HC Deb 01 July 1975 vol 894 cc1267-323

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Richard Wainwright

I beg to move Amendment No. 175, in page 2, line 26, leave out subsection (2) and insert: '(2)The Board will have separate and distinctive responsibilities for—

(a) Identification of enterprises in difficulty

  1. (i) the early identification of those industrial enterprises which are vulnerable to overseas competition and/or where competitiveness is being undermined due to external factors;
  2. (ii) the early identification of individual enterprises which are likely to reduce employment drastically or cease trading altogether.

(b) Provision of immediate assistanceThe National Enterprise Board shall be responsible for co-ordination and assistance to companies which are liable at short notice to cease trading or reduce the numbers employed drastically in such ways that—

  1. (i) time is available to identify potentially viable parts of the enterprise and plans can be made and implemented for their continued existence;
  2. (ii) additional financial or other assistance can be provided for those whose jobs are endangered.

(c) Assistance to improve international competitivenessWithin the overall strategy for the future of British industry, the National Enterprise Board shall be responsble for co-ordinating and providing assistance to selected enterprises in order that—

  1. (i) measures are taken that significantly improve the international competitiveness of existing or new sectors of British industry;
  2. (ii) British industry can develop closer links with its European counterparts.
In order to discharge these responsibilities the Board will—
  1. (a) establish a close working relationship with other bodies and agencies concerned with British industry;
  2. 1268
  3. (b) be empowered to provide assistance which shows an agreed rate of return for existing or proposed profitable enter prises;
  4. (c) provide the Minister with a written case explaining the reasons and basis for assistance in any case. This will be laid before Parliament within three months of financial assistance being provided;
  5. (d) ensuring, in consultation with the representatives of the Department of Employment, that all companies assisted develop adequate representation at both works and board level'.

Mr. Speaker

With this, we are to discuss the following amendments: No. 3, in page 2, line 29, at end insert: 'with the exception of bodies corporate engaged in either banking or insurance business'. No. 4, in page 2, leave out lines 32 and 33.

No. 5, in page 2, line 38, at end insert: '(2A)(a) In any undertaking owned by the Board, the Board shall consult the employees as to the form of management they wish to see implemented; (b) at any time trade union representatives of a majority of the employees in such an undertaking may require the Board to hold a ballot of all employees as to whether they wish to have the undertaking constituted as a workers' co-operative, and if the ballot shows a majority of the employees in favour of such a constitution, then the Board shall co-operate with the employees in its preparation, and shall implement it if a further ballot shows a majority of employees in favour of its implementation; (c) the constitution of a workers' co-operative under this section shall provide for management by a worker representative body elected by all employees, for the payment of interest on capital employed to the Board, for payment of depreciation into a reserve fund, for an employees' income stabilisation fund, and for the division of the income of the undertaking between employees after payment of interest, depreciation, taxes and other provisions, in accordance with a Code of Practice approved by the Secretary of State which the Secretary of State shall by order direct the Board and any worker co-operatives constituted under this section to observe; (d) a duly constituted worker co-operative which fails to observe its obligations under the Code of Practice shall revert to the managerial control of the Board.'.

Mr. Wainwright

The amendment represents a very substantial revision of the statutory aims of the National Enterprise Board and it is right that I should comment further on the Liberal Party's attitude to the board. We endorse heartily the purposes proclaimed for it by the Government. We should be odd creatures indeed, in this commercially beseiged land, if we did not support the objective of the regeneration of British industry. We believe there is a great need for new methods of co-operation and co-ordination between the Government and industry. There has to be an orderly framework set up, not necessarily for the preservation of "lame ducks", but at least for dealing with them.

If anything is needed to show how urgently that is required it is the irresposible administration of the Industry Act 1972. The uses to which that Act has been put must horrify its authors, begetters and creators, and in recent months the House has been asked, almost in a panic way, to approve horrendously large sums of money in response to industrial emergencies. My party wants an orderly framework set up, after proper parliamentary deliberation, to handle the difficult situations which are bound to crop up from time to time.

In the amendment, we have set out three purposes for the NEB. We believe that a statutory duty should be laid on the board to prepare an inventory of the likely major needs of those industries which are known to be especially vulnerable. If Governments of the past 10 years had been proper stewards, such an inventory would already be available. We cannot imagine what on earth the NEDO and other Government and industrial organisations have been doing in recent years that they have not already prepared some sort of checklist of industries which may suddenly find themselves tipped over the brink. If this obligation is laid on the board by statute, Parliament would be protected in future from the almost hysterical process by which hon. Members are told that unless they agree by midnight to vote enormous sums of money, they will throw hundreds of thousands of people out of work.

We want the board to be given responsibility for administering the assistance provisions in the Industry Act 1972. I hope that this aspect of the amendment will commend itself to the Conservatives, who must have a very keen interest in the fate of the 1972 Act. We want the very powerful levers which that Act put into the hands of Ministers transferred to a body that is politically less sensitive, which has no need to seek the votes of the electorate, and which has a proper degree of commercial responsibility. We also want to see the board under a duty to safeguard the international competitiveness of important sectors of British industry.

In trying to provide for all this, we are accepting that there is to be a board and that the only question is whether its objectives are to be framed vaguely, so that nobody can assess whether it has lived up to its objectives or fallen short—that would be most unsatisfactory—or whether it is to have fairly sharply focused aims which will enable its operations to be assessed by Parliament from time to time. The words in the Bill, which it is sensible to replace, are too vague and have a smell of the doctrinaire about them which is wholly inappropriate to Britain in its present commercial and financial distress. It is time for a sharper definition—for giving the Board more clearly allotted tasks and for getting rid of some of the woolly verbiage, the only practical purpose of which has been to paper over the cracks between the Government and its supporters.

It is in the interests of Parliament to speak clearly and demand precisions from the Government. I believe this amendment should be accepted as a modest contribution to those aims.

Mr. Heseltine

I am grateful for the opportunity to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, and to move Amendment No. 4—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member cannot move that amendment now. He can discuss it with the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) and I am prepared to allow a separate Division on it later.

Mr. Heseltine

I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Speaker.

The amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) is extremely well drafted, and the general purposes he put forward provoke little quarrel from my hon. Friends and me, who spent many long sittings studying the Bill in Standing Committee. Although there are many arguments in favour of the amendment it misses the main point of the purposes of the board. There are no material matters on which his amendment would make available powers which are not available under the 1972 Act.

We are, therefore, left with Amendment No. 4, which seeks to delete certain of the other provisions in the clause. It is when one moves from the essentially pragmatic approach of the hon. Member for Colne Valley to the essentially doctrinaire approach of the provisions in Clause 2, which extends public ownership into profitable areas of manufacturing industry, that one sees that the whole divide on this legislation stretches to an unbridgeable extent. There are areas which the hon. Member for Colne Valley is wrong to seek to embrace within the purposes of the board. He referred to the NEDC organisation, which must be dear to your own heart, Mr. Speaker, and it would be wrong to incorporate that organisation within an agency of this sort which is essentially made up of Government nominees. There is no dialogue or consultation. It is simply a group of people chosen by the Government to carry out any policies they may have at any particular time.

The original concept of the NEDC organisation has never had the opportunity of fulfilling the aspirations originally held for it. It should be a partnership in industry and it needs to be widened to bring within its orbit the financial institutions which own so much of British industry and which would enable it to achieve the aims outlined by the hon. Member for Colne Valley without the need for legislative changes. There is no reason why the NEDC and the little NEDCs cannot now assume the functions envisaged for them at the time of their creation.

One of the saddest reflections on industrial policy of the last decade is that the little NEDCs have not been given the proper opportunity, sufficient support, or a sense of purpose which could have given Britain's capitalist economy the chance of being comparable with some of the other capitalist economies which have used such devices far more effectively. It is wrong to have a statutory agency with only Government appointments as the framework within which the NEDC organisation should exist.

Using the NEB to administer the 1972 Act has an underlying value. The question is whether functions of this sort should be administered by civil servants in a Government Department or whether we are better off using an independent agency as a tool of Government. The argument is finely balanced. We have had experience of both. It was done directly under the previous Conservative administration and now we are moving on to a system of agencies—the NEB and the development agencies in Scotland and Wales. There is no room for doctrinal differences on this matter, but that takes us no further than admitting that the substance of this group of amendments lies in Amendment No. 4.

Our amendment seeks to remove from industrial policy political dogma which in the past has done so much harm to the credibility of successive Labour administrations. As long as we operate a mixed economy the rôle of profit must be fully understood. There has never been an occasion when, if profits increased, investment did not follow suit. When profits fall, investment falls, and unemployment rises. The cyclical changes of the last few decades have all followed this pattern. Therefore, we must seek to encourage profits, because that is the one sure way of increasing living standards.

One cannot overestimate the harm done in the minds of those who make investment decisions if they are constantly expected to take those decisions in an environment which they believe to be hostile to the concept of profit, and where they feel that, if a profit is made, there is a danger that the State will take the company into public ownership.

There is no clearer example of the harm which follows from doctrinaire intervention in industry than the damage done to the aircraft and shipbuilding industries. I dare say that the House will by now know that the Government have today, by means of a Written Answer, curiously to be lost in tomorrow's headlines, announced that they are not to proceed with the Bill to nationalise those industries.

Mr. Kaufman

That is not so. We have said that we are not proceeding with the Bill this Session. We have certainly not said that we are not proceeding with it.

Mr. Heseltine

What the Minister says is true. Last week the Government intended to proceed with the Bill as fast as possible and as a matter of utmost urgency. Today they intend to proceed, but not this Session, and it is perhaps for people outside this Government to decide whether that Bill will emerge on to the statute book with the urgency which is apparently intended for it.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Kaufman rose

Mr. Heseltine

I will not give way since I do not wish to stray beyond the narrow point about the effects on confidence which arise from this sort of provision.

The decision to introduce that legislation clearly had its effect on those people who make the investment decisions and, therefore, affect job security. They could see in the compensation terms no possible incentive for them to put more money into these industries. No prudent person could have continued to invest in them. Nevertheless, we are today told that, far from the Government coming in to fill the vacuum which was created by the sense of insecurity, they are to allow it to continue for at least a year. That is the minimum time that can now elapse before that Bill is on the statute book.

The consequence of the Government's actions is to have the most shattering effect on the industries concerned, which face very real but different international pressures. The consequences in terms of lost employment of the decision first to nationalise and now to proceed will be felt in real—

Mr. Kaufman rose

Mr. Heseltine

I know what the Minister is going to say. He must realise, however, that the harm done to the job prospects and to investment in these industries by this cavalier treatment stems from a total misunderstanding of these two massive employers of labour. If the Minister wants to see British industry competing and able to play a full rôle, it must know with certainty the background against which it must take investment decisions. The uncertainty will have a serious effect on our ability to compete in these activities, and since industry is an on-going process these effects will have a debilitating long-term influence. There is no doubt that these industries will suffer because of the Government's inability to make up their mind and to pursue their legislative programme through the House of Commons. There is no conceivable excuse for what has happened.

The situation we are left with is totally obnoxious. I know of no body of opinion which wants a spread of nationalisation into profitable private industry. All the information available to me indicates that employees in both the private and public sectors are against it. I have just spent some time with the shop stewards of the Bristol Channel Ship Repair Company. The former Secretary of State for Industry was not even prepared to talk to them.

Mrs. Wise

Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the employees of Scottish Aviation, to name but one group, were very keen for their company to be included in the nationalisation proposals, and that the Government reluctantly gave way to pressure?

Mr Heseltine

I know that the shop stewards in that company took that view. I suspect that the organised voice of the trade unions, as we discovered in the referendum, represents a far smaller number of people than the block votes at Labour Party conferences indicate. When people and employees, as opposed to members of trade unions, are asked for their views, the surveys show that they do not want nationalisation. Yet Parliament seeks to make a deliberate decision as a result of which many profitable companies, which offer opportunities to hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens, will be nationalised. Those companies do not want it. They will not be asked whether they want it. It will just happen.

The Government will be able to buy up to 10 per cent. of any company without the public or the House knowing that the Government are buying shares, because they will be able to use a nominee holding. Anyone who suggests that that is the spirit of open government, worker participation, or democracy, misunderstands the meaning of those words.

We are now confronted with a piece of doctrinal legislation under which the National Enterprise Board will serve one purpose, to transfer power from where it now lies in society, where it is broadly spread throughout large numbers of people, small and large companies and the self-employed, to the State. We shall be confronted by a small number of Ministers, who are overworked and under pressure, who are unable to apply a proper control over the companies with-in their domain, yet who claim to answer to the House for the vast accretion of power which year by year is added to by the bigots of the Left wing.

The Government tell us that such measures will be profitable, will serve the public interest, and will create more sensitivity to the community, and that the taxpayer will obtain a fair deal for the money which he is being compelled to invest. What is the reality? There is no nationalised industry of any substance or scale, with one or two exceptions, which does not lose astronomical sums. There is incontrovertible evidence that the public regard the nationalised industries as providing a different service from that provided by the private sector. Every time a Bill proposing further nationalisation measures is introduced we are told that it will lead to the more profitable use of the nation's resources. I have sat through the consideration of measure after measure and I have listened to Labour Minister after Labour Minister promising profits as a result of nationalisation. I have never seen those profits materialise. There is one reason for that. The moment that Ministers have power over those industries they interfere with those industries and destroy the motivation of management and the economic structure upon which those industries could be profitable.

I do not know how many hon. Members read the recent article by Graham Turner in which he interviewed managers of nationalised industries. How anyone can read that appalling record of confusion, uncertainty and lack of confidence in the morality of what is being done, and believe that it is right to subject an increasing number of British companies to that suffocating bureaucracy, passes the understanding of the Opposition.

How shall we make industry more effective in answering the needs of the customers and providing the increasing standards of living which our people want? The inclusion of these dogmas will continue that destruction of confidence in this country which has led today to one of the most dramatic reversals of the cynical opportunism with which the Government come to power.

Dr. Bray

I do not support the proposals which were discussed by the Opposition. I wish to discuss Amendment No. 5, and I should like to take up a number of points made by the Opposition.

The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) emphasised the rôle of profit. He said that that must be fully under stood. I agree, as would most hon. Members on both sides of the House. The question is—what is the understanding? The purpose of the amendment is to recognise the rôle of profit and to say that it cannot be fully discharged unless profits are distributed to the workers who produce them.

The hon. Gentleman also laid stress upon the necessity to consult the workers and to ask for the opinions of the workers. If he is prepared to allow that and to allow the workers to choose the form of management, Government supporters look forward to seeing the hon. Gentleman supporting this amendment if there is a Division.

The hon. Gentleman complained that the Bill would transfer power to the State rather than to the people working in industry. If he means what he says, I hope that he will support Amendment No. 5, the purpose of which is to enable the workers in an undertaking which is under the control of the National Enterprise Board to choose the form of management.

The amendment requires the National Enterprise Board to consult the employees of each enterprise it owns as to the form of management they wish to have, and, if the workers so choose, to allow the enterprise to be run by the workers as a workers' co-operative.

The position which we face in industry today is that the trade unions have great power over a limited front. They have a dominant influence on wages and conditions but little influence on investment, production, pricing, or even employment. Their responsibility is specifically denied, and we hear a great deal of talk of management prerogatives. The result is that there is an acute imbalance, of which the most obvious symptom is the present roaring pace of inflation, and the subsidiary consequences of a lack of investment, stagnant production and rising unemployment.

That position cannot be sustained. Governments of both parties have tried to restrict the powers of workers in their trade unions, and both have failed. We may have seen the beginning of another such attempt this afternoon.

There is now general acceptance that the only possible course is to widen the range of issues over which workers are able to exercise their power to enlarge industrial democracy, but there is great confusion over what this means or how it should be achieved—confusion to which I fear the Government have added by the three unco-ordinated approaches in the Industry Bill, the Employment Protection Bill, and the foreshadowed Industrial Democracy Bill, the provisions of which have yet to be reconciled.

In Committee my hon. Friends and I tabled amendments to clarify the issues and to offer a coherent way ahead. My hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) tabled an amendment on supervisory boards, which he is now pursuing by means of his Industrial Democracy Bill. I tabled an amendment to permit the further stage of development of enterprises into full workers' co-operatives, if that is the will of the workers involved. That amendment allowed the workers in any enterprise, whether or not owned by the National Enterprise Board, to opt for constitution as a workers' co-operative and thereupon to be taken over by the National Enterprise Board, under workers' control.

This amendment is more restrictive. It is limited to enterprises already owned by the NEB. As such, the amendment will have the support of the Opposition. As recently as 9th June, in the debate on the Second Reading of the Statutory Corporations (Financial Provisions) Bill, the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) speaking from the Front Bench, said: I would be perfectly happy to see some of the public sector run on the basis of competing workers' co-operatives. Why is it that the whole basis of co-operation amongst workers has to be kept in the private sector? The idea of setting up workers' co-operatives in the public sector is very interesting."—[Official Report, 9th June 1975; Vol. 893, c. 64.] The status of a workers' co-operative, with its responsibilities as well as privileges, cannot be thrust upon the workers. They must be free to claim it. At present they are free to do so by demonstration, by industrial action, by publicity in the mass media, and by public sympathy when faced with closure. But no Member of Parliament would regard that as a satisfactory form of industrial or political action. There should be a properly constituted procedure by which the workers would be enabled democratically to establish the form of management as responsible worker management under viable schemes of organisation.

7.30 p.m.

This procedure the amendment seeks to offer by means which I spelt out more fully in Committee and with which I would not venture to trouble the House on Report under the guillotine. But under this amendment the workers' co-operative must be viable in an economic sense. It must pay a satisfactory rate of interest on the public capital it employs. It must preserve its assets by paying depreciation on the assets it is using. It must be able to cushion the year-to-year variation of income of its workers with an income stabilisation fund, and if it fails in these requirements, long before it would go bankrupt, if it were a private enterprise, it must revert to the managerial control of the NEB.

Mr. Anthony Nelson (Chichester)

Would the hon. Gentleman care to explain this to me a little more simply? I have a specific question. I did not quite understand from the wording of the amendment. When he talks of the interest paid on the capital which would be made available from the NEB, is he referring to interest on loan capital or a return on an equity investment which would be in the form of a dividend? I assume that he cannot be talking about the latter, because he is talking of dividing up the yearly profit between the employees in the company. If that is the case, would he care to take, for example, an extractive industry where the asset value of the company is run down, and the capital value of the company is naturally included in the yearly dividends and profits of that company? Would he care to explain how, in that specific example, where it has been accepted that there will be an ability, under the Bill, to take a governmental interest, there will be an adequate return to the taxpayer who is basically making capital funds available?

Dr. Bray

I acknowledged in Committee that the range of enterprises which it was possible to operate as a full-blown workers' co-operative, in the sense in which it was defined in Committee, was limited. For example, if the capital intensity were so great that it could not reasonably be expected that the workers could stand the year to year variation in profits, even with the aid of the income stabilisation fund, it could not undertake the responsibility to operate as a workers' co-operative, and would have to maintain its status as a managerially-controlled public enterprise.

I refer the hon. Member to the report of the debate in Committee, where the requirements were spelt out in more detail, but it is not a code for "lame ducks"; it is a licence for tough, efficient, workers' co-operatives—a constitutional response to the underlying forces in society, which the Government set out to make in the Bill. It is a practical mode of operation for the NEB enterprises, and even without this amendment the NEB will have powers under the Bill to operate in this way if it decides to do so. I hope it will do so, but it will need strong ministerial encouragement without the sanction of this amendment.

The wider objective of allowing the workers in any enterprises to opt for constituting their enterprise—because the right is there—as a workers' co-operative is a policy which I hope the Labour Party will adopt as part of its next election platform, on which we shall return to the House in due course.

Mr. Wigley

The three amendments debated so far are very different ones, and appear to be aimed at different objectives. I am not sure whether the debate is facilitated by that fact.

To go through the three briefly—we have considerable sympathy with some of the objectives of the Liberal amendment, but it would appear from the wording that it precludes the NEB from being able to establish new manufacturing units, and I should have thought that, from a Liberal point of view particularly, this would be an important part of the board's activities. I should have thought that a National Enterprise Board ought to put the emphasis on the word "enterprise", in that, where the private sector has failed, one of the activities of the board should be to promote industry, itself setting up industry by its own initiative. As far as I can see, if the Liberal amendment were carried the ability of the board to do that would be taken away. It could be argued that it would be covered under Clause 2(1)(c), which relates to the provision of employment in any part of the United Kingdom, but the guts of it would be taken away from subsection (2), which provides for establishing, maintaining or developing, or promoting or assisting the establishment". For that reason I find it difficult to support the Liberal amendment, although I have great sympathy with it.

The Conservative amendment goes to the guts of the ideological battle between the two sides of the House. It is just as ideological for the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) to propose deleting this part as it is ideological for the Government to have it in. In fact, if this part were deleted completely, I would interpret it as meaning that the NEB would have no powers even to hold minority interests in companies in which it wants those minority interests, nor to influence decisions within those companies to achieve the other objectives which are included.

Mr. Heseltine

That is in no way the case. The hon. Member will know that in the Industry Act 1972, which the Conservative Government put on the statute book, Clause 2(4) provided every opportunity for the Government to own shares if there should be a case for it. We are arguing that there needs to be a reason for owning those shares, and that reason is not good enough if it simply consists of a bland statement that the State should own for the sake of ownership.

Mr. Wigley

I am grateful to the hon. Member for that intervention and clarification. I certainly agree that there ought to be reasons, and those may be based on a number of factors. I should have thought that as a consequence of carrying his amendment there would be consequential amendments that would inevitably have to be written into subsection (4). If the hon. Member is saying that that is not the case, I should have thought that carrying his amendment would not necessarily stop the Government from taking a line on extending public ownership by a different method. The facility would still be there in subsection (4) if there are no consequential amendments.

Mr. Heseltine

The hon. Member is quite right. The ability would be there, but it would have to be used for one of the reasons indicated, such as the assistance of the economy, the promotion of industrial efficiency, or the safeguarding of employment. It would have to be done for reasons of that sort, and those are commendable reasons to people who have those views. What is not commendable—and we would not accept this in any way—is that the board should proceed to nationalise companies for no reason at all other than that those companies happen to exist.

Mr. Wigley

Those comments will be of interest to many hon. Members, and I will take it from that statement that any other amendment that may water down subsequent sub-sections will not be pressed from that point of view. None the less, I believe that the argument for and against the Conservative amendment here tends to be an ideological one, and for that reason I find it rather difficult to commend the amendment.

The amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Dr. Bray) is the most interesting and, in the long term, quite the most far-reaching of the amendments that we are discussing today. It goes to the very nub of what is to happen within the public sector in due course, and, I would hope, within parts of the private sector as well. The tragedy within the nationalised industries in the last 25 years is that for the employees within those industries there has been very little change indeed from the ownership by remote capitalist to the ownership by remote State holdings. In fact, the day-to-day activities have proceeded in very much the same way, and I believe that, if nationalisation and State participation in industry are to continue. there have to be very radical steps indeed in order to bring the employees into the area of decision-taking within such companies.

I commend the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw in the wording he has chosen for this amendment, in that he has stated that, whereas it may be for a trade union representative to call for a ballot, the ballot would be for all employees, and it is most difficult to make sure that all employees would be involved in this function. This is a very important matter in the development of any such concept. It may be that this development is one that foreshadows the development of an industrial democracy bill, and it may well be that the Government's answer to this amendment would be in those terms. None the less, I believe that this is the guts of the argument that will take place over the next few years concerning the future of British industry, and I hope that as a prelude to that argument we shall carry this amendment.

Mrs. Wise

I wish to support Amendment No. 5, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Dr. Bray). In doing so, I want to expose the falsity of the claim of the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) that there is a wide spread of power in British industry today. He must surely be aware that there are no fewer than 22 sectors of industry where control of more than 50 per cent. of the trade is in the hands of six or fewer companies. In food processing, for example, three companies control more than 50 per cent. of the industry. That cannot be described as a spread of power in the population.

Mr. Heseltine

Is the hon. Lady aware that the companies which she is discussing are owned by the pension funds and life assurance companies of the people who work in those companies?

Mrs. Wise

But the hon. Gentleman will not try to tell me that they are controlled by those pensioners. I would feel a good deal happier if that were the situation. The power of decision making in those companies is in a very limited number of hands, completely unelected and in many ways irresponsible in that they are responsible directly to no one.

However, since the Opposition probably will concede that this Bill will be enacted and that therefore there will be a National Enterprise Board with undertakings controlled by the NEB, I have no doubt that, despit their rosy view of private industry, when they turn their attention to the NEB, they will find it in themselves to support Amendment No. 5 in view of their constant reiteration of their support for worker participation, for open government, for consulting workers and for having ballots. They must concede that the NEB will be correctly and properly required to consult its workers in these ways.

I suggest also that the Government themselves must look with favour at this amendment in view of our manifesto commitment, which is to bring about not only a shift of wealth in favour of working people but also a shift of power in favour of working people. If we are to make a reality of this, we have to start now.

As it stands at the moment, Clause 2(2)(d) refers to promoting industrial democracy in undertakings which the Board control…". It lays upon the Board the duty to promote industrial democracy. But nowhere in the Bill are there any mechanisms for doing this. It is not realistic to impose on the NEB a duty and to give no guidance as to how that duty should be carried out.

My hon. Friend's amendment is extremely cautious. It would lead to tremendous changes, because it is beset with a number of obstacles. I have no doubt, and I am sure that the Government can have no doubt, that any enterprise in which the workers have been through this obstacle course must be one in which those workers are determined and enthusiastic about self-management. It could not happen accidentally. It could not happen as a result of a whim. They must really be extremely committed to the idea of self-management, and I have no doubt that at every stage there would be many voices explaining to them the pitfalls.

This is a very moderate exercise in introducing some desirable experimentation in industrial democracy. Government supporters, including Ministers, accept that nationalised industries as we have seen them in the past fall short of a democratic ideal. We acknowledged this in our manifesto. For that reason, I look forward with interest to hearing the Minister acknowledge those words, and I hope that he will accept the amendment. If he does not, I am afraid that I must again exercise that scepticism to which I referred earlier. That would be a great pity, because the Government would be losing a considerable opportunity to harness the desire of workers to have some say in their lives in the place where they spend so much of their lives—their place of work.

I think the Government ought to be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw for giving them the opportunity to accept this cautious, moderate and carefully worded amendment.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Tim Renton

In the course of 40 long sittings of the Committee on the Industry Bill, I do not think that I was ever privileged to listen to such a fatuous speech as that just made by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise). She referred to the food processing companies as being responsible to no one. Her main reason for making that extraordinary remark was apparently that they controlled a large share of the United Kingdom market. When will the hon. Lady and other Government supporters realise that even the large and successful companies are responsible? They are responsible to their employees and to their shareholders. It is only when Government supporters start to realise that that they will cease to put forward obtuse schemes of the kind that the hon. Lady outlined.

However, it is not my purpose to speak for or against Amendment No. 5. I wish to speak to Amendment No. 3.

Earlier today, the Under-Secretary of State said that he had toiled through the reports of our proceedings in Committee and that it had been like reading "War and Peace" three times over. I should have thought that Tolstoy would have been preferable to the words of the previous Under-Secretary, although often they were about as long as each other.

When the Under-Secretary reached the minutes of our Sixth Sitting, I am sure that he will have read with amazement the various comments made by his predecessor in office, who tried to convince us that the White Paper, which the Prime Minister said so often would be the exact model for this Bill, did not refer just to manufacturing industry. The previous Under-Secretary got himself very much into the mood of Humpty Dumpty who said to Alice, When I use a word, it means what I choose it to mean— neither more nor less". In that important debate, the Under-Secretary failed to adduce any evidence that when the White Paper had been brought forward, it was the Prime Minister's intention and that of the Government that it should embrace banking, insurance, retailing, services, distribution or whatever. Yet that is what the Under-Secretary told us was its intention. Certainly he said that it was within its ambit.

Therefore, the Opposition tabled this amendment seeking specifically to exclude banking and insurance from the companies which the National Enterprise Board could take over or from the activities in which the board could become involved. There is a very good reason for being specific about these two activities.

A Labour Party Conference resolution was passed in October 1971 in which it was urged that: The Labour Party's General Election Manifesto should include proposals to nationalise all banking and insurance companies. Therefore, it is important that the Government's purpose in relation to insurance and banking companies—and I should like to declare an interest here as a director of a bank—should be made explicit tonight.

There are three reasons why the NEB should not become involved in any of these areas. The first is that I accept that large sums of money are needed for capital investment in manufacturing industry and that certain industries in this country, such as the machine tool industry, the heavy engineering industry and the computer industry, have been short of investment funds. If the NEB, regretfully, is to come into being, it is into those areas that its funds should be directed.

I accept, too, that there have been gaps in the areas into which funds have flown in this country over the past decade. For that reason I am delighted to see Finance for Industry in existence now and entering into a large number of loan commitments to help out manufacturing industry.

However, these are all areas with heavy capital investment programmes where money is needed. This simply does not apply to banking or insurance. Their fixed assets are relatively small except in the case of their buildings, but I have never heard anyone say that banks or insurance companies have too few buildings. The opposite is the case.

The second reason is that banking and insurance is essentially a people's business. For the sake of Labour Members I should explain that it is people with a small "p" to whom I am referring, not people with a large "P".

Many people go into banking and insurance today because they believe that if they have intelligence, imagination and enterprise these are areas in which they can prosper. As my hon. Friend the Member for Henley said earlier, the article by Graham Turner points out how frustrated management in many nationalised industries feel today. I do not want the managements in our banks and insurance companies, which among other things are main providers of invisible earnings in this country, trammelled by the same sort of restrictions from which the managements of nationalised industries suffer.

The third reason, and perhaps the most valid reason of all, is that the banks and insurance companies are primarily concerned with other people's money. Their business is to invest that money. The last thing I want to see is a direction from the Government to a bank or insurance company in which they have, perhaps, a 25 per cent. or a 30 per cent. stake, that the funds deposited with that bank are to be channelled into some enterprise which appeals to the National Enterprise Board. This sort of development has occurred in other countries.

Some months ago the previous Secretary of State for Industry implied that he would like to see funds that were deposited with banks and insurance companies directed under his aegis or the aegis of the NEB into its pet projects. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Labour Members say, "Hear, hear". It is precisely because that would be most damaging for the funds invested with banks and insurance companies that I should like to see this amendment adopted.

Mr. Madden

The hon. Gentleman is almost bringing tears to my eyes, and I am sure that those victims of the collapse of the Nation Life Insurance Company would reflect with some bitterness on his comments about the effective and successful nature of private enterprise in that sector. Would the hon. Gentleman comment on the failings of private enterprise, insurance and the propriety of those firms asking the Government to set in train rescue operations?

Mr. Renton

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has raised the example of Nation Life because he is making my next point for me. If he has studied the affairs of Nation Life at all he will know that the number of people with policies in Nation Life—that is, not the regular endowment policies but the income policies—who suffered through that collapse which I deeply regret, as does the hon. Gentleman, is numbered in a few hundred only. I submit to him—

Mr. Madden


Mr. Renton

Yes, that is absolutely true. I submit that because there are a few hundred unfortunate individuals involved who were probably tempted into buying these policies because they offered a good deal, that is not a reason for the Government to take over the insurance industry as such. This will, perhaps, happen through the Policyholders Protection Bill. I am glad to see that that Bill has already been emasculated in another place. I sincerely hope that the Government will have second thoughts about it and throw it out altogether. However, it exists, and the threat of Government interference and the reality of Government intervention through the statutory compensation fund that they are creating is very plain.

The late Secretary of State for Industry injected new funds into Giro and wrote off a loss of £28 million at the same time as he said that he wished Giro to compete with the clearing banks for funds. Therefore, in both the banking and the insurance area there is already a clear potential determination by this interventionist Government to move in under the aegis of the NEB.

It is interesting that Sir Don Ryder, at a Press conference yesterday, reported in the Financial Times, emphasised that he had no ambitions to take over a bank or any other City institution. I am delighted to hear it. I ask the Government tonight to make their intention crystal clear and to state that they nave no intention of taking over either a bank or an insurance company by accepting this amendment and thus removing the shadow that has hung over these important institutions for some months.

Mr. J. W. Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr)

I apologise for not being present for the whole of the debate, but I have been in Committee.

I should like to think that Amendment No. 5 would be a pressure point on my hon. Friend the Minister to make a statement on the issue of industrial democracy. As one who spends every Wednesday morning pushing the Industrial Democracy Bill through the House in addition to other commitments, I shall be pleased when the Government either take it over or bring forward their own measure.

I do not think that the Industry Bill is the right place for this measure. In this House last night two meetings took place between hon. Members, shop stewards of NVT at Wolverhampton and Small Health, and shop stewards of the Meriden co-operative. I was present at the meeting with the NVT shop stewards. They told us of the accusation by consultants, who had been appointed by the Govenment to examine the industry, that the shop stewards were not toeing the line. They were asked whether they wanted to run a co-operative. The stewards did not answer in the affirmative. I may be doing them an injustice, but I had the impression, which was shared by others, that they were not prepared to pay the price that has to be paid in 1975 to run a cooperative—the price that the people at Meriden have paid.

When it was stated that the Meriden people were on a five-day working week, were receiving £50 each, and had orders for two years, it appeared to be resented by the other half of the company. The situation would be even more complex under this amendment if the NEB were allowed to impose, put forward or push along this idea.

If the Government do not introduce an industrial democracy measure there will be trouble on the Labour benches and there will be a complete blockage by the trade unions of any form of technical innovation or advance in manufacturing technology.

The price will be so heavy that the Government will have to pay it by bringing forward legislation. Although the Employment Protection Bill will not cover this point in detail, it will cover much of the amendment. Bearing in mind what I heard last night from the shop stewards who had been threatened with a co-operative, I shall think twice before going into the Lobby to support the amendment.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Nelson

I share the view of the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) that the amendments are incompatible. There is a basic point of contention in this House which is rather more than an ideological difference and which devolves on the question of risk and risk capital. It is particularly relevant to Amendment No. 3, which was so eloquently spoken to by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton). As a primary responsibility we should ensure that the utilisation and management of capital are directly related to the risk factor of those who make the capital available. I appreciate that this is a difficult argument for Government supporters to accept, and I also appreciate that in putting it forward one is often regarded as doing so with little regard to the rights of so-called democracy within industry or the movement towards more worker control in industry.

When one is talking about a possible intervention by the State into areas like banking and insurance, and when ideas of worker co-operatives are being proposed, it is worth reiterating that it is the risk element which is the essential criterion for the success of an enterprise. To separate the management of capital and those who benefit from the utilisation of those resources entirely from those who make the money available is to do the latter group a disservice and lessen the chance of further moneys being made available.

That is why I regret the possibility that the use of funds by the NEB may go into areas of banking and insurance. I must immediately declare an interest, as an employee of a bank. The rationale behind the intervention in profitable areas of industry, as set out in Committee by the previous Under-Secretary of State, is to fulfil two purposes—one to ensure greater possibilities of employment and the other to identify areas of spare capacity or under-utilisation of capital. Those two purposes hardly apply to the banking or insurance sectors of industry.

The success of the banking and insurance industry has been mentioned, but it is worth saying that the extent to which a number of major companies tend to dominate the commercial banking field is a reflection of the high regard and trust that depositors put in those banks. The banks would not be large unless they had the support and the deposits of individuals, companies, pension funds and a wide variety of institutions. They are, therefore, essentially different from the example given of the food manufacturing industry. I also believe that other sections of industry will perform better if the financial sector—both insurance and banking—remains independent of them.

I regret the woolliness of the Liberal amendment, but I support it because it is a restriction on the potential powers of the NEB. I regret it to the extent that it seems to leave open the explanation of its third objective of assistance to improve international competitiveness by empowering the board to provide assistance which shows an agreed rate of return for existing or proposed profitable enterprises. It is easy to make such a bland statement without indicating how such an agreed rate of return will be achieved. It is easy to say that one shall have an agreed rate, but how does one set about achieving it, what are the criteria of success, and what happens if one does not achieve them?

Secondly, it has proved not possible to identify early enough those industries which will fall on hard times. That is exemplified by the number of major industries which have come to successive Governments asking for Government funds. The identification of enterprises in difficulty is far less easy than is suggested by the bland statements contained in the amendment. Nevertheless, as a further restriction of the wide, undefined and discretionary powers accorded to the NEB in the amended Bill, the Liberal amendment is one which I would wish to consider supporting.

May I finally comment briefly on the proposal for worker participation? it again exemplifies the point about the responsibility for risk capital. The essential point about the worker co-operative, as I tried to bring out in Committee, is that one is separating the risk factor in capital employed from those who have the control of the resources and, indeed, the utilisation of profits and, as I suggested in my intervention earlier, there is the possibility of erosion of the capital value of the moneys being put forward where the company's asset has a fixed life. It is as important to maintain the relationship between risk and reward and it is one which worker co-operatives, certainly as they are set out in the amendment, go a little way to achieve.

It is not adequately stated how a code of practice will ensure that workers in a particular industry will declare that they consider that they should not go on employing themselves any longer, unless it is envisaged that under such a code the NEB will have some form of supervision which will always operate. If that is so, the effective power of the worker co-operative would be fettered to a large extent.

Dr. Bray

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that even at present the risk is by no means borne only by the provider of capital? Is not the real risk borne by the workers? In the drafting of this amendment and the other amendment in Committee I showed how, even in a risky business such as ICI, under the rules I put forward it would be perfectly possible for workers to bear the total risk that the company has borne over the past 10 years. As for the mining company, or the extractive industry, the depreciation methods I put forward in Committee would have fully refunded the capital invested in the initial sinking of a mine shaft and the initial development of a mine. The hon. Gentleman has not thought through clearly the respective rôles of capital, labour and risk bearing. Risk bearing is by no means identified with the provision of capital.

Mr. Nelson

I hope to meet that intervention head on because I have given the matter careful consideration. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view, but he is wrong. The risk element is entirely missing from the sort of relationship included in the amendment. There are situations in which the employees must bear the full brunt of a company which is not profitable and cannot continue operating, just as the shareholders have to do. That is exactly the point raised in relation to the Nation Life situation.

The Government have an important responsibility to ensure that when depositing their funds with an institution people retain an individual responsibility to do so with one which will utilise those funds responsibly. In investing those funds they balance the risk factor against the security factor. In seeking and maintaining employment a person does so with an industry that has a reasonable opportunity of maintaining that employment and he will hopefully work to generate that continued prospect.

Once one takes away this opportunity from the individual—as an employee, investor or depositor in a bank—once one takes away the risk element, one reduces the responsible attitude that the individual has towards the utilisation of his funds and his employment. Whilst I do not accept that the philosophy should be entirely weighted towards shareholders' interests, I do not believe in going to the other extreme, as the amendment seeks to do.

Mr. Ron Thomas (Bristol North-West)

I support Amendment No. 5, but before speaking to it I wish to make some comments on the whole question of banking and finance. I should be happy if we were fighting a real battle over the National Enterprise Board, really becoming involved in the banking and insurance world, which I believe has completely failed the nation.

We have only to look back over the past few years, to the property and land speculation boom, to see what is behind that belief. While British industry was starved of capital investment, the banks and insurance companies were falling over themselves to lend money for property and land speculation. On the basis of the appreciation of those capital assets, they were lending more and more money —even money to pay the interest on the money already lent. Then a number of those bubbles were pricked. When the property market went into a decline, the banks and insurance companies provided what can only be described as speculative funds in the commodity markets, leading to speculation in international commodity markets.

In many of our industrial competitor countries, the banks serve a far more useful productive purpose in relation to industrial enterprises than they have ever done in the United Kingdom or are ever likely to do with the present set-up.

Mr. Tim Renton

Before the hon. Gentleman continues with his wild catalogue of accusations, would he care to name one major investment project in industry that was brought to the banks in the years that he mentions, and that had a chance of a viable return on capital, that did not find funds from the banks? If he cannot, he should not make such wild allegations.

Mr. Thomas

The hon. Gentleman added a qualification with the reference to viable projects. What the banks consider a viable project and what industry and working people consider to be a viable project are poles apart.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell me why German banks make a considerable contribution to the finance of German industry? Is he suggesting that British entrepreneurs in industry do no have viable projects that they can take to the banks? If so, there is only one answer, which is that we shall have to have a more rapid extension of public ownership. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that British banks, not just under a Labour Government but under a Tory Government, and indeed a Liberal Government, have failed to respond to the needs of British industry. They prefer to put their money into short-term speculation internally or internationally when they can.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Tom King

The hon. Gentleman compared German and British banks and German and British companies. I do not know whether he was present when the Chancellor discussed in the House earlier the physical impossibility of a British company making a projection of the return on investment at the current rate of inflation. I had evidence this morning of competing British and German companies which both had an opportunity to invest in a new project. The British company cannot go ahead, because it is competing against a German company which is in a country with a 6 per cent. inflation rate, and which can make an accurate forecast of the potential profit from the project. Therefore, the British company has regretfully had to decline the investment because there is no way in which it can project what the return on the investment will be.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Thomas

I remind the hon. Gentleman that immediately after the election of the Tory Government in 1970 companies were given massive funds by tax hand-outs. We did not then have the level of inflation that we have now, but still they refused to invest, using arguments similar to those that they are using now. But I do not see the connection between what the hon. Gentleman said and the rôle of the banks in the present situation. Plenty of companies are making judgments and are going forward with investments in the year to come. It is a great pity that there are not many more.

It was suggested that banks are people's businesses. That is exactly what we should like them to be. We should like them to be owned by the people, because to some extent the banks and insurance companies are collecting the money from the ordinary people. Certainly that is true of the pension funds. I am rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not realise that the average worker who contributes to those funds has no control over them. Many trade unions, such as my own—ASTMS—are trying to bring about that situation, in which the workers who create the pension funds have some control, even if limited, over them. Private companies are adamantly refusing to allow that.

Quickly to sum up on the banking and insurance question, there was talk of profitability. Many Members on the Labour benches are fed up with our taking into public ownership only non-profitable industries which have been raped and exploited by private interests over decades. When they can no longer make a profit but are still needed to keep private industry going, the community is expected to look after them. We are told time and time again that because an industry is profitable we must not touch it. Many of us want to see the philosophy changed, and changed quickly.

Sir Raymond Gower

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are many Members on the Conservative benches who feel that nationalisation has been a one-way movement for far too long, that the public sector has become too big, and that it is time we stopped this kind of thing?

Mr. Thomas

The bulk of the industries that have been taken into public ownership, if not all, were industries in which private enterprise had failed miserably. They were essential industries, in order to keep the private sector going. If they had collapsed, the private sector would have collapsed with them. Apart from that, private industry has teen receiving massive handouts from the Chancellor of the Exchequer over the past few years.

I now turn to Amendment No. 5, which makes it clear that the workers will decide whether they want a co-operative. They will not be forced into this. It would be a contradiction in terms to force a co-operative on to a group of workers who did not want it. The first lines of the amendment are rather significant. They read: In any undertaking owned by the Board, the Board shall consult the employees as to the form of management they wish to see implemented. That may take many different forms. It is an important matter that when the NEB takes over an undertaking, it will discuss the whole management structure and the kind of management structure that workers in that particular firm or part of an industry would like to see implemented. The amendment makes it quite clear, as my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise) pointed out, that there would be a ballot and that the workers would decide whether they wished to have a cooperative.

The code of practice has been mentioned. When we are dealing with people's lives in industry, it is all right to have codes of practice and to get rid of the legislation and put codes of practice in its place, as was done recently in legislation relating to health and safety at work. Therefore, I see no difficulty about having a code of practice approved by the Secretary of State.

But the essential point is that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West—that we should take this opportunity to have some experimentation in terms of worker control and worker democracy and industrial democracy. As has been rightly said, our manifesto made it quite clear that we will introduce new legislation to help forward our plans for a radical extension of industrial democracy in both the private and public sectors. The workers in industry are calling out for radical changes of this kind. If we intend to harness the energies, skills and experience of working people, then this amendment can make a considerable contribution towards that end because we can have an experimentation in terms of what is required, and I believe that all concerned will learn a great deal from it.

Mr. Fairbairn

As you will appreciate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, one of the differences between the law of Scotland and the law of England is that the law of England is essentially based upon fictions. One of the phenomena of Socialism is that it is also based, to an even greater extent than the law of England—for which Socialists have such disrespect—on fictions.

There is no greater fiction than that which is sought to be placed in this Bill—the concept of extending public ownership. "Public ownership" sounds as if it means that what did not previously belong to the public becomes the property of the public. However, to extend public ownership means taking what belongs to the public and ensuring that it is never owned by any member of the public again.

The second thing that "public ownership" means is that if there is one certainty it is that those who are employed in industry, be it in the public sector or the private sector will have increasingly little say in their own affairs if their industry is taken into what is called public ownership. It is based upon the absurd fiction that if one turns industrialists into bureaucrats they become better industrialists, or, alternatively, that if one turns bureaucrats into industrialists, they become efficient industrialists. I believe both of these to be further fictions.

One of the difficulties in our society is that it is the policy of Labour Members that the number of drones in the hive should be increased and the number who are productive workers should be decreased. Those on the Opposition side of the House take the view that the drones—the workers normally do this in beehives—should be extinguished by the workers and by those who are productive and produce the honey.

One of the next fictions of Socialism is that economic rules are suspended for the extension of public ownership. Unfortunately, however, as the Government are finding out, that is not so. They are finding that money is not something which private people have to make work when Governments can just get it out of a box and throw it about as they like. They are discovering that the same economic rules eventually apply to this, however much they may he committed to the concept that the State is preferable to, superior to and more efficient than individuals.

I was very interested in the subject of Nation Life, which was mentioned a few minutes ago. It was said "What about the very unfortunate people who have invested their money in Nation Life and have lost it?" Let us take that analogy. If one extends public ownership without permission and consent, and without anything else, one has to be a compulsory tax investor in the company, this nationalised, publicly-owned thing. One has no say over it. One is not allowed to limit one's investment or to say when one should stop investing. One makes continuous losses without complaint.

It has been shown again and again that the ordinary affairs of human beings in commerce, whether undertaken by Governments or not, are run infinitely worse or infinitely more painfully if they are taken into what is called public ownership which merely means the extension of bureaucracy into matters in which bureaucrats should have no concern. That has been the principal burden on the nation. I trust that the House and the country will for ever realise that the words "public ownership" do not mean public ownership at all. What they mean is State control, non-ownership and no possibility of any member of the public having anything to do with the enterprise which is so affected.

Mrs. Wise

As the hon. and learned Gentleman is so concerned about the poor taxpayer, will he say why his party denationalised only profitable sections of nationalised industries and left the taxpayers to bear losses in other sectors?

Mr. Fairbairn

That is a strange generalisation. However, although it is said that hitherto only non-profit-making sections of industry have been nationalised, it is not because the Socialists happened to say "Let us pick up all the nonprofit-making sections." They just said "Steel, electricity, coal, aircraft or shipbuilding"—as took their power interest.

Towever, the point is that no industry that has been taken into public ownership has become more profitable and no industry would be more profitable if it were nationalised. If anyone can find an exception to that rule I would be most surprised. I do not believe that there is an exception I totally support the amendment to prevent any extension of bureaucracy and Government interference in commerce and industry, upon which even Labour Members who are so interested in jobs and employment may rely.

Mr. Kaufman

Listening to Opposition Members makes me quite clear why I am a Socialist. When I hear what they have to say I reflect upon the fact that my constituents would not believe that they existed if they saw them. My constituents would believe that they were characters in a fictional television play, talking about banking being a people's business and various other strange remarks totally irrelevant to the lives of ordinary people.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) has not seen fit to be present for this debate. He made a shoddy and tendentious speech introducing amendments, refused to give way when I sought to correct him and now is not present to hear my reply to him Nevertheless, I shall make my reply to him because it is necessary to put right among other things, his deliberately misleading statements about the Government's intention on the nationalisation of aircraft and shipbuilding.

8.30 p.m.

The hon. Member for Henley spoke at some length on this subject, which is why I find it necessary to reply to him on this amendment. He seems to take the view that if he makes a speech and does not give way, if will never be possible to correct him. The hon. Gentleman does not realise that other people have opportunities to speak even if he does not give way to interventions.

He spoke of what he alleged to be the Government's intention not to proceed with that Bill. I wish to make it clear to this House, with the authority of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, that although it is not possible, for reasons which everybody in this House will accept, to get that Bill through in this Session, the Government have decided that they will proceed with the Bill at the very earliest opportunity in the next Session, with a view to Royal Assent and vesting the companies to be nationalised as early as possible in 1976.

That is the position of the Government—that this is a firm commitment of the Government; and I cannot understand why, for the flimsiest of debating reasons, the hon. Member for Henley decided that it was necessary to mislead the House in this absurd and tendentious way.

The hon. Member spoke about the aims of the National Enterprise Board as though he were speaking from a record of dazzling success of private enterprise and talked of the Industry Act as though it were the last word in Government assistance, a last word which would put totally and for ever to right the ills of British industry; and that that being so, nothing whatever needed further to be done. The hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) said that under the National Enterprise Board citizens would be compulsory investors in industry. My hon. Friends and constituents have been compulsory investors in British industry under the Industry Act of the Conservative Government of 1972 to the tune of very large sums of money.

In this Bill we are seeking to ensure a return for our constituents for the money that is invested rather than that the money shall be handed over free, gratis and for nothing, with no return. It is one thing to be a compulsory investor. It is quite another to be a compulsory donor. When the hon. Member for Henley spoke of the Government having reversed their stance, I remind him that it was his Government who first brought out a lame duck policy, under the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies), and followed it with the Industry Act of 1972, which only the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) had the grace to oppose.

Mr. Fairbairn rose

Mr. Kaufman

I usually give way to the hon. Gentleman. I am always extremely interested to listen to him or to read what he has to say, and I was particularly interested in his reflection on the law of Scotland. I recall a remark of his in a Scottish Committee, perhaps one of the most profound ever made, that in Scotland the penalty for bigamy is two mothers-in-law—something I have always recalled as a piece of eternal wisdom.

In view of the remarks about the scope of the National Enterprise Board by hon. Members opposite and my hon. Friends, it would be useful if I were to say a little more about its scope so that there can be no doubt about that. The board will provide a new source of investment capital for industry. It was made clear in the White Paper, "The Regeneration of British Industry", that the board would also have the task of promoting industrial efficiency and profitability by promoting or assisting the organisation or development of an industry. It will be a channel through which the Government will assist sound companies which are in short-term difficulties. I am quoting almost verbatim from the White Paper. Hon. Gentlemen opposite attach a great deal of importance to the White Paper when they feel that we are departing from it. The board will assist much-needed industrial expansion in areas of high unemployment, thus creating jobs where they are most needed, and will have power to start new ventures and participate in joint ventures with companies in the private sector. These objectives are aimed at industry generally, not just manufacturing industry.

The White Paper indicated that a great deal of the board's activities will be concentrated on manufacturing industry and I hope that no one would question the importance of that. But in exercising the former IRC-type rôle of promoting industrial efficiency by promoting or assisting the reorganisation, the board will be free to operate throughout industry, as the IRC did. The only function of the National Enterprise Board specifically limited in scope is that of expanding public ownership into profitable areas of manufacturing industry There is nothing in the Bill which would preclude the board from acquiring an interest in any company apart from the special exception which we are making in the case of companies involved in the media. That applies as long as a company operates within the purposes and functions set out in the Bill.

I thought that it would be useful for the House to have that general statement of our view of the rôle of the NEB before I come to the different amendments which have been grouped together.

First, I turn to the Amendment No. 175 tabled by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright). I take it from the remarks which the hon. Gentleman has made throughout the proceedings on the Bill that this is a well-intentioned attempt to veer the Bill around to the Liberal view of what it should contain, unlike the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), who seemed to want to sink the Bill completely. The hon. Member for Colne Valley sees a positive rôle for the NEB, but by attempting to define closely the functions of the board the hon. Gentleman's amendment runs grave dangers of preventing the board from acting when it needs to do so.

There are examples of activities ruled out by the hon. Gentleman's amendment as drafted which I might mention. They include the promotion of action to remedy regional imbalance in employment opportunities—without going into functions in the Bill which were perhaps deliberately excluded, namely, public ownership. There is a danger of conflict between setting out clearly defined and delimited purposes and ensuring that the board has the necessary flexibility in its powers to enable it to cope with problems which may not have been foreseen when drafting took place. In the Government's view the Bill defines the board's purposes both comprehensively and succinctly. We believe that the more discursive style of the amendment will lead to difficulty. Within the comprehensive functions listed in the Bill, the Government have set out their view of the priorities in the White Paper. Therefore, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that we cannot accept the amendment as it will go very much counter to what we see as the rôle of the NEB.

Mr. Wainwright

Is the hon. Gentleman under a misapprehension? There is nothing which I seek to delete as regards regional opportunities or anything of that kind.

Mr. Kaufman

No, I was not under that misapprehension. I was advisedly saying what I said. When the hon Gentleman has the opportunity to study what I said he will find nothing inconsistent.

I turn to Amendment No. 3, which was moved and supported with such passion. The amendment seeks to exclude those popular and democratic bodies of banking and insurance from the scope of the Bill.

As I have said, it has always been made clear in the White Paper and in what my right hon. and hon. Friends have said in Committee that the main concern of the NEB will be with manufacturing industry. However, its activities should not be confined only to manufacturing. I repeat and endorse that view. I would not expect the NEB to be engaged in commercial banking or the insurance sector, but it might well find its rôle as acting as a source of investment capital to industry usefully discharged through a merchant banking subsidiary. A provision in the Bill such as that would cause difficulties if the NEB acquired basically manufacturing companies with interests in banking and insurance, since the effect of the amendment might mean that the NEB would not be able to continue those interests.

Mr. Nelson rose

Mr. Kaufman

I would be grateful it the hon. Gentleman would allow me to proceed. We have 50 minutes left before the guillotine falls on this group of amendments. It is necessary that I am able to reply to what has been a full debate. Following this group of amendments there is another important amendment with which we have to deal. I would gladly give way, but if I did so I would cut short the time for debate on the next amendment.

Mr. Nelson rose

Mr. Kaufman

Parliament voted for the guillotine and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is in favour of the sovereignty of Parliament.

The IRC was not limited to manufacturing industry. It was performing useful work in non-manufacturing areas when it was wantonly and short-sightedly abolished by the Conservative Government. The NEB is intended to be a flexible instrument as regards industrial development, whose resources shall be readily available to assist in the promotion of a healthy industrial organisation wherever it may be appropriate to do so. The primary focus will be on manufacturing industry, but there is no reason to rule out such activity completely or other obligations, with the exception of the news media which would be acceptable as being a special case. We gave an assurance in Committee and assurances generally are taken seriously.

I wish finally to reply to the argument advanced on Amendment No. 5 in respect of worker co-operatives under the National Enterprise Board. For the reasons which were put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Bar (Mr. Rooker), I do not think it is right to include that amendment in the Bill—not because we are not following the principle of commitment to workers' co-operatives but for reasons which I shall point out a little later.

My hon. Friends will be aware of the provision set out in Labour's programme for 1973. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) had this document in his collection of Labour Party programmes at the Department. That programme indicated our commitment to set up a co-operative development agency. This is one of the Govern- ment's policies and I assure my hon. Friends that the Government are actively considering this proposal to establish such an agency as included in Labour's programme and our manifesto.

Mr. Heffer

Does not the Minister agree that by accepting this amendment which establishes the co-operative development agency, the whole process can be integrated and that there is no contradiction between the two?

Mr. Kaufman

I very much appreciate my hon. Friend's argument, but one of the most important activities in the encouragement of worker co-operatives—a process to which the Government are committed—is that these bodies should be given the best possible chance of success. We believe that it would be harmful to the whole project of these co-operatives if they are not given the best possible chance. We must make sure that those co-operatives have the best wind behind them. There is a considerable prospect that if the amendment were incorporated in the Bill, they would go forward more sporadically than would be helpful to the situation. I appreciate that this involves a difference of opinion.

Mr. Ron Thomas

The Bill contains words to the effect that we should promote industrial democracy. Is it my hon. Friend's suggestion that we must stop short of the amendment?

Mr. Kaufman

My hon. Friend places me in a dilemma. I am aware of what the Bill says about the promotion of industrial democracy. I am very much in favour of experiments in workers' co-operatives and I hope that they will prove successful and will expand, but I do not think the Bill, with its enormous potential for rejuvenating British industry, is an appropriate vehicle to carry out as an offshoot experiments on workers' co-operatives, for reasons which I shall attempt to give a little later.

There is nothing in the Bill to prevent the NEB from providing finance to a potentially viable worker's co-operative or from organising part of its operations on a co-operative basis. But there would be considerable risks in putting on the board an obligation to promote specific experimental forms of industrial organisation.

8.45 p.m.

To encourage all of the NEB's holdings to turn themselves into workers' co-operatives would, apart from anything else, reduce the NEB's ability to carry out its other functions. It is one of the objects of the NEB to ensure that the power it acquires from the ownership of important parts of industry is used for the good of the economy as a whole, for example as a means through which it can create jobs in areas where they are most needed.

If the NEB's undertakings are turned into co-operatives the NEB will lack the base from which to carry out its employment promoting functions. As I have told my hon. Friends, the promotion of cooperatives is a matter to which the Government are giving serious thought, but I do not believe that it should be added to the NEB's rôle in a way which would divert the NEB's attention and impede it in carrying out its other vital rôles. The board has already been given the function of promoting industrial democracy in undertaking its control, and this function will be exercised in the context of the Government's proposals for far-reaching extension of industrial democracy throughout industry.

Dr. Bray

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that workers' co-operatives have been the most effective body for maintaining and protecting employment, and that this is by no means incompatible with the other objectives of the NEB? Can he say whether the Co-operative Development Agency, as envisaged in the manifesto, would have a rôle in producer cooperatives, because that is not clear in the manifesto? Will it have any power over NEB undertakings?

Mr. Kaufman

It would be wrong to go into too much detail at this stage about the Co-operative Development Agency, because it is a matter that we are considering. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to pages 35 and 36 of Labour's Programme 1973 where he will see the very wide scope that is proposed for the Co-operative Development Agency.

I am sorry not to be as forthcoming as my hon. Friend would wish, but I totally accept what has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the unsatisfactory nature of industrial democracy in the present nationalised in- dustries. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in one of his public speeches when he was in Opposition, spoke about the need to socialise the nationalised industries. I believe that that is a major task of both the Government, through the nationalised boards, and the NEB when it comes into being and starts carrying out its functions.

Nevertheless, I do not believe that this amendment in its present form is the right way of pursuing the objectives that we all share. Therefore, I fear that I cannot accept it.

However, I must tell the Opposition—if I have not made it clear already—that I certainly cannot accept the amendment which they have put forward. If any group of hon. Members in the House has cause to hide its head in shame for the way in which it has failed British industry, it is the Conservative Party. For the Conservatives to come forward now and try to hobble the most hopeful, potential development in British industry is totally destructive.

Mr. Tom King

I find myself in some difficulty in rising to my feet after the last sentences of the Minister's speech, which really takes one's breath away, especially in view of the comments which he made earlier, about the Government's handling of two vital industries, namely the aircraft and shipbuilding industries. If the Minister shares any collective responsibility for the present situation he is the one whose head should be more than hidden at present.

Instead of sneering at other people's views, as the Minister chose to do at the beginning of his speech, I should like to start by agreeing with the hon. Gentleman that the Opposition think that it would be wrong to accept the amendment of the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Dr. Bray) concerning industrial co-operatives.

We fully understand the frustrations that exist on both sides of the House about the mess that the House is in over what is happening in terms of industrial democracy. Hon. Members have gone through the charade in Committee every Wednesday and they will have to continue to do so until 11th July, which I believe is the crucial date after which the Bill will be unable to proceed. Those hon. Members are understandably equally frustrated.

The Employment Protection Bill and this Bill refer to industrial democracy without giving any definition. The Welsh Development Agency Bill and the Scottish Development Agency Bill also refer to promoting industrial democracy, and nobody yet knows what that is.

In our discussions the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw made a number of points which merit consideration. The amendment would have wide implications. The principle could be extended to private industry. Rights in industry are not solely confined to employees. An increasing number of hon. Members on both sides of the House are anxious that the rights of employees should be recognised, but they are not the sole rights about which we should be concerned. Shareholders also have rights. Many people, by the convoluted system of pensions funds and other activities, may be affected. For example, trade union pension funds could represent part of the ownership of a company. It would be wrong for these to be expropriated by a move towards workers' co-operatives. There might be implications for inward investment into this country if there were some facility for expropriation by workers' co-operatives.

The Minister, with some feeling, said that worker's co-operatives should be given the best possible chance. Having inherited the problems of the Scottish Daily News and Meriden, we can understand why the hon. Gentleman said that.

The Opposition are not opposed to workers' co-operatives. They represent an experiment and development which is well worth encouraging. But we are not in favour of workers' co-operatives, born out of illegality or out of expropriation of other people's assets or funds. Therefore, we cannot support Amendment No. 5.

The Minister said that it was possible that the NEB might inherit a merchant bank or other activity. One problem under the guillotine procedure is that we shall not reach an important amendment on fair competition between the public and private sectors and the need for an appeal or arbitration procedure. I hope that this point will be seriously considered by the Government. The guillotine will kill discussion on that matter. The disaster that we face with this important Bill is that we shall not have adequate time to discuss that crucial matter. I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to this matter in another place. It is particularly important that there should be fair competition between banks operating on public money and banks operating on depositors' funds.

Our main amendment relates to the extension of public ownership. I do not think that the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) understood that our objection was not that some share of profitable companies might be acquired in furtherance of certain other aims, but that a specific function of the NEB is the extension of public ownership for its own sake. There is a clear difference of view between both sides of the House on that matter.

The evidence is clear that the nationalised industries have not tended to be efficient, profitable or valuable to the community. Many hon. Members have asked why the public should not have a stake or involvement in profitable businesses. The clear evidence is that the Government, the public and the Treasury have done far better out of companies net directly controlled by the Government in terms of tax revenue than out of any Government-controlled industry.

We are opposed to monopoly. The non Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise) said that the food industry was in too few hands. That seems utterly farcical, because her suggestion is that it should be put into even fewer hands and go into a monopoly situation. That is what we resent. The board threatens to extend the monopoly powers existing in so many nationalised industries.

The Prime Minister has said that he wishes to establish a clear frontier between the public and private sectors. How will he maintain that frontier if the board is to be allowed, with very little restraint, to buy into profitable manufacturing industry? Any pretence that there is to be a frontier is palpably false.

The Under-Secretary talked about the Bill to nationalise the aircraft and shipbuilding industries as if it were a minor detail. The fact that it is not going through in this Session of Parliament and will have to be held over to the next means that uncertainty will be further prolonged, and that is utterly outrageous. Perhaps the Under-Secretary has been too busy reading the reports of the Standing Committee, or perhaps this matter is not his direct responsibility, but at the moment the situation in these industries is quite clear. If the Secretary of State has spoken to the aircraft companies he will know the problems they are facing in maintaining the confidence of export customers and their problems over performance guarantees for export contracts. The delay is causing damage to this industry and to the shipbuilding industry, which faces an extremely difficult worldwide situation. Are we to understand that the terms of compensation have been altered? Are the safeguard provisions still in force?

The blanket of indecision, delay and uncertainty will seriously affect these industries. The Bill is being delayed until the next Session of Parliament and, with our present economic problems, God knows what the Government programme will he by then.

Are we to have further delay and indecisions? The Government should have announced today that they would proceed and get the Bill through in this Session, or they should have removed uncertainty by announcing they would drop the proposals altogether. The damage done to these industries and to the employment of the people who work in them will be the sole responsibility of the Government, because of the mess they have made. It is a further example of the damage they have done to confidence in industry. Amendment No. 4 is an attempt to rebuild that confidence, and we shall certainly press it to a Division.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Richard Wainwright

This kaleidoscopic debate demonstrates again how ill-adapted are the procedures of this House in the situation in which we have all had to live for the last 15 months—with many parties on the Opposition side and several groups on the Government side of the House.

The worst evil of a procedure which fails to take account of a great variety of views on a massive Bill like this is that it makes it so easy for Ministers to appear to get away with it. The Under-Secretary was able to pass over the most serious contributions to the debate in the most superficial way because he was in the difficult position of replying to such a variety of contributions, ranging to and fro between the Liberal proposals, the amendment of the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Dr. Bray) and the Conservative proposals.

I shall be very brief, because these proceedings are under a guillotine. I shall recommend my hon. Friends to vote for the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Dr. Bray) if, as I hope, we are given the opportunity to do so. I shall also recommend them to vote for the Conservative amendment, not because I particularly support its concentration on these lines but because I would like to see the whole of subsection (2) removed.

On the Liberal amendment, I want to make clear what was manifestly not clear to the Under-Secretary. No part of it even hints at seeking to remove subsection (1), which deals splendidly with the need to promote employment in certain parts of the kingdom. It seeks to lay on the board separate and quite distinct responsibilities, for which it will have to report separately. I am disappointed that the Under-Secretary, for all his ingenious and diverting asides, never confronted the central point of the argument, that it is not good enough for a massive corporation of this kind to have such woolly functions that it can never be brought to book, and that it should always be able to say that it has somehow furthered industrial democracy and promoted the reorganisation or development of certain industries. It is necessary that there should be very much clearer criteria by which to judge the NEB.

In a sense, the Under-Secretary gave me my case when he read to the House great chunks of the White Paper in order to leave us in no doubt about the scope of the board. That, he said, was what the clause is supposed to achieve. By finding it necessary to treat the House to an entirely different version of the board's functions, he has admitted that the wording in the clause is ineffectual.

I am tar from claiming that the wording in our amendment is perfect. However, can the Government not see that a group of hon. Members who have welcomed the purposes of the board and have gone a long way to overlook some of its lesser flaws, as we see them, feel entitled to a hearing for a point of view which seeks to show how the board could become more acceptable to a wider spectrum of British opinion?

The amendment in no sense tries to wreck the board. We say that in view of the appalling failures of the past, under Governments of both parties, we need a fresh approach, borrowing the experience of other countries which have made a

greater success of State enterprises. Let us, above all, be able to tell the public that this gigantic corporation can be judged by clear criteria, out of which it will not be able to wriggle. I am sorry that, contrary to his usual practice, the Under-Secretary did not try to meet our argument but slithered away, aided by the extraordinary procedure which afflicts this House. My hon. Friends and I will seek to divide the House on our amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 208, Noes 223.

Division No. 252.] AYES [9.04 p.m.
Aitken, Jonathan Goodhart, Philip Madel, David
Alison, Michael Goodlad, Alastair Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne) Gorst, John Marten, Neil
Bain, Mrs Margaret Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry) Mates, Michael
Baker, Kenneth Gray, Hamish Mather, Carol
Banks, Robert Grimond, Rt Hon J. Mawby, Ray
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham,) Grist, Ian Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Benyon, W. Grylls, Michael Mayhew, Patrick
Berry, Hon Anthony Hall, Sir John Meyer, Sir Anthony
Biffen, John Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Boscawen, Hon Robert Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Mills, Peter
Bottomley, Peter Hampson, Dr Keith Miscampbell, Norman
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown) Hannam, John Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent) Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss Moate, Roger
Braine, Sir Bernard Hastings, Stephen Molyneaux, James
Brotherton, Michael Havers, Sir Michael Monro, Hector
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Hawkins, Paul Montgomery, Fergus
Bryan, Sir Paul Hayhoe, Barney Moore, John (Croydon C)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick Henderson, Douglas Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Buck, Antony Heseltine, Michael Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Budgen, Nick Hicks, Robert Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Bulmer, Esmond Holland, Philip Mudd, David
Butler, Adam (Bosworth) Hordern, Peter Neave, Airey
Carlisle, Mark Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Nelson, Anthony
Chalker, Mrs Lynda Howell, David (Guildford) Neubert, Michael
Churchill, W. S. Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk) Newton, Tony
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Howells, Geraint (Cardigan) Nott, John
Clegg, Walter Hutchison, Michael Clark Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Cockcroft, John Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Parkinson, Cecil
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W) James, David Pattie, Geoffrey
Cope, John Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd) Penhaligon, David
Crawford, Douglas Jessel, Toby Percival, Ian
Crouch, David Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Pink, R. Bonner
Crowder, F. P. Jopling, Michael Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford) Kaberry, Sir Donald Prior, Rt Hon James
Dean, Paul (N Somerset) Kershaw, Anthony Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Dodsworth, Geoffrey Kilfedder, James Rathbone, Tim
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James King, Evelyn (South Dorset) Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Drayson, Burnaby King, Tom (Bridgwater) Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)
Durant, Tony Kirk, Peter Reid, George
Dykes, Hugh Kitson, Sir Timothy Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) Knight, Mrs Jill Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Elliott, Sir William Knox, David Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Fairbairn, Nicholas Lamont, Norman Ridsdale, Julian
Fairgrieve, Russell Lane, David Rifkind, Malcolm
Farr, John Langford-Holt, Sir John Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Finsberg, Geoffrey Lawson, Nigel Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Fisher, Sir Nigel Le Marchant, Spencer Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N) Lester, Jim (Beeston) Ross, William (Londonderry)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Luce, Richard Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Fookes, Miss Janet MacCormick, Iain Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd) McCrindle, Robert Sainsbury, Tim
Fox, Marcus McCusker, H. Scott, Nicholas
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St) Macfarlane, Neil Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde) MacGregor, John Shelton, William (Streatham)
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife) McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Shepherd, Colin Steel, David (Roxburgh) Viggers, Peter
Shersby, Michael Steen, Anthony (Wavertree) Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Silvester, Fred Stewart, Ian (Hitchin) Wakeham, John
Sims, Roger Stradling Thomas, J. Walker, Rt Hon p. (Worcester)
Sinclair, Sir George Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart) Weatherill, Bernard
Skeet, T. H. H. Tebbit, Norman Welsh, Andrew
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale) Temple-Morris, Peter Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Smith, Dudley (Warwick) Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Speed, Keith Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S) Winterton, Nicholas
Spence, John Thompson, George Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester) Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon) Younger, Hon George
Sproat, Iain Trotter, Neville
Stainton, Keith Tugendhat, Christopher TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Stanbrook, Ivor van Straubenzee, W. R. Mr. John Pardoe and
Stanley, John Vaughan, Dr Gerard Mr. A. J. Beith.
Allaun, Frank Evans, loan (Aberdare) Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Anderson, Donald Evans, John (Newton) Marquand, David
Archer, Peter Ewing, Harry (Stirling) Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Armstrong, Ernest Fernyhough, Rt Hon E. Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Ashton, Joe Fitch, Alan (Wigan) Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Atkins, Ronald (Preston N) Flannery, Martin Maynard, Miss Joan
Atkinson, Norman Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Foot, Rt Hon Michael Mikardo, Ian
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin) Millan, Bruce
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood) Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd) Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Bates, Alf Garrett, John (Norwich S) Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Bean, R. E. Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend) Molloy, William
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) George, Bruce Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Bishop, E. S. Gilbert, Dr John Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Blenkinsop, Arthur Golding, John Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Boardman, H. Gourlay, Harry Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Booth, Albert Graham, Ted Newens, Stanley
Boothroyd, Miss Betty Grant, George (Morpeth) Noble, Mike
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur Grant, John (Islington C) Oakes, Gordon
Boyden, James (Bish Auck) Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife) Ogden, Eric
Bray, Dr Jeremy Hardy, Peter O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) Harper, Joseph Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W) Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Ovenden, John
Buchan, Norman Hart, Rt Hon Judith Owen, Dr David
Buchanan, Richard Hatton, Frank Palmer, Arthur
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE) Hayman, Mrs Helene Park, George
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P) Heffer, Eric S. Parker, John
Campbell, Ian Hooley, Frank Pavitt, Laurie
Canavan, Dennis Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H) Phipps, Dr Colin
Carmichael, Neil Hoyle, Doug (Nelson) Prescott, John
Carter-Jones, Lewis Huckfield, Les Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Clemitson, Ivor Hughes, Mark (Durham) Price, William (Rugby)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S) Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) Richardson, Miss Jo
Cohen, Stanley Hughes, Roy (Newport) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Coleman, Donald Hunter, Adam Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Conlan, Bernard Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill) Roderick, Caerwyn
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C) Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford) Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Corbett, Robin Jay, Rt Hon Douglas Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting) Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford) Rooker, J. W.
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill) John, Brynmor Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Crawshaw, Richard Jones, Alec (Rhondda) Rowlands, Ted
Cronin, John Jones, Barry (East Flint) Ryman, John
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony Jones, Dan (Burnley) Sandelson, Neville
Cryer, Bob Kaufman, Gerald Sedgemore, Brian
Cunningham, G. (Islington S) Kerr, Russell Selby, Harry
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh) Kilroy-Silk, Robert Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Dalyell, Tam Kinnock, Neil Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Davidson, Arthur Lambie, David Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N) Lamborn, Harry Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli) Lamond, James Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C) Leadbitter, Ted Sillars, James
Deakins, Eric Lee, John Silverman, Julius
Dean, Joseph (Leeds W) Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Skinner, Dennis
da Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Lipton, Marcus Small, William
Dempsey, James Litterick, Tom Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Doig, Peter Lomas, Kenneth Spearing, Nigel
Dormand, J. D. Loyden, Eddie Spriggs, Leslie
Duffy, A. E. P. Lyon, Alexander (York) Stallard, A. W.
Dunn, James A. Lyons, Edward (Bradford W) Stoddart, David
Dunnett, Jack McCartney, Hugh Stott, Roger
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth McElhone, Frank Strang, Gavin
Edelman, Maurice MacFarquhar, Roderick Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Edge, Geoff McGuire, Michael (Ince) Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun) Mackenzie, Gregor Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham) McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C) Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
English, Michael Madden, Max Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Thorns, Stan (Preston South) Watkinson, John Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
Tinn, James Weitzman, David Wise, Mrs Audrey
Tomlinson, John White, Frank B. (Bury) Woodall, Alec
Torney, Tom Whitlock, William Woof, Robert
Urwin, T. W. Williams, Alan (Swansea W) Young, David (Bolton E)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G. Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V) Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford) TELLERS FOR THE NOES
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd) Williams, W. T. (Warrington) Miss Margaret Jackson and
Walker, Harold (Doncaster) Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton) Mr, James Hamilton.
Ward, Michael Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 4 in page 2, leave out lines 32 and 33.—[Mr. Heseltine.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 199 Noes 223.

Division No. 253.] AYES 19.16 p.m.
Aitken, Jonathan Hall, Sir John Mudd, David
Alison, Michael Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Neave, Alrey
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne) Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Nelson, Anthony
Awdry, Daniel Hampson, Dr Keith Neubert, Michael
Baker, Kenneth Hannam, John Newton, Tony
Banks Robert Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss Nott, John
Beith, A. J. Hastings, Stephen Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham) Havers, Sir Michael Pardoe, John
Benyon, W. Hawkins, Paul Parkinson, Cecil
Berry, Hon Anthony Hayhoe, Barney Pattie, Geoffrey
Biffen, John Heseltine, Michael Penhaligon, David
Boscawen, Hon Robert Hicks, Robert Percival, Ian
Bottomley, Peter Holland, Philip Pink, R. Bonner
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown) Hordern, Peter Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent) Howell, David (Guildford) Prior, Rt Hon James
Braine, Sir Bernard Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk) Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Brotherton, Michael Howelis, Geraint (Cardigan) Rathbone, Tim
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Hutchison, Michael Clark Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Bryan, Sir Paul Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick James, David Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Buck, Antony Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'dt'd) Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Budgen, Nick Jessel, Toby Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Bulmer, Esmond Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Ridsdale, Julian
Butler, Adam (Bosworth) Jopling, Michael Rifkind, Malcolm
Carlisle, Mark Kaberry, Sir Donald Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Chalker, Mrs Lynda Kershaw, Anthony Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Churchill, W. S. Kilfedder, James Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) King, Evelyn (South Dorset) Ross, William (Londonderry)
Clegg, Walter King, Tom (Bridgwater) Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Cockcroft, John Kirk, Peter Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W) Kitson, Sir Timothy Sainsbury, Tim
Cope, John Knight, Mrs Jill Scott, Nicholas
Crouch, David Knox, David Snaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Crowder, F. P. Lamont, Norman Shelton, William (Streatham)
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford) Lane, David Shepherd, Colin
Dean, Paul (N Somerset) Langford-Holt, Sir John Shersby, Michael
Dodsworth, Geoffrey Lawson, Nigel Silvester, Fred
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James Lester, Jim (Beeston) Sims, Roger
Drayson, Burnaby McCrindle, Robert Sinclair, Sir George
Durant, Tony McCusker, H. Skeet, T. H. H.
Dykes, Hugh Macfarlane, Neil Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) MacGregor, John Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Elliott, Sir William McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest) Speed, Keith
Fairbairn, Nicholas Madel, David Spence, John
Fairgrieve, Russell Marshall, Michael (Arundel) Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Farr, John Marten, Neil Sproat, Iain
Finsberg, Geoffrey Mates, Michael Stainton, Keith
Fisher, Sir Nigel Mather, Carol Stanbrook, Ivor
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N) Mawby, Ray Stanley, John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Fookes, Miss Janet Mayhew, Patrick Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd) Meyer, Sir Anthony Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Fox, Marcus Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove) Stradling Thomas, J.
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St) Mills, Peter Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde) Miscampbell, Norman Tebbit, Norman
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife) Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Temple-Morris, Peter
Goodhart, Philip Moate, Roger Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Goodlad, Alastair Molyneaux, James Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Gorst, John Monro, Hector Trotter, Neville
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry) Montgomery, Fergus Tugendhat, Christopher
Gray, Hamish Moore, John (Croydon C) van Straubenzee, W. R.
Grimond, Rt Hon J. Morris, Michael (Northampton S) Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Grist, Ian Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Viggers, Peter
Grylls, Michael Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester) Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Wakeham, John Winterton, Nicholas TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester) Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton) Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and
Weatherill, Bernard Younger, Hon George Mr. Richard Luce.
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Allaun, Frank Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend) O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian
Anderson, Donald George, Bruce Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Archer, Peter Gilbert, Dr John Ovenden, John
Armstrong, Ernest Golding, John Owen, Dr David
Ashton, Joe Gourlay, Harry Palmer, Arthur
Atkins, Ronald (Preston H) Graham, Ted Park, George
Atkinson, Norman Grant, George (Morpeth) Parker, John
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Grant, John (Islington C) Pavitt, Laurie
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Phipps, Dr Colin
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood) Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife) Prescott, John
Bates, Alf Hardy, Peter Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Bean, R. E. Harper, Joseph Price, William (Rugby)
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Richardson, Miss Jo
Bishop, E. S. Hart, Rt Hon Judith Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Blenkinsop, Arthur Hatton, Frank Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Boardman, H. Hayman, Mrs Helene Roderick, Caerwyn
Booth, Albert Heffer, Eric S. Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Boothroyd, Miss Betty Hooley, Frank Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H) Rooker, J. W.
Boyden, James (Bish Auck) Hoyle, Doug (Nelson) Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Bray, Dr Jeremy Huckfield, Les Rowlands, Ted
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) Hughes, Mark (Durham) Ryman, John
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W) Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) Sandelson, Neville
Buchan, Norman Hughes, Roy (Newport) Sedgemore, Brian
Buchanan, Richard Hunter, Adam Selby, Harry
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE) Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill) Shaw, Arnold (Word South)
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P) Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford) Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Campbell, Ian Jay, Rt Hon Douglas Short, Mrs Renee (Wolv NE)
Canavan, Dennis Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford) Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Carmichael, Neil John, Brynmor Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Carter-Jones, Lewis Jones, Alec (Rhondda) Sillars, James
Clemitson, Ivor Jones, Barry (East Flint) Silverman, Julius
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S) Jones Dan (Burnley) Skinner, Dennis
Cohen, Stanley Kaufman, Gerald Small, William
Coleman, Donald Kerr, Russell Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Conlan, Bernard Kilroy-Silk, Robert Spearing, Nigel
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C) Kinnock, Neil Spriggs, Leslie
Corbett, Robin Lambie, David Stallard, A. W.
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill) Lamborn, Harry Stoddart, David
Crawshaw, Richard Lamond, James Stott, Roger
Cronin, John Leadbitter, Ted Strang, Gavin
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony Lee, John Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Cryer, Bob Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Cunningham, G. (Islington S) Lipton, Marcus Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh) Litterick, Tom Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Dalyell, Tam Lomas, Kenneth Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Davidson, Arthur Loyden, Eddie Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N) Lyon, Alexander (York) Tinn, James
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli) Lyons, Edward (Bradford W) Tomlinson, John
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C) McCartney, Hugh Torney, Tom
Deakins, Eric McElhone, Frank Urwin, T. W.
Dean, Joseph (Leeds W) MacFarquhar, Roderick Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey McGuire, Michael (Ince) Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Dempsey, James Mackenzie, Gregor Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)
Doig, Peter McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C) Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Dormand, J. D. Madden, Max Ward, Michael
Duffy, A. E. P. Mallalieu, J. P. W. Watkinson, John
Dunn, James A Marquand, David Weitzman, David
Dunnett, Jack Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) White, Frank R. (Bury)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) Whitlock, William
Edelman, Maurice Mason, Rt Hon Roy Williams, Alan (Swansea W)
Edge, Geoff Maynard, Miss Joan Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun) Mellish, Rt Hon Robert Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham) Mikardo, Ian Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
English, Michael Millan, Bruce Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare) Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)
Evans, John (Newton) Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen) Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling) Molloy, William Wise, Mrs Audrey
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E. Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Woodall, Alec
Fitch, Alan (Wigan) Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Woof, Robert
Flannery, Martin Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick Young, David (Bolton E)
Fletcher. Ted (Darlington) Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Foot, Rt Hon Michael Newens, Stanley TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin) Noble, Mike Miss Margaret Jackson and
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd) Oakes, Gordon Mr. Thomas Cox.
Garrett, John (Norwich S) Ogden, Eric

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed:

No. 5, in page 2, line 38, at end insert— '(2A)(a) In any undertaking owned by the Board, the Board shall consult the employees as to the form of management they wish to see implemented; (b) at any time trade union representatives of a majority of the employees in such an undertaking may require the Board to hold a ballot of all employees as to whether they wish to have the undertaking constituted as a workers' cooperative, and if the ballot shows a majority of the employees in favour of such a constitution, then the Board shall cooperate with the employees in its preparation, and shall implement it if a further ballot shows a majority of employees in favour of its implementation; (c) the constitution of a workers' cooperative under this section shall provide for management by a worker representative body elected by all employees, for the payment of

interest on capital employed to the Board, for payment of depreciation into a reserve fund, for an employees' income stabilisation fund, and for the division of the income of the undertaking between employees after payment of interest, depreciation, taxes and other provisions, in accordance with a Code of Practice approved by the Secretary of State which the Secretary of State shall by order direct the Board and any worker cooperatives constituted under this section to observe;

(d) a duly constituted worker cooperative which fails to observe its obligations under the Code of Practice it shall revert to the managerial control of the Board.'.—[Dr Bray.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 72, Noes 336.

Division No. 254.] AYES [9.28 p.m.
Allaun, Frank Hoyle, Doug (Nelson) Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Ashton, Joe Hughes, Roy (Newport) Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Atkinson, Norman Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Sandelson, Neville
Bean, R. E. Kerr, Russell Sedgemore, Brian
Beith, A. J. Kilroy-Silk, Robert Selby, Harry
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) Kinnock, Neil Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Buchan, Norman Lambie, David Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Campbell, Ian Leadbitter, Ted Sillars, James
Canavan, Dennis Lee, John Silverman, Julius
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C) Litterick, Tom Skinner, Dennis
Corbett, Robin Loyden, Eddie Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Cryer, Bob Madden, Max Spearing, Nigel
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N) Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) Stallard, A. W.
Edge, Geoff Maynard, Miss Joan Steel, David (Roxburgh)
English, Michael Mikardo, Ian Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W,
Evans, John (Newton) Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E. Newens, Stanley Torney, Tom
Flannery, Martin Noble, Mike Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Ovenden, John Wigley, Dafydd
Garrett, John (Norwich S) Pardoe, John Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Grimond, Rt Hon J. Penhaligon, David Wise, Mrs Audrey
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife) Prescott, John.
Hart, Rt Hon Judith Richardson, Miss Jo TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Hatton, Frank Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock) Mr. Ron Thomas and
Heffer, Eric S. Roderick, Caerwyn Dr. Jeremy Bray.
Howells. Geraint (Cardigan)
Aitken, Jonathan Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown) Cockcroft, John
Alison, Michael Boyden, James (Bish Auck) Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Archer, Peter Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent) Cohen, Stanley
Armstrong, Ernest Braine, Sir Bernard Coleman, Donald
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne) Brotherton, Michael Conlan, Bernard
Atkins. Ronald (Preston N) Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Awdry, Daniel Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) Cope, John
Bagier, Gordon A. T Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W) Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Baker, Kenneth Bryan, Sir Paul Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Banks, Robert Buchanan, Richard Crawshaw, Richard
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) Buchanan-Smith, Alick Cronin, John
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood) Buck, Antony Crosland. Rt Hon Anthony
Bates, Alf Budgen, Nick Crouch, David
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham) Bulmer, Esmond Crowder, F. P.
Benyon, W. Butler, Adam (Bosworth) Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Berry, Hon Anthony Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE) Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Biffen, John Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P) Dalyell, Tam
Bishop, E. S. Carlisle, Mark Davidson, Arthur
Blenkinsop, Arthur Carmichael, Neil Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Boardman, H. Carter-Jones, Lewis Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Booth, Albert Chalker, Mrs Lynda Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Boothroyd, Miss Betty Churchill, W. S. Deakins, Eric
Boscawen, Hon Robert Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Dean, Joseph (Leeds W)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur Clegg, Walter de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Bottomley, Peter Clemitson, Ivor Dempsey, James
Dodsworth, Geoffrey Kaberry, Sir Donald Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Doig, Peter Kaufman, Gerald Price, William (Rugby)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James Kershaw, Anthony Prior, Rt Hon James
Drayson, Burnaby Kilfedder, James Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Duffy, A. E. P. King, Evelyn (South Dorset) Rathbone, Tim
Dunn, James A. King, Tom (Bridgwater) Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Dunnett, Jack Kirk, Peter Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth Kitson, Sir Timothy Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Durant, Tony Knight, Mrs Jill Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Edelman, Maurice Knox, David Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) Lamborn, Harry Ridsdale, Julian
Elliott, Sir William Lamond James Rifkind, Malcolm
Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun) Lamont, Norman Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham) Lane, David Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling) Langford-Holt, Sir John Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Fairbairn, Nicholas Le Marchant, Spencer Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Fairgrieve, Russell Lester, Jim (Beeston) Rooker, J. W.
Farr, John Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Finsberg, Geoffrey Lipton, Marcus Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Fisher, Sir Nigel Lomas, Kenneth Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan) Luce, Richard Rowlands, Ted
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N) Lyon, Alexander (York) Ryman, John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Lyons, Edward (Bradford W) Sainsbury, Tim
Fookes, Miss Janet McCartney, Hugh Scott, Nicholas
Foot, Rt Hon Michael McCrindle, Robert Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin) McElhone, Frank Sheldon, Robert (Ashton u-Lyne>
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd) Macfarlane, Neil Shelton, William (Streatham)
Fox, Marcus MacFarquhar, Roderick Shepherd, Colin
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St) MacGregor, John Shersby, Michael
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd) McGuire, Michael (Ince) Silkful, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde) Mackenzie, Gregor Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend) McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C) Silvester, Fred
George, Bruce McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest) Sims, Roger
Gilbert, Dr John Madel, David Sinclair, Sir George
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife) Mallalieu, J. P. W Skeet, T. H. H.
Golding, John Marks, Kenneth Small, William
Goodhart, Philip Marquand, David Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Goodlad, Alastair Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Gorst, John Marshall, Michael (Arundel) Speed, Keith
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry) Marten, Neil Spence, John
Graham, Ted Mates, Michael Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Grant, George (Morpeth) Mather, Carol Spriggs, Leslie
Grant, John (Islington C) Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin Sproat, Iain
Gray, Hamish Mayhew, Patrick Stainton, Keith
Grylls, Michael Mellish, Rt Hon Robert Stanbrook, Ivor
Hall, Sir John Meyer, Sir Anthony Stanley, John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Millan, Bruce Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove) Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Hampson, Dr Keith Mills, Peter Stoddart, David
Hannam, John Miscampbell, Norman Stott, Roger
Hardy, Peter Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Stradling Thomas, J.
Harper, Joseph Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen) Strang, Gavin
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Moate, Roger Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss Molloy, William Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Hastings, Stephen Monro, Hector Tebbit, Norman
Havers, Sir Michael Montgomery, Fergus Temple-Morris, Peter
Hawkins, Paul Moore, John (Croydon C) Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Hayhoe, Barney Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Hayman, Mrs Helene Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Heseltine, Michael Morris, Michael (Northampton S) Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S'
Hicks, Robert Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Tinn, James
Holland, Philip Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester) Tomlinson, John
Hooley, Frank Mudd, David Trotter, Neville
Hordern, Peter Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick Tugendhat, Christopher
Howell, David (Guildford) Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King Urwin, T. W.
Howell. Denis (B ham, Sm H) Neave, Alrey van Straubenzee, W. R.
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk) Nelson, Anthony Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Huckfield, Les Neubert, Michael Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Hughes, Mark (Durham) Newton, Tony Viggers, Peter
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) Oakes, Gordon Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Hunter, Adam Ogden, Eric Wakeham, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill) Orme, Rt Hon Stanley Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Owen, Dr David Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford) Page, Rt Hon R, Graham (Crosby) Ward, Michael
James, David Palmer, Arthur Weatherill, Bernard
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas Park, George Weitzman, David
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'dt'd) Parker, John White, Frank R. (Bury)
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford) Parkinson, Cecil Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Jessel, Toby Pattie, Geoffrey Whitlock, William
John, Brynmor Pavitt, Laurie Williams, Alan (Swansea W)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda) Percival, Ian Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Jones, Barry (East Flint) Phipps, Dr Colin Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
Jones, Dan (Burnley) Pink, R. Bonner Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Jopling, Michael Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
Winterton, Nicholas Young, David (Bolton E) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
woodall, Alec Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton) Miss Margaret Jackson and
Woof, Robert Younger, Hon George Mr. J. D. Dormand.
Wrigglesworth, Ian

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after half-past Nine o'clock Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded pursuant to Standing Order No. 43, (Business Committee) and the Orders [12th May and this day] to put forthwith the Questions on amendments moved by a Member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to that part of the Bill to be concluded at half-past Nine o'clock.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern)

It is now my duty to put the Question on all Government amendments up to the end of Schedule 2.

To save the time of the House, it the House is willing, I propose to put the Questions in blocks of amendments, singling out only those individual amendments on which hon. Members wish to divide. Is that agreed?

I had understood that some hon. Members wished to divide on Amendment No. 179 but no longer wish to do so.

Does any hon. Member wish to divide on any earlier Government amendment? If not, I put formally the Question on Government amendments up to and including Amendment No. 34.

Amendments made:

No. 7, in page 3, line 10, at end insert 'and other property'.

No. 8, in page 3, line 11, at end insert 'and other property'.—[Mr. Varley.]

Back to
Forward to