asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, yes, but we adhere to the agreement by European Council Foreign Ministers in September 1985 and the Commonwealth Accord of the same year which ban the export of oil to South Africa.

My Lords, if the British Government were serious about what the Minister has just said about the ban imposed at Luxembourg three years ago by the European Community and the Commonwealth Accord, would they not be trying to assist the intergovernmental organisation set up to monitor how the ban, with which they agree, is being circumvented?

My Lords, that may be the noble Lord's point of view, but we disagree with it. The resolution to which he refers is not binding. There is no obligation upon us to respond to alleged violations of an embargo to which we do not subscribe.

My Lords, will the Minister say whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to supply information to the Commonwealth Foreign Ministers group which was set up in Vancouver? Secondly, are they satisfied that no North Sea oil is reaching South Africa via third parties?

My Lords, on the latter part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, the agreements which were reached and which concern United Kingdom guidelines have excluded exports of United Kingdom Continental Shelf crude oil to South Africa since 1979. It would be difficult to be certain that no oil gets through under any circumstances; but nevertheless the guidelines which were then established remain firm today. I am not sure that I followed the drift of the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question. If he would repeat it, I should be prepared and happy to answer it.

My Lords, as the noble Lord will recall, at the Vancouver conference a Commonwealth Foreign Ministers group was set up to monitor the position in South Africa. As I understand it, it has been reported that Her Majesty's Government are not supplying the information that the group wants. Will the Minister confirm that Her Majesty's Government are complying with the request?

My Lords, the noble Lord reverts to the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, unless I have misunderstood him. The answer is that we do not co-operate with that group. We disagree with the basis of the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, because the resolution to which it referred was not binding.

My Lords, the resolution may not have been binding, but will the noble Lord return to my original Question? If the Government are sincere about the EC and Commonwealth embargo on oil, what are they doing to prevent an evasion of the decision? If they are not giving evidence to the intergovernmental committee, what are they doing? What is their line when that intergovernmental group makes a report which suggests that British industrial interests, such as the BP subsidiary in South Africa and Trafalgar House, are making, and hoping to make further profits from South African efforts to get round the embargo by converting offshore gas into oil? Is it the British Government's view that the profits of British companies are more important than international authority?

My Lords, the noble Lord invites me to suggest ways in which we might take stronger measures to prevent the supply and shipment of oil and petroleum products to South Africa. The existing measures that we have taken are intended to send political signals to the South African Government of our strong opposition to apartheid and to the need for urgent fundamental change. The noble Lord knows full well that further punitive economic sanctions would only hurt those whom we wish to help and furthermore would prolong the conflict. He may not agree but nevertheless that is the view of the Government. It may seem to the noble Lord to be a long haul but there are no alternatives to working for peaceful change. I recommend it to him.

My Lords, may I ask a simple and more direct question? Since the Government have made clear that they are not in favour of sanctions against South Africa, are the Government in favour of the breach of sanctions applied by others?

My Lords, what I am concerned about at this Dispatch Box is to advocate Her Majesty's Government's policy, not necessarily the policies of other nations. What I have said stands. We oppose a comprehensive oil embargo; furthermore, we maintain that the United Kingdom guidelines on oil are effective.

My Lords, the noble Lord has misinterpreted what I said. I said nothing about punitive sanctions nor any additional sanctions. I asked the Government quite straightforwardly whether they had agreed on an embargo. If so, is it not common sense to make that embargo effective by monitoring it and for the British Government to give evidence to the organisation which is monitoring it?

My Lords, the noble Lord seems to have somewhat changed the tenor of his question, unless I have misunderstood him. What I said is that we have made it clear to oil companies that they are expected to abide by the guidelines of the European Community and Commonwealth undertakings. We would take a serious view of any breaches. As I said earlier, however, there is no evidence to suggest that companies are not complying.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Yes, my Lords. Our national contribution to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency whose programmes include supplementary feeding will be £5·25 million in 1988, 5 per cent. more than in 1987. Our share of planned 1988 Community contributions amounts to a further £5 million. Since December 1987, the Community has also provided directly £450,000-worth of emergency medical supplies and food. We are ready to consider requests for special funding, both nationally and with our colleagues in the Community.

My Lords, may I thank the Minister for that very encouraging reply? It certainly stands our Government in good stead and gives them a good name in the terrible tragedy in the Middle East.

However, there are some countries among our allies which do not seem to be pulling their weight. According to the Red Cross, some European voluntary organisations appear to be in need of a little more co-ordination, both in respect of medicaments and of food supplies. Would the Minister not agree that there could be a closer examination of whether or not the relief dispatched from Great Britain and our allies reaches the proper places and fulfils the proper purposes?

My Lords, we believe it to be effective but if we can see ways of improving it we shall use them.

My Lords, recognising that the conditions in the refugee camps are appalling, can the Minister say whether any money has been offered by the very wealthy Arab states that have made billions of pounds out of oil? Have they tried to help their fellow countrymen in the resettlement camps? Or do they desire to keep them in appalling conditions—a constant eyesore to the rest of the world because of their hatred of Israel?

My Lords, I think it is fair to say that not a lot has been forthcoming. Nevertheless, I am certain that they would share in some respects at least the noble Lord's concern about the conditions.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his original Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, has our full support? Would he perhaps also agree that the camps in the Lebanon are every bit as deserving and perhaps more so than those in Gaza and the occupied territories?

My Lords, that is a point of view. The Lebanon is a matter which concerns us. Of course, we support Lebanon's sovereignty, its unity, independence and territorial integrity. As regards my original Answer, the way in which the United Nations Relief and Works Agency disburses its funds is a matter for that organisation.

My Lords, I warmly welcome the practical assistance described by the noble Lord. But can he confirm that it is getting through to the occupied territories?

My Lords, so far as I am aware, the answer is yes. Perhaps I should say, in amplification of my answer to the noble Lord, Lord McNair, that the United Nations Relief and Works Agency does not predetermine the funding levels by area.

Returning to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, I have no evidence to suppose that it is not getting through. We have also a bilateral programme for Gaza and the West Bank outside the refugee camps which approaches £1 million per year. The story is encouraging.

My Lords, does the Minister not agree that there is a great deal of truth in what the noble Lord, Lord McNair, said about the situation in the Lebanon? Many of us who have been there and to the Middle East have seen the terrible tragedies. We are irritated that those who could contribute are not contributing. It is almost like saying that the problem of Ethiopia, the great drought and the starvation affecting thousands if not millions of refugees is the fault of the Almighty for allowing the drought to happen. Will the Minister take on board the proposition I made initially that, with our allies, we want to see that what we are giving so generously to help those in urgent need is arriving at the intended destination?

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. We certainly do not want to see going adrift the money of an agency such as the United Nations Relief and Works Agency to which we and our partners donate much for the benefit of these unfortunate people. We believe that it is getting through.

My Lords, will the noble Lord not agree that in very difficult circumstances UNRWA is doing a first class job and fully deserves the support of the European Community?

My Lords, yes, I agree entirely with the noble Lord. I am grateful to him for making that point. In fact, that agency held a consultation with donors only last week in Vienna. We await further proposals and its latest plans which we shall also consider sympathetically.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, I am not aware of any reason why the present structure of capital taxation should encourage insider trading.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. However, is he aware that whereas short-term capital gains are taxed at 30 per cent., long-term capital gains can effectively be taxed at several hundred or even several thousand per cent. because of the failure to index gains arising prior to 31st March 1982? Does that not encourage investors to go for short-term rather than long-term gains, and are not the people best placed to make short-term gains by definition insiders?

My Lords, I am not sure that I follow the noble Lord's logic. No doubt many investors wish to make gains and perhaps wish to make them in the short term. But that is absolutely no reason to say that they wish to make profits from insider dealing.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I too find the logic of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, rather difficult to follow? Perhaps the Minister can answer this question: how effective are the new arrangements under the Financial Services Act for detecting and prosecuting in insider dealing cases?

If the noble Lord has figures available, can he give us figures for a period prior to the commencement of the Financial Services Act arrangements on insider dealing and subsequent figures so that we can see how we are getting on? If he does not have the figures, perhaps he will be kind enough to write to me.

My Lords, I shall look into this and find out whether figures are available. The fact is that the Financial Services Act provided for new powers of investigation of insider dealing and for certain substantive amendments to the insider dealing legislation. Your Lordships will be aware that the Stock Exchange introduced computer assisted surveillance in 1986, and I believe that that, together with the possibility of investigation by inspectors, means that the chances of detection and successful prosecution in such cases are much enhanced.

My Lords, the Minister gives some assurances with regard to expediting these investigations. A number of individuals have been under suspicion and some have been removed from office during the investigations, which have lasted more than 18 months. Will the Minister give the House some assurance that progress will be made in investigations so that the matter may be clear and individuals and organisations may know where they stand?

My Lords, it is in no one's interest for any such investigation to be rather slow or tardy in coming to a conclusion. However, I can say to the noble Lord that my noble friend the Secretary of State naturally wishes that inspectors making such investigations should report to him as quickly as possible.

My Lords, taking what I am afraid is precisely the opposite view to that of the noble Lord who asked this Question on the impact of short-term versus long-term capital gains tax, perhaps I may ask whether the noble Lord is aware that there is still considerable anxiety with regard to insider trading. Is he also aware that there is a considerable body of opinion which takes the view that the first major step to be taken with regard to insider trading is to freeze the capital dealings of directors of companies during the period that they hold their directorships of those shares in that company?

My Lords, I am not sure whether I completely follow the noble Lord in that opinion, but I would say to your Lordships that the Criminal Justice Bill which is now in another place seeks to increase the maximum term of imprisonment that can be imposed on someone convicted of insider dealing from two years to seven years. That makes it an arrestable offence and an extradition crime.

My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the problem is not so much whether this is an arrestable offence or what the prison sentence is but whether the mechanism for detection and subsequent prosecution is effective? It was lamentably ineffective under the previous regime when the Stock Exchange reported to the DTI, as the noble Lord's predecessor at the Government Dispatch Box has pointed out. Are the present arrangements any more effective?

Yes, my Lords. As I said earlier to the noble Lord, I believe that the ability of the Stock Exchange to detect instances of insider dealing has been enhanced by computer assisted surveillance. I also believe that the collection of evidence has been made very much easier. The appointment of inspectors to look into such allegations is a great step forward. I think that it is still too early to say exactly what impact the Financial Services Act has had on our ability to bring those guilty parties to court and have, it is hoped, a successful conclusion if they are found guilty. At the moment we have no plans to amend the provisions in the Financial Services Act and I believe that we are making progress in that respect.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, we share many of the views expressed in Professor Brzezinski's lecture. Professor Brzezinski drew attention to sources of possible instability in the region, and to the effect which it could have on East-West developments. We agree with him that the aim of Western policy should be to encourage evolutionary change. The situation in Eastern Europe is kept under continuous study, both within the Government and jointly with our allies and partners.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he agree that although there are immediate tasks to be undertaken in NATO and in the EC, more urgent thought should be given to the possibility of radical changes over a much wider area of Europe—indeed, from the Atlantic to the Urals, an area in which we have historical and cultural links?

My Lords, I can say to the noble Lord that we are paying close attention to developments in Eastern Europe both nationally and with our NATO allies and our European partners. This regular process of consultation includes discussion at ministerial level. I think that our aims should continue to be to develop contacts, encourage reform and better observance of human rights, and point out that repression is inconsistent with glasnost and perestroika. All countries have the ultimate right of self-determination.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that Professor Brzezinski's lecture underlined the importance of cultural diplomacy which was recently debated in this House? Will he now tell the House that the Government have agreed to give more support to cultural diplomacy in our embassies abroad and also to the BBC's Overseas Service?

My Lords, although the Question of the noble Lord refers to the Brzezinski lecture it goes slightly wide of the immediate subject of that lecture. As I said when I spoke in a recent debate on the subject, the matter of cultural diplomacy should not be seen in isolation from our other forms of diplomacy. They run together, and we shall continue to devote our energies to all forms of diplomacy for the benefit of this country.

My Lords, if the Minister has read the Brzezinski lecture in full he will have noted that the BBC's Overseas Service is very relevant to what he was saying.

My Lords, I think that I covered the BBC in considerable detail in the earlier debate we had. I should be happy to answer any specific question the noble Lord has about funding for the BBC External Service should he put down a question on that matter.

My Lords, however hard one tries, how is it possible to reconcile the failure of the Soviet Government to abandon the Brezhnev doctrine under which it promises fraternal international assistance to the Socialist countries which were formerly independent in Eastern and Central Europe—there were examples of that in Prague and Budapest—with its international obligations under the United Nations Charter, under the two covenants on the Declaration of Human Rights and for that matter under YALTA and the peace treaties with Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary? Is that possible?

My Lords, I think that outsiders can only have limited influence on internal developments in the area. I suggest that high level visits can be useful in pressing the case for change. The visit of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to Poland and that of the Hungarian Prime Minister to London later this year will be opportunities for just that kind of thing.

My Lords, the article to which the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, has called attention deals mainly with Europe and the Soviet Union, as have the questions which have been put. Perhaps I may ask whether the Minister will take note of the paragraph which deals with China and the developments there as being even more significant than the developments in Europe? Will he ensure that his department takes due note of Professor Brzezinski's views on Chinese developments?

My Lords, we shall of course note all comments. However, the Question referred to Eastern Europe.

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

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

If Amendment No. 63 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 64 to 72 inclusive.

moved Amendment No. 63:

Before the noble Baroness sits down perhaps I may ask whether she is speaking only to Amendment No. 63. I thought that Amendment No. 74 and my Amendment No. 78 were grouped with it.

I hope to have an opportunity to say a few words about the amendments which are in the group when they are moved. I believe that both those amendments aim to protect contracts of employment in some other way and to that extent I support them.

The noble Baroness speaks from great experience. I defer without reserve to her own experience. However, I hold that the views that she has expressed are related in the main to experience of her own union and do not have general application. Alas there are some unions which do not subscribe to the very edifying views that are always expressed by her.

I speak in support of the amendment. Those people who attend and have a right to speak or who speak on occasion are virtually the civil service of the trade union movement. It would be very odd to suggest in this Chamber that civil servants should be elected by the general body of voters.

There is another and more practical point. As the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, has said, modern unions employ an increasing number of professionally trained people from a variety of different professions. If we want modern, efficient and well-organised unions, they must be serviced by properly trained professional people who feel free to speak their minds according to their professional knowledge and to guide their union into more modern and appropriate ways of behaving. If those professionals have constantly to look over their shoulder to see in what way they are pleasing or displeasing the membership, many of whom may not be fully aware of the importance of such developments, their position as professionals who can make the unions more efficient and effective will be seriously undermined.

It is because we on this side of the Chamber believe in trade unions but want them to be modern, up to date and efficient that we should like to see this amendment accepted. I am bound to say, having listened to the debate today and yesterday that one wonders whether Members on the other side of the Committee want good, reformed unions, as we do, or whether they do not want any unions at all.

I should like to say to the noble Baroness that there are many on this side of the Committee—I am one of them—who totally agree with her. She is wrong in her accusations.

Perhaps I may now speak to my amendment, Amendment No. 78, which is grouped with Amendment No. 63. First, however, I should like to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that it seems to me, from long experience in this area, that it is obviously important that the trade unions with which one deals should be properly organised and truly efficient.

At Second Reading I said that I thought Clause 12 was directed too much towards dealing with Mr. Scargill and that perhaps it was unwise to overdo the act of trying to deal with him as a special case. More significantly—the point was made by both the noble Baroness, Lady Turner and Lady Seear—there is the very important matter of being able to preserve the position of people who have served their unions well but who have not been elected and who probably would not be the kind of people suitable for election. Indeed, as I said at Second Reading, that would apply to many of the best noble Lords.

Turning for a moment from Amendment No. 63, which perhaps goes a little far, and looking at Amendment No. 74 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and Amendment No. 78 in my name, both appear very similar. Some parts of the noble Baroness's amendment are perhaps more directly associated with the Act in picking out general secretaries and presidents. I have not done that; I have sought to cover anyone who might inadvertently be caught by Clause 12. I have also included people who have not been elected to any trade union position during the preceding 12 years. That would catch Mr. Scargill and may catch other people who have shifted from one sort of background to another. I have met such people.

Both amendments apply only to people under contract of employment before 22nd October, which is the date that this Bill first saw the light of day in another place, and would not apply for the future. I have done that to encourage the Government to accept the proposal. They could feel that whatever they had in mind for the future would apply but would not immediately affect people who have served their unions for many years with great skill and devotion.

I wish to impress upon the Committee that these amendments are very modest. If the Government do not like the wording either of my amendment or of Amendment No. 74, which would not in the least surprise me, it would be very encouraging to think that they would be able to give consideration to the principle behind them and give us some hope that they might be able to come back at a later stage in the Bill with something similar.

Whatever the Committee may think about Amendment No. 63 and the comments of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway—on most occasions I agree with my noble friend but, this time, I think, he overstated his case—I hope that special care may be given to considering the sense and purport of Amendments Nos. 74 and 78

Before the noble Lord sits down, I accept that it is inevitable that any advocate can overstate his case. I did not intend to do so. However, in all sincerity, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will not consider these amendments.

I think that it is common ground that we want to see trade union leaders, general secretaries and other officials accountable and responsive to their members. Presumably that is the objective of all of us. What puzzles me about the proposal from the government side is that it seems that it will have directly the contrary effect. All general secretaries or presidents are accountable to the membership of the union in two ways: through the operation of the rule book and through the elected executive committee.

Appointed general secretaries are more stringently bound by their executive committee than are elected general secretaries who can point to their recent appeal to the whole membership and who can claim that the sanction on them comes from their next appeal to the membership in two, three, or five years' time—whatever it may be. To that extent, if they so choose and wish, they can withstand pressure from the elected executive.

The effect of this proposal would be twofold so far as concerns those general secretaries whose members have decided through conscious decision and through their executives that they prefer the method of appointment rather than election. It would weaken the confidence of the members in the rule book. It overrides the rule book and the decisions that are taken by conference to modify, change, amend, improve and bring it up to date. The delegates modify the rule book over a number of years. It is a considered decision by the members themselves mediated through their conference.

Those members are now being told: "You must have that much less confidence in your own ability to make the rules. We do not trust you to make the rules. We do not allow you to make the rules in this respect. We intend to impose a single unitary system on you, whatever your wishes may be". To that extent, their regard for the rule book and their attachment to it are diminished. That is a sad weakening of their rights as members—rights of which we heard a great deal yesterday and no doubt shall hear more today. That is my first point.

My second point relates to the role of the elected executive council in relation to the general secretary or president. Obviously, willy-nilly, whether he wishes it or not, the power and authority of the general secretary will be greatly enhanced by the provisions of this clause. Frankly, most general secretaries of my acquaintance would not wish to take any advantage of that situation. They would not wish to assert their authority vis-à-vis their executive as it meets month by month in order to claim that their view was superior to that of the elected members of the executive. The fact remains that the effect and consequence of this clause are to enhance the authority of any general secretary, however exceptional may be his conduct, who wishes to lower the quality of the control of elected members of the executive over the union.

That is why I am so puzzled by the argument that in some ways this proposal enhances the control by the membership and the rights of trade union members. It seems to me that the proposal contained in the amendment is eminently commonsensical. I hope that the committee will accept that.

I leave aside any question of playing politics, although that is a very real problem. It is not one which will come immediately to the fore. However, over a period of time, I think it will come to play a much greater part than it does now in the activities of some unions. It will come to play a greater part in those activities because there is always a group within a union which wants to play politics, however unrepresentative and boring those people may be. Such a group may seize this provision as an opportunity to introduce into a stable situation something which it would regard as helping to destabilise the elected decision. That group regards the general secretary or other officials as coming between the members and their aspirations, along well-known ultra-left lines. That is a contingent danger but not one that I would advance as being the main danger. I have sought to put the main consideration before Members of the Committee. I hope that in replying the Minister will take on hoard the real danger that, because of some preoccupation, they are not advancing the cause that they purport to support.

Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he can explain one thing. He has said that Clause 12 overrides the rule book. He is therefore suggesting (is he not?) that the rule book should dominate the law. He is suggesting that it should take precedence over the law. That is the natural consequence of what the noble Lord has said. Is he going the stage further? Is he saying that if a law is passed which a union does not like it has only to alter its rule book and then the rule book would take precedence? That would seem to be the corollary of what he is suggesting.

Perhaps the distinction that I draw between the existing role of the courts in relation to the rule book, on the one hand, and the putting on to the statute book of this entirely new piece of legislation, on the other hand, is not obvious or clear.

I accept very readily that the courts have an obligation to ensure that the rules of a union, even those adopted by the conference of the union—however they may be adopted—must be in conformity with natural justice. The courts should be able to strike down rules which do not pass that test. I accept very readily that in judging a particular interpretation of those rules by an executive or an official the courts must apply the same test of natural justice that has been applied heretofore. That same test of natural justice should continue to apply. It is right; it is proper and it is acceptable. However, it is entirely different to introduce this proposition which seems to indicate that this Chamber does not have much confidence in the ability of the courts to ensure that justice is done in relation to rule books.

Does the noble Lord recognise that in this context—as my noble friend Lord Renton was seeking to explain—we are not concerned with the traditional position with regard to the rules of natural justice or with breaches of the rules? We are concerned with the situation that is away from those two control factors of the High Court according to common law tradition. We are entering into a new dimension. In the new dimension, as my noble friend asks, are we to assume that the rules of the trade union in some way are to fetter the discretion of the High Court? That is the question.

I must not weary the Committee. I simply put this suggestion to the noble Lord, Lord Cambell of Alloway, as a method of meeting both our worries. When this law is passed—in whichever form it is adopted—the members of a union through secret ballot should be able to say whether or not they wish this law to apply to them, or whether they wish to continue to be governed by their own rules. This would be quite consistent with the dignity of this Chamber and of another place. If the noble Lord would like to meet me on that common ground I should be delighted if he would draft an amendment to that effect to which we would both subscribe at Report stage.

The Government have made clear that Clause 12 is intended to ensure that union leaders are representative of the membership. It therefore extends the 1984 Trade Union Act's election requirements to all members of the principal executive committee, general secretaries and presidents, and to those who have the right under the rules or by custom and practice to attend and speak at some or all meetings of the PEC other than in a genuinely advisory capacity;

In this way, all those who are members or act as though they are members of the PEC will have to be elected and thus be better able to represent the views of the membership.

The clause closes a loophole in the 1984 Act by means of which certain union leaders have been able to give up their vote on the PEC and so evade the election requirement. The clause is therefore drafted quite tightly to reduce to a minimum any opportunity for evasion. It is important therefore to avoid providing any new loopholes, as I fear would be the case under Amendment No. 63.

I welcome the general acceptance of the principle that general secretaries and presidents should be elected. Indeed, even Mr, Scargill belatedly came to grips with the practicalities of that principle when he offered himself for election towards the end of last year.

I see no reason though—as Amendment No. 63 provides why some unions should be allowed to continue appointing their general secretaries rather than have them elected. General secretaries are often the individuals people think of first when they hear a union's name, and they can wield more influence than a non-elected post might suggest. For that reason I cannot agree to the amendment. Indeed, Clive Jenkins of ASTMS, Ken Gill of TASS, Fred Jarvis of the National Union of Teachers and Rodney Bickerstaffe of the National Union of Public Employees are all appointed officials and would therefore be exempted from the election requirement under Amendment No. 63.

Amendment No. 63 is also unacceptable because it would leave the unions free to have almost anyone attend meetings and take part in the decision-making irrespective of whether members knew or approved. It would leave a significant loophole by means of which individuals could formally relinquish membership of the PEC and yet continue to attend meetings and influence events.

I realise there is a real point of principle underlying Amendments Nos. 74 and 78, but I am afraid I cannot accept them either. If members are to be sure that the leadership is truly representative, it is important that all PEC members, general secretaries and presidents are elected in accordance with these provisions. We cannot have protected categories able to see out terms of office which might consist of 10 or 20 years without the need for election. Mr. Scargill has already been mentioned, not only by me but by others. Under Amendment No. 74, for example, Mr. Scargill would be able to stay in post until retirement age, as might individuals such as Mr. Sapper of ACTT and Mr. Bickerstaffe of NUPE.

The Government are not being unreasonable in the way that this election requirement is imposed, however, as various transition and exemption provisions are provided in the Bill. Non-voting members whose election satisfied the workplace requirements of Section 3 of the 1984 Act will be able to see out a five-year term of office, as will non-voters who have been elected under any other form of election in the five years before the Bill's provisions came into force. Section 8 of the 1984 Act will continue to provide an exemption for certain elected PEC members nearing retirement age. In addition, Clause 12(4) would exempt from the extended election requirement most employed PEC members who are within two years of retirement age when the provisions come into force irrespective of whether or not they have previously been through an election.

I am afraid, therefore, that I see considerable difficulty with all three of these amendments. These provisions ensure that individuals are not treated harshly by the new election requirement. I cannot therefore agree that any of the amendments is either desirable or necessary. I hope that in the light of those considerations they will not be pressed.

Does the Minister agree with me, as he has mentioned Mr. Scargill, that the decision by Mr. Scargill to seek election was precisely based on the grounds that it would strengthen his position vis-à-vis his elected executive committee? Will he further agree with me that the decisions taken by the executive since then and the result of the ballot vote last week by the membership demonstrate the nonsense of thinking that an enforced election can in some way bring the actions of particular unions into line with government thinking?

If the noble Lord is asking me to look into the mind of Mr. Scargill and to explain why he carried out some particular action or other, I am afraid I have to tell him that I have long since ceased to be able to do that.

I am one of those who has taken a very close interest in the trade union movement from the outside. I have always been a member of a union but I have never taken an active part in a union. My job was to manage a business. I spent a lifetime doing that. I feel that in this matter the Government are wrong in principle and will get results which are quite the opposite of what they require.

First, why is it wrong in principle? Every organisation which is based upon membership elects officers and those officers are always given the authority to appoint officials to advise them. We are not concerned with names or whether they are called "president" or "secretary". The question is whether they are elected and are responsible to the membership or whether they are appointed by the board which the members have elected.

The Government will not be dictating to any other organisation which is based upon membership what it can do but they will be telling the trade union movement that it will not be allowed to choose officials who will be appointed because of their ability, who will not vote but who will advise the members. They must be elected. The Government are not interfering in that way with any other organisation, so why is it to happen with the trade union movement?

It would have been a disaster in the business in which I was employed if I had had to be elected. I would have had to appeal to the membership. I was appointed because of my ability to do the job and to manage the business, not because I had some appeal to the membership of the society.

This is entirely wrong in principle, and it will give entirely the wrong results. One has only to look at this Chamber and another place to understand why it will give the opposite results. The people in the other place are always looking over their shoulders and wondering what their constituents will think. Very often their conduct is guided by what their constituents will think. They are concerned with the immediate future. But in this Chamber, where we do not have constituents, we can take a different view.

We are not elected and we do not have to look over our shoulders. We are appointed and consequently there is an important difference. We are inclined to take a long view whereas in the other place a short view is taken. That is exactly what will happen in an organisation based upon membership. Those who are elected know that in a year or two they will come up for re-election and are therefore concerned with the short term, pleasing the members to get their votes. But those who are appointed can take an entirely different view.

If one has observed the trade union movement over the last 50 years one has seen trade union leaders appear to be very much to the Left while being elected but once they have retired they are inclined to be very much to the Right as they are no longer dependent on their members' votes. There is first-class evidence of the foolish thing that the Government are trying to do.

That is an interesting—

It was not my intention to speak in this debate, primarily because I was not here when it began. My other reason was that I did not want anything I said to embarrass my former colleagues on the Opposition Benches. However the last contribution compels me to say that in principle in this matter the Government are absolutely right. There can be no doubt that trade union presidents and general secretaries have great power. They have power over the appointment of officials. They have power over the purse and the expenses that are paid to officials and over the pension rights of officials. They have great power, and that is a power that ought not to be bestowed upon them because they were appointed by an elected executive, albeit elected by very dubious means anyway. That will be put right by the rest of the Bill.

I have spent the last 30 years of my life arguing that all union officials who have the power of decisions in unions should be elected. Only the appointed officials who do not take part in making decisions are entitled to stay without an election. Despite my disagreements yesterday with the Government's proposals I profoundly agree with the suggestion that all trade union officials should be appointed, particularly if they are members of an executive or general presidents or general secretaries.

I am sorry that I have had to say what I have because I did not want to embarrass my former colleagues on this matter, but I could have gone into a great deal of detail on the validity of appointing people to become general secretaries if I had known that this would be the tenor of the arguments from the Opposition Front Benches.

I am glad that I gave way to—

Let me—

This side!

Campbell!

I gave way to the noble Lord. This side.

Campbell!

I am not giving way at all.

I gave way to the other side; it should be this side.

No.

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but it is the turn of this side to speak.

I give way. What else can one do?

Let me put another point of view. I heard the last speech and it seems to me that the ego of the noble Lord, Lord Chapple, is considerably bigger than I ever thought it was. I do not think anybody here will be embarrassed by something that we quite candidly expected. I certanly am not embarrassed, but I watched Committee Members opposite when the appeal was being made by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques. I thought I detected a sense of appreciating the basis of that appeal. I am sure it will not convince the Minister, however.

I put another point of view. Once again I make no apology for going back into the history of the trade union movement, which some people on the Government Benches do not seem to appreciate. The position in relation to the appointed officers of a trade union arose because the trade unions themselves were determined many years ago that they would have the best of civil servants, if I may use that phrase, to service them. You cannot possibly get the best out of a person if, as has been pointed out, somebody is looking over his shoulder all the time and the threat of the sack is there. One has to establish what we in this country boast of—a decent civil service. The amendment will take that ability away from the trade unions.

What in effect will be created if the amendment is carried, whether we like it or not, will be a situation in which the responsible officers of trade unions sooner or later will be at the beck and call of all the extremists in the the trade union movement.

I am very glad that I gave way to the noble Lord, Lord Chapple, and also to the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, but not for precisely the same reasons.

The noble Lord, Lord Chapple, said everything that I wished to say but with far greater experience, with far greater authority and to much greater effect.

He suggested that this is a question of the Government being authoritarian as regards trade unions. I am not sure that I have used the right word but that was the sense of what he said. All I ask is whether he remembers the winter of discontent when the trade unions were seeking to be authoritarian as regards government. Surely we must have this debate—

Will the noble Lord give way?

May I finish and then of course I shall give way? Surely we must keep the debate in some perspective. All I can say is "Thank you" to the noble Lord, Lord Chapple, for having kept it in such perspective.

The noble Lord mentioned the winter of discontent. Is he aware that during that time there were occasions, about which none of us was proud, when members disobeyed their union's instructions and undertook acts which were regrettable? My own union was concerned. However, the executive of my union, and those of others concerned, obtained control of the situation because we wished to act responsibly. I raised that matter in question form and I hope that Members of the Committee will allow me to continue.

I should like to pick up the implication that perhaps my noble friend Lady Turner did not reflect the major responsible part of the British trade union movement. I believe that she does; I am sure that she does. I was general secretary of a trade union which represented approximately 12 per cent. of the trade union movement. Together with the union of which she is a member we represented some 20 per cent. of the movement and our view is that of the movement. Would the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, care to estimate the percentage represented in the trade union movement in the examples he gave? It is a very small percentage.

I believe that two issues are involved. The noble Lord, Lord Chapple, says that there must be elections to keep the powerful general secretaries in rein. I never knew anyone to act with such authority of power as did Frank Chapple. Indeed, he embodies—

Give the Committee an example.

Yes, certainly; on the general council. That underlines the point made by my noble friend Lord Murray as to how one constrains the power of people in authority. General secretaries and presidents have power and there is no doubt about that but which is the best way to restrain it? Is it by making them subject to an executive and a congress which determines what they do, or is it making them subject to re-election every five years? I was a general secretary elected to office and thereby not subject to re-election. Every two weeks I met my executive, which could and did tell me on occasions exactly what to do. Every year I held a congress which decided the fundamental policies of the union. I had to follow those policies whether or not I agreed with them.

If I had been re-elected every five years and stood on a platform with which my executive and congress did not agree, there would immediately have been friction and a dilemma between us and I would then be relieved of some of the authority which they exercised over me. I agree totally with my noble friend Lord Murray about the issue.

I should like to pick up one further point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, concerning the election of certain professional officers attending an executive. Unions are constantly making themselves more professional. I had in attendance on my executive, for example, a finance officer who was an accountant, an education officer who was an educationist and a research officer who was a graduate. They were appointed by me and were not in rule. They spoke at the executive, could answer questions and in doing so they obviously developed views. However, the responsibility was ultimately mine. This Bill would require them to be elected. That would create a nonsense for the unions. How could I have such qualified people in a union where I wanted professional advice if they had to be subject to election every five years? I could have them by appointing politically-motivated people, the only people one can get. The issues raised by the Government will have completely the opposite effect to what is intended.

Finally I should like to echo what was said by my noble friend Lady Turner at he beginning of her speech. I believe that there are in this country two trade union movements. There is the movement which she and I have experienced, which wants to carry out a job and which is responsible. There is also the movement which is reflected in some of the speeches of Members opposite.

Perhaps the Committee will allow me to answer one point. The noble Lord challenged me on the question of percentages. I am unable to answer; I have no expertise. I should like to make my position plain by saying that I accept that the vast majority of trade union activities in this country are wholly responsible. This legislation is designed to deal only with the irresponsible element.

Does the noble Lord realise that in trying to control a minority of the movement, as he suggests, the Government are creating loopholes for irresponsibility in the movement? They are under-mining the responsible activities of trade union leaders at the moment. That is the effect.

The action being taken this afternoon is entirely without precedent in the history of our voluntary institutions. Never before has the legislature interfered with the administration of voluntary societies in the way that is intended under this clause. The question raised is: how far is this Parliament entitled to intrude upon the freedom of societies and combinations of individuals which are running affairs in their interests in the context of a free society? Why was this proposal not ventilated at the outset of the Government's attempt to reform trade union law nine years ago? This is the most important change of all.

Part of the difficulty of the step-by-step approach is the ease with which we forget what has gone before. I wish to put it to the Committee that the essential step taken in this matter was to strengthen the representativeness of the executive council. That was the important step. Whatever the individual temperament, personality or assumed power of general secretaries, they have executive committees to control them. They have the voting strength. They go to conferences and decide union policy. Therefore, we have already strengthened the representativeness of the trade unions by insisting on election of executive committees.

That has already made a profound difference in some unions. Some anticipated the change in the law in this respect, including my union; others did not do so but are now complying with the law. Having handed executive committee membership back to the membership of the unions, it is now proposed to do the same with all the full-time officers of any note in an organisation.

I believe that sometimes there is an exaggerated notion about the power held by a general secretary or president. In many cases they receive a good deal of public notice. In these days of television they receive a good deal of exposure and nearly always come to the fore in the event of industrial disputes. None of us can deny that some reprehensible behaviour has been a feature of some trade union activities in the past. I believe a new climate is being created, partly by changes in legislation and partly by changes in public attitude.

Do Members of the Committee think that the electoral message of the past three elections has been lost upon the trade union movement? Do Members not understand that the decision of the electorate over the past three elections has indicated to the Labour Party that one of its great electoral disadvantages has been the unpopularity of the trade union movement? Those matters are altering attitudes. Why is it that the Trades Union Congress and the Labour Party are embarking on major reviews of their policies and the presentation of them? The reason is that they have taken to heart what has happened in three elections.

That is good from the point of view of an elected democracy. Let us examine what is happening now. Not all unions are alike. At Second Reading I referred to the fact that Civil Service unions, local government officers and similar organisations in the public sector have different methods of appointment and different conditions of service for their full-time officers.

When I was asked to leave the Civil Service at the age of 22 to become the secretary of a very small Inland Revenue staff federation, I asked for the same security of tenure that my members would have and did have. Therefore, I was given a life tenure subject to the upper retirement age and subject to the power of removal in the hands of the annual delegate conference. That was sufficient for a union of that sort. Throughout the 38 years that I was the general secretary of the Inland Revenue Staff Federation I never went to re-election and, what is more, there was never any political dispute over my position within the organisation.

Now what is going to happen? Appointed officers subject to the decision of the executive council and approved by a delegate conference or by ballot will have to go to election every five years and stir up political divisions which are latent in most unions today over the personality and the nature of the appointment in prospect. There will be political battles and controversies over the personality of the general secretary or candidates up for election every five years which have been completely absent from the union over the last generation. That is no contribution to the stability of the trade union movement. It tends to encourage and push it into a quinquennial recurrence of political agitation and controversy. Who will get the job? Is he on the Right or is he on the Left? Is he a militant or what is he or she? In those circumstances, there is a disservice to be done to the trade union movement by the proposal before the Committee today.

If one goes further, the proposal in this clause is to interfere with the appointment of what I would describe as the civil service of the trade union movement. Trade unions require administrative officers, as do government departments, and usually they are appointed and usually are not up for election. However, this clause would put them in the field for election and re-election. I can tell the Committee that on a vacancy of which I am fully aware candidates are asking, "Will I have to stand for election? If so, I am not a candidate for this job. I am not in that arena. I am coming in with specialised knowledge of administration and finance and I do not expect to be thrown to the electoral wolves every five years. I do not expect to have to contest for my position, possibly not with a person of my qualifications but somebody representing a political point of view which they assume is preferable to mine". That is the injury which can be done to trade unions which know how to conduct their affairs and which do so with great efficiency in peace and free of political conflict.

All this is being done this afternoon without any real examination of the power, the use of that power and the checks and balances within unions. None of that has been fully inquired into. This is a superficial judgment of the Conservative Party about what is wrong with the unions. It believes that the way to cure it is to insist that those people must go to election in circumstances which are quite unsuitable to the work they do or the method of their appointment.

In conclusion, I ask the Committee to consider whether we are justified in carrying interference in the affairs of the trade union to this extent? Where do you draw the line? Are you drawing no real line at all, apart from the clerical and secretarial staff and executive officers? What about those who are departmental managers, not of policy but in administration, but who are free to attend meetings of the executive council to give account of their stewardship or offer opinion on matters before the executive?

I beseech the Committee to be careful before doing something this afternoon which is a breach of our freedom without full justification and with potential harm to a great movment which still exists and which is doing a job for the nation and for public administration as well as for its members. I believe this will be a reprehensible day in our history if Members of the Committee say, "We do not care what you say. We are going to throw all these jobs open to election by the membership and let that take care of itself. If there is political battle, let it go on. If there is turmoil let it go on". In the end I believe great harm will have been done to a great movement.

Before my noble friend leaps to his feet to bring this debate to a conclusion, I must say that it has left me in some confusion of mind. I have been a warm supporter of the Government's legislation on trade unions to date. On the other hand, I have always doubted the efficacy and effectiveness of statute law to remedy every defect in human affairs.

There are two assurances which I should like from my noble friend before I make up my mind on this issue. First, is he confident that the Bill as it now stands will not lead to an increase of political activity within the unions? Secondly, is he confident that the Bill as it now stands will not inhibit the access of those who have the difficult task of running a union to the best advice available?

I do not interpret Clause 12 to the same extent as noble Lords opposite suggested. I believe everyone here agrees with the noble Baroness who moved the amendment that the trade union movement, like any other important national institution which seeks efficiency, must be able to employ persons of competence and expert knowledge to perform both the advisory and, in some cases, the administrative tasks which are called for.

I cannot see that that process is inhibited by the terms of Clause 12. It does not seem to me inevitable that the person known as the general secretary should be the equivalent—I think this was in the mind of the noble Baroness—of, say, the permanent secretary of a government department. It is, if you like, a hybrid position. It is partly that, and in some unions it is very largely that. In other unions, as I believe has been made clear, it is a more political appointment; that is, the general secretary takes an active part in framing policy. He may be deferred to, because of his long experience and particular qualities, by his elected colleagues on the executive.

The term "general secretary" after all is the one by which Stalin maintained himself in power without, as I remember, holding any other office. Therefore, it is an ambiguous term. It is true that the shift, as it were, towards the political kind of general secretary would be increased, as the noble Lord, Lord Murray, said, because people who have to seek suffrages are themselves likely to be political in their outlook and habits. However, nothing inhibits the appointment of specialists—including specialists who may attend meetings of the governing body. If they attend to give advice or to receive instructions their presence is permissible under Clause 12. That is what we are used to in many other aspects of our national life.

The Cabinet, or a Cabinet Committee, may summon a civil servant or, say, a military chief, to give advice or even to receive instructions. It does not make that person part of the ruling group. A bogey has been built up about this clause. It would make a change but it would not inhibit the development of the specialist and professional services which the noble Baroness is right to see as one of the foundations of a modernising trade union movement.

In replying from these Benches to the debate on the amendment, I should like first to say that much of the discussion has not been absolutely directed to the amendment. The proposed subsection (6A) specifically deals with the position of president, as I said in my opening remarks. The presidency of the NUM has been bothering many noble Lords on the opposite Benches. That is specifically dealt with in subsection (6A) which makes clear that it is an elected position.

The proposed subsection (6B) deals with the position of general secretaries. My noble friends have dealt in great detail with those arguments. The Minister has certainly not responded to the main arguments that we have put forward. For example, he has not dealt with the Civil Service argument. Again, this is a strong argument. If one is to have specialist services, as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, who seemed to agree, said, there must be someone in charge of those services who is likely to understand what they are all about. Therefore, a chief executive who has some administrative skills is necessary.

It is possible, of course, that such a chief executive will have a high political "profile" because that is the way in which public life operates in this country. He may be making television appearances, and so on. But that does not mean to say that he is not an administrator responsible directly to his executive.

I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Chapple, that not all unions are the same. Not all general secretaries of unions have the powers that he says exist in the ETU. In this amendment we say that because of the diversity of union practice, it should be left to the unions themselves to decide whether they want to appoint an official to administer affairs for them, to organise their specialist services, to represent them and to have the capacity to represent them on television, and so on, or whether they want to have an elected official.

The clause is an unwarrantable interference with the rights of voluntary organisations in a way so well put to the Committee by my noble friend Lord Houghton. It is wrong for the Government to come along with this legislation and seek to cut across all the standard practices, all the contracts of employment that currently exist, and to raise all sorts of ambiguities in relation to people attending the executives of unions who are not themselves general secretaries.

It has been mentioned that a number of officials regularly attend executive meetings. I did so for a long time during my trade union career. I do not know whether I could be said to have given professional advice, but certainly I had to produce papers for the executive and certainly I had to speak to those papers. Ultimately, if my recommendations were not accepted I had to abide, and did abide, by the decisions of that elected executive.

The clause expands the position very widely to cover that range of officials and to interfere with their employment contracts in a quite unjustifiable way. No criticism has yet been voiced in the Committee about the way those officials carry out their work or about their lack of accountability to the membership. For all those reasons I intend to press this amendment to a Division and I ask the Committee to support it.

moved Amendment No. 64:

Page 14, line 23, leave out ("except in the case of a special register body").

Special register bodies have been part of the industrial relations scheme since the early 1970s. They are primarily professional associations with incorporated status which also conduct negotiations with employers about terms and conditions of employment. As the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, has already made clear, the BMA and the Royal College of Nursing are two of the better known examples. In essence, they have evolved from their original status as professional bodies and now have a dual role as professional bodies and independent trade unions. They are also bodies corporate. This dual role puts them in a unique position in legislation, and legislation has long made a distinction between them and other unions.

In the present case, this distinction is being recognised because some of the members of their PEC and other members who attend it do so only to deal with certain aspects of their professional role. I am a little puzzled that some Members of the Committee should seek to remove the exemption, given their dislike of the requirement for unions to elect their leaders at regular intervals. Whatever the reasons for the amendment, the fact remains that SRBs exist. They are different from other unions. They have been accepted as such by governments of both parties and they have made representations which Ministers felt able to accept. It would be both wrong and damaging to go back on that commitment.

The noble Lord read out the list of organisations which are presently on the special register. As he will be aware, the register is now closed so no new organisations can join it. He read out the list of those which are members, and I understand that list was the correct one. He then asked why it was that certain other bodies which he judged to be equally deserving were not on the register. I presume the answer is that they did not seek to be members of the special register when that was a possibility open to them some years ago. Therefore, they have the status of the regular trade union as recognised in legislation and by this Bill.

I have said that the Government have accepted—as indeed have successive governments that those organisations have a unique status and that the relevant legislation should take account of that status. If we were to accept the amendments proposed we should be going back on undertakings given to recognise that unique status—recognition and undertakings given by governments of both political parties. I do not think that that would be an appropriate way to proceed, and I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.

I am naturally disappointed with the Minister's answer, not merely for its conclusion but because of its reasoning. The first and main argument that he appeared to use was that we must exempt the special register bodies from the relevant parts of Clause 12 because the list is there. I might call this the Everest argument: "Why do it? Because there is a special register". I never know how to deal with the Everest argument. You either like it or you do not. But there is a more important attachment to the Everest argument which tries to tie us in to the ascent; that is to say that governments of both parties have given undertakings to the special register body.

No Labour or Conservative Government until this one, certainly not in terms of some things that have happened since, ever gave the special register bodies an undertaking that they would be exempt, as it were, as special chums from obligations imposed on all other trade unions of a new kind. The issue did not arise. What the Labour Government did, perhaps unwisely but out of the goodness of their heart because the arguments were not very strong, was to allow the BMA and one or two other bodies to keep their corporate identity.

The noble Lord referred again to the fact that they are bodies corporate, rather suggesting that they therefore have to be special. They are special already, and the mere fact that they are bodies corporate does not mean that they can be exempt from Clause 12(2). You can invent many kinds of corporate bodies. There are private companies, limited companies, companies limited by guarantee. The law is different in respect of each of them. There is no reason why a body corporate cannot be told that it must assume that all those who attend its executive meetings should be elected just like anybody else.

With what are we left? We are left with the comment that they have evolved into a dual role. One really does not know where to begin. First of all, they have not evolved into this dual role in terms of the special register. They were on it in 1971, and that was it. In so far as their functions are concerned, the Minister said they are primarily professional associations and they negotiate with employers. If the Minister could think of a distinction in those terms between most of the bodies on that list and the Health Visitors' Association, which is to be treated now under this clause as a trade union, I would give him a prize, even if it were not a very large prize, because it would be a response which would be ingenious in the extreme. The Health Visitors' Association have to do as they are told, but the other associations, including the Royal College of Nursing, can do as they like on this point. That seems to make no sense at all.

Finally—I do not think the Minister meant to misrepresent us on this but he expressed puzzlement—I insist that we offer no thought of harm to any of the bodies on this list. In the Committee stage of legislation if there is an exemption, we are entitled to ask the reason for it. The Government have given no reason. Their attitude on this matter will make us examine the exemptions that have been put into later clauses with even greater care than we intended from the beginning. We are very disappointed, but in view of the need to make progress with this clause I think it right to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Before the noble Lord does that, I hope he will pause to reflect for a moment that the reason why we have agreed to perpetuate the special arrangements for these organisations is that we have given them an undertaking that we shall do that. The noble Lord is perfectly entitled to abrogate the undertakings given by the Government of which he was not a member but certainly a supporter some years ago. I prefer to stand by the undertakings given by my right honourable and honourable friends. That is the reason why I oppose the amendment.

With the Committee's leave, perhaps I may comment upon that. I feel sure that the Minister did not mean that in some way I was abrogating vicariously the undertakings of the Labour Government. That government gave no undertakings to special register bodies except that they could maintain their corporate status, and there is no question about their maintaining that.

The noble Lord's other point is even more important. This Bill has been in existence only since its publication date last October, so the issue of whether special register bodies should or should not fall fully within Clause 12 has been alive only since last October. In the Committee stage in another place or in any pronouncements that I have seen, I do not recall public undertakings to those bodies. It may be that the Government in their wisdom, by way of policy, decided to exempt the special register bodies to give those bodies an entirely new dimension. The logic should be clear about this. There has been nothing like this in the past. The special register bodies are exempt from these great obligations. If the noble Lord says the Government have given undertakings to the special register bodies I quite understand that. No doubt at some time or other privately they gave them and then they put forward this clause, but you cannot justify a clause merely on the basis that you promised to make it. There has to be some reason other than what was said last Wednesday, and we have not heard anything. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 65:

Page 14, line 24, after ("body") insert ("and subject to subsection (6C) below").

We welcome the amendment. The Government would have been foolish to insist on applying the clause to people in the category covered by the amendment.

If I may follow up the point made by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn, it is being made increasingly difficult to understand the theoretical principle behind the clause. This is a point which we shall have to make on several subsequent amendments. It is only fair to use this opportunity to state where we think the difficulty lies.

The people covered by the amendment have no vote and are not employees. They have the job for a year, after which they give it up. Under those tests they are not covered by the Bill. An amendment that will be discussed later states that a person who has no vote, is a 10-year employee, is going within five years and is elected by a postal ballot does not have to have an election.

However, there is another case—a third example—in the Bill of a person who has no vote, is a 10-year employee and is going within five years but, because he is elected in a workplace ballot, he must have an election. There are more cases—in fact, six. There is the case of the 10-year employee, the general secretary or president, who is going within five years but was elected in a workplace ballot. Because he has a vote, presumably he will not be covered by Amendment No. 133. We cannot understand all this. The fifth case is that of the man who has no vote, is a 10-year employee, is going in three years and is elected by annual conference so that he has to be covered by an election.

There seem to be four criteria—votes, whether a person was an employee, whether he had the job for a certain period and whether the ballot was workplace or postal. I ask the Minister to start working out how one fits them all together and makes sense of it.

I confined my remarks to the amendment and was careful not to stray on to topics in other amendments. Despite that, perhaps I should have said that the amendment paves the way for Amendments Nos. 73 and 134, which I hope I shall be able to move formally.

This is a comparatively narrow amendment and represents the honouring of an undertaking given in another place. I hope that the Committee will agree to it.

Perhaps the Minister could give an example or two. The Government must have in mind some positions that are covered by substantive Amendment No. 73.

I am interested in members' trustees, for example. They are not officers of the union. They are not employees. They are appointed by the annual delegate conference as trustees. They hold office at the will and pleasure of the annual delegate conference. For the most part they are retired civil servants. They attend meetings of the executive council because they are the watchdogs on expenditure under the rules and can intervene if the executive council appears to trespass on their responsibilities in the matter. Do they have to go for election under the clause or are they covered by the concession?

There are also certain honorary officers who may be receiving an honorarium but who are not employees of the union. They may be members of the union. They hold a non-elected office for a period because they are given some responsibility for the development of the technical side. I think particularly of the taxation side of a union like my own where advice is wanted from people who are inside and who will accept some responsibility for it. Such people attend meetings of the executive council. If they are making grading claims or considering a re-appraisal of the value of work, they are in a position to indicate from their experience what kind of work it is. What does the Minister make of that? These are not positions of power and responsibility; they are ancillary to the government of the union. It is absurd if the requirement for re-election is to apply to them.

Perhaps the Minister can throw some light on the case of a trustee who satisfies all the requirements in the clause except that, as the union holds its conference biennially and not annually, he is elected by the conference on a two-year basis, largely because of the cost of bringing members together. He will presumably require to satisfy the electoral and ballot requirement contained in other provisions of the Bill. Can the Minister confirm whether that is so?

If I may speak slightly off the cuff in reply to the noble Lord, a president, an honorary president or an honorary general secretary who is not involved in the decision-making process of the union—

If I may intervene, I referred to a trustee, not an honorary president.

As I understand it, if he holds office for more than a year he is not covered by the benefits of the amendment, which is specifically directed at those who hold office for a year. The subsection provides for a period of 13 months so that individuals can hold their positions from one annual conference to another as annual conferences do not always take place exactly one year apart. If there is a biennial conference, I fear that the person who wanted to hold office between the two conferences would not enjoy the benefits of the amendment.

The Government appear to have no consistent set of principles behind the exceptions. The Minister is right. Amendment No. 73 says:

"holds that position for a period which under the rules of the union cannot end more than thirteen months after he took up that position; has held neither that position nor any other position so mentioned at any time in the period of twelve months ending with the day before he took up that position".

The position put by my noble friend Lord Murray of Epping Forest is quite clear: a person who was made an honorary president by an annual conference would not be covered. Do the Government really think that they are granting this concession for one year only? What is the basis for that?

The basis is that this is a response to a request from the Opposition in the other place, who were apparently anxious to receive the concession. They would of course have preferred the concession to go wider, but we felt unable to agree to that. We have moved in the direction of the Opposition, and I hope that that at least will be recognised.

The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, raised a specific point about trustees. Perhaps I may study what he said. If I can add anything, I shall write to him.

moved Amendment No. 67:

Page 14, line 32, after ("technical") insert ("financial, legal").

I do not intend to reply immediately to the noble Baroness, but the Committee might find it convenient if we also discussed Amendments Nos. 68 and 69, tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, and Amendment No. 70, tabled by my noble friend Lord Brentford.

It may be convenient if I speak now on the other two amendments. As we know, Clause 12(6A) defines the circumstances in which a union member attending a principal executive committee must be elected. However paragraph (b) makes an exception,

"for the purpose of providing the committee with factual information or with technical or professional advice with respect to matters incidental to the carrying out by the committee of its functions".

My amendment seeks to make that exemption a little less stringent by adding the words "or opinions". In trade unions and many other organisations, including local authority specialist committees, senior officers act as the organisation's principal spokesmen in committee. In a union, such officials may express opinions on the effect of alternative courses of action, and give general advice. But they can do so only at the executive committee's request.

The situation in the unions is different from that in government where Ministers are always advised by their civil servants, and the latter seldom speak at committee meetings. As I have said, that is not the procedure for unions. Elected members of the executive committee are usually full-time employees in another occupation. They often need verbal briefing and advice, but the committee alone makes the policy. The effect of the subsection, as it stands, would make the decision process and operation of many trade unions difficult. It would help me greatly in deciding whether to pursue the matter, possibly at another stage, if the Minister would describe the circumstances in which he feels that that limitation is important and how it may be abused.

In speaking to Amendment No. 70, I should like to make it clear that all I am trying to do is to implement the Government's intention, which I fear is not the case with the Bill as at present drawn. The amendment seeks to clarify the meaning of a provision which purports to exclude from election those giving professional advice, including solicitors. The clause excludes from election those who provide the committee,

"with factual information or with technical or professional advice with respect to matters incidental to the carrying out by the committee of its functions".

The Government have stated clearly that it is not their intention to require the election of professional advisers such as solicitors. The problem hinges on the word "incidental". Although the Government do not want to have professional advisers elected, the clause as drafted may make it necessary for them to be so.

I shall quote from Standing Committee in another place when my honourable friend the Minister of State who was dealing with this issue said:

"The word 'incidental' has been used to ensure that those attending meetings to give advice and information needed by the PEC to make its decisions, rather than to take part in the decisions themselves, are not covered. The Bill expresses that as clearly and as accurately as possible. The advice on incidents in the main decision—for example, advice on the legal aspects of a decision—is one of the incidents leading up to the final decision".

If that were the drafting of the Bill, I should be happy with it.

Later my honourable friend said:

"'incidental' does not mean trivial in this respect, or partial, which it can sometimes be taken to mean … that legal meaning of 'incidental' is one of the incidents on the road to making a decision".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee F, 17/12/87; cols. 373, 391.]

My dictionary says that incidental means casual, not essential. I accept that the word "incident" has a much wider meaning, but it is not the word "incident" in the Bill, but "incidental". In common usage, according to my thinking and that of my dictionary, that means casual, not essential. I fear that as drafted the Bill will make it essential for a professional adviser, such as a solicitor, who attends to give legal advice on an essential matter to be made subject to an election.

I am sorry for being technical. I believe, and it is the view of many other lawyers, that the wording of Clause 12 does not implement the Government's intention. My proposal is designed to clarify the position to ensure that my noble friend's intentions are fulfilled.

Before the noble Viscount sits down, I accept and endorse the views he put. Many lawyers are interested in that phrase. In our view, his amendment is helpful. It is something to which we shall clearly return on Report because it is a difficult area. I wonder whether the noble Viscount would answer two slightly critical questions about his wording to clarify the point before we return to the issue on Report.

I have in mind solicitors who are employed by a union. It is becoming more common for solicitors, or even barristers, to be in-house, as it were, than it was many years ago. If there is such a person—I can think of two unions where it is so, and there are more—could one say that he was employed or engaged solely to give professional advice, in the sense that one of the people about whom I am thinking, for example, witnesses affidavits? In-house solicitors perfectly properly do other jobs. They are not precisely giving advice. Therefore,

"solely for the purpose of providing"

advice might meet a criticism, although not as strong as the noble Viscount's criticism of the Government's words, that the wording does not cover the job done by the solicitor in-house whom he wants to protect.

Perhaps I may—

If I may answer that question briefly, the example given by Lord Wedderburn is of witnessing affidavits which would surely not be done at the meeting of the PEC. I should have thought that my wording probably covered what was basically in my mind.

I apologise to the noble Lord, I always give way to everybody, but I did not see him rise. There is a distinction which has been drawn between in-house and non-in-house lawyers. That in a sense could in certain very exceptional circumstances be a crucial distinction because the ordinary lawyer who is called in to advise, I would have thought, subject to the views of the Committee, would clearly fall within subsection (6A)(b), and there is no problem. Then the in-house lawyer who becomes part of the establishment and eventually after years becomes part of the decision-making process, falls into a sort of grey area. In that grey area, subject to the opinion of noble Lords, I should have thought it was better to leave Clause 12(6A)(b) as it stands rather than to accept the amendment.

We took the view generally, before hearing the detailed arguments, that all three of these amendments, though not the biggest amendments in the world, were helpful. We believe that it would be perfectly reasonable for someone not to serve in an election and have to have regular elections because they are not just providing facts and information of a technical and professional character. They are occasionally asked to express their opinion. If you have experts, you ask for their opinion. You say, "What do you think is the best thing to do?" Anybody who is paid for being a consultant or expert is asked, "What do you think we ought to do?" If it be the case that not having the word "opinion" in the clause makes it more difficult, then I should have thought that we have to thank the noble Viscount for suggesting it to the Government. I hope that the Government will find a way to accept the amendment.

Also "to matters incidental": again it seems to us that if we take out the words "matters incidental" in subsection (6A)(b) we just make it more straightforward. It is technical or professional advice with respect to the carrying out by the committee of its functions. What does the phrase "matters incidental" add to the significance of the clause? We do not think it adds anything and we would hope that the Government could accept the amendment.

Finally, with the third amendment put forward by the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, I must say that the idea that unless something is done with the clause we may get a situation in which a solicitor giving advice to a trade union has to stand for election is quite ludicrous. It is one more ludicrous example of the ludicrous nature of this clause in this ludicrous Bill. I hope that the Minister will improve it.

I hope that my noble friend will pay particular attention to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Viscount Brentford. It seems to me that he has made a valid point on the rather curious use of the word "incidental". To take the obvious case, if a solicitor attends a meeting in order to advise a union on whether to fight a certain issue or to settle or give way, he is then giving advice, not incidental to the decision but crucial to it. His advice will bear on the decision which that committee ought to take.

I think it is straining the English language somewhat to describe that sort of advice as being merely "incidental" to the functions. Therefore whatever view my noble friend takes on the other amendments on which I express no opinion, I hope that he will take seriously the amendment in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford.

I just want to make one further point on "incidental". It seems to me that even taking into account what has been said in another place, it does not in any way restrict the clause. The very fact that it is there seems to me that it might be a wonderful arguing point for lawyers. If you omit it, I do not think subsection (6A)(b) loses anything at all from the Government's point of view.

Where does the word "incidental" appear in Amendment No. 70?

The word "incidental" appears in the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, Amendment No. 69. I imagine it was that to which my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter was referring.

Clause 12 is intended to ensure that union leaders are representative of the membership. As we have already discussed, the clause extends the 1984 Trade Union Act's election requirements to all members of the PEC, general secretaries and presidents and to those who have the right under the rules or by custom and practice to attend and speak at some or all meetings of the PEC.

In this way, all those who are members or act as though they were members of the PEC will have to be elected and thus be better able to represent the views of the membership. The clause closes a loophole to which I have already referred in the 1984 Act, by means of which certain union leaders have been able to give up their vote on the PEC and so evade the election requirement.

Amendment No. 67 seeks to ensure that individuals who attend PEC meetings only to give financial or legal advice will not be subject to the election requirement. But under the clause as drafted, as long as an individual is supplying factual information or technical or professional advice for the purpose of assisting the PEC to make decisions, as distinct from actually taking part in the taking of decisions, there will be no election requirement. This includes financial and legal advice and I believe therefore that Amendment No. 67 is unnecessary.

Turning to Amendment No. 70 which would add a new subsection defining the phrase "professional advice" in subsection (6A)(b) as included in any advice given to a union by a professional person who is engaged or employed "solely for the pupose of providing that professional advice", it is unnecessary because the clause as drafted includes those who attend for the purpose of giving professional advice, whatever their relationship with the union. I quite take the point made by my noble friend. He is right to raise that concern. But I believe that the clause as drafted meets the point which he made. I hope that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter will accept that as well.

Let me turn specifically now to Amendments Nos. 68 and 69 in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth. The addition of the word "opinions" after "advice" in Amendment No. 68 is again unnecessary, I am told, as "advice" automatically includes "opinions". However I presume Amendments Nos. 68 and 69 are intended to operate together. Thus the use of "incidental" in subsection (6A)(b) ensures that those to be exempted from the election requirement are not concerned with matters which are the primary function of the PEC; that is, deciding whether and when to do something as opposed to how to do it.

Removal of "to matters incidental" would therefore have the effect of permitting individuals to play a fuller role in the activities of the PEC while still being exempted from the election requirement. I do not think that is quite what the noble Lord intended, and it is certainly not what the Government have in mind. I agree with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that sometimes the advice tendered by professional advisers can be very important indeed in persuading the principal executive committee or other senior officials of the union which way they might decide in any matter. But I believe that we have drafted the clause sufficiently tightly to ensure that those who are tempted to stray beyond—

If the noble Lord will permit me—

Perhaps I may just finish this sentence—tempted to stray beyond the professional advisory capacity will find themselves outside the ambit of the protection which we provide here.

I am really extremely confused. That is probably my fault. But let us suppose that the executive committee is considering whether or not to take strike action and it turns to the legal adviser and asks whether such action would be within the law. The legal adviser then gives his opinion. Is that to be regarded as incidental?

I am very reluctant to give a legal opinion on a particular hypothetical situation about which the noble Baroness has given me just one sentence. If I were a legal adviser advising a trade union I should not be content to give advice on the basis of instructions represented by one or two sentences. I believe, however, that in the kind of situation that the noble Baroness has indicated where the action that an executive committee had in mind was likely to be secondary action and therefore outlawed by a particular provision, it could properly question a legal adviser on that matter. I think that such an adviser, asked just such a question, would enjoy the protection of this clause.

I am sorry to press my noble friend a little further but I am not happy about the word "incidental" in subsection (6A)(b). I wish to refer to the example that I put to the Minister earlier which he did not deal with. If a union is faced with a possibility of legal proceedings will it decide to fight? The legal adviser turns up to advise. That is not,

"technical or professional advice with respect to matters incidental to the carrying out by the committee of functions".

That, surely, is legal advice bearing on the substance of the decision which the committee is going to take. I do think it is stretching the language a little to describe that as "incidental".

I join with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter in making this request to my noble friend on the Front Bench. There are two difficulties that I see about this provision. First, the addition of these apparently innocent words broadens the scope of the subsection very much indeed. Secondly, in doing so, I can imagine cases in which there will be a wrangle before the courts as to whether a matter was incidental to the carrying out by the committee of its functions or was not incidental. I do not think that we should be legislating in such a way as to give rise to that situation. There is a very strong case for my noble friend to consider further Amendment No. 69 of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth.

With considerable diffidence, I disagree with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and my dear sponsor the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I cannot see in all objectivity that the clause creates any difficulty at all. I take the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. It is, frankly, the crucial point. The noble Baroness always makes the crucial point. One gets the solicitor. Never mind for a moment whether he is in-house or not in-house; there he is. One says to him, "Look, Jones, this is the form. Can we take this action or not?" He says "yes" or "no" or in all probability, "I do not know. You will have to make your own decision." That is the usual kind of legal advice that one receives.

In any event, whatever he says he will express it, as I understand ordinary English construction, in the following manner. I am seeking to answer the noble Baroness. He will say that it will be incidental to the carrying out by the committee of its functions. Good heavens! Lawyers never make any decisions. That is why they always survive. They just advise. Whatever they do is merely incidental to something that someone else does on that advice.

The noble Lord seems to think that a decision is taken at a particular moment on the clock. But, of course, it is a process. That opinion is a very important part of the process of making the decision.

I take the point made by the noble Baroness. I agree with her, as I usually do. But the legal advice is, as I understand it—I may be totally wrong and that is a matter for the Committee—purely incidental to the decision-making process of the committee. Some people rely on the legal advice they receive. Many people, perhaps for very good reasons and often to their advantage, reject it. Legal advice is asked for. It is given. It is incidental. It is not the decision. The decision is made by the committee. As it stands, this clause as I construe it—I say that with considerable deference in view of the fact that two members of the Bar are opposed to me—

But, really, if the lawyer says, "If you do this, you will go to jug", one cannot say that that is incidental in the process of making the decision.

I believe that my noble friend is right to say that on occasions legal advice, perhaps less categoric than the example given by the noble Baroness, is sometimes disregarded. The fact of the matter is that on the right of me I have three most distinguished members of the legal profession who disagree among themselves. I think that the right thing for me to do under these circumstances is to accept that there is room for more than one respectable view on this matter and to undertake to have it examined further between now and the next stage. I do so without commitment because I am not necessarily persuaded by one view or the other. But I shall ask for the matter to be considered by a further range of experts—if I may put it that way—and, if I think fit, bring forward a further amendment at a later stage.

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 68:

Page 14, line 33, after ("advice") insert ("or opinions").

I wish to thank my noble friend for offering to reconsider this matter. I hope that he will look at the meaning of the word "incidental" in the dictionary as well as studying the legal implications of this.

moved Amendment No. 71:

I hope that my noble friend the Minister will not accept the amendment. It seems to be manifestly a way of overcoming the provisions of the new subsection (6A) by changing the rules of the union. That goes back to the speech which we had on the first amendment which we considered today (Amendment No. 63) when the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, was asked by me at the end of his speech if he would give way. I then put to him the point that when he complained that the clause overrides union rules, he was suggesting that the rules should take precedence over the law. He came back at me with a plea for natural justice. He quite rightly mentioned that the rules can be approved or disapproved by the courts when there is a change if necessary.

The point we have to bear in mind on the amendment is that although the rule book has a sanctity—and properly so—it cannot be subject to the proposition that it overrides the sovereignty of Parliament. Legislation is an expression of that sovereignty. We should look carefully at any amendment that seems to attempt to overcome the law which Parliament makes.

I accept, as the noble Baroness has said, that trade unions have made vast progress of late. That is much to be welcomed and encouraged. The question of damage to the position and the status of trade unions is not readily understandable for the reasons which I sought to give earlier this afternoon and which I have no intention of repeating. The adverse effect on career structure for young people is again not readily understood.

One comes back full circle every time to the problem that the effect of Clause 12 is to include members of the PEC who are already covered by the Act of 1984 and then to include those members who, by virtue of the rules, do not have a right to vote and de facto members who attend meetings and play a part in the decision-making progress. That is the essence of the matter. That was a consideration which affected the last amendment which my noble friend has taken back.

To accept the amendment—although I know and avow that it is not the intention of the noble Baroness and that it would not happen in the hands of her union or most unions—would, in the hands of some unions, open the door to evasion and abuse. For that reason and with the utmost regret I oppose the amendment.

I agree that the amendment is something of a Trojan horse. For that reason, I find it impossible to agree to it. The amendment would add a new subsection with the effect that, with the exception of general secretaries and presidents, individuals would not be members of the PEC and therefore not subject to the election requirement if the rules of their union stated that they or people occupying their positions were not principal executive committee members and had no right to vote at meetings of the PEC. That would leave all non-members free to act as if they were PEC members, other than voting, without being required to be elected. That is a Trojan horse if ever I saw one. I cannot accept the amendment.

I find the arguments advanced against the amendment very strange. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that we are not suggesting that the rules should take precedence over the law. We are suggesting that Parliament should not pass unfair laws. Once the law is in position, unions have to abide by it. That is not in question. We are not suggesting that the rules should take precedence.

Our argument has been that there are classes of officials employed as what has been described by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, as civil servants of the trade union movement. Should those people have to stand for election? We say that they should not. It is destabilising to introduce the electoral process into administrative processes. It also politicises those processes in an unwelcome way.

Nor is the amendment a Trojan horse. Those people are responsible directly to an elected executive council and they are employed by it. There is no suggestion on our side that such people should be able to do exactly what they like without reference to anyone else. The national executive council is an elected body. Those people are employees of it and are responsible directly to it. They must do what the elected executive tells them to do. They administer the union on the instructions of the elected council. That seems to us to be a reasonable process.

That is the type of situation that applies in many institutions. Why should it be applied differently here? Why should there be discrimination in regard to unions? We do not understand, except that it seems to us that the Government are out to be as damaging as they possibly can to union organisation and advancement. However, I shall not press the amendment to a Division and we shall look at the matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 73:

moved Amendment No. 75:

Page 15, line 5, leave out ("the period of five") and insert ("a period of less than five years but more than two")

Will the noble Lord give way? The noble Lord keeps referring to the elections of the NUM and commenting on their legality. He has yet to spell out his case; he has generalised. He relies upon headlines in the Yorkshire Post and his own arithmetic, but I think that the Committee would be interested if he would go very carefully through that arithmetic. The arithmetic that I have seen concerning the ballot in no way substantiates the allegation that there was any illegality in the conduct of the election.

I am not relying on headlines in the Yorkshire Post, I am relying on its content. I do not want to bore the Committee by going into that again. Nevertheless, it was clear that in some areas more miners voted than happened to be available in the workplace on that particular day.

Will the noble Lord give way? The noble Lord conveniently forgets that miners who may not be working and therefore not in the workplace are entitled to vote. If he had done his research properly for once, he would have found that it needed only 1,000 of the 4,000 miners, alleged to be missing because they were off work, to have gone into work to vote. It could very well have been that although they were not due to go to work they were sufficiently interested in the ballot to go to work to vote.

The noble Lord is demonstrating clearly that there is a good deal of dispute about the election of the NUM which took place on 22nd January.

There is no dispute at all.

Not only was it made out clearly in the survey by the Yorkshire Post but also by members of the NUM who were very much afraid and saddened.

Will the noble Lord give way? Is he not aware that the Yorkshire Post carried a statement the following day that the Electoral Reform Society was satisfied with the way in which the election had been conducted?

Oh dear! I did not know that the noble Baroness was quite so gullible. The Electoral Reform Society was only satisfied that it had counted what it had received. The Electoral Reform Society did not send out the ballot papers in the first place and had no idea how many had been printed or how many had been duplicated, substituted or added. All it did was to count those that came back.

Anyone who was watching television news programmes at that time could see the envelopes from the NUM branches being delivered to the place where the Electoral Reform Society was to count them. The envelopes were stuffed with the ballot papers which had been taken out of the ballot boxes—which were never sealed, nor locked—by branch officials. Therefore, it was prefectly easy to add or subtract ballot papers before they were put in the envelopes. What is more, the champions of Mr. Scargill were declaring 24 hours before the result of the count was announced that he had won, and that he had won by a narrower majority than usual. How the devil did they know if they had not already arranged for that to happen?

I am quite happy to engage in these rather puerile debates with Members opposite. They simply bear out the total uncertainty and unreliability of a workplace ballot conducted by the NUM. That is the reason why Mr. Scargill wanted a workplace ballot before this Bill came into effect. He had a much better chance of winning such a ballot, with lots of people sympathetic to him and manipulating the votes at branches and pitheads and taking them out of ballot boxes before they put them into envelopes to send to the Electoral Reform Society. He had a much better chance of winning that kind of ballot than of winning a properly conducted secret postal ballot.

Surely the noble Baroness—who I thought was extremely intelligent—must realise what his game is. It is obvious, is it not? Why dash into an election, which you do not have to have, on 22nd January if not for the fact that you know that you will have to hold it on the basis of a properly conducted secret postal ballot after the Bill becomes law? Perhaps we may dispense with that point for the moment.

Will the noble Lord give way? At the expense of boring the Committee, which I suspect is deeply bored already, will the noble Lord explain why those on his national executive committee who are by no means the champions of Mr. Scargill have lent their support to the statements that that election was above board? Will he tell us how many Conservative laws are meant to dance on the point of a Scargill?

I am afraid that I do not understand the noble Lord's point at all. As is well known, the executive is rather afraid of Mr. Scargill. I do not expect much progress from that quarter. As for boring the Committee, some Members of the Committee seem to be quite interested.

The truth of the matter is that the principal victim of the 22nd January election—a Mr. Walsh—is not willing to rock the boat internally by standing up and demanding a declaration from the certification officer that something was very much awry with that election. One reason is that his whole career is as an area officer, a paid official of the NUM. They would have him out in a brace of ticks if he dared to protest to the certification officer.

These amendments would also apply to members of the executive council of the Transport and General Workers' Union. Everyone has read about the extraordinary work place ballots held recently in the Transport and General Workers' Union. I hope that Members of the Committee will not be bored if I read out something from The Times of Saturday 27th February, which I found rather fascinating:

"A former prominent hard-left member of the union has signed an affidavit saying he saw widespread rigging and spelt out how it was done. The rigging is alleged to have taken place in an election of the general executive of the TGWU … The union member making the allegations has told officials that he saw new membership cards being pre-stamped when he attended a local union 'ballot stamping' party in the North-West".

I do not wish to embarrass Members on the Labour Benches too much and I shall not read on, but I must say—

With his vast experience of newspapers surely the noble Lord does not believe what he reads in them. The ones with which he is concerned certainly do not speak the truth.

As it happens, I believe statements from members of unions when they carry absolute verisimilitude.

Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to say something on that point. He quotes from a newspaper the words "a former prominent hard-left member". Does the noble Lord care to name that person? What he is relying upon is a scurrilous and made-up report, and if his remarks are designed simply to enliven the proceedings he should be thoroughly ashamed of himself.

It is very touching to hear how Members opposite desperately go on trying to defend the extraordinary activities of the TGWU.

Name the man!