part of the country which I have known and walked for more than a quarter of a century and with which I have been associated as a life member of the Dartmoor Preservation Association. The Bill turns a page in the long history of Dartmoor on which man has lived and toiled for over 4,000 years. I commend it to the House.
  7.40 pm
  Sir Peter Mills: I declare an interest, since most of Dartmoor is in my constituency. It is a privilege to be able to speak about it tonight.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) for the way in which he introduced the Bill and for all the hard work that he has done. He worked with tenacity and skill and he is to be congratulated. When the Bill was before the House previously, my hon. Friend did not take the same view. I believe in conversions and it is a great thing for a person to be converted and changed. My hon. Friend could not have been more helpful. I congratulate him again.
  Dartmoor is superb. It is a lovely area, enclosing lovely small towns. The moorland people are tough, hardy and shrewd. The Bill is important for Devon and Dartmoor. My hon. Friend rightly stressed the national interest, but the Bill is also important for Devon and Dartmoor itself, because much is at stake.
  Dartmoor creates strong views. One has only to read in the papers what people say about me to realise what strong views Dartmoor stimulates. I also have strong views. My position is clear. I love Dartmoor. I have been around Dartmoor for longer than most hon. Members and longer than many of the people who talk about Dartmoor. The big difference is that I believe that one must consider the needs of those who live and work there and the economic problems of the district.
  I was disappointed that the previous Bill failed. It was tragic, because many years were lost and some deterioration has taken place. We could have made an earlier start on tackling the problems. It is no good looking to the past; we must look to the future. The need for the Bill is obvious, particularly to those who live and work in the area. Indeed, in some aspects the need is acute.
  744
  We need some form of control. That is essential in these modern times. I remember the times when my grandparents went out on the moor in a pony and trap and when I went out in an ancient Buick motor car for my first picnic on Dartmoor. The hills were so steep that we had to stop and reverse up the hill. In those days few people used the moor and only a few cattle and other stock were grazed there. That was 50 or 55 years ago. An enormous change has taken place. Today, vast numbers of tourists and much more livestock use the moor. The need for more control is apparent and essential.
  Sir Peter Emery: Not only the people in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) and those associated with the moor appreciate the need for development and for the Bill. People living in areas which are not contiguous with the moor appreciate the need for development. Not only those who are lucky enough to live in that beautiful part of our county, but people throughout the county have a feeling about the moor.
  Sir Peter Mills: My hon. Friend is right, although I have a slight bias towards my own patch.
  Mr. Steen: According to the Dartmoor national park authority, about £7 million-worth of stock now use the moor and 8 million people visit the moor each year. Things have changed dramatically.
  Sir Peter Mills: That is right. Overstocking exists. The grants which are so important to the moorland farmer have had some effect. Dartmoor is a great reservoir of stock which must be fattened and which are essential for the lowland farmer and for the consumer. We must consider carefully the problem of health and the control of disease. That is not easy on Dartmoor. We must also preserve and protect areas of outstanding beauty.
  Only a small minority of farmers make life unfair and unpleasant for the remaining farmers. The majority are hard-working. They care about their stock and deplore the activities of the few. The Dartmoor farmer—the salt of the earth—was there long before the tourist and preservationist. He has a right to be there and to be respected. He also has a task and must get on with it.
  I am proud of moorland farmers such as John Hodge and others whose fathers and grandfathers have farmed the moors for years. They care. They are concerned. It is wrong to condemn Dartmoor farmers as a body, because of a small minority.
  The question is one of balance. No one interested party can have it all its own way. The farmers cannot, nor can the preservationists or tourists. There must be a balance. The Bill achieves that balance. That is why I support it and recommend it to the House.
  I am sad and disappointed at the Country Landowners Association's reactions. Of course I understand its objection to access, but over many years the right of people to walk over the moor has been accepted. It is in the interests of all to allow the Bill to go forward. I am glad that the CLA is not asking hon. Members to vote against the Bill. I am also grateful to others who have shown great tolerance and understanding.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) has an interest in horses and handicapped riders. He has been helpful. In the House one hardly dares mention fox hunting, but I believe that if ever a place was

  745
  suitable for fox hunting, it is Dartmoor. There is no question about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet) has been concerned with that issue.
  One has also to bear in mind the animal welfare lobby and the ban on over-wintering. On the surface it all seems reasonable, but there are practical reasons why over-wintering on Dartmoor must be continued. It has disadvantages, but the advantages outweigh them. Again, we must listen carefully to the views of the farmers who are looking after their stock.
  I hope that I do not exaggerate when I say that my main concern for Dartmoor is not the farmer or preservationist, but the enormous burden imposed by the ever-increasing number of tourists coming on to the moor. We in Devon welcome them. We must, for they are part of our bread and butter, though it is extraordinary how little of Dartmoor they visit. There are real problems when one considers the whole question of tourism, and that is why the Bill will be of help. Undoubtedly, tourism creates problems. As I say, we need tourists, and the Bill will help deal with the problems they pose.
  As for the future, if the House agrees to the Bill, as I hope it will, and we can, in Committee, overcome any outstanding problems—we must listen to people and see what we can do to help—the enactment of the measure will result in great advantages. I am sure that the various interests, given good will, can work together. I believe that I can say, in view of all the attacks that have been made on me personally, that perhaps a new chapter can be written in the history of Dartmoor.
  If we must adapt and change slightly in the light of experience as we see the Bill working, I hope that we shall be big enough to do exactly that and that the council will listen to what people say. This measure and what it will achieve may be the pattern for elsewhere in the country. Let us try to make the Bill a success. I believe that, with good will, we can do that.
  7.52 pm
  Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I wish at the outset to pay tribute to the industry, tact and capacity for listening and decision-making shown by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen). He has borne the burden of the Bill, not only in Parliament, but in the immense amount of work outside, working closely with the gifted parliamentary agent, Mr. Durken, who has been handling the Bill on this occasion, and the clerk to the county council, Mr. Macklin and his staff.
  Nobody can claim that the Bill satisfies everyone. The nature and history of Dartmoor are such that the interests involved are not, and never have been, conterminous. The Bill represents the best possible overall compromise, and for that the thanks of the House are due to those whom I have singled out for praise.
  The interests involved in Dartmoor throughout history have been even more diverse than some which have been described. The reason for the reference to the "forest" of Dartmoor has nothing to do with trees, any more than a deer forest in Scotland is primarily the location of silviculture. "Forest" was the word applied to the Norman laws for the pursuit of game, and it is in that context that Dartmoor was referred to as a "forest".
  746
  The interesting characteristic of Dartmoor, unlike many other open spaces, is the extent to which throughout history it has been in the service of man. Surrounded by Norman castles at Lydford, Oakhampton and Gidleigh, for instance, a considerable part of Dartmoor was, and arguably still is, subject to that separate corpus of law called the Stannary law, which had to do with the winning of tin from the granite resources of Dartmoor. Indeed, the Stannary prison was in Lydford castle; and Lydford and Tavistock are Stannary towns. For centuries the water power of Dartmoor was harnessed in the great woollen towns, not only Tavistock but, for example, Ashburton and Buckfastleigh. Dartmoor has been a resource for food, for producing livestock, and for breeding horses tough enough to stand the climate of Devon, to be used in transporting those who ride them and to draw agricultural vehicles which they used.
  There are manorial, common, Stannary, duchy and common law rights of the citizens of the United Kingdom as a whole. Anyone who claims that it is possible to draft a Bill which will meet all the aspirations of such disparate, though wholly legitimate, interests is wrong. There can be only compromise or chaos. Those are the alternatives.
  When the pressure on Dartmoor was less—because the holiday visitors were fewer in number, the costs of agriculture were lower and the roads were worse—it was possible to resolve these conflicts by custom, without statute law. The confluence of those various pressures has made it clear that a private Bill is necessary to resolve those conflicts reasonably and temperately, and that is why the Bill commands the support of all Devon Members and many others in all parts of the House. However, they include a number of Devon Members, including myself, parts of whose constituencies lie in Dartmoor.
  I was born at Ivybridge on the edge of Dartmoor. As a child, I walked and rode over considerable portions of Dartmoor, some of which I recognise as totally different from the descriptions given of them by those who visit them only occasionally. I look on the Bill as the only alternative to a chaos which will not go away, and which cannot be resolved in any other way.
  Second Reading debates exist not to alter Bills but to approve or otherwise their general principles. The Committees process on a private Bill—this may not be generally known outside Parliament—excludes all hon. Members who have any constituency or personal interest. Thus, the Committee has a more judicial composition than does the Standing Committee on a public general Bill. It hears petitioners who have what is technically called good locus standi.
  I hope that that process will not be abused, because Devon county council lives in a world of severe financial constraints. It does not have unlimited resources with which to finance expensive gentleman of the long robe to represent it viva voce in Committees of this House. I hope, therefore, that any hon. Members, if there still be any at the conclusion of this debate, who are unable to accept the measure as drafted—remembering the immense amount of compromise that has gone into it—will be measured, temperate and brief in putting their case to the Committee which will hear it. I commend the Bill to the House.
  8 pm
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: As one of those who put their names to the blocking of Second Reading, I welcome the opportunity to debate the Bill. I

  747
  did so because I felt that this was an issue worthy of at least three hours of debate in the House. It is a sad reflection on the House that we have insufficient opportunities to discuss the problems of the countryside, and in particular access to the countryside. It is not my intention to vote against Second Reading because I welcome most of the Bill, but I shall express a few reservations about clause 10.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) on the way in which he has introduced the Bill and the work that he has done to bring all the groups together. It is a nice bit of poetic justice that he is one of those who mucked up the last Bill on this subject, and if he manages to steer through a replacement for it that meets most of the objections he will have done well.
  In his introduction, he referred to the issue about which I am concerned. A question is raised by clause 10(8), which concerns criminal trespass. If his explanation to the House was of what is in the Bill, I should not be too unhappy, but his explanation was not of what is in the Bill. We have to deal with what is written in clause 10(8), and that gives me considerable concern. It is important that the national parks should have power, in consultation with the commoners, to regulate occasionally the areas to which people can go. However, it should not be a criminal offence for someone to ignore the notices, particularly if the individual has not seen them.
  As I read clause 10(8), it does not specify whether one has actually seen the notice, but whether closure is required by the notices. There is thus a matter of concern there. If someone accidentally ignores one of the notices and does no damage, it is unreasonable that he would be liable to a fine of up to £400.
  Mr. Steen: If in clause 10(8) the words "with intent" were added, would that change the hon. Gentleman's approach?
  Mr. Bennett: It is probably not very useful for us to negotiate across the Floor of the House, and it is probably not effective as I am not a trained lawyer, and should not wish to give any undertakings. However, I hope that it will be possible, as the Bill goes into Committee, for some discussions to take place. The Ramblers Association and the British Mountaineering Council have a petition on this point, and I hope that it will be possible to find some solution to the problem other than to make it a criminal offence if someone ignores one of those notices, such as making it merely a civil offence if damage is done.
  I also hope that punishment will depend on the person seeing the notices. The placing of notices will be difficult. The hon. Member for South Hams said that we do not want the whole moor covered with notices, which could be unsightly. There is difficulty in making sure that adequate notice is given. In clause 10(3) there is provision for protecting such things as the ancient monuments, and areas of historical, scientific or archaeological interest, all of which are legitimate reasons why it may be necessary to introduce a closure. However, I hope that we shall not introduce the criminal law.
  I suspect that the vast majority of people who go out to walk to enjoy Dartmoor and other parts of the countryside would not want to do damage, and on the whole would be willing to follow any notices or requests not to walk on a particular area for the reasons set out. However, they might feel a little narked and uneasy if the criminal law were brought into the matter. I hope that as
  748
  the Bill goes into Committee the promoters will examine this point and find a solution that makes it possible to enforce much of what is in clause 10(3) without making it a criminal offence.
  I question the inclusion in clause 10 of the procedures for closing footpaths and bridleways. In the rest of the country there is a fairly well-established standard of procedure for diversions and closures of footpaths and bridleways, so it is a little odd to include that in clause 10. It may be difficult for somebody if they have planned a long-distance walk involving public footpaths and they suddenly come to a point at which the route is closed by one of these notices. In other parts of the country it would normally be necessary to make a diversion order. In this area, all that would happen is that the footpaths would be closed and the individual might know that he can go on the common to get round the closed off area. However, that might not be made clear and we need to make it clear to people that they will have the right to divert round the area covered by the notices to continue the route that they were following. It would have been better if footpaths and bridleways had been left out of this section and had continued to be dealt with under the legislation for the rest of the country.
  There is not much problem for most walkers if they have to divert from the footpath or bridleway, but there might be considerable difficulty for someone with a bicycle, for whom diverting over the rest of the open space might cause considerably more difficulty than for the walker. I hope that the inclusion of footpaths and bridleways in this section is perhaps considered so that it may be dealt with the rest of the country through national legislation rather than through special power of closure in this Bill.
  Clause 10(3)(b) says that the footpath may be closed
  "after consultation with the Commoners' Council, whenever it appears that by reason of an outbreak of disease amongst animals it is expedient to do so".
  I understand that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has considerable powers to close land if it is necessary as a result of disease. What instances are the promoters looking for where they need special powers under this legislation to close land as a result of outbreaks of disease that are not covered in the powers that the Ministry already has?
  I understand that something has gone into the Bill through petition by the Country Landowners Association, which wants a different approach to access. That causes me and, I hope, the House considerable concern. The hon. Member for South Hams and the other promoters have gone a long way to meet almost all the objections. To have the whole spirit of the Bill altered as a result of petition from the Country Landowners Association would not only be unfortunate for this Bill—some of us might find that we had to oppose it or at least delay the Bill considerably in its proceedings—but would create a precedent for other parts of the country that would cause many people a great deal of concern.
  I hope that the association, even at this stage, will sense the mood of the House and decide not to proceed with its petition. If it withdrew it and if there were further negotiations with ramblers and the British Mountaineering Council, it might be possible for the proceedings in Committee to be short. The fears of the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) that learned counsel

  749
  would be making a great deal of money out of those proceedings could be allayed. In those circumstances the proceedings in Committee would be extremely brief.
  The idea that there should be automatic compensation for allowing access is an unfortunate one. People should be compensated if they suffer as a result of access. I understand that it has been made clear that the park authority will have the power to make good any damage that is caused by access. I do not believe that much damage is caused by an individual gaining access but sometimes damage is created because of the volume of those who gain it. It is an important function of national parks to ensure that they make good the damage that farmers and individual landowners suffer as a result of substantial numbers going on to their land.
  Earlier in the year we had a brief debate on landowners' liability. It seems that a reasonable compromise has been arrived at and it would be unfortunate if the commoners were held liable for accidents to walkers or climbers when the landowner is not responsible. I know that there are occasions when barbed wire is erected. I recently came across the deliberate placing of barbed wire on a rock climb, which created a nasty set of circumstances for the individual. If a landowner deliberately causes a hazard for someone who is legitimately on his land, he should not be exempt from liability. If an accident occurs merely as a result of someone walking or climbing in circumstances in which the landowner has no responsibility, it is important that we relieve the landowner of liability.
  If the Bill is to work, the Government must ensure that the park authority has the resources to carry out its increasing responsibilities and that the Countryside Commission has adequate resources as well. With a small amount of Government expenditure we can offer sufficient carrots to make it attractive for more and more landowners and farmers to open up their land and allow access to the general public for everyone's benefit and for the better understanding of the countryside by the many who go out to enjoy it from the towns. I am worried that the Government are leaving the commission and the national parks far too short of resources so that they cannot act as mediators and play a helpful role.
  When the Minister intervenes, I hope that he will welcome the Bill, tell us that the Government will support most of its provisions and give an assurance that more money will be made available so that the commission and the national parks can continue to play a helpful role.
  8.15 pm
  Miss Janet Fookes: I do not wish to pursue in detail the arguments on access that were advanced by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). I hope that those issues can be resolved satisfactorily.
  I think it can be safely said that there has never been so thorough and excellent a job done in consulting on access and all the other issues that are contained in the Bill as that which has been carried out by the Devon county council and my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen). I commend their activities and congratulate them on undertaking the task in the most thorough and painstaking way possible. The large measure of agreement that has been achieved is undoubtedly due to the enormous amount of spadework. Anyone not involved would be
  750
  unable to realise the extent of the work that has gone into the Bill. I am glad to pay tribute to those who have worked so well and for so many hours.
  When the Bill's predecessor failed, I can remember experiencing a sickening sense of disappointment. It was not the loss of the public right of access or anything of that nature that caused that sense of disappointment. It was caused by the feeling that there was to be an indefinite postponement of what I saw as urgent reforms to improve the welfare of animals on Dartmoor.
  Dartmoor ponies are extremely lovable, but there are many more thousands of other animals on Dartmoor, including sheep, and they should not be overlooked, especially when we think of the ponies which are so well-known to us all.
  I am more aware than most, perhaps because of my close connection with the RSPCA, of the difficulties of looking after animals when they are free to roam. I do not think that all of them are quite so well trained as my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams suggested as to remain near to their own piece of common.
  Mr. Steen: I was not suggesting that the horses are experienced in remaining in the same part of the common. I was saying that all the other animals have that experience.
  Miss Fookes: I was referring to the totality of animals. I am concerned—my concern will remain until the Bill is safely on the statute book—about the opportunity that is given to a minority of owners to neglect their duties. I say "minority" advisedly, because I am certain that the majority of those who have animals on the moor are only too anxious to ensure that they are well looked after. Unfortunately, there are a few owners—I mention no names but I reckon that my hon. Friends and I could easily produce half a dozen—who have shamefully neglected their duties.
  Given the nature of the moor, it has been extremely difficult to bring such owners to justice by any normal means provided by the law. For example, RSPCA inspectors have found it virtually impossible successfully to bring prosecutions because of the impossibility of proving intent to neglect or to ill-treat animals. It is all too easy for the owner, once he has been traced, to say, "I have been looking for this animal for weeks and I have not been able to find it." Who can prove otherwise, even if it is known in one's heart of hearts that the owner has spoken a lot of rubbish? None the less, the prosecution will not stand up in court.
  In many instances there has been difficulty in assigning the ownership of animals. There cannot be a prosecution if the owner of the animals is not known. These two factors have caused a great deal of misery which we have not been able to eradicate by the normal operation of the law.
  I am sure that my hon. Friends, like myself, have often seen direct evidence of neglect or have had it brought to their attention by those who walk the moors. I know of the upset and anger that has been caused by the suffering of unfortunate animals. I welcome warmly and gladly the parts of the Bill that deal with animal welfare.
  It is right that the commoners should govern themselves through the institution of the Commoners' Council. Most British people have a sturdy sense of independence. On the moor that sturdy sense of independence is very much more marked, and the commoners are far more likely to make

  751
  a success of the enterprise if they impose the rules on themselves than if the rules are imposed by people whom they would regard as outsiders. The provision for a Commoners' Council made up of representatives of the commoners is an important feature of the Bill.
  It is wise to have two representatives of the small graziers on the council, as they might otherwise feel left out in the cold. I also welcome the inclusion of a veterinary surgeon. He will be able to give wise professional advice on all matters relating to animal welfare. This addition to the Bill is an excellent one. I am pleased to see that it has been accepted by all those involved.
  Bearing in mind the difficulty of establishing the ownership of animals, I am pleased to see that among the powers given to the Commoners' Council there will be the power to ensure that animals have permanent markings which will enable them to be identified. That may sound mundane, but the key to the enforcement of any welfare provisions is the ability to trace owners and link them to a particular animal.
  Despite the reservations of some, I am pleased that clumps of trees are to be planted to give shelter for animals. Anyone who has been on Dartmoor in the winter, or even on some of our chillier summer days, will know how bleak the moor can be on occasions. The selective planting of trees to give protection and shelter to animals will be welcome both to them and to those who have their interests at heart.
  I am also pleased that there is to be power to remove animals which would suffer if they were to remain on the common any longer. I have slight reservations about the failure to provide that all animals should be taken off during the winter months. My hon. Friends have referred to this, and I recognise the difficulties of a carte blanche withdrawal, but I hope that the commoners, in exercising their powers, will not hesitate to be firm even if that means taking off a fair number of animals during the winter months.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) mentioned the hardiness of the Dartmoor ponies. It is true that the pure strain is very hardy, but, because of the desire to breed these animals for riding, other breeds have been introduced—I believe that they still are brought in—so that the animal on the moors is not necessarily the pure-bred, hardy breed.
  The ponies which are not pure-bred are less able to withstand the harsh winters on Dartmoor. I should welcome an attempt to bring back the pure, hardy strain. That idea was dear to the heart of Mr. Philip Brown, the former chief veterinary officer of the RSPCA, who made an extensive study of the ponies and other animals of Dartmoor. It could not become a reality while there were no external controls, but I would hope to see a move in that direction if the Bill becomes law.
  It will be apparent how much I welcome the provisions in the Bill for the welfare of animals. We must seize this golden opportunity. I hope that nothing will go wrong either on Second Reading or in Committee, where, sadly, the Bill passes out of our hands. I shall not readily forgive anyone who stands in the way of the Bill becoming law. I give that warning now, but I hope that it will not be necessary. I hope that the Bill will go ahead and that, at long last, we shall have a proper and sensible regulation of the varied interests on Dartmoor.
  8.27 pm
  The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Ian Gow): It may be convenient for the House if I say a few words at this stage. You may think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is commonplace for those who speak from the Back Benches to know a great deal more than the Minister who speaks from the Dispatch Box. That is certainly the case this evening. All who have participated in this debate know a great deal more about Dartmoor than the Minister who, somewhat surprisingly, has been asked to reply.
  At the start of the debate, in a somewhat light-hearted vein, the former Patronage Secretary, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Cocks) muttered something from a sedentary position about my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen). Those who have known my hon. Friend—even when he represented a constituency many miles away from Dartmoor—know that he has, and, I suspect, has had throughout his life, a great love and concern for Dartmoor. That was made clear in the debate in the House on 24 April 1980, when my hon. Friend explained that he had been for many years a member of the Dartmoor Preservation Association.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend not only on representing a constituency in the county of Devon, but also on the deeply informed way in which he moved the Second Reading of the Bill. Tribute has been paid to my hon. Friend by my hon. Friends the Members for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills), for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes). If the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) had as much deeply informed local knowledge as my hon. Friends, no doubt he, too, would have paid tribute to my hon. Friend.
  As I have said, it is somewhat surprising that I should be standing at this Dispatch Box.
  Mr. Steen: My right hon. Friend was chosen because there are no houses on Dartmoor.
  Mr. Gow: I shall explain why I am here and not my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Waldegrave). My hon. Friend has special responsibilities for the countryside and the national parks. He would have liked to have been here, not only to listen but also to speak. However, he is representing the Government at the air pollution conference in Munich.
  My hon. Friend, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jopling) and I are concerned for the preservation of the Dartmoor commons, which constitute much of the Dartmoor national park. I pay tribute to Devon county council and to the Dartmoor national park authority for their persistent toil on the preparation of the Bill. Since the failure of the earlier Bill in 1980 they have continued their unremitting efforts to seek an acceptable legislative framework to enable the Dartmoor commons to be better managed and to improve public access. It is a difficult task to reconcile the wide range of interests involved, but it is clear that the Bill has a much wider measure of support than was enjoyed by its predecessor.
  The Government have no objections to the powers being sought by Devon county council. Characteristically, my hon. Friend the Member for Drake addressed much of her speech to the welfare of livestock, which, particularly the welfare of the ponies on the commons, has been a

  753
  matter of great concern for many years and has received considerable publicity. The Bill is designed to improve the standard of livestock husbandry, and that is a purpose that I warmly support. As my hon. Friend said, the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council have both given their support to the Bill. It is true that both bodies are seeking some changes, and I hope that the Bill's sponsors will consider their views carefully.
  I want to put the Bill into the context of commons legislation. It has been argued by one of the petitioners, the Country Landowners Association, that the Bill is premature and that no legislative action should be taken affecting the Dartmoor commons pending further general legislation on common land arising from the recommendations on management of and access to commons in the 1958 report of the Royal Commission. However, second stage legislation on common land—the first stage was the registration procedure provided by the Commons Registration Act 1965—is a highly complex subject. The common land forum was established in January this year under the auspices of the Countryside Commission. Its task is to reach agreement with a wide range of interests on the content of second stage legislation. I hope that it will report its findings to the commission in the latter part of next year. It may be that that report will be the precursor of another Bill on common land.
  We have heard this evening of the problems that exist on the Dartmoor commons and the generally accepted need for better management. The Government believe that a solution to Dartmoor's problems should be sought now and should not be deferred until after general commons legislation has been enacted. The Government have not been a party to the prolonged discussions undertaken by my hon. Friend, the Bill's sponsors, the county council and the national park authority. Yet it is not surprising, even after all those sustained efforts, that the Bill has not been able to satisfy all interests. There are still petitioners against the Bill. It seems to the Government that it is right for the detailed arguments to be resolved in Committee when the petitioners will have an opportunity to present their case. For that reason, I wish the Bill well and I hope that the House will give it a Second Reading.
  8.32 pm
  Dr. David Clark: It gives me a great deal of pleasure, for a number of reasons, to speak this evening. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) on the assiduous way in which he has prepared the Bill and the eloquent way in which he presented it to the House. I am sure that that view will be shared by everyone who listened to his speech. Basically, the main thrust of the Bill is good and right, and I hope that it is given a Second Reading tonight. Obviously we have certain worries, but on the whole it is a thoroughly good Bill. These debates on environmental and animal welfare matters show the House at its best. The standard of debate is good and I always find the amount of knowledge shown by hon. Members to be quite remarkable. Tonight's debate has been a good example of that.
  Another reason why I am pleased to participate in the debate is that I have non-financial interests as chairman of the Open Spaces Society, which is the oldest amenity society in Britain. It is largely responsible for all the major commons to which we have access, both in our major
  754
  cities and elsewhere. It was largely responsible for various Acts in the 1890s, as well as the important Law of Property Act 1925.
  We have always argued that commons create a two-sided problem—the problem of management and the problem of recreation and access. We cannot have one without the other. That is why I am broadly in favour of the Bill, which seeks to combine the two. Of course, that does not satisfy everyone, which is an impossible thing to achieve.
  I am especially pleased with clause 8. It may appear to be a technical clause, but it is connected with the severance of commons rights from land ownership. Under clause 8 it will not be possible to sever the rights of commons from any part of the common land tenure. I assure hon. Members that that is an important point, especially following the decision of the Central Electricity Generating Board and Clwyd county council several years ago.
  A number of people have actually bought out the rights of commoners. They may not own the land, but they can buy the rights. Once that has happened, they can seek deregistration of the commons and the general right of the public is lost. I hope that when the secondary legislation, dangled before us by the Minister, is introduced in two or three years it will contain the principle of clause 8 as a major piece of legislation.
  We also welcome clause 10. The general right of access was recommended by the 1958 Royal Commission, endorsed by the departmental committee of 1978, and as recently as this year the Countryside Commission advocated access to common land. Again, that is nothing new. Following the 1925 Act there has always been access to commons in urban areas. That has provided us with many useful examples of management and planning.
  There appears to be widespread support, not only for the Bill, but for the access arrangements—not only from those from whom we would expect support, such as the Ramblers Association, the Open Spaces Society, the British Mountaineering Council and so on, but from the Countryside Commission and the National Farmers Union. The Devon branch of the NFU recognises the problem and is prepared to face it. In the past I have said harsh words about the NFU, but I now compliment it on its progressive attitude on this matter.
  I speak in sadness in saying that opposition comes from the Country Landowners Association. I hope that it clearly has the message from both sides of the House that it is trying to push things a little too far, and against opinion both in this House and outside. I hope that it will realise that its petition against general access is out of line with current thinking. I hope that it will withdraw its petition, which will not help anyone.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Redditch (Mr. Bennett) dealt thoroughly with an important point about the law of trespass. It is incumbent upon us to declare firmly that there is no criminal law of trespass on land—there is only civil law. That meets with general approval. I am concerned that one subsection may open the door to extending the criminal law of trespass to land.
  It is only recently that the Government, quite rightly, decided not to extend the criminal law of trespass for residential property to land. It is unfortunate that the Bill, although not the Government's responsibility, may provide the opening for criminal law of trespass on land. We recognise that there is sometimes a problem of trespass

  755
  on archaeological or nature sites, but that problem exists elsewhere as well, and it is tackled within the general legislative framework without too much difficulty. There is no need for the measure dealing with that matter.
  I fully understand the problems of access to Dartmoor. Eight million visitors a year come to a concentrated area. I remind the House that similar problems are experienced in the Lake District national park, which has 20 million visitors a year. Since 1925 there has been access to all the commons in the southern part of the Lake District national park because those areas are under the control of the Lake District urban council. The Lake District planning board has no need to apply for these powers. I do not believe that they are necessary in this case.
  The powers governing the control of disease of animals are not necessary either. They should be, and are, the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
  We welcome the Bill. I was encouraged by what the Minister for Housing and Construction said. I hope that I did not read too much into his words. I thought he said that he felt the Bill should be presented to the House at this time because of a particular problem. He reported that the common land forum was studying the problem and that when it reported in 15 or 16 months time the Government would look at the results and bring forward secondary legislation.
  Much of the Bill provides a blueprint for general legislation. I wish the Bill well and look forward to general enabling legislation.
  8.41 pm
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I shall not detain the House for many minutes, but I should like to associate myself with the praise that my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) has rightly received for his efforts. Anyone who has seen his industry and determination must be amazed by it. It is impressive to someone like myself, who is Devonshire born and bred, that someone with fewer years of acquaintance with Dartmoor can have such a great feeling for it. It is a tribute to my hon. Friend that he can present his argument in that light.
  My acquaintance and knowledge of Dartmoor stem not only from the fact that I have been aware of the area for most of my life but from the fact that a substantial amount of Dartmoor falls within my constituency of Teignbridge. Some of the places that members of the public most associate with Dartmoor, such as Widecombe and Hay tor, fall within my constituency. I do not wish to trespass on the area of my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) but those parts of Dartmoor that fall within my constituency are as typical of the area as they can be.
  Many points have been made about the reasons why the Bill is necessary. I shall touch on one point, not because it is an overriding matter, but because the other points have been dealt with at great length. I especially welcome the effect that the Bill will have on animal husbandry on the moor. I say that not just because of my particular interest in animal welfare, of which the House may know, but because that aspect reflects something important about the way in which farmers conduct their affairs on Dartmoor.
  756
  There has been much ill-informed criticism about the way in which Dartmoor farmers look after their stock. Coming from a farming background, even if I do not now farm I am aware of the fact that the vast majority of farmers have great concern for the animals they tend. That feeling may be based on long acquaintance—it is based on sense rather than sentimentality—but it is, for all that, a real concern. The representations that I have received from farmers leave me in no doubt that the great majority welcome the Bill's animal welfare provisions. People without an acquaintance with rural matters may not realise how important that can be.
  Over-grazing of the moor leads to general deterioration. In the end, it means not just that animals will suffer misery, disease and death, but that responsible farmers will be reluctant to commit their animals to the moor. General deterioration follows. Others who use the moor do not benefit by a good example and there is a lack of monitoring by responsible farmers of those who are less responsible. There is a vicious circle in which the worse the position becomes, the worse it is bound to become. In the end, there is no regulation and animals suffer from a range of diseases—sheep scab, bovine tuberculosis, brucellosis, and the rest. If present conditions were allowed to continue without any regulation, that action would continue, even though it would be wrong to exaggerate it.
  Once a special concern about animal welfare has been identified, the correct way of regulating it must be considered. In a sense, the Bill is returning to former conditions. Control by a system of manorial rights has disappeared. If the Bill is passed, a system of regulation by the Dartmoor Commoners' Council will replace it. That council is the correct body to tackle this type of task, because the people on the council know the commons and derive their living from it. It is difficult to think of any other way in which this matter should be regulated.
  It is in no one's interests to continue the present intolerable position. Anyone with a genuine love and affection for Dartmoor would want the matter remedied. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) rightly said, it is impossible to please everyone by this Bill. A balance must be struck, and I have no doubt that that balance has been properly struck.
  8.47 pm
  Mr. Steen: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to thank the House for its generous approach to the Bill and the warm way in which both sides of the House have received it. I especially thank the hon. Members representing Devon constituencies for their generous statements about the way in which I have worked on the Bill. I thank also my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction for coming to the Chamber, because one can clearly say that there is no new housing on Dartmoor, and it is appropriate that he was selected to speak in the debate.
  There is whole-hearted support for the Bill. The Committee will examine this matter carefully. I believe that nothing more needs to be said. The Bill should proceed quickly to Committee, to the other place and then back to the House on Report.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

  London Regional Transport Bill
  Lords amendments further considered.
  London Regional Transport Bill
    Clause 50

      RESERVE FREE TRAVEL SCHEME FOR LONDON RESIDENTS
      Lords amendment: No. 20, in page 50, line 6, leave out "off-peak"
      Question again proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      8.49 pm
      Mr. Ridley: Before we were transported from consideration of the London Regional Transport Bill to the Dartmoor Commons Bill, I was about to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to say a few words about the amendment on concessionary fares, which came from the other place. I apologise for not having been here at the beginning of the debate, but the proceedings moved a little too quickly for me. I want to make the position clear.
      The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said that the London boroughs will not put in place their own scheme for concessionary fares. I think that he is jumping to conclusions. I gather that they are making good progress towards doing so. We should all like to feel that they will succeed in doing so because it would mean that the local authority function remains a local authority function. The back-up powers would not then be required. I am sure that the House hopes that they will succeed in reaching agreement although the statutory back-up scheme is there should they unfortunately fail.
      The hon. Gentleman made a slight slip when he gave his figures. He said that the cost of abolishing the evening peak restriction was £10 million. It is not; it is half that figure. The £10 million represents the cost of advancing the end of the morning peak from 9.30 am to 9 am plus the cost of the evening peak. They both cost a little under £5 million on London Transport's estimate. The cost of the evening peak that their Lordships sought to make available for free travel is about £5 million.
      I am happy to leave the matter in the way that another place changed the Bill, but I must point out, in all fairness, that it was said in another place—I said it during Question Time last week—that the power to alter the peak hours remains in the Bill in clause 50(7). The other place was made aware that that was the case. I told the House last week, and I repeat it now, that if under clause 50(7) LRT wished to reinstate the evening peak ban or to change the hours of the morning peak, or any other hours that are put in place of the evening peak, it may do so after consultation. LRT will not require consent from me or anyone else. It has to consult, but it has the power to make the decision. That is how the Bill left another place. The other place is content that it should be like that. I cannot say what LRT will feel like doing or how it will react to the position. LRT has the power to determine at what hours it is difficult for it to carry large numbers of elderly people because the buses are full, to determine how much it will cost, and whether it can afford the scheme within the amount of subsidy provided from the boroughs and by the Government through the annual precept.
      Mr. Prescott: If I understand the Secretary of State correctly, the scheme contained in the Bill means that he could enforce a uniform scheme upon the local authorities.
      758
      As I understand it, if LRT wants to formulate a concessionary scheme, albeit reduced—let us assume that it was to take out the evening peak period—and it was agreed between the local authorities and uniformly implemented, that would be acceptable to the Secretary of State.
      Mr. Ridley: That is not quite right. The London boroughs may agree on a scheme, ask LRT to implement it and pay LRT the cost per pass that they issue. The only power that remains with LRT, as the Bill now stands, is that it may, after consultation, alter the hours. It can alter the morning peak or re-introduce the evening peak. It can do so for operational reasons—because the buses are full—or if it thinks it right. LRT has to consult first, but none of us in the House, or whoever may be in my shoes, has the power to stop LRT. I want to make the position clear, as their Lordships changed the Bill and as the Government recommended the Bill should remain if the House approves.
      Mr. Prescott: I am sorry to trouble the Secretary of State, but this is an important point. As the Bill stands, if the Secretary of State enforces the scheme because there is no agreement between the local authorities, he has no leeway to change the scheme embodied in the Bill. After the amendment in another place, all the peak times would be free, but if LRT changed the hours and said that the concession no longer applied to the evening peak period, the Secretary of State would have two schemes. One would be the reduced scheme which would be cheaper and not cover the evening peak period about which, presumably, LRT could reach agreement, and the other would be the more expensive scheme which is the wider one that the Secretary of State is talking about. Do we envisage a two-type scheme? If the local authorities do not reach agreement they face the possibility that the Secretary of State will enforce a more expensive but better system on the pensioners. That will presumably force the local authorities to reach an understanding with LRT to achieve a reduced and cheaper scheme which will be worse for the pensioners.
      Mr. Ridley: I should like to make it clear that that is not quite right. As the Bill is drafted, and if the boroughs do not agree a scheme, I will implement the powers contained in the Bill to introduce the statutory scheme, which will be free transport for old-age pensioners on bus and tube from 9.30 am until 1 am the next morning. That will come into existence and be the starting position after the GLC is out of the picture.
      It is possible that LRT will say that 9.30 am is the wrong time. It may suggest 9.45 am or 9.15 am. I do not know. It might also say that there should be an evening peak during which the bus passes will not be valid. We do not know what times LRT will say. LRT has power to do that as the Bill now stands, and neither the hon. Gentleman nor I would have the power to stop it. It would be for LRT to make the decision because the reason that there has always been concessionary travel for old people when buses are not running full—off the peaks—is that it costs little for old people to fill the seats. We all welcome the fact that they should. That is a different concept from the rush hour when the buses are packed. Then if more people are put on the buses extra buses will be needed and that will lead to more congestion.

      759
      I am not expressing any views about the matter; I am trying to explain the position. When Lord Pitt moved the amendment, he was fully aware of what the results would be. I am describing the precise nature of the statute as it now stands. I shall be delighted if it proves possible for LRT to carry pensioners throughout the day. The problem for LRT will be to decide whether the operational requirements of the system make it possible for it to do that. There is evidence that the evening peak has been decreasing and broadening which means that it might be easier for LRT to do so.
      Ms. Jo Richardson: I was going to intervene to say how satisfied we all were that what the Opposition and pensioners have striven so long for had been achieved. A tribute must be paid to pensioners for their persistence and dedication in trying to obtain what they want.
      However, it seems to me, from listening to the last five minutes' worth of the Secretary of State's remarks that he has re-erected a sword of Damocles above the heads of pensioners. He is putting forward the same arguments as were put forward in Committee. Here, we have in the Bill from the Lords a clause that restores the position virtually to what it was before the London Regional Transport Bill came in.
      Mrs. Chalker: It does not.
      9 pm
      Ms. Richardson: The hon. Lady says that it does not, but it almost does, except for the fact that the Secretary of State has been at great pains to underline the fact that at any time LRT could say, "No. We shall vary the off-peak hours from those set out in the Bill." Surely that is like wielding a sword of Damocles above the heads of pensioners.
      What notice will be given of any variations? Will they be seasonal variations, with one period lasting from January to March and another between March and the end of the summer? What will happen, for example, when there is an influx of tourists from abroad? They are all welcome to come here but they use London Transport and create an extra load upon the system. Will that mean that LRT will be forced to say to pensioners, "Sorry, mate, you will not be able to travel under the same set of circumstances as those set out in the Bill."?
      The Secretary of State shakes his head, but he has made no attempt to explain. We are still—I believe that my right hon. and hon. Friends are with me in this—confused about the matter. Will the Secretary of State please explain the position to us, especially in view of the pressure over the past few months that has resulted in a change of policy by the Government and has restored to pensioners the idea that they will be able to have free bus passes and travel with reasonable freedom on London Transport?
      The Secretary of State has entered a caveat at this late hour suggesting that the Bill says something but that LRT will be able to vary it. There is nothing, as the Secretary of State has just said, that either he as Secretary of State or my right hon. Friend, if he were Secretary of State, would be able to do about it. The Secretary of State should give us a better explanation.
      Mr. Ridley: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Lady should read the Bill. I shall quote clause 50(7). It says:
      760
      "The daytime, evening or late-night off-peak period for the purposes of subsection (5)(b) above may be altered from time to time by London Regional Transport by notice published in such manner as they think fit, specifying the new period or periods and the effective date of the alteration."
      That has been in the Bill since it was published. It was not challenged in Committee, on Report or in another place. When Lord Pitt moved the amendment in another place he accepted that that power remained in the Bill.
      I simply want to ensure that there is no misconception or misunderstanding about what Parliament has done to the Bill. Parliament has left those words in the Bill, and they cannot be taken out now. I should not want anyone to think that he had been cheated or misled. Those words remain in the Bill and there is nothing we can do about it.
      Mr. Prescott: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State is trying to make this important point clear to us. We are making progress towards understanding it. The subsection has been in the Bill since it was introduced, but the argument has always been as to whether a statutorily enforced system and powers could be in the Bill because no one trusted the authorities to reach a uniform scheme. That issue constantly plagued the Committee, and has continued to trouble us on Report and in another place.
      The purpose of statutory enforcement—it was, indeed demanded by the pensioners—was to secure a guarantee that pensioners should keep the service because the Secretary of State was taking over London Transport. In those circumstances, pensioners wanted an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman. He left us in no doubt when he brought in the clause introducing a reserve scheme for statutory enforcement. As he pointed out, it was the first one of its kind in the country. No doubt it created a precedent for the metropolitan areas, but we shall leave that question for another time.
      Although the scheme was the first of its kind, the only argument that was put forward by the Secretary of Slate as to why it was introduced was that the Opposition had made a clamour and caused much upset among pensioners, who feared that they would lose their free travel. That was the basis of the argument. Therefore, if we got a statutorily enforced scheme, we would achieve what people were looking for—a promise, written into legislation, that a statutorily enforced scheme would be implemented if, and only if, the local authorities refused to agree to a uniform scheme.
      The Secretary of State told us that negotiations are well under way towards achieving that objective. I do not know whether the local authorities involved were working on the Secretary of State's scheme of deleting the words "evening off-peak". Local authorities would consider the new maximum that could be enforced on them and could buy the LRT cheaper package, not including the off-peak period. Presumably, the negotiations would be about that. The Secretary of State's statement makes it clear that it is a much wider game, with very different hours of coverage.
      We must be agreed upon this. It is true that subsection (7) has been in the Bill from the start. It makes it clear that LRT can make a change. It would look for a sign from the Secretary of State of what his thinking was. It would have been identified in the statutory scheme. LRT would enter into negotiations with the local authorities. I have put this point to the Secretary of State before. It is reasonable to

      761
      assume that the Labour boroughs will be more likely to go for the maximum scheme but the Tory boroughs will go for the minimum scheme.
      Mr. Ridley: Will they?
      Mr. Prescott: There is a general pattern, and I shall not argue much about that.
      Mr. Ridley: The Labour boroughs will be rate-capped.
      Mr. Prescott: The Secretary of State has introduced the fact that the Labour boroughs will be rate-capped. Now we know what this is about. It is the same as with the Diala-Ride schemes. Some local authorities that put their money towards such schemes are presently penalised for over expenditure on schemes such as Dial-a-Ride.
      Therefore, the Labour authorities will not be able to buy the expensive package, not because they have no desire to do so, but because they will not have the resources to do so, as they will have been rate-capped. However, let us assume that they throw the lesser LRT scheme out and stick to the pensioner's free pass. If one Labour borough out of the 32 London boroughs sticks out and refuses to accept the lesser scheme, presumably the Secretary of State will have to enforce the whole scheme under the Bill, and nothing less. That is what the amendments mean. If authorities are rate-capped, they will turn round to the Secretary of State and say, "If you are forcing a statutory obligation on us, you had better pay for it because it is your scheme." We went through all those arguments in Committee. We can see the mess that we shall get into.
      The Secretary of State has no means of changing the hours or times. The only flexibility in the system remains in the clause, with the power of LRT to negotiate with the local authorities. I am sorry to say that, because I was a little more persuaded earlier by the Minister, when it looked as if the Government had accepted democracy. The Minister of State referred to that, but I am more suspicious of the Secretary of State. We have learnt more from his throwaway line than from his statements. Rate-capping will have an effect. My gamble is—it is almost a prediction—that London pensioners, having fought the battle by means of democratic machinery both here and in the other place, protesting and demonstrating to everybody, will now be robbed of their democratic right to retain the pension system.
      Mr. Ian Mikardo: I ask the leave of the House to speak once.
      I should like to add something to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). The real problem is that it is now possible for the scheme to be worsened by an authority that is accountable to no one. That is the important thing. I do not know why the Secretary of State makes such a virtue of the fact—he repeated it several times—that he has no power to intervene in a decision by LRT in respect of reducing the hours. LRT people may take it into their heads to reduce the available hours considerably. They may want to cut services and the number of their personnel. They may see a reduction of hours in the concession to pensioners as a vehicle for reducing services and the number of personnel.
      I do not know why the Secretary of State made a virtue of the fact that he did not have such a power. I would
      762
      sooner that he rather than London Regional Transport made the decision because he is accountable. He can be questioned by the representatives of those pensioners and called to account for his actions. No one can call LRT to account. It can vary the provisions as it wishes, and give whatever notice seems appropriate to it. LRT is not accountable. No one can say to LRT, "Don't be rough. Let's have warning in advance."
      The prophecy of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East will probably be fulfilled. I shall be surprised if, before the new arrangements hve been in operation for long, LRT does not decide to worsen the scheme. I am sorry that the Secretary of State does not regret that he will be unable to do anything about that.
      The Secretary of State can say that the provision has always been in the Bill and that everyone knows about it, but when LRT first makes a cut in the value and availability of the concession, millions of pensioners will come screaming to him. No doubt he will shrug his shoulders and say, "There is no good talking to me about it because I have not done this. LRT did it and you cannot talk to LRT because you have no representation." LRT's lack of accountability makes it probable that it will worsen the conditions, and the worst of it is that it cannot be taken to task for it.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 agreed to.

    New Clause

      PENALTY FARES
      Lords amendment: No. 26, after clause 52 insert the following new Clause—
      " .—(1) This section and the three next following sections have effect in relation to—

      (a) travel on a bus service to which this section applies; and

      (b) travel on a train service to which this section applies; if an order under section (Operation of the penalty fares provisions) of this Act is for the time being in force with respect to the service in question.

      (2) Subject to subsection (4) below, if at any time during his journey on any bus service to which this section applies on which fare tickets are issued in return for fares paid by persons travelling on that service a person so travelling fails, on being required to do so by an authorised person, to produce any necessary fare ticket for his journey on that service, he shall be liable to pay a penalty fare in respect of that journey.
      (3) Subject to subsection (4) below, if a person travels on any such bus service on which fare tickets are not so issued without paying the fare (if any) properly payable for his journey on that service, or for any part of his journey on that service, he shall be liable to pay a penalty fare in respect of that journey.
      (4) A person shall not be liable to pay a penalty fare—

      (a) in a case within subsection (2) above, if he had no reasonable opportunity to obtain any necessary fare ticket before the time when he was required to produce such a ticket;

      (b) in a case within subsection (3) above, if he had no reasonable opportunity to pay the fare in question before the time when he was found to have failed to pay it.

      (5) Subject to subsection (6) below, if at any time during his journey on any train service to which this section applies a person travelling on that service fails, on being required to do so by an authorised person, to produce any necessary fare ticket for his journey on that service, he shall be liable to pay a penalty fare in respect of that journey.
      (6) A person shall not be liable to pay a penalty fare by virtue of subsection (5) above if he had no reasonable opportunity to

      763
      obtain any necessary fare ticket, or a deferred fare authority applicable to his journey or to any relevant part of his journey, at the time when he started to travel.
      (7) A penalty fare payable by any person under this section in respect of any journey shall be an amount equal to—

      (a) the minimum penalty; or

      (b) the default fare for the journey multiplied by the multiplier;
      whichever is the greater; and any such penalty fare shall be payable to the person providing the service in question within the period of twenty-one days beginning with the day following the date on which the journey was completed.

      (8) In subsection (7) above—

      (a) "the minimum penalty" means or such other (lower or higher) sum as the Secretary of State may by order prescribe; and

      (b) "the multiplier" means ten or such other (lower or higher) figure as the Secretary of State may by order prescribe.

      (9) In any case within subsection (2) or (5) above the default fare for the journey mentioned in subsection (7)(b) above is—

      (a) where the whole of the distance travelled on that journey was not covered by any fare ticket produced by the person in question or by any deferred fare authority or other valid authority to travel, an amount equal to the full fare for the whole of that distance;

      (b) where any (but not the whole) of the distance so travelled was not so covered, an amount equal to the full fare for that part of that distance;

      (c) where the whole or any part of the distance so travelled was covered by a fare ticket so produced showing payment of a fare appropriate in the case of another category of traveller but lower than the fare properly payable by the person in question for that journey or for the relevant part of that journey, an amount equal to the difference between the fare shown on the ticket and the full fare for that distance or (as the case may be) for that part of that distance; and

      (d) where both paragraphs (b) and (c) above apply, the aggregate of the amounts applicable under each of those paragraphs.

      (10) In any case within subsection (3) above the default fare for the journey mentioned in subsection (7)(b) above is an amount determined by applying subsection (9) above, taking references (however expressed) to a fare ticket produced by the person in question and the fare shown on any such ticket as references to a fare paid by that person.
      (11) In this section "full fare" means, in relation to the whole or any part of the distance travelled by any person on a journey on any bus or train service to which this section applies, the single ordinary fare payable by an adult for travelling on that service for that distance or (as the case may be) for that part of that distance on a journey corresponding to the one actually taken (but treated, where it covers part only of the distance travelled on that journey, and also where the whole of the distance so travelled formed part of a journey made partly by way of another service, as a separate journey).
      (12) The liability of any person under this section to pay a penalty fare in respect of any journey is subject to section (Exclusion of double liability) of this Act."
      Mrs. Chalker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 27, 28, 29 and 30.
      Mrs. Chalker: These five clauses were introduced as Government amendments, following representations in another place that action should be taken to reduce the current level of fraud by the introduction of penalty fares. Fare evasion on London Transport is a severe problem. Every effort has been made to reduce its effects by normal means, but in 1983 the total loss from fraud, mostly in the form of fare dodging, was £25 million. That represents
      764
      about a 5 per cent. loss of revenue, and effectively adds 6 per cent. to the fares which would otherwise have to be paid.
      There is a further important consideration. It is well known that the Government's aim is to ensure that LRT reduces its costs, improves its efficiency and generally provides better value for money. London transport is already in the process of introducing automated fares collection and ticket issue. When the new underground ticketing system is fully operational there will be automatic gates at central stations and open barriers at surbaban stations. It does not take much imagination to recognise the opportunities that the new system would afford to the determined fare dodger unless steps are taken to impose an appropriate penalty if the proper fare is not paid. Without such measures it would be impossible to achieve the savings that we want in this area, which will benefit travellers and ratepayers alike.
      9.15 pm
      Although there are sound reasons for introducing the measures, the Government have been conscious of another important consideration—the need to protect the rights of the individual. Therefore, the measures include several safeguards for travellers, and improvements in this respect were made during consideration of the clauses in another place. It is important to place on record at the outset the fact that the measures do not represent an on-the-spot: fine. As part of the conditions of travelling on LRT services, travellers will be liable to a surcharge or penalty fare if they do not pay the proper fare.
      What is involved is not the creation of a new criminal offence, with the fine being exacted outside normal court procedures. It is simply the creation of a new civil liability. Although it will be possible for the traveller to pay the surcharge on the spot, he will have 21 days in which to pay. If he chooses not to pay, LRT's redress for the recovery of the penalty fare lies only in a civil action in the county courts. The new conditions will be displayed prominently at stations, on trains and on buses to ensure that travellers are fully aware of their liabilities. In addition, an undertaking was given in another place that the notice issued to someone liable to a penalty fare will contain information as to his rights and obligations, and that the form of the notice will be subject to approval by the Secretary of State.
      My second point—I apologise for taking a long time, but the measures are new to the House and I should discuss them in detail—is that the measures ensure that travellers will not be liable to pay a penalty fare if they had no reasonable opportunity to pay the proper fare or to obtain a ticket. In this context we have given an undertaking, which I am happy to repeat now, that the measures will not be introduced on the underground until we are satisfied that appropriate equipment is in place to ensure that a reasonable opportunity exists to obtain an appropriate ticket or authority to travel.
      The measures create a new civil liability for nonpayment of the proper fare. They will apply to those who travel with intent to avoid payment and who will remain liable, if they do not pay the penalty fare, to prosecution. They will also apply to those who override with every intention of paying. The Government are aware that extending sanctions into new areas almost inevitably restricts the freedoms of some innocent people. We have considered that aspect carefully, but we can see no

      765
      alternative to the approach embodied in the clauses if the provisions are to be effective in their purpose, which is to help to eradicate the high level of fraudulent travel on London's public transport.
      I shall say a few words about how the system will work. The first new clause, in amendment No. 26, provides that if a person does not pay the proper fare for the whole or any part of his journey he will be liable to a penalty fare of either £5 or 10 times the amount of the unpaid fare, whichever is the greater. There will be no liability to a penalty fare if the traveller had no reasonable opportunity to pay the proper fare or to obtain a fare ticket for the journey in question. The clause also defines the terms and method of calculation for a penalty fare.
      The second new clause, in amendment No. 27, provides that the penalty fares system will apply on all LRT bus and train services, on the services of any subsidiary of LRT, and on the services of any person operating under agreement with LRT, where the agreement states that the penalty fares provisions are to apply. That is a section 3(2) agreement. The clause also sets out definitions of terms used concerning fares, tickets, journeys, and so on.
      The third new clause, amendment No. 28, places a duty on LRT to ensure that warning notices about liability for penalty fares and about the minimum amount are displayed at every station, in every train and on every deck of every bus. Any order varying the penalty fare will be subject to the negative resolution procedure in Parliament.
      The fourth new clause, amendment No. 29, provides that a traveller will not have a double liability for an offence relating to fares. If he is liable for a penalty fare, no proceedings can be brought within a period of 21 days. Any liability to prosecution will be discharged by payment of the penalty fare. On the other hand, if proceedings are brought after the 21-day period against a person of offences related to non-payment of fares, he will not be liable to pay the penalty fare.
      The final new clause, amendment No. 30, provides for the Secretary of State to bring the penalty fares provisions into effect by order at the request of LRT for bus and train services separately. The clause also sets out provisions relating to revocation of the orders and the suspension of similar provisions in local Acts which appear to the Secretary of State to be unnecessary when the new provisions are brought into effect.
      As I mentioned earlier, the clauses have been inserted specifically at the request of another place where they received all-party support. Some improvements were made during their passage but I am happy to repeat an assurance that was given in another place that if further improvements can be identified before the provisions come into effect, we shall be prepared to implement them in amending legislation.
      While those measures may be new to London they are not new to other areas which have their own schemes. There are schemes in Manchester, Tyne and Wear and Cardiff, and they are used in those areas. Therefore, although they are not common and new to the House, because they have come up—I think I am right in saying—under local provisions, another place thought that they were extremely worthwhile, indeed necessary, to make the whole business of fare-dodging a thing of the
      766
      past. I commend the new clauses to the House and hope that the House will agree with the Lords in the said amendments.
      Mr. Snape: I hope that my hon. Friends will agree that to make such a drastic change and to tack it on to the end of a 66-clause Bill which took up a considerable proportion of three months in Committee is not a particularly satisfactory procedure. This detailed series of serious clauses has been added on to the Bill only after it disappeared to the other place and it is unsatisfactory for the Government to adopt such a procedure. Had this succession of clauses appeared in the Bill originally, we could have had a fairly full and comprehensive debate in Committee on the whole issue of the principle of the levying of fines and the quasi-judicial role which those responsible for the checking of tickets will adopt under these clauses. However, we have had no such opportunity.
      I must start by referring to something that the Minister said towards the close of her speech. She talked about the powers being available in other parts of the country. To the best of my knowledge—I stress that because I have not been directly involved in those areas—neither Greater Manchester nor Tyne and Wear has made wide use of those powers since they were adopted. I shall come back to why I believe that the powers should not be widely used.
      I remind the Minister that from a reply to me in an earlier debate to some questions about some other matters which do not concern us on these new clauses I understood that she was to withdraw certain things that she said at that time, and she has not yet done so. I hope that she will not have to withdraw two separate matters as a result of the brief that she has had before her tonight. I repeat that I do not know of any widespread use of the power in other parts of the country. It would be helpful if the Minister detailed to the House where and when these powers have been used.
      We are equally concerned about fraudulent travel. The Government, after all, say time and again that the provision of public passenger transport in the City is uneconomic, so we have no interest in defending those who seek to travel fraudulently. I observe no examples of proof that this series of amendments which the other place has seen fit to adopt is necessary. It is easy for the Minister to say that the Government desire to save £25 million a year. Forgive my cynicism, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but fare evasion, by its nature, is difficult to prove. It is remarkable that the Minister should come to the House and say that £25 million revenue is being lost by London Transport and that, for that reason, these clauses should be accepted undebated, despite our comprehensive procedures.
      The Minister said that the clauses would not be needed until a change had been instituted in the system of ticket issue and collection on London Transport, particularly on the underground. She mentioned the necessity for gates at stations in the central area and referred to open barriers in other parts of the system. There is a long way to go before we arrive at that stage. Given the amount of money that it would be necessary to spend to arrive at what is, to the Minister, that happy position and the amount of time that it would take for London Transport to spend that money and thus effect these so-called "improvements", there is surely plenty of time, when these matters have been completed, for the introduction of such clauses after adequate debate in the House. I am a daily traveller on the

      767
      underground system, and I think that there is a long way to go before we arrive at the happy position outlined by the Minister.
      I appreciate at the outset that these bright ideas—and there are reasonable assumptions behind them—normally emanate from the management of concerns such as London Transport at 55 Broadway. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) on inadvertently referring to the Secretary of State's new headquarters, after the Bill becomes law, as 55 Marsham street, but I think that that is the perfect description of the role that he will adopt as Secretary of State and as the supremo of London transport. Some bright boy at 55 Broadway has decided to put forward the figure of £25 million as the amount resulting from evasion by passengers who do not purchase a ticket or who purchase a ticket for a station short of their destination. Although it has been said that there will not be on-the-spot fines, there is some on-the-spot fining in the legislation. If the passenger so agrees, he can pay a fine on the spot. That provision, which is fairly odious to us, exists. Some of us use London Transport daily, in particularly the underground system, unlike the Secretary of State or any other Minister in the Department of Transport.
      Mrs. Chalker: That is not true.
      Mr. Snape: The Minister says that that is not true. She is a little touchy tonight. She would be the first to concede that, like every other Minister, she has a car and a chauffeur who is allocated to her. Fairly recently she was photographed riding to work on a bicycle. That is a very healthy pursuit, although perhaps not one that should be debated now. By coincidence, the day that she decided to ride her bike to work, London Transport's employees were on strike. Perhaps it is a double coincidence that on the day that she forsook her chauffeur-driven car and biked to work a photographer was present from the Fleet street newspapers.
      I am sure that the Minister usually rides to work in that state-provided chauffeur-driven car, just as I would do—I shall be quite open about it—if I were in that position. The Parliamentary Private Secretary seems to fulfil a valuable function in racing between the Front Bench and the Government's advisers. I am sure that if she had the opportunity she would ride to work on a bike, but more probably would travel in a chauffeur-driven car.
      9.30 pm
      Therefore, I do not accept that Ministers, particularly in this Government, are well qualified to work out the best way to pursue fare dodgers. I say that because they lack experience of the public transport for which they are responsible—[Interruption.] It would be very difficult to imagine the Secretary of State riding to work by tube without a ticket. If he ever had to drag his languid way to Marsham street by public transport, one of his faithful civil servants would no doubt be assigned the odious task of buying his ticket. So we need no comments or hand waving from the right hon. Gentleman when it comes to fare dodging. He is an obvious public transport dodger in the first place.
      If these provisions are implemented, those responsible for pursuing people who travel without tickets will probably have an onerous task. It would be a fairly daunting prospect to have to walk through a train on a Saturday evening on some of our tube lines, demanding
      768
      to look at the tickets of those who have purchased them, let alone imposing on-the-spot fines or interrogating those who are fare dodging. Can the Minister tell us what consultation has taken place between her Department, London Transport and the trade unions responsible for organising those who will have that job if we accept what the Minister so blandly described as a fairly minor alteration to the existing procedures? I should like to see the Secretary of State walk through a Piccadilly line train near King's Cross at about 11.20 pm on a Saturday night, just after closing time, demanding that passengers produce their tickets. I should have thought that there would be a dramatic confrontation, although, given his size, I might put my money on the right hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Mikardo: What proportion of those found without tickets would readily give their right names and addresses so that they could be the defendants in a civil action?
      Mr. Snape: As usual, my hon. Friend illustrates the nub of the problem. He should address his comment, perhaps through me, to the Minister. There is not much point in asking the Secretary of State about such matters. Traditionally, he has left the more difficult, nasty and occasionally squalid provisions to the Minister of State. She has learnt to take that job on board. At the risk of further prejudicing her glittering career, I admit that normally she does that well, although she has not done too well in relation to the current group of amendments.
      Those of us who use the London underground system know that it is often impossible to purchase a ticket before commencing a journey. The Minister says that machines will be installed at every station so that if it is impossible to purchase a ticket one can obtain authority to travel. I presume that that will be free of charge, although we have not yet gone into the details.
      Such a machine would be useful today. I am a regular traveller on the last District line train from Westminster, which leaves at 12.18. I cannot remember the last time that I was able to purchase a ticket at Westminster station. I am a law-abiding citizen. If I were challenged for having boarded the train without a ticket, I would readily cooperate and point out that it was impossible to purchase a ticket. Others on that last train might not be so cooperative. I am referring to the present system, without the fancy machines which the Minister of State so blithely promises.
      The Secretary of State says that once he dons his peaked cap and takes over as supremo things will change, but it is impossible to purchase a ticket late at night at some stations. That is because the system is dependent on overtime. If no one is available to issue a ticket, people have to ride without one.
      I travel from Nine Elms in the morning, and normally only one ticket window is operative. This morning, for example, at 9.20, knowing that we were to discuss this bright new idea——
      Mr. Dicks: I was travelling earlier than that.
      Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman says that he was out earlier than 9.20, but he arrived here seven hours later than me. I cannot imagine which train he travels on from Hayes and Harlington, but I hope that LRT will improve the service.
      At 9.20 this morning I made a point of counting the people queueing for a ticket. I counted 42. Three or four

      769
      of the people, younger and fitter than I, got fed up with waiting and hopped over the barrier to catch the train. If they had waited another 15 minutes queueing for a tickets their jobs might have been prejudiced—and jobs are precious these days. Should the finger be pointed at them for travelling on the tube without a ticket? It costs 80p from Nine Elms to the centre of London, and there is at that station one 80p ticket machine, though it is frequently out of order.
      Regular daily travellers on London's underground system will be menaced by this legislation. The fare dodger and Saturday night drunk—the latter being the type who is likely to take a swing at anybody challenging him and asking him from where he came or at what station he bought a ticket—will not be the hardest hit. The Minister should wait until the system has been properly overhauled before introducing proposals of this type. When the stations have been properly staffed or when new automatic collecting and issuing machines have been installed, such changes could then be introduced. We are light years away from having such a mechanised system, given even the enlightened investment policies of the GLC.
      If the Minister of State believes that her right hon. Friend, the latter-day Will Hay seated beside her, the station master of the future, will provide millions of pounds for sophisticated and expensive ticket machines at every station throughout the London underground system, the world in which she lives is unknown to my hon. Friends and me.
      Some bright boy came up with this idea, which was leaked comprehensively to The Standard a few weeks ago, when, as ever, the right hon. Gentleman was quoted. He likes to have his name in the newspapers as being a Secretary of State who is doing something. The fact that he is not strongly behind what he is doing and is even less behind what he is saying at the time will not, he hopes, be noticed until after that day's editions of the papers are out.
      The right hon. Gentleman's ideas as embodied in the amendment are as daft as most of the ideas that emanate from him. In addition to withdrawing certain remarks that she made about an earlier debate, I hope that the Minister of State will provide some facts to back up the preposterous proposals in this series of amendments, instead of making only unprovable assertions.
      Mr. Dobson: We need to look further afield to discover why there is so much fare evasion on London Transport and on public transport in general. The extent of fare evasion, vandalism and violence in London has progressively increased in proportion to the number of staff laid off. In other words, to achieve a system which is safe for passengers, all of whom pay fares, the system must be staffed adequately with men and women.
      The greater the introduction of automatic equipment, the greater the level of evasion, vandalism and personal violence against passengers and the remaining staff. The travelling public need a safe ride in decent rolling stock for reasonable fares.
      If they get those things, they will be, for a start, more likely to pay their fares anyway.
      The only way to make sure that we crack down on the increase in fare evasion is to get more human beings
      770
      involved. The Minister may not be happy with my next conclusion, but I do not think that the proposed involvement of human beings that she is accepting in these amendments is the way to go about it. We need a heavy level of staffing on the underground system if that system is to remain safe and if people are to be expected to pay their fares. Instead, we are seeing an effort by a few smartypants people who probably never travel on London Transport from one year to the next, and who are suggesting a flippant, ill-considered way to deal with this important problem.
      9.45 pm
      As my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) said that, if the people who are suggesting this had travelled on London Transport and looked at the practicalities of stopping people on Saturday night when they are drunk, or on the Monday morning, when on certain lines they are surly, and demanding of them that they accept liability and even pay a fine there and then, they would have seen clearly that this suggestion has not the faintest connection with reality. Already, far too many of the limited staff of London Transport who have to face the public have to suffer violence from difficult passengers. We have to come up with a system that provides for them an adequate protection when they are going about their jobs. This daft solution that the House of Lords has typically come up with exposes such people to further opportunities for being violently dealt with by obstreperous members of the public.
      I suspect that we shall not manage to vote down this proposition, but I believe, not just on behalf of those who staff London Transport and who face many difficulties, but from the point of view of the travelling public, that we need to look at how we provide a decent, safe transport system safe for both passengers and staff. We can then move from that to see how we further reduce the level of fare evasion. I am convinced that if we had the necessary staffing levels on the stations, on the buses and on the tubes trains, the level of fare evasion would automatically fall without any gimmickry from the Secretary of State and his hon. Friends. The proposition before us tonight is trivial, ill-thought-out, and likely to do more harm than good.
      Mr. Spearing: In previous debates on this Bill, the Minister, the Secretary of State and any casual reader may have thought that I have been defending the status quo and that I believe that the GLC and London Transport are an ideal organisation, working in their wonderful mutual harness to provide transport for people in London. That would not be true. Over the years, I have been constructively critical of the management at 55 Broadway and will continue to be so, irrespective of who is in government or who is in the seat at Marsham street. Therefore, what I have to say has nothing to do with party politics and everything to do with good public administration.
      This scheme has been the aim of 55 Broadway for a number of years. Just over 10 years ago, the then chairman of London Transport attempted to put a provision such as this in one of the regular private Bills coming before the House—I think that it was a GLC (General Powers) Bill. The result was that a meeting of London Labour Members with the said chairman led to bitter comments and remarks, there was a disinclination of Labour Members to support it, and the proposal fell. At that time

      771
      I was in possession of a season ticket, which was provided by the authorities of the House and which took me to my home. I did not have the excellent rail and travel pass which is now provided. My constituency was on the same underground line, but two stations further on from my home station. My frequent practice was to use my season ticket to take me to my constituency. I would leave the train two stations on from where the ticket took me and pay the excess fare. Under the proposals that are now being made by those at No. 55 Broadway, I can be fined whenever I travel on my lawful business from the House to my constituency and remain on the train beyond my home station.
      I am not sure whether the six pages of complicated legislation that we have before us would put any season ticket holder in the same position but I suspect that they might. I suspect that they would give that option. I am not asking the Minister to say whether they would because they might not. Even if they would not provide that option, I am suggesting that the proposals are not necessarily well thought-out. They are impractical and they are liable to give a great deal of trouble. I am not sure that they are treating either House with the respect that any Government should show.
      Any ticket-fine system must be based upon the system of ticketing that is envisaged or in practice. London Transport is a past master in producing plans for electronic ticketing which later bite the dust because they are found to be too expensve, impractical or not capable of working. One has only to travel on the late but not lamented DMS buses to see the extraordinary amount of turnstile equipment that was never used. I recall, in my capacity within the GLC, and subsequently, when reading minutes of the London Transport committee of the council, that there has been plan after plan for the installation of sophisticated ticketing machines by London Transport with contracts with those who supply and manufacture expensive electronic equipment. London Transport at 55 Broadway is electronic-gadget-mad and it will provide any form of guarantee that any Secretary of State wants.
      We must remember that the ticketing system might well go beyond London Transport. We have talked about the need to integrate British Rail services with those of London Transport and, ideally, their ticketing systems should have some compatibility. I am not suggesting that they should be the same, because both authorities provide different sorts of service. There have been conversations, investigations, memoranda and meetings galore over the past three or four years on this topic and the bureaucracies of both places have seemed not to be especially practical. Unless future ticketing arrangements between British Rail and London Transport are clear and pilot schemes have been shown to work, the future ticket regime of the system cannot be said to be clear and settled.
      I should be more impressed with the proposals if the attitude of London Transport to current fare evasion were rather more practical than it clearly is. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) has spoken about the arrangements on our local underground system. Any Londoner is able to speak about the extent to which passengers go past the barrier at the end of their journey and pay a notional or claimed sum to the ticket collector. It is wrong and bad that no receipts are given. That appears to be a major fault in the existing system. In addition, many booking offices are not manned. Perhaps the offices should not necessarily be manned at times when there are
      772
      only a few passengers. [t might cost more to pay the booking clerk than not to collect the money that he would take. I accept that, but there has been no facility for taking a journey of origin ticket, for example. Lads are given every encouragement to vault over the bars, and not only when there is no ticket collector. At the end of pop concerts or football matches, or at closing time, there may be a long queue for the single booking office and there is every temptation to vault over the barrier. The hon. Lady should be much more careful about taking such matters on board, particularly at this stage.
      It is clear that, in the past few years, London Transport has been very worried about fare evasion. It has made claims about the millions of pounds that are lost through fare evasion, and I believe that those claims have been accepted at county hall. London Transport has put large numbers of ticket inspectors on the trains. We ought to know whether that policy has worked. At present, we do not know. When people are apprehended, especially during the day, London Transport is very concerned. We should know what justification there is for that concern.
      This is a national Parliament, but we are legislating on a London matter and the Londoners who will use the services wish to feel confident about travelling late at night. London Transport has been very inefficient about late-night violence. There were some serious incidents at Neasden five or six years ago which were due to lack of action on reported difficulties. Not long ago, the District line trains were withdrawn after 10 o'clock east of Whitechapel. The Newham constituencies, Barking and the line all the way to Upminster were affected because the crews did not believe that they had sufficient protection. The management was grossly inefficient about starting the trains running again, and large numbers of people were inconvenienced. I do not blame the crews. They were only looking after their own well-being. However, I do not believe that their Lordships have thought up six pages of legislation out of the air. The amendments smell to me of No. 55 Broadway. If there were a case for the amendments, they should not be tacked by the Lords on to a Bill which is about what might be said to be more important and wider matters, so that there can be no proper discussion in Committee in this place.
      It would be inappropriate for me to divide the House on the amendments, but I may exercise my right to shout no once to the Question, so that it will have to be negatived. Like most of those who use London Transport regularly, I feel strongly about the matter. The right hon. Lady has been somewhat casual in introducing the amendments. Six pages of legislation on offences of this nature will give lawyers much trouble. I do not see why six pages are necessary. If they are, I do not believe that the practical working of the system has been considered carefully enough.
      Mrs. Chalker: Before I reply on the amendment, I shall tell the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) something that I conveyed to him as soon as I understood that I had made an error when talking about the amendments grouped with amendment No. 17. We were discussing the retrospective power of the traffic commissioners to amend a picking-up or setting-down place.
      I was right in saying that the traffic commissioners will have power to alter an existing licence, but the new power in the Bill, as in the Lords amendment which we were

      773
      discussing, does not refer to picking-up and setting-down points that have already been made. However, the hon. Gentleman's concern is slightly different, as I have been advised since that part of our debate. The gap of two months which concerned the hon. Gentleman will not cause the problem about which he was worried, because, on safety grounds, the Metropolitan police have said that they will not be prepared to allow anyone to slip through the loophole that the hon. Gentleman felt might exist. I apologise for inadvertently misleading the hon. Gentleman. I wanted to put the matter right before we went any further with our deliberations.
      When the hon. Gentleman began his remarks on the amendment, he said that it was being introduced at a late stage and in an unsatisfactory manner. I have considerable sympathy with that, but the other place——
      It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
      Ordered,
      That, at this day's sitting, the Consideration of Lords Amendments to the London Regional Transport Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Lang]
      Question again proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mrs. Chalker: I share a little of the feeling expressed by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East that the amendment has come about in an unsatisfactory way. However, great concern has been expressed by many hon. Members on both sides of the House—although, perhaps, rather more on the Government Benches—about fraud on London transport. That concern was raised many, many times in another place. On reflection, it may be right for another place to come forward, even at this late stage, with amendments introducing a penalty fares scheme. The amendments have the support of all parties in another place. Therefore, I was a little surprised by some of the comments from Opposition Members, but I suppose that I should not be surprised at anything coming from the Opposition.
      The hon. Gentleman challenged me on where the other penalty fare schemes were operating. No other area is comparable with London, which has British Rail, Underground and bus systems. But for buses alone, the Greater Manchester county council, in the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Act 1980 has a scheme where, if an inspector finds a passenger travelling without a valid ticket, he issues an excess fares notice. That inspector has no discretion whether or not to issue that notice. The passenger is not required to pay on the spot, but is allowed 21 days to pay the excess fare, which is set at a penalty level. After 21 days the authority can prosecute, as is proposed in the amendment.
      Tyne and Wear PTE has a non-statutory scheme for standard fare, started in 1979. I understand that it is now running at about £3, which is charged for passengers on buses and the metro found to be travelling without a valid ticket. The concept is that this is the standard fare, but all those who behave themselves pay the lesser fare; in other words, they have a discount. The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) can confirm that I have that just about right. I hope that everyone pays the discount fare rather than the penalty fare.
      Cardiff and Merseyside have introduced penalty fares at a modest level of premium, under authority from the traffic commissioners who authorise what is now known
      774
      as an unsubsidised fare. As we all know, BR relies on ticket inspectors to take the names and addresses of those without valid tickets, who are then prosecuted. Obviously, in certain cases, people seek to mislead.
      The House is concerned to know what is wrong with the current system and why we should introduce penalty fares. Over the years, substantial efforts have been made to reduce the losses through fare evasion. However, the scope for reducing them further, even if there were to be a vast increase in staff, is limited and would not be cost effective. The system is demanding and places a considerable burden on the courts. We should heed that point. We need to impose a much clearer obligation on the traveller to pay the proper fare or obtain the correct ticket matched by the introduction of Underground equipment to ensure that every reasonable opportunity for doing so is taken. If the traveller does not carry that through, he should become liable for a surcharge or a penalty fare.
      Savings are to be made from the modern equipment that is now available but was not available 10 years ago. There is a great deal more expertise in the use of this equipment because of experience abroad. I hope that we can reduce the awful level of fare evasion on London Transport. Until we do, those of us who pay our fares—admittedly, as has been said, at the end of the journey when the blackboard is up, as it was the other night at Westminster tube station——
      Mr. Snape: Where was the car?
      Mrs. Chalker: I was travelling by tube, as I usually do. I do not always use the car. If the hon. Gentleman wants to refuse any lift that I offer him, I shall understand that he prefers to walk in the middle of the night or from inaccessible places.
      All fare-paying passengers know that it is in their interest for us to have a proper system of combating fraud and the loss of fares by those who seek to evade the system. I know that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East agrees with that point, despite what he said at the beginning of his remarks.
      Mr. Snape: That is what I said during my remarks. I wish that the hon. Lady would not always adopt the guise of the defender of the righteous. Opposition Members have no interest in defending those who seek to defraud London Transport. We fail to see the point behind the system that has been introduced hurriedly in another place.
      Mrs. Chalker: I do not believe that the system was introduced hurriedly. Their Lordships were talking about it at the beginning of their deliberations on the Bill and, after several weeks, they came to the amendments which have come to the House tonight. I am in no sense seeking to be righteous. I want a system that will work and stop the type of fraud—it cost about £25 million last year—that is continuing to occur. Without the new equipment that is available and a new manner of deterring those who would evade fares, that system will not be possible.
      One hon. Member commented about bringing the measures into effect. They will be brought into effect by order of the Secretary of State only at LRT's request. It would be possible to introduce penalty fares on buses sooner than on the Underground. I agree that an authority-to-travel ticket from a machine is a good idea and, as the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East said, would be welcomed by all those who are unable to pay their fare

      775
      because the booking office is closed. I assure the House that my right hon. Friend will not approve such an order until he is satisfied that the machines and equipment are in reasonable order and that all the conditions for the penalty fares scheme can be brought into effect.
      Other hon. Members asked about other ways of curbing fare evasion. I point out to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) that the idea of issuing receipts at the barrier which, I understand, was tried experimentally once or twice, has not worked successfully. It would certainly not eliminate the present level of evasion.
      The hon. Gentleman asked about those with season tickets who need to go one or two stations further than their season ticket permits. In the short term, as it will not be possible for season ticket holders to pay for the excess portion of their journey in advance, they will be able to do so on completion of their journey without incurring liability to a penalty fare as at present. In the longer term, with the new underground ticketing system, it will be possible for season ticket holders to purchase a pre-excess ticket at the start of their journey to cover their intended over-riding. That possibility exists in other cities around the world at the moment.
      Mr. Spearing: I thank the Minister for that answer. I did not suggest the receipt idea as a way to prevent fraud, which is what we all want to achieve, it was illustrative of LT's apparently casual attitude to this difficult problem.
      Mrs. Chalker: I am grateful for the fact that the hon. Gentleman accepts that it is a difficult problem. Fare evasion must be curbed. If the House agrees with their Lordships' amendments it will be assisting in curbing it. Until there is the deterrent of a penalty fare, whatever will LRT may have in the future, it would not be able successfully to curb the amount of fraud that is now occurring.
      I believe that there has been a great deal of thought about these amendments by their Lordships in another place. I believe that inspection on the trains and the other plans that will go hand in hand with the schemes that LT officers have been thinking about for some time but unable to carry through, will mean that we can start to combat the wasteful £25 million, as it was last year, lost through fraud. That will mean a far better deal for the travelling public and the ratepayer. I commend the amendments to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 27 to 34 agreed to.

    Schedule 4

      OPERATION OF ENACTMENTS RELATING TO FORMER LONDON BOARD FUNCTIONS
      Lords amendment: No. 35, in page 80, line 30, leave out from second "to" to second "of' in line 31 and insert "any wholly owned subsidiary".
      Mr. Ridley: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      This is a minor drafting amendment to paragraph 6(4) of schedule 4. It corrects an error in the description of paragraph 7(1) of schedule 16 to the Transport Act 1968. I commend it to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 36, in page 81, line 27, leave out from "provisions" to "shall" in line 28.
      Mr. Ridley: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendment No. 37.
      Mr. Ridley: This amendment simply corrects an oversight. We overlooked the fact that the power to make byelaws and regulations under section 104(2) and (3) of the London Passenger Transport Act 1938 has already been repealed. The amendment therefore, deletes the redundant reference to that power from paragraph 8(3) of schedule 4. I commend the amendment to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 37 agreed to.

    Schedule 5

      TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS
      Lords amendment: No. 38, in page 87, line 22, after "office)" insert "(a)".
      Mr. Ridley: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 39 and 40. I inform the House that these three amendments involve privilege.
      10.15 pm
      Mr. Ridley: I shall explain these amendments more fully, because they could be misinterpreted. The House will remember that I agreed in Committee that if any member of the existing board of London Transport Executive was displaced on the appointed day it would be wrong to ask the GLC to pay any compensation that was due to him. I agreed, and the House has accepted, that we cannot make the GLC responsible for that compensation.
      We neglected to examine the position of the chairmen of the two existing passenger committees: the Transport Users Consultative Committee for London and the London Transport Passengers' Committee. Those bodies will be amalgamated in the new committee. I am not mentioning any names or making suggestions about what might happen, but it is possible that one or other of the chairmen might lose his office prematurely as a result of the Bill. It seemed only fair in the circumstances to agree that the GLC should not be required to pay the due compensation and that it should be met by the Secretary of State. The effect of the amendment is to put these matters on a par with the amendments that I conceded in Committee.
      Mr. Snape: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman. I have not often had the opportunity of doing so during our long and protracted debates on the Bill. In Committee, he said almost exactly the opposite of what he has said tonight, but, if it is any consolation to the right hon. Gentleman, I must say that he said it with equal sincerity.
      I am bound to say that any change of heart by the right hon. Gentleman is welcome to the Opposition. I shall not ask him which of the chairmen whom he mentioned in the TUCC or the LTPC will get the job. Such matters are more suitable to correspondence between Ministers and the person involved. No doubt, knowing the right hon. Gentleman, he will take to himself the task of signing the letter re-appointing the lucky person and leave the letter dismissing the other chairman to the Minister of State, if precedent in the Bill is anything to go by.

      777
      Let me ask the right hon. Gentleman one final question. We have heard about what he is going to do. When will he do it? The people to whom he has referred have a right to know about their future. We have heard a lot about the day in which the legislation will come into force and we know full well the reasons behind the semi-indecent rush that we have had today to get the legislation on to the statute book, but perhaps the Secretary of State will tell us when the lucky and the unlucky chairmen are likely to receive a letter from the right hon. Gentleman to reappoint them or to put them out of work.
      Mr. Ridley: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps I might reply to what has been said. I can hardly describe today's proceedings as a semi-indecent rush. The hon. Gentleman came in rather heavily towards the end of the afternoon and has delayed our programmes with his usual long, rather offensive and meaningless speeches.
      Once the Bill receives the Royal Assent—I should not dream of anticipating that—events will move rather more quickly than they have as a result of the hon. Gentleman's tactics during the Bill's many stages. Then, we shall go about our business in a workmanlike fashion. We shall be able to show that we do not waste time or indulge in undue haste when we start on the important task of reconstructing London transport.
      Question put and agreed to. [Special entry.]
      Lords amendments Nos. 39 and 40 agreed to. [Special entry.]
      Lords amendment: No. 41, in page 89, line 13, after "to" insert
      "any service or services provided in pursuance of"
      Mrs. Chalker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 42 and 43.
      Mrs. Chalker: These are minor drafting amendments to paragraph 11(4) of schedule 5.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 42 and 43 agreed to.

    Schedule 6

      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Lords amendments: No. 44, in page 97, line 47, at end insert
      "or to any subsidiary of London Regional Transport (within the meaning of the London Regional Transport Act 1984)"
      Mrs. Chalker: I beg to move, that this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The amendment remedies a small oversight in paragraph 22 of schedule 6. That paragraph will enable LRT to retain the exemption that London Transport and British Rail have from the general requirement placed on public service vehicle operators, under section 27 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981, to produce financial and statistical returns to the Secretary of State. We omitted before to apply that exemption to the subsidiaries as well. The amendment puts that right, because it is obviously sensible to treat LRT and the subsidiaries in the same way,
      778
      which we undertook to do in Committee. Therefore, the amendment simply does something that we wished to do in Committee.
      Mr. Prescott: Is this matter connected with the information required of local authorities under the Public Passenger Vehicles Act? In that Act, it was laid down that detailed statistical and financial information was required from local authorities. It is not normally required of nationalised industries because of the different arrangements between the Secretary of State and nationalised industries. Will the same amount of information be required of LRT by the Minister's Department as is now required of the GLC and LT?
      Mrs. Chalker: By leave of the House. I was trying to assist the hon. Gentleman, but he may have misunderstood what I was trying to say. The amendment puts LRT subsidiaries—LRT bus and underground, and any other subsidiary—on the same basis as LRT. That is the basis under which LT has been operating since the 1981 Act. That means that the financial and statistical returns should be made to the Secretary of State. In Committee we decided to treat the subsidiaries in the same way as LRT, so that they would be able to retain the exemption that LT and BR have from the general requirement.
      Mr. Prescott: By leave of the House. I am sorry to press this point. The legislation in 1981 required that detailed and specific information should be given. Will the information required of subsidiaries of LRT be considerably less than that expected of the GLC when it previously ran London Transport?
      Mrs. Chalker: No. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is on the same point at all. We are talking about the requirement upon the subsidiaries to produce the information. We are not altering any of the understanding that we had in Committee when we discussed the matter. The amendment ensures that the subsidiaries are in line with the holding company in the production of information.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 45 agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 46, in page 99, line 14, at end insert—

      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

        The Food Act 1984
        30.—(1) In section 11(4)(a) of the Food Act 1984 (vehicles whose detention by an officer of a council is not authorised under that section), for the words from "Boards" to "subsidiaries" there shall be substituted the words "transport authorities mentioned in subsection (4A)".
        (2) The following subsection shall be inserted after section 11(4)—
        "(4A) The transport authorities referred to in subsection (4) (a) are—

        (a) the Boards established by the Transport Act 1962 and any wholly owned subsidiary of any of those Boards; and

        (b) London Regional Transport and any subsidiary (whether wholly owned or not) of London Regional Transport (within the meaning of the London Regional Transport Act 1984).".

        31. In Schedule 11 to that Act (repeals and revocations), after the entry relating to the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 there shall be inserted the following words—

        "1968 c. 73.

        Transport Act 1968

        In Schedule 16, paragraph 7(2)(d)"."

        Mrs. Chalker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 48.
        Mrs. Chalker: These are technical amendments to take account of consolidation Bills that are expected to receive the Royal Assent with the London Regional Transport Bill. They involve no change in the law.
        Mr. Prescott: What do the amendments do and what do they mean?
        Mrs. Chalker: The Food Bill consolidates and will repeal, among other things, section 11 of the Food and Drugs Act 1955, which is referred to in schedule 4 to the London Regional Transport Bill. That section gives local authority inspectors the power to stop vehicles which they think are carrying food intended for sale, and to inspect food. I can tell the hon. Gentleman more about the Food Bill if he wishes.
        The amendments also refer to the Road Traffic Regulation Bill. We are repealing a provision in that Bill, which makes a textual amendment to section 1 of the 1969 legislation. The Bill repeals that section and so the amending provision becomes redundant. We have already debated parts of this in Committee, and the issue was accepted without a Division on both occasions.
        Question put and agreed to.

    Schedule 7

      ENACTMENTS REPEALED
      Lords amendment: No. 47, in page 103, line 38, column 3, at end insert—
      ""the Common Council"".
      Mrs. Chalker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      This is a minor amendment, but to please the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) I shall say that it saves from repeal the definition of the Common Council in the Transport (London) Act 1969. It is sensible, and should be included in the Bill.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 48 agreed to.

    TRADE AND INDUSTRY
    Motion made and question proposed,
    That Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones be discharged from the Trade and Industry Committee and Mr. Bernard Conlan be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
    Hon. Members: Object.

    EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND ARTS
    Motion made and question proposed,
    That Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson be discharged from the Education, Science and Arts Committee and Mr. Roger Sims be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
    Hon. Members: Object.

    ENVIRONMENT
    Motion made and question proposed,
    That Sir Reginald Eyre be discharged from the Environment Committee and Mr. Julian Critchley be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
    Hon. Members: Object.

    FOREIGN AFFAIRS
    Motion made and question proposed,
    That Mr. Mark Robinson be discharged from the Foreign Affairs Committee and Mr. Robert Harvey be added to the Committee—[Mr. Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
    Hon. Members: Object.

    AGRICULTURE
    Motion made and question proposed,
    That Mr. Michael Lord be discharged from the Agriculture Committee and Mr. Jim Spicer be added to the Committee—[Mr. Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
    Hon. Members: Object.

    WELSH AFFAIRS
    Motion made and question proposed,
    That Mr. Robert Harvey be discharged from the Committee on Welsh Affairs and Mr. Keith Best be added to the Committee—[Mr. Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Marcus Fox: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the sustained objections to the motions that I have proposed, I shall seek time from the Leader of the House to debate these matters.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): I am grateful to the hon. Member for making that clear to the House.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The maximum possible notice from the Leader of the House, who is not present, but who will hear of this from the Government Whips, would be of advantage to all hon. Members. The debate on these matters is long awaited and overdue.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member for making his view clear.

  Walsall (Housing)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]
  10.28 pm
  Mr. David Winnick: The background to this Adjournment debate is the substantial overall reduction in housing public expenditure since 1979. In real terms the national expenditure on housing will fall during the current financial year to about 39 per cent. of its 1979–80 level. In round figures that means a reduction from £5,455 million in 1979–80 to £2,118 million in 1984–85.
  That will obviously cause great housing hardship. The Select Committee on the Environment, on which I served during the last Parliament, warned the Government in its first report of the likely consequences of the reduction in housing expenditure which the Government had decided to make. It warned of a shortfall in housing which would arise.
  That is the national position, which we have debated and which I hope we shall debate again in the near future. But if one considers the position at local level and takes, as I intend to, since it is the subject of tonight's debate, the borough of Walsall, one can see what happens as a result of the cuts made nationally and their impact on a local community. Almost exactly three years ago I drew attention in an Adjournment debate to the borough's pressing housing needs and referred to the serious problems faced by Walsall as a result of a continuing refusal to allow the council a housing investment programme allocation anywhere near to what it had requested year after year.
  During the past few years the HIP allocation has been less than one third of the money that the council requested. Earlier this year I received a letter from the town clerk informing me of the deliberations of the housing committee that had considered the HIP allocation for 1984–85. The council had asked for £36,850,000, which, in the view of the director of housing, was capable of practical implementation. The amount allocated to the council was just more than £10 million, which, allowing for inflation, represented a lower allocation than for the previous year.
  The housing committee said that the allocation fell far short of the sum required to enable the committee to produce a realistic housing programme in both the public and private sectors. It also said that it would affect the council's ability to modernise and repair the existing substandard public housing stock within a realistic period.
  I wrote to the Secretary of State for the Environment after receiving that letter from the town clerk and explained the position. I received from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State who will reply to this debate a disappointing, although predictable reply.
  Since the 1984–85 allocation, the council has received a supplementary sum of £400,000, but even taken together those sums in no way represent what is urgently needed in the borough and are not even half of what the council requested. The HIP allocation plus the capital receipts cannot meet the housing requirements. I should say that during the past three years the council has spent everything that has been allocated, so it cannot be argued that money has been allocated but that the council has not spent it.
  782
  This year representatives of the west midlands regional office of the Department of the Environment visited the borough, and the formidable housing problems of Walsall were clearly explained to them. In another letter the Under-Secretary of State told me that the officials had found the visit helpful and instructive. Tonight I should like to know more about the conclusions of that visit. Did the officials come to the view that the sum allocated for the HIP programme in the current and previous financial years was insufficient to deal with the borough's housing problems, which have been explained to me on several occasions, and by me to the Minister?
  The Minister for Housing and Construction informed me last month that he would visit my constituency to see some projects undertaken by the authority. Immediately I received his letter I wrote back to remind him of the correspondence between his colleagues and me, and I said that I hoped that when the Minister visited Walsall he would more clearly understand the problems and the need for a reassessment of its HIP allocation.
  I received the Minister's reply towards the latter part of last week. Again it referred to what the Government see as the need to control the overall level of public expenditure. I was told that no further resources were available for the current year. I was told:
  "We will take into account what has been learnt about Walsall's housing problems when allocations for the 1985–86 financial year are being made in the autumn."
  I am not quite sure what "we" means. Does it mean the Minister, junior Ministers, or the officials at regional level? The council's 1985–86 HIP submission is for £37·5 million.
  I want to deal briefly in the time left to me with some of the problems which I know and understand, not only from the correspondence which I receive from my authority but because people regularly write to me and come to my surgeries to tell me about them. It is all very well to deal in overall terms of national expenditure, HIP allocations, and so on, but what do they mean in human terms? What does it mean when the Government embark, as they did in 1979, on a deliberate policy of drastically cutting housing public expenditure?
  Since 1979 in my borough no contracts for new council housing have been entered into at all. That is bound to mean that with the Government's sales policy and no new build there has been a substantial reduction in the amount of rented accommodation. As I have explained on other occasions in national housing debates, to the best of my knowledge this is the first time, apart from the war years, that there has been a reduction, be it national or local, in the amount of rented accommodation available.
  Without now going into the pros and cons of the Government's policy on selling accommodation, surely it is reasonable to argue that if their policy is to be pursued there should at least be some encouragement for local authorities to be in a position to replace the rented accommodaion which is being sold. That, however, is the opposite of the policy which has been pursued by the Government since taking office.
  Young married couples, and also single people who urgently, and in many cases desperately, want somewhere to live in my borough but who cannot become owner-occupiers, require to be rehoused by the local authority. I wish that the Government would recognise that there remains a large number of people in Britain, as in my constituency and borough, who are not in a position to take

  783
  out a mortgage, certainly not with the high levels of unemployment. In so many cases unmarried people live with their parents and in-laws. They are not in a position to be helped by the council for a considerable time. It is a problem which will obviously apply if a policy is being pursued which substantially reduces rented accommodation.
  Married couples with children, who live in multi-storey blocks of flats in my constituency and who have been on the waiting lists some time understandably want to be rehoused. If they have one child, thy stand hardly any chance at all. They could wait years and years now without being given the opportunity of a house. Even with two children, and in some cases three, they have to wait a pretty long time. They can live on the fifth, eighth, ninth or twelth floor. In vain, they come to see me, a councillor or I go to the neighbourhood office. What can the council do? It is all very well to talk about accommodation being sold, but, as the Select Committee warned, and as I and my hon. Friends warned, the places being sold are not the flats on the fifth or the twelth floor of the multi-storey blocks of flats. I do not know how many have been sold in my constituency or borough, but very few indeed. Those sold are obviously houses with gardens. In other words, they are the very places to which those with children who live in multi-storey blocks would like to transfer as quickly as possible.
  There is an acute shortage of accommodation for the elderly in OAP flats. Bacause of the situation in the borough, only those with medical recommendations are being considered for such housing. I am informed by the director of housing that someone with a medical recommendation may still have to wait three or four years before being offered a place. Those are the people who urgently need accommodation of this sort. I do not know what sort of brief the Minister has in his hand, but does he not consider it a serious matter—given the problems that his officials and his brief tell him exist in the borough—that the council has been unable to enter into any contracts for new council housing for five years precisely because of the Government's policy? Even with the capital receipts and the HIP allocation there have been nowhere near sufficient funds available.
  Difficulties also arise with tenants living in older council property. The council is clearly anxious that such dwellings should be modernised as quickly as possible, but it cannot modernise nearly as many dwellings as it would like to, because it just does not have the funds. Constituents of mine who live, for example, on Rosehill estate in Withenhall have been waiting for some years, and continue to wait. Would it not be far better if those places were modernised as quickly as possible? Does not common sense tell us that the longer the delays, the more money that will have to be spent? Ultimately those places will have to be modernised, and the longer it takes, the more it will cost.
  Another problem, which is not confined of course to my borough, concerns the position of Orlits and other prefabricated reinforced concrete houses. The Government have rightly taken measures to assist owner-occupiers of such properties, but what about council tenants? The entire financial responsiblity will fall on the local council. In effect, the Government say that the money will come out of the HIP allocation. But boroughs like mine are already much in need of funds to carry out the programmes, as I have been explaining, so where on
  784
  earth will they find additional funds unless they receive Government assistance? There are, after all, quite a few Orlit properties in the borough. The Minister may say, "Well what about vacant properties?", but, as I said in a debate three years ago, the number of vacant properties in the borough is just over half the national average for the metropolitan boroughs.
  There is another matter that I am justified in mentioning—improvement grants. Prior to the election, the Government allowed quite a lot of money to be spent on those grants for owner-occupiers, but now the position is quite different. Quite a few of the owner-occupiers in the borough are not in a position to carry out work without assistance, but they find that there is a long queue for it. Again, as with the other issues, they come to see me. Obviously, I write to the director of housing and he explains that with the limited amount of cash available it is impossible to assist there. That is rather different from the situation prior to the 1983 general election.
  Those are some of the problems that I have felt it necessary and justifiable to raise again tonight. I have no illusions. I certainly do not believe that any words of mine—eloquent or otherwise—will change Cabinet policy. However, I have a duty as a Member of Parliament to explain on the Floor of the House what the impact of the Government's housing cuts mean in human terms in one borough.
  I believe that I have a duty to my constituents, who are so urgently in need of housing, re-housing, having their places modernised or for a grant, not only to deal with the problems in corespondence, but to raise these matters on the Floor of the House of Commons. I hope that the Minister will give some ray of hope so that the 1985–86 HIP allocation will involve a realistic sum to meet the housing needs of the borough.
  10.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) has explained his perception of the housing needs in his constituency. Nobody can doubt the genuine concern that he has expressed about the problems that his constituents and local housing authority face. The Government recognise fully the importance of the issues and I have no wish to underestimate the severity of the housing problems that confront our inner urban area authorities.
  I should like to put into perspective some of the figures that the hon. Gentleman produced. He quoted the figures for public sector investment in housing from 1979 to date. My figures show a decrease of 23 per cent., although the decrease is likely to be less, since expenditure in. 1983–84 is likely to be slightly higher than we expected.
  The decrease between 1975–76 and 1978–79 was 46 per cent. When the hon. Gentleman talks about a policy of deliberately cutting housing expenditure, he should also address with equal vigour what happened under the Labour Government from 1974 to 1979. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned those waiting for improvement grants. In the last year of the Labour Government £90 million was spent on improvement grants. The figure for last year is likely to be £900 million. That puts in perspective some of the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
  I found it astonishing that in a debate on housing needs in Walsall, the hon. Gentleman hardly mentioned resources in the private sector. He mentioned that matter

  785
  at 10.37 pm, in passing, only to dismiss it. One must take issue with the hon. Gentleman's apparent conviction that the solution to the problems can lie only in making more public sector resources available to local authorities. The hon. Gentleman did not mention the initiatives that we have taken to encourage low-cost home ownership and other initiatives that have a bearing on housing in Walsall.
  The Government's view is that we must continue to strive for a balance between the demand for services financed by public expenditure and the need for a healthy national economy in which private investment and individual initiative can flourish. Our firm intention is to secure a low rate of inflation for the long term. That means that we must continue to contain public expenditure at reasonable levels.
  The hon. Member's own constituents have suffered more than most in the west midlands region from the recession. We cannot afford to jeopardise economic revival by excessive public expenditure now. I have referred to the dramatic cuts in public sector expenditure which followed the IMF intervention.
  The hon. Member rightly mentioned Walsall's level of HIP allocation in 1984–85. The district received an initial allocation of £10·185 million which represented 5·7 per cent. of the west midland region's allocation. Compared with the 1983–84 allocation there was a modest cash increase in 1984–85. Only about one-quarter of the region's authorities benefited from such an increase and on the indication given by the generalised needs index we have no reason to think that Walsall is not getting a fair share of the region's resources.
  The size of the annual HIP allocation no longer represents the whole picture on housing resources. Capital receipts make a very substantial input to the totality of resources available. One of my Department's tasks is to strike a balance between the distribution of resources through HIP allocations according to need and the desirability of allowing local authorities to benefit directly from the generation of capital receipts. Overall, the level of capital receipts has been growing steadily since 1981 and so we came to the conclusion that for 1984–85 it would be appropriate to adjust this balance to a limited extent.
  Therefore, we reduced the prescribed proportion of housing capital receipts from the sale of council houses available directly to authorities to use from 50 to 40 per cent. In making that change, we recognised that those authorities that were planning to spend the full 50 per cent. of their capital receipts would lose. We therefore held back £50 million from the overall settlement in November specifically to help authorities in difficulty because of the change. Walsall demonstrated that a shortfall of £0·4 million would be created by the change and, as the hon. Gentleman said, that was met in full by the supplementary allocation that my hon. Friend announced on 2 March.
  We also recognise the need for local authorities to be able to plan their housing expenditure for more than one year ahead if they are to use limited resources sensibly. With that in mind, for the last two years we have given assurances about the levels of allocations in later years. In November last year, on issuing the 1984–85 allocations to authorities, we gave an assurance that for 1985–86 and 1986–87, authorities could plan on the basis of allocations
  786
  of at least 80 per cent. and 70 per cent. respectively of the current year's allocation where they could demonstrate the need for such expenditure.
  I come to some specific areas of housing need which have been identified as requiring public sector investment both by the hon. Gentleman tonight and by others of his hon. Friends in earlier debates. It has been suggested that local authorities need to continue to make provision for new build accommodation for general needs. But there is ample evidence to support the Government's view that the key issue is to ensure that there is available an adequate supply of houses for sale at prices that people can afford.
  The 1978 general household survey carried out by the then Labour Government established that the preferred form of tenure of 90 per cent. of those under the age of 45 was home ownership. For those over 45, the figure was 61 per cent. A Building Societies Association review in 1983 confirmed this.
  It is our clear duty to give every encouragement and assistance to the preferred choice of the people, and that preferred choice is clearly for owner-occupation, and the level of the take-up of the right to buy tells its own story. As I think the hon. Gentleman will concede, there is widespread aspiration for home ownership among tenants, many of whom could never have hoped to realise their ambition unless the right to buy had been conferred on them by Parliament. The Housing Defects Bill at present before Parliament will extend this right to buy in significant new ways.
  In addition to many buyers who are benefiting from discounts under the right to buy, those seeking to purchase a home for the first time in the private sector should also find a home easier to afford. Rising earnings, in real terms, can bring home ownership within the reach of more people. The private sector is already providing more than three quarters of all new housing, a fact which the hon. Gentleman did not mention.
  Private housing starts, which must be relevant to tackling Walsall's housing needs, reached 167,000 in 1983, a figure last exceeded 10 years ago. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the vigour and enterprise of the private house builders, and the Government look to them to act in partnership with the public sector to meet the housing challenges of the future.
  Mr. Winnick: Does the Minister not appreciate how callous his words are for the many thousands of people in my constituency and in the borough as a whole who are not in a position to buy their own homes, even if they were employed, let alone now, with unemployment running at 17 per cent? Is he saying that there is no hope for these people and that it is right and proper that there should be no new contracts for council housing? I said that there had not been any such contracts for five years. Is that to continue for another five years, if this Government remain in office?
  Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman persists with a blinkered view of housing needs. He must understand that if Walsall council or any other local authority, for example, makes land available to the private sector to build low-cost homes for sale, and it has a partnership agreement by which those homes are offered either to sitting council tenants or to people on the waiting list, real progress can be made in tackling the problems which the hon. Gentleman has rightly mentioned.

  787
  At no cost to the local authority, it can tackle housing need; not only at no cost, but it gets a receipt from the sale of the land. That is the type of broad approach that we have encouraged local authorities to adopt. Many, including Labour authorities, have adopted it. Not only does it enable progress to be made in meeting housing needs; it meets the aspiration of the hon. Gentleman's constituents who do not want to be local authority tenants. They would prefer to be home owners. The hon. Gentleman heard the figures which I gave a few minutes ago—[Interruption.]—and he is aware of the percentage of those under 45 who want to be home owners. The hon. Gentleman spoke for more than 15 minutes and has taken some of my time already. I must try to make progress and not be diverted by his interjections.
  Walsall council has shown an interest in pursuing some of the initiatives that I have mentioned. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction saw an example of an improvement for sale project in Walsall when he visited the town only last month. I urge the local authority to examine the scope for developing such initiatives further. Commitment to such projects is a factor of which we shall again be taking particular account in deciding HIP allocations for 1985–86.
  We accept, of course, that it is for local authorities to identify the particular balance of need in their own areas, but the clear preference for owner-occupation and the increasing ability of the private sector to meet that need, lead us to expect that authorities will concentrate their future new build programmes on provision for special needs such as the disabled and elderly on low incomes.
  Repair and improvement of existing council-owned stock is an important area of investment. We have to ensure that we make the best use we can of the stock that exists. This is an issue which has given rise to concern in Walsall.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned defective houses in the local authority's own stock. I know that Orlit houses are a cause of particular concern in Walsall. The purpose of
  788
  the Housing Defects Bill currently before Parliament is to give assistance to private owners. There is no need to make special financial arrangements for the costs of repair of defective houses in local authorities' own stock. We have said repeatedly that special needs for expenditure of this kind will be taken into account in deciding the HIP allocations of the authorities concerned. It is for each local authority in its responsible role as landlord to decide in the light of this and its other priorities how it should spend its allocation.
  We were aware of the need for spending on prefabricated reinforced concrete houses in arriving at the total provision for housing capital expenditure in the expenditure plans announced last autumn.
  I should like finally to say something about the renovation of privately owned dwellings, a sector in which Walsall has shown a growing interest over the past two years. The development of its block repair scheme, which my hon. Friend inspected last month, represents a fresh approach to area improvement which is being studied in some depth within my Department. It is also to the authority's credit that it has promoted an urban development grant scheme with the Abbey National Building Society for the provision of six show houses in Walsall.
  The Government remain commited to tackling housing problems in Walsall. We are determined to use all available resources to do so and not only those of the public sector. I offer a final word of reassurance to the hon. Gentleman. We shall take into account, when we decide the HIP allocations for next year, the remarks that he has made this evening and the discussions that are taking place between officials of Walsall council and those of my Department.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Eleven o' clock.

ENERGY
  Fuel Prices
  Fuel Prices
PRIME MINISTER
  Fuel Prices
  Fuel Prices
  Antarctica
  Antarctica
  Hampstead Heath
  Hampstead Heath
  Local Authorities (Grants)
  Local Authorities (Grants)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Further Education
  Further Education
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Biology Graduates
  Biology Graduates
  Local Authority Staff (Statistics)
  Local Authority Staff (Statistics)
  Dyslexia
  Dyslexia
  Special Educational Needs (Teacher Training)
  Special Educational Needs (Teacher Training)
  Education Act 1980
  Education Act 1980
  School Leavers (Full-time Education)
  School Leavers (Full-time Education)
  Student Places (Higher Education)
  Student Places (Higher Education)
  Embryos (Experiments)
  Embryos (Experiments)
  Medical Research Council (Grant)
  Medical Research Council (Grant)
  General Certificate of Secondary Education
  General Certificate of Secondary Education
  Closures (Hospital Units)
  Closures (Hospital Units)
ARTS
  London Orchestras (Funding)
  London Orchestras (Funding)
  Theatre Royal, Stratford
  Theatre Royal, Stratford
  Scottish Arts Council
  Scottish Arts Council
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Zimbabwe
  Zimbabwe
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Detained Persons (Photographs)
  Detained Persons (Photographs)
  Police (Photographic Records)
  Police (Photographic Records)
  Arrested Persons
  Arrested Persons
  National Reporting Centre
  National Reporting Centre
  Immigration Officers (Instructions)
  Immigration Officers (Instructions)
  Firearms Act
  Firearms Act
  Teaching Posts (Funding)
  Teaching Posts (Funding)
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Hong Kong (Vietnamese Refugees)
  Hong Kong (Vietnamese Refugees)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Papua New Guinea
  Papua New Guinea
  Berufsverbot
  Berufsverbot
  Soviet Union (Psychiatry Abuse)
  Soviet Union (Psychiatry Abuse)
  Polish Nationals (Entry Visas)
  Polish Nationals (Entry Visas)
  Military Attachés
  Military Attachés
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Tax Yield
  Tax Yield
  Capital Gains Tax (Rollover Relief)
  Capital Gains Tax (Rollover Relief)
  Tax Credits
  Tax Credits
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  North Sea Oil and Gas
  North Sea Oil and Gas
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Price Stability (Policy)
  Price Stability (Policy)
  European Community (Administration Costs)
  European Community (Administration Costs)
  Teachers (Travel Expenses)
  Teachers (Travel Expenses)
  Tax Havens
  Tax Havens
  Hot Take-away Food (VAT)
  Hot Take-away Food (VAT)
WALES
  EEC (Membership Benefits)
  EEC (Membership Benefits)
  Personal Social Services
  Personal Social Services
  Cancer Patients (North Wales)
  Cancer Patients (North Wales)
  Factory Space
  Factory Space
  Machynlleth-Shrewsbury (Road Improvements)
  Machynlleth-Shrewsbury (Road Improvements)
  Aberystwyth Harbour
  Aberystwyth Harbour
  Coal Industry
  Coal Industry
  Industrial Development Act 1982
  Industrial Development Act 1982
  Physiotherapy Service
  Physiotherapy Service
  Duolite International Ltd.
  Duolite International Ltd.
  Special Education
  Special Education
  Industrial Sites (Use)
  Industrial Sites (Use)
  Dogs (Hydatid Research)
  Dogs (Hydatid Research)
  M4 (Parking and Picnic Areas)
  M4 (Parking and Picnic Areas)
  Hearing-impaired Children
  Hearing-impaired Children
  Housing
  Housing
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Zimbabwe (Blocked Funds)
  Zimbabwe (Blocked Funds)
  Strategic Exports (USSR)
  Strategic Exports (USSR)
  Private Educational Institutions (Assistance)
  Private Educational Institutions (Assistance)
  Duolite International Ltd
  Duolite International Ltd
  Commercial Contracts (Site Restrictions)
  Commercial Contracts (Site Restrictions)
  Ion Exchange Resins
  Ion Exchange Resins
  Companies (Financial Assistance)
  Companies (Financial Assistance)
  Moneylenders
  Moneylenders
  INMOS
  INMOS
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Housing Executive
  Housing Executive
  New University and Ulster Polytechnic
  New University and Ulster Polytechnic
  Eastern Health and Social Services Board
  Eastern Health and Social Services Board
EMPLOYMENT
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Equal Opportunities
  Equal Opportunities
  Manpower Services Commission
  Manpower Services Commission
  Retail Price Index Advisory Committee
  Retail Price Index Advisory Committee
  Farm Shops
  Farm Shops
  Benefit (Investigation)
  Benefit (Investigation)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Intervention Grain
  Intervention Grain
  Breadmaking Wheat
  Breadmaking Wheat
  Live Animals (Transport)
  Live Animals (Transport)
ENVIRONMENT
  GLC (Records)
  GLC (Records)
  Cash Limits
  Cash Limits
  London Docklands Development Corporation
  London Docklands Development Corporation
  After-care Hostels
  After-care Hostels
  Green Belt
  Green Belt
  Gipsies
  Gipsies
  Construction Industry
  Construction Industry
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Housing Defects
  Housing Defects
  International Sport (Policy)
  International Sport (Policy)
  Ethnic Minorities (Funds)
  Ethnic Minorities (Funds)
  Farm Shops
  Farm Shops
  Pollution
  Pollution
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Hospital Closures
  Hospital Closures
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Children
  Children
  National Insurance and Supplementary Benefits
  National Insurance and Supplementary Benefits
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Pensioners (Housing Cost Assistance)
  Pensioners (Housing Cost Assistance)
  Barking Hospital (Dispute)
  Barking Hospital (Dispute)
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Newcastle upon Tyne Office (Industrial Dispute)
  Newcastle upon Tyne Office (Industrial Dispute)
  Voluntary Unemployment Deductions
  Voluntary Unemployment Deductions
  NHS (Psychiatric Patients)
  NHS (Psychiatric Patients)
  St. Andrews Hospital, Northampton
  St. Andrews Hospital, Northampton
  Depo Provera
  Depo Provera
  Moneylenders
  Moneylenders
  Voluntary Organisations (Grants)
  Voluntary Organisations (Grants)
  Invalids (Incontinence Pads)
  Invalids (Incontinence Pads)
  Health Care (Inner Cities)
  Health Care (Inner Cities)
  Family Planning Association
  Family Planning Association
  Pre-school Playgroups Association
  Pre-school Playgroups Association
SCOTLAND
  Law and Order (Expenditure)
  Law and Order (Expenditure)
  Crime Statistics
  Crime Statistics
  Voluntary Organisations (Grants)
  Voluntary Organisations (Grants)
  Electricity Generation
  Electricity Generation
DEFENCE
  Western European Union
  Western European Union
  Army Units (Battle Honours)
  Army Units (Battle Honours)
  Type 22 Frigate
  Type 22 Frigate
  Roll-on/Roll-off Ferries
  Roll-on/Roll-off Ferries
  S.90 Hull Form
  S.90 Hull Form
  Vessels (Ordering Policy)
  Vessels (Ordering Policy)
  Trident Submarines
  Trident Submarines
  Greenham Common
  Greenham Common
  Schoolchildren (Transport)
  Schoolchildren (Transport)
  Trowbridge—Bath Rail Passenger Services
  Trowbridge—Bath Rail Passenger Services
  European Community (Coastal Shipping)
  European Community (Coastal Shipping)
  Coastal Shipping
  Coastal Shipping
  Cabotage
  Cabotage
  Speed Limits
  Speed Limits
  M1 (Lighting)
  M1 (Lighting)
  Cycle Tracks Bill
  Cycle Tracks Bill
  Bypasses
  Bypasses
  M4 (Parking and Picnic Areas)
  M4 (Parking and Picnic Areas)
  Ship Call Signs
  Ship Call Signs
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Members (Pay and Allowances)
  Members (Pay and Allowances)
  Private Members' Bills
  Private Members' Bills
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Fish Quotas and Catches
  Fish Quotas and Catches

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

Students' Travel Grants
The Lord Bishop of Rochester: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why it is proposed that future grants towards travel costs for students at English universities should be on a different basis from those paid to students at universities in Scotland.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, grants made for students living in England and Wales are made by local education authorities under the terms of the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations, while in Scotland the Scottish Education Department makes grants to students under corresponding regulations. No distinction is made between the places of study. In view of the particular travel circumstances faced by many Scottish students, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland considered that it would not be appropriate at the present time to introduce a flat rate scheme similar to that being introduced in England and Wales.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply to my Question. If I may say so, it illustrates only too well the rough justice of which the Secretary of State has spoken in connection with this new arrangement. Is the noble Earl aware that 2,150 students at the University of Kent do not live on the campus and, because of the pressure on accommodation in Canterbury, have to live all over East Kent and beyond? The cost of daily travel for them can be over £300 a year, which is as much as, or more than, that for many Scottish students.
May I further ask whether the noble Earl is aware that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has followed the lead of the University of Kent in offering to take on the processing of claims, thereby helping towards the administrative simplicity which the Secretary of State desires to achieve?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I must admit that I was not aware of the figures quoted by the right reverend Prelate in relation to Canterbury, but I did realise and appreciate that there were some difficulties there. The reason for the differences between England and Wales and Scotland is that in England and Wales only about 12 per cent. of students study from the parental home compared with around 40 per cent. in Scotland, many of whom make long daily journeys to and from universities and colleges. The proportion of home students in the west of Scotland is particularly high, and a change to a flat rate system would be felt
616
particularly hard in that area. Travelling expenses can also be high for students living in remote areas, such as the Scottish islands.
In answer to the right reverend Prelate's third supplementary question, one of the reasons why we are introducing a flat rate scheme in this country is to reduce the cost of administration at present undertaken by the LEAs. I do not think that the substitution of one administrative organisation for another would bring about the administrative savings we are seeking. Nor would it allow us to bring total public expenditure on students under closer control.
Baroness David: My Lords, further to the supplementary question of the right reverend Prelate concerning students at Canterbury, do I understand that the DES had no figures of potential hardship and what was likely to happen at the different universities before it came to its decision on the new arrangements for travel grants?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, as I said recently, I think in answer to a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, the department consulted various bodies and came to the conclusion that this was the right thing to do.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the figures given by the right reverend Prelate exactly bear out the figures I gave him a fortnight ago with regard to a large provincial polytechnic? Will the noble Earl now reconsider the flat rate scheme for England and Wales? Is he aware that it will cause great injustice and take a great deal of money away from many students? Will the noble Earl look at it again?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, again as I said recently, in answer to a Question from, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, the department is not prepared to reconsider the scheme. Although there will be some hardships, I think they will probably be overcome and the majority of students will, in fact, be better off under the new scheme.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that, when he says that the majority of students will be better off, the Government will save a great deal of money by introducing this scheme and that it is a mean and miserable way of doing it?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, at the moment the scheme is completely open-ended, and this is one of the ways in which the Government can cut down some expenditure.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction, as my noble friend Lord Glenamara said, and that there is every justification for having another look at this? Furthermore, does he not agree that the position of Welsh university students is similar to that of the Scottish university students, and, therefore, that it is very unfair? While I sympathise with the Scottish students and certainly would not wish to see any reduction in what they are receiving, nevertheless, in all fairness, this scheme should be looked at much more carefully. Will the noble Earl, as part of a further

617
inquiry, discuss this with his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I said in my original Answer to the right reverend Prelate that the figures for England and Wales show that only about 12 per cent. of students study from the parental home, compared with around 40 per cent. in Scotland. I think the figures are fairly widespread over England and Wales, and I do not believe there is any particular reason to reconsider this matter.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, as the noble Earl has some knowledge of Wales himself, and has lived there, he must realise that the position in Wales is obviously very similar to that in Scotland. Geographically, there are the same difficulties and, if not quite the same distances, there are, nevertheless, substantial distances. I ask the noble Earl most earnestly to discuss this matter again with the Secretary of State for Wales, because I presume he has already discussed it with him.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, quite understands my point. It is historically a fact that students in Scotland, in particular, tend to travel from their homes to universities and colleges. This does not happen to quite the same extent in Wales. It is not a question of how far the students have to go to attend college.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I apologise for rising once more, but I must ask the noble Earl to look at this again. My noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones was president of the University College in Cardiff, and I have the honour to be the president of the University College of Wales. We are aware that exactly the same circumstances apply and that students do travel from their homes to Bangor, Aberystwyth, Swansea and Cardiff. Would the noble Earl therefore be good enough to discuss this matter with his right honourable friend? That would cost him nothing at all.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I shall certainly draw the attention of my right honourable friend to this question and answer session today, but I can offer very little hope to the noble Lord that the situation will be changed.
Baroness David: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether the Government accept the validity of the National Union of Students' survey, which was published today, in which is contained evidence that students in London will have £155 in excess of the fixed sum to pay? This is an important matter, and I think that we should have a good answer.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, with all respect to the noble Baroness, I thought that I answered this question the other day. We feel that such information is of very limited value, because in relation to what is now proposed we would expect students' travel patterns to change as they arrange their affairs so as to get maximum advantage from the new arrangements.
Lord Cameron of Balhousie: My Lords, may I speak as the principal of King's College of the University of London? Some of the problems of course have been—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Cameron of Balhousie: I would just like to ask that the whole situation be examined again. We are being pressed by the UGC, which is a Government agency, after all, to increase hall fees, which we are doing to try to make figures break even. But the question of increased travel costs for students at the University of London has made the student position almost impossible, and I beg the Government to look at that again, because it is making things very difficult.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, one can do no more than speculate at this stage on what effects any of the new arrangements will have on the number of students coming to London. Should any evidence emerge in future years, we will of course be ready to consider it.

GCHQ Cheltenham: ILO Decision
2.45 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action, if any, they propose to take regarding the dispute at GCHQ Cheltenham, following the decision by the International Labour Organisation on this matter.
The Minister of State, Privy Council Office, and Minister for the Arts (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, the Government's action in respect of GCHQ was taken solely in the interests of national security and because of the vital importance of protecting GCHQ from any recurrence of the industrial disruption suffered between 1979 and 1981. The Government do not accept that there has been any breach of ILO conventions. The interpretation reached by the ILO Freedom of Association Committee— which is not a judicial body— would wholly undermine the ILO's own Convention 151 which provides that the position of Government employees engaged on confidential work is a matter for national law and regulations.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the noble Earl not aware that the ILO as a body has condemned this Government for the second time for breaching agreements to which this country has for a long time been a signatory? Is this not a strange action from a Government whose members, from the Prime Minister downwards, constantly talk about the right of the individual and the right of people to have their rights in a democratic society? Is this not a complete and absolute example of a Government deciding on their own basis what they want to do in defiance of agreements previously entered into?
The Earl of Gowrie: On the contrary, my Lords, the Government were correcting a long-standing anomaly

619
whereby, as the noble Lord is perfectly well aware, none of the other purely security bodies has union representation. It was high time that that was corrected. In respect of the ILO, it has not condemned the Government. The Freedom of Association Committee has done so, but in fact that is in contradiction of Article 2 of ILO Convention 151 which provides that:
"The extent to which the guarantees provided for in this convention shall apply to high level employees whose functions are normally considered as policy-making or managerial, or to employees whose duties are of a highly confidential nature, shall be determined by national laws or regulations".
The ILO could not be clearer on that point.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that what he has just done is to repeat the argument of a disappointed litigant? It is precisely the argument which was given to the ILO committee that decides these matters. What the Government are doing is simply saying that they will not accept the judgment. In view of the way in which the Government relied so much upon the international obligations of this country under the European Convention on Human Rights— in the light of the judgment given under that convention— the way in which they pick and choose the international obligations which they will satisfy and obey is hardly an agreeable perspective.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, the Government are in no way disappointed on that issue. I would have thought that Article 2 of Convention 151 is proof from even the noble Lord's prevarication.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, is the noble Earl able to tell us how many GCHQ employees declined to accept the payment that they were offered of £1,000 to give up their rights to belong to a trade union? Can he tell us further, of that number, how many are still employed in the same occupation at GCHQ?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, my understanding is that it was rather less than 1 per cent. I do not know how many are still employed.
Lord Monson: My Lords, if the trade unions' compromise offer had been accepted by the Government, even if only for a trial period, does the noble Earl agree that the Government might have lost face, to a limited extent, but would have gained in stature?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I do not think that the point put to the Government by the noble Lord deals with the question that I tried to deal with in the answer to the first supplementary, which was that the Government were simply correcting a long-standing anomaly. No one has made the suggestion that the security services, or bodies uniquely and solely engaged with security matters, should have union representation.
Lord Thorneycroft: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that there are many noble Lords on this side of the House who are very grateful for the fact that Her Majesty's Government are in charge of these matters and not an ILO committee?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, will the noble Earl reconsider his use of the word "prevarication" in regard to the serious intervention of my noble friend Lord Wedderburn?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I quite agree with the noble and learned Lord. It was an imprecise use of language. I meant sophistry.
Lord Annan: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that the predecessor of the GCHQ at Cheltenham was at Bletchley and that that organisation, though it did not win the war, prevented this country from losing the war. Is it not a fact that the trade union concerned used its muscle to close down operations at Cheltenham at a time chosen by them to cause maximum embarrassment to the security services of the Government? Does the noble Lord not think it odd that the union should now winge and whine when the Government itself uses its muscle to redress that balance?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, with this small qualification that the Government was correcting a long-standing anomaly, I have considerable sympathy with the point put to the House by the noble Lord. The fact is that the industrial disruption suffered between 1979 and 1981 was in our view unnecessary as well as unpardonable.
Lord Morris: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree with me that the argument and analogy of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, was totally false, in that the International Labour Organisation is not a court of law: its decisions are solely for itself?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, my understanding is that my noble friend is quite right.
Lord Plant: My Lords, as I understand it, the Freedom of Association Committee came to a unanimous decision early this month. Would the noble Earl tell us what defence the United Kingdom Government representative on that committee made in this particular instance? Further, does he agree with me that the Government's action is in contravention not only of Convention 151 but of Convention 87?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, the Government's defence was, as I implied earlier, based on Article 2 of Convention 151. It seems to me that it would be very difficult to sustain the criticism of the Freedom of Association Committee, which is not a judicial body, in the light of the ILO's own ruling.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, would the noble Earl not agree that the way that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, put the point regarding the industrial dispute being the reason for this, is complete nonsense? If he had been present during the debate on the Unstarred Question on this dispute, he would realise that it was only a small part of the explanation given by the Government as the reason for their action. May I ask theMinister— as I understand it, he was the Minister

621
who actually applied this measure—what will be the Government's standing if they lose the case that is now before the court on this matter?
The Earl of Cowrie: My Lords, it is indeed the case that I was involved in the negotiations with the trade unions following the announcement of the decision on GCHQ. That does not prevent what the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said from being correct. On the contrary: it was a consideration that we bore very much in mind.

Customs and Excise: Strength
2.53 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they propose to increase the uniformed strength of HM Customs and Excise in view of the evidence that increasing quantities of heroin and cocaine are being imported into the United Kingdom.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, an additional 60 posts have recently been allocated for the enhancement of preventive controls of both passengers and freight. Most of the extra staff will be uniformed. Their functions will include the gathering of intelligence so that operations against drug smuggling and other illegal activities can be targeted more accurately.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, may I thank the noble Earl for that answer. Would he agree with me that there is increasing public disquiet about the increasing traffic in cocaine and heroin in this country? The very modest announcement he has made today compares extremely unfavourably with the reduction of 900 Customs and Excise uniformed staff, which has taken place since April 1979.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I would not accept that more uniformed staff are always likely to lead to more convictions. The Government share the noble Lord's anxiety about the increase in this traffic, and I think that a flexible response, including more intelligence gathering staff, more contacts, more staff working abroad, and the like, is very important if we are to obtain increased convictions.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, does the noble Lord the Minister remember that on a previous occasion at Question Time on this subject, concern was expressed at the lack of liaison between the Customs and Excise, the Home Office and the police? Is he now satisfied that that liaison exists, and that administrative arrangements have been made to make that liaison thoroughly effective?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I do not know whether "satisfied" is the right word; but the fact of the matter is that the lead department on anything to do with smuggling is, as the noble Lord is aware, HM Customs and Excise. There has been an increase of
622
nearly 40 per cent. in the staffing of the investigation division in Customs and Excise over the past five years. Therefore, the only difference between me and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, who asked me the original Question— and I do not think it is a very substantive ones— is whether the emphasis is right in increasing investigative staff as against an increase in uniformed staff.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, may I put a further question to the noble Earl on that particular point? May I ask him whether he would agree that in a situation where there has been a very substantial increase of illicit importation of cocaine and heroin it is right to reduce the uniformed staff of HM Customs and Excise at Heathrow and elsewhere, when we know perfectly well that many people going through the green channel have illicitly imported these dangerous drugs into this country and are now less likely to have their luggage inspected because of the reduction in staff that has been brought about during the lifetime of the present Government?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, my advice is that the bulk of smuggling of illegal drugs is not necessarily through the green channel. The important thing is to try and increase the money and the staffing for the division of the Customs and Excise which deals with drug smuggling. This we have done.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, would the noble Lord the Minister forgive me for returning to the Dispatch Box? The reason is that he may have misunderstood my question or misheard it. I was not referring to the numbers in Customs and Excise dealing with this matter. I asked him if he remembered the concern that was expressed previously as to the lack of liaison and co-operation between Customs and Excise, the police and the Home Office. I asked him whether he was now satisfied that that co-operation existed and administratively was working well.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I think the House will understand that I was trying to answer the noble Lord in the context of the original Question on the Order Paper, and that I have an ordinary politician's caution about the use of the word "satisfied". However, I am convinced that the liaison is working well.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that it is insufficient to have more human intelligence and what we need is more artificial intelligence? Would he tell the House what plans he has for introducing more scientific methods of detection of these sort of goods entering the country, such as the use of robotic noses instead of sniffer dogs?
The Earl of Cowrie: My Lords, I certainly agree with my noble friend that it is important in combating this horrendous crime to have a flexible response from all arms of the service, uniformed, the investigative units and the rest. On technology, HM Customs and Excise are collaborating with the laboratory of the Government chemist and an industrial company in the United Kingdom on the development of a device such as the noble Lord describes. When its sensitivity

623
and selectivity has been perfected for the purpose, it should be a valuable aid in the detection of concealed drugs. To be effective, however, it will have to be operated by skilled, experienced staff and can only supplement the efforts of uniformed Customs officers. On the question of dogs, I understand that the track record on the detection of cannibis by sniffer dogs is excellent.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that there have been bumper crops of poppies in South-East Asia, and that the Customs men are very worried that there will be a flood of new heroin coming in from the Golden Triangle?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I had heard this, and the Government are extremely concerned about the growth of traffic in what seems to me to be one of the worst crimes that human beings can commit. My point is that we are increasing the numbers (and therefore the expenditure) of those who are dealing with it. However, that does not mean to say that there are not some staff economies available over the whole of HM Customs and Excise, which also deals with many other issues.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, can the noble Earl give us any idea what percentage of heroin and cocaine coming into the country is intercepted by Customs and Excise?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I would need notice of that.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, arising from the answer given to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, in regard to the reduction in uniformed staff, is the noble Earl aware that at the time those reductions were made— they were made on a number of occasions—the House was informed that this was done in the interests of economy? Will the noble Earl inform us whether he is now satisfied that the changes he has made have been cost effective? Will he make a further study on those lines to see what benefits, if any, have accrued to the state by reason of the reduction in uniformed personnel?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, with great respect, is pursuing a chimera. I was not talking about cuts. I was talking about increases of a substantial and expensive kind in the personnel dealing with this issue. I said that there had been an increase of nearly 40 per cent. in the staffing of the investigation division of Customs and Excise over the last five years. The increase in specialist investigators dealing with drug smuggling is even higher. For instance, the number of full-time investigators based in London has risen from 121 in 1979 to 196 in 1984, and so on. It is not good enough to present this kind of thing as some sort of cut.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, can the Minister say whether there are now adequate safeguards in the law to stop such cases as Operation Snowball, reported in the Daily Express on Monday, 11 th June, from happening again?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, we shall use our best endeavours to try and stem the horrific growth in this crime.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware, on the last point that he made, that the Parole Board regularly sees cases of people who have been arrested at Heathrow bringing drugs illicitly through the green channel? Is he aware, in the context of the reply he has given today, that it is disturbing that it is possible to pass through the green channel as easily as one can at the moment? One reason is the reduction of the 900 uniformed staff that has taken place since April 1979.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I have to say that I do not agree with the noble Lord, for the reasons that I gave earlier. It certainly might be the case that we should consider altering the green and red system that has obtained under successive governments over a number of years because of the growth in this crime which, as I say, we think is an especially horrifying one. But it would be not so much at the cost of savings in staff but at the cost of an enormous additional disruption to many millions of wholly legitimate travellers. Obviously, as the noble Lord knows, these things have to be weighed up. That is done all the time. At the moment, we have decided to increase the number of investigators on this issue and to try and provide a flexible response to it. We take it very seriously indeed.

Schools: Parental Influence
3.4 p.m.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask her Majesty's Government in the light of their recent Green Paper Parental Influence at School— A New Framework for School Government in England and Wales (Cmnd. 9242) which powers will be increased so that parents may exercise a greater degree of influence over schools.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, the proposals set out in the Green Paper would increase parents' influence over, and involvement in, their children's schooling essentially by giving elected parent governors a majority on the governing bodies of county schools and maintained special schools. In the case of a voluntary controlled school, the parents and foundation governors together would form the majority. As to particular powers, it is proposed generally to define these more clearly than hitherto so that governing bodies can co-operate effectively with local authorities, heads and other teachers in promoting good education.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer. In regard to parent governors, what are the Government's plans for ensuring that these elected parents get proper training for their job as governors?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, the Government fully accept the importance of governors being properly informed of, and trained for, their proposed responsibilities. Consequently, paragraphs 92 to 95 of the Green Paper propose an appropriate training duty on local education authorities.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, can I ask my noble friend the Minister whether he agrees that this representation of parents on governing bodies can legitimately and effectively apply to particular special schools, for instance, schools for maladjusted children, where the children come from a wide area over England, and it is difficult for parents to be represented on such a body?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, it is certainly the intention of the Government that wherever possible elected parent governors should be a majority on maintained special schools' governing bodies.
Baroness David: My Lords, can I ask the Minister for some assurance that this really is a Green Paper and that there will be proper consultation before any legislation is brought to us. particularly in the light of the fact that apparently a good many parent organisations and parental-governor organisations are not altogether happy about the proposals?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, yes. I can give that firm undertaking to the noble Baroness. I think that they have until 1st October to send in observations, which will be most carefully considered.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell me where this loose piece of phraseology ends or begins—"more influence". What kind of influence? In rural areas. if a farmer wants his boys to help pick swede and beetroot, who stops the farmer from taking them away? Or what action does one take?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am completely and utterly carfuffled by that question. I am sure that the noble Lord is trying to make a point but I do not really understand it. In rural areas, just as much as in urban areas, it is hoped that parents will be a strong influence in schools and education.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, they will connive at it.
Lord Somers: My Lords, will the noble Earl not agree that the presence of parents on governing bodies would be very much resented by teaching staff? Does he not also agree that the place where parents' influence is most important is in the home with their own children, not in trying to modify the school curriculum, or anything like that, about which they know absolutely nothing?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I would certainly not agree with the first point made by the noble Lord, Lord Somers. I see no reason why teachers should fear parents' influence in schools at all. I agree with him, too, that they also have enormous responsibility in the home, but I think that that is "as well as" and not "instead of".
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the national organisation of parent teacher associations has never asked for, and does not want, majority representation on governing bodies? What they want is adequate representation. Is he aware that many others see this proposal of insistence on parental majority as yet another attempt by the Government to cut down the powers of local authorities?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I would indeed be very sorry if people took that attitude, because it is just not the case. I do not think that local authorities have anything to worry about. Any organisation that does not agree with the proposals has until 1st October to make its position very clear to my right honourable friend.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, I hope that I shall not appear to be too much like a schoolmaster if I point out that we have taken 33 minutes on Questions so far. While recognising that the Questions were important and that there were some very important points to be put, I hope that we shall not consider it a precedent for the future.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Trade Union Bill will be adjourned for dinner at approximately 7 p.m. for a short period. The Report stage of the Child Abduction Bill will be taken during the adjournment.

Standing Orders (Public Business)
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The Motion arises from a suggestion originally made by the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, which was considered by the Procedure Committee on 8th December. The Procedure Committee recommended this change in the standing order. That report of the Procedure Committee was agreed by the House on 25th January. This is therefore in effect merely a procedural Motion to put it into effect. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Standing Orders relative to public business be amended as follows:
Standing Order 41
Leave out subsection (2) and insert:—
(" (2) Except in the case of Starred Questions, the period of one month shall not include any time during which the House is in Recess.")— (Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill
3.10 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Gray of Contin): My Lords. I beg to move that the Commons amendment be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendment be now considered.—(Lord Gray of Contin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

[The Commons amendment is printed in italics]

LORDS AMENDMENT
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause:
("Exemption from valuation and rating of certain moorings.
. After section 8 of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956 there shall be inserted the following section—
"Exemption from valuation and rating of certain moorings.
8AA.—(1) For the purpose of ascertaining the gross annual value of any lands and heritages no account shall be taken of any moorings to which this section applies.
(2) This section applies to any mooring—

(a) used or intended to be used by a boat or ship; and

(b) equipped only with a buoy attached to an anchor, weight or other device?—

(i)which rests on or in the bed of the sea or any river or other waters when in use; and

(ii)which is designed to be raised from that bed from time to time.".")

The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendment:
Line 4, leave out ("gross") and insert ("net").
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the amendment made in another place. Unfortunately, the new clause inserted in the Bill when this House gave the Bill its Third Reading was drafted to refer to the ascertainment of gross annual value, whereas moorings that are in valuation will be valued to net annual value by virtue of the 1956 Act, and reference should correctly be to this. For that reason, we have introduced the further amendment to substitute "net" for "gross".
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Gray of Conlin.)
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gray, for his elucidation and also for his previous notice in writing, giving me a full explanation as to why this amendment is necessary. I should like to express the hope that in this latter stage of the Bill the Government have taken note of the very wide debate that has been held in the House and the need for perhaps an even more fundamental look, when the next opportunity arises, at some of the questions relating to Scottish rating.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Trade Union Bill
3.12 p.m.
The Earl of Gowrie: 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.—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
[Amendments Nos. 22 to 25 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 2 [Requirements to be satisfied in relation to elections]:
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 3, line 41, at end insert— ("Provided that this subsection shall be taken to be fulfilled in any case where the union has used its best endeavours to comply with its requirements in respect of any member who has unreasonably declined to co-operate in the steps necessary for such compliance.").
The noble Lord said: We come back to the Committee stage of the Bill with an amendment in the name of my noble friends and myself. Of course, it was an amendment to the Bill as it stood last week, before your Lordships, by a majority, inserted the new subsection (6) to the clause. So the amendment is now a proviso to a new requirement. The requirement is that the direct elections to the executive committee of trade unions should be held by postal ballot, and only in that way, without interference— we applaud those words, and await the Government's intentions on them—with the latest available central register, and with the surveillance of an independent body.
This amendment is full of uncertainty in its drafting. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said last week, on 19th June, at column 256, that it was not what would be a more elaborate version which might be needed. He said:
"I would not suggest, in moving this amendment, that there is only one way by which members of any organization— trade union or whatever—can safely and democratically elect its officials. Indeed, if, as I hope, the Government accept the principle of this amendment, they should be able at a later stage to introduce a more elaborate version which would make special arrangements to fit in with the needs of particular unions, where the circumstances of the workforce make postal ballots difficult to provide (as we dealt with earlier today) for indirect elections where these seem more appropriate and are already the practice in certain unions".
So we face a strange situation of having a very clear— at any rate, in principle— subsection (6), stating one thing, and the noble Lord who moved it suggesting that the Government should come back with something rather more flexible. My noble friends and I are somewhat surprised that there has been no statement to noble Lords on the Government's intentions in this matter, more particularly since the debate proceeded not only on the basis of the noble Lord who moved the amendment suggesting that ultimately it would mean something different, but also on the suggestion that my noble friends and myself had advanced arguments which we had not made— not least, of course, the argument that there never are any malpractices in trade unions (which would be absurd) rather than the propositions that we had advanced, namely, that there were no proven malpractices sufficient to justify this or similar legislation.
However, we must do the best we can in the absence of a Government statement. No doubt the noble Earl, since I am making the point, would suggest that the request for a Government statement is something in the nature of sophistry. But I do not think my noble friends would agree, and I hope that that lapse from his customary standards will not be the kind of reply that we receive.
However, there are two points that can usefully be made in the debate in Committee if we regard this amendment, as we must, as an amendment that now says, "Albeit that there must be postal ballots"—and there are the other subsections which the clause requires—"on two matters the Government should reconsider their attitude". We do not have to do any redrafting, although, of course, if the Government redrafted their attitude, they might need to come back with something more elaborate.
The first point relates to the obligation of the union and the second relates to the obligation of a member in going forward with the ballot. The first point is that the union should use its best endeavours to see that things are all right. This goes to the standard of care required of a trade union in regard to provision of the opportunity to vote, as required in this clause. This is an issue which I raised myself on three earlier amendments, and I took no objection to the Government's suggestion that it be debated on Amendment No. 22, where it would conveniently have fallen. But, of course, unhappily the Government's Amendment No. 22 has now fallen, and so it seems necessary and sensible to discuss it here.
The nub of the issue is this. Throughout the clause, if one looks for the duty of the union in regard to the fulfilment of what we say, and, indeed, I apprehend many of those experienced in industry outside our ranks, or trade union ranks, or even management ranks, would say, are very onerous and difficult duties to fulfil to the letter—.and if they are not fulfilled to the letter, then the election may well turn out to be a nullity— it appears to be either absolute, as in the provision of votes for those entitled to vote, or to provide opportunities governed by the words,
"so far as is reasonably practicable".
Indeed, the words,
"so far as is reasonably practicable",
appear again and again.
Noble Lords may think that,
"so far as is reasonably practicable",
means that the Bill is demanding ordinary skill and care, that the trade union must not be careless in any way. If that is what is meant, that would be reasonable and we would support it in so far as there has to be an obligation.
But that is not what the phrase,
"so far as is reasonably practicable",
means. It is a phrase which is well known to the law, mainly in the area of factory legislation and the legislation regarding safety at work. It is in those cases where the precise meaning has been worked out, and if I quote three very short sentences from Munkman on Employers' Liability— the leading work on that matter—perhaps it may become a little more clear.
At page 199 Munkman says this:
"To do what is practicable involves more than taking reasonable care. 'Practicable' means that which is feasible, that which can be done".
Then on page 200 he says:
"If, instead of saying that 'all practicable measures' are to be taken, (as in the Factories Act 1961) … the statute limits the
630
obligation to what is reasonably practicable (as in S. 29 of the same Act), this introduces a qualification; nevertheless, something more than reasonable care is still required".
He goes on over the page to say:
"The courts will certainly not pay undue regard to expense where lives are at stake, but there is authority for saying that, in determining what is reasonable, it is right to take into account, in addition to physical difficulties, such matters as expense and trouble, and whether they are disproportionate to the result to be attained".
I should be happier, in a sense, to read more of those pages and would be ready to do so if the noble Earl so wished. However, that extract gives the core of the matter. It is more than reasonable care, it is what is sometimes called the "disproportionate test". But "best endeavours", which we would put in its place, has frequently been interpreted to mean that which is reasonable according to the ordinary, reasonable standards of skill and care.
On that first point we ask: will not the Government, on the basis of this amendment at any rate, reconsider the standard on the union side? This is not a matter which has been very heavily canvassed elsewhere. It is, therefore, a point which is very appropriate to your Lordships' House. On reflection, is not the right and fair standard for the union and its officials— getting the ballot papers to the right people, doing all the things that have to be done and now these unknown things with the postal ballot— that of reasonable care and not that which is reasonably practicable, which is, in a sense, one step up the ladder of care as the law lays it down?
I come to the second issue, which is now more important than ever in view of the new subsection (6) or the outline or unelaborated version of it that we have. The question has always arisen under Clause 2: who has to co-operate in these detailed and difficult procedures and who has to do what all round? What does the employer have to do? What does the union have to do? Here we come to asking, what does the member have to do? We say that, if a member has unreasonably declined to co-operate in the steps that are necessary for the ballot, then the union should be excused, certainly if it has taken reasonable care.
The noble Earl— and we will come back to this matter when discussing this clause, but I introduce it here in a sense to give him notice that I have taken careful note of what he said in the debates last week and on Second Reading— has mentioned Australia more than once as an analogous jurisdiction where there is legislation which is not the same but which controls union elections. It was interesting to note that the legislation in Australia requires certain obligations of members as regards co-operation and it is in many ways— and we shall see this later— much more flexible than the legislation before the Committee at present.
These ballots will require the co-operation of many people if there is to be a new external Government quango, as the noble Earl put it in the debate last week. What are the obligations of members in regard to that? Must they make sure that everybody has their latest address? How far do they have to go? The new ballots will require the co-operation of many people in real life. It is not an abstract nor an academic point; it is a very practical and serious issue. It is not enough for the Government to say that the court might release the union from liability in its discretion. The court here

631
does, of course, have a discretion in regard to enforcement orders, but we have not got to that point. What we are saying is that no union should incur liability where it has done that which is reasonable and where a member has not done all that he should reasonably do to co-operate. I beg to move.
Lord Denning: I ask your Lordships to reject this amendment. It was appropriate enough in regard to the Bill as it originally stood, but now we have the new subsection (6) it seems to me quite inappropriate. As regards the phrases, "reasonably practicable" or "best endeavours", they are always slipped in by lawyers when they want to try to get out of an obligation. They can get away with anything with clauses of that nature. So I would ask your Lordships not to accept this amendment.
The Earl of Gowrie: As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, was kind enough to remind me, the Government were defeated on Amendment No. 21 last week. I shall have something preliminary to say about the consequences of that defeat and how we are seeking to proceed when I come to deal with clause stand part.
But I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, that whatever decisions are finally reached in relation to Amendment No. 21, it will be necessary to ensure that the Bill adequately covers the situation where a union fails to comply with the obligations owed to an individual member concerning the conduct of a ballot solely because that member makes it impossible through his actions for the union so to comply. I can certainly give the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, the assurance that we shall bear that point fairly firmly in mind, and I hope that on that basis he will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I feel that we have kicked off to half a good start. The noble Earl has given us an assurance that he will consider— it almost sounded favourably, but at any rate consider— half of what we have said. I would beg him also to consider the standard of "best endeavours" and "reasonably practicable". The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, speaks with such experience on these matters because he knows how to put down any advocate who advances an argument on the basis of either of these phrases. We ordinary mortals have to deal with these phrases in order to advance arguments to the courts and they do— it is thought by some judges anyway— make a difference. I hope that the noble Earl will have a look at that as well. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
3.27 p.m.
Lord Rochester Lord Rochester moved Amendment No. 28A:
Page 3, line 41, at end insert—
(" (6A) The information to be supplied to every person who is entitled to vote shall consist of details of each candidate at the election concerned as supplied by that candidate on such basis as the trade union concerned may determine, provided that such basis shall afford to each candidate an equal opportunity to
632
communicate at reasonable length information relating to his candidature without any restraint on such information but so that no trade union shall be obliged by virtue of this subsection to publish information which is defamatory or would otherwise expose that trade union to civil or criminal liability.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is simply to ensure that every candidate for election to the principal executive committee of a trade union should have an equal opportunity to convey information to the electorate. It aims to see that those in privileged positions as existing members of a union's governing body do not, as a result of the greater opportunities they will already have had to publicise themselves, gain an unfair advantage over less privileged contenders for membership of that body.
The phrase "at reasonable length" is included to ensure that the burden placed on trade unions is not heavy. There is a proviso against a union being obliged to publish matter that is, for example, defamatory. There is no attempt to differentiate between so-called right and left wing candidates. The intention is simply to ensure fair treatment between existing and prospective members of the principal executive committee. It is, therefore, a perfectly straightforward amendment which I hope will command the support of members of the Committee generally.
So much for the substance of the amendment. There is one other thing of a general nature for me to say about it. I have had to alter it slightly from the form in which it first appeared on the Marshalled List so that it could be appended to new subsection (6) of Clause 2 following the Committee's acceptance last Tuesday of the amendment on postal ballots moved by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. On that matter, as the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, has already said, we are at present all in a state of suspense. I noted what it was that the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, said in relation to that matter just now. For my part I would have welcomed it had it been possible for some statement to have been made rather earlier so that this, and indeed other amendments to the clause could have been considered with the benefit of any information that the Government might have had to give us. I beg to move.
Lord Denning: I hope that the Government will view this amendment with sympathy. If we are to have postal ballots and just a list of names is sent out to all the members of the union, each member will say, "What does he stand for?" When I examined the ballot paper for the European Parliament I was glad I was told which political parties the individuals represented. If trade union members are simply sent a list of names which contains no description of the individuals and they have no knowledge of them, which many of them will not have, they will be completely ignorant as to which individual to vote for.
If amendments are made, it would be most useful when ballot papers are sent out with the names of the candidates on them, for information to be given quite fairly about each of the candidates, so that when people fill in their papers or mark them, they know the qualifications of the candidates before them.
Lord Renton: I, too, should like to support the purpose of this amendment, and I hope that the Government will say that they accept its purpose.

633
Following the amendment that was made to the Bill last week, for technical reasons this amendment may not be in quite the form in which it can be added to the Bill, but, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, said, this is a necessary purpose if we are to have democracy within the trade unions. Having been a supporter of the amendment last week, I venture to say that it is even more important with postal ballots that those who vote should be given clear notice of what each candidate has done for the union, or purports to do, or at any rate what he stands for.
Lord Hankey: I should also like to support this amendment. If we are to organise well-conducted trade union elections, it is very important that the people who vote should know who they are voting for, and an amendment such as this seems to me to be required.
Lord Gray of Contin: At the outset, I should like to say that I have considerable sympathy with the arguments which have been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and I have listened very carefully to the support which he has received from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, my noble friend Lord Renton, and the noble Lord, Lord Hankey. Let me deal with the whole issue which we are considering at the present moment.
Election addresses clearly have an important contribution to make in ensuring that voters cast their votes in an informed and comprehending way. With this in mind we should all be prepared to encourage and support any efforts which unions themselves might make towards supplying voters with information about candidates.
However, for a number of reasons, we do not believe that it would be right to legislate for the provision of such information. In the first place the Government's whole approach in this Bill is, as your Lordships are aware, to lay down only those basic, democratic requirements which are clearly fundamental to the conduct of any democratic election. Within this framework, we have sought to leave unions with the maximum possible degree of freedom to make whatever arrangements they see fit. While I fully appreciate that the noble Lord's amendment would leave unions with a considerable degree of discretion about precisely what information was provided in election addresses, our view is that we would not be justified in imposing statutory requirements in this area. I think we must all accept that if this Bill comes to be seen by union members themselves not as one which lays down only basic, democratic principles, however we may decide to define those, but rather as one which lays down a host of requirements covering every aspect of the electoral process, then we shall have failed to achieve our objective. Union members will then see the Bill not as a measure about democracy, but rather simply as the imposition of detailed rules and regulations.
Moreover, there could, I think, be considerable practical problems for unions were the noble Lord's amendment to be included in the Bill. For example, while a number of unions provide for information about candidates to be supplied to members individually,
634
either by including this information on ballot papers or circulating it along with them, others arrange instead for this information to be published in the union's journal. Given the number of seats which have to be filled on the executives of some unions— for example, over 30 in the case of CPSA, and more than 60 in the case of NALGO— this seems both an acceptable and an understandable substitute for the supply of election addresses to individual members. In particular, in the light of your Lordships' Committee's decision on Amendment No. 21, it is important to note that these kind of practical problems in terms of the volume of material to be distributed are not necessarily any easier in unions which operate postal ballots. Presumably that is one of the reasons why the engineering section of the AUEW, which operates fully postal ballots, has nevertheless chosen to distribute election addresses through its branches when there are more than two candidates.
As I suggested at the commencement of my remarks, I have considerable sympathy with the arguments which the noble Lord has advanced. Nevertheless, I believe that those arguments are outweighed by the practical considerations involved, as well as by the undesirability in principle of imposing requirements on trade unions beyond those which are clearly essential. In the light of those considerations, I hope that the noble Lord may consider it appropriate to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Howie of Troon: I hesitate to intervene, because my memory might not be too clear on this question and I have not, in fact, looked back at the relevant Hansard. But in thinking back to one of our debates last week, what strikes me is that I had occasion to point out that the Government's proposals laid some restrictions on the kind of candidates who might come forward in elections. The Government said that they were not quite restricting candidates, but were placing limitations on candidates in order to ensure that inexperienced people and the like did not come forward. I am speaking entirely from memory and totally off-the-cuff, and I might be wrong, though I do not think I am. If my impression of the Government's interest in candidates is right (and I think that it is right that the Government, with their views, should be interested in candidates), surely this is the kind of amendment which the Government ought to welcome.
This amendment indicates that trade union members should have the fullest possible information— and the Government cannot possibly be opposed to that type of thing— and the kind of information which would be available would be exactly that which I seem to recollect the Government wanted the other evening; that is, information as to the suitability and, in particular, the experience of candidates. As I said, I speak entirely from memory and I have not looked at the appropriate Hansard s, but I propose to do so as soon as I sit down. I hope that the Government will revise the very unwelcoming view which has been proposed in the last few minutes.
Lord McCarthy: It may be the case, as my noble friend Lord Wedderburn says, that we begin with a certain degree of agreement with the Government,

635
because we agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, has said. To attempt to specify in the kind of detail in which this amendment does what should go into election addresses, of what length they should be, or that they should be of reasonable length, not defamatory, and so on, would be regarded by trade unions as an unjustifiable degree of over-precision in attempting to regulate their behaviour. Although I am bound to say in defence of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, that this amendment is better drafted and clearer than the one over which we had all the troubles the other day, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. Nevertheless, it is a little over-precise, and it raises all kinds of practical problems, including those practical problems which unions would have if they were given the job of supplying election addresses to the specifications in a provision of this kind. Therefore, in general terms we agree with the Government.
It is difficult to agree too much with the Government, however, and I want to use this moment to say this, since we still have no real idea how any of the many amendments we are putting down are going to fit eventually into the redrafted Clause 2 in the light of the amendment passed the other night. I say to the Government that they are treating us a little hard not to give us any idea what they are going to do with the shambles of Clause 2 until we come to the Question, Whether the clause shall stand part? It is difficult for us to know what the Government are thinking in relation to our amendments, or for the Government to answer in relation to our amendments, until they tell us what they intend to do with this clause. I hope the Government will try to tell us something before we reach the Question, Whether the clause shall stand part?
One of the problems which arise in relation to this amendment and which arise as a result of the amendment we passed the other day is that we now have an unknown amount of money which presumably the Government expect to find so that all the postal ballots, with or without things of this kind, can be paid for. Bearing in mind the cost of ballots at the moment to those unions which operate postal ballots, I calculate that if all the unions operated postal ballots and they all decided to ask for Government funds in order to finance them, something between £2 million and £3 million a year would be required.
If we were to extend it to election addresses, then considerably more than that would be required. Even then, from experience with the unions outside the TUC who have used the certification officer and the Government scheme we know that the money provided under that scheme does not fully cover the cost of postal ballots, and it does not fully cover the cost of providing election addresses. Quite apart from the fact that this is over-regulation, and quite apart from the fact that it creates all kinds of practical problems, it would also represent a significant increase in costs which the present scheme would not cover. Therefore, we agree with the Government.
Lord Howie of Troon: I have found the reference to the earlier matter I raised. It appears in the Official
636
Report for 19th June at column 201. The noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, was saying:
"The Bill allows unions, so long as they act within the rules, to require, for example, that candidates for the governing body must have been members of the union for some minimum period of time."
If the Government are prepared to tamper with the requirements of candidates in that respect, they can surely accept what the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, has put forward without any hesitation.
Lord Gray of Contin: Before the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, replies to the debate, may I just correct the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon? The Bill does not do what the noble Lord suggests that it might do. It merely allows unions to restrict candidature through their own rules if that is what they wish to do. The Bill is entirely permissive in this repect; it is not mandatory. Might I also say that I am glad to have the support for our view from the noble Lord leading for the official Opposition. The occasions on which we find ourselves in agreement are relatively few, and I am glad that on this occasion at least we are of like mind.
Lord Rochester: I am grateful to those noble Lords who have taken part in this brief debate. I am particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, whose powerful support has been most welcome. I thank also the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for his agreement, at least in principle, to what this amendment has in view. Other noble Lords have spoken in its support. Even the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, whose opposition to it was, I suppose, predictable, seemed to express some qualification, shall I say, to that opposition.
The difficulty as I see it is that we are all in a state of suspense. We do not yet know whether the Government are prepared to accept in principle, at least, the decision of the Committee in relation to Lord Beloff's amendment last week. We do not know whether they are proposing to bring back some amendment in terms not altogether dissimilar from what would have been Amendment No. 22. We do not know whether there will be some quite different, alternative proposition placed before us. We have to act as the Bill is now before us.
This amendment has not gone into any great detail. Its terms are pretty wide. It does not seek to impose any very severe constraints on trade unions. In all the circumstances, I feel that, having regard to the expressions of support that I have received from all parts of the Committee, I should press this amendment to a Division.
3.48 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 28A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 34; Not-Contents, 157.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Banks, L.

Attlee, E. [Teller.]

Beloff, L.

Aylestone, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

637

Denning, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Diamond, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Ezra, L.

Mayhew, L.

Falkland, V.

Rochester, L.

Grey, E.

Rugby, L.

Grimond, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Hampton, L. [Teller.]

Seear, B.

Hankey, L.

Seebohm, L.

Hanworth, V.

Stedman, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor, L.

Hayter, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Walston, L.

Hooson, L.

Winterbottom, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hood, V.

Ampthill, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Annan, L.

Ilchester, E.

Ardwick, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Avon, E.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Bauer, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Belstead, L.

Killearn, L.

Bessborough, E.

Kilmany, L.

Birk, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Bottomley, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Bowden, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Briginshaw, L.

Leathers, V.

Brockway, L.

Listowel, E.

Brookes, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Long, V.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Longford, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lovat, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Cockfield, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Collison, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

McCarthy, L.

Cottesloe, L.

McFadzean, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon Avon, L.

Daventry, V.

David, B.

Merrivale, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mersey, V.

De Freyne, L.

Mills, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Molson, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Morris, L.

Donnet of Balgay, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Eccles, V.

Mulley, L.

Effingham, E.

Munster, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Norfolk, D.

Elton, L.

Northchurch, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Ennals, L.

Onslow, E.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Oram, L.

Faithfull, B.

Orkney, E.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Pender, L.

Forbes, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Gainford, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Porritt, L.

Gallacher, L.

Portland, D.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Glanusk, L.

Reigate, L.

Glenamara, L.

Renwick, L.

Glenarthur, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Gormanston, V.

St. Davids, V.

Gowrie, E.

Sandford, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Savile, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Seafield, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Selkirk, E.

Gridley, L.

Sharples, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hale, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Halsbury, E.

Somers, L.

Hatherton, L.

Stamp, L.

Henley, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

638

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Underhill, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Vaizey, L.

Stone, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Vickers, B.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Vivian, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Strathspey, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Sudeley, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Wells-Pestell, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Westbury, L.

Taylor of Mansfield. L.

Whitelaw, V.

Terrington, L.

Wise, L.

Teviot, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Thorneycroft, L.

Wynford, L.

Trumpington, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.58 p.m.
The Earl of Gowrie The Earl of Gowrie moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 4, line 8, at end insert ("(any inaccuracy in counting being disregarded for the purposes of this paragraph if it is accidental and on a scale which would not affect the result of the election).")
The noble Earl said: I think that that last Division gave a whole new meaning to the phrase "the rainbow alliance". We shall have to send a note to Mr. Frank Field.
I can speak to this amendment very briefly. As originally drafted, the Bill makes it an absolute requirement on the part of the union to count the votes cast in an election accurately. The reality is that if some trivial inaccuracy is complained of to the courts, they would almost certainly dismiss it as de minimis. Nevertheless, to avoid any scope for unnecessary legal actions, the amendment now makes it explicit in the Bill that any inaccuracy in counting is to be disregarded if it was both accidental and on a scale that could not affect the result of the election. This is a small, but sensible, change and I commend it to the Committee.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: This may be as far as this curious alliance goes, but my noble friends and I have some feeling of joy in this amendment; and it is necessary to say two things to explain why that is so. This amendment touches upon a large number of other matters. First, we note the Government's argument that although it might be said that the court would do this anyway, and therefore the amendment could be unnecessary, there is a doubt, and so the Government wish to make explicit what it is they want to be made clear and not rely on that argument, no doubt, to avoid unnecessary litigation. We hope that the Government will adopt that attitude in all the other cases where there is doubt and where there is reasonable doubt. We hope that they will not say, "It is unnecessary", but will agree to make things explicit.
Secondly, I return to my argument on a previous amendment. The difference between me returning to my previous arguments and the Government returning to their arguments on the ILO Convention, as they have done earlier today, is that I have several decisions in my favour and they have one decision against them. With the greatest of respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, there have been many decisions, and not all of them can have been wrong. There is a difference between the duty to do that which is reasonable, which is precisely the same as

639
avoiding that which is accidental and is the ordinary standard of care, and the obligation to do all that which is reasonably practicable. The amendment does not read—and we are glad to see that it does not read—that the inaccuracy is disregarded if there is no failure to do all that is reasonably practicable. It reads:
"if it is accidental and on a scale which could not affect the result".
We are pleased that the Government here adopt the language that we say should be the language of the clause. In adopting it, they have done so for those who are counting the votes; and we hope that this will be another spur to them to reconsider (and I appeal to noble Lords so to consider) this as a very practical and very important matter for ordinary, especially voluntary, trade union officials who are going to have to make this system work. Most people will want to do so because they want to see the organisation work. If their duty is to do more than to take reasonable care, that is not a reasonable legal obligation to put upon them. The Government are very sensible here and we very much hope that they will take regard to their own precedents in this matter of duty and of care. We support the amendment.
Lord Howie of Troon: I join my noble friend on the Front Bench in welcoming this and I would ask the noble Earl the Minister to think hack to the very brief debate that we had the other evening on the amendment of my noble friend Lord Wedderburn, Amendment No. 20, which extended the same kind of clemency to a rather wider area of the ballot. While welcoming this amendment from the Government, may I ask whether they could look again at my noble friend's Amendment No. 20 and think in terms of extending the same clemency over a rather wider area than they have in this amendment?
The Earl of Gowrie: I do not want to seem ungrateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, or to the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon; but I suggest that perhaps they are pushing their luck a little.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 4, line 8, at end insert—
("( ) A union does not contravene subsections (6) or (7) of this section where it uses its best endeavours to prepare for the ballot in compliance with those subsections and the contravention is wholly or mainly caused by the act or omission of an employer who knows or ought to know that his act or omission is likely substantially to increase the difficulty encountered by the union in effecting such compliance.").
The noble Lord said: I hope sincerely that this is not the end of the rainbow because this is a serious amendment which we put forward in a very serious way. The object of the amendment is to ensure that the union in carrying out its obligation under Part I will not contravene any of subsections (6) or (7)—which really constitute the obligation placed upon it in order to carry out the ballot—if they can demonstrate that they have used their best endeavours to prepare for the ballot in compliance with those subsections, and that the contravention. if any contravention there be—and this is a direct quote from the amendment—
"is wholly or mainly caused by the act or omission of an employer … substantially to increase the difficulty encountered by the union in effecting such compliance".
In other words, we are saying that if it is for some reason which a union can demonstrate to the court, if for some reason which is the consequence wholly or mainly of an act, or the omission of an act, by the employer and not the union, then the union should not be liable. It seems to me that this amendment, important though it always was to us, is more important in the light of what I believe—and I am sorry that I have to say this again—we are going to discover on the question whether the "clause shall stand part" when the Government tell us what they are putting in that part of the Bill. The Government are now saying that if it is not entirely (because we do not yet know whether there are going to be exceptions) the case that there will be no workshop-based ballots, certainly in the great majority of cases there will be ballots taken by post. There may be some workshop-based ballots, but by and large there will be ballots by post.
In that case, it is extremely important for the union if it is to discharge its obligations under subsections (6) and (7) to get every conceivable co-operation from the employer. It is well known to the Government, it is well known to anyone who knows anything about modern trade union labour relations, that the great majority of trade unions in this country obtain the use of the employer who deducts trade union dues at source through the device known as the "check off". Something between 70 per cent. and 80 per cent. of trade union dues now are deducted at source through the check-off. This means that the trade union is completely dependent upon the employer for telling them when people are in compliance or out of compliance, in arrears, whether they have resigned from the union, or for any other reason whether they are eligible either to be members, to remain members or to stand in elections.
Most employers who have good relations with unions give facilities for the compilation of trade union registers. Nevertheless, it has been accepted (and shown in recent research by Undy and Martin) that any union which habitually uses the ballot system usually has something like between 20 per cent. and 25 per cent. of the number of members who, in principle, are entitled to ballot not actually in a position to receive the ballot paper because the register is inaccurate. If this is because of some accident, then it is nobody's fault. If it is because of some neglect on the part of the employer, then in the terms which we are specifying in our amendment we say not that the employer should be liable, but that the union should not be liable; that the union should be able to say in court that any maladministration of that particular ballot was the result of something which happened for which the employer was responsible.
Strangely enough, although the Government in this Committee the other night would not accept this argument, the great argument in the past in trade union affairs for voting at the branch and for voting by show of hands was not that it could be manipulated but that it could not be manipulated; that if you had a card check which showed the people in compliance, and if those in compliance and only those in compliance were allowed to vote, and if that vote was recorded and if that vote was published in the journal, the result was incontestable. This was the principle.

641
There could not be a contest against that decision. That was moved away from by most trade unions because of the very small number of workers who participated in the voting. Therefore, unions have moved towards workplace-based ballots where, once again, they are dependent upon the employer for an accurate register. Now, they are to be pushed by the new clause in the Bill more and more towards postal ballots where, once again, even more, they will be dependent upon co-operation by the employer.
All that this amendment is seeking to say is that if the employer, perhaps by no fault of his own, is responsible for an inaccurate register or in some other way failing to comply with the provisions of subsections (6) and (7), then the union should escape liability. I beg to move.
Viscount Long: This is an interesting amendment. I have a strong feeling that it is not necessary. This amendment is similar in some respects to Amendment No. 26 which has been debated already during the Committee stage. I think that I can therefore be very brief. Again, the concern is to protect unions from liability where breaches of balloting requirements in Clause 2 are occasioned by a third party. Although the third party in question in this case is an employer rather than a trade union member, the test of reasonable practicability provided by the Bill as originally put before your Lordships operates to protect the union in the same way. Any requirement in Clause 2, as originally drafted, which could possibly be hindered by an employer's behaviour is qualified by the test of reasonable practicability. In the context of a postal ballot, which the noble Lord has mentioned, and which was envisaged by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, it is of course very difficult to envisage how any act or omission of an employer could possibly hinder a trade union in carrying out that ballot. Nevertheless, I certainly repeat the assurance that my noble friend mentioned to the noble Lord in the context of Amendment No. 26: namely, that we shall bear fully in mind in considering our response to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, the need to ensure that unions are not liable for the acts or omissions of third parties outside the union. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McCarthy: I am very sorry that the Minister felt that he had to respond in that way. It is not satisfactory at all. We have had the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, coming to the Dispatch Box on the previous amendment and in effect criticising, as we have done, and as my noble friend Lord Wedderburn has done, the effectiveness, the utility and flexibility of the phrase "reasonably practicable" and putting another phrase in its place. We have said, and my noble friend Lord Wedderburn from this Dispatch Box has said, that if the Government were to spatter all over the Bill the phrase which they have just put into an amendment in place of the phrase "reasonably practicable", we would very much like that and perhaps would not need amendments of this kind.
However, that is not what the Government have offered. On the contrary, on this occasion the
642
Government have said that in this very important area where an employer could create a liability for a union they stand pat on their original phrase. Indeed, the noble Lord who replied said that first, he does not think it could conceivably happen that an employer could put a union into a position of this kind; and, secondly, that when it does happen it is covered anyway. I do not think that he has covered either way and I think we will have to press this amendment to a Division.
Viscount Long: May I come back to the noble Lord, because we are on a very important amendment. There is of course an underlying thread running through the amendment of the noble Lord to this part of the Bill: namely, that Clause 2 imposes requirements concerning the conduct of union elections which are too severe and which are thus unjustifiable. In moving the Government amendment which we have just debated, my noble friend referred to the specific instance where the Bill as originally drafted might have been too onerous on trade unions and where we have accordingly made a change. However, I have to say that beyond this change we see no case at all for the relaxation of the requirements of Clause 2. As has been explained many times, these requirements do not constitute, whatever the noble Lord may assert, a detailed catalogue of rules and regulations; rather they constitute only the basic democratic principle which should always exist in any free and fair election.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Before the noble Minister resumes his seat, will he answer a specific question on this amendment? It is part of the Government's case that the union is always protected by the duty to do only that which is reasonably practicable. The primary duty under Clause 2(1), which I apprehend will not change, is to ensure entitlement to vote. Clause 2(1) states:
"Entitlement to vote at the election must be accorded equally to all members".
If a list from an employer was faulty and if the union relied on that, where in the Bill—in which subsection, in which line of the Bill—could it find a defence based on "reasonable practicability" for that failure, which would not, in anybody's language, he its fault but that of the employer? Which subsection gives the union a defence?
The Earl of Gowrie: I think that my noble friend tried to meet the points made by the Committee in that this is an area which will be affected by the Government's response to Amendment No. 21. I think it would be rather unreasonable, therefore, to press it to a vote at the moment. I have every confidence that the Government would carry such a vote but it would seem to me somewhat of a distraction on the time and resources of the Committee to have a vote on a speech given by my noble friend which was, I thought, highly emollient.
Lord Howie of Troon: None of us is anxious to take up the time of the Committee unreasonably; but I thought that in the first reply from the Front Bench, the noble Viscount, Lord Long, gave some kind of reassurance to those on this side of the Committee. I refer not to his opening words, when he said that the

643
amendment was not necessary—that usually arouses the utmost suspicion—but later on, when he seemed to give some kind of reassurance. I think the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, when he used the word "emollient", was referring to the same thing. Will the noble Viscount repeat the emollient part so that I can hear it?
Viscount Long: We seem to be getting more interested in this amendment. The noble Lord has asked me to repeat the second part of my speech. I can only say—I repeat the whole paragraph so that it makes sense—that in the context of the postal ballots envisaged by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, it is of course very difficult to envisage how the act or omission of an employer could possibly hinder a trade union in carrying out that ballot. Nevertheless, I certainly repeat the assurance that my noble friend mentioned to the noble Lord in the context of Amendment No. 26: namely, that we shall bear fully in mind in considering our response to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, the need to ensure that unions are not liable for the acts or omissions of third parties outside the union. I hope that that repeats what the noble Lord wanted to hear.
Lord Rochester: The difficulty of the Committee lies precisely in the point mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, as I understood it, that we do not yet know what the Government's response is going to be to the major amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, which was accepted by the Committee the other night. Like him, I wish that we did not have to waste any more time and that we could proceed to a discussion on whether or not Clause 2 should stand part of the Bill.
The Earl of Gowrie: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I am not concerned either to delay the Committee or to instruct the Committee that in my view, it should wait until the debate on whether Clause 2 shall stand part. That is not the issue. The Government are considering the implications of the amendment that was carried the other night. Even the most eager, eloquent proponents of the amendment gave every indication when we debated it the other night that it was not easily workable in its present form. Therefore it is not wholly the Government's fault that this causes some difficulties on this part of the Bill. But a great deal of the Bill is not affected by this amendment. We shall be considering with great seriousness how to deal with the amendment, and we shall be bringing forward proposals. The proponents of the amendment have been critical of it in its present form and therefore we should not allow this parliamentary excitement—I pay every tribute to my noble friend on a famous victory—to delay us in the consideration of the rest of the Bill, not all of which is affected by it.
Lord Brookes: It would be unwise to dismiss this amendment lightly. I think that your Lordships' Committee would render a disservice to a movement which was born of dire social necessity—that, in my mind, is beyond question—but which for years has desperately needed dignity, responsibility, authority and self-sufficiency. The amendment would seem to rest upon the assumption of sensibility lying behind
644
the assumption of responsibility by employers for trade unions which, if they were true and diligent in terms of the ideals and necessities of their beginnings, should seek to assume—I will not use the term "elevate"—the kind of responsibility, stature, capability and professionalism which characterises many of the trade unions in America and many of those in Europe. Therefore I would not wish, in the best interests of the trade unions, to argue for that which I have referred to as "grace and favour" utilisation of an employer's facilities—often, let it be said, granted by a management which was insufficiently strong or which vacillated, and which has been in considerable part responsible for the decline during our post-war years. I would rather ask the unions to accept full and complete responsibility for their registers and their subscription lists being updated and, therefore, as a whole, being a reliable record for the right to vote.
Lord McCarthy: I quite see what the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, is saying. He is saying that he wants to get on with the Bill and that there are large parts of the Bill which have nothing to do with Clause 2. That is true; but we happen to be on Clause 2. My difficulty is that throughout Clause 2, except at the moment in the case of counting, where the Government have moved an amendment which we have accepted and which has changed the situation, the test of the extent to which the unions have to observe these provisions is "reasonable practicability", which the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, says lawyers call "the disproportionate test". What we are saying is that that test is too severe. The Government themselves have accepted that it is too severe in respect of counting—and we thank them for that—and in the place of "reasonable practicability" they have put "accidental and not affecting". They allow the unions to escape if the mistake is accidental and if it does not affect the result.
We like those words, and if those words were to apply throughout the clause and if, when the Government come back having re-written the amendment which we passed the other night the words "accidental and not affecting" bustle around in that part of the Bill, we shall be extremely happy. But they are not in that part of the Bill now, and the noble Earl, with great respect, will not tell us now that they will be. He asks us to wait and see, and, frankly, that is not good enough. We are saying that our phrase at this point would be "uses its best endeavours", and that if the employer is responsible for those endeavours going astray then the union should not be liable. Unless the noble Earl can tell us now what the Government are going to put in the clause when it is brought back, I am afraid we must press this to a Division.
The Earl of Gowrie: I may be able to help the noble Lord a little, although I would not wish to dissuade him from Divisions if he wants them. I am simply not convinced that it is necessary in this case. One of the Government amendments withdrawn from the Marshalled List because of the amendment accepted in the name of my noble friend Lord Beloff would have made it absolutely clear that a trade union would not be liable for interference or constraint on the part of the employer. We shall certainly look to including something very similar in Clause 2, in whatever form

645
it finally emerges. Obviously, part of the whole point of a Committee stage is that the Bill may be modified as we go along. I think it would make something of a mockery of that admirable principle if, whenever the Government were defeated during a Committee stage, the Bill did not proceed further at all.
Lord McCarthy: Would the noble Earl tell me which amendment it was which did what he has said it did?
The Earl of Gowrie: Not without notice; and, in any case. it is not now immediately relevant. We have had to withdraw the amendment in the light of my noble friend's splendid victory. Therefore, it does not now operate. But if the noble Lord wants to press this amendment to a Division, I shall advise my noble friends to vote against him.
Lord Howie of Troon: Is the noble Earl offering my noble friend some kind of a concession which would induce him to withdraw the amendment? He seems to have gone very near to doing that. Would he like to go the whole way and do so?
The Earl of Gowrie: The Government have said that they agree with one part of the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, and had an amendment down on the Marshalled List (which I am now advised was No. 22) to this effect. That Amendment No. 22 now does not pertain. As we look at the amended Clause 2 in the light of Amendment No. 21, we shall take on board the point that has just been made. Therefore, I do not think it is reasonable for the noble Lord to press it.
Lord McCarthy: I am sorry; I am afraid we must press it. The fact is that Amendment No. 22 (as the noble Earl now informs me it is) has been changed from an earlier draft so that the constraint imposed which it protects against is a constraint imposed by the union or by any of its members. There is no mention of employers in it at all. We must press this to a Division.
4.25 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 30) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 84: Not-Contents. 122.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Amherst, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ardwick, L.

Collison, L.

Attlee, E.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Aylestone, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Banks, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Birk, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Blyton, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Bottomley, L.

Diamond, L.

Bowden, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Donnet of Balgay, L.

Brockway, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Ennals, L.

646

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Mayhew, L.

Falkland, V.

Monson, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Mulley, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Northfield, L.

Gallacher, L.

Oram, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller]

Glenamara, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rochester, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Grey, E.

Sainsbury, L.

Grimond, L.

Seear, B.

Hale, L.

Stallard, L.

Hampton, L.

Stedman, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Hirshfield, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hooson, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stone, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Taylor, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Tordoff, L.

Listowel, E.

Underhill, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Walston, L.

Lockwood, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Longford, E.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

McCarthy, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Hayter, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Henley, L.

Ampthill, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Auckland, L.

Hood, V.

Avon, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Bauer, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Ilchester, E.

Bellwin, L.

Killearn, L.

Beloff, L.

Kilmany, L.

Belstead, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Bessborough, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Brookes, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lovat, L.

Cockfield, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Lyell, L.

Cottesloe, L.

McAlpine of Moffat. L.

Cowley, E.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Daventry, V.

McFadzean, L.

De Freyne, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon- Avon, L.

De La Warr, E.

Denham, L.

Merrivale, L.

Denning, L.

Mersey, V.

Dilhorne, V.

Mills, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Molson, L.

Eccles, V.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mottistone, L.

Elton, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Faithfull, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Forbes, L.

Munster, E.

Fortescue, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Newall, L.

Gainford, L.

Norfolk, D.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Northchurch, B.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Glanusk, L.

Onslow, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Orkney, E.

Gormanston, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Gowrie, E.

Pender, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Gridley, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Portland, D.

Rankeillour, L.

Halsbury, E.

Reigate, L.

Hankey, L.

Renton, L.

Hatherton, L.

Renwick, L.

647

Romney, E.

Strathspey, L.

St. Davids, V.

Sudeley, L.

Sandford, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Savile, L.

Terrington, L.

Seafield, E.

Teviot, L.

Seebohm, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Selkirk, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Vaizey, L.

Sharples, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Vickers, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Vivian, L.

Somers, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Stamp, L.

Westbury, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.33 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 4, line 28, leave out ("uncontested election") and insert ("election which under the rules of the union is uncontested.").
The noble Lord said: Before I move this amendment, may I say that the other day during an earlier part of the Committee stage I drew the conclusion that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, was impugning the integrity of some trade union leaders, past or present. Having read Hansard, I realise that no imputation was meant in what was said, so I now do what is necessary according to the normal courtesies of this House, and withdraw.
To come to the amendment, we believe that this part of the Bill is far too loose in just referring to an "uncontested election", because the rules of different unions vary from one to another. There is great variation in the rules about those eligible to stand and those not eligible to stand, and we think that to insert,
"election which under the rules of the union is uncontested"
is a far better expression and would operate far better than the existing provision in the Bill.
The most appropriate way to deal with this matter is for the Government to accept the amendment and for the election to be declared under a union's own rules. If that is not done, we think that the court might be involved and the court might decide to vary this procedure, which could mean that in the eyes of the court a union would be in breach of its own rules. The rules under which a union was registered would declare who was eligible to stand and in what circumstances a nomination could or would be declared invalid. This happens on a great number of occasions when nominations of national officers are made at branch level. They are sifted through to see whether there have been transgressions— sometimes length of membership, sometimes arrears, and so on— of the rules under which the union is registered.
We believe that if the Bill is left as it is the courts will be brought in by mischief makers. That could confuse the issue and cause a great waste of time for the unions, which under this Bill will have an extremely heavy workload put on them, anyway. We believe that on that basis the amendment is worthy of consideration and acceptance by the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Gray of Contin: Subsection (13) of Clause 2 makes clear that the Bill does not require a ballot to be held where there is only one candidate at an election.
648
Subsections (8) to (11) of Clause 2 ensure that union members have a fair opportunity to stand as candidates in elections to their union's executive, but in cases where only one candidate comes forward there is clearly no sense in holding a meaningless ballot.
Turning to the amendment which the noble Lord has moved, I must confess that when I first looked at it I found it rather puzzling and I am not quite certain that I clearly understand its purpose even now. However, as I understand the noble Lord's concern, it is that once an election is regarded as uncontested under union rules— because, for example, only one nomination has been received by the closing date provided in the rules— it should not subsequently be regarded as contested if a second supposed candidate then comes forward.
If that is the noble Lord's concern, then I believe that I can reassure him. I do not believe that any court would require a union to hold a ballot in a case where only one candidate had come forward by the time or within the conditions stated in the union's rules. Of course, if a union were to pass some extraordinary rule— not that I believe that would ever happen— to the effect, for example, that candidates had to give five years' notice of their wish to stand, then a member could complain to a court that he had been unreasonably excluded from standing, in contravention of subsection (8) of this clause. But, frankly, I think that this is unreal. The reality— to state it once again— is that courts will, of course, normally look to the union rules as the determinant of whether an election is uncontested. The amendment would serve only to confuse that position, and in view of that I suggest that the noble Lord might consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Dean of Beswick: There is possibly some slight confusion in this matter. It does not follow that the only uncontested election is one where there has been only one nominee. If that were the case the noble Lord's argument would be indisputable. There have been a number of occasions— as there will be in the future— where there has been more than one nomination. I am saying that if, under the existing rules of that union, of two nominations, one is declared out of order, in accordance with the rules of that union it shall be deemed to have been an uncontested election and shall not be liable for court action. Could the noble Lord look at the second point I have made? I have no desire to waste the time of the Committee by pressing the amendment to a Division.
Lord Gray of Contin: The noble Lord is not being unreasonable in his request. If he believes that there is some purpose in the amendment which the Government have not seen and which I have been unable to see and if he cares to withdraw his amendment and then to discuss it with me or write to me in some detail, I give an assurance to the noble Lord that, without commitment, I shall have another look at the matter.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I am grateful for the offer which has been made by the noble Lord.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 2, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My noble friends and I have given notice of our wish to oppose the Motion, That this clause stand part of the Bill. There is a difficulty about discussing this clause which both my noble friends and I have expressed. I should be very happy to give way if the Government would tell your Lordships' Committee whether there is anything further about their intentions which can be said at the moment in order that your Lordships' Committee can discuss the clause in the light of whatever the Government may have to say. If the noble Earl wishes to do so now rather than later, I shall be happy to give way and to speak then.
The Earl of Gowrie: I am most obliged to the noble Lord. We have had a long and interesting set of debates on Clause 2. A number of crucial issues have been raised, none more so than the mandatory postal ballots which the Committee debated last Tuesday night. On this issue, the position, as I have already said to the Committee, is that the Government are considering most seriously the implications of the amendment which your Lordships approved on that occasion, but we are not yet in a position to make known our conclusions. I appreciate that the Committee is understandably anxious to know the Government's views, but I trust that it will understand that such an important amendment— also an amendment which, as I suggested earlier, by the admission of its proponents is not absolutely workable in its present form— requires very careful consideration. Obviously we shall not take long over this matter. I ask the Committee to accept from me that this is a very major item on our agenda. Indeed, I was working on it for some hours this morning.
Leaving aside the question of postal ballots, it is fair to say that our debates on Clause 2 have shown a considerable measure of agreement among my noble friends and many noble Lords who sit on the Opposition Benches both about the need for Clause 2 and about the kind of requirements that it should contain. On the need for the clause, there is a large measure of agreement that trade unions are important and influential institutions in our society which ought to be democratically accountable to their members. I should like to take this opportunity to say that it is precisely because we honour trade unions and feel them to be important that we seek sometimes to show concern in Parliament about the way they conduct their affairs. If they were of less importance we should perhaps not do so. Given that almost every other comparable estate of the realm is subject to the deliberations of Parliament and the passing of legislative regulation, it is quite wrong to feel that this kind of interest constitutes some kind of attack on the principle of unionism. It of course does not.
In our debates last Tuesday, the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, in this connection attempted to draw a parallel between trade unions and other ordinary, voluntary organisations like the bowls club, the cricket club; and I seem to remember that he successfully flabbergasted my noble friend the Leader of the House by including the golf club. But the fact surely is that there is every difference in the world between these kinds of institutions— differences even for the purposes of comparison or metaphor— and the trade unions. I
650
am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, who is by any standards a very brilliant man, knows this perfectly well. Golf clubs do not call industrial action. Bowls clubs are not involved in great national altercations on such issues as mass or violent picketing in which police officers can come under threat. Even cricket clubs— though, as we have seen, these do from time to time in various parts of the country have their moments— do not force people to belong to them under the threat of losing their jobs in a closed shop.
The serious reality is that trade unions enjoy enormous power and influence. It is thus clearly right that their leaders should be elected according to basic democratic principles. This issue is one which time and again ordinary members of trade unions have brought to this Government with an absolute requirement that they shall so act.
Lord McCarthy: The noble Earl referred to my speech last Tuesday. Does he not recall that I was making the point that all other institutions, from golf clubs through companies to Parliament, are allowed more flexibility and freedom in deciding their elections and their leaders than the Government propose that trade unions should be allowed? This was my point.
4.49 p.m.
The Earl of Gowrie: The point I was making, as, I believe, the noble Lord knows very well, is that the enormous— indeed, awesome privilege of immunity in law from actions in tort involves certain obligations and responsibilities. The other point I wish to make is that the ability of people to work may depend upon decisions— whether economic decisions or decisions involving closed shop agreements— made by unions. This puts them in a very different case from other kinds of voluntary organisations.
In respect, now, not of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, or his friends but in respect of myself and some of my noble friends, we may, on a famous occasion, have differed on one of these principles— the issue of mandatory postal ballots: postal ballots to the legal exclusion, so to say, of workplace ballots— but we do not differ on the remaining issues of principle which Clause 2 establishes. We do not, for instance, differ on the need for voting to be by ballot paper rather than by a show of hands. We do not differ on the need for voting to be free from intimidation or constraint. We do not differ on the need to outlaw the block vote, with all its enormities, and thus to end the system under which trade union elections can be determined by rubber stamp armies of non-existent members. We are agreed on the need for votes cast at elections to be fairly and accurately counted and, most of all, we are agreed on the urgent need to do away with voting systems which currently guarantee that turnout can be measured in terms of 1 or 2 per cent. of the entire union membership.
It is only human to concentrate, in terms of publicity or excitement, on the areas of disagreement, but I hope I have shown that this area is far narrower than the very broad areas in which we on this side of the Committee find ourselves in absolute agreement. I am glad to say, too, that we have attracted considerable support from some of the Opposition Benches.

651
As I said at the beginning, I cannot yet say in detail how Clause 2 will look in its final form. However, I can say that whatever form it finally takes it will guarantee those basic democratic principles which all of my noble friends and many noble Lords in other parts of the House rightly regard as essential. On that basis, and given the Government's earnest that they will consider the implications of Amendment No. 21 most seriously, I beg to move that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: We have heard what the Government have to say and it is, perhaps, not surprising that my noble friends and I have heard nothing which has made us wish to support the Motion that this clause stand part of the Bill. It is surely very odd for a legislative Chamber to be asked to decide on whether a clause should stand part of the Bill when part of the central core— indeed, the amendment to subsection (6) is not a peripheral matter— is in such a degree of doubt. It is doubly odd that the Government should put forward such a detailed and important amendment as Amendment No. 22— referred to earlier by the noble Earl in reply to my noble friend but in a somewhat erroneous context— whereby one can have either postal or workforce ballots, and to argue, as the Government argued in the other place when the Minister of State spent many columns describing how he had been persuaded, on very good grounds it seemed to us, against postal ballots as the only way for democracy to operate in this area. To have all that behind them and for the Government still not to have made up an attitude to something which has been so resisted for eight months, does seem very strange. However, we are very grateful to the noble Earl for his statement, and it is quite understandable that sometimes Government cannot go further on a particular point.
Therefore, I wish to put to your Lordships' Committee the reasons why we shall vote against this clause standing part of the Bill, understanding it as best we can. It is, perhaps, an opposition to an embryonic clause standing part of the Bill. We do not know what it will look like when it is born. It is a pity that we do not have a procedure for refrigerating it and coming back in Committee later, rather than coming back, as I understand we shall, on Report.
The reasons for our opposition to this clause can be put under three headings. First, it is a clause which ties trade unions in a way which is offensive to international standards. Secondly, and not unrelated, it is a clause which ties trade unions by the imposition of the law by reference to domestic standards in a way which is not in accordance with normal democratic thinking. Thirdly, as my noble friend has constantly pointed out, it victimises trade unions by applying logic, or illogic, to them which the Minister does not apply, and others would not apply, to other organisations.
As regards the first heading, the Government really must say whether or not they accept the international obligations which are upon them. Earlier today we heard the Government renounce the judgment of the Freedom of Association Committee or fail to accept obligations to the ILO. They have accepted obligations
652
under the European Convention on Human Rights and they have been only too keen to put out a banner when the decision is in their favour. But now we have the issue of whether this clause could, or is likely to, offend the ILO Freedom of Association Convention No. 87 passed in 1948, to which we were one of the first countries to adhere.
In the Second Reading debate I cited to your Lordships the judgment, the decision, or the interpretation of the Committee of Experts in its 1983 report, which the Government themselves have relied upon in previous debates, and relied upon then. The Committee of Experts, concerning Freedom of Association, which produces regular reports, has always taken the view that legislation which merely promotes democratic standards and protects the interests of individual members is not an offence against the Freedom of Association convention and the right of trade unions under it to elect their representatives in full freedom. But the 1983 report has dug into this matter a little more deeply than was done in the Committee of Experts reports. In paragraph 172 of the report which the Government themselves rely upon the experts say:
"The Committee considers that legislation which regulates in detail the internal election procedures of trade unions is incompatible with the rights of trade unions recognised by Convention No. 87. There is reason to believe that detailed regulation of trade union elections by legislation which prescribes specific rules on the subject limits the right of organisations to elect their representatives in full freedom and may constitute a kind of a priori supervision of the electoral procedure making it easier for public authorities to intervene in the process".
It is quite remarkable how many times since I first quoted that sentence we have heard from the Government Benches that this is not a set of detailed procedures in Clause 2. I do not think the word "detailed" appeared in the Government's case in the other place. They are trying to say that this is not a detailed procedure. Indeed, the noble Earl, if I may remind your Lordships of Second Reading on 15th May 1984, made two responses to this charge. He first of all interrupted me— I have no objection to the noble Earl interrupting me— to say at column 1339:
"All that I am saying is that the noble Lord… is drawing an international red herring over a sensible and local provision".
In other words, he was saying that this report is a red herring. By the time he responded to the debate, however, he had had further thoughts. At columns 1347 to 1348 he said— and I must read the whole sentence to make the point— that,
"so far as Article 3 of the Convention 87 is concerned, it is clear that the basic aim is to protect trade unions against interference by Governments with the right of trade unions inter alia to elect their representatives in full freedom. The types of interference which have been criticised by the ILO supervisory bodies as being in contradiction of this right have been, for example, that the legislation contains unduly detailed rules relating to trade union elections, and even provides for intervention by the authorities in the supervision of the electoral process".
A little later he said:
"In fact, cases in which the legislation of other countries provides for secret ballots for trade union elections are frequent, and in some countries— for instance, Australia and Japan— it is the constitution or rules of the union that must provide for secrecy in the election of trade union leaders".
He later added, referring to the quotation from the experts' report:
"The quotation referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, might apply if the Bill laid down detailed rules and requirements on every aspect of trade union elections. But it does no such thing".

653
Therefore, on the Government's own test we say that for the elections to the national executive committee there are detailed requirements on every aspect.
Let us consider the aspects of the elections. There are those who are entitled to vote. That is in Clause 2. There are the permitted and disallowed constituencies of members. That is in Clause 2. There is the method of voting; only direct elections are allowed. That is in Clause 2. There is the way of voting; it must now be postal voting until we see these embryonic exceptions which are to come back to us at a later stage. But that is all going to be controlled by some outside agency because that was in the amendment passed last week. So that is in Clause 2. There is the opportunity to vote. Every time we have said that that is obscure in Clause 2 the Government have joyfully said, "No, it is not obscure. It is 'reasonably practicable' and this, that and the other duty and obligation is clearly defined". There is the control over candidatures; a little loose, perhaps, but that is in Clause 2. There is the basic rule about voting, and that is in Clause 2.
Once one has got through entitlement to vote, constituencies, method of voting, opportunity to vote, candidatures, and counting, I do not know how much greater detail the noble Earl is going to suggest will have to be put in before it will fall within the ILO stricture. I suppose that you could put in the size of the ballot paper. No doubt one day someone will suggest that as a sort of embryonic amendment.
But of course that is not the end of the matter. One must read Clause 2 in the context of the whole Bill. There had been a Government amendment to allow the court to compel postal ballots. That has been dropped, but they have not dropped their Amendment No. 42, to which your Lordships' Committee will come later, whereby the court will be enabled to lay down any other conditions which it wishes, without any limit whatever, on the ballot of a trade union election to the NEC. A court is within the ILO concept of a public authority, and therefore falls within those articles of the convention.
Even the Australian legislation does not go anywhere near this. The noble Earl has constantly relied upon Australia; I have read one example today. But in Australia, where trade unions are part of a wholly regulated system of industrial relations on conciliation and arbitration— which I should not think the Government would wish to adopt again, as they tried in 1971, in embryo, at any rate— at least the union has the option between direct or indirect elections. There is one tier if it is a full-time officer, and it is multi-tier— that is, from branch to branch committee, with branch committee electing division and division electing other members of superior committees— if the post is not full-time.
Similarly, postal ballot is not mandatory in Australia. It is true that they have the industrial registrar, who has to be consulted if there is not to be a postal ballot; and it is true that they have the other agency— the Australian electoral office— which normally conducts the elections. But these quangos and officers are going to come into the legislation here, perhaps as the bodies required by last week's embryonic amendment.
654
Even if one looks at a totally different industrial relations system, which is more used to legal regulation, and which is indeed actively debating whether to get rid of the degree of its legal regulation, one does not find the detailed control which there is in Clause 2. Therefore we say that on the debate that we have had so far, and on the Government's own test, which they accepted at Second Reading, this clause at any rate is very arguably not in accordance with our international obligations under the ILO convention.
I understand what the noble Earl says when he loses an argument on an ILO convention. The Freedom of Association committee is not a court, but it has very long experience of these matters. It has longer experience than either I or the noble Earl has. Its judgments are usually regarded as serious documents. Although if I say that, as a matter of fact, I happen to agree that there is an argument the other way on the GCHQ matter, I do not think that it is the stronger argument. I think that the stronger argument is the argument that the ILO committee reached, but there is an argument both ways. There may be an argument both ways on Clause 2, but I ask the Government, and I ask noble Lords, to take the argument seriously. What I have put before the Committee is a serious argument, and, I believe, a strong and convincing argument, that Clause 2 is contrary to Convention 87 whether or not it is intended to be, and I apprehend that it may well not be intended to be.
Secondly, so far as the general place of the clause in trade union administration and our trade union world is concerned, let us be quite clear about one thing. I do not now try to put it in my own words, which appear somewhat difficult of understanding by some noble Lords. I turn to the Donovan Commission, which said:
"There is no general disquiet among trade union members concerning the honesty with which trade union elections are carried out".
That was true in 1968, and it is true today. I repeat:
"There is no general disquiet".
There are allegations of mistakes and malpractices occasionally, and I could give noble Lords a few examples of where minor malpractices have been found out. But I would not come along and say that because a few minor malpractices have been found out, there should be a vast and detailed clause to deal with them, partly because it would not necessarily be the most effective way of dealing with things.
Until a few years ago nobody in his right mind would have thought that that was the correct way of dealing with things in our industrial relations system, until we had a Government who did not see trade unions as an integral part of the industrial relations system and who used logic on trade unions that they never used on companies— logic, as my noble friend has said, that they would never use on any other association or body. Until we had that, nobody in his right mind would have thought— certainly the Donovan Commission would not have thought; and, as a matter of fact, the Government in 1971 did not think— that that was the right way to do it. For all its faults, what the Act of 1971 did for trade unions, whether or not they registered, was to set up a series of standards and not a series of detailed rules of this kind. I myself happen to think that some of the standards

655
were ill chosen, but it was a different model and it was not the kind of thing in which we are now engaged.
I say with regard to that last point to which I have come —because of course it is the victimisation of trade unions that we have frequently spoken about on this clause —that noble Lords should consider the road down which the Government are advancing. They have used arguments on trade unions which they would not use of any other body. If the noble Earl or any other Minister ever says again that they are ensuring only that trade unions do what companies have to do under the law, I beg them to quote the Act and the section. It is not true that companies that are registered in our jurisdiction, however large, have to arrange their electoral affairs for the board of directors in accordance with a body of law of this character.
Some noble Lords may think that that does not matter. They may think that trade unions are so special that one must have special rules about them. Indeed, some noble Lords have been waiting for a very long time for this day, not on the basis of any malpractice or of any logic, but simply because they think that trade unions are bad things and they do not like them. That is as far as the logic goes, and that is as far as the logic for the clause goes. Trade union practice, as has been shown again and again, is composed of a very complex series of democratic procedures, which for the most part work and which sometimes go wrong, like the procedures in all organisations.
I refer to a recent book, which I note that the Government have not once referred to, at any rate in their public discussions. It is by Dr. Undy and Dr. Martin. No one can read that recent publication without realising the interesting complexity and rich variety of the trade union movement in its democratic processes. The noble Earl does not seem impressed by the citation of Undy and Martin, but I say to him that until recently the variety of the trade union movement in this country was regarded as one of the jewels of our democracy, and it is exactly that. Those who attack trade unions always attack them first when they are departing from democratic standards. The Government are taking us down a road which may well include a number of the Australian features that I have mentioned. Is there going to be a registrar? Surely the Government know that by now. Will there be an electoral office? Surely they know that by now. If so, we shall all owe duties to it, it will have a regulatory effect and it will mean the imposition of state control over trade unions as a first step down an autocratic road. This clause is in a sense demonstrative of that direction.
In saying that the clause is undemocratic in the detailed control which it imposes, I say that therefore it infringes traditional British standards, which have been observed by all Governments in previous Administrations, and it also transgresses our international obligations. On those grounds my noble friends and I shall vote against the clause standing part of the Bill.
5.8 p.m.
Lord Renton: Speaking for myself, I quite understand why my noble friend Lord Gowrie could
656
not at this stage give us detailed, or even very broad, conclusions about what the Government are going to do as a result of the Committee passing Amendment No. 21 last week. Indeed, I hope that they will have very wide consultations —I am sure that they will —and that they will not rush into solutions. There is adequate time between now and the Report stage for a great deal of discussion to take place, and I wish my noble friend well in those discussions.
Having listened to the impassioned, eloquent and detailed speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, I was very surprised indeed that he could not find it possible in the course of his survey to mention the fact that two of our greatest trades unions have for some years now had a well-established procedure for secret postal ballots. There is no need for me to cover ground that was covered so well by my noble friend Lord Beloff and others during our debate last week; but surely in a matter of this kind it is right that both the Opposition and the Government should bear in mind the excellent precedents which have been created to the satisfaction of the members of those trades unions.
I hope that my noble friends, when considering this matter further, will —indeed, I am quite sure they will —consider the interests of the individual memberships of the trade unions as the paramount consideration. Even the most enthusiastic member on the other side of the Committee cannot claim that the trade union establishments throughout the country have succeeded in doing that in every case.
There is only one detailed comment that I wish to make, apart from what I have said, and it is this. In Amendment No. 22, which, I think mercifully, has fallen, there was one provision which I regarded as a defect, paradoxical as it may seem. It was the opportunity that was to be given, against the background of workplace ballots in a union, to individual members to apply for a secret postal ballot. In a trade union in which workplace ballots were already the rule and seemed, from the point of view of the union, likely to continue to be the rule, any member who applied for a secret postal ballot would become a marked man and we would get what I can only describe as "a sheep and goats" situation in the union in which that happened.
Therefore, although I am one who, with my many noble friends, helped to carry Amendment No. 21 the other night, I am also one who hopes that we shall work towards the secret postal ballot until it becomes the general rule. I hope that we shall not get the situation confused. Either we must have secret postal ballots for each union, wherever it is feasible or we must stick to and improve the procedure of the workplace ballots. I do not think it is sensible to try to combine the two in any one union.
Lord Rochester: I am grateful for what the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie had to say in relation to the amendment moved last week by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. When he says that he hopes we shall take it on trust from him that the Government are giving their earnest and immediate consideration to the matter, I, for one, am prepared to give him that trust. Indeed, I have some sympathy with him in the predicament in which the Government now find themselves.

657
At Second Reading I said that the practical difficulties associated with the establishment of the statutory machinery needed to make more extensive use of postal ballots should not be under-estimated. In voting, as I did last week, for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, I have not departed from that position. It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, will speak for himself in a moment. However, I hope it will not be thought presumptuous of me to say —and I think that I can say this on behalf of my noble friends —that for our part we should be pleased to accept any invitation that might be extended to us to join in consultations aimed at producing, before the Report stage of the Bill, an amendment or amendments designed to uphold in a realistic way the principle that has now been agreed to by the Committee, and aimed also at securing the widest possible support within the House.
In other words, our desire is not to hinder but to help the Government solve this problem. Having said that at Second Reading, again, even in its unamended form and speaking for my noble friends, I gave Clause 2 support. Now that it is before us, as I understand it, for the moment at any rate, in the amended form that it is in, following the acceptance by the Committee of Lord Beloffs amendment, I am glad to confirm that and feel that this clause should indeed stand as part of the Bill.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: The noble Earl the Minister is in a predicament, but then so are we. My difficulty in voting that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill is that I am not sure that it is going to stand part of the Bill. So we are all in this dilemma. Some noble Lords will vote for Clause 2 to stand part because they are in favour of its standing part as it is. Some noble Lords will vote in favour of Clause 2 standing part without knowing what is to stand part. I wonder how the Committee can come to a sensible conclusion.
This is an unusual situation, I think, calling for an unusual remedy. That is that the noble Earl should ask leave of the Committee to withdraw the Motion that Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill and let us come back to it at another time. I do not think the Bill will lose anything if Clause 2 temporarily does not stand part of the Bill. This is a separate section of the Bill. It will not interfere with ballots on strikes, or with political funds. We shall not really miss Clause 2 if it does not stand part of the Bill until the Report stage. Nobody will notice it. Nobody has asked to do anything about it so no harm will come of it. I do in all seriousness suggest that this is the remedy to apply.
Let me add to this, so that my position may be clear. I voted for the inclusion of the postal ballot in Clause 2. I did that because I felt that if a statute law is to impose upon trade unions a defined form of direct elections for their officers and committee, then it is the duty of the legislature in so doing to ensure that the system that they are enforcing on the bodies concerned is first of all fair; secondly, that it will be properly conducted; and thirdly, that the result will give confidence in the system adopted.
I think that certainly applies more to a system of postal ballots than to any other system that we could think of in this connection. Really and truly if we were
658
contemplating a general Bill for the direction of democracy throughout our institutions we should first think of the method of election which we have used for parliamentary and local government elections. I seriously thought of all this while the debate was going on last Tuesday. I considered whether we should erect polling stations at a suitable point near to the electors and follow all the procedures of our electoral system to make sure that the elections were properly conducted, the votes were fairly counted and all that. But that was not contemplated.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, has pointed out that what the Government propose is really a nonsense. It seemed to me that it was imposing something by statute law and then leaving it to an unwarranted degree of flexibility among the unions concerned as to which method they should adopt, with all the problems concerned with any other system in these circumstances except the postal ballot. However, the noble Earl cannot assure me that all that is going to stand part.
The other night my noble friends voted with the loyalists on the Government side. I voted with the rebels. My noble friends have been in the Government Lobby again this afternoon. I think we are all getting embarrassed by this Bill because of our difficulties in knowing which way to vote at any particular time, and for what reason. I wish this Bill were being introduced in a better spirit. This is not democracy. It is a form of punishment. When it is not punitive, it is muddled and I think perhaps in some respects it will become unworkable. So we are really up against a very bad Bill indeed.
However, that is not the issue now. The issue is what to do with Clause 2. I am trying to straighten out my own position. My conclusion is that I cannot support Clause 2 standing part of the Bill unless I have an assurance that it will stay part of the Bill.
Lord Renton: If the noble Lord will allow me, before he sits down, he has overlooked two technical factors? If we now try to strike Clause 2 out of the Bill, we shall in effect be negativing the amendment which we added to the Bill last week. The other point, which I recognise is mere mechanics but which will nevertheless be an awful nuisance for the staff, is that if Clause 2 goes out, all subsequent clauses will have to be renumbered in the copy of the Bill that we get at Report stage. That will throw us into a thorough state of confusion.
The Earl of Gowrie: I am most grateful to my noble friend, Lord Renton, for those enormously sensible remarks. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, flushed with the pleasure of voting with at least some of my noble friends on this clause, speaks rather as if Committee stages in your Lordships' House were rubberstamp affairs. They are not. We have a Bill, a perfectly sensible Bill. It has been amended. The amendment will bring some consequences into other areas of the Bill that we shall have to consider and look at. The point, I understand, of having more than one stage of deliberations on Bills in your Lordships' House is precisely that this sort of thing should be taken into account. Although, unlike my noble friends, Lord Denham and the Leader of the House, I

659
am not a great expert in these matters, it would seem to me a curious constitutional principle if, effectively, all Bills were dropped if they were ever amended. It would give an immense degree of additional muscle to my friends the Whips. I therefore do not think that it would be an enormously sensible way to proceed.
I would also say to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton —I am sure that the point will not have gone unremarked by my noble friends, Lord Renton and Lord Beloff —that were I an unscrupulous fellow (and, of course, I am not) I might welcome the siren suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, on the principle that if we go back to square one, there may be rather more of the unholy rainbow alliance present next time and all the valiant endeavours of my noble friend Lord Beloff will be as naught. However, not being an unscrupulous fellow, I take the defeat of the Government very seriously, and, as I indicated in my opening remarks, the Government will use their best endeavours to bring forward proposals at a later stage.
There is a great deal in the rest of Clause 2 of the Bill on which we can agree. All that I am asking the House to agree at the moment is that Clause 2, as it was, indeed, amended by a Committee of your Lordships, House, shall stand part of the Bill. That would seem to me to be wholly an issue of propriety.
5.25 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: I am sorry that the noble Earl leapt to his feet so rapidly to conclude the debate, because I do not think that it has quite come to an end. I have substantial sympathy with my noble and very old friend, Lord Houghton. I shall come to a "for instance" in a moment. I should, however, like to say first that the motion to oppose clause stand part has put me in a kind of dilemma. It is a dilemma that must be shared by most of your Lordships. When my noble friends rightly intimated that they opposed Clause 2, it was Clause 2 as printed in the Bill. Since then, Clause 2 has become a different animal altogether. We are now asked to consider opposing a totally different clause, in which a substantial change has been made and a principle of voting accepted. I voted for that principle. I know that there are all kinds of difficulties. I know that these difficulties have to be ironed out, made sensible and made acceptable, but it is the principle that I feel is important. I voted for it.
I realise that barely a week or slightly less than a week has elapsed since that principle was accepted by your Lordships. But a week, as we know, is a long time in politics. I should have thought that we would have had a firmer intimation from the Government Front Bench about what their actual intentions were. The Government have intimated that they will think about it. That is right. We do not expect them to do anything else. However, after the greater part of a week, the Government should be able to tell us whether they accept the principle of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and whether they will be bringing forward revisions to Clause 2 which accept that principle and try to fit it into the realities of the world which, as we know, are not always exactly as we would want them. I should like the Government to say more about their response to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, than they have done already.
660
My second dilemma arises from the point raised by my noble friend, Lord Wedderburn, who has drawn attention in great detail to the lack of flexibility in the clause as it stands now. I recall discussions on an amendment of mine when I had occasion to draw the attention of the noble Earl to the fact that the Bill was less flexible than he was trying to convince us it was. Every time he spoke in response to debate, it became even less flexible. The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, in an eloquent speech, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton remarked —the noble Lord might have added that it was an excellent speech —has enumerated those inflexibilities. They go a great deal further than the noble Earl has tried to convince us is the case. The Bill is not as flexible as the noble Earl has made out. Clause 2 strikes me as being highly questionable.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has made quite a sensible proposal. Fundamentally, if I understood him correctly, he was saying that the Government should take away Clause 2, look at our debates and come back at Report stage with a completely new Clause 2, based on those debates and amendments that we have put through. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, thought that this would be inconvenient for the staff. That is right. However, in a sense, that is what they are there for. We do not like to heap inconvenience on them. But if inconvenience was there, they would have to bear it. The noble Lord, Lord Renton and others who are long in the tooth will remember this. I include myself, by the way, in that group. I am talking as an old House of Commons hand. There are several. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and I see the noble Viscount, Lord, Tonypandy, sitting there. All of us were present on the occasion that I shall instance.
Do noble Lords remember the occasion way back some time in the 1960s when another place was discussing a Bill presented by the late Sydney Silverman to abolish hanging? There was a provision in that Bill which said that the sentence would be for life. A debate took place as to what "life" actually meant. Did it mean life in the ordinary sense that you live for a while? Or did it mean life to the end of life? In those days, in order to change a Bill, you had to take a word out by one amendment before you put another in. On that occasion, at the Committee stage —the noble Viscount the Leader of the House will remember this perfectly well —the House decided to remove the word "life" in one Division and then decided against putting anything in its place, so that, as it came out of Committee, the Bill read, somewhat foolishly, "shall be sentenced for", after which there was a blank. That was not too wonderful, but it was put right on the Report stage. My noble friend Lord Houghton is asking for nothing else. He is asking merely for a blank in the Bill: an important blank, no doubt, which the Government can put right at Report stage merely by re-writing Clause 2 in accordance with the debates we have had and the amendments we have passed. I do not think we should allow Clause 2 to go forward without any further assurances from the Government.
Lord Dean of Beswick: If the noble Earl comes to the Box to reply or to speak again, I should like him to tell us something about one particular matter. In an earlier contribution to this debate on whether the

661
clause shall stand part he used the phrase, "wide consultations". That was accepted by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, when he spoke in the debate. Can the noble Earl tell us which bodies he has in mind when he refers to consultations? Does he mean just Members of the House of Lords, who were responsible for passing this far-reaching amendment, or does he intend, if they wish to come in, also to bring the TUC into the discussions at this stage, now that it is almost a fact, to see how best to implement this proposal?
Lord McCarthy: And the CBI, too.
The Earl of Gowrie: I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, on what is called a nice try. In respect of Amendment No. 21, he is perfectly well aware that he trooped into the Lobby beside me, as it turned out, somewhat to my discomfiture. Therefore, I imagine that on this issue the noble Lord needs no further consultations with me or anyone else.
The fact of the matter is that what I said earlier was simply this. The Government accept the fact that the will of the Committee on Amendment No. 21 was not as they originally recommended, and they will bring forward proposals accordingly. What I am now suggesting your Lordships do is to consider that Clause 2, as amended by your Lordships' Committee, stands part of the Bill.
Lord Beloff: On that point I feel that I can do little but re-echo the words spoken some time ago by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. Those of us who supported the amendment, which the Committee carried, are pleased to learn that, as the noble Earl put it, the Government take seriously the will of the Committee on this matter; and we understand, though for reasons of convenience we may regret it, that it is taking longer than we might have hoped to find the appropriate form in which to incorporate the Committee's wish.
Nevertheless, it seems to me that, since we accept that the Government's intention in this matter is serious, the obvious thing is for Clause 2 to stand part of the Bill, because then it can be amended on Report in accordance with the Government's suggestions, provided, of course, that those suggestions commend themselves to the House at Report stage. We cannot know what will be the position on that because we do not yet know what the suggestions may be.
There is, however, one point I should like to make in support of Clause 2 generally. It relates to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, who again has directed our attention to the ILO and its conventions. I think that when we deal with the conventions, or the interpretations of them, of an international body of this kind we ought to look at the purposes and not simply at the letter. It seems to me that if we survey the world (and a great deal of the world is represented in the ILO) we find that the problem about trade unions in most countries —not in our own country, not in the countries of our nearest neighbours —is whether they exist at all in any recognisable shape or form, whether they have any
662
vestige of autonomy, or whether they are not merely a transmission belt through which a party or a national movement exercises authority within them.
If one looks at that situation, it seems that all of these recommendations and conventions take on a quite different aspect. What those who drafted them were intending to do was prevent the state authorities in a country with a trade union system from devising methods of election by which they could impose their political partisans in the ruling bodies of those unions. I should have thought that, by comparison with the vast majority of countries in the world, trade unions in this country, even if this Bill were passed without further amendment, would still enjoy a measure of autonomy that is rarely, alas, to be found.
5.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 2, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 146; Not-Contents, 61.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Gridley, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Grimond, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Amherst, E.

Attlee, E.

Halsbury, E.

Auckland, L.

Hampton, L.

Avon, E.

Hanworth, V.

Aylestone, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Banks, L.

Hatherton, L.

Bauer, L.

Hayter, L.

Bellhaven and Stenton, L.

Henley, L.

Bellwin, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Beloff, L.

Hood, V.

Belstead, L.

Hooson, L.

Bessborough, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Brookes, L.

Hylton-Foster. B.

Broxbourne, L.

Kaberry of Add, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Kilmany, L.

Cathcart, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Cockfield, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Coleraine, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Craigavon, V.

Long, V.

Daventry, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

De La Warr,

Lyell, L.

E. Denham, L. [Teller.]

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Denning, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Diamond, L.

McFadzean, L.

Dilhorne, V.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mancroft, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Eccles, V.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mayhew, L.

Elton, L.

Merrivale, L.

Faithfull, B.

Mersey, V.

Forbes, L.

Mills, V.

Fortescue, E.

Molson, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Gainford, L.

Mottistone, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Mountgarret, V.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Munster, E.

Glanusk, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Newall, L.

Gowrie, E.

Norfolk, D.

Grey, E.

Northchurch, B.

663

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Stamp, L.

Onslow, E.

Stedman, B.

Orkney, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Pender, L.

Strathspey, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Sudeley, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Terrington, L.

Teynham, L.

Portland, D.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Reigate, L.

Tordoff, L.

Renton, L.

Tranmire, L.

Renwick, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Rochester, L.

Trumpington, B.

Romney, E.

Vaizey, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

St. Davids, V.

Vivian, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Walston, L.

Sandford, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Savile, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Seear, B.

Wigoder, L.

Seebohm, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Sharples, B.

Wise, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Wynford, L.

Sherfield, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Birk, B.

Jeger, B.

Blyton, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Bottomley, L.

Listowel, E.

Bowden, L.

Lockwood, B.

Briginshaw, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Brockway, L.

McCarthy, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mulley, L.

Collison, L.

Northfield, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Oram, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Phillips, B.

David, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller]

Dean of Beswick, L.

Donnet of Balgay, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Stallard, L.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Ennals, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Stone, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Gallacher, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Glenamara, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Underhill, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hale, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
5.44 p.m.
[Amendment No. 33 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 3 [Remedy for failure to comply with Part I]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Nugent of Guildford): The next amendment is Amendment No. 34. I should explain that if Amendment No. 34 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 35.
Lord Dean of Beswick: May I seek the guidance of your Lordships? I should obviously like to speak to Amendment No. 35 because it has the same effect and carries the same message as the other amendment. I should like to join in on this debate if that is the normal procedure.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I assure the noble Lord that if he speaks to his Amendment No. 35 while we are dealing with Amendment No. 34, he will be quite in order. He may hope that Amendment No. 35 will be called, depending on what happens to Amendment No. 34.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon Lord Howie of Troon moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 4, line 29, leave out ("person who claims") and insert ("fifty or more persons who claim").
The noble Lord said: It is not my intention to put Amendment No. 35 in any danger at this stage. I merely wish Amendment No. 34 and Amendments Nos. 36, 37 and 38, which are consequent upon it, to be discussed and considered at this stage.
Amendment No. 36: Part 4, line 33, leave out ("he was a member") and insert ("they were members").
Amendment No. 37: Page 4, line 34, leave out ("is such a member") and insert ("are members").
Amendment No. 38: Page 4, line 37, leave out ("he is a member") and insert ("they are members").
I have no intention of pressing Amendment No. 34 in any way. Nor, incidentally shall I delay the Committee very long on this matter because —
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: Why not?
Lord Howie of Troon: The noble Lord asks, "Why not?" The reason is that this is an extremely sensible amendment and I am perfectly sure that the Government will accept it without any great debate.
The situation is quite simple. As Clause 3(1) stands, the Bill reads:
"any person"
—that is, any single person no matter who he be —
"who claims that a trade union has failed to comply with one or more of the provisions of this Part may apply to the court for a declaration"
and from that declaration a number of quite complicated and unreasonable consequences may flow.
All we ask for in this modest amendment is that the number should be more than one. For the convenience of drafting I have put down "fifty". But there is no way in which I shall go to the gallows for 50, because it might be 25, 75 or some other number. However, it is unreasonable that something of this nature should be able to be challenged by one person alone; it should be challenged by a number of persons. Fifty is a large number in some circumstances but in terms of trade unions —and especially in terms of the type of trade unions which the Government Front Bench have repeatedly referred to in this debate; namely, the large trade unions-50 is really a very small number. However, it is more than one single person who might be described as an enthusiast or a malcontent or who might have other even more uncomplimentary names applied to him. One seems to me to be too small.

665
Let me say this and let me in a sense contradict myself —but I hope not fatally. It is quite right that one person should be able to object when we are talking about an individual wrong —that is, an individual wrong suffered by an individual person. But I do not think that is really the context in which we are talking here. We are talking about general wrongs in terms of trade unionism, and so on. While it is right that an individual person should be sufficient to object to an individual wrong, I am not sure that it is right in this case for one person to object to a general wrong. The one person who sees the general wrong should be able to gather enough adherents and supporters to show that he is not a mere malcontent but is indicating something which is general and which has given rise to general unease.
That is the purport of this very simple amendment. I am asking the Committee to amend the Bill or to indicate to the Government that the Bill ought to be amended in such a way that we talk about support for a general wrong rather than for what might be no more than the whim of an individual. I do not think that I need to say any more on this point at this stage. I beg to move.
Lord Dean of Beswick: In rising to speak to Amendment No. 34, I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 35 and 39.
Amendment No. 35: Page 4, line 29, after ("person") insert ("who complies with the conditions in subsection (1A) below and")
Amendment No. 39: Page 4, line 38, at end insert —("(1A) The conditions are that the person produces to the court evidence that the branch or section of the union of which he is a member supports, or 50 members entitled to vote in the election under the provisions of this Part support his application.")
These two amendments cover the same subject. I go a long way with what the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, said when he moved his amendment and with the terms in which he moved it, but I diverged a little from him when he referred to the individual. Although this Bill is mainly about the protection of the individual, we must also make sure, where we can, that the objectives of the Bill and of the Government —although I am totally against the objectives of the Government —and the spirit of the Bill are not frustrated by individuals.
There are many individuals around who, in my opinion, would seek every opportunity to embarrass the trade union movement and their own individual trade unions. One only has to mention a statement that was made a short time ago in this noble House on the behaviour of certain individuals at public inquiries into motorways and that type of thing to realise that they breed a type of animal who almost becomes a professional protester.
Amendments Nos. 34, 35 and 39 do their best to protect the trade unions against that. I know that my party has no desire to restrict anybody who has a genuine grievance. I hate to make comparisons with such places as clubs or other organisations, but in many organisations it is normal for a round robin to be used where a person thinks that he has a genuine grievance. One gets a sufficient number of signatures to the document which, if not specified in legislation, may be inserted into the particular union's rules as the basis for a bona fide complaint. For instance, my own
666
union, the AUEW, will not lightly accept a complaint against any of its functions unless that complaint is raised at a branch meeting. It is well known that, although the AUEW is one of the front runners in the postal ballot and that type of thing, it also has a very high regard for branch life, though obviously that has diminished because of the drop in union membership. If you require to raise a complaint, it is normal for it to be raised at the branch meeting. It can also be raised at the executive meeting of the union. If the complaint receives the bona fide stamp to go on to the next stage, it can eventually end up in what at present in the AUEW is the appeals tribunal, which meets quite frequently and which is manned by lay members. Therefore, the appeal is not heard by professionals in the union; it is heard by lay members who are elected for that specific purpose.
There is, particularly if you work in a factory, another way where a large number of trade unionists are based on factory branches. I have had experience of working in both types of place. I worked at the giant factory of GEC at Stretford Park, Manchester, where certainly 50 per cent. of the people employed were members of the AUEW. Their complaints went through their branches, and, if they wanted to complain about an action of their own works committee which they thought was acting in too dictatorial a manner, they could always raise it with their branch.
In the same factory—and in the main we are speaking about the large factories when we talk about a variety of trade unions having membership there —there would be factory branches, probably of the T & G and the General and Municipal Workers' Unions. I do not go too far along the road with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, regarding victimisation within a factory of people who may take a minority view. One can only speak from one's own experience in life. From the age of 14 I have worked in engineering, and 10 years ago I was elected to another place. As an active trade unionist, including acting for a number of years as shop steward, I never came across victimisation in a factory where people, even remotely, would suggest that one ought to take a specific action or meet the consequences. I am not saying that it never occurs, but it is totally alien to my experience. If it has happened in some places, it is to be deplored, but I can assure noble Lords that it must be among the smallest minority, because I have worked at three factories in my life and have found total freedom to cast votes as required.
I do not wish to detain the Committee much longer. Where a system exists in a union's rules which enables complaints to be made, based on the fact that there is a procedure which enables members complaining to have a fair hearing, we ought to leave the situation as it is. If the Government are not minded to do that, they may like to look at the suggestion for a number of about 50, because, if a complaint is genuine, I do not believe it is difficult to get 50 people as signatories to that complaint. It may well be that the 50 would all be from the same factory branch.
I do not wish to detain the Committee much longer on this issue. I think I have made the point quite seriously that some sort of caveat ought to be entered

667
to deter the type of people —and there are many around —who would become mischief-makers or who are to say the least, frivolous and would seek to impair the very spirit of the Bill which noble Lords are trying to process. Therefore, I speak in support of Amendment No. 34 and at the same time speak to my Amendments Nos. 35 and 39.
Lord Denning: I hope that noble Lords will not accept these amendments. A constitutional point arises here. Nearly 300 years ago there was a great case in the courts —that of Ashby v. White, where a gentleman at Aylesbury went to the returning officer who refused to accept his vote. It would not have affected the result of the election at all, but he brought his action in the courts, and Lord Holt, in a celebrated judgment, said that every man had a right to vote and if he was deprived of it, he had a right of action in the courts of law.
In this case any single man may be interfered with in his vote: he may be constrained from voting; he may be stopped from going to the voting station if it is a workplace ballot; or, if it is a postal ballot, the post may be interfered with or even the postman. Any individual who is deprived of his right to vote should have a remedy and it should be available to any person who is wrongfully deprived of it.
The remedy need not be carried to extremes, because the person can make an application to the judge. The judge can refuse to make the order or not. If he holds that there has been a contravention, it is for the judge to make such order as he considers appropriate. So there is ample machinery for dealing with busybodies or people who are not justified at all. But I would hope that any person who has been wrongfully deprived of his right to vote would have a remedy. So I ask noble Lords not to accept any of these amendments.
Lord Dean of Beswick: In view of what the noble and learned Lord has said, I should like briefly to come back to this point. The Bill, when it becomes an Act, will imply that the fact that you vote in a postal ballot means that under the law you have voted. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, will tell me what he means when he says that a person may vote by postal ballot and be interfered with. What does he mean? I am assuming that the Act will say that if the person gets the postal vote, fills in the ballot form, and puts it in the post box, the trade union will have total immunity if that action is carried through. Is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, saying that that is not the case?
6 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am speaking primarily to Amendment No. 39 to which the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, referred. I would be hesitant, for the reasons given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, to support an amendment of this kind. I have no doubt that the description of his own industrial experience as given by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, is entirely accurate. However I must draw his attention —as I did when we discussed Amendment No. 21 last week —to what actually happened in the affairs of the Electrical Trade Union in 1961.
668
There was intimidation there. People who attempted to expose what was a conspiracy by the Communist Party were proceeded against by the communists who then controlled the ETU, and widespread intimidation was used against them. If at that stage they had faced the problem that they would have to have had either the support of a branch, or the support of 50 members of the union, it might have been extremely difficult to bring some of those abuses to court in the first place.
The malpractices which then took place, often occurred in branches which were controlled by the Communist Party. There was widespread ballot rigging in those branches. In a situation of that sort it would seem to me wholly unreasonable to assume that the branch in question would be content to have that matter tried before a court.
Apart from that, the difficulty of getting 50 people who would gladly certify that in their view there was a matter which should go before the court again dodges the question as to what happens when there is intimidation. It is pointless to say that there is no evidence of intimidation because we all know perfectly well that there have been a number of such examples which have been widely publicised in the press. Accordingly, regarding the amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, and his noble friends have put their name, Amendment No. 39, speaking entirely for myself I would be resistant to the idea of adding that to the Bill.
Lord Renton: I also oppose this amendment. May I say briefly, even though it presumes to supplement what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has already said, that the courts have adequate powers for dealing with frivolous or vexatious litigants, which is what the noble Lord, Lord Howie, was concerned with. The courts can strike out actions which are brought by them and award costs against them. That in itself is really quite a sufficient safeguard.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, stressed, there is the need —and we cannot over-emphasise it —to protect the rights of the individual member of trade unions. If we have something like either this amendment or Amendment No. 39 written into the Bill it will obliterate those rights before we have even tried to establish them. This amendment should be strongly opposed on both sides of the Committee.
The Earl of Gowrie: The effect of this group of amendments would be to impose what might be called a trigger before enforcing the requirements of Part I. Amendments Nos. 35 and 39 from the official Opposition would provide that an individual who took his union to court would have to produce evidence either that his application was supported by his branch or section of the union, or by 50 members entitled to vote in the election about which he was complaining. The other amendments, Nos. 34, 36, 37 and 38 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, take a somewhat different form although their practical effect would be similar. They provide that applications to the court should have to be made, rather than by an individual, by 50 or more members of the union.

669
Whichever way we go, whether we go the way of the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, or the way of the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, we are, as a Government, wholly opposed to a triggering mechanism of this kind. We are opposed to it on grounds of principle and practice. The grounds of principle could not have been better expressed than by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and of course it is always a great joy when one happens to have him on one's side, as one does not always happen to have him. He was echoed forcibly and ably by my noble friend Lord Renton.
This Bill provides rights not just for union members as a whole, or as a group, in society but for union members as individuals, and it is therefore right in principle that individuals should be able to enforce these rights. It cannot be right, for instance, that 50 union members should have to declare themselves publicly and jointly in order to gain the right to vote secretly and individually. Moreover a trigger mechanism would also run directly counter to the existing common law position under which a trade union can already be taken to court by a single member where, for example, it breaks its own rules or holds a fraudulent election.
There would surely be no logic in restricting enforcement of the new statutory rights, which are in many ways complementary to existing common law rights, to a group of union members when the existing common law rights can be enforced by a single member. Also in practical terms it could be extremely difficult for a member, or even a small group of members, in a union to organise the support which would be required by these amendments. Amendments Nos. 35 and 39 give a member seeking a declaration from the court that a union has failed to comply with the requirements of Part I the option of getting the support of the branch or the section of the union to which he, or she, belongs or of getting the support of 50 members. I do not think that the first of these alternatives is even realistic in its own terms. One can imagine many circumstances in which a member could have a legitimate complaint but not be able to get the backing of his section or branch in pursuing it.
The second alternative is that a member seeking a declaration should have to have the support of 50 other members of the union who are entitled to vote in the election concerned. That is in practice what the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Howie, proposed. However your Lordships may like to consider as an example the example of a union member working in a branch of a small shop, or let us say a bank in a country town. He might have contact only with a few other union members. Not only might he find it difficult even to get in touch with 50 other members of the union, but they might be understandably reluctant to support an application about something in which they were not directly involved.
For the reasons both of principle, which I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, is the major issue here, and also in terms of practicality, I think that the Committee should reject the amendment.
Lord McCarthy: I do not know whether the noble Earl is aware of it, but he has made an important statement. He has put forward as a reason for not voting for our amendment the complementary nature of the common law protection in the rules. As I understand it, it has been the position of the Government throughout this Bill that the whole object of the Bill is that the rules will not count any more. Indeed, Clause 1 of the Bill says:
"Subject to the following provisions of this Part of this Act, it shall be the duty of every trade union (notwithstanding anything in its rules)".
In another place in particular the Minister of State over and over again has said that the provisions of this Bill override the rules in union rule books and call them out of account. We have put down amendments, and shall be putting down further amendments, suggesting to the Government that they must make clear what the position is if there is a jurisdiction under the rules and a jurisdiction under the Bill. The Minister now seems to be saying that we are right, that there is dual jurisdiction, and he is giving the continued existence of the validity of the rules as a reason for turning down the amendment. What is the position?
The Earl of Gowrie: I am not a lawyer, as the noble Lord knows, but it would seem to me to be common sense that an enormous amount of legislation in this country—in fact, I would have thought the bulk of it—runs in a manner complementary to existing common law rights. That is all I suggested.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I have a much shorter question for the noble Earl. If that is the attitude, then I can understand it: but is it not also the case that the common law rules to which he lays claim as an analogy also require that the individual member, before he pursues his action in the courts, should exhaust his internal remedies under the union rules? That has no analogy in the Bill. It is a principle that has been somewhat refined in recent cases, but it is still there in the common law; yet that finds no place in the Bill, either.
The Earl of Gowrie: I do not attack the concept of union rules or of the union rule book, as the noble Lord well knows. He would be misleading the Committee if he were trying to equate union rules wholly with the common law, even though, from time to time, they may run in a way complementary to it.
Lord Howie of Troon: The noble Earl the Minister worries me a little when he keeps returning to points of principle. We had a difference the other evening over a point of principle. He may have been right or I may have been right—who knows? But on this occasion the noble Earl has sought refuge in the principle of the trigger. Apparently a trigger is wrong in principle if it has 50 people in it but is right in principle if it has only one person in it. I am not sure that that is a point of principle. It is a point of some strength, and I go a long way with the Minister in that. I especially appreciate the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, concerning the individual in the context of his remarks.

671
When moving this amendment, I particularly said that I was not "hung up" on the figure of 50 persons. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, saw the point right away—and, no doubt, so did other noble Lords. I was anxious that, while having regard to the individual, which I certainly have, we should avoid the possibility of a union being subject to vexatious litigation. That is not something that can be lightly dismissed by saying, "The courts will look after it". Noble Lords know that there are zealots in unions. There are zealots of the Left, whom the Government Front Bench do not like too much. There are zealots of other kinds who are in unions but who are not strongly wedded to them, and who cause trouble within unions. It is only right that unions should be protected from that particular kind of zealotry; they should be protected from individuals whose intent is vexatious.
I believe it is right that the unions should be obliged to gather some kind of support around them. Noble Lords might think the figure of 50 is too large, but I am of the opinion that one is too few. If this kind of complaint is to be made, then surely it should be made with some kind of support. It should surely require at least a seconder, which is the type of support that is commonplace in such matters. If, as the noble Earl said, there were 50 people who had been denied their voting rights in secret, it would not be too hard to have some of them come out and object in public.
I am disappointed by the Government's response, although I lay great weight on the intervention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, which was a very powerful one. At this stage, I will beg leave to withdraw my amendment, and the Opposition Front Bench will do what they will with their amendments.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I have no desire to delay the Committee, but I was a little surprised by the stone wall we met from the Secretary of State, based on the contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. I would have thought that there was some case made for taking a look at this situation, to establish whether there was any way in which the desires of the Opposition could be met.
The noble Earl placed great weight on the advice given to the Committee by the noble and learned Lord. Lord Denning. But he seems to have the support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, on every occasion so far in respect of this Bill.
Lord Denning: No, no!
Lord Dean of Beswick: Other than with a particular amendment which may have been desired (I do not know) in another place. The point I am trying to make is that noble Lords would be wrong to proceed with this Bill on the premise that the overwhelming number of trade unionists, to whom we are supposed to be returning the unions, welcome every measure in this Bill. Quite a lot of trade unionists may have some reservations about the behaviour of some of their leaders in the past, and may have some reservations about their behaviour at present; but if noble Lords proceed on the premise that everything that they do in this Chamber on the advice of Law Lords or others is welcomed with open arms by the overwhelming number of trade unionists outside, then they are
672
whistling in the wind and are proceeding on a false premise. I would ask noble Lords to take that point into consideration when dealing with the rest of this Bill: but to save time, I will not move the amendments to which I have spoken.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 35 to 39 not moved.]
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 5, line 4, at end insert—
("( ) Where the court makes such a declaration but the failure to comply consists only of a procedural irregularity which has had, or, as the case may be, is likely to have, no substantial effect in regard to the result of the election, the court shall make a finding to that effect and shall not make an enforcement order.").
The noble Lord said: This is an amendment concerning the legal procedure which any non-lawyer can understand. It is one of the very simplest and most sensible principles which the common law of England has devised. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of the stage we have now reached. This amendment enters the Bill at the point where the court has been apprised of an alleged infraction of the procedures under Clause 2, whatever they turn out to be, and a member has the assent of the court for his complaint. The court is going to make a declaration, and this amendment says that a consideration should be inserted at that point.
The amendment suggests that where there has been a procedural irregularity which is not likely to have a substantial effect on the result, then the declaration is the end point of the procedure. We feel that there should be clarity in respect of that matter; that there should be no doubt about it. I was going to base the case for the amendment only on those sound and tried and tested principles of the common law which the amendment represents. But the noble Earl's speech on Second Reading made me look again at the situation in Australia, as noble Lords will by now know, and I found that Section 165 of the Australian Act contains a provision very much along these lines.
I hope the Government will consider this amendment with favour. This provision reached Australia from the common law of England—and I understand that the principles in Scotland are the same. Perhaps I may briefly cite the principles to the Committee. An early statement will be found in the case of McDougall v. Gardiner in 1875. In the Chancery Division Reports, on page 25, Lord Justice Mellish said this:
"In my opinion, if the thing complained of is a thing which in substance the majority of the company are entitled to do"—
this was a company law case—
"or if something has been done irregularly which the majority of the company are entitled to do regularly…"—
and I pass on to his conclusion—
"there can be no use in having a litigation about it, the ultimate end of which is only that a meeting has to be called, and then ultimately the majority gets its wishes".
That is in the case of a mere irregularity. That principle passed into the law of associations much more widely than companies. It can be found in the law of partnerships; it can be found in the law of clubs; it can be found in trade union law.
In the case of Brown v. Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers in 1976, reported in the Industrial Cases Reports, Mr. Justice Walton faced a concrete illustration of what this amendment is about. This was a postal ballot for a union divisional organiser's post, and there had been a breach of the rules about the delivery of ballot papers. Some had been delivered late and a few had not been delivered at all. This was on the basis of a mistake on the part of certain persons and the case was put on that basis. Mr. Justice Walton had to decide whether those mistakes invalidated the procedures. He agreed that there had been procedural irregularities but in page 158, he said:
"Against the background that the executive council had always previously decided all questions of late votes and their merits, I think that this was a mere irregularity, highly regrettable, but not going, as it were, to the root of the election".
I quote only those few words of a longer passage which led his Lordship to decide that the election should not be invalidated because this was a procedural irregularity of a well-known category.
This was put to the Government as a sensible idea in another place and, as I understand it, the only difference between the Government and my noble friends and I on the matter is whether it should be put in the Bill; because when the Minister of State on 26th January was presented with the principle of Brown and the AUEW (as it was known in those days) he said to one of my honourable friends:
"Will the honourable Gentleman apply himself to the fact that the principle which he adduces was reached without any such trammelling by statute. It was reached by the courts themselves. That is the principle on which they act. They did it without anyone laying down that they had to do so. Why cannot that continue?"
That was at col. 769. So it seems that the Government want the practice to continue, precisely of the kind which is in the amendment. It seems that they expect the courts to act in exactly this way.
Indeed, this amendment takes one step from the case that my honourable and right honourable friends were making to the Government because we have accepted in this amendment that we have got to the point of the court actually making a declaration—which was not a step which they were acceding to in such a case. Not much may depend upon that, but I point it out to the noble Earl as a difference which we have drawn in this amendment from those moved in another place.
We have already had today a case where the Government felt it fit to say: "The amendment that we are putting in might not be necessary, but it is not wholly clear and it is better to make it explicit". I hope that they will take the same attitude to this, which is a genuine attempt to save cost, to save unnecessary litigation, to let the courts know exactly where they are and to let them know that the principles that they should use under this clause are exactly those which have governed common law and the law of association since the 19th century. It is hardly, therefore, a very revolutionary amendment. I beg to move.
6.24 p.m.
Lord Denning: Perhaps I may say just a word on this. One starts with the assumption that the trade union has failed to comply with the provisions of the
674
statute. On that, the court is making a declaration that the trade union has failed to comply with the provisions. What then is to be done about it? The next provision in the Bill goes on to say:
"Where the court makes such a declaration it shall also make an enforcement order unless it considers that to do so would be inappropriate".
I would entirely agree that in most of the circumstances envisaged by this amendment the court would not make an enforcement order. But I do not think that the court ought to be ordered about it. It has a discretion, which I have read, under the clause and that discretion should not be taken away by an imperative provision such as this, which takes away the discretion of the court. No doubt, in most cases the courts would act just as the amendment suggests but its discretion to act otherwise should not be taken away.
Lord Renton: Under the provision of the third line of subsection (3) of Clause 3, the court is to make a declaration. If the court finds, in the words of Amendment No. 40, that the failure has simply consisted of a procedural irregularity, presumably the declaration would say so. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, that no injustice would be done by leaving it like that. The court, whatever it finds, is free to find what the amendment proposes. One naturally has some sympathy with the spirit of the amendment but technically it does not seem to be necessary.
The Earl of Gowrie: The amendment is concerned with a situation where there has been an infringement of the Bill's requirements, but where the infringement has been of a trivial nature and did not have a substantial effect on the result of the election. These are clearly the kinds of situation which a court would, in any event, take into account in deciding whether it would be appropriate to make an enforcement order.
As to the possibility of vexatious litigation being brought over trivial and bizarre matters—and we have already discussed this in another context—the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, must bear in mind that the possibility of substantial costs being awarded will act as a strong disincentive to those who attempt to bring trivial complaints before the courts.
Having said that, it would not be right—and I think that few in the Committee would think it so, certainly, to judge from what has been said—to go as far as to indulge (to borrow the phrase of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning) in an imperative provision to prevent the court from making an enforcement order in such circumstances as the amendment proposes. That will be to restrict the court's ability to weigh the issues involved in the light of all relevant circumstances. I think that the noble and learned Lord has shown us that the courts are given sufficient flexibility in this Bill to distinguish satisfactorily between the trivial complaint and the real one. On that basis of what I take to be the Committee's reluctance to go for an imperative provision, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My submission to your Lordships is that what your Lordships have heard

675
reflects a genuine difference of appreciation of reality. I do not believe that the noble Earl (if I understood him correctly) is right in suggesting that not to have this amendment would save costs. It might be arguable that this amendment would make the saving of costs more likely, but that is a minor point. What is important is that both the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and the noble Earl and others of your Lordships who have spoken want the courts to have a discretion to make an enforcement order even in a case where the irregularity is a procedural irregularity— which, as I have said, is a well-known term in the law of association—even where it will have, and could have, no substantial effect in regard to the result.
I am really rather astonished at the Government. The Government come along again and again and say— and the noble Earl will tell me if I do not get their case right—"We want to get the confidence of trade unionists". They do not care about trade union leaders; they want the confidence of trade unionists. I take it that they want the confidence of active trade unionists; because not all of them can be thrown out into the cold. The whole operation of the thing depends upon them. What every active trade unionist knows—and I say this with the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning—is that the English courts have not been very good at exercising discretions in regard to trade union law. These are the same courts who decided the Osborne judgment; and, case for case, on balance (and some cases are better than others from anyone's point of view), they have not been very good at it. And one of the objects of amendments like this, in a sense, which the Government might have thought was helpful to them, would be that people would know where they stood.
But it will be possible now for a shop steward to say with complete veracity to his members that this Government want to leave it obscure and want to give the judge the right, when he thinks it appropriate. Nobody knows what that means; maybe in many cases he would not, as the noble and learned Lord suggested; in many cases the courts would not make an enforcement order. But in some cases—we do not know what they are—even though only a procedural irregularity is involved, and even though it will have no effect at all upon the result, the Government are going to give the courts the power to make an enforcement order to make us do something that we do not think it is necessary to do or is possibly contrary to the rules.
The Government are astonishing in giving people that impression and after this Committee stage I would have thought that it was a fair impression. I thought that they would stick to what they said in another place, which was much more reasonable and did not suggest that the courts would ever make an enforcement order in such circumstances. However, we have heard what the noble Earl has said. We have to draw our conclusions. Every step of the way we tread, we find that our impression that was formed on Clauses 1 and 2 is correct. This is to be what the noble Lord, Lord Howie, called the tight bandage of imposed procedure, plus the uncertainties of court discretion. I will not quote the well-known statement of Sir Winston Churchill about the courts and trade unions because it is well known to all noble Lords and
676
certainly to the noble Earl; but it still has some truth in it. The relationship has not been—let us say in neutral language—a happy one, and that unhappy relationship is to have this thrust into it.
We shall not withdraw this amendment. We shall stick with it and it will no doubt be negatived in the usual way, but it would be inappropriate in the light of the debate to withdraw an amendment of this kind.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, in moving the amendment, submitted that he wanted to make it clear to the layman. We have heard only noble and learned Lords on this point and so I come in as a layman. As a layman I want to tell the noble Lord that, contrary to what he said, his amendment makes it less clear to me. Without the amendment, Clause 5 as it stands leaves the power and the discretion to the court which will have heard all of the points, all of the evidence and will know all about it. This amendment will put that in some sort of doubt. What is a procedural irregularity, it will be argued, quite apart from the actual irregularity itself. It would make a lot of good business for the lawyers because they could try to present every irregularity as a procedural irregularity, which means that the court's full discretion ought not to be used, as it will be used if it is left as it stands now.
I intervene only to say that, far from the amendment of the noble Lord making it clear to the layman, I as a layman can tell him that it makes it less clear and I believe much less satisfactory for getting justice.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: May I say to the noble Lord before he resumes his seat that the phrase "procedural irregularity" is indeed the subject of a considerable amount of interpretation. It is a fairly well-known phrase and would be understood. Of course he is right that one side or another would argue that this is not a procedural iregularity. But of course he cannot have it both ways. As the Bill stands, and without this amendment one side or the other would argue that it is not appropriate for the court to make an order. One side or the other will always make an argument, at any rate if you brief them.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him a very short question. In view of the criticism that he has again given of the way in which our courts exercise their discretion in trade union cases, would he agree on reconsideration that the Taff Vale case has nothing to do with the exercise of discretion? It was a decision made in law, which the House of Lords Appellate Committee held was right but with which statute disagreed and held as wrong. Does he agree that that had nothing to do with the exercise of discretion? Would he agree that by and large the High Court in this country has exercised its discretion in these affairs objectively, fairly, constructively and in the interests of the community as a whole?
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, invites me to debate a wide area. May I reply with just two sentences? First, I did not quote the Taff Vale case. I cited the Osborne case but if one takes the Taff Vale case, it was a discretional remedy

677
that was at stake but of course it was an interpretation of the law. My attitude in reply to his question may be put thus: by its own high standards, the High Court in this land has had a less than happy relationship in the exercise both of its interpretation of the law and the exercise of discretion in regard to trade unions than in many other areas of the law. I am sure that the noble Lord is as aware as I am of the lecture by Lord Justice Scrutton—no revolutionary by any means—which was published in 1923 in the Cambridge Law Journal where he made just this very point of the difficulty, as he saw it, for the High Court in these matters. I thought it was common knowledge that that was so and I apprehend that, when the noble Lord thinks about it, he will feel that there is some common ground between us on the point.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 not moved.]
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 43.
Page 5, line 29, at the end insert ("and accordingly this Part shall give rise to no criminal or tortious liability for conspiracy or to any other liability in tort on the part of any person.").
The noble Lord said: This is a legal matter. The provisions of the Bill at the moment appear to make plain the Government's intention that the remedies in Clause 3 are the only remedies which should be available for breach of Clauses 1 and 2. The Government have included a formula which is one of the two formulae that can be used for that purpose. This amendment seeks to insert with it the other formula for the purpose which has been used in many other statutes.
Whereas the Bill as it stands makes it clear that the people involved have no other remedy than those which are given to members under Clause 3, this amendment would make it doubly clear that no civil liability—and in order to use the time-honoured phrase, criminal liability has been included as well, although I apprehend that there is no risk in reality of that—for conspiracy in the civil law or any other liability in tort as is in civil law can arise from these clauses at the suit of a third person.
There has been a considerable development of the law with regard to civil actions which may be brought by third persons based upon a breach of statute. Most of those developments, as did your Lordships' Judicial Committee decision on Lonrho v. Shell in 1981, have in fact narrowed the area. It would be perfectly proper for the Government to say, after the Lonrho decision, that it is very likely that a civil action based upon any breach of duty could be brought by a third person under this part of the Bill. Despite that, in order to make the matter clear—the Government in another place suggested that they wanted to make it absolutely clear that no actions could possibly arise out of Part I except for those which are suggested in Clause 3—it is the view of my noble friends and I that both formulae would be useful to make the position absolutely clear. Historically, the draftsman rather earlier than the mid-1970s liked this formula; later the other formula has come to be used in some statutes. I beg to move.
Lord Denning: This is a legal point. The Bill as it stands is perfectly clear and there is no need for any amendment.
Viscount Long: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, for his intervention. I should make it clear that concerning the courts and in law I am not a lawyer and I hope that noble Lords opposite will forgive me. This amendment relates to Clause 3(9). It may be helpful if I begin by explaining to your Lordships the purpose of that subsection, since it is a rather technical provision. The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, will appreciate that I am here leaning rather heavily on the advice of my legal advisers, and thus perhaps he will forgive me if my response owes more-to the language of legal textbooks than to the cut and thrust of debate. Subsection (9) ensures that the application to the courts under Clause 3(1) is the sole remedy available to a person in respect of a failure of a trade union to comply with one or more of the Bill's provisions on union elections. This has the effect of preventing any possibility of a union member obtaining redress in the courts for a common law action for the tort of "breach of statutory duty", and thus obtaining a separate remedy, and possibly an award of damages, for his union's infringement of the legislation.
However, it is important to be clear that subsection (9) does not interfere with the rights which a union member already has at common law to take action against his union for acting in breach of its rules (for example, those rules governing elections) or where there has been a fraudulent election. It merely ensures that a union member has only one way of enforcing the rights conferred on him by this Bill.
I should emphasise that subsection (9) is by way of being a precautionary subsection which is there to prevent possible legal uncertainty. As noble Lords who are members of the legal profession will appreciate, I have to say that the provision for special remedies in a statute clearly rules out the possibility of any other remedies being available in respect of wrongs done in contravention of that statute. Nevertheless, doubt could arise and subsection (9) therefore makes it clear that no remedies are to be available against a trade union for its failure to comply with the provisions of Part I other than the extensive ones set out in Clause 3.
Let me turn just for a moment to Amendment No. 43, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, has said, is concerned with both civil and criminal liability. As regards civil liability, a civil conspiracy can take place in the form of an agreement to do an unlawful act or to do an act by unlawful means. But even assuming the existence of any such civil remedy against a trade union, it would be "blocked off' by the provisions of subsection (9) which I have already described. The amendment also refers to "any other liability in tort". The only other such liability which could arise is the tort of breach of statutory duty; but, as explained above, the clear effect of Clause 3(9) is to prevent any such liability arising. As regards civil liability, therefore, Amendment No. 43 is unnecessary. I hope I have been able to explain to a certain extent, and I hope the noble Lord will forgive me when I say that I am not a lawyer. I hope he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am grateful to the noble Minister. I am quite happy that he is not a lawyer so long as he is happy that I am. I understand the point that he has put in response: indeed, I anticipated it. In a sense the Government are saying that subsection (9) covers the point already. I hope that they are right. I listened to the short and incisive intervention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. I would have been quite happy if that had come from the noble and learned Lord sitting as Master of the Rolls. But suppose we had the present Master of the Rolls: would he say the same? One does not know.
I think there is a slight risk here of those who act in combination in breaking Part I being seen in some form as possibly liable to civil conspiracy. However, my noble friends and I listened with great interest to what the noble Minister had to say about the rights of members under these rules. It is a very important matter to which we shall return on a later amendment, and in view of that I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: On this Question, the Marshalled List does not include a notice from my noble friends and myself concerning our not accepting this clause. But so many things have happened to Clauses 2 and 3 that we feel some point must be made on it, because this part of the Bill has perhaps become clearer in some ways because of its obscurities. The importance of Clause 3 in regard to a number of matters is now beginning to be apparent by reason of what Clause 3 may turn out to be.
I have a number of questions to put to the Government about the operation of Clauses 2 and 3, and especially of Clause 3. May I preface these very simple questions by saying I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, is not still in his place, because in a sense this relates to the question he asked me and which I answered all too briefly, The Government are using the High Court as their major engine of operation in enforcement. We have to understand that that is still so, even though the Government did not—we had no notice of this, and it came as a surprise to us—move Amendment No. 42. Some of the points I was going to make were intended to be made on Amendment No. 42, and so the Government can have no complaint about this matter. They are using the High Court plus such administrative agencies as they have to bring in. At the moment we have only the High Court.
The judges have been placed by circumstances—in many cases not through their personal wish, of course, but by history—in a relationship with the trade union movement which, as I have said before, is less than happy. When in 1971 the legislation tried to compel them into an even more difficult position in regard to industrial relations, some of them spoke out against it. One of those was the noble and learned Lord, Lord
680
Devlin. In 1972 he wrote in the Sunday Times in a famous article as follows:
"In theory the judiciary is the neutral force between government and the governed. The judge interprets and applies the law without favour to either and its application in a particular case is embodied in an order which is passed to the executive to enforce. It is not the judge's personal order; it is substantially the product of the law…If its enforcement is resisted or evaded, the judge is no more concerned than if he were an arbitrator.
"British judges have never practised such detachment. The reason may lie in their origin as servants of the Crown or perhaps in the fact that for a long time the law they administered was what they had made themselves. A mixture of the two has left the High Court with the power to enforce its order in civil cases by treating disobedience as contempt itself".
I break off to say that I hope I did not read too quickly for anyone to think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Devlin, was saying that the judiciary is not independent. Of course he is saying that it is independent. What he is also saying is that it is not neutral, and he goes on:
"These high powers make the British judiciary more than just a neutral arbitral force. On the whole their wise and cautious deployment has enabled the judiciary to use its reputation for impartiality and independence for the public good. But it is imperative that the high powers should not be used except in support of consensus law. If the judges are to do more than decide what the law means, if they are also to speak for it, their voice must be the voice of the community: it must never be taken for the voice of the government or the voice of the majority".
The categories of the noble and learned Lord would take much longer than I would dream of taking now to distinguish consensus law from the voice of the community or, the voice of the Government or the majority, but it is an extremely important distinction.
In regard to Clause 3, since it deals with enforcement through the High Court, the first point that must be made on the record somewhere is that it is our belief that the courts are being propelled into just such a similar position. Indeed, the problem which is facing the Government in bringing to birth, as midwife, this fledgling new Clause 2 is to know just how far to leave the matter with the High Court and how far to bring in an administrative agency. On looking at it, that is no doubt why they did not move Amendment No. 42.
But there is a second point, which is much more practicable and much shorter, in a sense, that goes with it. What is the area which in practice has been one of the most difficult areas for trade unions to accept in the exercise of the discretion of the English and Scottish courts? It is the interlocutory injunction or the interim injunction—the injunction which is granted theoretically to preserve the status quo. But, as every writer in America and England since 1910 has said, the interlocutory injunction does not merely preserve the status quo in an industrial dispute.
The rules of the interlocutory injunction are appreciated and apprehended by trade unions as extremely unfair. Whether they he right in that or not, they are regarded by them as much more unfair since 1975. All the plaintiff now has to show is not a prima facie case: now, under the new rules of procedure, merely a serious question to be tried. As soon as the union acts—it may be some quite minor infringement of the civil law—the injunction must be granted in the discretion of the court, if the balance of convenience so provides and there are no other factors affecting discretion. Whether or not they are right in thinking

681
that unfair, the issue arises on this Bill whether there is any interlocutory jurisdiction in the courts, and if Clause 2 has become a muddle, the Government, after the debates in another place, left the answer to that question in such a muddle that it is difficult to know what to make of it.
Without making all the citations, the Minister of State, Mr. Gummer, said very different things at different stages. At some stages, he said that there would be no interlocutory proceedings allowed; that is to say, the court could not give a remedy to a member who came along and said, "No one started the elections, but they are going to draw up the lists and I can show you that they are going to have the lists all wrong and my name will not be on them."
One reason why one could say that there could be no interlocutory relief under this Bill is that it is a normal rule of English procedure—and I believe that the interim interdict in Scotland is the same—that you cannot get a declaration in interlocutory or interim proceedings. If that is right, that is the end of the point and the Government's answer must be: no interlocutory proceedings. It was left obscure whether you must wait until the election has been held. At one stage Mr. Gummer said that the courts would not have an interlocutory jurisdiction, except in the case of amazing evidence of appalling and widespread fraud. That is a new category in the law—amazing evidence, not convincing evidence, of appalling and widespread fraud. I cannot believe that that is the right answer.
But he suggested then, and on a number of other occasions, that the Government intended there to be a residual category where the courts could—before the election was held; indeed, at the earliest possible stage—step into these proceedings. If that is to be done by the courts, it will presumably have to be done by some new procedure, because the Bill allows only for a declaration, and unless the rules of the Supreme Court are to be changed, as I understand it interlocutory declarations cannot normally be granted. So this would have to be done through a speedy trial and this defeats the point of the interim application, because even a speedy trial can take some weeks to bring on, and maybe some months.
So what is the procedure which the Government have in mind? Do the Government see the courts coming in on an interlocutory basis? I revert to my previous point in saying that I hope not. In a sense, I hope that the Bill says what it seems to say, that the matter will be dealt with on a full and proper trial basis and not on these unsatisfactory interlocutory procedures. But if the Government intend interlocutory procedures, how do they intend to have them with declarations? And if they intend to have them in very extraordinary cases, as the Minister of State suggested in another place, will they please say what they mean so that we can all know what to expect? I made this intervention because clause stand part is the only place to make it, now that Amendment No. 42 has not been moved by the Government. There is a sense in which my noble friends and I should like to hear the answer of the Government, before knowing what to do on the Question that Clause 3 stand part.
Lord Gray of Contin: I can quite appreciate why the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, would feel strongly about Clause 3, because there are a certain number of issues on which he feels that matters have not yet been resolved. But I think that my noble friend Lord Gowrie explained quite clearly the process which is taking place at the moment and how the Government hope to set about what action they may take as a result of the success last Thursday evening of my noble friends.
However, with regard to Clause 3, this clause provides what might be termed a three-stage enforcement procedure. Stage one, which is to be found in subsections (1) to (4), involves the court in deciding the fundamental question of whether or not there has been a failure to comply with one or more provisions in Part I of the Bill. Any trade union member who alleges that his union has infringed one or more of the requirements on elections may apply to the court for a declaration to that effect within a year of the result of the elections being announced by the union. Where a court finds that there has been a failure to comply with Part I of the Bill, it will normally make a declaration to that effect, specifying the provisions with which the union has failed to comply.
The second stage of the procedure, which occupies subsections (5) to (8) of Clause 3, involves the court in deciding whether to accompany its declaration with an enforcement order, and if so, in deciding what form that order should take. Normally where it has made a declaration, the court will clearly also want to make an order, but it can decline to do so where it considers that to do so would be inappropriate. But assuming that the court does decide to make an enforcement order, what is of crucial importance is that it has wide discretion to match the terms of its order to the scale of the failure which has occurred. Thus an order may take one of three forms.
Secondly, the court may order the union to take such other remedial steps as are specified in the order. For example, if the infringement consisted in votes having been inaccurately counted or counted according to, say, the block vote principle, the court might wish to order votes to be recounted rather than a fresh election to be held. Thirdly, the court may require the union to abstain from such acts as are specified in the order, with a view to ensuring that a similar infringement does not occur in the future. In other words, the court may simply tell the union to ensure that the same failure does not occur again. That is perhaps the most likely remedy where, for example, there has been some interference with an individual's opportunity to vote, but where clearly it has not affected the outcome of the election.
These are all examples of the flexibility of Clause 3 and I commend it to your Lordships. I know that the noble Lord has posed a number of questions which he suggests relate directly to what happens in Clause 2. But I cannot give him direct answers to those at the moment because, as my noble friend has already explained, the Government will in due course consider what action they may have to take as a result of the success of noble Lords last Thursday night in their amendment to Clause 2. But in the meantime I commend Clause 3 to your Lordships.
Lord Denning: May I say one word upon this? My noble friend Lord Wedderburn has rather suggested that the judges in some way have not done as much as they should have done. I have been involved in most of the cases involving trade unions in the Court of Appeal for the last goodness knows how many years. I should like to say that we have gone by the statute, we have interpreted the Act of the legislature as best we could, and I hope have been completely impartial. In some cases, we have decided in favour of the trade unions; in other cases, against them. But we have done our best to be impartial and independent. As to Clause 3 being part of the Bill, it seems to me that what has been said is amply sufficient. This clause itself defines the remedies and says that an application to the court under that clause is to be the remedy. There are therefore no problems about injunctions or anything of that kind. There is simply the application under this provision, and the judge can there do what is right and appropriate in the circumstances. I suggest that this clause should certainly stand part of the Bill.
Lord McCarthy: I do not want the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, to make another speech. However, as we are now dealing with Clause 3 I would beg him, please, to give us an explanation as to why he is not answering our questions about why the Government do not know what they are going to put into Clause 2. I beg the noble Lord not to continue all night to fail to answer our questions.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Viscount Long: This would be a convenient moment to break off the Committee stage of the Trade Union Bill. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to,
House resumed.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, before the next business is called, may I ask the noble Viscount to indicate when consideration of the Trade Union Bill will be resumed?
Viscount Long: My Lords, consideration of the Trade Union Bill will be resumed at 7.45 p.m.

Child Abduction Bill
7.1 p.m.
Report received.
Lord Scarman Lord Scarman moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
"Restriction on prosecutions for offence of kidnapping
. Except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions no prosecution shall be instituted for an offence of kidnapping if it was committed—

(a) against a child under the age of sixteen; and

(b) by a person connected with the child, within the meaning of section 1 above.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment tabled in my name. Your Lordships will have noticed that on Thursday of last week the House, in its judicial capacity, recognised the existence of the common law offence of kidnapping a
684
minor child and went on to assert that a parent may be convicted of kidnapping his own minor child. When this Bill was introduced and when it was in Committee the judicial decision of the House was not known and it was naturally assumed that the Court of Appeal decision would stand; namely, that there is no such common law offence which can be committed by a parent. The House has now declared otherwise. Plainly it becomes necessary to consider the provisions of this Bill in the light of what we now know to be the common law offence, that a parent can kidnap his minor child.
The nearest statutory offence proposed in the Bill to the common law offence declared last week is to be found in Clause 1. Clause I makes it an offence if a person connected with a child under the age of 16—that includes a parent or guardian of the child—takes or sends the child out of the United Kingdom without the appropriate consent. "Appropriate consent" is later defined in the clause. That offence will attract a liability, on conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years. Since it is plainly a very sensitive area of the criminal law and one which is to some extent covered by the family law and the ability of the family court, using the process of contempt of court, to enforce its own orders, one finds in Clause 4(2) a restraint placed upon prosecution, Its purpose is plain: to keep the criminal law out of these matters unless the criminality of the acts committed is such that there must be resort to the criminal law. Subsection (2) provides, quite simply:
"No prosecution for an offence under section 1 above shall be instituted except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions".
The purpose of my amendment, which is phrased in language very similar to Clause 4(2), is to ensure that the common law offence of a parent kidnapping his own child shall not be the subject of prosecution except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The object of my amendment is precisely the same as the object of Clause 4(2) in respect of the statutory offence. It is to ensure that, save where it is absolutely necessary, the criminal law will not be used to enforce family obligations in respect of children.
But from time to time it has to be invoked. I do not know how many of your Lordships have had an opportunity to read the speeches of the Lords of Appeal in the appeal last week. I do not wish to recite them, but your Lordships will immediately see that the acts there alleged to have been committed by the parent were very serious criminal acts which should indeed be the subject matter of the criminal law, if proved.
I should mention one further matter. The statutory offence in Clause I of child abduction by a parent or other person connected with the child is limited to an abduction out of the United Kingdom, Your Lordships' House, in its judicial capacity, has found that the common law offence of a parent kidnapping his own minor child can be committed, even though the child is not taken out of the jurisdiction. That is substantially the difference between the common law offence and the proposed statutory offence.
These two offences—the common law offence and the statutory offence—can happily co-exist together,

685
provided that in both cases the same restraint is placed upon invoking the criminal law. The common law offence of kidnapping is, by definition, a very serious offence indeed and can be very criminal in character, even when the child is not taken out of the United Kingdom. Therefore, there is no difficulty in the overlap between these two offences. Any embarrassment that might arise is perfectly well met by the provisions of my amendment, which is that the common law offence of kidnapping, like the proposed statutory offence, can be prosecuted only by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I beg to move.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I wish to make only one point. I was so pleased to read the recent decision of the House of Lords which ensured that kidnapping is made a criminal offence. I should like to tell your Lordships what the husband did in that case. On 13th December 1978 the father, who had earlier returned from New Zealand to England, again, forced his way—
Lord Scarman: My Lords, I hope the noble and learned Lord will allow me to intervene.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Scarman: My Lords, if I may be allowed to intervene, I should like to say that this is very important. The father was not convicted of the offence alleged against him in December 1978. It would be quite wrong to say so.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I would just remind the noble and learned Lord that on Report a noble Lord must ask leave of the House to speak a second time unless he is a mover of the Bill. A noble Lord may speak a second time only on a point of order.
Lord Scarman: I most humbly apologise, but as a judge I was concerned to ensure that a man was not spoken of as having committed a crime of which he was acquitted.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I will say no more except that I was only repeating a part of the story given in the House of Lords' Hansard. I did not say that the man had committed a crime. I stand reproved and will utter not a single word more except that I entirely agree with the amendment proposed by my noble and learned friend Lord Scarman.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, it is a dramatic day in the history of this House when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, says that he stands reproved. I assure him that, whether he is reproved or not, he will still be in our affections whatever may happen, even on future occasions.
I at once make my position clear. It is, of course, an individual position because this is a Private Member's Bill. Without any doubt at all I support the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, who was, of course, a distinguished Member of your Lordships' House, sitting judicially,
686
in the case to which he referred; known as the Daily case. My reason for rising is my feeling of disquiet, in spite of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, said in his accompanying remarks, at the way in which we are dealing with legislation in your Lordships' House, especially Private Member's Bills.
I promise to spend only a second in talking about another Bill—the Video Recordings Bill—where I had a certain point of view, which had support, in regard to an essential element of export. Because most of us were so anxious that the Bill should become law, we were told—and I know it was said perfectly sincerely—that if we pressed our amendments, because it was a Private Member's Bill, we would jeopardise the passage of that Bill through Parliament. Therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, knows, I took a certain course in that regard.
Now we have another Private Member's Bill, dealing with a very important point—child abduction. Again, most of us in your Lordships' House want to see such a Bill on the statute book. We take the view that when the Criminal Law Revision Committee reported in 1980 it might have been a very good idea, on an important and human matter of this kind where so much hardship is being caused, and might have been expedient for a Bill to come before Parliament even before 1984. But I detect, if I may say so with respect, an element of clumsiness and thoughtlessness in regard to the way in which this Bill, too, comes before your Lordships.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman—and I am so glad that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is present—
Noble Lords: Where is he?
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, if he is not present in his usual place, at least he is able to hear what I am saying, unless his hearing is not as good as all of us know it to be.
The fact is that the reason given for this Bill being before Parliament was essentially that the law was in an unsatisfactory state as a result of the decision of the Court of Appeal in the Daily case, with all the horrific details that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, was going to give us but denied himself the privilege of reciting. We understood the law to be—and this is how the Bill was introduced to the House—that the present common law crime of kidnapping did not apply to minors and, furthermore, certainly did not apply to parents in regard to their children under the age of 18 unless the child happened to be married.
In the very learned judgment that was given in the House of Lords, sitting judicially, that was deemed to be the reflection of a 19th century morality and ethos whereas, now we had walked into the 20th century, there was a different view of family life and a different view of the role of the father and the mother. The pliable common law—a pliability which, as long as one adheres to principles is something of which we are proud—made your Lordships' House, sitting judicially, walk into the 20th century and say that that could no longer be a consideration.

687
The result is that when we came to Second Reading I mentioned, as others did, the Daily case and supported the fact that this Bill ought to be on the statute book because of the decision of the Court of Appeal. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—and this is why I am glad he can hear my remarks—referred to the Daily case and was courteous enough, as he always is, to say that I had mentioned the Court of Appeal decision with correctness and with relevance. The Second Reading took place on 21st May. In column 98 of Hansard the noble and learned Lord went on to say this:
"I can tell the House— because these hearings are held in public and the noble Lord. Lord Mishcon, will be able to infer what I mean—that their Lordships of the Appellate Committee did not think it necessary to call upon the appellant to reply to the respondent's argument. So that the law of kidnapping is another parameter—if I may borrow a phrase that is popular nowadays—in the calculation which we must make."
Lower down in the column the noble and learned Lord says,
"But it has had this curious result"—
referring, incidentally, to the instance of the Director of Public Prosecutions—
"that the long abeyance into which the offence fell in practice has led to a certain imprecision and doubt about the necessary ingredients of the offence."
Now I turn to Col. 99:
"When the Appellate Committee delivers its judgment—which, as I say, I trust will not be long—we hope that some of the imprecisions and doubts will have been removed. But there are some points, at any rate, which will not be available to the House in its legal jurisdiction to make certain, owing to the nature of the facts which were then before it".
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor then dealt with the very point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, makes in his amendment.
"For instance …the Director's consent necessary in a prosecution for kidnapping, as well as child abduction under this Bill, would not be open to the Appellate Committee or to this House in its appellate jurisdiction to entertain one way or the other. This is a matter which we may have to consider".
That means there are other matters which we have to consider as a result of what the noble and learned Lord, with complete diplomacy and, as always, with complete propriety, hinted at in relation to what the decision of your Lordships' House, sitting judicially, might be.
It is all very well saying that we have got a tidy situation because we put in this amendment which makes the Director of Public Prosecutions the deciding person as to whether a prosecution should be brought in regard to kidnapping. But this House and Parliament itself, in order properly to consider and tidy up the situation, especially when it was known at Second Reading that a decision of this kind was going to be made in your Lordships' House sitting judicially, ought to have had a proper opportunity to consider the possible overlapping and clean up the state of the law.
If I alone were saying this from an individual point of view, your Lordships might wonder whether my view was really worth considering. I say that in all humility. The Times has this morning a leader on this very subject. It is headed, "Child Abduction" and it talks about the overlapping provisions that there might be. This is what The Times says in the concluding paragraph of its editorial:
688
"Parliament has fashioned a better instrument than the judges for dealing with the problem of child abduction. Once the Bill becomes law, the common law offence will serve no useful purpose so far as it relates to the abduction of children under 16. If it is now too late for the Bill to be amended to get rid of the overlapping common law offence, at the very least its potential for abuse should be restricted. Lord Scarman has tabled an amendment to the Bill, designed to place the decision to prosecute for the common law crime in the hands of the DPP where the abduction is by the parent, guardian, or custodian of a child under 16. In the absence of a more radical proposal, the amendment deserves to be supported in the Lords today".
I say this to your Lordships. This is not a tidy, proper way to legislate. If we waited for four years, we could have waited a little bit longer to consider the implications of the judgment of your Lordships' House sitting judicially—the overlap provisions. We could have heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, with his view that possibly not much, if any at all, harm has been caused by the overlapping. We might have heard other views—I say this with respect—which are in line with what The Times felt in its editorial of today. But just to have one amendment, without the consideration of what The Times calls possibly a more radical way of dealing with the matter, and tidying up our law properly in view of the decision of the House of Lords, is not the proper way to proceed.
I am unhappy. I am unhappy again because this is a Private Member's Bill and I know that I am inhibited by the fact that if I, or anybody else, makes a fuss and asks for a postponement of this, for an amendment which ought to cover all these matters or for the opportunity of debate, what I will be doing is possibly wrecking a very good Bill. But I repeat my plea that, as with video recording, we ought to have a tidier and more sensible way of dealing with these Bills; and possibly the answer is that when they are important enough they should not be Private Member's Bills; they should be Government Bills for which proper time is allocated.
7.23 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, as the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is directed principally at the Government's management of their business and the business of private Members, I wonder whether your Lordships will permit me to intervene briefly at this stage and to be as tidy and responsible in so doing as I can. If I may make only one allusion to the Video Recordings Bill—which is not the subject of this evening's debate—it is simply that there is a difference between that Bill and this in regard to amendments, as there is between every Bill and every other Bill which has to go through another place on a limited timetable. It is a question of the likelihood of changes to it putting it in peril; and of course a different change will have a different effect. While I sympathise with the noble Lord in that he most courteously and public-spiritedly did not move an amendment of his to the other Bill, I do not think that that in itself is a fair comparison with the amendment which I hope my noble friend will say she is accepting to this one.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was good enough to give a hearty welcome to this Bill and to the amendment, and that I would endorse; but he went on

689
to say that the timing of the Bill was wrong because of the timing of the Daily appeal. I must remind him that work began on the Bill in the summer of 1983, that the Long Title was published in July of 1983 and Daily was decided in November 1983, so the Bill was conceived before the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the Daily case. It was therefore conceived on the assumption that the offence of kidnapping could be committed in respect of a child of any age and could be committed by a parent against his own child, although one would perhaps expect prosecutions in those circumstances to be rare. These assumptions have now been upheld by the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House.
As the Government see the matter therefore there is no conflict between the final judgment in R v. Daily and this Bill. It is of course correct to say that if the final judgment in the Daily case had been to the effect that no offence had been committed, the Bill would have been even more useful than it is, because it would have been the only means of getting at the situation wherein one parent took away a child from the other. But the fact that an offence of kidnapping may be charged in some circumstances does not by any means imply that the Bill has no useful part to play or that it is not justified on its merits.
The differences between the offence of kidnapping and the offence of abduction which are created in the Bill are set out very clearly in the Criminal Law Revision Committee report. It is an essential ingredient of kidnapping that the person has been taken away against his will. There remains a need—and it is with this that the present Bill is concerned—to deal with a situation in which the child, in so far as his or her will can be ascertained, is a willing party. As the Criminal Law Revision Committee expressed it:
"The offence of kidnapping protects the liberty of the child while the offence of abduction protects the rights of parents".
The leader in The Times this morning comes near to suggesting that, if Parliament passes this Bill, we can do without the offence of kidnapping so far as the relationships between parents and their children are concerned. But that, too, would be an oversimplification. This Bill deals with abductions by parents only when the child is taken or sent out of the country. The noble and learned Lord put it much more clearly than I could hope to do. The law of kidnapping continues to have its place so far as removal of a child to a place within the United Kingdom is concerned.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, with the permission of the House, will allow me to intervene. The point was made—and this is where I am talking in terms of untidiness—at Second Reading that the reason that this Bill need not deal with kidnapping or abduction inside the United Kingdom was that our civil law could so easily deal with that that it was quite unnecessary for this Bill to deal with it as well. Now, with great respect to the noble Lord the Minister, he is turning Second Reading speeches on their head.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am always loathe to do that Australian performance at the Dispatch Box. I would
690
only say to the noble Lord that the noble and learned Lord has given a very good example of the timeliness of this Bill by his amendments to put the criminal law offence on a parity with the statutory offence. I do not want to detain your Lordships on the handling of Government business, and nor does the noble Lord. We have taken his disquiet on board. But I would point out that had we awaited the judgment as he suggested, we should have waited until last Thursday for the Bill to be drafted. Even though the noble Lord smiles, that is what he suggested, and I would not wish him to intervene again. Had we introduced the Bill at that stage, it would not be a question of waiting a little while but of waiting till very nearly this time next year before the legislation was on the statute hook, and in that time I think that much injustice might be done which this Bill will prevent.
The noble Lord has ventilated his concern. I have registered it. What we are really concerned with is the wise and authoritative amendment which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, has put before your Lordships. I shall now get out of the way so that my noble friend can do what we all hope she will do and accept it.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, may I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for the comments he has made, because obviously he thinks and feels very deeply about it. May I also thank my noble friend the Minister for replying. I say at once that I am indeed glad to accept the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman. I am particularly grateful to him for taking such an interest in this Bill and for taking the trouble to ensure that the Bill continues to be consistent with what has been decided in relation to the case of Daily.
It must be right that prosecutions of a parent in relation to the offence of kidnapping his own child should be as carefully scrutinised as those in relation to the offence of abduction in Clause 1 of this Bill. We cannot ignore the hurt and desperate feelings, sometimes engendering malice and spite, which matrimonial discord can generate. The criminal law should not be used as a weapon by an aggrieved parent, with no good grounds, for charging the other parent with either of these very serious offences.
Perhaps I might also add that the final judgment in relation to the case of Daily will reassure many who were uneasy at the earlier position. This Bill was designed only to fill those gaps in the law of child stealing and parental abduction which the Criminal Law Revision Committee identified and which are serious enough. However, it seemed at one point as if it would be the only protection for children against the even more brutal offence of kidnapping, which, the judgment given by your Lordships' House makes clear, involves the absence of consent on the part of the person being taken away.
During our debate on Second Reading I said that the Child Abduction Bill is but one strand among many which must be woven together to protect our children. The present amendment makes the law more consistent and the judgments which prompt the amendment make the body of law stronger. I have consulted with the promoter of the Bill in another place, Mr. Timothy Wood, the Member of Parliament

691
for Stevenage. He and I are indeed happy to accept this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Offence in Scotland of parent, etc. taking or sending child out of United Kingdom]:
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 4, line 7, after ("without") insert ("the").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with Amendment No. 2, I wonder whether your Lordships would permit me to speak also to Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7.
Amendment No. 3: Page 4, line 24, after ("section") insert ("the").
Amendment No. 4: Page 4, line 27, leave out from beginning to ("the") in line 32 and insert—
("(i) the consent of each person—

(a) who is a parent or guardian of the child; or

(b) to whom custody of the child has been awarded (whether solely or jointly with any other person) by an order of a court in the United Kingdom; or

(ii) ").
Amendment No. 5: Page 4, line 41, leave out ("and (II)").
Amendment No. 6: Page 5, line 3, after ("without") insert ("the").
Amendment No. 7: page 5, line 5, leave out ("and (ii)").
This small group of amendments involve a matter of drafting only. They ensure that the definition of the appropriate consent is the same in Clause 5 as it is in Clause 1. At the moment the wording of the definition in Clause 5 is slightly different, and its effect may not therefore be the same. The definition of who may give consent to a child's removal from the country ought to be the same in Clause 5 as in Clause 1—that is to say, in Scotland and in England and Wales—so that there is no doubt or difficulty. These amendments achieve that. I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am so happy that without any bitterness at all, and without any anxiety, I can recommend the House—certainly from where I stand—to accept the amendment so tidily moved by the noble Baroness.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 3:
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 4:
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7:
[Printed above.]
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move these last three amendments.
On Question, amendments agreed to.

Housing Defects Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 7.45 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.35 to 7.45 p.m.]

Trade Union Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 4 [Exemption for certain trade unions]:
Lord Howie of Troon Lord Howie of Troon moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 6, line 1, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) This Part does not apply to any trade union which either is itself a constituent part of another trade union whose name appears on the list of trade unions maintained by the Certification Officer under the 1974 Act or—

(a) falls within section 28(1) (b) of the 1974 Act (unions which consist wholly or mainly of. or of representatives of, constituent or affiliated organisations); and

(b) has not members (other than such representatives) who are individuals.").

The noble Lord said: I do not expect the amendment to take terribly long, partly because we touched upon this area of the Bill on an earlier amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn, in reply to which the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, spoke about the incitement of unions and so on. He did so unsatisfactorily, I thought; otherwise I should not be moving this amendment. This is another amendment that has been suggested to me by the Engineers and Managers Association, to which I referred last week in an earlier debate, as the noble Lord may remember.
The amendment tries to extend the categories of exemption for certain trade unions that are set out in the Bill. The intention of the amendment is that unions which have devolved structures and which have devolved sufficient authority to each of the constituent parts for the constituent parts themselves to be covered by the definition of trade unions, should not apply the provisions of the Bill to their constituent parts so long as the trade union itself, as the parent body, is a registered trade union under the 1974 Act and so long as the registered trade union elects its principal executive committee in accordance with the provisions of this Bill.
We are really concerned here with devolution and with registered trade unions. The Engineers and Managers Association and similar trade unions for which I speak have a structure that has evolved to suit the requirements of their own members. It is a structure that devolves considerable power from the association itself to the constituent groups. These constituent groups represent specific interests of managers and professional staff in a variety of industries such as electricity supply, shipbuilding, and aerospace.
The problems of the Engineers and Managers Association—these might apply to other trade unions could be dealt with if in the Bill it was made clear that a trade union meant a registered trade union and nothing else. In discussions the Government have made clear that although that might solve the problem

693
of the EMA, they would not limit the operation of Part I of the Bill to registered trade unions as a whole because it might be possible for unions to evade the provisions of the Bill simply by deregistering. That is not what we want in this amendment. The unions concerned have thought further about it, and the amendment is designed to meet both the fear of the Government—the fear that unions might try to evade the consequences of the Bill by deregistration—and the needs of the unions themselves.
For this amendment to apply, the trade union would have to be a registered trade union subject to the provisions of this Bill, and only under these circumstances would its constituent parts be exempt. There is no question in this amendment of a registered trade union seeking to evade whatever obligations may be demanded of it by this legislation with regard to the election of the union's principal executive committee. However, if in that trade union sufficient autonomy has been devolved downwards to its constituents for all or any of these constituents to meet the definition of a trade union under the 1974 Act, then that constituent would be exempt from the proceedings of this Bill.
For instance, in the case of the EMA, one of its constituents, of its own free volition, has opted for a system very similar to that provided for in this Bill; the others have not. The EMA members themselves, in devising their own rules, did not see a need to prescribe identical methods of election for each of the constituents because they believed it was right to allow the constituent groups to choose the system which best suited the needs of their particular members. I know that this is ground we have touched upon earlier. For that reason, I do not wish to extend the argument any further than that. I beg to move.
Lord Gray of Contin: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, for moving his amendment so succinctly. The whole Committee knows of his particular interest in this subject. I shall try to respond as constructively as I can to what he has said, although I have little doubt that it will not be exactly in the terms he would wish to hear.
This amendment raises the question of which bodies are covered by Part I. The Government's position on this has always been quite clear. In the same way as Clause 1 covers all those union leaders with a vote on their union executives—because it is those people who take decisions on behalf of their members—Part I of the Bill as a whole covers all those organisations which meet the statutory definition of a trade union, save for certain trade union federations. The reason for that is quite clear. If one looks at the statutory definition of a trade union in the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974, one finds that it embraces, broadly, organisations whose principal purposes include the regulation of relations between workers and employers. Quite clearly any organisation—be it mighty or be it small—which meets this definition should act in the democratic interests of those it represents, and that is why the Bill applies, saving one exception which I shall now describe, to all trade unions.
The exception concerns trade union federations which fulfil two conditions. The first is that they consist wholly or mainly of, or of representatives of,
694
constituent or affiliated organisations. The second is that they have no individual members, other than representatives of such organisations. These are flexible and sensible provisions which ensure that federations which do not exercise direct influence over individual members of their affiliated organisations are exempt from the requirements of the Bill.
Amendment 44 would have the effect of extending very subtantially the exemption provided by Clause 4. It would provide that in certain circumstances not only would a federation be exempt, but so would its constituent parts. Where a federation of trade unions was listed as a trade union by the certification officer, then any constituent parts of the union which were themselves trade unions would also be exempt from the requirements of Part I.
I understand, of course, why the noble Lord has moved this amendment. But I wonder whether he appreciates its full implications. I would ask him to consider, for example, the Council of Civil Service Unions. This is an umbrella organisation of all the main civil service trade unions, and because it is both a federation and has no individual members it will be exempted by Clause 4(1) of the Bill. But it is at the same time listed as a trade union by the certification officer. The result is that, if the noble Lord's amendment were to be accepted, it could well be held that the individual civil service unions, as constituent parts of COCSU, were exempt from the requirements on elections. As a result, most civil servants would have no guarantee that their union leaders would be elected democratically.
A point of equal significance concerns the National Union of Mineworkers. The NUM is in fact a federation, consisting of its constituent areas, all of which are also independent unions in their own right. Under the noble Lord's amendment, they would all be exempted from the requirements of Part I of the Bill. We need look no further than the current dispute in the mining industry to see that the various NUM areas can have a considerable influence on the lives and livelihoods of their members. I cannot accept that it would be right, simply because they are constituent parts of other unions, to exempt unions such as these from the requirements of Part I.
By definition, all trade unions, even if they are part of larger unions, are in the business of negotiating with employers. It is the Government's firm belief that those who take decisions on behalf of the members of those trade unions should be elected properly. The fact that a union is a constituent part of a federation of unions is to that extent irrelevant. If it negotiates on behalf of its members, it should be run democratically. Both for this reason, and because of the practical implications of the noble Lord's amendment, to which I have pointed, I would hope that, on reflection, he might be prepared to withdraw that amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: The Minister's answer has confirmed to me that my noble friend has raised a very important point. The Minister's answer was to be expected when it ran: all the organisations are within the Bill which are organisations within the definition of trade union under Section 28 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974, except federations, which perhaps one might say include, on

695
the one hand, true federations, and, on the other, federations which have no individual members or few individual members, like the International Transport Workers' Federation. The Government are to be complimented on having made sensible provision for these in the Bill.
That would leave one saying that the amendment cannot be accepted because, if we accepted it, we would accept that the NUM was the only national body to be covered by the Bill—not the area organisations, which are separate trade unions. I am not sure that my noble friend really would wish each of the areas of the National Union of Mineworkers—Yorkshire, South Yorkshire and all the rest—to escape. As I understood him, his argument was aimed at a rather different level, which I am not sure the Minister answered. Accepting that that makes a quite rational case, how do we then go about groups inside what, loosely, would be called a trade union which are themselves trade unions?
The Government's own Bill accepts that there are such groups because the definition of "section", with which noble Lords may remember I had such difficulty on a previous amendment, accepts that a section of a union may be itself a separate trade union. I know that my noble friend Lord McCarthy will not be pleased if I mention again the case of Cope v. Crossingham in 1909, because he does not like that case. But it is an illustration of the way in which in law a section or a branch—I see the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, shaking his head; I do not know whether he disagrees with this proposition—can be a separate trade union. I shall tell your Lordships what will happen if something like the amendment of my noble friend Lord Howie is not put into the Bill, and I shall try to say it shortly and simply. For any section of the union, and in some cases even for any branch of the union which is in law a separate trade union—and that is a possibility—the elections to its principal executive committee must conform to the Bill. We can take as an example a body like the No. 1 Manchester branch of one of the print unions. That is sometimes said by some people to be a separate trade union because it negotiates separately and so fits the Bill. You can have a union within a union; that is in all the books. If a branch is a separate trade union or is found to be so by the courts, then its branch committee would have to be elected under the provisions of Clauses 1, and 2. The Government do not seem to have thought of this and I am not sure that it was canvassed in another place. I shall give way to the Minister if he says that it was canvassed; but I do not think that it was canvassed in quite these terms.
My noble friend Lord Howie has raised a most important point but not in regard to the sections of what one might call federal of quasi-federal unions like the AUEW or the NUM. I can understand the Government saying that we must have each of those unions within the Bill. That is understandable because they are national organisations. But where the trade union at which one is looking is a section, possibly even a branch like the No. 1 Manchester branch of one of the print unions, and it is able to say that it is a separate union, do the Government intend that at section and branch level the elections to those
696
principal executive committees are to be dealt with by Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill? If they are to be so dealt with, then the Bill is a much deeper penetration of legal imposition within the body of trade unions, or of some trade unions, than had previously been thought. I do not think that my noble friend has received an answer on that aspect of the question.
Lord Gray of Contin: I can perhaps clarify the position, because it really is quite clear. If a group inside a trade union meets the statutory definition of a trade union under the 1974 Act, then Part I of the Bill applies. If it does not meet the definition, then Part I does not apply. That to me seems to be a perfectly clear and simple proposition. It is as straightforward as that.
Lord Howie of Troon: I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Gray, is right. He and I normally meet here on Scottish business which is somewhat different from the arcane measures with which we are dealing tonight. Let me say first of all that I have no thoughts of any kind regarding the National Union of Mineworkers in this House or out of it, and I do not wish it to be brought into these discussions. Nor, incidentally, am I deeply moved by the civil service unions, important though they may be. I am, by no means for the first time, trying to be helpful to the Government Front Bench. The kind of legislation which the Government are trying to put through here is the kind of legislation which almost more than any other legislation depends upon its acceptability to the people upon whom it bears. We can pass laws until we are blue in the face about secondary picketing but it seems to happen nonetheless and regardless of these laws; whereas if the laws were acceptable the consequences might not be the same.
Here is a situation in which we have a law which is being discussed and which will presumably eventually be passed, and it will be imposed upon people, some of whom possibly deserve it and some of whom do not. Here is a situation where people, who do not need this kind of legislation to make them behave democratically, sensibly, moderately and in all proper ways, are being irritated and made unamenable. Is that really a sensible way for the Government to proceed? If the Government wish their legislation to work, they should try to get as many people on their side as possible and especially those upon whom their legislation impinges.
I have tried to help the Government and they are as yet unwilling to listen. However, there is the Report stage. They will go back and philosophise about the matter for a while and perhaps have a rethink and give something to those of us who are trying to help them as best we can. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon Lord Howie of Troon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 45:
Page 6, line 25, at end insert—
("( ) This Part shall not apply to any trade union which—

(a) within twelve months of the commencement of this part holds a secret postal ballot to which the provisions of section

697
2 of this Act apply in which the question is whether the members wish the provisions of this Part to apply or the union's existing procedures for the election of the principal executive committee to apply; and

(b) whose members vote in that secret ballot by a majority of those voting to retain their existing method of electing the members of the principal executive committee of the trade union.").

The noble Lord said: The ground which Amendment No. 45 covers was gone into pretty thoroughly in the discussions on Clause 1. Therefore, as an act of clemency, I shall not move this amendment although I must say that after the last debate I am not so sure about it. Anyway, I shall not move it.
[Amendment No. 45 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Interpretation of Part I and transitional provision]:
[Amendments Nos. 46 to 48 not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Industrial action authorised or endorsed by trade union without reference to a ballot]:
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 9, line 6, leave out ("13") and insert ("13(1)").
The noble Lord said: We now come to Part II of the Bill and the provisions relating to compulsory ballots in respect of strikes and other industrial action. Part II opens by telling us what it is that trade unions, their members and their officials will lose if they do not do what is required, in regard to such ballots. The Government have over the past three of four years adopted the formula (which they use again and again) that trade unions shall lose their immunities if they do not do what is required. In a previous debate today the noble Earl referred to the tremendous privileges which he said our trade unions had.
In respect of actions taken in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute, the protections or immunities have been whittled away over the past few years to a very major extent. The protections or immunities are the way in which English law expresses industrial rights which in most other systems would be expressed as rights—those rights in the form of the protections against common law regulation that made industrial action unlawful. The Government take pride in saying that those who act in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute can now be sued in the courts in a very large number of cases, whereas they might not even have been open to action in 1906.
The way of achieving that is to take away all or part of Section 13 of the 1974 Act which, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, put it in one of his judgments, was the way in which we enacted in 1974, and later with amendment in 1976, the 1906 formula, clarified and brought up to date. The Government have already got rid of two parts of Section 13, which protect those acting—and I insist that it is all of those acting, not just the union, though the Government are
698
interested here in the union and its officials—in furtherance of a trade dispute from various types of civil liability based very largely on interference with contract or interference with trade. As I say, the Government got rid of the interference-with-trade protection in Section 13(2), which was repealed in 1982, and they got rid of subsection (3), which had another necessary protection, by repealing it in 1980. They restricted Section 13(1)—which is the section which protects against interference with contractual obligations or inducing breach of contract—in respect of secondary action and in many other ways in 1980 and 1982.
The point of this amendment is to ask the Government right from the outset what they are about in Part II. Part II appears to deal with the need for a ballot where something is wrong with the industrial action which is taken, or to be taken. It deals with the case of an inducement of a breach of contract of employment or an inducement of interference with its performance. Perhaps I may very briefly put it in the following way. Those are Section 13(1) matters; they are within the exemption of Section 13(1), and therefore it is understandable if the Government say, "If you do not have a ballot, you lose that protection".
However, the Bill does not say that. It says that the protections of Section 13 shall be lost; that is to say, both Section 13(1) and Section 13(4). The subsection begins in Clause 7:
"Nothing in section 13 of the 1974 Act shall prevent an act … being actionable".
Section 13(4) is about something completely different from the matters with which Part II appears to deal. It deals with the situation where persons are liable at common law for what I might call a simple conspiracy; that is to say, civil liability for a combination that causes damage if the judges decide that the object of the combination is not legitimate, even though all the specific acts and means are themselves lawful.
This was recently referred to in the same case as I earlier mentioned to your Lordships, Lonrho v. Shell Petroleum 1981, in which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, admitted or, indeed, asserted that:
"conspiracy is a highly anomalous cause of action".
He gave reasons for that because, of course, today a combination by itself is not necessarily stronger than a unit when, as he put it,
"great businesses and multinational businesses are regarded as one entity, as one company".
But the House of Lords—and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, gave the judgment—said that it was too late to get rid of this anomaly, and we still have this liability in our law.
But I ask the Government this question. Is it not a manifest illustration of overkill or, as some would say, of getting at the unions in a way that the logic of the Bill does not demand, to get rid of all the remaining civil liability protection which rests in Section 13; that is to say, both protection against inducing breach of contract, which Part II is about, and protection against civil liability? The latter arises quite irrespective of breach of contracts of employment. It is nothing to do with that; it is simply a conspiracy which arises from an objective which the courts say is not legitimate and which, of course, the courts earlier in this century

699
decided included such things as strikes for a closed shop. Later the judges have come to feel that that probably is a legitimate objective at common law, but it is a very sensitive and tender area.
The case of Quinn v. Leathem in 1901 has not been wholly excluded by later decisions, such as that in the Crofters' case of 1942, and it seems quite unnecessary for the Government to antagonise and to introduce the element of liability for civil conspiracy merely because there has not been a strike ballot. We shall resist the rest of Part II as we go through and therefore this is by way of being a preliminary point. But although we shall resist it, I can see the logic of taking away protection against liability for inducing breach of contract if you do not have the ballot, because that is what Part II is about. But I cannot see, nor can my noble friends see, any logic at all in taking away the protection in a trade dispute against the old style civil conspiracy to injure, and on that basis I beg to move the amendment.
The Earl of Gowrie: I have to confess that I am in a bit of a quandary. I do not want to be needlessly obstructive to the noble Lord, and it may be that I am being obtuse rather than obstructive, but I cannot see that the noble Lord's amendments would have any practical effect, because Clause 7 of the Bill removes the immunity provided by Section 13 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974, as amended, in the absence of a ballot, but only in respect of the torts described in subsections (1) and (2) of the clause. As these torts are all contained within Section 13(1), the practical effect of the amendments would therefore be nil. Simply on grounds of ordinary good management, I would suggest that your Lordships resist them.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: That is a somewhat extraordinary reply, and I congratulate the noble Earl on giving it. Of course it would make a difference. But in order to illustrate the difference one would have to enter into a discussion on the part of the liability in Clause 7(1) which relates to interfering with the performance of a contract of employment. It is perfectly possible for a situation to arise where, the protection of the whole of Section 13 having been taken away, liability for civil conspiracy is an alternative ground of liability and even a further ground of liability to any which is there in subsections (1) and (2).
Indeed, the further point which should go on the record is this. If the noble Earl is right and the amendment to insert Section 13(1) would make no difference, why did not the Government do it? If the Government do not need to get rid of protection in Section 13(4) of the 1974 Act, why do they take away that protection? Of course it makes a difference. The Government know that very well and it is a bit of a sleight of hand for the Government to take away protection against conspiracy on the basis that it does not make any difference because it is dealing only with inducing breach of contract. That is a quite extraordinary argument. But we need to get on, and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.18 p.m.
The Earl of Gowrie The Earl of Gowrie moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 9, line 7, leave out ("reference to") and insert ("the support of").
The noble Earl said: With the permission of the Committee, I should like at the same time to speak to Amendments Nos. 57, 59, 63, 71 and 83 together.
Amendment No. 57: Page 9, line 25, leave out ("reference to") and insert ("the support of").
Amendment No. 59: Page 9, line 30, at end insert—
(" (aa) the majority of those voting in the ballot have answered "yes" to the appropriate question;").
Amendment No. 63: Page 9, line 37, at end insert—
(" (3A) In subsection (3)(aa) above "appropriate question" means—

(a) where the industrial action mentioned in subsection (3)(a) above is, or includes, a strike, the question referred to in subsection (4)(a) of section 8; and

(b) in any other case, that referred to in subsection (4)(b) of that section.").

Amendment No. 71: Page 10, line 25, leave out subsection (5).
Amendment No. 83: Clause 8, page 11, line 18, leave out subsection (5).
These amendments will make immunity for calling industrial action dependent on a trade union achieving the support of a majority of those voting in a ballot. As the Bill is presently drafted, a trade union need hold a properly conducted ballot only in order to retain immunity. When the provisions of this Bill were originally framed, it seemed scarcely credible that any trade union leader would call a strike after a ballot in which a majority of those voting had voted against such action. But, sadly, events have shown us that, in this fallen world, the scarcely credible can sometimes happen.
The requirement represented by these amendments does, I hope your Lordships will agree, do the absolute minimum which is necessary to guard against the possibility that trade unions can call their members out on strike against their wishes and still retain immunity. On that basis, I recommend these amendments to the Committee I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: I must congratulate the noble Earl on what I would say was possibly the most laconic address that he has given to this Committee on a matter of great importance in the area of trade union and labour relations. This is a very important amendment. We oppose this amendment not just because of what it contains, but because of what it symbolises. This is the first opportunity that we have to discuss Clause 7 of the Bill and, together with Clause 7, of course the provisions in Clause 8, which run together and constitute the heart of Part II of the Bill.
We oppose this late amendment, not simply because of what it says, but also because of the part which it plays in the general framework of the Bill. So what is wrong with the amendment is to some extent what is wrong with Clause 7. What is wrong with Clause 7 is that it seeks to introduce in the area of industrial action, together with Clause 8, the same highly detailed form of statutory regulation of trade union behaviour as we spent so much time discussing earlier this evening in this Committee.
Almost the same words are introduced in Part II of the Bill as are in Part I—the same restrictions, the

701
same conditions. In some ways there are, as we shall show as the Bill proceeds, more conditions, more restrictions, in respect of industrial action than there are in the case of trade union balloting. Worst of all, whereas in the case of balloting for union executives the Government at least had the decency to realise that trade unions will need a bit of time to get their rule books in conformity with Part I of the Bill, in Part II of the Bill—and we have an amendment dealing with this which we shall move subsequently in Committee—they give them no time at all. By summary jurisdiction, Part II of the Bill is to come into force in two months.
It is in that general context that we come to this amendment. This amendment is wrong because this part of the Bill is wrong. We are not suggesting that trade unions—and I shall turn to the case of the National Union of Mineworkers in a moment—have ballots, and that when they have ballots and those ballots go against industrial action they take industrial action anyway. I do not know—noble Lords opposite may know; I do not say that I know all these things of a trade union which has had a ballot, where the ballot has gone against industrial action and where the union has had industrial action anyway. The complaint that the Minister has against the NUM—and I shall come to the NUM—is that they have not had a ballot. It is not that they have had a ballot, the ballot has gone against a strike and they have struck anyway. I do not believe that it is politically possible for a union to hold a ballot, for that ballot to go against industrial action and for the executive, or whoever is charged under the union rule book, to call industrial action in defiance of the membership's expression of opinion.
I do not believe, in that limited sense, that this is a particularly important amendment, because what is wrong is Clause 7 of the Bill. This is the cherry on top. What is wrong with Clause 7 (apart from the particularly narrow provisions, which are almost exactly the same as the provisions in Part I and which extend not simply to Clause 7 but to Clause 8) is that it seeks to impose upon trade unions one way of dealing with the question whether or not there should be industrial action. A ballot is the answer. This is another example of what on a previous occasion we called "the Government's ballotomania".
Of course, there are circumstances in which the sensible way to consult members is through a ballot; and, of course, if you consult members through a ballot you will expect to get an affirmative response. Where the questions involved are relatively simple, where it is not essential to pose alternative courses of action, where there are large numbers of trade unionists involved, where many of them are difficult to contact, where there are multi-union procedures involved—in all these circumstances the answer is to have a ballot. But in other circumstances there is nothing wrong—and this is the difference between us—in trade unions deciding to use the instruments of representative democracy; to decide to have special conferences of delegates, or even shop floor meetings. We do not take the view that there is something inherently disgusting, unrepresentative and low about working men having a shop floor meeting.
I apologise if the noble Earl has heard this from me before, but I warned him the other day that he would
702
hear it again because I never get an answer. But the strange thing is that noble Lords opposite see nothing funny, or comic, or low, about the professional associations meeting in branches and sticking up their hands and taking decisions, or companies doing these things, or boards of directors. This is the way we take decisions in Parliament. We get together and walk through Lobbies. It is not disgusting or low for us: only for working men. When working men do it, then noble Lords opposite say, "It is impossible. It is terrible. It is being depraved. We must have a ballot". Our position is that working men are entitled to use direct democracy, and indirect elections, and they are entitled to put up their hands just like their middle-class equivalents. That is why we are against this part of the Bill, and that is why we oppose this amendment.
I come to the case of the National Union of Mineworkers. The noble Earl has made a great deal of the National Union of Mineworkers. We are told that the justification for the introduction of this amendment at this late stage is related to the miners' dispute. There are several points which could be made about the dispute with the National Union of Mineworkers and the National Coal Board. The first point I make—and I make it without being asked, though I would have thought by this time I would have been—is that in my opinion the National Executive Committee of the NUM would have been well advised before now to have held a ballot, because I think they would have won. Most of the indications, most of the surveys—most notably the one done for London Weekend—show that if the NUM had held a ballot at the right time they would have won that ballot, and that at least would have shut the Government up. I am sorry that the National Executive Committee of the NUM, did not hold a ballot. Whether or not it went in their favour, I believe that it has put them in an invidious position.
The second point I would make is that whether or not the NUM held a ballot has nothing to do with this part of the Bill. It has nothing to do with the amendment. If you think carefully, the complaints which the Government have and the complaints which opponents of the NUM have against what is happening in this dispute are not that there was not a ballot, or that there should have been a ballot: they really relate to what is happening in the circumstance in which there was not a ballot. What they really say is that the attempts of those who are on strike to picket out those who are not prepared to strike are wrong, and in particular are being carried out in unlawful ways. That is their argument; that is the dispute. It has nothing to do with whether or not you hold ballots.
The third point I would make is that in law, in particular in this law or any other law—and there is plenty of law about—if there is a law which noble Lords opposite know which would help to settle the dispute with the National Coal Board, then they had better say what it is. The significant thing about this dispute is that there is a great deal of action going on which everybody admits in unlawful, and the existing law is only to a very limited extent being used in order to affect the conduct of this dispute.
I am not standing at this Dispatch Box and saying that the law should be used. So far as the criminal law

703
is concerned, that is a matter for the police. So far as the civil law is concerned, and as the Government have said over and over again—even if I do not believe it, it is convenient to believe it at this moment—that is a matter for the National Coal Board. But there is plenty of law about.
In a situation in which the dispute continues and is not brought to an end nor, as far as one can see, very much assisted by the criminal law or by at all, the civil law, then it ill behoves the Government to come to us and say that they want more laws—and in particular that they want this law, because of what is going on between the National Union of Mineworkers and the National Coal Board.
That will not do. It will not fit. This is an attempt to introduce an additional provision into a Bill that is already unjustifiable, illiberal and anti-union. I do not suggest that the provision itself is particularly significant, because I do not believe that trade unions have ballots, find that they do not have majorities and then go on strike anyway. To believe that is to have no notion of what trade unions do. There is no reason why we should increase the number of ways in which trade unions will be regulated by the Bill, and we oppose this amendment.
8.31 p.m.
Lord Rochester: On the Second Reading of this Bill, I said that my noble friends and I endorsed the principle underlying Part II of this Bill. By that, I meant that, wherever feasible, ballots should precede strikes. But we were seriously concerned that the effect of Clause 7 would in practice be to encourage more unofficial industrial action in the form of walk-outs, working to rule, going slow, and so on.
In the various debates there have been in this House during the past few years on the subject of mandatory, pre-strike ballots, we have constantly maintained that they are likely to prove counter-productive. This view has powerful backing, starting with the report of the Donovan Commission which pointed out, among other things—and I quote from paragraph 427 of the report—that:
"A law forbidding strike action before the holding of a secret ballot could not be enforced in the case of small-scale unofficial stoppages which make up the overwhelming majority of the total number of strikes".
Yet that, in my view, is precisely the position to which we may well be brought by this clause.
If noble Lords will read the response to the Government's legislative proposals made, for example, by the Institute of Personnel Management, whose members have to grapple with these problems from day to day, in the front line, the Committee will see what I mean.
The institute fear that the effect of the Bill will be to divert open strike action into underground tactics of non co-operation—which in their view are much harder to deal with and more destructive of relationships with employees. There is also the danger that, if in every case there is a requirement that ballots should be held before strikes can with immunity begin, then there may be a corresponding insistence on the part of trade unions that ballots must be held also before strikes are called off.
704
As to the particular amendment before us, we have been told that it has been introduced by the Government as a result of what has happened in the current miners' dispute. In this Committee, I am entitled to say that I have been as outspoken as anyone in condemning the way in which the rules of the National Union of Mineworkers were manipulated in order to avoid a country-wide ballot before strike action was taken. But whether the words to be used in Clause 7 are,
"without reference to a ballot",
or,
"without the support of a ballot",
they are, in my view, unnecessary for the Government's purpose. Legal sanctions are already available, under the 1980 and 1982 Employment Acts, to deal with the secondary picketing that has occurred in the current dispute. They have not yet been used but they are there—ready if needed.
However, the problem does not concern only major national strikes or industrial action in essential services. In my view, the Government are here barking up the wrong tree. The fundamental flaw in Clause 7 is that the harder it is made to conduct official strikes, the greater will be the inducement to engage in unofficial action. Under this amendment, there will have to be a ballot in which a trade union will need the support of a majority of those voting before it can with immunity authorise or endorse industrial action involving breaking a contract of employment or interference with the performance of that contract.
But a great many strikes start in the heat of the moment—and when that moment comes, my fear is that union members will not hang about waiting for a ballot—they will vote with their feet, and they will walk out. The irony of it is is that, by doing so, they themselves will be immune from legal action. Even if that does not happen, ballots will take time to organise, so many disputes will take longer to resolve. It follows that Clause 7 is likely to have the effect of both encouraging and prolonging unofficial action.
Certainly I am not legal luminary. All I can do is to make available to the Committee such first-hand industrial experience of these matters as I have. My fear is that in the nitty-gritty handling of these disputes on the shop floor. Clause 7—and Amendment No. 50 as part of it—will prove damaging to industrial relations in this country. Therefore, in this instance I cannot support the Government.
Lord Mottistone: The interesting point about the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord McCarthy and Lord Rochester, is that neither of them tackled the problem of intimidation of the ordinary person who is a trade unionist. I believe this is an important factor—and one that has grown rather than decreased in importance in recent years. It is probably fair to say that the difficult task which the Govenment have in trying to strike the right balance is entirely in order to protect the person who does not want to become involved in whatever action is proposed, for whatever reason.
I do not feel that it was right of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, to compare the unions and their ballots with your Lordships' voting in this House. We are all volunteers. Sometimes, we are intimidated by our

705
Chief Whips. But if we really do not like the Chief Whip, we can go away. However, if I am working in a closed shop, I do not have that option. So it is a different situation. There are all kinds of other examples. From working in industry for the past 15 or 16 years—not just recently—I have known people who just want to get on and work and who are not particularly keen to become involved in a strike that may well have not commercial but political overtones. One has to bear that in mind.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, knows, I have great sympathy with a lot of what he has to say. But if I may be so bold, part of what he had to say might have been based on his experience of a few years ago. I have noticed how things have changed and how the attitudes of people in industry have changed over the past few years. One has to balance this situation so that the ordinary person is not open to intimidation.
Lord McCarthy: Before the noble Lord sits down—and he is a fair and reasonable man—I wonder whether he would care to give me an example of the kind of intimidation that he has talked about.
Lord Mottistone: Yes, I can give an early one. That was when there was a strike in Swindon in the late 1960s at one of the subsidiaries of British Leyland (or whatever it was called at that stage) which produced bodies for motor cars. I had a couple of friends in my village who were employed in this company. They were totally against what they had been ordered to do but they were equally totally terrified of standing up against this at all. They were quite ordinary chaps, they were very sensible; they knew very well that if they were on strike for x weeks, they would lose so much money that that would more than sweep away what they were being asked to strike for. To me it was really rather dreadful that these simple people who knew the facts of life, had not the courage, if you like, to stand up. You only have to deal with lots of people to find that. I could go on.
There are many examples that I could quote your Lordships from over the past 15 years, but you would not want me to do that. You would not want to be here all night. But it does happen, and it is not right to say that it does not happen. In recent months and weeks, after all, we have seen an enormous amount of intimidation by the National Union of Mineworkers. Do not get it wrong—it is intimidation; it is as simple as that.
Lord McCarthy: I am not talking about the National Union of Mineworkers. The example that the noble Lord gives seems to me to consist of people cavilling at a majority decision.
The Earl of Gowrie: I think the Committee knows that I have a high regard and respect for the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, and I enjoy in general debating with him. But when two people are debating they must start from some sense of common actuality or some generally agreed premise. To use what is in my case a rather unnatural sporting metaphor, the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, and I can either go hunting for
706
pigeons for game and for the pot or we can go clay-pigeon shooting to see which of us is the better shot. We cannot go out together, with the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, thinking that he is going to bring down the clay pigeons and me thinking I am going to obtain dinner. This, I think, is what has happened in respect of the debate that we have had so far.
I am not against representative democracy. I am, if you like, a curious exemplar of it, as are many of your Lordships. But what we are dealing with here, as my noble friend Lord Mottistone has reminded us, is representations to the Government over many years both to the Government as a government and to the Government as the executive representatives of a political party, that working men and women in this country do not like their form of representative democracy. They make this quite clear to nearly all parties. They made it clear to the Labour Party and when the Labour Party ignored them they made it clear by deserting the Labour Party in droves. They have made it clear to the Social Democratic and Liberal Alliance, and it will not have escaped your Lordships that there has been considerable bidding for this vote on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and his friends.
They have made it clear that they do not like all the decisions that are taken in their name, not because they have theories about representative democracy or because they are that interested in some of internal politics of unions or because they are that interested in some of the political arguments that unions have with governments, whichever Government is in power. They do not like it because, as my noble friend Lord Mottistone reminded us, it can precisely affect their lives. It can affect what they earn, how much employment there is and also whether or not they are able to work. Therefore it seems to me that we are talking about something a lot more serious than a somewhat notional debate about representative versus direct democracy.
The aim of this Bill is partially to correct some very plain and very widely agreed abuses in the field of representative democracy of the kind whereby officials of ASTMS are elected by fewer than 2 per cent. of the vote; and the sort of instances we itemised when we went into Part I. In the case of the miners in dispute with the NUM, this dispute and the lessons learned from it helped persuade the Government to bring through these amendments. The Nottinghamshire miners voted 3 to 1 against strike action. At least five other areas voted the same way. Yet the leaders of those areas, which are constitutionally trade unions in their own right, instructed the members not to cross picket lines; that is, they instructed them to act in breach of their contracts of employment. That I think says it all in the case of the miners—or all, except from one thing. This is not—and we have sought to argue throughout that it is not—a punitive measure. The Bill is not retrospective. The Part II provisions cover industrial actions organised after they come into effect—that is, two months after Royal Assent—but not actions organised before that date.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, has attempted to play down the pressures on trade union members to take industrial action against their wishes. Again, this was a point which was very well raised by my noble

707
friend. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, called for examples. Let me give him one. During the so-called TUC day of action in September 1982, the National Graphical Association instructed all its members to strike for one day in support of health service workers. No ballot was held and no other form of membership consultation took place. Some 30,000 NGA members defied the strike call but many others did go on strike after threats of expulsion and dismissal if they did not do so. As a result, as the NGA Journal recorded in November 1982, letters poured into it on the issue. One member wrote:
"For the first time in 35 years' membership I came face to face with union bully-boy tactics ordering me to throw aside my conscience, walk away from my job, dishonour my contract of employment, break the law, all in the cause of confronting a democratically-elected government".
Another wrote:
"I would like the National Council to explain to the ordinary members what gives them the right to call us out on strike without a ballot or even consultation of the rank-and-file members".
When it is losing pay, losing employment, risking the livelihood of oneself and one's neighbour, I think we are involved in a far more serious arena than we are when we are debating the pros and cons of different forms of representation.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, seemed to take the view that the Bill would encourage unofficial action. I find this argument rather difficult to swallow. I have had many dealings with the Institute of Personnel Management and I have a very high regard for them. In my other job, I am at present personnel manager, so to say, of 630,000 people through the Civil Service. I do not think that these Government amendments which make immunity for calling industrial action dependent upon a trade union achieving the support of a majority of those voting in a ballot anything which would give a personnel manager worth his or her salt much to be anxious about.
The argument of the noble Lord would seem to suggest that trade union leaders would be quite content to let control of events slip from their hands. Surely this is unreasonable. As the Engineering Employers Federation, in its response to our Green Paper, said:
"With increasing union appreciation that their primary responsibilities lie in the industrial rather than the political field, unions will be increasingly forced to address themselves to becoming regarded by employers as serious, competent and reliable bargaining partners. They will not be so regarded if they acquiesce in an extension of unofficial industrial action".
I should not wish to underestimate the damage that unofficial strikes can cause, but I would venture to suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, may be living a little too much in the past. Unofficial strikes are no longer the predominant form of industrial action which they were considered to be at the time of the Donovan report. Days lost reportedly due to unofficial action which averaged around two-thirds of the total in the period 1973 to 1978 had declined to only about one-quarter in the period 1979 to 1982. As the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, himself said, very fairly, during the debates on the 1980 Act:
"Unofficial, unconstitutional strikes have"—
this was the inference—
708
"been replaced by official mass industrial actions—above all mass industrial actions in parts of the public sector. These are the kinds of confrontations which we have had since 1970—large numbers of working days lost and a few important strikes, particularly in the public sector".
One does not have to be a very astute political analyst to be able to make a distinction between the general industrial landscape at the moment—its relative calm, its increased productivity and its real and well founded anxieties about international competitiveness and the degree to which one now has to be competitive at home and abroad to maintain employment—and the "battle", (though I would prefer if this "battle" were not happening) between the public sector industries and ultimately the Government as paymasters and as representatives of a somewhat different, from their point of view, political set of priorities.
The fact is that it would simply have been impracticable to have attempted to cover unofficial action in the Bill. As the Green Paper on trade union democracy pointed out, no country has legislated for ballots for all strikes. It would surely be impossible to impose effective statutory requirements on the unofficial strike organisers or leaders themselves, since they would often be unidentifiable, or could easily be made so. It would be highly unreasonable to impose such a requirement on the union. Unofficial action is often so short lived that there would be no time for the union to organise a ballot, even assuming it knew of the existence of the unofficial action. It would, moreover, be extremely illogical to require a union to seek a demonstration of support for industrial action which it had refused to support or indeed had publicly disowned. The fact that it would have been impracticable to bring unofficial action within the scope of the Bill in no sense diminishes the crucial importance of ensuring that official action does not take place before members are consulted.
We understand the real world. Of course we know that tempers can flare, or that people can walk out, but it is not people walking out as a result of flared tempers that brings whole industries to a standstill or threatens jobs in other sectors not connected with the official dispute. From the point of view also of the union member, there is a major difference between official and unofficial action. An official strike call is backed up with the threat of disciplinary action against anyone who disobeys. In a closed shop, the threat of expulsion from a union can carry with it the threat of a loss of a job. So the Government believe that it is intolerable that union members should be exposed to the threat of disciplinary action when they have been denied the right to say in a ballot whether or not they think a strike is justified.
As I said in my original speech, the requirement represented by these amendments does, in my view, the absolute minimum which is necessary to guard against the possibility that trade unions can call their members out on strike against their wishes and still retain immunity. The criticism to which the Government are vulnerable is surely that they are proceding as cautiously as they are. On that sensible and cautious basis, I recommend the amendments to your Lordships.
8.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 50) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 80; Not-Contents, 42.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Hatherton, L.

Avon, E.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Bauer, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Bellwin, L.

Kilmany, L.

Beloff, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Belstead, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Kitchener, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Brookes, L.

Long, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Broxbourne, L.

McFadzean, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Caccia, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Merrivale, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mersey, V.

Cockfield, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Coleraine, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Crathorne, L.

Norfolk, D.

De La Warr, E.

Pender, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Denning, L.

Reay, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Renton, L.

Eccles, V.

Romney, E.

Elles, B.

Savile, L.

Elton, L.

Sharples, B.

Faithfull, B.

Shaughnessy, L.

Forbes, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fortescue, E.

Stamp, L.

Gainford, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Tranmire, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Gowrie, E.

Trumpington, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Greenway, L.

Vickers, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Wynford, L.

Halsbury, E.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Attlee, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Aylestone, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Birk, B.

Lockwood, B.

Bottomley, L.

Longford, E.

Brockway, L.

McCarthy, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Collison, L.

Mayhew, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Phillips, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Rochester, L.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Seear, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Stedman, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Hampton, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hanworth, V.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stone, L.

Hooson, L.

Underhill, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Wigoder, L.

Jeger, B.

Winstanley, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
9.3 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 9, line 8, leave out ("whether or not")
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, with Amendment No. 51 may we take Amendment No. 54, which pretty well deals with the same issue?
Amendment No. 54: Page 9, line 12, leave out ("whether or not")
During the debates we have had on previous amendments the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, referred to unofficial strikes and to the fact that he thought that this legislation would act as an incentive to those taking place. The noble Earl, I thought quite mistakenly, drew the other conclusion. In my opinion, these two amendments are necessary, not only to give protection to trade union officials involved in official strikes but, if the Act is interpreted in certain ways, to give them protection if they are involved in unofficial strikes. We do not accept that the Bill as it stands is a sensible way to proceed, and we suggest that the linked amendments are a more fair and equitable way of proceeding in this matter.
The Government having gone so far in this Bill, with the exception of the amendment they lost to their own Back-Benchers, some Cross-Benchers and some Members of the minority parties, will probably have their way. But I would ask the noble Minister: does he really believe that, as the Bill stands, a trade union official at local or national level, or, for that matter, a shop steward, should be liable if he believes he has acted in accordance with the law as it then stands and is found wanting through mistakes not of his own making?
We are asking, in the event of a person being in that position, that their immunity should be retained because a lot of these trade union members, at the most important point of the ballot being cast, are not full-time trade union officials. A lot of them work in the factories and are paid collectors or paid shop stewards; and I know from my experience that the lower echelons of trade union officers, and certainly in the factories where shop stewards do an unpaid job, are invaluable both to management and to their own members.
It always follows that where you have a good structure in a factory with a good works committee manned by good shop stewards—and I am not talking about militant shop stewards who go over the top—it leads to a diminution in unofficial strikes, because that, in the main, is where unofficial strikes start. I would hope that the Government would look kindly on these two amendments. I do not know whether, throughout his lifetime, any other noble Lord—and I know that some, like myself, have had very humble beginnings—has been involved in unofficial strikes. I had my first one when I was, I think, 15. If your Lordships were to ask me now what it was about, I would not know, but it was an apprentices strike in the engineering industry.
There was such an engineering strike by the apprentices during the last war. The engineers had a 3s. a week increased settlement and the apprentices received nothing. At the time, I was serving my apprenticeship in an armaments factory, and there was a national strike called by the apprentices. It was

711
spontaneous, it lasted about a week and it ended very quickly because we were all sent our calling-up papers. That was a type of action that was very effective.
But if any members of the Government or any of their supporters think that they will reduce industrial action, they are barking up the wrong tree. I have been involved in a few strikes, but I can recall being involved in only one strike which could be termed "official" under the provisions of this Bill. As I have said, my union, the AUEW, is among the most democratic in the trade union movement; but I can recall only one or two occasions when they balloted. However, I had recourse to unofficial action when speed was of the essence in determining whether or not we won or lost a very important issue.
The last time that I had recourse to go out on unofficial action, I was not a shop steward. Over 20,000 people worked in that factory and they thought that the shop steward, who had represented them for a number of years and who was a good shop steward, had been dismissed quite arbitrarily and unfairly by the management. Strangely enough, the chairman of the works committee, who was a very distinguished trade unionist, was not greatly in sympathy with those who took the other view. But the end result was that over 50 per cent. of the factory went on strike against the advice of the works committee and I was not a member.
I put this to the Minister: what is now the position of someone in the position of that convenor? If this Bill becomes law to the letter, as it is written, we shall have the situation where a person who advises members not to take part in unofficial action may well—and perhaps the Minister will tell me whether this is so—be liable. I explained in commencing these few remarks on these two very important amendments that there is no question at all that the Government, even with their obvious lack of enthusiasm—I hate to use the word "dislike"—for the trade union movement, want to see trade unions organised and run at the top and lower down, as well as in the middle strata, by men of character, men of ability and men of sincerity. However, if this Bill is left as it is, with immunity stripped from them on occasions because of something which happens and to which they may be directly opposed, it will be a disincentive for people to go for those positions. I repeat that if the Government think that this Bill is a recipe for ending or reducing unofficial strikes, I believe it will act as a catalyst the other way. I beg to move.
Lord Rochester: Before the noble Lord sits down, he talked of speaking to two amendments. I may have missed his first words, but was he speaking to Amendments Nos. 51 and 54?
Lord Dean of Beswick: Yes.
Lord Rochester: I, too, am concerned about this point in subsection (1). It is plain from the wording that loss of immunity can apply not only to the action of a trade union but also to that of a local union
712
official. Section 15 of the 1982 Employment Act describes the circumstances in which authorisation or endorsement of the relevant action takes place and my fear is that the union representative, instead of responding readily to calls for help in trying to solve problems, will in future do so reluctantly or even not at all.
Under this Bill, if he makes some mistake in conducting a ballot—for example, by failing to send somebody a ballot paper—the matter can be taken to court. The union's funds will be at risk and the union official will take the can. He will therefore have to watch his step pretty closely. Moreover, the members of his union who are involved in the dispute may themselves discourage his help, lest he is inculpated and their union is thus disadvantaged. This provision in the Bill does not seem to me to be the best recipe for retaining that flexible, sensible, informal handling of relationships on the shop floor which has hitherto enabled many disputes to be settled within a few days. I fear that they will now last longer and, because attitudes will then harden, they may become more difficult to resolve. For that reason, I support the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, in the amendment which he has just moved.
Viscount Long: One fact which has emerged clearly from the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, is that he and I are too old to get our call-up papers, so we can settle down to the Trade Union Bill. I noted the noble Lord's worries, and those of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester.
Clause 7 removes the immunity provided by Section 13 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974, as amended, where in effect a trade union authorises or endorses a call for industrial action without first holding a ballot of the members concerned.
Your Lordships will know that, in practice, the courts do not normally take enforcement proceedings only against individual officials where it is possible to proceed against the union itself. There is normally a more effective remedy against the union in the form of fines and, if necessary, sequestration of assets, than against individual officials who may be men of straw. But general secretaries and other officials may be added as defendants to proceedings and named in injunctions alongside their unions, and the principle stands that officials are personally liable for unlawful acts committed on behalf of their union and may be proceeded against for contempt of court for disobedience of its orders. The Government can see no reason to lessen the burden of personal responsibility which these officials should be prepared to shoulder.
In conclusion, the Government see no reason to depart from the rules governing liability previously laid down in the 1982 Act. The phrase "whether or not against the trade union" in Clause 7(1) and (2) is required simply to provide certainty for the courts, and the Government believe that it should be retained. I hope the noble Lord will be satisfied with that answer and will withdraw his amendment.
On Question, amendment negatived.
9.17 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 9, line 10, leave out ("or to interfere with its performance").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 52, in connection with which, with the Committee's leave, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 55, 56, 58, 67, 68, 69, 74 and 77.
Amendment No. 55: Page 9, line 14, leave out ("or to interfere with its performance").
Amendment No. 56: Page 9, line 18, leave out ("or to interfere with its performance").
Amendment No. 58: Page 9, line 29, leave out ("or interference").
Amendment No. 67: Page 10, line 15, leave out ("or to interfere with its performance").
Amendment No. 68: Page 10, line 20, leave out ("or interference").
Amendment No. 69: Page 10, line 22, leave out ("or interference").
Amendment No. 74: Page 10, line 32, leave out (", or to interfere with the performance of,").
Amendment No. 77: Page 10, line 42, leave out ("or to interfere with its performance").
It can therefore be seen that these amendments deal with a central thread in Part II of the Bill. Some of the amendments relate to Clause 8, though most relate to Clause 7. The industrial action to which Part II is directed is always described as that which involves inducing a breach of the contracts of employment of the workers concerned, or inducing interference with the performance of those contracts. This is a fundamental matter. The amendments would leave the Bill with what we believe is the area which, on the Government's premise, is the proper area; namely, where workers break their contracts of employment. They would take out the part which says "interference with performance", which, by definition, is an interference with performance and is not a breach.
It is necessary to place on record the position of the law on this matter. I shall do so as quickly as possible and, if I may, by way of an example which we could use for the rest of this part of the Bill when these matters arise. I shall take the example of my employing the noble Earl under a contract of employment. Just to be impartial about it, I shall also take the example of my noble friend Lord McCarthy intervening and doing something to upset that employment.
There are two basic ways in which my noble friend would be liable at common law. Liability number one would be where he knowingly and intentionally induces a breach of the contract of employment; for example, where he persuaded the noble Earl to go with him for a drink and, therefore, miss his working hours. Liability number two would be where my noble friend Lord McCarthy intervened and interfered with its performance by unlawful means. Some of the cases give the example of where my noble friend Lord McCarthy kidnaps the noble Earl; and that would be unlawful means. Perhaps a more realistic example is where the noble Earl required special tools to do a job and my noble friend Lord McCarthy unlawfully stole the tools. Again, that would be unlawful means. In the Bill, interference with performance is neither of those liabilities. It is an interference with a performance where there are no unlawful means as such; otherwise,
714
the Bill would say so. Indeed, from previous debates it is clear that the Government agree.
In recent decades a third possible liability in common law has been suggested. Indeed, I must put it higher than that. In the case of Torquay Hotel Co. Ltd. v. Cousins in 1969, reported in the second volume of Chancery Division reports, in the Court of Appeal the then Master of the Rolls, the noble Lord, Lord Denning, said this:
"The time has come when the principle should be further extended to cover a deliberate and direct interference with the execution of a contract without that causing any breach".
He went on to make it clear that this interference, which would not be by any unlawful means such as stealing the tools, could be one which prevented or hindered performance, but must be deliberate and direct.
That liability has since been a matter of much debate. With respect, it is an extension. Indeed, if I may say so with no disrespect, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, differed from some of his judicial brethren in that when he was extending the liabilities of the common law he said so. Some of them did not, but he always did. He said in Torquay Hotel Co. Ltd. v. Cousins:
"It is time that the principle should be extended and liability extended".
That is very different from the liabilities as understood before and, by some, since. For example, in the case of Allen v. Flood, Lord Herschell said, on page 121 of 1891 Appeal Cases:
"A study of the case of Lumley v. Gye in 1853"
the case where inducing breach of contract was confirmed as a liability—
"has satisfied me that in that case the majority of the court regarded the circumstance that what the defendant procured was a breach of contract as the essence of the cause of action".
Had the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor been here I would have dared to quote the chapter in Clerk and Lindsell, on Torts, of which I am myself the editor, because the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said in 1980 that it was a very good chapter. I can perhaps say, even in his absence, that the conclusion reached there has not encountered total disfavour when it said, at page 710:
"It must remain questionable whether the new extended tort exists."
It is therefore a matter of dispute.
There are two matters to be cleared out of the way immediately. Sometimes it is said that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, recently gave approbation to this extended liability—the third liability—in the case of Merkur Island Corporation v. Laughton, in the second volume of 1983 Appeal Cases, where he cited Lord Denning with approval in the Torquay Hotel case. But without citing them—although I will if need be—at pages 607, 608 and 609 of that report it is clear (indeed, it is stated) that the liability in that case was a liability for interference with the contracts involved by unlawful means. I merely state what Lord Diplock says at page 607:
"The contract the performance of which was interfered with was the charter; the form the interference took was immobilising the ship in Liverpool".
He then says:
"The unlawful means by which the interference was effected was by procuring the tugmen and the lockmen to break their contracts of employment".
So that was liability number two; interference by unlawful means.
Then it is said by the Government that they are entitled to insert what I might call mere interference, liability number three—the questionable one—into this Bill because interference appeared in the formulation of the immunities in 1974, and, like most Governments, they therefore claim the protection of the arguments of Governments of another colour, by saying, "You did it, so we're doing it". What happened in 1974 was that, it being uncertain that the third liability would ultimately be approved by the noble and learned Lords' Judicial Committee of this House, the legality of strikes and industrial action was preserved both against inducing breach of contracts and against interference with contracts in case the latter liability should be confirmed by the judges. That is a normal thing to do, and has been normal since 1906, in granting immunities.
Indeed, Lord Reid said in the case of Rookes v. Barnard, at page 1177 of 1964 Appeal Cases—and this is a very important proposition for this debate—
"Parliament had to provide for the possibility that mere interference if no legal justification were proved would be held to be a tort and I think that what Parliament did in enacting the second part of Section 3"—
which was somewhat the equivalent of parts of Section 13(1) and (2)—
"was to put in a provision which would be necessary to achieve their object if the law should go one way but unnecessary if it went the other way".
That is the law as held by the judges.
This Bill does not do only that. By using interference all the way through, by using interference as the basis of what is said to be wrongful industrial action, this Bill not only reshapes and moulds the immunity (it does that of course) but it also confirms by parliamentary implication the common law liability. It is therefore a most important piece of legislation in terms of liability in the civil law. We say that it is quite wrong, first of all, to do it in this way, and, secondly, that it is quite wrong in industrial terms to put it in, because this is a fiercely practical matter.
I have said a word about the law, and I shall say a word now about the practice, and leave it at that. It is a practical matter. Think what we are discussing. We are talking about someone who organises a stoppage of work, and we are saying to the Government, "All right, if that is in breach of the workers' contracts of employment, we don't agree with your ballot arrangements, but we see that's what you're after. But if it's not in breach, then what kind of interference are you aiming at?" Let us suppose that you have workers who are there and who normally work overtime. Indeed, let us take an example: the noble Earl, employed by me, is one of a group of workers on the Front Bench opposite, who normally work overtime, as I am sure they would and they do. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, comes along and says, "Come along, you are none of you obliged by your contracts, you know,
716
to work overtime. You normally do on a Saturday. The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, because he is a trusting employer, thinks you are going to work overtime this Saturday, but there's no need to. Tell him you're not going to and come to the Cup Final or the Gold Cup at Ascot with me".
We say that if workers are not obliged to work overtime, then not to work it is not wrongful. For someone to come along, without unlawful means of course—if they are kidnapped, it is a different matter—and say, "Don't do what you're not obliged to do under your contracts", is not wrongful. This Bill, if it goes on the statute book in its present form, will clearly be used by those judges who wish to confirm the third doubtful and questionable liability as a confirmation of that liability, which is not an argument that can be properly used in terms of a mere immunity, as in the 1974 or 1906 Acts, as Lord Reid made clear.
In another place the Government sometimes, but rarely, seemed to say that the interference was different from a breach of contract. I have seven or eight citations from the Minister of State, Mr. Gummer, where he clearly says that we are dealing only with breach of contract of employment. Indeed—and this is the last point, which is perhaps the most worrying for the Government—when it came to Report in another place, so worried were they that interference was either meaningless or something that they could not grasp, the Minister of State, who, on 16th February had given an undertaking that he would reconsider the issue of interference in the Bill, took the issue of interference out of the questions, so that workers do not have to be asked under the Bill whether they will go on strike by way of interference with their contracts of employment. They have to be asked whether they will go on strike in breach of their contracts of employment. Your Lordships will find that when you come to Clause 8(4)(a) and (b). Now, having dropped interference from the questions, the logical thing for the Government to do is to drop interference from this part of the Bill, especially since they do not seem to be able to tell us precisely what it is that interference covers.
There was one attempt—and I must deal with it because it is very important—by the Minister of State when he gave this example on 7th of February. He said that a road haulage company might include in its drivers' employment contracts a force majeure clause absolving them from complying with its general terms where to do so involved crossing picket lines. Failure to cross a picket line in those circumstances would not therefore be likely to involve a breach of contract by the drivers, but it is reasonable to suppose that the courts might hold that they acted unlawfully in inducing the lorry drivers to interfere with the performance of their employment contracts.
With respect, the Minister of State did not take account of the judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, in the Merkur case of 1983 where, at page 608, he spoke of just such a case in these terms:
"All prevention"—
that is, prevention by unlawful means—
"of due performance of a primary obligation under a contract was intended to be included even though no secondary obligation to make monetary compensation"—
that is, to pay damages—
"came into existence, because that second obligation was excluded by some force majeure clause".
In other words, it is still a breach but you do not have to pay damages for it. So first in law it is not a proper or sensible thing for the Government to do. Secondly, in industrial practice if it means anything it means extending the obligations of workers by impliedly saying they must do things which they are not contractually bound to do.
Lastly, just simply as a matter of consistency in the Bill, having dropped interference from the questions, if I can cite the speeches of the Minister of State on that question of the questions, it gives the game away: it shows that the Government must surely drop interference from the rest of this Bill. It is therefore both a legal and a practical matter and a matter of logic in the Bill itself. It is a most important question in the way in which the Bill will be appreciated to work by those on the ground in industry. I beg to move.
9.32 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: Regarding "or to interference with performance" reminds me of what killed the Clyde. I went on television in a discussion about this with a character called Jimmy Reid, who was a Communist. That is beside the point, but may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, whether he does include in "interfering with performance", the go slow we had in the Clyde so many years ago? We had these go-slows the whole time, which killed the Clyde. That interference with performance is not legal. Surely, if you have shop stewards and agitators, who make the workers, through intimidation, go slow, that is a breach of the law. If it is not, it certainly should be. I can understand the noble Lord's point about overtime. I quite agree that, if a worker does not want to perform his overtime, that is up to him. But if, in his working hours, he goes slow, is that not a breach of performance? I should have thought it was.
Lord Denning: May I say a word about this? I know that for 100 years it has been actionable to induce a breach of a contract of employment. It was in 1967 or 1968 that we had a case of Torquay Hotels v. Cousins. In that case, it had not been a breach of contract of employment but it had been prevented or hindered by stopping supplies to a hotel in Torquay. I ventured to suggest then in the Court of Appeal that it was actionable to interfere or to induce interference resulting in a breach of a contract—not only to make the breach but to interfere with the contract's performance, to prevent or hinder its performance. My noble friend rather suggested that I was alone on that. Afterwards, in Stratford v. Lindley, Lord Reid presiding in the House of Lords agreed with me, and, in a recent case, the Merkur case, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, agreed with me. I should like to say that it is now established in our law that not only is it actionable to induce a breach of contract, but it is also actionable to interfere with its performance or
718
to prevent or hinder its performance. If this Bill supplies some confirmation of that view, I am only too glad to find it in the Bill.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, in his text book, Clerk and Lindsell on Torts, has thrown a little doubt among us. I hope that your Lordships will not take any notice of doubts so expressed. This is a very valuable book. The words relating to interference go back to the 1906 Act, appear again in 1974 and are now here once more. It is a very good thing that, in Parliament, this House should recognise that there is such a wrong as interfering with the performance of a contract. I hope that the Committee will reject all the amendments.
The Earl of Gowrie: The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, wishes to employ me and the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, wishes to kidnap me. I had no idea that I was such a desirable property to the Benches opposite. The fact is that this group of amendments would remove from among the grounds on which a union would be liable in tort, in the absence of a ballot, acts of inducing someone to interfere with the performance of a contract. The tort of inducing a person to interfere with the performance of a contract is established in case law. Immunity is provided by the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act, as amended. The essence of the Government's case is that we can see no reason for preserving that immunity where a union is not prepared to hold a ballot.
Dealing with one or two specific points made by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, and having outlined the general Government case, I think that the judicial position has moved on somewhat from what was stated by Lord Reid in the case of Rookes v. Barnard. In the recent House of Lords decision in Merkur Island Shipping v. Laughton, reported in 1983, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, confirmed—this was echoed just now by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning—that,
"All prevention of due performance of a primary obligation under a contract was intended to be included even though no secondary obligation to make monetary compensation thereupon came into existence, because the secondary obligation was excluded by some force majeure clause. Lord Denning stated the principle thus, 'there must be interference in the execution of a contract. The interference is not confined to the procurement of a breach of contract. It extends to a case where a third person prevents or hinders one party from performing his contract, even though it be not a breach' ".
Lord Diplock continued:
"Parliamentary recognition that the tort of actionable interference with contractual rights is as broad as Lord Denning stated [in that passage] is, in my view, to be found in section 13(1) of the 1974 Act itself, which refers to inducement not only 'to break a contract' but also 'to interference with its performance'".
The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, also mentioned the removal of interference with the performance of contracts from the ballot question. It was following suggestions from the Opposition themselves that reference to interference with the performance of contracts was unnecessarily technical that the Government agreed to remove it from the formulation in Clause 8(4). There was no technical need for it to be there and the Government therefore acceded to the Opposition's suggestion. However, this has no bearing

719
on the trade unions' liability for committing the tort itself. It is in respect of that tort being committed without a ballot that the Government's case rests. The Government believe that all forms of industrial action should be preceded by a ballot: hence the purpose of this Bill. We make no apology for hoping that this will become so progressively, and therefore I cannot recommend to the Committee to accept any amendment which would lessen the chances of that hope being fulfilled.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: If I may say so, the noble Earl has just committed—I almost said the sin—the fact of reading a passage from the middle of a judgment without explaining its context. I should like to take just three points to reply to what has been said. The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, gave the example of a go slow. Of course, he is right in saying that if workers are going slower than they should under their contracts, then that is a breach of contract.
The Earl of Gowrie: It was the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. It is the need to cover these things with speed that sometimes makes one go too slowly. Going slow may be a breach of contract, and often is. For example, as I always tell students, it is very difficult to know whether that most sophisticated form of industrial action—working without enthusiasm—is a breach of a contract of employment. It depends on how much enthusiasm one is contractually obliged to show.
When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, says that the new tort is clearly established, with the greatest respect for the noble and learned Lord, I cannot agree; nor do the cases that he cites, for a very simple reason—that Stratford v. Lindley in 1965 involved unlawful means causing the interference, and Lord Reid's judgment relates to that; and, up to the House of Lords, the Merkur case was pleaded as, was argued as, and was judged as a case where there was unlawful means. One has to read, not what the noble Earl read—the passage in the middle of page 608, as I am sure he knows—but the whole of pages 607 to 609. I will read only the last two words on page 609, where Lord Diplock says that the evidence establishes a prima facie case of the common law tort of interfering with the trade or business of another person by doing "unlawful acts".
The essence of the new tort is that it is inducing interference with the performance of a contract without any unlawful acts ab extra—by acts which are themselves lawful. Noble Lords on the other side really should consider this, because the danger of it is this. Suppose I alter the case and I am employing the noble Earl to do something under a contract of employment. He requires certain tools to do the job, and another noble Lord, in this case the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield—because we will change the side—as a matter of direct competition buys up all those specialist tools. Competing with me in a most spiteful
720
manner, he buys up all the tools so that the noble Earl cannot do the job for me. Is that a wrong in English law? That is a direct and deliberate interference with the performance of the contract. It does not induce a breach, because it is impossible. It does not interfere with it by unlawful means, because competition is lawful, especially when exercised by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield. But it is an interference which is deliberate, and it is direct. It seems to us that it would be very dangerous to have such a liability in English law, and to have it confirmed by a side wind in a Bill of this kind.
When the noble Earl says that they deleted the question from the ballot because it had become technical, then one really has to take issue with him. That is what was said on Report in another place, but that was not the nature of the debates about it; of course, it was not. If noble Lords look at Clause 8(4)(b), they will find that it begins by saying that where there is a strike one has to ask the workers, "Will you strike in breach of your contract of employment or in interference of its performance?"
Of course, that was quite logical because that is what the Bill says; that is what the Bill is about; that is what it says in every other clause. But because they could not give an example of something which sounded justifiable, which would be wrong even though it was not a breach of contract of employment, they dropped interference from the question. They dropped it because the workers would ask, "What do you mean, breach of contract or interference?" No one would be able to tell them what it meant, certainly not the Minister of State and certainly not, it seems, the noble Earl, because the noble Earl has not given us one example of an interference with employment which is wrongful but which is not a breach of the contract of employment. He has not dared to say that workers who are not obliged to work overtime are now, in the Government's eyes, obliged to work overtime without there being a wrongful interference with the contract. Of course they dropped interference from Clause 8 (4) (b) because they did not know what it meant. If they do not know what it means, they should not leave it in the Bill.
Therefore, even if I was wrong about the nature of the common law position—even if that argument were wrong—I appeal to noble Lords to consider this matter very seriously on Report. I am sure this is a matter to which the Government will return, and I am sure that we shall come back to it via the question in Clause 8(4)(b) which is dealt with in one of the amendments to which I am speaking. We shall come back to it when we have to look again at the questions which are bound to arise in relation to this part. Therefore, in relation to this string of amendments raising interference, the course of action which my noble friends and I propose to take is to have them negatived and to leave them on the Marshalled List in the hope that the Government will look at them again.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendments Nos. 53 to 56 not moved.]
9.47 p.m.
The Earl of Gowrie The Earl of Gowrie moved Amendment No. 57:
[Printed earlier: col. 700.]
The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 58 not moved.]
The Earl of Gowrie The Earl of Gowrie moved Amendment No. 59:
[Printed earlier: col. 700.]
The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to this amendment as well. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 9, line 34, leave out ("four") and insert ("sixteen")
The noble Lord said: I do not think that we have spoken to this amendment before. This amendment refers to the period which is given to a trade union after it has carried out all the provisions relating to secret ballots in Clauses 7 and 8 of the Bill. The Government say that after the trade unions have carried out a properly authorised lawful secret ballot—and now, as a result of the amendments moved by the noble Earl, they have got an affirmative decision—the immunity for which they, therefore, qualify under Section 13 of the 1974 Act shall last for four weeks. If, after four weeks, they have not started their strike, that immunity lasts no longer and they have to go through the whole grisly process again.
I should like at the same time to speak to Amendment No. 84 because that amendment is required to bring Amendment No. 60 into effect.
Amendment No. 84: Clause 8, page 11, line 22, at end insert—
("( ) A voting paper may contain one or more questions concerning the latest date on which a relevant act may take place so that votes may be cast for or against a particular date or dates, and in such a case the latest date for the purposes of section (7)(3)(c) of this Act shall be the date which receives the largest number of favourable votes.")
The point of Amendment No. 60 is to say, "Well, let us not make it four weeks; let us make it 16 weeks". We put forward this amendment because we believe that four weeks is a very short period when a union has gone through the extremely complex provisions of Clauses 7 and 8, and also partly because when an amendment of a similar nature was put down in another place, the answer of the Minister of State, Mr. Gummer, at that time (7th February) as reported in the Official Report at column 1013, left a great deal to be desired.
To some extent I am moving this amendment in order to ask whether the noble Earl the Minister can perhaps improve on the reply of the Minister of State. At column 1013 of Hansard the Minister of State said:
"The Government's intention is that the ballot and the strike, if there is one, should be closely connected. We do not intend that a strike unconnected with a ballot, held in different circumstances and long afterwards, could be held to be covered by that ballot. That would not be sensible, so we start from the assumption that the period between the ballot and the strike, if it is to be held, should be short".
Subsequently, he said:
"we tried to find a number"—
it was almost as though the Minister shook a dice—
"that would ensure both that the union would have time to arrange the ballot, collect the papers, add up the votes and so on, then take any action necessary, but that would not be so long as to enable the union to hold a pistol to the head of management throughout the
722
negotiations I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would agree".
I suggest that that indicates how little the Minister knows about industrial relations. Where is this industrial relations situation where trade unions hold ballots and then weeks, months and years go by before those ballots are translated into action? In any case, the number which the Minister came up with was not months or years—it was four weeks. He considered all these circumstances—all these factors with which he juggled—and came up with four weeks. I should have thought that he might at least have come up with five or six months. Where is the industrial relations situation where a union, having five, six, eight, or, we would say, 16 weeks of ballot immunity, is using this, in the terms of the Minister of State,
"to hold a pistol to the head of management"?
The fact is that it will be extremely difficult and complicated for unions to carry out the provisions of Part II of this Bill. As we intend to argue subsequently, and as we have already mentioned to the Committee, the unions have to compile a special register. It will be much more difficult for unions to compile an accurate register, very often in the case of industrial disputes, than the register which they will have to compile in the case of elections, because it will not always be simple to say which members of the union will actually be involved in the dispute. It may be members from different unions. Four or five unions may be involved in the dispute. The members may come from different branches. There may be some members in one branch and other members in other branches; and other branches may be divided with some of their members involved in the dispute and some not.
As we have tried to argue, the unions will be dependent upon the employer to provide them with an accurate register of those who are involved in the dispute. It might be suggested that perhaps employers will not want to give unions accurate registers. Indeed, some employers might want unions to have inaccurate registers so that the ballots will be inaccurate, and thus the immunity will not apply. But I shall not go into that because we must wait and see. But the fact is that even with co-operation from employers, it will be difficult for unions to compile an accurate register.
How are they to pay for this ballot which the Government propose to impose upon them? If they are to have ballots in elections—and they are to have postal ballots—and if they are also to have ballots in strikes, then the Government must mean that the unions and the Trades Union Congress must change their policy of not applying to the Government under the provisions of the Employment Act 1980 for money through the certification officer scheme. They must apply for this. We know from the work of Undy and Martin that it takes those unions which apply to the certification officer under the scheme a long time to get the money; that roughly 50 per cent. of those who apply do not get the money; and that roughly two-thirds of the cost of the ballot is paid for by the certification officer. All this has to be done in order to observe the provisions of the Government's Bill. The whole thing is to last for only four weeks. We say that it is unreasonable, that it is provocative and that no employer would want it to be so.
No employer would want to minimise the period of what negotiators call "sanction-based negotiation", when the unions have a sanction, as the employer has a sanction of a lock-out, and when the two sides are seeking to reach an agreement. No employer would want a union to get into a situation in which if it does not call a strike tonight, or tomorrow, it runs out of its four-week period of immunity. This is foolish and provocative. What we suggest, a modest increase of from 4 to 16 weeks, fully falls within the provisions put forward by the Minister of State and should therefore be accepted by the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Rochester: I think I can see what the Government are after in this subsection in providing that if industrial action takes place more than four weeks after a ballot is held then immunity will be lost. But I fear that things may not work out quite as the Government seem to think. Pay negotiations often take place not between people representing large organisations, or many employers, on the one hand, and large numbers of employees, on the other; they take place in smaller units, too.
Is not what may actually happen something rather more like this: that the trade union will put in a pay claim; it will be offered something less than it has asked for; and instead of the union official simply being told, as he would be now by his members, that he had better go back with a bigger claim, he will be urged to hold a ballot prematurely to impress on the management that his members mean business. People will then feel committed by their votes to back their negotiator in a later strike, which at present would not take place at all. Alternatively, there may have to be a further ballot, and negotiations will drag on.
My difficulty about this particular amendment is that I think, as I have made plain, that we would be much better off without these ballots altogether, but if we must have them then one would like to see that they work as well as possible. But I really do not know what the least undesirable period between the ballot and industrial action should be. With all respect to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, I cannot readily see why 16 weeks is necessarily better than four weeks. At least the interval proposed in the next amendment, which I suppose we are not strictly discussing now, is more variable. But that, too, may pose problems. In this situation, so far as I can see, given that we have these ballots we shall just have to "lump" this difficulty about the question of the interval of time.
Lord Gray of Contin: The effect of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, and his noble friends, which is similar to an amendment considered and rejected at Committee stage in another place, would be to allow unions to provide themselves with immunity far in advance of the likely climax of negotiations by holding a ballot at a time when the prospect of industrial action was so far off as to be unreal to the members being asked to vote.
The Government believe that for a ballot to offer union members a real and informed choice it must take place only when negotiations are clearly at or near their end. Noble Lords opposite cannot seriously suggest that a real choice is possible as much as four months before the end of negotiations; possibly before
724
those negotiations have even started; certainly before any serious assessment can be made of the employer's final offer; and long before the union can reasonably know whom it is going to call on to strike.
Nor is it any good noble Lords opposite suggesting that the union will normally make clear in advance the circumstances in which it will proceed with a strike. The fact is that a real choice can only be made when the employers' final or near final offer is known and when the question, "Are you prepared to go on strike?" has some real meaning. A strike should be a weapon of last resort—something to which a union turns only when negotiations have broken down. What business does a union have to threaten a strike months in advance? The Government have no intention of allowing the unions to write themselves a blank cheque—no doubt obtained on the basis that a vote in favour is a vote against the Government's legislation but that, of course, no industrial action is actually likely.
Indeed, would it be responsible for the Government to encourage the practice of holding ballots on strike action early in negotiations? The object of the Bill is not to provide guns to be aimed at employers' heads. The Government are aware that threats of industrial action are part of the ritual negotiations. That is why threats to induce breaches of contract have been consciously excluded from the grounds on which unions would be liable to actions in tort in the absence of a ballot. But the Government are not going to hand things to the unions on a plate by allowing them to hold ballots to back up those threats, and then to use those ballots to give them immunity for strike calls up to four months later.
The Government of course accept that the counting and announcement of ballot results cannot be done in a day, and clearly it would be undesirable to precipitate union strikes because immunity was going to "run out". Some time may be needed for further negotiations—but not so much time that unions whose main aim is to frustrate the intentions of the Bill can get away with doing so. The timing of the ballot is in the unions' hands. If they hold the ballot too early because they think their members are more likely to vote "Yes" than when a strike is imminent, then they may be hoist with their own petard and find that they have lost immunity. They would then need to hold another ballot.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, has again referred to registers. By doing so, he has compounded the confusion which constantly reappears in the Opposition's arguments in respect of entitlement and the opportunity to vote. There is nothing in the Bill that requires a trade union to define entitlement by reference to a register of names. As to the provision of opportunities, there is a test of reasonable practicability. There really is no substance in the noble Lord's argument on this occasion.
I respect the noble Lord, as we all do on this side of the Committee, for his great knowledge and experience—but in his interpretations of some parts of this Bill I believe he is showing unnecessary concern. As so many academics and learned people frequently do, the noble Lord is reading into the Bill things which scarcely exist. Indeed, he is creating fears where such fears are unfounded. I know that the noble Lord feels

725
strongly about these matters and I respect the sincerity with which he puts forward his views. But on this occasion I cannot accept his amendment and I hope that he will be prepared to withdraw it.
Baroness Seear: The noble Lord has demonstrated the folly of having strike ballots at all. By imposing a time limit—whether it is four weeks or six weeks—and having a strike ballot, the noble Lord has shown that it will be much more difficult to bring the process of proper negotiation to a satisfactory solution. I do not support this amendment, in that I think that the whole process of using a ballot to negotiate is folly, because, as the negotiation goes on, it is possible to modify the decision in the negotiating process. If you say you have to reach a final point and then put it up for a ballot which will last four weeks or will last 16 weeks, you have then closed the options to negotiate at the very time that they ought to be kept open and fluid. It is nonsense to have ballots for strike purposes for this reason. If you must have strike ballots, to have any time limit at all seems to be folly because what you are doing is saying to the unions, "Your time is running out, boys! You've either got to settle now and have your strike or you have no chance of doing it all over again". This is bringing in a new dimension which will make industrial relations far more difficult to operate and will not improve them.
Lord McCarthy: The noble Baroness is absolutely right. It only goes to show how moderate we are. I moved Amendment No. 60, which raises the time period from four to 16 but we had Amendment No. 61, which I do not intend to move because we have got to get through the business, but, which, in some ways was more flexible because it said that you could put a date on the ballot paper. I could have moved an amendment which said no date at all. The noble Baroness was perfectly right. That would be even more sensible; because the whole idea was silly in the first place. But we are trying to be modest. I come back to what the Minister has said. It is not me who is afraid; it is not me who has suspicions; it is negotiators, it is trade unionists. They are being told that they will have to go, as the noble Baroness has said, through this complicated procedure—and it is very complex. It is even more complex in respect of Clause 7 than it was in respect of Part I of the Bill because, also, as a result of Clause 8, which is referred to at the end of Clause 7, they have to muck about with having returns and sending the results of those returns with all the spoilt papers away to their members.
And all this extremely complex operation has to be done in order to buy four weeks of immunity. As the noble Baroness has asked: what negotiator is going to sit there with four weeks' immunity and let it run out so that he has to go through this whole grisly process again? The Government are making it absolutely inevitable that negotiators will have to think very hard about whether, after four weeks, they are not going to have some form of industrial action, if only to protect their position of immunity. The Minister has said, "We do not want four months". He said that it was an exaggeration.
The Minister might have come to the Dispatch Box and made some kind of offer, might have said "I don't
726
like your 60, I will take your 61". He might have said, "Not four weeks but six or make it eight weeks". But no, he wants a roulette system. This is what it amounts to. He says that he feels that the union should be under some degree of uncertainty as to whether they should take the ballot now and use their four weeks now or take the ballot later and use their four weeks later. If they get it wrong and they have the wrong four weeks, he says, "So much the worse for them". This is not compatible with a Government which is trying to improve industrial relations. It is not compatible with a Government which says every now and again that it wants to help trade unions. I am afraid that, as a result of the attitude which the Minister has taken, we shall have to divide the Committee.
10.9 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 60) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 26; Not-Contents, 66.

DIVISION NO. 5

CONTENTS

Birk, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Brockway, L.

Lockwood, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

McCarthy, L.

Mulley, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Collison, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller]

David, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller]

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Underhill, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Jeger, B.

White, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Halsbury, E.

Avon, E.

Hatherton, L.

Bauer, L.

Henley, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Bellwin, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Beloff, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Belstead, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Long, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Lucas, of Chilworth, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Lyell, L.

Caccia, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Cathcart, E.

Cockfield, L.

Merrivale, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mersey, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Crathorne, L.

De La Wan, E.

Mottistone, L.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Onslow, E.

Eccles, V.

Orkney, E.

Elles, B.

On-Ewing, L.

Faithfull, B.

Pender, L.

Forbes, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Fortescue, E.

Romney, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Saint Oswald, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Savile, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gowrie, E.

Swinton, E. [Teller]

Gray of Contin, L.

Terrington, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Trumpington, B.

727

Vaizey, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Vickers, B.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendments Nos. 61 and 62 not moved.]
10.16 p.m.
The Earl of Gowrie The Earl of Gowrie moved Amendment No. 63:
[Printed earlier: col. 700.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 9, line 37, at end insert—
(" ( ) For the purposes of this Part, an act done by an employee does not break his contract of employment or interfere with the performance of that contract, where—

(a) it is done in the course of a strike or other industrial action; and

(b) notice of the strike or other industrial action is given to the employer under that contract; and

(c) the notice is equivalent in duration to the notice which the employee is required by law to give to terminate the contract or one month, whichever is the shorter period.")

The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is quite simple. It is to resurrect the right to strike. There is clearly now no right to strike in this country. Unlike most European countries and unlike the United States, in this country if someone goes on strike he breaks his contract of employment, and if he breaks his contract of employment then what he does is actionable; and if it is a fundamental breach of his contract of employment then he is subject to summary dismissal. In any event, there is no right to strike. There used to be a time when we used to be told by the lawyers who said that they knew about these things that there was a right to strike so far as the individual worker was concerned. For example, if you read the fundamental text in those days Chapter 2 of The System of Industrial Relations in Great Britain, which was written by Professor Otto Kahn-Freund and Professor Clegg—you would have been told in 1952 that if you gave due notice of strike action then it had been assumed that you did not intend to break your contract of employment and therefore that you did not break your contract of employment; and therefore there was a lawful right to strike in this country.
It was never quite clear how you gave due notice, whether you could give due notice collectively, what period of notice it was, or how that period related to the period of notice that you would have to give for termination. None of these things was clear. But when I came into the academic study of industrial relations, I was told and I believed that there was a right to strike and that one gave due notice.
By the time the Royal Commission on Trade Unions, the Donovan Commission, sat in 1967, things were not that simple. If your Lordships look at paragraph 939 of the Donovan Commission report, you will see that it is extraordinarily complex. What the Donovan Commission did at that time was to list all the pros and all the cons, all the circumstances, all the "ifs" and all the "buts" and, in the end, they said that the question whether or not there was a right to strike, in the sense that one could use industrial action without breaching one's contract, was so complex and
728
almost impossible to decide that the matter should be referred to what I suppose they meant was the Law Commission—they said that it should be referred to some committee or commission to decide—because they had other things to do.
But, unfortunately, it was not referred to the Law Commission. It was not decided in that way. It was in the end decided in the courts. The courts had to decide, in effect, whether they were prepared to accept the vague continental doctrine of suspension whereby if, when people went on strike they were clearly not desiring to separate and bring to an end their contractual relationships, they could be thought, as it were, to be putting them up on the shelf so that they were all in one piece and could be taken down after the strike, and if they did that there was not a breach of contract. In the end the courts decided that unfortunately that is not possible in this country; that there is no doctrine of suspension and that therefore if you go on strike you break your contract of employment.
What we are trying to do in simple terms is to remedy that situation. If you look at our amendment, you will see that we are doing it only in respect of this Bill. We have no desire to do it in general. We are saying that for the purposes of this Bill,
"an act done by an employee does not break his contract of employment or interfere with the performance of that contract, where—
(a) it is done in the course of a strike or other industrial action; and"—
that is necessary; and here is the cut of our amendment
"(b) notice of the strike or other industrial action is given to the employer under that contract".
So that notice has to be given. We deal with the question of the period of notice, because we say,
"(c) the notice is equivalent in duration to the notice which the employee is required by law to give to terminate the contract or one month, whichever is the shorter period."
In other words, if people have contracts of employment where they have to give a period of notice longer than one month, then they will have to give it, but the minimum that they will have to give is one month's notice. That does not take us back to the position as it was imagined to be in 1952, because the general drift of the doctrine then was that if you were an hourly paid worker you gave an hour's notice, and if you were a weekly paid worker you gave a week's notice. We say that you give a month's notice.
But this is very important in the context of this Bill. It is important, first, because we believe that there should be a right to strike, even if that right to strike is to be curtailed in the way that this Bill insists it shall be curtailed, so that there has to be a ballot. If you pass our amendment, you will not affect that. You will still need to have a ballot. But also what we are saying is that if you have our amendment you will not be breaking your contract for the purposes of this part of the Bill. Therefore, the Government will not have to introduce, as they are introducing into this Bill, the provision in Clause 8, whereby the Government say that employees and unions have to put upon their ballot paper an undertaking that people are striking in breach of contract.
When this question was raised in another place—we have an amendment on this issue—and when we were

729
asking the Government in another place why they felt that they had to put into the Bill what we call an intimidation clause, the Government said, "But that is the legal position". In other words, the Government said, "There is no right to strike. Nowadays, any industrial action which involves a breach of contract (other than an action which does not involve a breach of contract, such as a work to rule) is involved in a strike and therefore is actionable. Therefore we have to put it into the Bill". We are saying that if this amendment is passed, the Government will not have to put it into the Bill and that they will restore the right to strike in this country. I beg to move.
Lord Gray of Contin: The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, has described to your Lordships' Committee the meaning of his amendment. He has described it as something which is fairly innocuous and which merely gives to the unions a right to retain their immunity. But it would give to unions a right to retain their immunity, irrespective of whether they ballot their members. As such, it is clearly designed to enable unions to frustrate the intentions of this part of the Bill in the simplest way imaginable. Unions should always give proper strike notice. What the amendment says, in effect, is that so long as they do so, it is quite all right for them to ignore the views of their members.
As your Lordships are perfectly well aware, the way in which industrial action is regulated in this country depends on the fact that strikes are usually judged to involve breaches of contract. Inducement to break a contract is unlawful unless it is protected by immunity. Strike notice is usually interpreted as notice that employment contracts will be broken, unless it specifically states otherwise. Of course notice to terminate contracts can be given, in which case the inducement would not be unlawful, but this very seldom happens in practice in the context of a strike.
The noble Lord referred to notice to strike. It is now generally accepted that, where notice to strike is given, the notice is likely to be construed as a notice to strike in breach of the contract of employment, unless (exceptionally) the relevant contract provides that the effect of the strike or other industrial action is to suspend the contract. Where express notice is given to terminate the contract, and the period of notice is observed, then the contract no longer exists and there can be no question that someone striking or taking another form of industrial action is acting in breach of it. The existence of rights depending on continuity of employment—statutory employment rights, pension rights and so on—means that in practice employees are reluctant to sever their employment relationships. Strikes therefore rarely, if ever, involve termination of contracts. Whatever the form of notice given, if the period of notice is not observed, then there is no question that the strike or other action is in breach of contract.
So what the noble Lord is suggesting, purely for the purposes of this part of the Bill—or, rather, for the purposes of allowing unions to evade the provisions of this part of the Bill—is that unions should be deemed not to have induced a breach of contract where they are good enough to give the employer strike notice. Part II is designed to give unions a strong incentive to consult their members, who might otherwise find
730
themselves forced out on strike against their will. Welcome as the giving of proper strike notice might be to employers, it would hardly compensate the members for the lack of consultation.
For those reasons, I hope that the noble Lord and his friend will be prepared to withdraw their amendment.
Lord McCarthy: I do not feel like withdrawing the amendment. I am sorry that the noble Lord cannot find it in his heart to come any way towards us, and yet he does not really deny what I am saying. It is no real argument to say that notice of termination does not involve breach of contract when the noble Lord goes on to say—and he is quite right to say it—that virtually no strikes involve termination. The fact is that when workers go on strike they do not want to terminate their contract. What they want is to suspend it; they want to put it on the shelf. The trouble is that common law will not recognise the ordinary continental notion of suspension, and, therefore, there is no right to strike in this country.
On Question, amendment negatived.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 10, line 5, at end insert—
(" "breach" in relation to a contract means any act or omission by virtue of which one party to the contract has an action against the other whether for damages or otherwise and cognate expressions shall be interpreted accordingly;")
The noble Lord said: I move Amendment No. 65, and, when we come to it, I wish to move formally Amendment No. 66.
Amendment No. 66: Page 10, line 12, at end insert—
(" "interference" in relation to a contract means any act or omission by virtue of which one party is in default in regard to any other party to the contract;")
I do so because we wish them to be printed and to be seen. They are complementary to the arguments about interference, and I move them on that basis. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 66:
[Printed above.]
The noble Lord said: I move this amendment formally.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendment Nos. 67, 68 and 69 not moved.]
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 10, line 24, at end insert—
(" () An act does not induce a person to interfere with the performance of a contract by virtue only that it—

(a) induces a party lawfully to terminate the contract whether by notice or otherwise;

(b) impedes or hinders the performance of the contract by means which are in themselves lawful;

(c) renders performance of the contract impossible for a party to it by means which are in themselves lawful and which do not cause that party to be in default under the contract.")

The noble Lord said: I can speak briefly to this amendment because it is in the same line of business,

731
as it were, as the amendments which we have just moved formally. It sets out three simple illustrations of situations where, in effect, we ask: are these interferences? The amendment says that they are not interferences with performance within the terms of the Bill. Going from the bottom to the top, they involve rendering the performance of the contract impossible without fault on anybody's part and without anything unlawful being done; hindering the performance of the contract without anything unlawful being done; and inducing a party lawfully to terminate the contract whether by notice or otherwise.
I draw attention to (a) because, on what has been said so far here and in another place, this curious doctrine of interference would appear to include, in a ludicrous manner, the act of inducing a party to terminate his contract lawfully. That clearly interferes with the performance of it and does not induce a breach, but appears to be within the notion of interference.
I move the amendment on that basis. It is, I hope and submit, part of the corpus, as it were, which your Lordships and, in particular, the Government should consider in looking at Part II in the light of these debates with a view to Report. I beg to move.
Viscount Long: If we examine the amendment in detail, limb (a) is, in fact, otiose since no judicial authority has suggested that inducing someone lawfully to terminate their contracts is contained within the tort of interference with performance. Limb (b), however, would amount to a complete reversal of current judicial opinion that direct interference with contracts is unlawful in itself. And limb (c) would directly reverse the judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning in the case of Torquay Hotel Co. Ltd. v. Cousins, whereby inducement to a party to interfere with his contract in a way which does not make him personally liable—for example, because of a force majeure clause—is unlawful interference.
The Government are not prepared to support any amendment which would reduce to any degree the potential liability of trade unions to legal action if they fail to hold ballots before calling for industrial action. If any union is unclear how to respond to this legislation, the answer is simple. Industrial action of any sort should not be contemplated unless the members concerned have been properly consulted beforehand. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
On Question, amendment negatived.
The Earl of Gowrie The Earl of Gowrie moved Amendment No. 71:
[Printed earlier: col. 700.]
The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing moved Amendment No. 72:
Leave out Clause 7 and insert the following new Clause—
("7.—(1) A trade union contravenes this section where it has authorised or endorsed a strike or other industrial action without reference to a ballot.
732
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, a strike or other industrial action shall be taken as having been done with reference to a ballot if, but only if—

(a) the trade union has held a ballot in respect of the strike or other industrial action;

(b) the first authorisation or endorsement took place after the date of the ballot and before the expiry of the period of 4 weeks beginning with that date; and

(c) section 8 of this Act has been satisfied in relation to the ballot.

(3) Subsection (1) does not create an offence but the obligation to comply with it is a duty owed to each of the following

(a) the person against whom the action is taken; and

(b) any other person who may be adversely affected by the contravention,

and, subject to subsection (4) below, any breach of that duty shall be actionable accordingly (subject to the defences and other incidents applying to actions for breach of statutory duty).
(4) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (3) above, the amount which may be awarded against the union by way of damages in any proceedings brought under this section shall not exceed the appropriate limit within the meaning of section 16 of the 1982 Act.
(5) In this Part—

"the 1982 Act" means the Employment Act 1982;

"authorisation or endorsement" means an authorisation or endorsement of an act which, by virtue of section 15 of the Employment Act 1982, causes the act to be taken to have been done by the trade union;

"the date of the ballot" means, in the case of a ballot in which votes may be cast on more than one day, the last of those days; and

"other industrial action" means any concerted course of conduct (other than a strike) which is carried on by a group of workers (whether carried on in breach of their contracts of employment or not), with the intention of preventing, reducing or otherwise interfering with the production of goods or the provision of services.

(6) An act shall not be taken to have been done without reference to a ballot solely on the ground that it is inconsistent with the result of the ballot.")
The noble Lord said: With this amendment it might be convenient to take Amendments Nos. 73, 76, 79 and 81.
Amendment No. 73, Clause 8, page 10, line 31, leave out from ("upon") to ("and") in line 35 and insert ("to strike or take other industrial action")
Amendment No. 76, Clause 8, page 10, line 39, leave out from ("ballot") to end of line 44.
Amendment No. 79, Clause 8, page 11, line 10, leave out from ("strike") to end of line 11.
Amendment No. 81, Clause 8, page 11, line 16, leave out from ("strike") to end of line 17.
The purpose of these amendments is to extend the secret ballot provisions to cover all industrial action which is authorised or endorsed by a trades union, whether or not that industrial action is technically in breach of contracts of employment. As presently drafted, as I see it, however, the effect of Clauses 7 and 8 is that a secret ballot to test employee support for industrial action has to be held only where that industrial action involves a breach of contracts of employment. This would obviously fully cover all-out strikes or go-slows.
It would not, however, cover a ban on voluntary overtime or a work-to-rule, because that form of industrial action does not constitute a breach of contract, and therefore no immunity is necessary; yet in practical terms—and many noble Lords with industrial experience will bear this out—a ban on overtime or a work-to-rule can be as disruptive and damaging to the future of a company, and can pose as

733
serious a threat to jobs, as an all-out strike. As the Bill stands, a trades union which resorts to these latter forms of industrial action, without consulting its members, can do so with impunity and thus undermine the underlying philosophy of this Bill.
I take advice from the CBI, and it believes that it would be appropriate to adopt the same approach as that taken by the Court of Appeal in Faust v Power Packing Casemakers Limited. The Court of Appeal rejected the breach of contract test for determining whether an individual took part in the industrial action and instead adopted an approach which seems practical and recognises the reality of industrial disputes. The Court of Appeal looked to the natural and ordinary meaning of the words, "other industrial action", and accordingly held that an employee's refusal to do something which he is not contractually bound to do would constitute industrial action in the common sense of the words if the refusal is used as a bargaining weapon to bring pressure to bear on the employer.
The common sense approach, I submit, should apply with equal force to the balloting provisions of the Bill. A trades union should be under a duty to consult its members before authorising or endorsing any form of industrial action which is intended to apply pressure on the employer or to disrupt his business, and that is what these amendments are intended to achieve. The creation of such a duty is justified in view of the serious economic loss and disruption that industrial action not in breach of employment contracts can have on an employer's business and should, I think, equally be preceded by a secret ballot. I therefore beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: I should like to support my noble friend in his amendment, and perhaps enlarge on why we have Amendment No. 72, which seeks to replace Clause 7 of the Bill. I, too, am advised by the CBI. It says that it is uncertain whether there is liability under the common law where a trades union induces its members to take industrial action not in breach of their contracts of employment. For that reason, Amendment No. 72 takes the form of the creation of a new statutory duty on trades unions, rather than a curtailing of their legal immunities.
It is a duty on the union to consult in a secret ballot those of its members who will be called upon to strike or to take other industrial action (whether or not in breach of the contract of employment). If no ballot is held, then the person against whom the industrial action is taken, as well as any other person who may be adversely affected by it, will have a remedy in damages and/or an injunction against the trades union.
The other amendments, Nos. 73, 76, 79 and 81, are not strictly consequential but complementary to Amendment No. 72, in making appropriate amendments to Clause 8.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Surely this amendment means that Clause 7, as it stands, might require some modification in the light of the postal ballots amendment. The effect of Clause 7, as it stands, is to oust the incidence of Section 13 of the Act of 1974, if industrial action is endorsed by a trade union without
734
a ballot, where the industrial action induces breach of or actionable interference with subsisting contracts of employment, which includes any person so adversely affected, and, secondly, in the result of a breach of or actionable interference with a subsisting commercial contract so induced, which also includes any person so adversely affected.
The limits as to damages recoverable by such persons against trade unions are as stated in Section 16 of the Act of 1982. The problem is, though—is it not?—that the proposed provisions of subsection 3(a) of this amendment afford a new substantive right of action based upon the fact of contravention, at the suit of a person against whom the action is taken, without reference to breach of or actionable interference with any contractual relationship.
The proposed provisions of subsection 3(b) of this amendment extend this right to any other person who may be affected by this contravention. This is a very substantial departure from the accepted process of subtraction from the common law, for the rights under subsection 3(a) and (b) of the proposed amendments are simply not as yet known to the common law. It involves the creation of a new statutory right of action available only against a trade union in these particular circumstances. Such a departure could constitute an unacceptable precedent, for it conflicts with the whole structure of the existing legislation.
It is of course worthy of serious consideration, but I respectfully suggest that it is not appropriate that it should be introduced as a sanction in Part II of a Bill concerned with the regulation of the internal management of trade union affairs. If we are to abandon the traditional process of subtraction from the common law and seek to create a new industrial code of rights, duties and sanctions, then so be it, but I suggest it should not be done piecemeal, by such an amendment as this.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: This is the amendment that might come to be known as "the statute of labourers and combination acts together" amendment. It is the road down which the Government head if they do not take careful note of the problems in respect of interference with employment as a liability. Why did the CBI come to the view—at least according to the reports that I have seen in the newspapers? It appeared to come to the view that it needed a new type of liability which, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has just said, is way outside the normal common law tradition. It decided it because all these difficulties of breach of contract and immunities were too much for it: it could not get at people who stopped work when it did not want them to stop work. That is what it is all about.
What this liability would amount to is a determination that illegality should rest upon the shoulders of working men whenever they stopped work, whether or not it was in breach of their contract, or indeed whether or not they had a contract. If one looks at the definition clause, it is quite clear that it applies to any group of workers. There are those who believe that this should be done and noble Lords should take them seriously. This is the first spear point of the call that will be heard again. Professor Hutt, who

735
is a well-known exponent of this kind of tendency, wrote in 1975:
"Ideally, what is needed for the emancipation of labour is the enactment of the principle underlying the British Combination Acts of 1799 and 1880… adapted to the 1970s".
That was not a joke. It was a quite serious working out of a position based upon doctrines which we have recently heard in this House, that market forces must operate and that no combination must be allowed on the part of labour to stop it. Indeed, those who dare to refuse their labour and those who dare to interfere with production of goods or provision of services must, as a legal doctrine, be regarded as wrongdoers, willy-nilly, breach of contract or no, interference or no; there must be no immunities, let us not bother with them, let us create a statutory tort.
When, in moving the amendment, the noble Lord spoke of a recent decision of the Court of Appeal as a basis for his legal position, he was, with respect, under a misapprehension. I have no doubt that the case to which he referred was that of Power Packing Ltd. v. Faust in the Court of Appeal, which concerned the issue of when workers lose their protection under the unfair dismissal legislation. Ever since the beginning of that legislation there have been situations in which they lose that protection if they engage in industrial action. The legislation has always made clear that industrial action in that context means any kind of industrial action, be it in breach of contract or not. One can argue whether that is right as a proper and sensible legal structure, but it is a quite different issue from that with which we are concerned. The decision there was that industrial action in that context included any action, be it in breach of contract or not. With respect, I think that the decision of the Court of Appeal was plainly right. It could hardly have been otherwise, in view of those sections. But that has nothing to do with the general doctrine of the right to strike or not as my noble friend Lord McCarthy was speaking of it.
The amendment resurrects the thinking of the common law before the immunities, so called, came about. If one wants to find the language of this kind of clause in the previous law, one goes back to the judge who told the jury, in connection with those who organised a strike of gas workers who supplied the West End of London and who were convicted of criminal conspiracy,
"I tell you that if there is improper molestation, if there is anything done with an improper intent which you shall think is annoyance or unjustifiable interference, and which in your judgment would have the effect of annoying or interfering with the minds of persons carrying on such a business as this Gas Company was conducting,"
that is a conspiracy. The learned judge said:
If there was an agreement among the defendants by improper molestation to control the will of the employers, I tell you that would be an illegal conspiracy at common law".
That is the nineteenth century language in Regina v. Bunn in 1872 by Mr. Justice Brett. It is precisely the same language in terms of the civil law with which this amendment is concerned. The point here is that any combination, which noble Lords dislike so much, that does not satisfy the ballot requirements‖sabsolutely every combination to take industrial action—is to be illegal and to be open to suit by plaintiffs who may be
736
a party concerned in the matter, or by any other person who is adversely affected.
It is perfectly plain that noble Lords moving this amendment know as well as I do that the ballots that have to be taken have so many difficulties about them—we have seen some already, not least in terms of the time limits that my noble friend Lord McCarthy spoke of—that in many cases they will not be properly conducted under the clauses we are discussing. Therefore, putting in this clause as an alternative to Clause 7, but having no alternative to Clause 8, means that a very large amount of industrial action—by which I mean the simple fact of the liberty of withdrawing one's labour from the place of work, recognised in every constitution of every democratic country that there has ever been as a fundamental right of man—would rest, except for the requirement of a ballot, upon the sand in the eyes of the noble Lord who moved the amendment.
It is a very serious amendment. It is one which has only one merit, because, as I understand it, it does require that the ballot be taken without interference on the part of anyone. Apart from that merit, we say that it is a very retrograde step. It is one that the Government should look at very carefully, because it is the Government's flirtation with the seductive notions of interference—which they cannot explain, which they cannot illustrate, and which they have even had to take off their ballot paper because it is such a nonsense—that opens the door to this kind of autocratic approach to industrial relations. Therefore, the Government have some responsibility for this amendment. One hopes they will oppose it, but in opposing it let them look at the mote in their own eye as well.
10.51 p.m.
The Earl of Gowrie: I am not sure about motes in the Government's eye. I fear that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, has put up another clay pigeon in order to shoot it down. My noble friends are not assaulting the principle of the right of withdrawal of labour: they are, I think, trying to test whether this attribute in our law might be defined in a rather different way. However, I see problems in the forms in which the amendment has been moved, and I should like, therefore, to explain why the Government do not feel able to support this new clause.
I understand the concern which has led my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing to bring forward the amendment. On the face of it, it would seem very reasonable to most people that unions should be required to hold ballots before calling on their members to take any industrial action, whatever its precise legal status. Nevertheless, I believe there is considerable doubt about the practical need to apply the provisions of Part II of the Bill to industrial action which does not bring those concerned into conflict with their contractual obligations, as I shall seek to demonstrate in just a moment. In the absence of clearly established need there are, I believe, some strong arguments against adopting the new clause.
There is another difficulty. As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway pointed out, the clause would mark a major departure from the system by which the

737
law regulates the organisation of industrial action. As we have heard so frequently, that system is based on the provision of statutory immunities from actions in tort to which trade unions and their officials would otherwise be liable when organising industrial action involving breaches of contracts of employment.
That system of protection from the operation of the normal common law has long been recognised as necessary if the freedom to organise industrial action is to be preserved, although there is, of course, very considerable disagreement between the Government and noble Lords opposite, such as the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, as to how far the protection should reasonably extend. Noble Lords opposite believe it should be virtually unlimited. We believe it must be limited sufficiently to protect society from the irresponsible and reckless use of industrial muscle. That is a very far cry from flirting, if that was the word that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, used, with the idea of changing the entire basis of the present law.
The essential feature of the present system is that it is, and always has been, based on existing common law liabilities. It does not impose special statutory duties or prohibitions on trade unions in relation to industrial action. It does, moreover, rest on an assumption that trade unions, generally speaking, act unlawfully in the context of industrial action only if they induce or threaten to induce someone to take action which in itself is unlawful. The new clause, on the other hand, would make it unlawful for unions to induce their members to do something which might of itself be perfectly legal. That would be a serious as well as a highly novel step to take—as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway has said, a substantial departure.
For instance, this new clause could be taken to mean that trade unions were to be liable for inducing people concertedly not to enter into contracts of employment, or to terminate them after giving due notice of their intention to do so, by virtue of the definition of "other industrial action". Put another way, employers might be thought to have a cause of action against a union if it persuaded its members not to take certain jobs, or that they should actually resign from their jobs.
The new clause would, moreover, suggest that employers were entitled to expect their employees to do anything which the employer might require of them, whether or not that was actually a condition of their contract of employment. It is of course a settled principle of our civil law that people should not be obliged to enter into contracts against their will or be subject to civil penalty for failing to do things outside the terms of their contract.
The justification for a step of that nature would, therefore, need to be considered against the existence of a clear need. I have to say that the Government are not convinced that such a need has been established. The Bill does of course cover not just strikes, but all industrial action which brings trade union members into conflict with their contractual obligations. Indeed it is clear from Amendment No. 52 and the other amendments relating to interference with contract that we debated with it, which were put down by the noble Lords, Lord Wedderburn, Lord Dean of Beswick, and Lord McCarthy, that noble Lords opposite think that the Bill goes far too wide. It would be quite wrong to
738
underestimate the extent of contractual obligations or the circumstances in which an employee can be held to be in breach of his contract. There is no doubt that in many cases action such as working to rule, go slows and overtime bans would be held to be in total breach of contract.
My noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing suggested that the new clause follows the approach of the Court of Appeal in the case of Faust v. Power Packing Casemakers Limited (1983) in rejecting the breach of contract approach for determining whether an individual had taken part in industrial action in favour of a more common-sense approach. The Faust case was, however, concerned with the quite different issue of whether or not an employee could be fairly dismissed for taking part in industrial action—a ban on voluntary overtime—which did not involve him in a breach of his contract of employment. The case concerned the interpretation of a reference to "industrial action" in Section 62 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. The expression is undefined in that statute for the purposes of Section 62; and thus a wider view could be taken of the range of activities that might constitute industrial action. The decision of the tribunal in that case does not in any way detract from the cumulative force of the other judgments which could be mentioned in this context.
The Government do of course share the view of my noble friend that the holding of ballots should be the normal prerequisite of any industrial action of whatever kind—that is integral to the Bill. I believe that the effect of the Bill will be that any prudent trade union will organise a ballot rather than risk the possibility that the industrial action which it proposes to organise could make it liable to legal proceedings. On that basis, I therefore hope that my noble friend will rest somewhat assured and will agree to withdraw his new clause.
Lord Orr-Ewing: In those circumstances, I shall not press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.59 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 7, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My noble friends and I have given notice that we oppose the Question, That this clause stand part of the Bill? In the light of our debates, I ask what contribution this clause makes to industrial problems and to industrial disputes. I think that it was the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who said in the course of a debate on an amendment that the whole notion of strike ballots is industrial nonsense. That, of course, was the message of the Donovan Report. The Government seem to have very little to advance as an argument to oppose the general thrust of what has been a well-known argument about strike ballots before, during and since the Donovan Commission's deliberations.
I had thought that it was established public policy in this country that if there were to be a distinction between official and unofficial action, the law would

739
lean towards official action. But this clause and this part of the Bill lean towards the unofficial action, because it is the unofficial action which retains the immunity—so-called—for the organisers when the official action may well lose it.
As the Government's own Green Paper said, if a statutory requirement were confined to official strikes it might serve as an encouragement to unofficial strikes. No doubt the Government wish that they had not said that, but they did say it. In the debates in another place, as here, the Government have tried to suggest that it will have no effect on unofficial strikes. Indeed, I think it was the noble Earl (I apologise if it was not him, but at any rate it was one of the Government Ministers) who suggested in response to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, when he cited the Green Paper on this point, that of course things have changed since the Donovan Report, and strikes today are more official than unofficial, whereas in those days the problem was thought to be the unofficial strike rather than the official strike.
However, the noble Earl will know as well as I do that things may change. There is no guarantee that because more strikes are official today, in at any rate a particular industry or two, they may not be more unofficial tomorrow; and it may be that his Bill will contribute to that. One cannot see any advantage in that.
We have been over the legal aspects of the clause, and we have not had any explanation about what "interference" with contracts means, what illustrations there are, and why it is there. We just know that it has been dropped from the ballot. On this side we say that the clause is unfair, and it is particularly unfair in the light of the matter raised by my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick. Let us restate this clearly. If the ballot goes wrong, if some aspect of Clauses 7 and 8 is unsatisfied, not only is the union exposed to the raw liabilities of the common law, but so are all the officials who engaged in the organisation of the action, whether or not they had anything to do with the failure to satisfy the procedural requirements of the ballot.
That seems to be a little vindictive. When will this come up? It will not come up as it does under Part I. Noble Lords have been speaking about this clause as though it was parallel to Clause 1. It is, of course, in certain respects; it is all about ballots. But in other ways it is totally different. This will not come up on the application of a member against a union. This will all come up weeks, months or probably years later in an action brought by, say, an employer or by some third party against the union and its officials.
Then the argument will be, and the union defendants will say, "We have so-called immunity; we have protection; we have acted lawfully". The plaintiff will say, "No, you have not". It is then that the whole matter will have to be trawled through the High Court, without the court having a discretion. Noble Lords will notice that what is particularly evil about this part of the Bill is that, whereas under Part I the Government could say, "Oh well, if something small goes wrong, if there is some irregularity, if something is not quite right, the court has a discretion; it can say that it is not appropriate to make an enforcement order", the court
740
cannot say that here. The High Court is bound to say that all the officials and all the union defendants have lost their immunity because there were some members who received ballot papers when they were not entitled to receive them, or vice versa; they cannot argue about the size or nature of what went wrong.
Therefore, coming back to industrial reality, I want to refer to what the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, said when he spoke of Donovan and strike ballots. What will be the effect of that? Will that contribute to industrial disputes being solved? On 19th June, in our previous Committee debate, the noble Earl said that the legislation of the Government had already confounded the expectations of the so-called voluntarists who glibly argue that the law has no place in industrial relations except to reinforce the power of trade union leaders.
I do not know who those so-called voluntarists are. I have not heard my noble friends argue that the law has no place: that there should be no Factories Acts or no Employment Protection Acts; that it has nothing to do with trade union leaders; that there should not be the vast corpus of industrial legislation which has been there for many years. We say that the common law should not be reintroduced. Noble Lords must understand that every time an immunity is cut back the flood of common law 19th century liability comes back into industrial affairs. It is not just 19th century: it is often 19th century as extended in 20th century cases. It is common law regulation that the Government are reimposing by cutting back on immunities.
If the noble Earl says, as he said in our previous debate, that these injunctions (which he now hopes will increase if the ballot requirements are not properly and fully fulfilled), as in the NGA case, the Stockport Messenger case, the POEU case, the Mercury case the NUJ case and the Dimbleby case, are put forward as a contribution to industrial relations, then I say to him that it may be a little premature. Furthermore, it would be a brave man who could honestly predict that the consequences of the bitter litigation in those cases would necessarily in the medium term contribute to better industrial relations in printing, telecommunications, and newpapers.
I say no more than this about the current dispute: those who contribute to the settlement—if there be a settlement; and one day there must be—of the tragic division in our nation at the moment are not necessarily those who would wish to rely on injunctions to do it. But at a more mundane level any manager knows, any trade union official knows, any Minister knows, that when a problem arises on the shop floor, what the manager must have is some cooperation from the trade union official; and the one thing that this clause will do is to make that less likely.
Therefore, to return to the level of an everyday, ordinary occurrence for people who actually keep the wheels turning, not just in factories, but also in offices, in white collar employment, where today they need a union official often more so than in the factory, I would say that they will not get that co-operation all the time, and as readily, if the union official is constantly having to think about the problems of liability incorporated by this part of the Bill. This will

741
make no contribution to the improvement of real industrial relations, and it is on that ground that we would object to the clause standing part of the Bill.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Most of us who take an interest in these matters have sat here for more than three hours while this clause has been debated. There have been 25 amendments, and that is a clear indication that Clauses 7 and 8 are seen by many of us to be central to the philosophy and raison d'êetre of the Government in respect of industrial relations. I share the disappointment, in fact the detestation, felt by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn over the intention of the Government in Clause 7. They are saying that the way to avoid disputes of a damaging nature in the future is not to reduce the amount of law, but to increase it. It is said that the Minister and others in the Government are being prevailed upon by their equals in another place to turn themselves into the listening Government, to listen more and more to what people halve to say, rather than to lay down the law for them. On this issue, as on others in this piece of legislation, the Government have no intention of listening to what is being said on this issue from these Benches.
I join with my noble friend Lord Wedderburn in complimenting the seriousness and reasonableness of the views of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. He has brought his experience to these matters—and it is not inconsiderable—and he has prayed in aid the views of the Institute of Personnel Management. I believe he put his finger firmly on the nub of what is wrong with this clause by pointing out that its effect—it may not be its intention—would be to divert a great deal of action from the official to the unofficial. I quickly scribbled a note that it would result in "underground action".
The question that has been raised by many in the debate tonight has been the relevance of the remedy which the Government believe they attach to this clause. As I have indicated more than once before, I have an association with the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. That union, which is the sixth or seventh largest in the country, with a membership of 400,000, is not known for being other than a reasonable, moderate and responsible trade union. It has an industrial relations record which most people, if they are fair-minded (and I believe that most Members of this Committee here tonight are), would say is a credit to the relationships which it has built up with its members and with the employers with whom it has to negotiate. I should simply like to point out what that union—which will be affected, like all other unions, by this legislation—has to say. Bill Whatley, the general secretary, and a person highly respected in the trade union movement, states this:
"The tradition of voting at branch meetings suits the members of a general union like USDAW but postal ballots would be quite impracticable, and while workplace ballots are already held for members to have their say in pay settlements covering particular firms, this method of voting would create real problems where members are scattered among a variety of shops, offices and depots, working for a variety of employers. Simply because USDAW has a good record of industrial harmony and rarely finds it necessary to call a strike, the union is not prepared to see unnecessary restrictions on the right to strike. The compulsory ballot proposals could so easily, place the union in a straitjacket, when the members wanted to take immediate industrial action at the end of a long and frustrating failure to reach an agreement with an employer".
742
He goes on to say:
"To be forced to replace the tradition of branch voting with a system of postal or workplace ballots would create serious and costly administrative problems for a union like USDAW. It could result in cutting down the resources available to maintain services for its members".
The Government ought to heed very carefully the suggestion that it is building up in unions such as USDAW a resentment that ought not to be there if the Government really do want to achieve better relationships.
The word "intimidation" has been used more than once in respect of allegations. I do not deny that some intimidation must take place, if we are to believe what we read in the newspapers in respect of certain trade union situations. But the Government ought to reflect very carefully on the fact that what they are doing in Clause 7 will be seen by many responsible trade unionists as intimidation of the unions themselves. As my noble friend Lord Wedderburn has said, the unions will have to reflect carefully before taking any action.
There is a change in the attitude of trade unions and trade unionists in respect of their responsibilities in these matters. These days, trade unions and their branches are articulate—and certainly they are not uniform in their reactions. It is a tragedy that the Government should believe that the present difficulties in trade unions will be resolved by recourse to further legislation. So far as I am concerned, Clause 7 should not stand part of the Bill.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, asked what contribution this clause will make to industrial relations. It will make a very substantial contribution. It affords a democratic right to trade union members, which the majority of the rank and file wish to have, to have a voice heard and a will heeded in the taking of industrial action. The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, says that this has nothing to do with the solution of industrial disputes. That, surely, cannot be so—because the result of a ballot (as so often seems to be forgotten) can be used to negotiate a settlement, at the discretion of the trade union official, rather than to call for industrial action. Broadly speaking, this clause serves a useful, constructive and valid purpose.
As I am on my feet, perhaps I may thank the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, who I see is in his place, for the apology which he gave in my absence earlier today.
11.15p.m.
The Earl of Gowrie: Not for the first time my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway has brought us back to earth with some precision and common sense. Listening to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, about there being something evil abroad in this part of the Bill, and to the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that he shared the detestation felt by others towards the intention of Clause 7, it would be very easy to take our eyes off what Clause 7 actually does. Clause 7 says something which I think most people would endorse as eminently reasonable and certainly in no sense an attack on the trade unions or on the unique privileges in law which allow them to

743
function. The clause simply makes it a condition of these privileges that union members are not called out on strike without first being consulted. I cannot for the life of me see anything at all unreasonable about that proposition. And, as will be demonstrated to your Lordships in the debates on the following clause, trade unions should have no practical difficulty in carrying out what is expected of them.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, also thought that this would all be very difficult and impossible. I must say that that is not my understanding of the position of the Alliance as a whole. I should be very surprised if his noble friend Lord Aylestone endorsed that view. However, that is not a matter for me. Recent events have served only to reinforce our conviction, the conviction of the general public and the conviction, I should have thought, of the overwhelming majority of ordinary trade union members, that, whatever else this Bill does, it is essential to tackle the issue of official strike calls issued without proper consultation of the members. It is nothing short of incredible to me that the Opposition have been prepared in debates on the Bill to defend the proposition that union leaders should be allowed to play on the fears and loyalties of their members rather than directly consulting them about a decision which has a major impact not only on their own lives but on the lives of their immediate communities and on that of the nation as a whole. This seems to me to be self-evidently one of the major concerns of the whole of our political economy and it seems to me no less incredible that it is being opposed.
Lord McCarthy: The noble Earl is being less than his normal fair self. We have never argued from this side of the Committee that members should not be consulted. I, myself, said earlier that what we are arguing is that they do not necessarily have to be balloted and, in particular, they do not have to be balloted according to the provisions of this Bill. We do not say that they do not have to be consulted and we do not say that they are not consulted. We say they are.
The Earl of Gowrie: I did use the phrase "consulted by ballot" earlier and when I repeated "consulted" that was the context in which I did it. I know that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, calls me a "ballotomane"—a different province from my other job, where I suppose I am a "balletomane". But, be that as it may, I think the central point stands. Most people want to be able to vote on issues which crucially affect their lives. This is all that this part of the Bill seeks to do. I urge your Lordships to support the clause and to reject any amendment which suggests that it does not stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Earl Cathcart): In calling Amendment No. 73, I should tell your Lordships that, if it is agreed, I cannot call Amendment No. 74.
[Amendments Nos. 73, 74, 75, 76 and 77 not moved.]
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 11 line 10, leave out from ("part") to end of line 11 and insert ("in the strike")
The noble Lord said: In this amendment we attempt to take out what we call the intimidation provision. Under the terms of Clause 8 of the Bill, the Government are saying that there must be a clear and precise form of words on the voting paper. Clause 8(4) states that,
"the voting paper must contain at least one of the following questions—
(a) a question (however framed) which requires the voter to say, by answering "Yes" or "No", whether he is prepared to take part, or as the case may be to continue to take part, in a strike involving him in a breach of contract of employment".
The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, has said that the Government for reasons which they have not been able to explain, have taken away reference to interference in this part of the Bill. Nevertheless, the union is told that, if it is to qualify for immunity under the provisions of this part of the Bill, there must be these words, and in effect no other words, to discover whether the employee,
"is prepared to take part, or as the case may be to continue to take part, in a strike involving him in a breach of his contract of employment".
We say that that is done to intimidate. We say that this is a continuation of a line of policy which, as the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, has said, is most unusual and in a way is without precedent in this country, going back to the time of the first Royal Commission on labour. It is a development of policy in which the Government are deliberately—we have bji now to say "deliberately"—encouraging unofficial action and are discouraging official action. It had been thought that successive Governments were there in industrial relations to hold up and to assist the established system and to discourage unofficial action and breach of agreements of all kinds outside the existing system, whether on the part of employers or on the part of trade unionists. That always was the doctrine of the old Ministry of Labour.
Here we have, almost for the first time—except that one can see signs of it in previous employment legislation by this Government; but certainly most overtly—a provision which can make sense only if it is there to discourage workers from participating in official strike action and to make it easier and more lawful for them to participate in unofficial strike action and to put trade union officials in a position where they are bound to say that the chances of obtaining assent from their members for strike action through the provisions of Clause 8 of the Bill are extremely limited.
One has only to think of the effect which a provision of this kind would have upon an individual worker who is asked to say not simply whether he wants to strike or not, but whether he wants to strike in breach of his contract of employment. Some people will say that he will not worry about looking at words; some people will say that trade unions can get around it by printing them in very small print at the bottom of the ballot paper—again, no doubt, that would turn out to be unlawful—people will say that the trade unions must be in a perfectly reasonable position since this is lawful anyway, and all they would have to do is explain to their members that that is the legal position; that when they strike they will be striking in breach of their contract of employment. If a worker says, "And

745
what of the consequences of striking in breach of a contract of employment?" then the honest trade union official has to say that the possibility is that the consequences include dismissal and dismissal in a context in which the unfair dismissal legislation will not apply.
This is the kind of provision that the Government insist on putting into the Bill. We call this an intimidation provision and we ask the Government in equity to remove it from the Bill at this late stage.
Lord Gray of Contin: In view of the variety of circumstances which may apply in different industrial disputes, the Bill quite deliberately does not include a universal ballot question which must be asked in every situation. Clause 7(4), however, requires the ballot paper to include a question (however framed) asking members whether or not they are prepared to take strike or other industrial action which would involve them in breaches of their contracts of employment.
The amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord McCarthy, Lord Dean and Lord Wedderburn (which are similar to amendments tabled by the opposition at Committee stage in another place), seek to remove any requirement to refer in the ballot paper to the fact that union members might be in breach of their contracts of employment. They have sought to engage your Lordships' support for the amendments by suggesting that the Government are attempting to intimidate trade union members into voting against a strike by referring to breaches of contract.
It will not surprise your Lordships to hear that I totally reject the imputations of the noble Lords opposite. The Government believe that Clause 7(4) contains the minimum specifications essential for ensuring that union members make an informed choice before voting on strike or other industrial action which is likely to bring them in breach of their contracts of employment. This, in the Government's view, is something which union members themselves are entitled to expect. Moreover, if trade unions are to provide themselves with immunity by the means contained in this Bill, it is surely the least that society should be entitled to expect that the implications of what they are doing are put fairly and squarely before their members. "Do you support your executive in any action which it deems necessary to take to overcome the unreasonable intransigence of your employer?" —would this sort of question be acceptable to your Lordships? The Bill does not prescribe the words actually to be used; nor does it preclude unions from asking additional questions or explaining the leadership's policies. It does however require the ballot paper to say quite clearly what the member is actually voting about; and the Government believe that this minimum requirement for precision is the least which should be imposed.
Let me also pose this question to your Lordships. If the Bill had not contained some reasonably precise formula which unions must reflect in their ballot papers, on what basis would it have been possible to judge whether the conditions for retaining immunity had been satisfied? Would any question, however woolly or tangential, have sufficed? I would therefore urge your Lordships not to heed the imputations of the
746
noble Lords opposite on this occasion and I would ask noble Lords to withdraw their amendment.
Lord McCarthy: I do not think we can withdraw this amendment. The Minister has not given us much of an argument. His argument, as I understand it, is that this is the position and the Government want to face trade unionists with the position as it is. But of course, as we have said repeatedly, they only go so far. They do not face trade unionists with the consequences of interference: that is not there—only breach of contract. They have struck that out of the Bill because they do not know what it means. So they present trade unionists with that part which they know the meaning of; and we say that part is intimidatory.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendments Nos. 79–81 not moved.]
11.30 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 11, line 17, at end insert—
("(c) a question (however framed) which requires the voter to say, by answering "yes" or "no", whether he is prepared to take part, or as the case may be to continue to take part, in industrial action which does not involve, or is not likely to involve, him in a breach of his contract of employment.")
The noble Lord said: I move this amendment formally in order as we have explained before that it forms part of the record of the proceedings of your Lordships' Committee when the question of interference be reconsidered. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 83:
[Printed earlier: col. 700.]
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 84 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: In calling Amendment No. 85, I should say that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 86 and 87.
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 11, line 23, leave out from ("ballot") to end of line 31 and insert ("must—

(a) be allowed to vote without interference from, or constraint imposed by, the union or any of its members, officials or employees; and

(b) so far as is reasonably practicable, have a voting paper made available to him—

(i) immediately before, immediately after, or during his working hours; and

(ii) at a place convenient to him;

or be supplied with a voting paper.

(6A) The arrangements which are made for the casting of votes in the ballot must be fair and designed to secure that—

(a) every person who is entitled to vote in the ballot is, so far as is reasonably practicable, given—

(i) only the opportunity mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (6B) below;

(ii) only that mentioned in paragraph (b) of that subsection; or

(iii) as alternatives, both of those opportunities (but no other); and

(b) every person voting in the ballot is, so far as is reasonably practicable, enabled to do so without incurring any direct cost to himself.

747
(6B) The opportunities are—

(a) a convenient opportunity to vote by post;

(b) an opportunity to vote—

(i) immediately before, immediately after, or during, his working hours; and

(ii) at a place which is convenient to him.")

The noble Lord said: With the permission of the Committee, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 85, 88 and 89 together.
Amendment No. 88: Page 11, line 36, at end insert ("(any inaccuracy in counting being disregarded for the purposes of this paragraph if it is accidental and on a scale which could not affect the result of the ballot).")
Amendment No. 89: Page 12, line 13, after ("Act;") insert—
"post" means a postal service which—

(a) is provided by the Post Office or under a licence granted under section 68 of the British Telecommunications Act 1981; or

(b) does not infringe the exclusive privilege conferred on the Post Office by section 66(1) of that Act only by virtue of an order made under section 69 of that Act; and

"working hours", in relation to an employee, means any time when, in accordance with his contract of employment, he is required to be at work;").
Despite their length, these are not substantial amendments to the Bill as originally drafted. For the most part, they seek merely to clarify the meaning of certain of the Bill's original provisions so as to remove any possibilities of doubt or misinterpretation. At the same time, we have taken the opportunity to make some marginal improvements to which I shall refer in a moment.
All of these amendments relate to those subsections in Clause 8 of the Bill—subsections (6) and (7)—which set out the basic principles governing the conduct of ballots before calling a strike or other industrial action; namely, that voting should be without interference or constraint; that those entitled to vote should be supplied with a ballot paper or have one made available to them at a convenient time and place; that there should be a fair and convenient opportunity to vote without cost: that the ballot should be secret; that votes should be fairly and accurately counted. The Government's amendments do not alter the substance of any of those principles, though in a number of cases the language used to convey them has been modified. It may be helpful if I explain what the main changes are in this respect.
First, we have looked again at the concept of a convenient opportunity to vote. As your Lordships know, Part II of the Bill is designed to enable two systems of voting to satisfy its requirements. The first is the postal ballot; the second is the workplace ballot. However, since the Bill was introduced into your Lordships' House, some doubts have been cast on whether the Bill as originally drafted achieved this intention and there have been suggestions that branch ballots away from the workplace might not have been automatically ruled out in every circumstance. We have therefore sought to remove any possible room for doubt by making clear on the face of the Bill that voting must take place either by post or at a convenient time immediately before, after or during working hours; that is, at the workplace. A parallel change has been made in relation to the making available of ballot papers.
At the same time as making these drafting changes, we did look again at whether some of the absolute requirements in the Bill as originally drafted might have been too onerous on trade unions. In particular, the Bill as originally drafted made it an absolute requirement on the union to allow members to vote without interference or constraint. However, as has been pointed out to the Government, it is possible that a voter might suffer interference or constraint on the part of some third party who had nothing whatsoever to do with the union. Clearly that is not something for which the unions should be liable. Thus we have taken the opportunity to make clear that the only interference or constraint which will make the union liable is that imposed by the union, its members, officials or employees.
Similarly, the Bill as originally drafted, makes it an absolute requirement on the part of the union to count votes accurately. The reality of course is that if some trivial inaccuracy had been complained of to the courts they would almost certainly have dismissed it as de minimis. Nevertheless, to avoid any scope for unnecessary legal actions, we have now made explicit in the Bill that any inaccuracy in counting is to be disregarded if it was both accidental and on a scale which could not affect the result of the ballot. To the extent that these are drafting amendments, they do no more than restate more clearly what have always been the intended effects of the Bill. To the extent that they make changes at the margins, they are amendments which I feel sure the Committee will agree are sensible. Accordingly, I recommend that the amendments be made. I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: I suppose, according to the way the Bill is proceeding, we should be thanking the Members on the other side of the Committee (because this is our old friend Amendment No. 22 put in as Amendment No. 85) for the fact that in the case of strikes they are getting rid of workplace ballots altogether and making them 100 per cent. postal ballots, not just for union elections but also for strikes. But unless we take that extreme view I do not think that we can welcome this series of amendments.
There is a sense in which it might very well be the case that, looking at the provisions of Clause 8 of the Bill, a court might say that those provisions could not be carried out through a branch-based ballot, anyway. Therefore, one could argue that the provisions of this amendment are necessary in order to make clear what is inherent in the clause as it stands. But at least in the clause as it stands, if a trade union wished to say that it was going to consult its members in one particular way it could consult them in that particular way. If it decided that it wanted to do it by a branch ballot, it could do it in that particular way, although it might not stand up in court.
But what the Government are proposing in this amendment is that if. in addition to the problem, which we discussed earlier in Committee, of trying to obtain an up-to-date register from the employer (and being liable under the Act if the employer does not provide an up-to-date register) they tried to get facilities to have a ballot, in so far as they wished to operate a workshop-based ballot, at any time during the course of such a workplace ballot any member of the union could demand a postal vote in addition to

749
the arrangements which had been made for a workplace ballot on their behalf. Any group of members at any time, in the middle of a ballot of any sort, other than a full 100 per cent. postal ballot, could demand that they should have a postal ballot.
We have said tonight on several occasions, and, as far as I can remember, no Minister from the other side of the Committee has picked it up, that inherent in what the Government wish to do in spreading the necessity for postal ballots must be a belief that trade unions will be forced, as a result of the amendment, to apply for money under the certification scheme arising out of the 1980 legislation. The consequences of compulsory ballots for trade union elections, plus the consequences of trade union ballots in industrial disputes for all official strikes, make it absolutely essential for trade unions, if they are not to be bankrupted and if they are to conform to the law, to consider very seriously the need to change the existing policy of the TUC and to go to the certificating officer in order to try to find a way to get money under the scheme. Therefore, it is reasonable for us to say—we have said it repeatedly, but we have had no answer from the other side—that it turns out to be rather difficult to get money out of the certificating officer.
The certificating officer—I am talking now of applications, for the most part, for elections, not for strike ballots, of which he has not got much experience—has had 31 applications and has given 22 subsidies to 14 unions. And sometimes it takes up to two years for the certificating officer to agree on the details of a claim. I make no criticism of the officer. He has to answer to parliamentary scrutiny. But the fact is that if all these expensive additional ballots are necessary, and if individual employees, under the terms of this amendment, can at any time demand a postal ballot, the administrative problems placed upon trade unions and, indeed, on the administrative officer boggle description.
Finally—and we shall be coming back to this on a subsequent amendment—the Government are demanding that this whole system should be put in place in two months: everything is to be operating, including this new amendment allowing a trade union member to demand a postal ballot. We say that this must be intentionally designed to make it virtually impossible for unions to conduct official strike action. In that sense we must oppose it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 86 and 87 not moved.]
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 88:
[Printed earlier: col. 747.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 89:
[Printed earlier: col. 747.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
11.42 p.m.
Lord Aylestone Lord Aylestone moved Amendment No. 90:
Before Clause 9, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of 1913 Act, s.3.
.—(1) For sections 5 and 6 of the 1913 Act there shall be substituted the following section—
750
"5.—(1) A member of a trade union may at any time give notice that he wishes to contribute to the political fund of the union and, on the adoption of a resolution of the union approving the furtherance of political objects as an object of the union, notice shall be given to the members of the union acquainting them of the procedures for contributing to the political fund of the union, and that an appropriate contribution form can be obtained by or on behalf of a member either by application or by post from the head office or any branch office of the union or from the office of the Certification Officer.
(2) Any notice under subsection (1) above to members of the union shall be in a form, and shall be given, in accordance with the rules of the union approved for the purpose by the Certification Officer, having regard in each case to the existing practice and to the character of the union.
6. Effect shall be given to the wish of members to contribute to the political fund of a union by a separate levy of contributions to that fund from the members of the union who have completed the contribution form referred to in subsection (1) of section 5 above, and the rules shall provide that no moneys of the union other than the amount raised by such separate levy shall be carried to that fund."
(2) For the purposes of section 5 of the 1913 Act (as substituted by the preceding subsection) any trade union which has adopted such a resolution as is therein specified shall be deemed to have adopted the same on the day when this Part of this Act comes into force.")
The noble Lord said: At this hour of the night I shall be as brief as possible. Before I start I assure the Committee that I have no intention of pressing the amendment to a Division, but depending upon the debate itself, I shall consider what is to happen when we reach Report stage. We are now entering Part III, which deals with political funds. As we start on it I should like to state a personal opinion. In my view all political parties should be funded, to some extent, from public funds. I appreciate that has nothing to do with the Bill, but it is an idea which I have held, with others, for many years and which was, in fact, recommended some time ago by the Houghton Committee. However, let us deal with the position as it is in the Bill, rather than the situation concerning the Houghton Committee and the funding of political parties.
As I see it, the present position is that the Conservative Party is financed from personal subscription, private donations, and considerable gifts from companies which are obviously approved by those companies. The Labour Party is funded in part by personal subscriptions and private donations, but mainly—and I do not think this is questioned—from political funds of the trade unions. The Alliance is funded again by personal subscriptions and by private donations.
I very much doubt whether every trade unionist who pays through what is known as the political levy into the political fund of his trade union in fact votes Labour.
Figures have been quoted during the discussions that we have had on this Bill concerning the number of people who are members of trade unions and who voted, or did not vote, Labour. I do not know how those figures are arrived at. I should think that they are probably all questionable. But what is certain is that every individual who pays into the political fund of a trade union did not vote Labour. On the other hand, I am prepared to concede that probably the majority

751
did. The position therefore is that, although the political funds of trade unions, which are considerable, are contributed to mainly by trade unionists who support the Labour Party, there is a considerable number who do not, and it is the contributions of those people that we ought to take into consideration.
I am equally sure that there are very many shareholders who have shares in companies which make contributions to the Conservative Party and who do not all vote Conservative or wish that their contributions should be made to the Conservative Party. I hope that we shall come to that side of the question later, on an amendment that my noble friend Lord Rochester and I have down, Amendment No. 118—although I hope that we do not come to it this evening!
This new clause deals only with the political funds of trade unions. Under the 1913 Act (70 years ago) a person joining a trade union would obviously be invited—pressurised, if you like—to make a contribution to the political fund. He wanted a trade union card, he wanted a job and he unquestionably would agree to sign on the dotted line for his union card and membership, to pay the subscription to the union and to pay into the political levy. But there was a provision in the 1913 Act that, if he so wished, he could contract out. That sounds all very good and fair but not very easy. It would not be very easy in the trade union branch, wherever it may meet, in a packed meeting, or at the end of a meeting, for him to go to one of his trade union officers and ask for a form to contract out of the levy that he was paying into the political fund, most, if not all, of which went to the Labour Party.
The amendment now before the Committee takes the actual section of the 1913 Act, and, if the noble Lords have read it through and made the comparison, they will see that all it does is substitute for the words, "contracting out", "contracting in", so that trade unionists who wish to join the union and pay into the political levy can do so by contracting in rather than going through the drill of contracting out. It is not an anti-trade union clause: it is not an anti-Labour Party clause. It is a "pro" clause for those individuals who pay money into a political fund which they would prefer went in some other direction.
We have considered something which most people have talked about—whether or not the political fund of a trade union could be split to the extent that it is divided up in the same way as the members who make a contribution to it vote, but, on balance, we are of the opinion that this is an almost impossible thing to do. It would be bureaucratic in practice and would involve considerable problems and probably a great deal of money. It would be a very difficult procedure. We are of the opinion that it is a very difficult thing for a trade unionist who has agreed to contribute to the political levy to contract out.
All we seek to do in this amendment is to substitute "contracting in" for "contracting out". There is nothing new in it. It is an idea that has been discussed before and, as I said at the beginning, I have no intention of pressing it tonight. However, I hope that on reflection noble Lords will think about it. We shall probably have more information when we reach
752
Report stage and can then come to a decision on it. I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: As the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, has done, I do not propose to go into the whole question of the financing of political parties except to say, in passing, that from these Benches we also should like to see the financing of political parties on a public basis. I say that also as a member of the Houghton Committee, which made recommendations a few years ago.
The only other point of a general character that I want to make is that while, frankly, we recognise and admit that substantial funds are contributed to the central Labour Party organisation from the trade unions, the amount of money subscribed in the constituencies by ordinary individual members reaches a very substantial figure, as was proved in the evidence placed before the Houghton Committee.
However, I will deal with the amendment. It will be a travesty to link this amendment with any arguments for democracy. As has been pointed out, the 1913 Act provided the trade unions with legal authority to engage in political activities, provided they conformed with arrangements for a political fund which are laid down in that Act. We all know that this arose from a House of Lords judgment, the Osborne judgment. Among other things, it provided for contracting out.
I think it is generally known that that continued until 1927, when even moderate trade unionists—and practically all trade unionists were moderate in 1927—thought that this was a punitive action of the Government following the general strike. We then had contracting in, which lasted until 1946, when it was repealed and we went back to contracting out.
No other bodies except the trade unions have this type of constraint on their political activities. No other bodies except the trade unions have to have the requirement to go through the procedure which is laid down. Companies in their annual report have to declare donations to political causes in excess of £200; that is all.
Let us take a quick look at the procedures which must be gone through now. It is mandatory that a trade union must have a ballot of its members to decide whether or not it shall have a political fund. If approved, then it must make arrangements for political fund rules, with separate contributions from which payments can only be made for political activities. The rules then have to be approved by the certification officer.
Then, as Lord Aylestone pointed out, there has to be a provision for contracting out. I emphasise that only the trade unions have this stringent control on expenditure for political activities, so the certification officer, as laid down in the rules, will approve the rules if he is satisfied that every member has had a fair and equal opportunity to vote and that the secrecy of the ballot is properly secured. That is laid down in the 1913 Act. The 1913 Act also provides that, if any member is aggrieved by a breach of any rule, then he may complain to the certification officer.
Looking through the recent reports of a certification officer, what do I find? In 1978 there were 12 complaints. In 1979 there were 105 complaints, but

753
76 of those were from one workplace only. In 1980 there were 20 complaints. In 1981 there were 12 complaints. In 1982 there were 21 complaints. So there is no staggering objection from individuals making complaints to a certification officer.
If the union members decide, by ballot, to have a political fund, why on earth should anyone in the majority have to say, "Please may I join?" The union members have decided by ballot to have a political fund. Surely it must be left to those who dissent to have the right not to join or, in other words, to contract out. We are saying clearly that there must be the right to contract out, and the right to contract out is there. It would be turning democracy completely on its head, as I have stated on a number of occasions, to make the majority the ones who have to say, "Please may I join?", instead of the minority saying, "Please, I do not want to join, and I am not going to".
The decision to have a political fund is what we are debating. We are not debating affiliation to the Labour Party. When a union member ballots on whether or not to start a political fund, he is not deciding to join the Labour Party. After the political fund has been approved by the certification officer, a decision can be taken to affiliate to the Labour Party or to any other party. So far, trade unions have decided to affiliate only to the Labour Party. On a previous occasion, I challenged Ministers to give me one example of any union where the rules do not provide an opportunity for members to change the rules. In other words, if they wanted to withdraw from the political fund and to cease to have a political fund, they could do so.
As a matter of fact, I see in the report of the certification officer for 1983 that while 13 unions had amendments to the political fund rules approved by the certification officer, one union decided to cease having a political fund. There is this facility to change the rules if they wish. Members have the sole right to ballot on whether they want a political fund. There is a constitutional right for the minority to contract out, and, therefore, no need for the amendment. We believe that it turns democracy completely on its head.
11.57 p.m.
The Earl of Gowrie: We are now debating what has undoubtedly proved to be the most controversial feature of the trade union political funding system established by Parliament in 1983. The respective merits of contracting in and contracting out have exercised the minds of politicians of all parties on many occasions since then. As noble Lords will know, the arguments were rehearsed most recently only two months ago in another place. There are many points I could make about the Government's approach to this question. I shall, however, try to keep to the fundamentals in view of the lateness of the hour and in view of the fact that only certain aspects of the whole issue have been put to us at this stage. I should like to make it clear that we are in no doubt that the way in which the existing system of contracting out has been operated in the past has often failed to safeguard the right of union members not to pay the political levy if they do not want to.
It was the Government's awareness of the deficiencies of the contracting out system, and our determination to do something about them, that led to
754
much of what was said in chapter 4 of last year's Green Paper, which analysed the problems in considerable detail. It was that same awareness that led us to undertake in our general election manifesto:
"to invite the TUC to discuss the steps which the trade unions themselves could take to ensure that individual members are freely and effectively able to decide for themselves whether or not to pay the political levy".
We made it clear in that manifesto that if the trade unions were not willing to take such steps the Government would be prepared to introduce measures to guarantee the free and effective right of choice.
In the discussions which followed, the TUC indicated that they were willing to take remedial action and they put before the Government a draft statement which was subsequently endorsed by the General Council. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment told the TUC that, provided this statement was endorsed and issued to member unions with their committed support, then the Government would not make changes in this Bill to the law on contracting out. But he also made it very clear to the TUC that this undertaking was given only on the understanding that the TUC guidance proves to be effective. If it does not, then the Government reserve the right to introduce legislation to guarantee the free and effective right of choice. As the Secretary of State has also observed, the case for legislation in the event that the TUC's guidance proves ineffective will be immeasurably strengthened by the fact that they have first been offered a voluntary arrangement.
The TUC's statement of guidance is designed to ensure three things: that trade union members are aware of their rights; that no difficulties are placed in the way of those who want to exercise those rights; and that more information is available to union members about how political contributions are spent. I do not think that we should try to debate tonight what are the best legislative means of safeguarding the right not to pay the political levy. We undertook in our manifesto to consult the TUC, and we have done so. We should now give the TUC's guidance a chance to operate, and we must all hope that it will be effective. But if it is not, then, as my right honourable friend has made clear, we reserve the right to bring forward further legislation, and if we do so then, it will be on the basis of proven need.
That is the approach the Government have adopted consistently since we came to office in 1979. I am sure that it is the right approach and that we should not depart from it now. This is an issue which has been debated thoroughly in another place and rejected by an overwhelming majority of votes. Therefore, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, has indicated that it is not his intention to press it to a Division tonight.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I will not take more than a couple of minutes of the Committee's time. I feel that, for the time being at any rate, the Government have taken a wise decision, and I think we should leave it there. There is nothing more to be done about it without breaking understandings that have been reached.

755
On the general question, I cannot emphasise too strongly that it would be a profound mistake to consider this solely as a trade union matter. Really, we are dealing with the consequences of action taken on the political levy in the unions. Those consequences could be very serious indeed for one of our major political parties. History has brought us to where we are in that regard. The Labour Party has become overwhelmingly dependent upon the political levy. The political levy, started 70 years ago, can scarcely be relevant to modern conditions. There is a good deal of thinking still to be done about how political parties should be funded.
We are the only country in Western Europe which is not subsidising, if that is the word—supporting —political activities in democratic societies. The committee of which I had the honour to be chairman examined the various systems that they had in these other countries. It is nothing to be ashamed of; other people are doing it, and many of the misgivings about it have proved unfounded where practical experience has been gained of it.
I hope that in this Parliament at any rate we shall not get mixed up further with this question of political levy—certainly not without considering afresh and fundamentally the funding of our political parties. That is the issue we will have to deal with eventually, and it would be a mistake to approach it from any other single aspect. It is comprehensive in its significance and comprehensive in its consequences. I should be very sorry indeed to see anything done to disturb the present arrangement while we are uncertain as to what we are going to put in its place.
Lord Aylestone: This very short debate has made it absolutely clear that there is a great deal more to be said, and more to be thought about, with regard to this matter. I do not propose to do anything further tonight; we will have an opportunity on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 [Political fund resolutions: periodical ballots]:
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 91:
Page 12, line 21, at end insert ("and to a resolution under section (Restriction on application of company funds for certain political purposes) of this Act.")
The noble Lord said: We wish to withdraw this amendment, together with Amendments Nos. 92 and 93, and, subsequently, Nos. 94, 95 and 96. The aim of the amendment was to draw a parallel, as we see it, between the position of trade unions and their levy, and companies and their absence of a levy. We are to return to this, because we have been allowed another amendment—Amendment No. 117A—which we shall move, probably tomorrow.
[Amendment No. 91 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 92 and 93 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 9 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McCarthy: I want to delay the Committee just a few moments on the Question, That the clause shall stand part of the Bill. Much of the argument against the clause has been made by my noble friend Lord Underhill in speaking against the previous amendment. But it is necessary very briefly to point out to the Committee that, quite apart from the restrictions on trade unions and the operation of the political levy as it exists at the moment, the Government propose two major changes in Part III of the Bill. As regards Clause 9 of the Bill, we are about to consider our attitude towards one of those changes—that is to say that the ballot in future will have to be run every 10 years.
The arguments about the ballot—the extent to which the ballot is a singular and indeed a unique restriction upon institutions—have been made with great eloquence and brevity by my noble friend Lord Underhill. I therefore merely wish to address my attention to the narrow line of arguments which have been put forward by the Government, and to some extent put forward in the Green Paper, as to why they have to change the ballot to make it a 10-year one.
When we come to consider tomorrow—or perhaps tonight to some extent—Clause 15 of the Bill, we shall be arguing that indeed Clause 15 is in some ways much worse than Clause 9, because it narrows the area within which trade unions can operate. Nevertheless, arguments have been put forward about Clause 9 and I want to say a word or two about them this evening.
It has been said frequently that there are great variations in the proportion of trade union members who actually pay the political levy. This has been said to be some evidence that pressure by trade union officials is placed upon workers to force them to pay the political levy and that therefore there is a case for asking the entire trade union every 10 years whether it wishes to agree to the general principle of having such a levy. Anybody who wanted to do so could explain quite easily the variations that can be found in the proportions of workers who are paying the political levy. In some unions it is the case that the bulk of the members of those unions are not members of the Labour Party. It may be that in some cases they are actually Conservatives. Some unions include in the calculation of their returns to the certification officer superannuated out-of-trade members. Some unions are especially assiduous in the collection of the levy. Some unions have a particularly large number of low-paid workers, and some unions have particularly large numbers of workers on the check-off.
There is no need to look to pressure or to any kind of coercion to explain in general terms the variations between one union and another or the variations inside one union as compared with another as regards the proportions paying the levy. In any case, as my noble friend Lord Underhill rightly said, we have at hand the machinery of the certification officer. All the efforts of all the organisations who are have tried to prove that there are individuals who are having compulsion put upon them to pay the political levy have not uncovered any significant evidence at all.
The fact is that under the terms of the existing legislation any individual who does not wish to pay the levy can contract out. There is no evidence whatever of

757
any pressure being placed upon him not to contract out. In those circumstances, we would argue that the present clause cannot be justified.
The Earl of Gowrie: The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, was admirably brief and succinct. I have a long and splendid speech on this subject, but I am not sure whether the Committee would be particularly entranced if I delivered it at this stage. I think that very wise words were said by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, in connection with the whole issue of political funding and contracting in and out. As I said earlier, the Government have had consultations with the TUC, and the TUC has met the Government's wishes, at least at this preliminary moment in time. So I think that perhaps it would be best to see how things run. I am sure that this is not an issue which will rapidly disappear from the political economy.
Clause 9 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 94, 95 and 96 not moved.]
Clause 10 [Ballots: supplementary provisions]:
12.10 a.m.
The Earl of Gowrie The Earl of Gowrie moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 13, line 9, after ("(1)"), where it first occurs, insert—("In section 4(1) of the 1913 Act (ballots to be in accordance with rules approved by the Certification Officer) for the words from "every member" to the end there shall be substituted "the requirements of subsections (1A) to (1G) below would be satisfied in relation to a ballot taken by the union in accordance with those rules.
(1A) Entitlement to vote in the ballot must be accorded equally to all members of the trade union.
(1B) The method of voting must be by the marking of a voting paper by the person voting.
(1C) Every person who is entitled to vote in the ballot must—

(a) be allowed to vote without interference from, or constraint imposed by, the union or any of its members, officials or employees; and

(b) so far as is reasonably practicable, have a voting paper made available to him—

(i) immediately before, immediately after, or during, his working hours; and

(ii) at a place convenient to him;

or be supplied with a voting paper.
(1D) The arrangements which are made for the casting of votes in the ballot must be fair and designed to secure that

(a) every person who is entitled to vote in the ballot is, so far as is reasonably practicable, given—

(i) only the opportunity mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (1E) below;

(ii) only that mentioned in paragraph (b) of that subsection; or

(iii) as alternatives, both of those opportunities (but no other); and

(b) every person voting in the ballot is, so far as is reasonably practicable, enabled to do so without incurring any direct cost to himself.

(1E) The opportunities are—

(a) a convenient opportunity to vote by post;

(b) an opportunity to vote—

(i) immediately before, immediately after, or during, his working hours; and

(ii) at a place which is convenient to him.

(1F) The ballot must be conducted so as to secure that—

(a) so far as is reasonably practicable, those voting do so in secret; and

(b) the votes given in the ballot are fairly and accurately counted (any inaccuracy in counting being disregarded for the purposes of this paragraph if it is accidental and on a scale which could not affect the result of the ballot).

758
(1G) In this section—
"post" means a postal service which—

(a) is provided by the Post Office or under a licence granted under section 68 of the British Telecommunications Act 1981; or

(b) does not infringe the exclusive privilege conferred on the Post Office by section 66(1) of that Act only by virtue of an order made under section 69 of that Act; and

"working hours", in relation to an employee, means any time when, in accordance with his contract of employment, he is required to be at work."
(2) ")
The noble Earl said: With the permission of the Committee, I should like to move Amendment No. 97 and at the same time speak also to Amendment No. 98.
Amendment No. 98: Page 13, line 10, leave out from ("Act") to ("shall") in line 11.
The purpose of these amendments is to bring the balloting conditions laid down for political funds by the Trade Union Act 1913 into line with the conditions applying under Part II of the Bill. Although the conditions currently laid down by the 1913 Act require union members to be given an equal right and a fair opportunity of voting, and make provision for secrecy to be properly secured, they do not come up to the standards set by the Bill in one crucial respect. They make no explicit provision for trade union members to be given a convenient opportunity to vote. Put simply, the aim of this amendment is to ensure that trade unions are not able to evade their duty to ballot their members on the continuance of political funds by arranging for the matter to be considered only at branch meetings.
Noble Lords will be aware from earlier debates that it is the Government's firm view that, where postal ballots are not held, the only alternative must be ballots at the workplace. It is simply not sufficient to rely on the broad principles of providing an "equal right" and a "fair opportunity" to vote, contained in the 1913 Act, to rule out the possibility of voting taking place by means of inconvenient branch ballots held away from the workplace. The Government therefore believe it essential to bring the arrangements laid down by the 1913 Act into line for this purpose with current thinking on the conduct of trade union ballots. There is no reason why ballots on trade union political funds should be any less convenient to the members, or less well run in any other respect, than any other ballots dealt with in this Bill. On this basis I commend the amendments to the Committee.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: With this amendment to their own Bill, brought forward nine months after its first introduction, the Government reach the high point of their dogma in their approach to these matters. These are changes for dogmatic change's sake and this can be seen if one looks a little more closely than did the noble Earl at the experience with the present law.
In order to have a ballot under the 1913 Act, Section 4 required that the ballot be taken in accordance with rules approved by—it used to be the registrar—the certification officer. It then went on to state that the certification officer:
"shall not approve any such rules unless he is satisfied that every member has an equal right, and, if reasonably possible, a fair

759
opportunity of voting, and that the secrecy of the ballot is properly secured".
The noble Earl tells us that that has to be replaced by provisions which are precisely in line with Part II, first of all because they do not include the words "convenient opportunity". How does that square with the experience of the Act?
A recent work by Dr. Ewing of Edinburgh University, entitled Trade Unions: the Labour Party and the Law, examined this whole area in detail. On page 98, in relation to Section 4 of the 1913 Act, Dr. Ewing reports on his researches (and I know of none that in any way controverts him) as follows:
"There have been no reported complaints of any breaches of the ballot rules. However, there were two incidents which demonstrate that the Chief Registrar imposed strict conditions on the holding of ballots".
He then describes the only two known incidents of difficulty under the existing law. One was in 1938, when a union was required to send ballot papers to superannuated members and to apprentices in order that every member should have an opportunity to vote—and that was strictly applied. The other was in 1949, when a Civil Service union balloted its members on a political fund proposal and the ballot was declared void by the Chief Registrar because the ballot papers did not contain the branch stamp which was required by the rules. You cannot get much more strict than that kind of supervision, and yet since 1913 those, apparently, are the only two complaints known under the existing law.
Why is it, then, that the Government have to replace this law, which appears to have worked strictly but well? First, everything must be the same. We must have the same clauses here as under Part II. It might have occurred to the Government that that which is appropriate for the election of officers of a union might not be appropriate precisely for strike ballots, and might not be appropriate equally precisely for voting on these matters. If one looks at the amendment more closely, one wonders whether it is better on a fair view than the 1913 Act.
It is clear that the 1913 Act was administered by the registrar, and now by the certification officer, in a way which would not allow interference of any kind. Yet when we look at the new subsection (1C) we find:
"Every person who is entitled to vote in the ballot must—
"(a) be allowed to vote without interference from, or constraint imposed by, the union or any of its members, officials or employees".
From a speech made earlier tonight by the noble Lord, Lord Gray, we were told on a previous parallel clause that that provision was put in so that the union should not be liable for interference caused by a third party; that the words,
"interference … by, the union or any of its members, officials or employees".
are restricted to the union's interference, in order to protect the union. But the old form of the Bill, where we met this in its first printing, just talked about interference and constraint, and we thought that the Government were always concerned about the individual at least as much, if not more, than the union. So why does it not include a protection for the individual member against interference by a third
760
party—by an employer, by a newspaper? Why should not people be told by legislation that these members have a right to vote without interference or constraint?
I am sure the union must not impose it, but what about these other people who, under the old jurisdiction, if the issue had arisen, would have been looked at carefully by the registrar so far as he could? It is true that the word "interference" was not in the statute and we put it in now, but if we put it in now why do we restrict this protection of the individual member here and in this place only to interference from the union?
Under the old jurisdiction, under which there were no complaints from 1913, it is true that union premises could be used in the course of the ballot on this matter according to the union rules, which must be strictly applied. Why on this matter, whatever the arguments on strike ballots or on the election of officers, should union premises not be included among those where all or part of the procedures of a ballot are proper? What would happen if Parliament demanded that shareholders of a limited company who were to vote on the setting up of a particular fund, whatever it was about, must do so either by post or at the Stock Exchange, or at a stockbroker's office? They might say, "On this domestic matter it seems to us reasonable that we can take a vote at a general meeting held at the company's offices, or at a suitable hall that the company hires".
This is another example of trade unions being different. But they are only different here because of the Osborne judgment—one of the worst decisions ever in the history of English law. They are only different here because the law has picked out trade unions and political funds and has victimised them in a way in which it has not adopted with any other association in our law. When there had been no complaints over this long period, when the law had worked fairly and properly, one would have thought that the Government would not need to come forward with an amendment which, first, has been motivated merely by parallelism—the wish to make everything the same in all parts of the Bill whatever the considerations or the purpose; secondly, motivated by parallelism which is not even superior to the present law and does not even protect the individual member in his vote against interference by third parties—which appears to be the Government's determination in their first printing of the Bill, in matters of this kind.
This is surely not an amendment that the Government are wise in pressing; an amendment for which no real case has been made in the speech of the noble Earl.
The Earl of Gowrie: On the subject of parallelism, I am sure that the noble Lord would be one of the first to tease or challenge the Government if one part of the Bill were inconsistent with another. In providing for ballots under Part III of the Bill, we were faced with a different situation than in Parts I and II, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware. In Parts I and II of the Bill, we were in what might be described as a green field situation; there was nothing on which we could build. But the position with Part III was quite different, because there already existed arrangements under the 1913 Act for political fund ballots.

761
We knew that we might wish to change those arrangements to ensure that unacceptable forms of balloting arrangements were ruled out, but it seemed best to see what arrangements were arrived at for the other parts of the Bill before deciding exactly what changes were necessary. In the event, we could see no good reason for not bringing the 1913 Act conditions into line with what might be described as the standards of today.
On the subject of companies, the noble Lord should not seek too widely to make the equation of the two sides of industry. The fact of the matter is that companies are covered by a network of law in matters that pertain to them; in matters that do not pertain to them, they have a wholly different function from trade unions. They do not have powers in the same way over the lives of ordinary people, and the tendency to monopoly under competitive capitalism—which can lead to companies having an imbalance of power in a political economy—is covered in our system, and in the American system as well, by anti-trust or antimonopoly legislation. That equation really will not easily do.
Lord Rochester: I rise only to confirm what the noble Earl has said to some degree; that the arrangements for ballots under Part III are, as I understand it, very far from being the same as those in the earlier parts of the Bill. When we come to consider this matter at a later stage, I suppose it would not be inappropriate to consider even stricter interpretations or arrangements for the holding of ballots.
In Part I of the Bill, members of the principal executive committee of a trade union have to submit themselves for re-election not every 10 years but every five years. There was that very significant vote last Tuesday night, I remind the Committee, when we agreed to secret postal ballots for that purpose. I am not at this moment suggesting that that is what should be done in this case. But it is reasonable to point out that there are differences and that a case could be made—and maybe there should be a debate on this at a later stage—for even stricter arrangements than those now included in Part III of the Bill, for ballots under that part.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Before the noble Lord sits down, would he care to say whether he would join us in wishing that union members were protected against interference from whatever quarter when they came to vote?
Lord Rochester: I was not seeking to make any points at this late stage, save to add to what the noble Earl had said in relation to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, that the arrangements for ballot in Part III were the same as in earlier parts of the Bill. They are very far from being that.
Lord Bauer: May I rise in support of the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, to point out that the analogy between companies and trade unions fails partly for the reason which he instanced but also for the further reason that if a shareholder is dissatisfied with, say, the political contribution of his company, he is in a position to sell his shares and leave the company. Members of trade unions are not in that position.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
12.27 a.m.
The Earl of Gowrie The Earl of Gowrie moved Amendment No. 98:
[Printed earlier: col. 758.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 [Assets and liabilities of political fund.]:
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 14, line 27, after ("contributions") insert ("or loans")
The noble Lord said: This, you might say, is our amendment in minimus. We simply want to add two words to Clause 11. Clause 11 is the clause which sets out the provisions governing assets and liabilities of the political fund. It says:
"At any time when there is a resolution in force with respect to a trade union, no property shall be added to the union's political fund other than …sums representing contributions made to the fund by members of the union or by any person other than the union itself."
We want to add sums representing contributions or loans.
As we understand it, the situation at the moment is that loans can be made to unions. A union can have a loan from its bank or from someone else and that loan can be paid into the political fund. But, as we fear under the proposed legislation, sums simply representing contributions—a phrase not found in the 1913 Act—can be paid into a political fund and loans cannot be paid. The 1913 Act, on the other hand, in Section 3(1)(a), says payments made from a separate fund. This, as we understand it, does not prevent members, if they wish, assisting the union politically in the form of loans, although those loans have to be repaid. What we are saying is that this helps from time to time when political funds become overdrawn. We do not see any reason why the Government should not allow this to be in this Bill.
The Earl of Gowrie: I have to say that the Government can see no justification for loans for political funds whose only purpose would be to enable the union to maintain their party political expenditure at levels above those for which their members have made provision. Subsection (1) of the Bill specifies three different categories of payments which may be made into political funds. The first is sums representing contributions made to the fund by members of the union; the second is sums representing contributions made to the fund by any person other than the union itself; and the third category is property which accrues to the fund in the course of administering its assets—interests, dividends and rents, for example.
Loans fall, it seems to us, into a very different category from those. A union which negotiates a loan for its political fund, whether from a bank, a financial institution or even, as some unions are reported to have done, from another union, would surely not simply be tiding itself over an immediate cash-flow shortage. It would rather be artificially propping up political expenditure which its own members are, or might be, unwilling to finance. Put in its most practical terms, it would be enabling people to buy a bigger say in the deliberations of a political party—nine times out of ten the Labour Party—through the purchase of block votes than the wishes of its members would justify. It seems to me very difficult to place any other

763
interpretation on political fund loans. Unions whose members support their political activities need no loans. They should be able to increase the amount of their political levy. The only unions that would need to resort to political fund loans would be those which doubt their members' support and fear that increasing the amount of their levy would have the effect of triggering off a surge in the number of contracting-out applications.
I believe that the provisions in Clause 11 are fair and provide an altogether helpful degree of clarity. Although this is not a matter which the Government regard as being of enormous significance, I can see no higher grounds for recommending to the Committee that it should accept the amendment.
Lord Underhill: Before the noble Earl sits down, does he recognise that there are occasions such as in 1974 when there were two general elections within six months? Therefore it is not a question of propping up extra expenditure but of paying money which will be repaid from the loan in order to run the election fairly, which did not occur to the Conservative Party.
The Earl of Gowrie: There is no objection from the Government or from the Conservative Party, whose views on the state funding of political parties are well known, to unions making contributions to the Labour Party. The objection is that there should be devices by which larger sums of money are contributed to the Labour Party or any political party than the members of the union wish.
Lord McCarthy: The generosity that the noble Earl shows to his opponents makes Mr Gradgrind look like Father Christmas. It has been explained to him quite clearly why and how this is done but he does not want to know.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Position where resolution has ceased to have effect]:
The Earl of Gowrie The Earl of Gowrie moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 15, line 16, leave out from beginning to ("before") in line 17.
The noble Earl said: With this it will be convenient to take also Amendments Nos. 101, 102 and 103:
Page 15, line 23, at end insert ("or would increase any deficit in the fund")
Page 16, line 21, leave out ("a") and insert ("the")
Page 16, line 28, at end insert—
("(8A) Where, at any time after a resolution has ceased to have effect—

(a) the trade union holds a ballot; and

(b) the result of the ballot is that a new resolution is passed; no property which immediately before the date of the ballot was held by or on the behalf of the union otherwise than in its political fund, and no sums representing any such property, shall be added to that fund.

(8B) Where a resolution ceases to have effect but immediately afterwards there is a new resolution in force with respect to the trade union, the cessation of the old resolution shall be disregarded for the purposes of this section.")
These amendments need not detain us for long. All are intended to make technical improvements to the
764
Bill, either in terms of its operation or purely in terms of drafting.
Clause 14 appeared to be the subject of a certain amount of confusion to some honourable Members in the party opposite when it arose during the Committee stage in another place. The clause applies to a situation where a trade union passes a political fund resolution having lost one on some previous occasion. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent a trade union from choosing to maintain its political fund—without adding to it from outside sources during what I might call this "dormant" period. But that is what some honourable Members in the party opposite appeared to think was meant by Clause 14—notwithstanding the fact that it refers to sums which might be "added" to the political fund. The new subsection (8A) is designed to make this clearer.
I hope that your Lordships will agree that this series of amendments do represent desirable small improvements to the construction of the Bill and that the Committee will give them its support.
On Question, Amendments Nos. 100 to 103 agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Restriction on transfers into political fund after passing of new resolution]:
[Amendment No. 104 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 14 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McCarthy: As I understand it, the noble Earl wishes to take back the clause. That is why I did not move Amendment No. 104.
The Earl of Gowrie: I apologise to your Lordships' Committee. I am feeling a little punch-drunk at this stage. As I have already advised the Committee in proposing Amendment No. 103, the provisions of Clause 14, like most of the provisions in Clause 12, come into operation where a resolution has ceased to have effect. That phrase needs to be clarified to ensure that both the Clause 12 and the Clause 14 provisions do not come into effect when an old resolution is replaced by a new one, following a successful ballot. The problem could be dealt with most succinctly by moving Clause 14 into Clause 12, thereby avoiding the necessity of repeating the new subsection (8)(b) in Clause 14. I beg to move.
On Question, Clause 14 negatived.
Clause 15 [Political objects]:
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 17, line 32, at end insert (" (without prejudice to the furtherance of any other political objects) ")
The noble Lord said: We now come to Clause 15, and if I have already said to your Lordships that many clauses in this Bill are objectionable, then I say that this clause is even more objectionable. It is more objectionable on a very curious basis. It deals with the definition of what is meant by "political objects". Your Lordships will appreciate that that is highly important when the law constricts trade unions alone in the manner and operation of their expenditure on political objects.
From the very beginning the Government's case has been that all they are doing is to update the definition. I shall give just one quotation which could be paralleled in speech after speech by Government Ministers. On 28th February in another place the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, Mr. Clark, said at col. 1289:
"It is the Government's purpose to update and not to tighten existing controls".
The old definition set out the political objects, but in the same section of the 1913 Act (Section 3) it was stated that the political objects controlled by the section, and therefore by the Act, were without prejudice to the furtherance of any other political object. That meant that a union could (and many did) include in their objects in the rule book the furtherance of wider political objects. For example, the objects of the Transport and General Workers' Union, to take one of very many, included,
"the furtherance of political objects of any kind".
That meant that there were political objects in the layman's sense which could be funded from the general fund and did not have to be funded from the political fund. The political fund was confined to the definition of political objects in Section 3(3) of the 1913 Act which, broadly speaking, covered the following matters: (a) the payment of expenses of parliamentary or local government candidates; (b) the holding of meetings or distributing literature for such candidates; (c) the maintenance of those candidates if they were elected as members of those bodies; (d) the registering of electors or selection of candidates; and (e) the holding of political meetings or the distribution of political literature, unless the main purpose was the statutory objects of trade unions, to which we come later.
I have summarised the provision, but I think that is a fair description. Point (e) was interpreted as including political expenditure which would support such party candidates. Therefore there was a considerable area of what the laymen might call "political activity" which could be funded out of the general fund, especially after the decision of the registrar in Forster's case in 1925, of which I spoke to your Lordships on Second Reading. The registrar said that the right construction of "political" in the definition of 1913 was,
"not the adjectival form of 'polity' but the adjectival form of 'party politics'."
That interpretation of the sections concerned largely with candidates, elections and so on, left areas such as a general campaign against cuts, which in a decision of 1980 was allowed to be funded from the general fund, and indeed a number of other areas where unions could engage in the operation of social controversy without having a political fund or without funding it from the political fund. This is a very important matter to unions which do not have political funds at all, of which there are very many. Government Ministers sometimes speak as though all unions have political funds, which is far from the case.
The issue for the Government is this. If the new version of the definition is only an up-date, would they like to give us some example—or, preferably, examples—of activity of that kind that would not fall within it? We can give them many examples of
766
activities of that kind which I might call, for want of a better term, engaging in social controversy and which the ordinary man would call political. Also—dare I mention it?—the ILO would call it political, because, in the 1983 report on freedom of association, the ILO points out in paragraph 195 that political activity in the very widest sense—they say "in the broadest sense of the word"—is a necessary part of a trade union's activity in modern society and part of freedom of association.
So would the Government like to give us, before we get on, some illustrations of the areas which would be included in these other political objects, which we are sure they wish to see preserved if the definition is not being tightened? The main thrust of the points which will be put by my noble friends and myself on Clause 15 is that the Government have not stood by their word on Clause 15, that Clause 15 is a rigorous tightening of the definition, and that it is very difficult to see any areas which would stand in those areas of other political objects if it is passed into law.
The Government have pretended from the beginning that all that is intended is to up-date—for example, including the European Parliament, which of course is an up-date and one would accept that; there are many ways in which there are up-dates in the clause and we do not reject that—but the new definition as a whole does not leave in those areas of social controversy which could be paid for from ordinary funds and which could be engaged in by unions which do not have political funds.
This amendment is an attempt to allow the Government at an early stage, before we get to the particular parts which we say constrict, to give us an example of where those words would apply. If the Government suggest that the words are not necessary because they are in Section 3(1) of the 1913 Act, the response to that is that that is true, but the Government have not deleted them from Section 3(1) of the 1913 Act and this is the only way in which we can ask the Government what their meaning is in the context of the new definition. That is the question posed by this amendment. I beg to move.
Viscount Long: At this late hour, I should not like to get the noble Lord more excitable about this Bill, but I have been very interested in listening to him. When I first examined these amendments, I was at a complete loss to see why noble Lords opposite had chosen to table them and I must admit that some of my apprehension remains. Noble Lords opposite are perfectly well aware that precisely the words used in these amendments already are, and will remain, in Section 3(1) of the 1913 Act, which the noble Lord has mentioned.
This makes perfectly clear that the Act's control applies only to the political objects specified in Section 3(3), without prejudice to the furtherance of any other political objects. The existing version of Section 3(3) which Clause 15 of the Bill seeks to replace, and which contains exactly the same introductory phrase as in the new version, does not repeat this qualification—and rightly so. There is no need to do so.
We ought to get one thing clear at the start of these debates on Clause 15. The 1913 Act imposed controls

767
on what may broadly be described as party political and electoral expenditure, as the noble Lord has described it in his amendment. Section 3(1) makes it clear that this is the case. This was quite intentional on the part of the authors of the 1913 Act. The Government have repeatedly made it clear that they have no intention of going beyond the principles established by the 1913 Act by extending the controls beyond the kind of political objects which it has always covered. Some noble Lords may think we should do so, but that is not our intention. Noble Lords opposite will no doubt argue that we have done so, but we shall counter their arguments when we come to debate later amendments to the clause.
I hope the noble Lord understands that it is better that I should go no further than I have already gone and that he will withdraw the amendment and listen to what we are going to say in relation to the following amendments to Clause 15.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: It is far too late at night to withdraw amendments. The Minister has told us that Section 3(1) already includes these words. It does. I said so myself. The question is whether the new definition makes the words meaningless. Nothing that the Minister has said has suggested to me that that is not so. The Government are adopting in this clause a Humpty-Dumpty control of words—more so than they have done previously in the Bill.
I noted what the Minister said and I shall read very carefully what he said in Hansard, because I apprehend that his formulation about what the Government intend is not exactly that which was put forward in another place. I believe the Minister said that the Government do not intend to go beyond the principles of the definition contained in the 1913 Act. That is very different from an update of the definition contained in the 1913 Act. That would let them off the hook. Anybody who depends upon a principle can then define as he likes. That is what the Government are doing.
We shall let the amendment rest where it is. The Minister will gradually see the point of the amendments. He has already begun to do so. As my noble friends move the rest of the amendments, we shall see that they are challenging an extension of the meaning of political objects and therefore are narrowing the area of the permissible activity by trade unions. The Minister did not give one illustration of what these words, in whatever clause they are, could mean, and that was very notable.
On Question, amendment negatived.
12.48 a.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 18, line 4, leave out from ("party") to end of line 6.
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 106. My noble friend Lord Wedderburn referred to the 1913 Act. In reply, the Minister also referred to the 1913 Act. This amendment deals with what we consider to be an extension of that Act. That is why we have asked for the deletion of the words:
768
"any other meeting at which business of a political party is transacted."
There is a whole host of meetings at which political business is transacted. Meetings may be held not just for specific political purposes. For instance, anybody who attends a branch meeting of the union of which I have been privileged to be a member all my life knows that a normal branch meeting held once a fortnight (although the meetings are now held once a month because of the reduction in the number of members and in an attempt to save expense) could call for nominations to a parliamentary panel. It does not necessarily follow that if a person in my union is nominated for the parliamentary panel he will be placed upon it. That kind of meeting takes place once every Parliament, just after a general election.
The meeting could be held to discuss an annual request, in about August of each year, for nominations to the municipal panel. They would not be special, political items, but just part of normal branch life. It could be a branch meeting to discuss the election of the leader of the Labour Party, if the Labour Party was having an election for a new leader or a new deputy leader. It could be that a particular branch was being asked to support certain nominations for a whole host of positions throughout the Labour Party.
I have to tell your Lordships that, in the main, trade union branches do not call meetings of a specific nature just to discuss politics. I have never come across that in my own union. That is why I believe that the subsection which inserts this extension is totally unworkable. I do not know how one can draw a distinction between the two. That is why we have tabled the amendment. There is probably a whole host of other types of difficulty which could be met in other trade unions. The amendment is worthy of consideration because of the difficulty it will cause unions in trying even to analyse what the subsection means.
Lord Gray of Contin: On a simple logical basis, I can see absolutely no reason why trade unions should be able to finance meetings of this sort—in effect, political caucus meetings, because that is what they are. There is no case for them being able to fund such meetings out of their own general funds.
But that is not the only ground on which I oppose the amendment. I oppose it also because it has been established by decisions of the certification officer and the person who previously held his responsibilities —the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies—that meetings of this kind are covered by the existing definition. In the case of Forster v. National Amalgamated Union of Shop Assistants, Warehousemen and Clerks in 1925, the Chief Registrar held:
"Meetings of the purest trade union kind, without any admixture of Labour or other politics, must be paid out of the political fund if they are held or issued in support of a candidate or prospective candidate."
This ruling related to paragraph (b) of the existing definition.
In relation to paragraph (e) of the existing definition, the certification officer has recently confirmed in the case of Richards v. National Union of Mineworkers in 1981 that the definition covers expenditure on

769
political meetings whether held by the trade union itself or by some other body, and, in the latter case, that the purpose of the meeting should be determined according to the intention of the holders of the meeting, not of the union contributing the money.
In the case of Parkin v. ASTMS last year the Employment Appeal Tribunal, considering an appeal from a decision of the certification officer, confirmed in rejecting a submission from the union that the existing paragraph (e) covers expenditure on internal meetings held in private as well as those held in public.
Lord McCarthy: Surely the noble Lord can see the difference between a meeting which is held by a trade union, yes, to support a given candidate—that was covered—as against a general meeting during which some of the time of the meeting is spent discussing Labour Party business. That, we suggest, is going to be covered by the Bill. There is a difference.
Lord Gray of Contin: I am afraid I do not see the difference. I do not agree the argument put forward by noble Lords. I do not think, therefore, that noble Lords opposite can argue that paragraph (e) of the new definition goes further than the existing definition in encompassing meetings at which the business of a political party is transacted. For that reason I am afraid I am not convinced by Amendment No. 106, and I suggest that the noble Lord withdraws it.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I think that the reply of the noble Lord the Minister to both myself and my colleague Lord McCarthy is totally unsatisfactory. I can only assume that he does not understand what is being said. I am a member of the second biggest union in this country. It relies totally on the branch meeting. No nomination from any other body is valid, other than from our executive council, unless it starts life in the branch. From the branch it has to go to the district committee to see whether it is in order at district level, and from there it is forwarded to the executive council of the AEU. I can tell the noble Lord that this union, which is one of the biggest unions, with over 1 million members, so far as I am aware does not call special meetings on the basis of discussing political nominations and support for political candidates.
If the AEU in London, Manchester, or any other area were to call a meeting specifically to promote or support a candidate—one Mr. Benn—for the deputy leadership, I would not argue one iota that the sole basis for that meeting was not totally political. The case would be unanswerable. But a branch meeting in Leeds, with perhaps 18 men, may be going through the normal monthly business. On its agenda may be a circular from Leeds City Labour Party saying, "We are now open for nominations for the panel to fight the 1985 election". They may say, "Joe there, he's been in the party three or four years. Do you want to go on the panel, Joe?" He says, "Yes", and so they nominate him. Would that immediately become a political meeting? From what the Minister has said, it would. That is absolute nonsense. Such things are dealt with mostly in correspondence. Most often it is not even a special item on the agenda. For instance, as I said, after a general election my union is charged, because of the rules, with drawing up a new parliamentary panel, and
770
every branch in the country is circulated from the executive councils as to whether they would like to nominate for the AEU parliamentary panel, which they do. As I said, that goes to the district committee. If it is approved by the district committee, it is then forwarded on, and then a series of examinations takes place, and the best are supposed to get through. That does not always happen. There is something of the 11-plus about it.
The point that I am trying to make is that nowhere in the AEU rules of branch life are meetings called specifically, or even 50 per cent., to discuss politics as the, or even a, main item on the agenda. If a district committee, a divisional committee, or even perhaps a works committee, called a meeting for the specific purpose of supporting a candidate on a political platform, there would be a basis for the provision. But I am completely dissatisfied with the Minister's answer. I do not think that he has met the point whatsoever, and I believe that he will run into trouble with this.
Lord Gray of Contin: The effect of the amendment which the noble Lord has moved would be to take all meetings at which party business is conducted out of the definition. That I am not prepared to accept. But, in view of what he has said, I shall agree to consider this matter further, though I must make it clear that I cannot accept the amendment in its present form. I am prepared to have another look at this.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. On the basis of his response, and because of the time, I seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 18, line 9, leave out from ("advertisement") to ("to") in line 11 and insert ("of which the principal purpose is to seek")
The noble Lord said: It may be convenient if I also deal with Amendment No. 108.
Amendment No. 108: Page 18, line I I, leave out ("seeks to persuade") and insert ("is made with the intention of persuading")
These amendments cover somewhat the same principles as my noble friends have already explained. At this hour of the morning I do not want to issue challenges, but in the light of references made to the words of the 1913 Act being the same as those in the present Act, I ask the Minister to look at Section 3(3)(e) of the 1913 Act and to look at paragraph (f), which is now the subject of the amendment which I am proposing. The Government have said that they are not changing the principles of the 1913 Act; they are just updating them. The words to which I am referring show quite clearly that the whole position is being changed. They are putting in items which must be the subject of expenses on the political fund. By substituting the words set out in Amendment No. 107 it would be the principal purpose of the literature, advertisements, and other items to seek to persuade, which would then determine whether they are political expenditure items.
The same principle is involved in Amendment No. 108. That proposes to leave out the words "seeks to persuade" and to replace them with,
"is made with the intention of persuading."

771
I would put forward the case that it is the principle purpose and/or the intention that really matters.
As drafted, the present provision in the Bill is very wide and could cover a considerable amount of activity. I hope that noble Lords have read the debates during the Committee stage in the other place. If they have, they will have seen put forward to Ministers numerous examples of items which could be covered by the wording of paragraph (f).
Just briefly, if a union wants to conduct a campaign against Government cuts in local government which affect their members' employment, does that come within the Act or does it not? It could be argued that this indirectly is an attempt to persuade people not to support the Government but to support another political party. Tenders which the National Health Service is compelled to send out to the private sector may mean members of a union being under-cut by reduced wages and they conduct a campaign drawing attention to this. It could be held that this activity is endeavouring to persuade persons not to support the Government but to support another political party.
When Mr. Clarke, the Minister, was challenged on this on 1st March, at column 1368, he said that if the main purpose is to change policy, that can be legitimately funded from the general fund, but where the subsidiary purpose is to change the Government, or to persuade people to vote against the Government, all expenses directly attributable to that will be illegitimate unless paid for out of the political fund. From that, therefore, it would seem that the Minister saw that there was a difference. Yet earlier he said that it was a matter of degree.
It is because it is a matter of degree that we are putting these particular amendments forward. The position must be made clear, and we should not leave it merely as another item to be settled by the courts, or we shall have practically all trade union activity settled by the courts. I must ask why the Government are changing the wording of the 1913 Act in this respect. What is the purpose of it?
All sorts of bodies campaign before or during an election to draw public attention to issues without necessarily directly calling for votes or calling for support for a particular party. That is held not to transgress the law. Yet under this new wording, a union could find itself in some difficulty unless the items are paid for from the political fund. Trade union journals produced from the general fund will be carrying on campaigns on particular items. What is the position with regard to those campaigns?
I am going to advance a case because there is a case to be put forward. We want to understand what is the Government's case so that we can come back on Report.
The Earl of Gowrie: I am anxious to meet the noble Lord's case.
1.4 a.m.
Lord Underhill: Unless we can argue the case, there is no case to look at when we come back at Report stage. I ask him: where a trade union journal is carrying out a campaign in furtherance of the trade
772
union's principles on a particular item, is that persuading persons to support a particular party or a candidate? If so, does that come from the political fund or from the general fund?
We have to mention this. Some of us remember the campaign carried out by the building construction industry. Some of us remember the Mr. Cube campaign against sugar nationalisation—within the law. Some of us remember the great case of the Tronoh mines, where a newspaper carrying out propaganda to vote Conservative during an election was held to be within the law because it was not appealing for support for any particular candidate or dealing with a particular constituency.
If the Government want to update the law, I suggest that they look at Section 63 of the Representation of the People Act dealing with expenses from outside bodies. That would be proper and legitimate updating. What we have to decide here, mentioned also by my noble friend, relates to the users of our political fund. Those users could find themselves almost forced to conduct ballots to start the political fund or to be very wary of carrying out certain activity. I have read carefully all the Committee stage proceedings in the other place. No clear answers have been given to the questions that I have raised, which could be multiplied time and again. When does a union campaign become legitimate from a general fund? When does it come within the political fund? The words in the amendment make the position clear. The Government should accept it in order to make the position clear.
The Earl of Gowrie: The Government's view is that the insertion of Amendment No. 107 suggested by the noble Lord would upset the delicate balance which has been achieved in the present definition and which, in our view, brings it as near as possible to the meaning of the current definition. In our view, it could push the definition too far in the other direction and could enable trade unions to finance communications which were overtly party political out of their general funds. But it is clear that this is an issue which continues to give noble Lords opposite particular concern. We, in turn, are genuinely concerned not to go further than the 1913 Act definition by restricting trade unions' ability to function properly on behalf of their members. We shall therefore consider what the noble Lord has had to say most carefully, and if we can detect any better way of expressing what is intended, then we shall seek to do so. That is the best I can do for the moment.
Amendment No. 108 can be dealt with more briefly. It would remove the present provision for an objective assessment of what a particular communication seeks to achieve and replace it with an assessment based entirely on the intentions of those who produced the communication. That is designed to create a lot of wrangling before the certification officer and in the courts on the question of motivation. I do not think that that is more satisfactory than the current formulation. I have tried to meet noble Lords opposite to some degree and I hope that with those assurances they will not seek to press the amendment.
Lord Underhill: I am grateful to the noble Earl for agreeing to have a look at the wording of the clause,

773
particularly in the light of Amendment No. 107. We shall look forward to a change coming forward, I hope, at Report stage. The noble Earl referred to upsetting a delicate balance. The certification officer now can consider any complaint made by any person that payments are wrongly made from the general fund. In fact, Ministers have stated clearly a number of occasions when the certification officer has considered matters of this kind. We are concerned that legitimate trade union activity, attacking what a local council or what a government may be doing, will not be made to come within the political fund when it is genuine trade union activity of a compaigning kind.
I am grateful for the reference that the noble Earl has made to Amendment No. 107. I wish that he could have looked at Amendment No. 108 as well, because it is the intention behind the Bill that is the important matter. I shall not however be pressing the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 108 and 109 not moved.]
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 18, leave out lines 14 and 15 and insert—
(" (3A) Where a person attends a conference or meeting,

(a) which is held by or on behalf of a political party, as a participator in the proceedings whether as a delegate or otherwise; or

(b) at which business of a political party is transacted, as a participator in the transaction of that business whether as a delegate or otherwise,")

The noble Lord said: We seem to be approaching, perhaps at the end of the evening, a point where we can get the Government to look again at one or two things. In a brief sentence or two, may I appeal to them to look at this, a minor matter but a genuine drafting problem? It arises in this way. Paragraph (e) of the new definition deals with two things: the holding of meetings or conferences on behalf of a political party—that is the first half—and then other meetings at which the business of a political party is transacted. Quite clearly, those are two different things. In another place the Government inserted their own new subsection, which is now (3A), which I think I would not misdescribe if I said it tries to deal with the problem of observers at a meeting and draws the line at a participator at a meeting. It says that where someone attends a meeting as a delegate, or otherwise as a participator, then the expenditure for him has to come from the political fund. I see that structure, which the Government have now got after one or two amendments in another place; but this amendment suggests that they have not really followed through the logic of their own amendments. It suggests that if participation of a union participant is to be the test at a meeting, then it should surely be split into the two halves of paragraph (e).
If he participates at a meeting held on behalf of a political party, then that should come from the political fund. If he participates at another meeting, it should surely be only if he participates in the political business that the matter should arise. There was the example of the United Kingdom Cane Sugar Refinery Committee lobbyists, which was much discussed in another place. They are a good example of the
774
problem, and I hope the Minister will have a look at this matter in the light of my amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Gowrie: The noble Lords, Lord Wedderburn and Lord McCarthy, deserve something for stamina, if nothing else. I congratulate both noble Lords on a splendid effort throughout this long and often quite arduous Committee stage.
I appreciate that the Opposition are concerned that our explanatory subsection is not sufficiently precise. They wish, through this amendment, Amendment No. 110, to spell out, in the case of meetings at which the business of a political party is transacted, that the expenses of participators in those meetings need be paid for out of political funds only if the participation relates to the transaction of that political party business. If the participators are concerned solely with some other business, their expenses should be able to come out of general funds.
I have to say that I am not wholly convinced of the real need for this further degree of precision, but I have listened with interest to the noble Lord's further comments and I would be prepared, without any commitment, to take them away for consideration. I hope that, on that basis, the noble Lord would agree to withdraw this amendment on the present occasion.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: In the confident belief that commitment will grow in the noble Earl, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Denham: I think we have now reached the point where it is generally agreed that we should break for the evening. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes past one o'clock.

  PRISONER No. B66506
  PRISONER No. B66506
  PRISONERS: MOVEMENTS AND ESCAPES
  PRISONERS: MOVEMENTS AND ESCAPES
  EDUCATION PROVISION FOR 16–19 YEAR-OLDS
  EDUCATION PROVISION FOR 16–19 YEAR-OLDS
  ALCOHOL BEVERAGES: WHO REPORT
  ALCOHOL BEVERAGES: WHO REPORT
  CRUISE MISSILES: FIRING CONTROL
  CRUISE MISSILES: FIRING CONTROL