THE CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (Hansard, 19 June 1978)

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Alan Williams)
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

§ Mr. Richard Wainwright (Come Valley)
I realise that the House will need no persuading to accept the amendment, but, since it was moved in the other place by my noble Friend Lord Rochester from the Liberal Benches, I hope that it will be acceptable if I make a brief comment, especially since the wording of the amendment itself is so innocuous that some hon. Members may wonder why on earth noble Lords on the Liberal Benches took the trouble to table it.
In the Bill as it left this House there was special reference to the duty of the 172 Secretary of State, in appointing the chairmen and other members of the Agency, to consult persons appearing to him to represent the interests of the co-operative movement". That is entirely acceptable to my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself as it stands, but we felt it important, in order to ensure that the public had the right impression, namely, that the Agency is not to be a cosy Government assistance of the Co-operative Party or the official co-operative movement—I know that that is not the Government's intention—to make abundantly clear that what is intended embraces co-operation in the sense that many people in this country have practised it for generations without any affiliation to the co-operative movement.
This development has now become quite fashionable. I recently visited Meriden, and some of my hon. Friends have been to Kirkby. In both cases, we asked the people there whether they had any affiliation to any co-operative movement, and in both cases the answer was a vigorous "No". They are far too busy co-operating in their own interests—God bless them—to be bothered with a cooperative movement. I know also that recently many people have used their redundancy money to set up cooperatives. It is part of human nature to co-operate. One does not need to belong to a movement to co-operate.
Therefore, we wanted to make clear that the reference to the co-operative movement in the first part of the Bill with regard to appointing the Agency was not in any sense exclusive. These innocuous words in the Lords amendment are an agreed form to indicate clearly, for the avoidance of doubt, that the Secretary of State has a duty to cast his net wider and as wide as he thinks fit.
It may be asked why, if that is our view, we did not insist on tying the Secretary of State down to something even more precise. The position, strange though it may seem to some people who have already been carried away with election fever, is that for a period of three years, which is really all that matters in the life of the Agency, we trust the Ministers responsible. But we are even more generous. We are prepared to trust any who may take their place after the public have had a chance to vote, 173 because only a three-year period is involved.
I say at once that if this were to be a long-term, Government-assisted Agency without anything like a three-year term, we would naturally, not knowing who on earth might assume the mantle of Secretary of State in the long-term future, want something much more precise. But we have had undertakings from the Government, which perhaps we may hear again tonight, that the Secretary of State entirely understands our purpose, which has been stated in Committee and in another place, and that he is therefore fully prepared to cast his net wider than the co-operative movement in considering appointments to the Agency. We are satisfied that this form of words, generalised though it is, embodies that agreement which the Government, I am sure, will honour in making the appointments.

Mr. Alan Williams
I reiterate what I said in Committee—that of course the Government intend to have the widest consultations in making the appointments. Even in the Bill as it originally stood there 174 was never any inhibition on the ability of the Secretary of State to consult those he felt appropriate in making his appointments.
Since we have received representations in another place that some people might misinterpret the wording in the legislation as it stood, I felt happy to accept this Lords amendment and I give an assurance once again that consultation will involve the established co-operative organisations but equally will involve any others that we feel appropriate. We would not feel ourselves constrained to make appointments only from within the co-operative movement, because it is the professional expertise that is relevant to the successful development of commercial enterprise in the co-operative form that is appropriate rather than necessarily a long pedigree within the movement.
Therefore, while I accept this Lords amendment, I re-emphasise that it does not substantially alter the way in which we intended in any event to carry out our consultations.