GRANTS AND LOANS (Hansard, 17 November 1976)

§ Mr. David Watkins (Consett)
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The effect of the amendment is to remove any specific designation in the composition of the membership of the relevant body which is to be constituted to encourage common ownership and co-operative enterprises.
The composition of the relevant body was a matter of extensive debate both in this House and in the other place. I sense that the House is anxious to come to a decision on this, therefore I shall be brief. I stress that the relevant body ought to be widely representative and that it could not be so without trade union members within its membership. It could not be widely representative without trade union members, any more than it could be representative without the membership of persons experienced in common ownership and co-operative enterprises. Indeed, the two very much overlap.
I hope, in the light of what I have said, that when the time comes the Secretary of State will give careful consideration to the composition of any body which seeks to be recognised as the relevant body as designated in the Bill.
1523 I have already referred to the fact that extensive debate has taken place both in this House and in the House of Lords in relation to the subject matter of the amendment. The amendment results from extensive consultations which have taken place in this House and in the other House. This is an agreed amendment which is acceptable to myself and to my co-sponsors. I recommend it to the House.

§ Mr. Norman Tebbit (Chingford)
I certainly think that the House would be wise to accept what the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins) has said, and to accept the wording of the amendment, which, as he said, was worked out as an agreed compromise in the other place.
The arguments have been well rehearsed many times before. It is quite late enough for us to have good reason not to go over them again in any detail. It is sufficient to say that many of us felt in both Houses that it was unwise that one particular group of persons should be specified in the law as being those who had to be present on this body.
Certainly it seemed odd to us that if the body were to be required to have representatives of trade unions on it—and not just trade unionists but representatives of trade unions—there should not also be a requirement that it should have on it 600 persons who were experienced in the running of common ownership firms.
We are well satisfied with the amendment as it is proposed, and I hope that there will be no attempt on the part of anybody on the Opposition Benches to argue against it, or, least of all, to vote against it, which would prejudice the further progress of the Bill at this stage.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Bob Cryer)
In this atmosphere of mutual accord and congratulation I shall delay the House only a moment or so and would not wish to disturb the even tenor of the hon. Member's remarks.
In accepting the amendment we in no way accepted the arguments put forward by the Opposition in this House and in another place. We feel that if the relevant body is to function efficiently, and workpeople's interests are to be properly represented, it should include a repre- 1524 sentative of the trade unions among its membership.
However, my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins), who moved the acceptance so well, saw no reason to delay the Bill further by opposing the amendment, and since we very much want to see this important Private Member's Bill reach the statute book, the Government accept the amendment.
In assessing the suitability of the relevant body for the purposes of the Bill, the Secretary of State will no doubt have full regard to whether the membership of the body includes a representative of trade unions. Having said that, I hope that the House will accept the motion.