My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, a Statement will be made tomorrow.

My Lords, is the Minister aware in the first place that it is really refreshing to receive an affirmative reply? However, if I may pursue the matter a little further, presumably, in accordance with what has been said in the past, the Statement will be made in both Houses. Will it, as we expect in both Houses, be an oral Statement on which we shall have an opportunity of questioning the Government?

My Lords, a Statement will be made in both Houses, but following the normal practice in matters of this kind the Statement will be made by way of reply to a Question for Written Answer.

Oh!

My Lords, not being able to argue with the Minister on the precedents—I expect that he has the details of what is done regarding this type of reply—may I ask whether he is aware that a number of us in both Houses, and on all sides, have been following this matter for some months, that we disagree with what we think has been done, that we expected to have the opportunity of putting questions to the Minister, and that neither House welcomes a Written Answer on the day before the House rises?

My Lords, I should have thought that the noble Baroness would have been pleased by the promptness with which I have dealt with the matter. Secondly, if the Statement is made by way of reply to a Question for Written Answer, the noble Baroness will have time to study it before she comes to a conclusion on what the Government say.

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord how it comes about that there is to be a Question for Written Answer in both Houses tomorrow? Is it not an odd procedure—two Questions, one in each House?

My Lords, it is quite normal; it has been done on many occasions.

My Lords, is the Minister suggesting that I put down for tomorrow a Question for Written Answer?—because as yet I have certainly not done so. Is he further aware that I had no idea that a matter which we have been pursuing for so long, and which the airlines have been pursuing, would be shuffled out of by means of a Written Answer to which people cannot reply?

My Lords, there will be plenty of opportunity for the noble Baroness to make her views known when she has seen the terms of the Answer.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that a Written Answer on a matter of this importance is really not good enough? It is not satisfactory, and will he be good enough to consult his right honourable friend the Prime Minister and his other right honourable friends in order to ensure that there is made in both Houses a Statement instead of a Written Answer?

My Lords, it is in fact standard practice for Statements of this kind to be made in reply to Questions for Written Answer. It would be difficult to say that this matter, which relates solely to the question of financing the costs of security, is of such overriding public interest that it demands an oral Statement in your Lordships' House, to the detriment of the other business on the Order Paper.

My Lords, which Member of your Lordships' House has asked the Question to which the Written Answer is to be given tomorrow?

My Lords, I imagine that such a Question will appear on the Order Paper when it is published.

My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that a mere exercise in one-upmanship is not a substitute for a reasoned Answer?

My Lords, this is not an exercise in one-upmanship; it is an exercise in trying to make the information available at the earliest possible date. I dealt with the matter finally only this morning. The terms of the Statement have not yet been settled. I should have thought that the noble Lord would appreciate my dealing with the matter with such speed, instead of following what no doubt he regards as the normal practice of taking more time.

My Lords, will the noble Lord say how my noble friend can pursue this matter before the middle of October?

My Lords, I was under the impression—and I thought that the noble Lord also knew—that your Lordships' House will be sitting next week.

My Lords, is it not a coincidence that we were asked to approve the order relating to air security charges last week, instead of after the outcome of the review is known?

No, my Lords; the effect of the order last week was to reduce the security charge. I should be surprised if the noble Lord felt that the security charge should not have been reduced.

My Lords,—

My Lords, we have now had five minutes on this matter—

Oh!

I appreciate that your Lordships very much want to know what is in the Statement which will be given by way of a Written Answer tomorrow. As has already been indicated, the House does not rise until Tuesday, and there will of course be other opportunities to pursue the matter. May I suggest that we take one more supplementary question, and then move on to the next Question.

My Lords, as the Question for Written Answer has apparently not yet been set down and the oral Question by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, has been on the Order Paper for some time, would my noble friend explain why it was not possible to give an answer to the noble Baroness in order that she should have the opportunity to ask a supplementary?

My Lords, a full and comprehensive reply was given to the noble Baroness's Question, which read as follows:

"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are in a position to announce the date".

That I have answered.

There has been no opportunity for a supplementary.

The answer to it is that a Statement will be made tomorrow. It would have been perfectly possible, I may say, if the noble Earl's object is to try to meet the noble Baroness's interest in this matter, which has been evidenced over a long period of time, to have decided to make the Statement in a week's time; but I cannot see what advantage that would have compared with the decision that I in fact took, which was to make the Statement as soon as possible, which is tomorrow.

My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness the Leader of the House whether she can help—because perhaps I misheard what the noble Lord said, and we have got rather lost with all these exchanges. I thought I heard the noble Lord say that it would not be helpful to make a Statement tomorrow in this House because that would be to the detriment of the business in another place. I do not think that has anything to do with it, but that is certainly what I understood him to say. I do not know whether the Leader of the House could help us, in view of the contributions we have had from all sides of the House. It may be a most excellent Statement, but we have not seen it. Could she possibly use her influence to see whether we could have an oral Statement tomorrow?

My Lords, as the House knows, it is quite common practice to have Statements by way of Written Answer. I have used this means myself already in the course of the last year, and I think all Ministers do at some stage or another. It is really a decision which would usually rest with the Minister responsible for the department. It is a matter, I recognise, about which the House feels very strongly indeed, and we all know of the noble Baroness's interest in this matter. I will, of course, reflect on what has been said in your Lordships' House today, but I hope that both the noble Baroness and the House will feel that my noble friend, in giving the reply that he did today, has actually followed what is quite normal practice. The House will have an opportunity, when the Statement is published tomorrow, to see what it is that the Government have in mind on this particular matter, and I hope noble Lords will feel that that is not in any sense an unusual procedure.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, the opportunity arises frequently for Governments to exchange views on economic affairs; for example, at meetings of the European Council and the Finance Council. The French Government indicated a change in emphasis in their policies at the EMS realignment meeting on 12th June. The annual Anglo-French summit will take place in November, and will provide a further opportunity for an exchange of views.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that full reply. May I ask him whether he would not agree that there now seems to be common ground among the parties in this country that we cannot buy our way out of recession, as M. Mitterrand tried to do initially? Indeed, my noble friend Lord Boardman made this very point last Monday. Was not M. Mitterrand's initial reflationary policy further proof of this?

My Lords, I entirely agree with what my noble friend says. The French Government that came into power just over a year ago came in on the basis of a reflationary policy. They have since had to modify that policy in very material respects.

But, my Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is hardly anything in the Government's record that justifies their being able to give any advice to anybody? Would it not be far better if the noble Lord decided to devote some interest to his own country and to its prosperity, as distinct from the disaster into which his own Government have put it?

My Lords, I was not giving advice to anybody, although from time to time I am tempted to give advice to the noble Lord himself. He will find that after 12 months in office the French Government have had to devalue the franc twice, have had to introduce a freeze on wages and prices, have had to reduce Government expenditure and have now set a limit of 3 per cent. on the budget deficit—a figure somewhat comparable to our own.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the almost jocular way in which he approaches these questions does not give much encouragement to the 3 million unemployed, two-thirds of whom were created by this Government; nor to the hundreds made bankrupt every day; and does he not think that a policy which deliberately creates inflation is a form of governmental masochism so that they may get credit for reducing it? Is this not a serious issue that ought to be treated by any Government spokesman in a most serious way?

My Lords, the noble Lord will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree with a single word that he says. These matters were debated at length in your Lordships' House as recently as Monday; and, if I may suggest it with respect, the noble Lord having participated in that debate, it would pay him to read the record of the whole of the debate again.

My Lords, did I understand from my noble friend that we have contact with the French Government through the EMS? Does that mean that, although we are not members of the EMS, we do take part in any discussions arising within that organisation?

My Lords, my noble friend raises what is in effect a very technical point. We are in fact members of the EMS, but we are not members of the exchange rate mechanism.

My Lords, will the noble Lord not find it embarrassing to exchange views with a Socialist Government? Is there not a danger of him being converted?

My Lords, the answer to both parts of that question is, "No".

My Lords, as the noble Lord referred, in answer to one supplementary, to whether another noble Lord had read the debate on unemployment held last Monday, may I ask him whether he has re-read that debate, and whether he recalls that from all sections of the House there was pressure for constructive capital expenditure, including from the CBI, and that he did not reply to those points?

My Lords, I have in fact re-read the whole of the debate. I indicated at the time that I would be reading it, and I did in fact re-read it. I have nothing to add to the very full and comprehensive reply I gave to the debate or to the opening speech that I delivered on behalf of the Government.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

Yes, my Lords; and we hope to bring forward legislative proposals accordingly.

My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that brief but satisfactory reply, may I ask him whether he agrees that prevention of crime is much better than punishment for crime which has taken place; and would he not agree that the example of Scotland, where this matter has already been tried out during the last eight months and where searches in 530 cases revealed offensive weapons in 206, proves that crime levels must have been reduced and that this power will therefore benefit the rest of the country?

My Lords, my figures are a little more recent. I support my noble friend's statement that the Scottish experience is successful. In the first 10 months of operation of the new power, just over one-third of the 750 or so persons stopped and searched were found to have an offensive weapon on them.

My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether, when he says "accordingly", he intends to supersede the powers in various Private Acts giving to certain police forces in this country the power to stop, search and detain? In addition, will he ensure that whatever powers are included will be national rather than local and will go further than just searching for offensive weapons, following the lines of the Metropolitan Police Acts, which were primarily concerned with stolen property?

My Lords, I can confirm that we want to have a uniform procedure throughout the country and that at present there is a patchwork of local enactments which ought to be superseded. As the noble Lord asked and as the Royal Commission recommended, it is also intended to rationalise existing powers of stop and search in relation to stolen goods by extending them throughout England and Wales, and to create a new power in relation to housebreaking implements.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, since the noble Lord's Question lacks any definition of the term "peace studies", I can only answer that the Government regard it as essential that what is offered in any institution should always be education and never indoctrination.

My Lords, perhaps I should declare a non-pecuniary interest as a long-standing honorary member of the School of Peace Studies in Bradford, and professor in Zambia. May I ask the noble Lord whether he realises that the term "peace studies" has been used by members of his own Government, including the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Education? Therefore I assumed that it was not necessary to define it. Would he say whether he and the Government stand by the attack made by the Under-Secretary of State in a public speech in which he described peace studies as a Trojan horse; and would he agree that peace studies themselves, in the teaching of mediation as an alternative to force, have a very valuable part to play, not only in this country but throughout the world?

My Lords, I note the noble Lord's interest and I would point out that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in any department is never a member of the Cabinet—I say with regret. As to Trojan horses, I have not read my honourable friend's precise words, but any subject can be a Trojan horse and it must be the case that the quality and content of what is taught in our schools depends above all else upon the qualities of those who teach it. The most innocent curriculum can become dangerous in irresponsible hands and the most dangerous curriculum doubtless can be put to some good use.

My Lords, would my noble friend agree that a valuable component in serious peace studies would be the history of the balance of power?

Yes, my Lords, and I would go on to say that the sort of balanced analysis of human behaviour which the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, quite rightly thinks should be pursued in our schools has for many generations been pursued in the subjects of history, geography and economics.

My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that in the last 40 years in our universities and institutes of higher education, departments of history, politics, international law and international relations have been set up which exist to promote the study of why states come into conflict with each other? Does he not agree that there is no need of further proliferation? Is he aware that in universities there is some suspicion of some of those who promote peace studies, in that it is feared that they are interested in propagating a particular explanation of this subject rather than considering dispassionately the whole of the evidence relating to peace, as would be customary in any university which had a regard for scholarship?

My Lords, in response to that, I should like to say that peace, like salvation, is very greatly to be desired, and our concern is that in their consideration of how to achieve it our young people should be given guidance which is realistic and balanced. Prejudice in pursuit of either aim is a fatal handicap.

My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that the Institute of Peace Studies in the University of Bradford has been described some years ago in relation to both its content and the type of student who attended it as being a rest camp for urban guerrillas? Is the noble Lord further aware that since the proposed affiliation of the National Union of Teachers to the CND, parents are rightly disturbed about what "peace studies" might mean in the schools?

My Lords, the first half of my noble friend's supplementary question I note with great interest in the context of Lord Hatch's declaration of interest. As to the second, I am well aware that there is a wide unease about this subject, but, as I said in my opening reply, it has not actually been defined and it does not, in the terms of secondary education as I understand it, yet lend itself to definition. What matters is the quality of the teachers and the way they put across what they are teaching. It is my experience that a good teacher will give good guidance, irrespective of his own personal convictions or prejudices in either direction, on matters in which children ought to be taught to make up their own minds—and that is what we want to pursue.

My Lords, is it not important that the peace studies should contain an account of the important part played by the Atlantic Alliance in keeping the peace over the last 30 years?

My Lords, I would entirely agree, and I am tempted to follow that theme wider into the area of the question of the validity of deterrence as a means of keeping the peace; but in order to keep the peace in your Lordship's House I thought I would not.

My Lords, arising from the original Answer of the Minister in which he deprecated documentation to schools—

"Indoctrination".

I am sorry my Lords; I misheard. I substitute the word. Is he aware that in a Written Answer to a Question by me this week the Government acknowledge that they send to schools their documents about disarmament? Seriously, may I ask him this: the United Nations has now decided to set up a world disarmament campaign to distribute information. Will that information be available in the schools?

My Lords, Her Majesty's Government do not exercise censorship over what goes into schools unless it is obscene. The publications of Her Majesty's Government are available to all schools and so, indeed, are the publications of the Government of the Soviet Union. It is to make up their minds that our children must be taught.

As a non-urban guerrilla, may I ask the noble Lord whether, in the light of his original Answer to me, he will take this opportunity of dissociating himself from the words used by the Under-Secretary when he described these studies as a Trojan horse? Is he further aware that there are five universities in this country with schools of peace studies, training teachers of peace studies, and therefore that the term "peace studies" is defined and is being taught under the aegis of our universities? Would he invite his honourable friend the Secretary of State and his noble friends behind him to visit these schools of peace studies and see what is being taught there and whether it is not helpful to the peace of the world that we are all seeking?

My Lords, I would never dissociate myself from the words of my honourable friend on such an invitation as I have now been offered. But I would say, as I said at the beginning, that the term, as used, is not defined in our schools and I am not prepared to condemn out of hand something which the noble Lord has not specifically described. If the noble Lord's Question is addressed to matters other than the schools, I ought to apprise myself of that also. But I do not think that will be helped if all my noble friends and I were to tramp through the classrooms in the first instance.

My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that dinner will be available at the usual time this evening. The Report stage of the Employment Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.0 p.m. for approximately one hour. During this adjournment the Northern Ireland Assembly (Day of Election) Order 1982 and the Valuation (Postponement of Revaluation) (Scotland) Order 1982 will be taken.

moved Amendment No. 1:

Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause:

My Lords—

My Lords, I think that perhaps this side of the House has priority? I am much obliged—

My Lords, with respect to my noble friend, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, although his name is not on the amendment, may be speaking for his noble friend Lord Aylestone.

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his intervention. In fact my name is not on the amendment but that of my noble friend Lord Aylestone is, so I hope I may be taken as an acceptable substitute. Briefly, throughout this Bill we have been discussing the righting of certain wrongs and the imposition of further restrictions on the closed shop, on immunities and on the definition of trade disputes. This is the first time we have been able to discuss properly something positive, something which is designed to avoid or to reduce such disputes in the first place. The forerunner of this amendment came up at something like 3.45 a.m. on the last day of the Committee stage when we had all rather run out of steam; so I am delighted that the noble Lord has brought it forward again at "prime time", when all our minds are fresh, or at least fresher.

Proposals to improve industrial relations through some measure of employee participation are not new. The trouble is that they have tended to be either so bland as to have little practical effect, or so rigid as to put companies in a straitjacket. The attraction of this new clause is that it avoids both defects. It is perfectly specific in that it requires directors to make a statement, which can be as long or as short as they like but which must be there in their report. At the same time it recognises that there are a number of possible routes to participation and that different companies may prefer to go different ways, and some further than others. It recognises the merits of a pluralist approach and it avoids the straitjacket.

Participation is not in itself a cure for our industrial ills, but it will be vital if the technological changes, which we cannot possibly resist, are to be introduced with the co-operation of the workforce in this country. It could be said that at no previous time in our industrial history have good communications between management and workers been more necessary. My party therefore proposes to make it obligatory on large firms to introduce participation in some form, but we do not propose to shackle companies by the imposition of statutory directors or single-channel balloting for elected posts. We believe it is vital to give as much freedom as possible to workers and employers to devise the form of participation that suits them best. It seems to me that this amendment—that is, the new clause proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester—is drafted very much in that spirit.

It also has another attraction for me. If it is accepted, as I hope it will be, it will provide a rich source of information concerning the way different companies go about participation. It will make it possible for one company to learn from another. It may be that a standard or code of practice will emerge in a particular industry and we shall be halfway to where we want to get, without any further legislation. This requirement upon directors of companies may seem a modest thing at first sight, but we believe that it could play a very important part in the development of employee participation and industrial democracy in this country.

Finally, let us remind ourselves what this Bill does. It seeks to right certain injustices to individuals and to oblige the trade union movement to put its house in order. But we must recognise that in very poor market conditions it is not only the unions which have obligations to society. Employers must, as far as humanly possible, take the workforce into their confidence and seek to involve them in a creative way in the future of their companies in the difficult times that lie ahead. If that is the case—and I believe it is—how satisfying it would be if we sent this Bill back to the other place a little less lopsided by the addition of this new clause. That is a contribution to better industrial relations that this House can and ought to make.

My Lords, may I first apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for the misunderstanding a moment ago. As he says, and I think he deduced, it came about because his name did not appear on this amendment and I had no reason to suppose, therefore, that he was speaking on behalf of his noble friend.

I have a great deal of sympathy with the purpose and intention of this proposal. Indeed, to some extent I can come before your Lordships in the unaccustomed apparel of a white sheet on a good deal of its contents. I happen to be chairman of a company which, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, knows, has been in the forefront of developments under all four of the headings included in subsection (3) of his amendment. Indeed, on employees' shareholdings we go a long way beyond what he suggests in the third paragraph, inasmuch as already slightly over 90 per cent. of those who work for us in the United Kingdom are shareholders in the company. I say that in order to indicate that I am far from being hostile, either in practice or in theory, to what is the plain purpose that the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, has in mind in bringing this proposal forward.

Having said that, I must say that I am very doubtful about the means which he has sought to adopt for helping these excellent developments. I very much doubt whether mandatory inclusion in the annual report, and indeed in the directors' report section of the annual report of a company, is the right way to encourage this kind of development. I can see it only too easily passing into a kind of stylised formula used year after year and conveying remarkably little. And I honestly doubt whether the annual report and accounts, which are, of course, as he knows, required by the Companies Acts and for their purposes, are the proper vehicle for a company to draw attention to its developments in this direction.

Indeed, on a small point, in my own company's case such references as we make—and I think we make them every year—to our employee shareholding scheme almost always appear, not as this amendment would wish them to appear, would hind them to appear, in the report of the directors, but in that part of the document which is described somewhat misleadingly as the chairman's speech; because, may I say in parenthesis, I do not inflict on our shareholders the cruelty of having to listen to me at considerable length. I reserve that ill behaviour for your Lordships' House.

But I feel that this is the wrong way of doing it and, indeed, would be somewhat discouraging. Also, it would be, as T think was mentioned in the small hours, a little unfair to those companies, such as my own, which have already made such progress in this matter. One would be bound by these proposals to refer to the introduction of things of this kind. We introduced them years ago. We presumably, therefore, could not on a strict reading of the amendment refer to them. And if the noble Lord says that, of course, it is also the development that is covered, there again we have an effective scheme which is operating extremely well and which, for further development, depends on Her Majesty's Government, from the point of view of adjusting the quite severe taxation restrictions, which still tend to inhibit the development of employee shareholding schemes.

To compel companies, in a document that they are compelled to produce every year, to try to set out what they are doing on these sometimes delicate and sensitive issues, such as the consultation one, would not serve the purpose which the noble Lord wants. I think that it could produce even a little counter-reaction, even a little feeling that what a sensible company does, for good and sensible reasons of its own, does not need to be set out in a legal document under legal compulsions every year. It very soon, as the noble Lord knows, becomes known—becomes known, very often, by the performance of the company—when companies are progressive in this way, and it is a much better expedient to let a company's sensible handling of these matters speak for itself.

I do not know what my noble friend Lord Ferrers will say about it, but I am disposed, on balance, to object to the insertion of any further compulsory material in a company's annual report. We are bound by statute to include a great deal; we are bound by the rules of the Stock Exchange and of the auditor's profession to include a great deal and it is quite a laborious business. To include under statutory compulsion what we are doing as a matter of sensible policy for the fostering of co-operation would not only be counterproductive; it would tend to produce a little prejudice against developments of this kind. I very much hope that, after your Lordships have debated this amendment, we will not put it into this statute.

My Lords, I added my name to this clause, because it represents a meeting of minds rather than any change in political alignment. But my noble friend Lord Rochester is the secretary of the House of Lords Industry Study Group, of which I have the honour to be chairman. If that is not a commercial, I do not know what is. I could also refer to the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, was a colleague of mine in the Labour Government, so I think that the support for this new clause has a respectable background.

May I, for a moment or two, say why I think that this new clause should go into the Bill? I think that it would give it a balance which it does not have at the present time, because this Bill is mainly about the conditions under which workers and management may confront each other. To some extent, the provisions of this Bill supplement the Employment Act 1980, which began to draw afresh the lines of conflict.

Both of these measures represent a kind of new Geneva Convention on the rules of war. I do not think there is much hope for this country in all this, unless it is a sort of run-of-the-mill approach to fundamental upheaval, politically and industrially. What I am sad about is that the word "co-operation" is becoming obsolete in the vocabulary of industrial relations today. "Participation" is not the vogue word that it was. In our economics, Keynes is out, Friedman has been briefly in and now Karl Marx is stirring in his grave—stirred by travellers and fellow travellers who are keeping political leaders and trade union leaders awake at night. They surely are.

If noble Lords are wanting a suggestion for reading during the Recess, I would recommend Mass Unemployment and the Future of Britain by Bill Jordan. It is nice and gloomy. The author predicts that some time in the mid-1980s, and probably during the year after the next General Election, the country will become increasingly ungovernable.

"Strong forces of left and right will confront each other on the streets of Britain",

says the author. That sort of perception seems to reduce this Bill, and indeed this amendment, to a sort of tawdry irrelevance; at least, one might be forgiven for thinking so. Though I think, on second thoughts, it is the Bill that is the real irrelevance, because this new clause is relevant, quite apart from the Bill. But I think that it would add something to the Bill.

For myself, I am all for scrutinising the use of power. It is the most dangerous thing in the world in human affairs, whether it is the power of Government, of bureaucracy, of monopolies, of employers or of trade unions. Where power lies, there is the likelihood of abuse and abuse can become tyranny. That is one of the dangers confronting the world today.

Taken to pieces and looked at bit by bit, some of this Bill may be needed to curb excesses, but taken as a whole it presents a sinister purpose in the eyes of a great many people. And it may indeed have that purpose. Call it a threat, or call it an attack, or call it anything you like. It has been called all those things, and worse. The trade unions would not take it from the Labour Government, and some appear now to be preparing to reflect on their defiance in the solitude of a prison cell. I hope that the Official Solicitor will be on hand to get them out. But in this amendment there is a faint shaft of light in the gloom of the English summer which has now settled on the countenance of Mr. Tebbit. It requires companies to extend their reports beyond the list of directors' fees, which are constantly rising. If one wants to know about pay increases, only have a look at directors' fees. We want to know a little more than that. One of the things we want to know is what they are doing about the workers.

What is in the new clause is all conventional stuff, really. We are asking companies to tell us a little more about how good they are at communications and consultation, if not positive participation. We are debating this new clause in the shade of Bullock, the fifth directive and all the other plans to change the face of capitalist enterprise. Against that background, this new clause is a mere flick of a feather. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, criticised the proposal to add more to the statutory obligations of directors in their companies' reports. This ought not to trouble them in the least. It seems to me that it would probably add to the interest of company reports. It would enable them to include more—more that is relevant, perhaps, to the workers' interests—about their relations with their staff in the supplement which many companies admirably produce for the special interest of their employees.

My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would give way?

Yes, certainly, my Lords.

My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will agree that there is nothing whatever to prevent a company which wishes to set out its activities of this kind in some part or other of its annual report from so doing, and as I told the noble Lord we in fact do it from time to time.

My Lords, I agree entirely but there are times when just a gentle nudge helps, and this is what the new clause suggests. It does not tell companies what they must do. It merely asks them to tell us what they are doing. And that I think is of great interest, because it is one of the most important aspects of industrial relations today. My firm conviction is that our existing system cannot last unless there is a better understanding between management and workers under our existing system. I do not think that prosperity lies the way of this Bill; I do not think it puts us on the way at all. But if this new clause went into the Bill, it would be the one thing which indicated that there was some constructive proposal in the Bill to establish evidence of a better relationship between management and workers. So I sincerely hope that the amendment will not be brushed aside by minor objections.

The noble Lord's own company ought to be proud to include in its reports what it has done in this particular field and it might get some satisfaction from looking at the reports of other companies to see whether they have got anything to match it. Let us have rivalry in industrial relations as well as in profitability and in other aspects of industrial and commercial enterprise. I feel that there is great merit in this proposal. It would be highly diverting for the members of many companies to read what their directors are doing in this field, and it would not be without interest among the workers, who would be very glad indeed to read the directors' version of their relations with the staff.

My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, moved this amendment, he made mention of my contribution to the debate in the early hours of the morning. He was kind enough to say that I had talked rather more deeply about the philosophy of it. I still think that it is a desirable attitude-changing thing. I said also at that time that to use the directors' report was an ingenious way of getting it into the system but that I wanted to reflect upon it. I think I said at that time, and I say it again, that what the noble Lord has put into subsection (3) is much too detailed. Subsection (3)(d) in particular has got an element of bias in it which does not make it encouraging. But what is important is whether it is in the right place.

Since the Committee stage I have taken advice from companies and from the CBI. Their main point has been very well put to us by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I shall not go into that point too far, but I was disappointed to hear from my noble friend that he deprives his shareholders of the most eloquent speeches which he gives to us. I think it would be only fair to them if he were to expand on his speeches. Perhaps he might take Lord Rochester's advice and in his directors' report or his chairman's report at least give them that part which relates to the subject of this amendment.

Having said that, the point is that it is not very suitable to put in a Bill of this nature something which is more suited to a Companies Bill. It is a bit of a trick to try to put legislation relating to annual reports and directors' reports into an Employment Bill. For that reason, although the idea is a good one, I should not have thought that it ought to go into this Bill. By that I mean that the idea of encouraging companies to do what is set out in subsection (3) is a good one. I am persuaded, however, that the directors' report is not the right place for it. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has told us why, and I endorse what he said.

I support also very much the fact that it would become a rote for those companies which were not doing it properly. What one wants to do is to get the thinking there so that it develops. I do not think we shall get it there just by making people write something down every year. Many enthusiastic companies have been doing this kind of thing for 10 years or more. The ones who are not enthusiastic—I had experience of this in an earlier job—will shuffle through and give some kind of a cosmetic report which means nothing, while the ones who want to do it do not need to put it down. This is the conundrum. It would be nice if there were an element of compulsion, but even if you introduce an element of compulsion you cannot bring it about unless you send people to prison if they fail to do it. It can only be done by persuasion. The question therefore is how to introduce the persuasion. I should have thought that if you are to do it by persuasion it needs to go a little wider, but I suggest that you cannot do it by legislation. Therefore we are back again at trying constantly to get the message across, to make speeches, to get trade associations to tackle it for their industries, to get the CBI to encourage it, which indeed they do, and then gradually to get across the message that if one does not do these things then one's company is not going to be so profitable. That is one of the factors to which one returns. Unless one gets the message through that there should be a degree of communication which involves the people in one's employ, one will not get the extra profitability that one needs. That is the key message—but one does not do that by legislation; one does that by all sorts of other means. I am sorry, but for those various reasons I do not believe that this amendment should be supported, but I shall be most interested to hear what my noble friend on the Front Bench has to say.

My Lords, I am by no means disposed to brush aside the amendment in the manner suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I have the utmost sympathy with what it proposes as an end, but, like the noble Lords, Lord Mottistone and Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I am doubtful about its inclusion in the statute as a means. I entered industry when I was 20 and retired when I was 70. I had 50 years in industry and during all that time I never worked for, was a director of or was associated as a consultant with any firm that did not bend over backwards to try to develop its relations with its employees.

One of the most careful and meticulous in this respect was Joseph Lucas, of which I was a director for many years. We took an enormous amount of trouble to publish a special balance sheet which explained to the laity, as it were, what the official balance sheet meant, and a special edition of the cash flow statement and profit and loss account in simplified terms which enabled everyone to understand it. I remember that at Schweppes, the chairman Sir Fredrick Hooper used to have a regular meeting of his shop stewards at which he explained his progress in the financing of the company. At Lucas, for example, if we included in the directors' report and accounts all that we were doing with our employees by way of employees' relations, we would have trebled or quadrupled the length of the directors' report and accounts. That is what the house magazine is for, and it is the development of house magazines over the last few years which has done so much.

Furthermore, in incorporating such a thing into the statute, one is rather taking it out of the discretion of the directors just how far various acts of judgment they have to make are to be regarded. All boards of directors operate under various Stock Exchange conventions and rules for security in relation to whatever might create an artificial value for the shares in the context of mergers, takeover bids and so on. It is a very difficult thing to know just how far one can go in taking this matter, which is of substantial interest to employees, into employees' confidence in this sort of way.

It must be a matter of judgment, and I do not believe that it should go into the statute. But, in saying that it is for this reason that I cannot vote for the amendment, I would not in any way like to withold my sympathy from what it aims for as an end, although I cannot agree with this as a means.

My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, moved a similar new clause at Committee stage, I gave it my support, but was unable to express myself in any terms of enthusiasm. I noticed that the version which the noble Lord has now moved includes some changes which he has explained, but I must say that my enthusiasm is not greatly enhanced by the changes he has made.

I regard this proposition as a commendable tentative first step in what is a much more fundamental problem of industrial democracy than the noble Lord appears to appreciate, in the way in which he has drafted his amendment. It reminds me of a bather putting a tentative toe into the water, but being afraid to take the plunge into the sea. What is involved in the achievement of a worthwhile system of industrial democracy is, I believe, much more than the provision of information or even the establishment of consultative committees for employees. It goes much deeper than that. If workers really are to be involved in decision-making in industry, then it is my view that they should be much more involved in ownership and real control than is provided for by the orthodox schemes of share ownership, such as that which has been described by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and such as those advocated with enthusiasm by the Liberal Party.

I suggest that this is not the occasion on which to spell out the details of a more fundamental approach. I feel sure that if we did engage in such a debate, my views and those of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, would fairly soon take divergent paths—not least on the question which his amendment ignores, of the degree to which trade union organisations should be involved in planning and the control of industrial enterprises. I reiterate what I said at Committee stage; that I gave his proposition mild support. I believe that he and I ought to rest content today with that very modest degree of agreement, rather than take things any further at this stage.

My Lords, may I support the spirit of this amendment, which seeks to introduce this concept of worker participation; a peculiarly English concept of consultation before decision making and a measure of participation in profits. The distinction between this concept and other concepts is of importance because of the obligations arising by virtue of United Kingdom accession of the Common Market. I refer to worker participation in the sense of worker representation, which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has touched upon. There are two types, your Lordships will appreciate.

The first type is the worker participation referred to as such in paragraph 999 of the Donovan Report where the concept of worker participation in management bodies below board level is discussed and adversely commented upon, The other type of worker participation is that at board level, which really is the subject matter of all the talk, talk, talk which has gone on. That stems from the 5th draft directive in 1972, Bullock in 1977, and the Vredeling draft—all within the Community context—in 1980. Very recently (this year in fact), there was the report of the Legal Affairs Committee. That is the concept which reflects the two-tier structure of the Netherlands and West German companies. This amendment has nothing whatever to do with those other concepts of worker participation which are in effect forms of worker representation.

Why do I support this so strongly? First, because in the technological age—the age of the microchip—and with the development of the new service industries, it is conducive to a better order of industrial relations, because these new developments are bringing about very substantial changes in the pattern of employment. Secondly, because these proposals are conducive to the national interest, because they provide a means, albeit a small means, of seeking to relate pay to profitability and beating the bogey of inflation.

Furthermore, they provide the employee with a sense of involvement, they provide him with a spur, an initiative. So far as the employer is concerned, they constitute what your Lordships may think is a timely and requisite exhortation, an exhortation without compulsion, because the employer is under no obligation to disclose any sensitive information, and in fact, as pointed out by others, the employer is not really under an obligation to do anything, to take any positive step other than to say in his report what he has done. Here I go along with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby; we do need a new initiative, we do need a new approach and we do need a new spirit within the framework of existing law.

This amendment, if it does nothing else, seeks to herald this new approach. It is a step, and in my submission an important step, in the right direction. Whether one regards it as the brainchild of the union of its sponsors or as some hybrid adoption, this is at least indigenous; it is related to our needs and is in accordance with our traditions.

But, surely, before this could be brought into law the views of all interested parties ought to be canvassed, and they ought to be known before any legislative proposals are made. The questions arising are not only as to the substance but as to the means, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, so rightly observed. Furthermore, surely the other place could hardly be expected to welcome this surprise bundle on its doorstep at this stage of the legislative process.

Finally, within the dimension of the European Community, to which of course we are bound, surely consideration has to be given to the deveolpments there which to some degree could overlap with the proposals here, and furthermore and in particular the degree to which the 1975, 1977 and 1978 directives are relevant. They affect consultation over redundancies, protection or workers, amalgamations, mergers, takeover situations, the question of guaranteed wages for insolvency when insolvency is used, and that will come into effect in October next year. All these aspects surely have to be considered in relation to this matter.

Finally, if only my noble friend the Minister were able to give some assurance that this subject of worker participation should find its way into the next Green Paper, with a view, if possible, to introducing legislation, after consultation, before the next general election, surely that would commend itself to many, if perhaps not most, of your Lordships. I most respectfully ask—while expressing gratitude to the sponsors for having brought forward this very important idea and this very useful constructive proposal, while acknowledging the rectitude of their approach and the sincerity of their purpose—would it not be premature to move towards legislation in this sphere, for the reasons I have given, without adequate consultation?

My Lords, may I take one or two brief points. We have already taken rather a long time on a rather long Report stage. I was delighted to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that the company of which he is chairman—and one would expect it of a company of which he is chairman—already engage in this type of participation. What I cannot understand is his reluctance to put the fact in the annual report. It does not require, as has been suggested, paragraph after paragraph about detail as to whether the tea break shall be taken in half an hour and so on. What it does require is instruction in the annual report of major decisions that have been taken by the company in consultation with their employees. Nor does it require the employees always to agree. The fact that they have been consulted is the important thing.

My point is that this would be of great value to shareholders. Shareholders get a copy of the annual report; they do not all get a copy of the house magazine—in fact, few of them do. A shareholder reading the annual report will feel that any suspicion has been laid of possible trouble that could have arisen because of something that was happening within the company. A short paragraph would unquestionably help to diffuse the fear in the minds of shareholders that things are not being carried on as they should be. My final point is that those companies that are already doing this—there are many; I know of some and they are doing it extremely well—would have little or no objection to putting a short paragraph or two into the annual report. But if this amendment is approved and becomes legislation it will help to persuade those companies which are less helpful in this direction to move, and to move rather quickly.

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, would he clarify his usage of one word? He spoke of the amendment requiring major decisions—

My Lords, I wonder if I may interrupt the noble Earl. I realise he is asking for clarification, but it is Report stage and he has spoken once. I think we might be contravening custom if the noble Earl made a second speech.

My Lords, may I speak for three minutes on this? I have often spoken on it before. I think it is a very nice idea and I have always supported it. But one has to be practical in these matters. I have had experience of being a small employer. Of course, the average small employer takes his employees into his confidence, but it is far more difficult in a big public company, and I think it would be almost impossible in a nationalised industry. I am all for giving bonus shares—I am talking now of public companies—but if you give bonus shares in public companies the employees will instantly sell them. You have to give a special sort of share that they cannot sell straight away. Otherwise, giving these shares would seem pointless. The object of giving employees shares is to encourage them to take an interest in the company.

One of the most important aspects is to try to explain a balance sheet to employees. It is extremely difficult. If an employee reads in the newspaper that such and such a company has made a profit of £1 million he thinks, "I should like some of that". If only it could be explained to him where that …1 million goes! A great deal goes in tax; a lot goes back to the reserves to keep the employee employed and for new machinery; the balance goes to the shareholders who have to pay their tax and who are the people who have taken all the risk. So the majority of the money goes to the state, to pay for the employees' children at school and all the social benefits. If only we could explain that to the employee! I have found it very difficult. In my experience the average employee is interested only in the size of his wage packet. He is rather inclined to live in the present.

However, I am all for some form of employee participation and sharing financially. I have in mind the speech of the noble Lord opposite who spoke on workers' ownership, and I wonder whether the workers would be prepared to see their savings go if the company fails. Any business is a gamble and not every business succeeds. In fact, hundreds go down every year. Is the employee prepared to take the risk, the gamble, that the employer is prepared to take? I have sometimes thought that an amendment like this should be in a Bill, but, with great respect to the mover of this amendment, I do not think that this is the right Bill. As my noble friend behind me said, it is really a matter for a Companies Bill, but it would be extremely difficult in big public companies to have such a statutory arrangement.

My Lords, I should like to take up the points raised earlier this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone; to agree with what they said; to add—your Lordships will be happy to learn—very little to it; and to dissent ever so mildly from their conclusion. They were quite correct when they said that many firms already do these things—and the firm with which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is connected is a notable example of that—and do not need encouragement. They were also correct in saying that there were a number of firms that would do these things in a phantom or spurious way, giving lip service to the idea. However, there is a great group of firms in between those two groups, many of whom will respond to the kind of encouragement which the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, quite rightly said was the best way to go about these things. However, I am sure that when he reflects he will agree that even encouragement sometimes needs help.

Ideas of this type have been around for quite a considerable time. I think that noble Lords will agree that progress has been slow, glacially slow. Anything which agitates the process, which makes progress quicker, ought to be encouraged. I think that noble Lords, on reflection, will agree with me that legislation has often been used for the purpose of education and for encouragement, as well as for the ordinary uses of legislation which we understand perfectly well. It seems to me that this is a situation in which the prod or goad of legislation, added to the kind of encouragement that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, argues is necessary, might increase the pace towards the aim which most noble Lords in all parts of the House seem to agree is required. I hope that your Lordships will agree with this amendment and that the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, will not withdraw it. In fact, I hope that he will pursue it and that, if he does so, noble Lords on all sides of the House will support him, as I certainly shall.

My Lords, I do not want to keep the House long. According to my calculations we have had seven speeches in favour of this amendment and, I think, four against it. I want to support it in much the way in which we on these Benches supported it when it came up on Committee. I think that the arguments for it have been put very fully this afternoon, much more fully, of course, because we have discussed it at a much better time than when the arguments were put last time.

I want merely to point to a paradox, as I see it, in the arguments, to some extent in the source of the arguments, of those so far who are opposing the amendment. It is a paradox which I think would be particularly notable if it were to be reflected in the speech of the Minister when he replies. It is what one might call the recrudescence of voluntarism. We are told that people do this already, so why can we not leave them alone? We are told that even if they do not do it already, there is nothing to prevent them from doing it; and anyway we are told that it has been done for years. We are told: "These are good practices; they are excellent things; people ought to be like this, but you cannot force them. You have to allow for the voluntary system; you must trust the voluntary system". Indeed, that is very much what the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, said when the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, put forward this argument first of all in the 1980 Industry Bill. As I recollect it, he said that it was reasonable enough but he could not accept it because the voluntary method was the way, and anyway there were no powers in the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, has come back and has put it forward again. This time there are some powers, but when we discussed the matter in Committee we received from the noble Earl the same arguments: "There is nothing to prevent it; we have done it for years; you cannot force people to do it; trust the voluntary system". This is extremely paradoxical, when you compare it with the general drift of the debate which we had all through the Committee stage and which we shall be having later on tonight and again on Monday about legislating about the conditions of UMAs, picketing and responsibility in trade unions, and probably in the next Bill when we talk about elections and trade union government. When we have these things we have moved away from voluntarism in all those areas. But there is nothing to prevent it. We have told you—and am afraid it is Professor Gennard again—that the great majority of UMAs have all these things. In other words, they have done it for years. That argument does not do for the greater part of the Bill: it only does for this amendment in this particular clause. I suggest that it does not do there either.

My Lords, we have had an important debate on what is a very important matter. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, said that he wondered when I spoke whether I was going to use the argument that this was the recrudescence of voluntarism. I am bound to say that I do not know whether I am going to do so because I am not quite certain what the expression means. But I am quite certain that every other noble Lord knows what it means, and I shall listen to my speech with interest to see whether in fact I shall achieve what the noble Lord anticipates! We had a similar debate on an almost identical amendment during the previous proceedings in Committee, and I am bound to say that I admire Lord Rochester's parliamentary dexterity in ensuring that, by putting this amendment down for mention even before Clause I, his arguments and his amendment will be properly considered, as opposed to what happened when the matter was dealt with at 3.46 in the morning. He certainly has ensured—and quite rightly so—that it has had a good hearing.

I think that everyone agrees with what this amendment seeks to achieve in the overall sphere of industrial relations. This afternoon, as indeed in our previous debate, there has been no dissension from the general proposition that it would be for the benefit of the economy generally if greater advances were made in British industry towards employee involvement. I think the differences arise over what one considers to be the best methods by which the common objective of making progress would be achieved.

My noble friends Lord Mottistone and Lord Boyd-Carpenter and the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, all thought that legislation was not the right way in which to achieve this. I should like to assure your Lordships that the Government are firmly committed to the principle of managements informing and consulting their employees about matters which affect them; but we are equally opposed—and I am bound to say this—to imposing rigid and possibly inflexible legal systems on employers which take no account of their particular needs or circumstances. I agree with my noble friend Lord Mottistone that in the end it is a question of persuasion and not of legislation.

I think that there has been much progress in what one might generally call employee involvement. A recent survey by the Confederation of British Industry some nine months ago showed this to be the case, but some understandably wished the progress to be greater. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, who used that graphic expression that it was "glacially slow". The amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, has tabled would require directors of companies over a certain size to include in the annual report, which is required of them under the companies legislation, a statement of the arrangements which have been introduced or developed by the company during the financial year concerned to promote employee participation and economic understanding. If this amendment is accepted, this they will have to do year after year, every year.

I agree with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that there is the danger that these reports may become routine or anodyne. There is a similar reporting requirement which was introduced under the Companies Directors Reports (Employment of Disabled Persons) Regulations 1980. This requires directors to include in their report a statement describing the company's policy towards the employment of disabled people. No formal review has been conducted of the statements which are made under these regulations, but an initial analysis has revealed a considerable number of brief and rather bland statements, and it is by no means certain that the legislation is stimulating employers to adopt more progressive policies.

I think that it would be wrong to legislate in this way unless industry itself believes that the costs and the burdens, which would undoubtedly be imposed upon it, would be outweighed by the resultant benefits. I agree with my noble friend Lord Mottistone that the concept of employee involvement is one of the changing of attitudes. It must be done consonant with the fortunes of a company. Employee involvement, desirable though it is—and I think that we all desire it—does not of itself ensure success, and the worst way to encourage genuine progress towards employee involvement would be to create difficulties or opposition within companies by imposing a legal obligation to report annually on the steps which they have taken towards what is, after all, a social goal, and a commendable one, but one which may be considered by some in certain circumstances—but not all—to be distant from economic enhancement.

I would, therefore, urge your Lordships not to accept this amendment until such time as industry itself has indicated that it is convinced that the benefits would outweigh the costs. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, prayed in aid that he and his colleagues had supported the Government over the Bill and he hoped, therefore, that the Government would, in return, be enabled to accept this amendment. I am bound to say that I appreciate the support of the noble Lord. I do not think that it emanates from any natural feeling of generosity that he may have, but merely, probably, because he thinks the Government are right in the Bill. I commend him and his party for their judgment.

The noble Lord said that he would be prepared to withdraw this amendment if the Government would consult with him. But then he made the quite extraordinary remark, if I may say so, that it was no good the Government saying that they would consult with employers, trade unions or others, provided that they consulted the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. It is certainly the case that there will shortly be placed before the Council of Ministers proposals from the European Community Commission for directives about employee involvement. Before we start serious discussions on these proposals there will have to be consultation and discussion about the best method of achieving employee involvement. I fancy that those consultations will display strong support for the Government's current policy. But it will provide an opportunity for interested parties to register further their views about how progress could best be made.

I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, could genuinely say that it is all right to discuss this with him, but not with those who are intimately involved. I must stress that all this Bill—except Clausel, which is different and totally separate—has been the result of discussion and consultation; and I agree with my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, who said that it would be unfortunate to include in legislation something which, however commendable the objective may be, has not been discussed with those who will be deeply affected and something over which many of your Lordships, while expressing sympathy, have nevertheless expressed a reservation.

The amendment is similar to a Private Member's Bill which was introduced in another place. By raising it now, the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, has made it quite certain that company reports will be considered in the forthcoming debate on the European Community directives on employee involvement. But I urge upon your Lordships the desire that we should not put into legislation in this Bill something which, however good it may be, has not had the fullness of consultation with others and which might not achieve the admirable intention which the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, seeks to achieve.

My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, I should like to ask him one question. He said that these matters are best dealt with by persuasion, and I am inclined to agree with what he said about the undesirability of very rigid legislation. But can he tell me how this persuasion will be put across, who will do it, and what proportion of business magnates he thinks is likely to respond to it?

My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may reply to that intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Somers. I would ask him to look back over the last 10 years and see the enormous progress which has been made by industry over employee participation, over the general understanding of the new ways in which people think. No one person is responsible for doing the persuading. It is a matter of fact and it is a fact of life that public opinion persuades people to change their attitudes.

My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, which I think has been worthy of the subject matter. I do not want to detain your Lordships for very long and I think it would be fair to say that I endeavoured to anticipate in my opening remarks a number of the arguments which have been adduced against this amendment. But a number of points have been made to which I think I should offer some reply because they are new.

First, perhaps I may turn to what the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, had to say. I was disappointed that he should feel that in subsection (3)(d) there was a certain bias. The wording in subsection (3) is specifically framed in order to avoid that bias. At the moment the trouble is that managers and employee representatives often have different ideas as to how resources should be allocated for the purposes of pay and investment, for example. That was why this subsection is framed to indicate that what we are after is the achievement of a common awareness on the part of great groups as to the problems that arise in that connection.

The noble Lord came very near to telling me that there was an element of trickery in my having sought, along with my noble friends and allies, to include, a clause of this kind in the Bill. I hope on reflection that he will absolve me from any such motive. The sole purpose of seeking to introduce this clause into the Bill is to give it a positive complexion as opposed to the necessarily negative attributes that it now has.

My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to reassure him that at no stage was I trying to indicate that there was any trickery on his part or that of his noble friends in any way?

My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord. We are good friends and I am grateful for that assurance. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, if he will forgive me for saying so, seemed to come very near to being complacent in this matter. I can only say that, if he has been engaged throughout the 50 years of his distinguished industrial connections with only those firms which have good employee involvement policies, he must have been very fortunate.

I wish that Sir Raymond Pennock had already taken his seat and had been able to take part in this discussion. I am not for a moment suggesting that he would necessarily have supported this amendment, but I am sure of one thing, and that is that, since he has made it perhaps the major theme in his two years' presidency of the CBI that there are still far too many firms with inadequate employee involvement policies, he would have been heartily behind the objective which this amendment seeks to achieve.

The noble Lord, Lord Oram, seemed to feel that it did not go far enough. That was a change. In particular, as I understood it, he thought that there was insufficient emphasis given to trade union representatives in the consultative exercise here proposed. I should like to reassure him that, in so far as employee representatives are trade unionists, as they are in the firm for which I used to work—where I think I am right in saying they are still all shop stewards—it is they who of course would be engaged as the employee representatives in the consultation exercise.

I am more grateful than I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for the support he offered at least to the principle underlying this amendment. I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, when he replied did not even take up the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, that at least this question of employee representation should feature in the consultations that the Secretary of State is to have with employers and trade unions on other matters in connection with ballots.

I was disappointed but not altogether surprised by the response of the noble Earl. He is certainly right to say that in so far as we have given the Government support on the main issues of this Bill it is because, in general, we have felt that, despite the practical difficulties to which I referred earlier, they deserve that support, but certainly there was no element of horse-trading involved in the suggestion that I made that, that support having been given, for some reason the Government should support this amendment. This amendment is left to be supported on its merits or not at all.

Similarly, I am sorry that he should have felt that it was inconsistent of me to say, as I understood it, that I was seeking consultation on the part of the Government with me but not with others. The point of the distinction was one of time. If there were consultations with me and others between now and Third Reading, that would place a maximum time on the process of 10 weeks. If there were to be further consultations with employers and trade unions, at the rate at which these consultations have taken place in recent years, I certainly would not see anything happening this side of the next general election, if then.

A clear division of opinion has arisen in the House today. Our views are strongly held, they are sincerely held, and I should like to take the advice, for which I was grateful, of the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, that the distinction is great enough to mean that I should divide the House.

moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 27, line 10, after ("applicant") insert ("and, so far as is practicable, the relevant employer and the relevant trade union specified in the union membership agreement,").

My Lords, I am greatful to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, for taking Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 together. This group of amendments reverts to a theme which, as he quite rightly said, we discussed at the Committee stage. At that stage your Lordships debated whether the opinion of an applicant's former employer and the relevant trade union should have to be sought before payments could be made under the provisions. Now, with Amendment No. 2, the noble Lord seeks to have all decisions notified to the former employer and trade union, and with Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5 he seeks to allow employers and trade unions to be able to request reconsideration of a decision on compensation, on the grounds that the decision was based on a mistake as to, or ignorance of, some material fact.

Perhaps I may be permitted to look at each amendment in turn. Amendment No. 2 would require the Secretary of State to inform not only each applicant of his decision on each case, but also so far as was practicable, the former employer and the trade union concerned. I ventured to make clear in Committee—the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, this afternoon has reminded us of this—that it is wholly mistaken to view the former employer or trade union concerned as being in any sense parties to the applications. I think that the noble Lord quoted the words that I used—that it is nothing to do with them. In Committee I tried to make it plain that no blame or liability will attach to any employer or trade union as a result of an application under Clause 1 of and Schedule 1 to the Bill. They are not the ones who are being judged. They have nothing to gain and nothing to fear from the outcome of the applications. If that is so, in my view there can be no justification for requiring the Secretary of State to inform them of his decisions on individual applications.

Amendment No. 3 seeks to allow the former employer or trade union to apply for a reconsideration of the Secretary of State's decision. I must say that I find that unacceptable. As I have said, neither the employer nor the union will in any way at all be parties to the applications, and yet here it is being argued that nevertheless they should be able to come along and say, "Excuse me, I know that the outcome has nothing to do with me, but you must look at this again". With the greatest of respect to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, that simply does not make procedural sense, if it makes any other kind of sense—which I rather doubt.

In Amendment No. 4 the noble Lord seeks to require the Secretary of State to inform the employer and trade union concerned as well as the applicant if, off his own bat, he decides to reconsider an application. This is the same well-worn theme, and so I shall not repeat myself yet again, other than to say that the employer and the union would not have been parties to the original application, and therefore they would not be parties to the Secretary of State's reconsideration.

Amendment No. 5 seeks to impose on the employer and the trade union concerned a time limit of three months in which to apply for a reconsideration. Well, perhaps we should be grateful for small mercies. If we were to allow employers and trade unions to apply for reconsideration of someone else's application, at least it would be nice to be able to limit the time in which they could do so. I have suggested that the Government do not see it right to tread down that cobbly, old path, and I would ask the House to reject this amendment, as well.

My Lords, I would not say that the noble Earl has disappointed me, but there it is. He has gone through each amendment and, as he has said, he has repeated his well-worn track answer that it has nothing to do with anybody other than the Government and the complainant. What we are saying fundamentally is that it has something to do with other parties, and that they should have at least the very limited rights that we are suggesting. I do not feel disposed to withdraw the amendment.

On Question, amendment negatived.

[Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5 not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 6:

Page 27, line 40, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert—

("(2) Where the Secretary of State, after reconsideration of a case under paragraph 9, is satisfied that a payment has been made by reason of a fundamental mistake as to some material fact, he may, within three months of the payment being made, cause the person to whom it has been made to repay such part of it as he considers just and equitable.").

My Lords, we have had our two old friends pop up from the Committee stage again—Professor Gennard, and now hugger-mugger. I wondered whether we were going to see them appear again. As Schedule 1 is presently drafted it will make an applicant liable to repay compensation which he has been awarded only where he has been at fault; for example, by failing knowingly to disclose some material fact. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, could require him to repay compensation where he in fact has acted in perfectly good faith but where some mistake has nevertheless occurred.

I am bound to say at the outset that I think that the amendment is directed at an eventual which seems unlikely to occur very often, if ever, but I also accept the fact that it is proposed in perfectly good faith. But if the facts cannot be established, payments will not be made; and if the facts have been deliberately misrepresented or concealed with the consent or the connivance of the applicant, the Bill already provides for a liability on the applicant to repay. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, is entirely right in saying that that appears in paragraph 10(1) of the schedule. But this amendment seeks to go further by making the applicant who has acted with total honesty nevertheless liable to repay compensation if a mistake occurs elsewhere.

My Lords, let us consider the case of a person who makes an application, in good faith, in which every particular is true to the best of his knowledge and belief. After the appointed person has considered his case and has made his recommendation, the Secretary of State makes a payment. The applicant might well use that money straightaway to pay off debts, to take a holiday or to do whatever else he likes to do with it. Then, two months later, the Secretary of State might write to him and say, "I am terribly sorry, I have made a mistake; my calculations were wrong"; or, indeed, he might say," I made a mistake; your former employer has now sent me some further facts which he did not send when my assessor first asked him about your application, and therefore you ought to repay the money which you received ". I do not really believe that it would be right or just that that person should repay the compensation because of a mistake for which he was not responsible.

In prescribing that it would be wrong for the applicant to have to repay in such circumstances, the Government have followed the precedent—and, indeed, virtually the same words—in two other similar Acts, both passed by the previous Government, which provide for payments of compensation. They are the Vaccine Damage Payments Act and the Pneumoconiosis Act. The same principle is also present in the Social Security Act 1975, where it provides that repayment of benefits will not be required so long as the beneficiary can show that he has used due care and diligence to avoid overpayment. So, while I sympathise with what the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, is trying to achieve, I think he will agree that if his amendment were to be made to the Bill it would really be putting an imposition on the recipient of the money for reasons for which he was not responsible and in conditions in which it would be unfair for him to have to repay.

My Lords, I accept what the noble Earl says and I thank him for it. Certainly he is perfectly correct to say that if our amendment were introduced as it appears on the Marshalled List—at least, I think he is right—we might be getting at people who had, in the terms of, I think he said, the pneumoconiosis legislation, used due care and diligence, and I would not want to do that. I would say that if somebody has done his best to present the truth—and I think "due care and diligence" is a very good phrase; it should have been in our amendment—then I should want to leave him outside.

But, as I indicated in my example, I was thinking of somebody who was not aware that when he came to the place of work there was indeed a UMA. People forget, and they may not always know. These things do not always work in the proper way; and so he believes that the UMA came after he arrived when in fact the UMA was there before. If the appointed person knew that, he would rule the case out, and then, to take the noble Earl's own case, subsequently the employer gets to know the true facts and writes to him. This is one of the arguments for having the employer play a role in this matter, but the Government have ruled that out. The employer gets to know the evidence on which the appointed person has taken his decision and says, "That is quite wrong; in fact we have had a UMA in this establishment for two years, or four years, and it is quite wrong. I do not suggest that the man was not using due care and diligence, but he just happened to be wrong That is the kind of circumstance I was trying to deal with and I still maintain that it is one which it would be fair to put in the Bill, but I must accept the point made by the noble Earl that it is not there in our amendment. Therefore, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 7:

Page 2, line 47, leave out from ("agreement") to end of line 5 on page 3 and insert—

("(3A) Subsection (3) shall not apply where within six months of the delivery to the employer of a petition signed by not less than 20 per cent. of those employees of the employer who on the day of the delivery of the petition belonged to the class to which the union membership agreement relates and calling for a ballot on the question whether the agreement should apply in relation to them the union membership agreement has not been approved in relation to employees of that class in accordance with section 58A provided that no such petition for a ballot has been made within the preceding three years.").

My Lords, I suppose I should respond briefly to the bait put before me by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch. But it will be brief. I think that he is stirring the pot. I think that he is wasting the time of the House, in that we have better things to do than argue on this point. Briefly, on behalf of my party, I have made it plain that we oppose the closed shop in principle but we have some reservations on practical grounds concerning the operation of the ballots. It is for that reason, your Lordships will remember, that we put forward certain amendments which were designed to reduce the percentage of support required before an existing closed shop would retain protection. We made it plain that we prefer the Government way of approaching this method, however, by that kind of ballot rather than by the trigger mechanism. It may be that there has been some difference of emphasis on this matter between my party and our allies in the Social Democratic Party. That is for them to comment on as well as myself.

What irritates me, frankly, is the reaction to any minor difference of opinion on complex matters like this. It may not be a bad thing that in Committee and in your Lordships' House there are these differences. In the last vote, for example, certain members of the Conservative Party had the courage to vote with members of the Liberal and Social Democratic and indeed Labour Parties. I do not think that they deserve reproach for that for one moment. Any differences that there may be of this minor nature between my party and the Social Democrats as our allies are as nothing compared with the vast gulf which lies between right and left wings of the Labour Party.

My Lords, I do not know whether a Report stage on a trigger amendment should give rise to a general debate on the state of the Alliance. I note that the Members of the SDP present shake their heads, and that the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, has already spoken. I suggest we leave that for another occasion.

My Lords, would my noble friend allow me to speak? Would not such a debate be most appropriately conducted during the dinner adjournment?

My Lords, I think that is an excellent idea. This is another trigger amendment which, apart from the discussions in the other place to which the noble Lord has referred, has been very well discussed in this House at the Committee stage. The noble Lord who moved the amendment suggested that we ought to have been more attracted to it because of our views about contracting in and contracting out. Frankly, I think that analogy bears on an individual's right to contract in and out. In an authorised closed shop, subject to the provisions concerned, he has to contract in and cannot contract out, so I do not accept the analogy.

The difficulty with trigger ballots lies in the problems which employees would be likely to face in practice in achieving the required threshold level to "trigger" a ballot. We must remember that efforts by individual employees to canvass or simply inquire into possible support for a ballot among fellow employees could in many cases be strenuously resisted by the trade unions concerned. It must be realistically expected that in many cases people attempting to promote a ballot would suffer attempts to dissuade them from such a course. I do not think it can be right that 20 per cent. or any other percentage of employees should declare themselves in order to gain the right to vote in a secret ballot, particularly when those prepared to press publicly for a ballot could suffer actual or threatened disciplinary action from their union as a result Noble Lords will remember the quotations from rule books to which I referred previously.

This provision—indeed, any trigger provision—might result in ballots hardly ever being held even where employees would like them, as indeed the opinion polls tend to show that they would. We therefore do not consider that trigger ballots are an acceptable substitute for the automatic balloting in the provisions of this Bill. We believe—and we made this clear at Committee stage—that it is likely that there will be much less disruption on an automatic check with the alternative ways of doing that check which in closed shops which have the support of the vast majority allows the alternative of 85 per cent. of those voting.

I am puzzled that trigger ballots should continue to be recommended rather than what I would have thought would have been supported by many responsible trade unions—or ought to be supported—namely, the great authority they are bound to draw from an authorised closed shop position should they have the authority of a secret ballot every five years. That must give them much greater strength than an authorised closed shop which has not been checked, and which it would be difficult to check, which has existed for years and years and years. I therefore ask the House to resist this amendment.

My Lords, I think it was right that my noble friend Lord Hatch should seek clarification from various quarters in the House of the attitude of different parties to the ballot. He has achieved two-thirds of his objective in that we have had statements from the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and the Minister who has just spoken.

My Lords, I wonder if I may intervene to make the noble Lord, Lord Oram, aware that the representatives of the Social Democratic Party behind him nodded when I asked them whether they wanted to say anything further—that is to say, they nodded that they did not want to say anything further.

My Lords, I am sorry that I cannot see the gesticulations of the Social Democratic Party behind me, but I should like briefly to remind the House of the purpose which my noble friend Lord Jacques and I sought to serve at the Committee stage when we moved a similar, though somewhat weaker, amendment than that which is before the House now. Our purpose was to ensure that where closed shop arrangements had been satisfactorily operated over the years, particularly in large and complex business organisations, then those arrangements should not be easily disturbed unless there was sufficient evidence that there was opinion within the workforce in favour of a change.

That is why in our amendment at the Committee stage we suggested that requisition by 10 per cent. of the workforce was reasonable. It was put to us during that debate by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, that 20 per cent. might be a more reasonable and certain figure; and my noble friend Lord Jacques indicated that he was not particularly sticking on the 10 per cent. figure. Moreover, the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, quite validly made the point that there was nothing in our amendment to prevent a whole series of requisitions for ballots, even if those ballots did not lead to the turning down of the existing closed shop arrangements. We consider that both points put by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock—whether he is shaking his head or nodding, I cannot be sure at the moment—were valid points, and I am glad my noble friend, Lord Hatch, has included in this amendment words which fully take into account those words spoken by the noble Lord during his intervention last time. Therefore I hope that we may hear briefly from the noble Lord on behalf of the Social Democratic Party, not in terms of how divided or how allied they are with this, that and the other party, but what he thinks about this particular "trigger" suggestion.

My Lords, I did not want to intervene in this debate, but the noble Viscount the Minister has made a number of statements which I think must be corrected. We do not argue on this side of the House for trigger ballots. If someone comes along and introduces statutory ballots—and it is the Government who would introduce statutory ballots, automatic statutory ballots—in certain circumstances, by and large there is a balance of advantage in favour of trigger processes rather than automatic processes. It is as broad as it is long. The problem with this amendment is that although it gets rid of automaticity it introduces a trigger ballot over a rather shorter period, but we are not coming before the House arguing for trigger ballots. Unfortunately, the main objective, which was to get the Social Democratic Party to say what they would like to do, has not been fulfilled because they will not say anything.

The only other thing I would say is that once again, in arguing against trigger ballots, the noble Viscount has gone back to a statement he made in an earlier debate about rule books. He really must not make this statement about rule books in the way that he does. He quotes general expulsion rules. Every voluntary association has a general expulsion rule: that is, the equivalent of Section 40 of the Army Act. Judges have said in cases of expulsion that you cannot operate unions without general expulsion rules because those who sought to do so would require vast rule books which specified every conceivable thing that a member might do which might in some way lead him into trouble. Every organisation has general expulsion rules. It is quite a different thing how you impose those rules and how frequently you cause them to be used to expel people; and even if you do that you must really appreciate that there were first-class common law defences and protections against the abuse of general expulsion rules, long before the 1980 Act.

My Lords, I am sorry I have been unable to elicit clarification of the position of the Social Democratic Party towards this important issue—I think the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, somewhat played this down—regarding the future of industrial relations. I still think we are entitled to know where the Social Democratic Party, as well as the Liberal Party, stand in their view on the future of industrial relations and how they would deal with this important matter if they achieved their aim as the Government. However, it may be that the position of the Social Democratic Party in politics has been aptly represented by the noble Viscount's comment that they nodded when they meant "No".

My noble friend Lord McCarthy has put his finger clearly on a very important issue that was raised at Committee Stage and which apparently has not yet sunk into the mind of the noble Viscount the Minister. I think he revealed the thinking of the Government when he said in his argument against the trigger mechanism that if there was a trigger mechanism perhaps ballots would not often be held. But do we want ballots to be held? We certainly do not, and nothing that is in this amendment is designed—I assure the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, about this—to support the principle of balloting. It is only if ballots are going to be put into the Bill that we would then be trying to minimise the damage they will do. We think it is less dangerous to have the trigger mechanism than to have the automatic ballot. When the Minister says that one of his objections to the necessity for 20 per cent.—one in five—of the workforce to ask for a ballot concerning the closed shop, and that that provision would lead to ballots being held only infrequently—here I am paraphrasing his actual words—that reveals, to me at least, what the thinking of the Government is.

Why do the Government want to force these ballots against the wishes of the employees and the trade unions? What we have been trying to do is to minimise the insistence of the Government that ballots should be held, by saying that ballots will be held when the people concerned—only one in five of them—show that they want ballots. We are not going to force ballots on them. The point that has been made regarding the danger to members in collecting that 20per cent. has surely been exploded by now. What evidence has there ever been that there is any substantial appreciation, pressure or intimidation by members of trade unions regarding the decisions that they take? That was challenged in another place, it was challenged in Standing Committee and there has been no answer to it.

I do not believe that the noble Viscount has made out a case for saying that the kind of dislocation and hostility that would be created in the lead-up to these ballots would be less under his automatic system, than it would be if the trigger mechanism were to be adopted. All I am suggesting in this amendment is that the damage to industrial relations would be less—it will apply, anyway, from this clause—if it were a requirement that a ballot would be held at the will of 20 per cent. of the workforce, rather than an automatic ballot held every five years.

My Lords, just let me say to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, that I certainly do not today want to enter into the question of whether or not there is a case for changing or regulating rule books. I merely pointed out that the existence of the rule book and not just the expulsion clause, together with the closed shop, creates a very strong position. Many of us who have spent our working lives in factories know that the pressure can be considerable, and that it is not easy in a closed shop situation to put forward something that a union may feel is against their interest. We still feel that and I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, that there is less likely to be disturbance, even in extremely contentedly working closed shop areas, by an automatic ballot, which we believe even unions will come to welcome as being a good way of giving backing to their authority. I hope that they will and, anyway, I hope that the House will resist this amendment.

On Question, amendment negatived.

moved Amendment No. 8:

Page 4, line 6, at end insert—

("(7A) In any case where neither subsection (4) nor subsection (7) has the effect of displacing subsection (3) and the employee—

(a) holds qualifications which are relevant to the employment in question;

(b) is subject to a written code which governs the conduct of those persons who hold those qualifications; and

(c) has—

(i) been expelled from a trade union for refusing to take part in a strike or other industrial action, or

(ii) refused to become, or remain, a member of a trade union,

subsection (3) shall not apply if the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for his refusal was, in a case falling within paragraph (c)(i), that his taking the action in question would be in breach of the code or, in a case falling within paragraph (c)(ii), that if he became, or as the case may be remained, a member he would be required to take part in a strike, or other industrial action, which would be in breach of that code.").

My Lords, I am extremely obliged to the noble Viscount for coming forward with this amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, on behalf of the Government, and I have no hesitation in supporting it in the form in which it now stands. It is similar to my Amendment No. 21 at the Committee stage, but, of course, I have always conceded that on a Government Bill the Government draftsmen must have the last word on the actual wording of the clause, and I accept that.

At the Committee stage, I withdrew the original amendment against a promise by the noble Viscount of sympathetic study in the interim, and I would entirely endorse what he has just said about the value of the Committee stages of these Bills as a dress rehearsal for the in-fighting which comes at Report stage, and the opportunity they give to study with good faith the various points involved. He promised to write to me and he kept his promise with commendable despatch. I have had plenty of time to study his arguments.

I came up with an alternative in response to points made by many in the Committee stage that prevention is better than cure, and that it would be better not to allow a situation to arise than have to rectify it by giving damages if it did. I succeeded in drafting an amendment which comes forward as Amendment No. 11 and which I shall not now move at this Report stage. But, of course, you have to pay a price for what you achieve, and the price I had to pay for Amendment No. 11 was that it invalidated all the closed shop agreements, unless they were amended and that gave opportunities for demanding renegotiation and so on, which might be thought a high price to pay for achieving that. Meanwhile, the noble Viscount's promise of sympathetic study was honourably kept and he has come forward with this amendment, which I have no hesitation in accepting as a fair alternative to my own. It gives me what I have been arguing for since 1971 and, if your Lordships see fit to support the Government amendment on this occasion, I shall go home this evening a very contented Member of your Lordships' House.

My Lords, I want to say relatively little on this occasion, because we have discussed this matter on at least half a dozen occasions, in my experience, and many more in the experience, which goes back much longer, of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury.

I want to begin by congratulating the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and thanking him for two things. First, in the Committee stage debate he undertook to send out a letter giving the Government's attitude on this matter to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and myself, and to other noble Lords who were interested, and to place a copy of it in the Library. That letter was the most clear and convincing statement of the Government's attitude on this matter which we have had in the course of the discussions over the last several years, and I thank him for it. I found it convincing. The noble Earl also found it convincing, because it gave him his points. It did not quite give me mine.

I found it convincing, but not convincing enough—only in the sense that the letter was based on the Government's strategy which leans on the concept of fair and unfair dismissal. I know that many of the concepts which we have discussed in these debates on employment legislation are hallowed by time, but this concept of unfair and fair dismissal is hallowed only as far back as 1971. I do not regard that as terribly hallowed. It is the kind of short hallowedness which could be unhallowed in due course, and I hope that in some future Bill it will be. I want not the concept of unfair or fair dismissal, but the dismissal not to happen at all, but I do not want to push my luck too far.

Therefore, I should like to go on and give my second congratulation and thanks for this amendment which the Government have put down. It does not quite meet the point I made in earlier discussions, but I am perfectly sure that it goes as far in my direction as the Government reasonably could be expected to go. Since I had been under the impression that this Government were virtually immobile in such matters, any movement of this sort I welcome with open arms, and I hope that the House will, too.

My own amendment, Amendment No. 12, which I do not intend to move when the time comes, was based on the letter which the Minister sent out to the noble Earl and to myself and to others. I took up the point made by the Minister that paragraph 54 of the code of practice on the closed shop was the key to the question, because it had to be considered by an industrial tribunal if a case came before it. I have argued all along that this particular matter should not be in the code but should be in the appropriate Bill. That is what I sought to do in my amendment. I took the provisions of paragraph 54 of the code and put them into the Bill, because that seemed to me to be the logical, clear and, above all, simple place for them to be. When they were in the code of practice, they seemed to me to be too far removed from the point of application and too tenuous in their connection with the problem.

Although the Government cannot meet me on that, they have gone a very long way towards meeting the principle. I shall certainly look at the application of the Bill, when it becomes an Act, assuming that this amendment is accepted by the House, and see how it affects the professional engineers and other professional people about whom I have been worried. If the Government's proposals work, I shall be delighted. If it turns out that the Government's proposals do not work, I fear that I shall be required to come back to the House at some later suitable stage in order to try to press the point which I have made on a number of occasions. In the meantime, I hope the House will accept the generous proposals made by the Government.

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, I am very glad that the Government have been able to go this far, but regret that the question is only one of unfair dismissal and not of retention of the job. It seems to me that where the professional code or the statutory duty conflicts, this should take priority. It remains to me monstrous that a man in that position is going to lose his job, albeit he is going to be compensated.

My Lords, I think that somebody from these Benches should say just two things. First, may I express appreciation to the Government for their response to what was, during the Committee stage, the general feeling of the Committee and for coming forward, therefore, with this amendment. It is good to see the parliamentary system working in this way and after a certain amount of pressure Ministers coming forward to that Box with something designed, at least in part, to meet the strong feelings expressed at the Committee stage. Secondly, may I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, on the climax of, as I think he told us, 11 years of struggle. It is an admirable example to us all of the value of persistence. If I may add a speculation, those who have the good fortune to live in the near neighbourhood of the noble Earl may well find their sleep later tonight disturbed by the popping of corks.

My Lords, I feel like the guardsman who was out of step and the lady who was left waiting at the church. Firstly, may I say that we agreed with the Minister. When we saw—it came at an early stage, though no doubt the Minister had his reasons—for the first time this clause (and I do not claim now to have fully explored its ramifications because it is not exactly like the one put down by the noble Earl, for it goes beyond statutory professions, for example) we wondered what were the reasons for the Minister having changed his mind, because he was extremely persuasive. As he said again today, Section 4 of the 1980 Act protects, Section 7 of the 1980 Act protects, the code of practice protects, and in the only case that is cited the professional man won his case. Yet he comes to us today and does not say that he has changed his mind. He does not say that as a result of all the correspondence and listening to all the arguments he now finds that he was wrong.

I have not read his letter. He did not send one to me, though it is no doubt in the Library. But I am told by the noble Lord behind me that that letter restated his position with even greater clarity. So I am in a bit of a maze as to why in fact he has changed from the position which I thought we shared the other night. The only thing he has told me is that he could not be sure. He could not prove, he says, that if a professional man had come in front of an industrial tribunal, the decision would have gone that way. Well, no. That is what the judicial process is all about. You cannot prove it. Nevertheless, he wants to make it clear in the legislation. Well, all right.

Let me say that we are not here today—and we were not at the Committee stage—trying to support situations in which people used closed shops to get professional men the sack. That is not what it is about. We disagree with this Bill in all kinds of ways. We disagree with what is done with union membership agreements, mainly because we believe that the way those agreements are operated in practice takes into account these problems. In addition, the Government have legislated with Section 4 of the 1980 Act, Section 7 of the 1980 Act, and so on, and now want to go further. I am not here to stop them. All I am saying is that I wish that when we put down amendments which the Government say are declaratory and which we say cannot be proved, they would be equally generous to us.

My Lords, I did use certain words which I hope will be clear when the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, reads the account. I mentioned that this conflict of interest was not specifically covered. We still felt, as we expressed both in the Committee stage and in the letter, that in all probability the Bill would have covered an unfair dismissal in this situation. But we believe that, due to the particular pressure of a conflict of interests, including areas where there was statutory backing to that conflict of interests, this issue should, on reflection, be specifically covered.

As far as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, is concerned, I understand what she has in mind, but the Government view, I believe rightly, is that, as a Government, they can best protect people by working on the unfair dismissal and the consequences of it. A statement to say that someone must not be dismissed—or, as was suggested at Committee stage, should not be expelled—is a statement, but there is no absolute guarantee that it will be carried out. So the Government believe that, with the very strong deterrents for unfair dismissal in these cases, that is the strongest way for a Government to achieve what I believe the noble Baroness is after.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 9:

Leave out Clause 2.

My Lords, very briefly, as somebody with an interest in this, I do not think the Government have thought this out in depth, both so far as seamen are concerned and certainly in regard to theatricals. I know this from within my own family, somebody trying for a contract. Person A may have no knowledge whatsoever of what is going on anywhere else. They are particularly concerned through their agents in getting a job in pantomime and so on. They may never reach the echelons of the West End or the higher echelons, they may be in small repertory theatres throughout Britain. Without going into the argument any more in depth, because it has been well covered by somebody who knows much more about it than I do, I think this should be looked at again before all this verbiage—and look at the length of it—is left here. It is not clear, it is not precise and it does not spike down exactly what the Government anticipated it would spike down.

My Lords, at Second Reading I mentioned this problem that is being raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, and as I remember I mentioned it in relation to Equity, being wholly ignorant of his vast experience and identity with Equity. Again, if I remember aright, my noble friend Lord Mottistone mentioned the question of shipping in this context. I am not going to take up your Lordships' time, but is it not right that there are certain situations where derogations might have to be granted in the interests of fairness and practica bility? If that is so, is it not right that there should be some form of machinery to provide the requisite elasticity to make this work? There is, of course, none. Although I fully support the broad intentions of my Front Bench in this matter, I would most respectfully ask that they give serious consideration to the matters that have been raised today by the noble Lords opposite.

My Lords, if I may intervene to explain the position with regard to the General Council of British Shipping and the National Union of Seaman, the position is not quite the same as has been explained to us by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. The situation is that the General Council of British Shipping and the shipping companies are reorganising the method of the employment of seamen by agreement with the union; they have started that already. As they are organised at the moment they would have the same sort of problem. All they are asking is that the Government shall delay the introduction of these clauses sufficiently to give them time to complete their reorganisation. What they have been asking for is five years and what I have been seeking in various amendments is that period. The Government are aware of this and I understand that there have been very many meetings between the general council and the Government. I imagine that Equity would have done the same type of thing. So both sides are fully aware of the problem.

In the case of the seamen, it looks as though we may get two years from the date that this Bill is enacted, and what with the lead-up time that there has been from the beginning of the Bill being laid in another place, it will work out at something not far short of a total period of three years. That is marginally all right, but it does mean accelerating a reorganisation which was already in contemplation by the shipping companies. Therefore, the situation is not so serious and it is not one which I would seek to pursue any further than I have already, except to say to the Government that I trust, indeed, that they will stick to their idea of two years rather than one year, on which I gather they have not yet quite made up their mind.

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, for putting down this amendment. I do not think that I am betraying any confidence in saying that we sought at first to find, if we could, a way in which we could put down an amendment at this stage in the proceedings to deal with the special narrow problem that he has discussed with such knowledge and such eloquence tonight, but in fact we could not find one. The fact is that there is no way.

The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, quite rightly in an attempt to deal with the problem of the shipping industry, sought to deal with it by giving them time. Fortunately, because of the reorganisation of the shipping industry, he tells us—he knows more about it than I do—that three years will do and that at the end of a three year period, it may be possible for the shipping industry to deal with what is the single most difficult problem for them; namely, to have a ballot at which they could get the requisite figures. But there is no way in the case of Equity. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, has said, whether it be three years, 30 years or 300 years, they cannot have a ballot, because the people who would be balloted are constantly moving.

Therefore, there is no way and there was no way that we could find in Committee to deal with this situation. We put down a whole series of amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, said quite reasonably afterwards that there was, in fact, no amendment which dealt with the Equity situation, because no amendment will deal with it. The only thing that will deal with it is the removal of the clause and that is why we have this amendment down today. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, is quite right to take up this point, because this is virtually the basic reason why we have parallel organisations to union membership agreements, in professions. That is why we have them in the law; theirs is a client relationship and the only way in which we can protect a client relationship is by what in the trade union movement they would call a "union shop", but which in the professional associations they call a "register". That is the only way in which it can be done. While we have this Bill and while we have this clause, I regret to say that we have no alternative but to move against it.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, in moving this amendment, despite the fact that he has cloaked a lot of what he wants to say in relation to Equity, has certainly opened the opportunity for a debate on the principle that there should be ballots of existing closed shop arrangements, and perhaps on the principle that we should protect non-union members in a closed shop. I am very glad that he is not going to move Amendment No. 10, as that amendment, by repealing Section 58 of the 1978 Act, would also have removed the basic rights of employees to join trade unions and to take part in their activities. No doubt his own Front Bench would have had something to say about that.

But, leaving that matter aside, I am afraid that we do find ourselves on a fairly familiar treadmill. As your Lordships will know, Clause 2 of the Bill introduces new rights against unfair dismissal for non-membership in a closed shop. In particular, it provides that after a transitional period, dismissal for non-membership will be unfair where a closed shop has not been approved as required in a secret ballot.

I do not think that I need burden the House by responding to arguments which have been raised previously against the closed shop balloting provisions of the Bill. Most of them now look decidedly threadbare. We kept hearing, for example, that the closed shop balloting provisions were disliked by employers who feared the industrial relations consequences. It has not been raised today, but I think it is worth pointing out that there was an article in the Financial Times on Monday referring to a poll taken earlier this month among 500 senior directors in large companies. That poll showed that most regard the Employment Bill as presenting little threat to industrial relations in their companies. A fair majority—60 per cent.—thought that the Bill was "about right", compared with 20 per cent. who thought it went too far and 13 per cent. not far enough. Only 2 per cent.

thought that it would lead to a confrontation. So like so many of the other arguments which we have heard against the closed shop provisions of the Bill, the one about employers fearing the industrial relations consequences of the Bill's closed shop provisions just does not hold water.

All these provisions have received many hours of debate both in your Lordships' House and in another place. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, will hardly be surprised to learn that we simply cannot accept this amendment which is effectively a wrecking amendment. We firmly believe that where employees are required to work under a closed shop agreement or arrangement, they should have the opportunity peridiocally to make known their views in a secret ballot, as to whether or not they want to continue to work under a closed shop arrangement. I must emphasise that the Government—and I am sure all of us on this side of the House—find this principle wholly unexceptionable and entirely justifiable. It is saying no more than that people are entitled to say whether an arrangement which can quite clearly conflict with their individual liberty is, nevertheless, one under which they wish to work.

The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins strikes a fairly familiar note when he talks about Equity and what amounts to collectivism versus individual rights in a closed shop. He argues that the majority have rights in a closed shop and that we are wrong to seek to safeguard the individual non-member, as we do in this Bill. Of course, the majority have rights: they have the right to be union members; the right to take part in trade union activities; and the right to organise and seek recognition from their employer. But why should these rights extend to forcing the odd non-union member to join a union? By staying out of the union he is not preventing the majority from exercising their rights to be in a union, but they seek to prevent him from exercising his basic right to choose whether to join a union or not.

There is no doubt that as a Government we dislike the closed shop for precisely these reasons. We, of course, would prefer that it did not exist. If it were likely to be practical, we would seek to outlaw it, but because that it is not in our view a practical possibility, we are, instead, introducing the additional safeguard in this Bill, such as ballots, to ensure that the limitations on individual freedom, which the closed shop inevitably entails, should not be imposed on any individual unless it is quite clear that the overwhelming majority of his fellow employees are content for their freedoms to be restricted in this way.

Contrast this, my Lords, with the attitude of the trade union movement. The TUC's guide to the Bill, asks unions to tell their employers that the policy on the closed shop should be "business as usual", and in particular advises unions to tell employers that

"secret ballots should not be held on the continuation of union membership agreements ".

One is forced to ask, "What is it that the TUC is so afraid of?" Can it be that if, for once, union leaders actually asked their members what they thought, they might not get the answer they wanted? Can it be that union leaders, in fact, know that the closed shop is just as unpopular with their members as it is with the public at large? Perhaps it is much safer, from their point of view, not to risk finding out. We reject this philosophy entirely. We think that individual employees have every right to make known their own views as to whether or not they want a closed shop to continue. That is what Clause 2 provides and that is why I shall ask your Lordships to reject this amendment.

The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, spoke particularly about Equity. I understand his concern about Equity. I have to say that I think that his fears are misplaced. There is nothing in these balloting provisions which need stop closed shop agreements in the entertainment industry from continuing to operate so long as they are genuinely wanted by the employees concerned. It will not be difficult—as the noble Lord suggests—in any way for employers in the entertainments industry to hold closed shop ballots. All they will need to do is to ballot all of their employees who are in their employment on a particular day. It will be up to them to choose a suitable day, and that is why the Bill's provisions are made deliberately flexible.

My noble friend Lord Campbell made a point in connection not only with Equity but with Shipbuilding. It seems to me that he is seeking some form of exemption from the closed shop provisions for particular groups, rather like the approved closed shop provision of the 1971 Act. But there is a difference. The 1971 Act outlawed the closed shop; this Bill does not. If ballots are held, closed shops in entertainment can continue as though they were perfectly lawful.

The Secretary of State is still considering whether to bring these balloting provisions for existing closed shops into effect one or two years after Royal Assent, but he will obviously have to take into account what has been said in your Lordships' House before reaching these decisions. In the light of what I have said and the particular comments that have been made in relation to the whole principle of Clause 2 of the Bill, which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, seeks to remove, I trust that your Lordships will reject this amendment.

My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, has been answering some other debate which took place in some other place on some other day. No doubt he was given a brief to do that in the belief that perhaps I would raise the general principle of the closed shop. As your Lordships will be aware, on this occasion I uttered no word of general condemnation about what the Government's intentions were. I do condemn them, but I did not do so on this occasion. I simply sought to deal with the question of practicability. My entire remarks were directed to the question of whether or not the clause was workable, and the reason that I asked your Lordships to reject it was not because I think it is wrong in principle—although I do—but purely because it is not practicable. It will not work; it cannot work; it will create total chaos.

The noble Lord, in the one moment when he touched on the matters which I have raised, suggested that there might be a day selected on which the ballot would take place. How does one select this day and who ballots? Everybody on that particular contract will be on a contract which already contains a closed shop clause. Who will be balloted—everybody on that particular contract at the moment? What are to be the consequences of the ballot?

There is perhaps one area in which Equity differs from some other trade unions; it is that there has never been any case whatever of any breach of contract. The negotiations that take place at Equity take place on a general proposition which operates over the whole area. That general proposition, that general agreement, is negotiated about once a year. Subject to that, the individual actor is engaged on another document which is his personal contract, The general proposition is negotiated, and if one fails on that then no personal contracts are signed. But once a personal contract is signed between a manager and an actor, it is never broken by the actor or by the manager; it operates for the duration of that contract. In those circumstances, you cannot get an effective ballot operating, because the circumstances are not those which exist in the model in theminds of the Government, which is a factory floor situation. It is a situation in which—as I said in my introductory speech—people are signing contracts at different times all over the place, and sometimes are having contracts signed on their behalf.

We have only touched on the beginnings of the complexity of the situation. I have talked about the theatre. A similar situation exists in films and television, with different kinds of contracts and different councils. But all these agreements are on the same basic principle of a general agreement which operates between the union and the managerial association and which does not at the time of its agreement concern any particular group of people. It envisages that there will be a group of people, all of whom are members of the trade union, who will come into the position which is affected by the negotiation.

I want to make one more remark before I sit down. I went through this clause trying to discover some particular amendment to it which would create a special position to provide for the particular circumstances which I have described to your Lordships. I have not been able to find it. Nor has my noble friend on the Front Bench been able to find it; nor could the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, find it. We could not find any way of amending the contract which would provide for a workable exception to be made for the set of circumstances which I have described to your Lordships. In those circumstances I had no alternative but to move that Clause 2 be left out, because there is no practicable way of amending it. Therefore, I have no alternative but to ask your Lordships to divide and to support my amendment that Clause 2 be omitted.

moved Amendment No.13:

Page 6, line 33, leave out ("by virtue of section 58 or 59(a)")

My Lords, a similar amendment was moved in Committee, and the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, acknowledged that. Noble Lords opposite made the point then, as the noble Lord has now, that all unfair dismissals are to be equally condemned and that if limits for awards of compensation are to be raised at all, they should be raised for all cases. I agree that all unfair dismissals are to be regretted, and there is no difference between me and Lord McCarthy on that. As I pointed out in Committee, we believe that certain kinds of unfair dismissal merit the substantially enhanced levels of compensation which the Bill provides, and the reasons are simple. First, we are dealing not with dismissals which have been carried out because of some altercation between employer and employee or vice versa, but with dismissals which have been carried out in open defiance of rights specifically and recently passed by Parliament, and that is something we wish to deter very emphatically.

Secondly—this answers the substantive argument adduced by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy—it is surely the case that those who find themselves unfairly dismissed in these circumstances (in the closed shop circumstances) are likely to suffer considerably more as a result of their unfair dismissals than is the case in the generality of other unfair dismissals. That is one of the evils of the closed shop; it can frighten people as to the possibility of their not being employed in the future at all.

I do not want to detain the House by repeating in detail the very black histories I outlined on earlier occasions, which I even outlined in some detail on the passing of the 1980 Act—the Walsall and Sandwell dismissals. The point there was that the dismissals were made by employers in direct violation of recently enacted statutory rights and in the knowledge that the employers would be liable to pay compensation. So they were not cases where an employer was acting, as he thought, fairly but subsequently found that a dismissal was unfair. The employers knew perfectly well that they were acting unfairly, and they were acting unfairly as a deliberate political act in outright defiance of statutory rights provided by Parliament. It was particularly lamentable that those renegade employers were supposedly responsible members of public authorities.

I have made it quite clear that we want to deter such employers very fiercely, but the second reason is probably the reason which should commend itself more closely even to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. It is surely self-evident that persons dismissed for non-membership of a union in a closed shop may find it difficult, if not impossible, to get another job in the same industry or locality, particularly where pre-entry closed shop arrangements are widespread. We firmly believe there is an urgent need for the enhanced compensation which the Bill provides in the case of unfair closed shop dismissals. The amendment would defeat that intention. There is a clear difference of view between ourselves and the Opposition on this score and I must therefore ask that the amendment be rejected.

I am not surprised at that reply, my Lords, and I wish to take up only one point the noble Earl made because he was right to say that we have been round this matter a number of times. We have given examples of cases where we believe people could—in fact do—suffer as badly, if not worse, outside closed shop areas. However, I wish to take up one point he made because it has been made repeatedly in these debates and this may be the last opportunity to answer it. It is the point that there was something uniquely reprehensible in the conduct of Walsall and Sandwell Councils in the sense that they defied the Act.

There is nothing unusual in an employer deciding to dismiss someone and pay the compensation. It is not a criminal offence; he has decided to pay the compensation, and I make no criticism. One of the first things solicitors say to employers when they are called in on unfair dismissal cases is, "Of course, you can always pay your way out. The average award is only £750", and it is perfectly fair for them to say that because that is the legal position. We have carefully not given people a right of reinstatement, and if people are not given such a right, then of course it is always possible for any employer, public or private—it is no better and no worse whether he is public or private—to decide that he wants this particular man out because, whatever an unfair dismissal tribunal may say, he thinks he is a rotten workman, is lazy, is no good and he has just had enough. That is the state of the law. It happens every day and it is no good the noble Earl looking shocked.

On Question, amendment negatived.

My Lords, I think that it might be for your Lordships convenience if we now took a break. Therefore, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned until eight o'clock.

My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Northern Ireland Assembly (Day of Election) Order, which was laid before this House on 14th July, be approved. The draft order which, if approved, will be made under Section 27(7) of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, appoints Wednesday, 20th October, as the date on which the election to a new Northern Ireland Assembly will be held. The Assembly was dissolved with effect from 28th March 1975 under Section 1(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1974.

The proposed election to the Northern Ireland Assembly will be fresh in the minds of your Lordships who have so recently discussed, and given their approval to, what is now the Northern Ireland Act 1982. The scope of the present draft order is very narrow—it simply appoints the date of the election to the Assembly. The House will be in no doubt about the Government's commitment to offering the people of Northern Ireland a framework for political progress and your Lordships will, I am sure, agree that to proceed to an early election to an Assembly is the right course. I am convinced that there is an expectation of, and a desire for, progress in Northern Ireland, and after much speculation about how the act will work, surely there is nothing to be gained by delay in putting its provisions into effect by electing an Assembly at the earliest reasonable opportunity.

We believe that the date chosen, 20th October, allows sufficient time for the chief electoral officer and his staff to prepare for the election, and for the Northern Ireland parties to campaign effectively after the holiday season, while at the same time the date avoids the oncoming winter period, with its limited daylight hours, and weather, and possible security problems in consequence. The election will take place on a Wednesday—like local elections in Northern Ireland—so that the counting of votes, which inevitably will be a lengthy process in the larger constituencies, can be completed before the weekend. The order setting out the election timetable and the rules for the conduct of the election, which is subject to negative resolution, will be made shortly, thus giving the electoral staff and the parties plenty of time for preparation. I commend the draft order to the House.

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl the Minister for explaining to the House the general outline and details of the order. In welcoming the order, I note that it was debated at some length in another place on Monday last, 26th July. As one who has actively participated in the political life of Northern Ireland for almost 50 years, I am pleased that there now appears to be concern expressed and debated by Northern Ireland political parties and politicians about upholding and supporting the principles of parliamentary democracy. I consider that this is a pleasant change, for I can recall the great hostility and vigorous resistance shown by some Northern Ireland politicians towards the labour and trade union campaign for changes in the Northern Ireland local government franchise and for the adoption of the Westminster principle of one man, one vote.

However, I agree with the noble Earl that there is an expectation of, and a desire for, an early election for the Assembly to be held, and I believe that that expectation and desire are based on the reasons stated by him in regard to timing. Indeed, I would go further. I would say that if ever there was a time when Northern Ireland needed friends and understanding, that time is now. I would hope that in the forthcoming election for a Northern Ireland Assembly citizens from all walks of life, and from the various interests in the Province, will offer themselves as candidates for the new Assembly.

I believe that the political and economic issues confronting the Northern Ireland people require that the electorate should be given a real opportunity to decide who should genuinely represent them in the new Assembly.

I note what the noble Earl the Minister has stated in the House on a previous occasion, and what has been repeated in another place, about the current review of the criteria for disqualification from the United Kingdom Parliament, and that the findings of the review should have a close link with the criteria for the Assembly. I support the view that we should await the outcome of the review before deciding any changes concerning the Assembly.

There is just one point that I should like to put to the Minister. I understand that the proposed Northern Ireland Assembly election will be held under the Electoral Law (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 and the Polling Schemes Regulations 1972. I hope that I am right in that assumption, and I think that this is an appropriate occasion on which I should put this question to the Minister. Will the Minister give an undertaking that every possible facility and opportunity are given to provide adequate and suitable siting of polling stations to ensure reasonable access to all wishing to record their vote? I believe that there are 545 separate premises designated by the chief electoral officer in his report for the period ended 31st March 1981. Perhaps since that date a few adjustments in the siting arrangements are necessary. With those remarks I certainly welcome and support the proposal for an election to be held for the new Assembly.

My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Earl for introducing the order fairly briefly, and once again I congratulate him on slipping from Bill to order and back to Bill with such apparent ease. The order is consequential upon the passage of the Northern Ireland Bill which we supported, and the arrangements seem entirely satisfactory to us. I would say that my party, and I am authorised by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, to add the SDP, support the Government in the order.

My Lords, I, too, should like very briefly to support what has been said. There can be no doubt that those of us who have supported the principle of the Assembly can do no other than support the arrangements and decisions made about the election. I think it very important that there has been no postponement. On the one hand people have expected the election and have made preparations for it, and postponement could only have encouraged the forces of disruption in the feeling that they had succeeded in what, tragically, they have already started to try to do.

I should like to make just one point in support of what my noble friend has said regarding the one problem that has posed itself in the context of the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act. This matter has already been raised, and the Minister gave us to understand that the criteria would be examined and that there would be a report on it. One can only stress the importance of the fact that the future of the Assembly depends on there being strong cross-community support for the election, and it would seem too tragic if there were an obstacle and an excuse were given to certain people—

An excuse, an excuse.

Not to participate in the election, and therefore the future were undermined. So I would implore the Minister to do whatever he can to find a way around this predicament. It is a question not just of the anomalies in the Disqualification Act, but also the results that will arise from the disqualification of certain people. So much is in the balance, and I hope that a way can be found to get around the problem.

My Lords, I am extremely gratified by the response of the two noble Lords and the noble Baroness who have spoken, and I should like to offer my thanks to them. I should like to answer in reverse order the two points that have been made to me. Obviously I am very much seized of the problem which the noble Baroness has outlined. But it is difficult to alter primary legislation in respect of individual cases and for individual activities, whether successful or unsuccessful, that are still somewhat hypothetical. I do not think that quite enough people appreciate that the parliamentary machinery is very cumbersome and parliamentary timetables are inevitably very crowded. However, I shall consider the point. I would perhaps prefer to direct the noble Baroness's attention to the very wise words uttered by her noble friend Lord Blease from the Labour Benches, expressing the hope that those who stand for the Assembly, or who freely chose to stand, will exercise choice in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland. That would seem to me to be where, perhaps, I should leave the point for the moment.

On the question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Blease, the Assembly Election Rules, which will form the second Schedule to the Northern Ireland Assembly Elections Order 1982, which my right honourable friend is making, will provide for the chief electoral officer, who is an independent official, to provide a sufficient number of polling stations for the election. The chief electoral officer will, as he has had to do in other Northern Ireland elections, devise a polling station scheme for the Province which strikes a balance between making polling stations readily available to all electors in the Province, as the noble Lord, Lord Blease, quite fairly wanted, while taking into account, of course, the resources available to the security forces in order to give adequate protection to polling stations at the same time.

It is a sad and inevitable fact that the path to political progress and free choice in Northern Ireland is very easily interrupted by violent activities. It is all the more essential that people be as protected from these as best they can be, and that the purpose of the community as a whole is not deflected in any way in response to the men of violence. But I will take the point that the noble Lord has made and will refer it to the chief electoral officer, and I am sure he will do his best.

On Question, Motion agreed to.