DISEASES OF ANIMALS (AMENDMENT) (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1975

HL Deb 28 July 1975 vol 363 cc807-75

7.20 p.m.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE rose to move, That the draft Diseases of Animals (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, laid before the House on 2nd July, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft Diseases of Animals (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1975 be approved. The Order seeks to extend the Diseases of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 1958 to make provision for more effective controls to prevent animal disease being introduced into Northern Ireland, and to prevent the internal spread of disease there by regulating the distribution and use of things which are capable of transmitting infection. Certain provisions imposing financial obligations on the Department of Agriculture will also be repealed by the Order.

New import controls are provided for in Article 3. Included is a general power enabling regulation of the import of anything which is capable of transmitting animal or poultry disease. Orders made under this power may apply conditions to the import of a much wider range of items than are covered by existing powers; for example, it will be possible to insist on cleansing and disinfection before used agricultural machinery may be imported. To date the Department has had to rely on voluntary co-operation in this sphere and this has not always been forthcoming. The import of dirty machinery could result in the introduction of serious animal disease.

Under paragraph 2(b) of Article 3, unlicensed imports may be detained on board the vessel or aircraft in which they are conveyed to Northern Ireland and such consignments may be re-exported without being allowed to land. Present legislation extends only to cargoes that have already landed, but the landing of an unlicensed cargo of meat, for example, could in itself constitute a serious threat to Northern Ireland's long history of freedom from diseases, such as foot-and-mouth disease, swine fever and swine vesicular disease. Contaminated material could, for example, be carried off by birds or vermin and this could lead to livestock being infected.

If inspectors are to be in a position to detain unlicensed consignments on board, they must have powers of entry to enable them to check that no such consignments are being carried. Consequently, paragraph 3 of Article 3 extends existing powers of entry so that inspectors will no longer be required to have reasonable grounds for suspicion that the legislation is being infringed before searching the vessel or aircraft. Paragraph 4 makes it an offence to be in possession of anything which has been imported in contravention of the diseases of animals legislation. However, if the person charged with such an offence can satisfy the court that he was unaware the thing concerned was unlawfully imported, having taken reasonable precautions to check that this was so, then the charge will be dismissed. The final paragraph of Article 3 extends the powers of the Department in relation to animals and poultry in quarantine, to allow re-export of livestock which have been in contact with diseased stock or which, for some other reason are suspected of being diseased. At present the Department only has power to slaughter such stock.

Article 4 permits the Department to control the movement and use of anything which is capable of transmitting animal disease—including disease-causing organisms themselves. It also permits the exercise of health and hygiene controls over establishments, such as knacker yards and poultry waste processors, which can constitute a potential health risk if proper standards are not maintained. Article 5 gives the Department power to require persons dealing in livestock, poultry and their products to keep documents and records of their stock and transactions. The Department may require production of such documents and where necessary in exceptional circumstances, shall have the power to remove the documents. Recent experience has shown that, in order to trace the movement and origin of illegal imports, the Department must have access to this type of information. The information could also be useful in tracing the origin of an outbreak of disease.

Turning now to the financial provisions which I mentioned earlier, Article 6 removes the Department's liability for the payment of compensation for imported animals which have been slaughtered in quarantine because they are diseased or suspected of being diseased. The philosophy behind this change is that the importer, and not the taxpayer, should be liable for the risks involved in importing animals.

Finally, Article 7 repeals an outdated provision under which the Department is liable for the partial reimbursement of expenses incurred by local authorities under the Diseases of Animals Act. In fact, local authorities in Northern Ireland no longer have any specific obligations under this Act, and the total amount that has changed hands under this heading in the past 10 years has been £3½25. As I have already mentioned, Northern Ireland has a very good animal health record. Its agricultural export trade depends largely on its freedom from the more serious diseases of livestock and poultry. Measures incorporated in this Order are largely designed to protect the Province's animal health status and to ensure thereby the security of the agricultural industry in Northern Ireland.

Moved, That the draft Diseases of Animals (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, laid before the House on 2nd July, be approved.—(Lord Donatdson of Kingsbridge.)

Lord BELSTEAD

My Lords, it is clear from the explanation given by the noble Lord that this Order should be supported. Probably the noble Lord can, like myself, remember past occasions when there have been terrible outbreaks of foot and mouth in the United Kingdom, and there have been long debates in this House about the most effective means of trying to combat that disease. Having listened to the noble Lord, it seems clear to me that this Order moves decisively towards more practical and stronger controls from the point of view of animal health.

I wish first to ask the noble Lord a question, notice of which I regret I have not given him because it arose in my mind only as he was speaking. It is clear that as a result of this Order some extra responsibilities will fall upon the farmer, the producer. The noble Lord mentioned the responsibility in importing carcasses for those who do the importing. Can the noble Lord say whether the provisions of this Order have in fact been agreed with the Northern Ireland farmers' union? If they have not been agreed, does the noble Lord know from his experience whether there are any areas of the Order which are in contention? The noble Lord might care to write to me on this point, which can certainly await a written reply.

Secondly, can the noble Lord give me any reason for strengthening the law in the main respect in which the Order strengthens it; namely, in making it an absolute offence—more or less—for anyone who is in possession of anything which has been imported in contravention of an Order under the parent Act? This is a matter to which the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments drew attention. The point which the Committee raised is of no account this evening; it led the Committee to no conclusion, but from it arises my question. This Order is strengthening the law against those who might contravene an Order under the parent Act, and I should be interested to know whether historically in the past few years there has been any record of contraventions of the law. In particular, have cases of illegal importing increased in respect of any specific animals?

Finally, I wish to ask the noble Lord about Article 5. I may be misreading this article, and it may apply only to the movement of carcasses, but as I read it, it seems to apply to the movement of live animals. If this is so, I find it astonishing, because such records have been obligatory for many years in Great Britain, and therefore surely in Northern Ireland, where agriculture specialises in the raising of livestock, it is extraordinary that records should not have been required in the past. Having posed those three questions, I wish to say that I very much support the direction in which the Order moves. If there were a bad outbreak of swine vesicular disease, foot and mouth, or swine fever—three matters which the noble Lord mentioned—we should probably be having a lengthy debate. In my opinion the methods outlined in the Order are right and should be supported.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for the welcome he has given to the Order. First, it is not an Order which has a great deal to do with the primary producer; it is much more concerned with the meat plants and the people who handle dead meat. But, in fact, the provisions have been agreed with the Ulster Farmers' Union—a point which the noble Lord asked me about. He also raised the question of the absolute offence. The view taken was that it is very difficult for a prosecution to prove ignorance that meat has been imported; but provided the possessor of meat which has been imported is given a reasonable opportunity to explain why he did not know—and there are very many reasons why this might be so—this was thought to be the fairest way to deal with the matter. It arose not as the noble Lord suggested through some unexpected increase in imports but through rather an important case which arose, I think, during the course of the past 12 months where a fairly large quantity of imported meat was found. It was extremely difficult to lay the blame on the people who were holding it until, at the end, one of them admitted to having imported it.

In this case it was dealt with, but without the free admission of this person it was realised that prosecution would be very difficult, and this has been put in to make it easier. I think there is a precedent for doing things this way round, and the best example I can give the noble Lord is one from Northern Ireland. Under Section 110 of the Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 it is an offence to be in possession of salmon illegally caught—a similar cases. The defence is described in identical terms to Article 3(4), so that I am quite satisfied, and I hope the noble Lord will be satisfied, that this is not creating some new and terrible crime. It is making a logical position in order to prevent what we are all determined to prevent.

In regard to Section 5, the noble Lord expressed surprise that it was necessary to give the Department or the inspectors power to insist on record keeping. The answer is that there are a number of regulations which insist on record keeping. This is a blanket regulation which gives them power to insist on any record keeping and also goes a good deal further by giving them the right, which is not available generally, to take away the records, if necessary. I hope that those answers will satisfy the noble Lord.

[The Sitting was suspended from 7.33 p.m. until 8 p.m.]

8.0 p.m.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 230:

Page 24, line 13, at end insert—

("Provided that the committee shall ensure that such representations shall be made in a manner preventing disclosure of any of the information or substance thereof otherwise than to the committee.")

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is designed to inquire about the confidentiality of the advisory committee proceedings. I think it can be assumed that the proceedings should be confidential and that the information itself, which no doubt will have to be made clear and divulged to the members of the Committee, should be protected. The question also arises of whether this should be written into the Bill in the form of this Amendment or something like it so that everybody who reads this subsequently as an Act is informed that the proceedings will be confidential.

May I give an example of what I assume will happen? When the advisory committee gives the representatives of the company and of the trades union the opportunity to make representations under the preceding subsection, one assumes that they will be seen separately so that the company can talk about the information (which is the subject of the question, whether to disclose or not) and the members of the advisory committee will then be aware of what the information is. Subsequently, the trades union representatives make representations and, it may be, see the committee and are received and make oral representations if that is within the procedure. We assume that the advisory committee must then be careful that the trades union representatives are not inadvertently given some of that information. There is also the general point that anything that is learned by a member of the advisory committee should be confidential. That is why I beg to move this Amendment.

Lord MELCHETT

We entirely agree the principle underlying this Amendment. I can assure the noble Lord that the assumptions he makes are more or less in line with practice, and in line with the practice as already outlined by the Government in another place in response to an earlier discussion on this matter. As a result of that discussion the Government indicated how they saw this information being kept confidential. It was felt that any argument that would occur with both sides present would be a general argument about types of information that might be withheld. In closed session the company would then submit to the committee that certain information should not be disclosed because it fell into a particular category.

This, and the provision in paragraph 6 of Schedule 5 that the committee will sit in private, provides a complete assurance that the information will be safeguarded. Were the committee or any of its mem- bers to release information by design or by accident—and this answers the point the noble Lord made about inadvertent disclosure—this would be an offence under Clause 28(3) which would be punishable by fine and imprisonment. For these reasons, while we accept the principle underlying the noble Lord's Amendment, I hope that he will see that it is unnecessary as it is already embodied in the provisions of the Bill.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

I am glad to have that assurance, and grateful to the noble Lord for giving it. As at present drafted I would not say that it would be easy for someone examining the Bill when it is enacted to reach the conclusion leading to the assurance we have been given. I still think it might be worth examining whether this could not be written clearly into this part of the Bill. The fact that a member of the advisory committee would be committing an offence by breaching this confidentiality is something which, having been stated by the Minister, should give a real assurance to those who are following these proceedings. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord MELCHETT

This Amendment was discussed with Amendment No. 163A. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 24, line 24, after ("the") insert ("authorised")—(Lord Melchett.)

Lord MELCHETT

This Amendment was discussed with Amendment No. 163A. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 24, line 28, leave out ("a representative of each relevant trade union"), and insert ("each such representative ")—(Lord Melchett.)

8.7 p.m.

Lord TERRINGTON moved Amendment No. 239:

Page 24, line 28, at end insert ("and to the members of the company or companies concerned")

The noble Lord said: Although I made reference to this Amendment when speaking earlier to Amendment No. 185, I should like to say a few more words. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, assured me that he recognised the point I was making with regard to disclosure to shareholders. For this I am grateful. He also expressed the hope that I will accept the Government point that this Bill was not the vehicle through which to make changes of the kind I am proposing. I entirely accept that a Companies Bill would be a more normal method of dealing with the position of shareholders and I said so at the time; but I am still uneasy about the delay involved in waiting for a Companies Bill. In order to obtain their further views, I am therefore having some fresh discussions with the Stock Exchange authorities who have expressed their concern about this. In the meantime I should like to reserve my position for a later stage in this Bill. I beg to move.

Lord BESWICK

I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Terrington, says. If any new points arise from the more recent discussions which the noble Lord has with his colleagues, I shall be glad to consider them. I hope that he will consider what we have said; namely, that there can be absolutely no question of having a restricted number of insiders here. Once information has been disclosed, we should be happy to have it fully disclosed to all the shareholders. We shall see what the noble Lord has to say later. If he cares to let me have a note on what lines he is thinking, I will ensure that the points he raises are carefully considered.

Lord TERRINGTON

I thank the noble Lord and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord MELCHETT

Amendment No. 241A was discussed with Amendment No. 163A. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 24, line 30, laeve out "representative of each relevant trade union") and insert ("authorised representatives")—Lord Melchett.)

Lord LOVELL-DAVIS

I beg to move Amendment No. 246A. Reference was made to this with Amendment Nos. 246B and 163A.

Amendment moved—

Page 24, line 35, after ("union's") insert ("authorised").—(Lord Lovell-Davies.)

Lord LOVELL-DAVIS

I beg to move Amendment No. 246B. Reference was made to this with Amendment No. 163A.

Amendment moved—

Page 24, line 41, leave out ("a") and insert ("the authorised").—(Lord Lovell-Davis.)

Lord LOVELL-DAVIS

I beg to move Amendment No. 251A. This Amendment was discussed with Amendment No. 163A.

Amendment moved—

Page 25, line 3, after ("the") insert ("authorised").—(Lord Lovell-Davis.)

Lord LOVELL-DAVIS

I beg to move Amendment No. 254A. This Amendment was discussed with Amendment No. 163A.

Amendment moved—

Page 25, line 10, leave out ("the representative of each relevant trade union") and insert ("each such representative")—(Lord Lovell-Davis.)

Lord LOVELL-DAVIS

I beg to move Amendment No. 258A. This Amendment was discussed with Amendment No. 163A.

Amendment moved—

Page 25, line 24, after second ("to") insert ("the authorised")—(Lord Lovell-Davis.)

Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 26 [Confidentiality]:

8.14 p.m.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 262:

Page 25, leave out lines 29 and 30.

The noble Lord said: This Amendment seeks to delete paragraph (a) at the beginning of Clause 26. This clause refers to information which is to be disclosed to the Minister but not to trade union representatives. It appears to lay down the degree of confidentiality attaching to that information. The Minister is to retain, under Clause 23, this information as useful to him, whether it be for the purposes of planning agreements or any other legitimate reason. We have recognised in earlier debates that Government Departments receive in any case confidential information from companies. This is well protected and guarded. Here they are being compulsorily required to provide information to the Minister some of which may well be highly confidential. We see no difficulty about what I have described so far. What we are seeking, in moving this Amendment, is what possible objection there could be to obtaining the company's consent before the Minister passes information to other Government Departments.

It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I also refer to a similar Amendment, No. 265, at this stage in which we are also seeking reasons as to why the company's consent should not first be obtained before this information is passed to three Agencies which are named in paragraph (c). I suggest blanket consent could usually be obtained for the great majority of information which is not highly sensitive by the Minister when he receives information from a company saying that he asks for the company's permission to pass it to other Government Departments or these three Agencies. In that way the sensitive information can be identified because the company may say: "That is fine, but there are two or three matters which are very sensitive and we would ask you to contact us before you pass those points on." I sincerely hope that the company will be informed, because it looks from this clause as though the company will not be informed if the Minister decided to circulate some information round Whitehall, and not only Whitehall, but Cardiff, Edinburgh, Newcastle and other places where Government Departments reside.

Having been in the Government service as a professional civil servant and diplomat, and having occupied positions where secrets and top secret information were the daily business, I am aware of one of the principles which used to operate, and I think still does, in the Government service; that is, the need to know. If there is something confidential or secret, one of the best ways of preserving it in that state is to ensure that only those people who need to know are told it.

Having been, due to my job, a repository of a great deal of such information, I have been in the position of saying that I did not want to know anything more than I needed to know. That does not arise in this case, but I put forward the principle to the Government which is an established principle in the British Government service—that restricted and confidential information should not be passed to people who do not need to know it. That is the way in which a leak can occur inadvertently, because someone forgets where he happened to learn some information. Our purpose is to make sure a company is asked for its consent either in blanket form at the beginning when providing the information, or later if it states it would like to reserve a position on certain sensitive items and be asked individually on those. I should be glad to hear the views of the Government on this.

8.20 p.m.

Lord BESWICK

In the first place. I have to state that the purpose of obtaining information is of course to be able to use it. It would be wrong—and I am not certain the noble Lord wishes to achieve this objective—if the Minister or Secretary of State obtains information that he cannot discuss even with his own officials. That would be the effect of the noble Lord's Amendment. Although I accept what he says about the need to know principle, it is almost certain that there will be other Government Departments—for example, the Department of Employment or it could be the Department of the Environment—which would be concerned with the kind of problem with which we are hoping to help. This information clearly ought to be available to that Department. I hope therefore the noble Lord will agree on consideration that it would be an unwise restriction upon the exercise if we said that it could not he passed to Government Departments.

I should however—and I hope that this will be of some assurance to him—say that the National Enterprise Board are not a Government Department and there is no question whatsoever of information obtained under Clause 23 being passed to the NEB while it remains confidential. Apart from that, it goes only to Government Departments and it goes to them under the same conditions of confidentiality that are imposed under Clause 26(1). The noble Lord also asked me in relation to Amendment No. 265—and I gather he would like to clear up this point on this occasion—why reference was made to the Manpower Services Commission, the Employment Services Agency and the Training Services Agency. It is because these Agencies perform functions which are in many ways analogous to functions discharged by Government Departments in the past. Under the Employment Training Act 1973 they were given the status of bodies outside the Government and would not therefore be covered by the reference to Government Departments in Clause 26(1)(a). On the other hand, the noble Lord will appreciate that if we are dealing with development of industry, it is precisely these bodies which will probably have a constructive role to play, and again the confidentiality clause will apply to them and all the penalties attached to improper disclosure would also apply to those who are now employed by these Commissions and Agencies. With that explanation, I hope the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his Amendment.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. Of course I was not intending in this Amendment that a Minister should not be able to discuss information with his officials in his Department. What we are concerned about is the information being spread to many Departments, not perhaps necessarily. The noble Lord has made it clear that this is not the intention. I would hope that in the working of this the Government would be sensible in obtaining blanket consent when the information was first furnished, identifying in the way I suggested with companies what was harmless and what they hoped would be restricted to those Departments which needed to use it. Of course, I agree that where Departments need the information for use it should go to them. But there can be a rather casual way of informing everybody about things in Whitehall, and it ought not to apply in the case of information obtained under this clause. I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

8.25 p.m.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 267:

Page 25, line 43, at end insert—

("nor shall any such information be disclosed or used without the consent aforesaid for furthering the interests of any person other than those of the person furnishing it or any subsidiary of that person.")

The noble Lord said: This is another suggestion on which we should like to hear the Government's views concerning obtaining consent of a company. We believe it would be prudent to obtain the Government's permission before any of this information be disclosed or used for furthering the interests of any other person than the company or subsidiary of the company. There could be acrimonious relations developing between the Minister and the company if the company suffered because competitors had learned information indirectly as a result of disclosures to the Minister. I realise that this would be entirely unintentional, but it is the company which would know whether the wider disclosure of some information might lead to a situation of damage to it. Here again, we suggest that the Government's practice in a situation of this kind should be to ensure that they have the consent of the company before passing on the information. I beg to move.

Lord MELCHETT

There is no question of information passed by the Minister to any of the bodies listed in Clause 26(1) being passed beyond those bodies while the general confidentiality provision applies. Provided that the company has not been convicted of an offence under Clause 28 the ban on disclosure of information will remain until disclosure has been made to union representatives subject only to the proviso that the Minister will, if necessary, be able to release information in connection with the investigation or prosecution of an offence under this Bill. There is therefore no need, in our view, to impose confidentiality restrictions since these already apply.

The Amendment, as I understand it, is concerned with more than just confidentiality. It would prevent the Minister from disclosing or using any information without the company's consent for the purpose of furthering anybody's interests other than those of the company providing the information. In general our view is that this would be extremely restricting, in that it might well prevent the information from being used for purposes of general economic planning where the benefits were not primarily to accrue to the company but to the economy in general. It would certainly prevent the information from being used, as we believe we must preserve the right to use it, if necessary, for the purpose of preparing and prosecuting an offence. I do not believe that this would be the most important use of information provided in this way, but we must be able to use it in this way as a last resort. This would clearly not be in the direct interests of the company and would thus be excluded by the Amendment.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

What the noble Lord has said indicates that the Government do not think this provision need be written into the Bill. What matters is the practice which the Minister will institute when this Bill is enacted and the way in which he deals with companies. There certainly will be situations where he will have the cooperation and confidence of the company if he has obtained their consent to dispersing the information to other parts of the Government machine. So perhaps it is a matter of the administrative way in which this matter is handled, rather than writing something into the Bill. But I should like to draw attention to the importance of this kind of point and, at the same time, beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 268:

Page 25, line 43, at end insert—

("( ) Where information to which this section applies has been disclosed by virtue of one or more of the exceptions set out in subsection (1) above being information which is not generally available but, if it were, would be likely materially to affect the price of any securities, a person receiving that information shall not deal in those securities or procure any other person so to do so long as that information is not generally available and is information to which this section applies.")

The noble Lord said: This is an interesting point arising from the debates which we have had on the Amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Terrington, and also an Amendment which I moved a little earlier today. The effect of the advisory committee system is that a certain number of people might be placed inside a trading position again. I know that in Government Departments this situation has been known over the years and is catered for in various codes and rules. But there are now three Agencies referred to in paragraph (b) and a person brought in to the advisory committee proceedings under paragraph (b) also would be involved. So there would be a restricted number of people who would be privy to certain information about a company which was not publicly known. We should be glad to have the Government's view on this situation and to know whether anything need be done about it.

Lord BESWICK

The noble Lord raises an understandable point. When he says there will be a restricted number of people who will come into possession of information, it may well be so—a restricted number under the provisions of the Act which we hope will follow—but he should not underestimate either the volume of information which goes into a Government Department or the number of people who have access to that information under terms of the strictest confidentiality. I do not see why we should treat differently the officials in one division of one Department who happen to be dealing with information coming under this Bill from officials in another division in the same Department.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

I believe that the noble Lord has misunderstood me. I was not referring to officials in the Department. I said that situation is one which has been known for many years and is catered for. It is the situation of people in the three Agencies mentioned in paragraph (c) and also outside persons not in Government service who are brought in under paragraph (b) with which we are dealing.

Lord BESWICK

So far as the Agencies are concerned, as I have already said there is absolutely no difference in their status from that of civil servants who are in a Government Department. They were doing that job in a Government Department. They are now doing it in an Agency or a Commission. The terms of the service are exactly the same. Therefore, they are on all fours with those who are in a Government Department.

There is one other point I would make. I think I am right in saying that the wording has been taken from the previous Government's Companies Bill which did not get on to the Statute Book. It will probably be agreed that there was a good deal of criticism about this form of words. I have heard it described as "a legal mess". Probably this is a point which ought to be covered more fully and I understand that it is being discussed by legal people. However, at the moment there does not appear to be a generally accepted formula to meet the kind of case that arises not simply out of this Bill but generally. May I suggest to the noble Lord that the point he makes is taken. It would not properly be taken by this Amendment. Even if it did, it would be wrong to apply this formula to a restricted number of people.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

Certainly this is not the only case of this kind which will arise. The noble Lord has referred to a similar situation and the attempt which was made to meet it in the 1973 legislation which was not completed. The noble Lord has accepted that there is a problem. It seems as though the way to deal with it is still being considered and thought out by lawyers and others. I am glad that the noble Lord has taken the point and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord MELCHETT

Amendment No. 270A was spoken to together with Amendment No. 163A. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 26, line 3, leave out ("representative of each relevant trade union") and insert ("authorised representatives of relevant trade unions").—(Lord Melchett.)

8.33 p.m.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 272:

Page 26, line 5, leave out subsection (3).

The noble Lord said: We should like to hear the Government's explanation of the wording of subsection (3) which this Amendment, which I now move, seeks to delete. It has been thought that it may be harsher than is necessary. It may arise from failure to carry out a preliminary order only within the time set. It is thought outside this House that it might be a single member of a company who failed to produce the required information in time and was then convicted. Clearly this could not be excused. The conviction is an offence which one would deplore, but it seems to be going rather far to decide that the information connected with that case would then be divested of confidentiality and not to take into account whether or not it was very sensitive information. It could be sensitive to an extent which was out of all proportion to the error or offence that had been committed by a member of the company. We should be glad if the Government could explain why it is necessary to have this subsection in the Bill.

Lord MELCHETT

The point of subsection (3) is that it allows the Minister to disclose information if the person required to furnish information to representatives of relevant trade unions has been convicted under Clause 28(1)(b) of refusing or failing to do so without reasonable excuse. This would allow the Minister in effect to set right the wrong done by the commission of the offence. Without this subsection the Minister would be forced, so as to obtain the disclosure to trade union representatives that is sought, to serve a further notice under Clause 23(1) or Clause 24(1). Yet the company would have been convicted of ignoring just such a notice and must be suspected of intending to ignore a second one. If the offence were repeated there might be a further fine, but this would not by itself result in disclosure.

In these circumstances, in our view it would be anomalous for the Minister still to be bound by restrictions on the disclosure of information, and quite proper that he should he able to pass on the information which is in his or her possession. The information that the Minister may disclose in such circumstances is only that which he has obtained under Clause 23. Clause 26(3) does not authorise the Minister to disclose other data furnished to him on a confidential basis. The point to bear in mind is that this is disclosure of information only after a company has been convicted of a criminal offence. I find it hard to believe that a company, even if only one person in that company was responsible, would be convicted of a criminal offence without all the members of the company having considerable notice that this was going to happen, and for them to have time to sort out the position about disclosure of information before it ever got to the stage where they had been convicted and the Minister was acting under this subsection.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

May I take up one point. This is an important interpretation of the Bill. The previous subsection, subsection (2), says: Subject to subsection (3) below, this section applies to information which has been furnished to a Minister under Section 23 above… This confidentiality clause as a whole appears to apply only to information required by the Minister for the purposes of his Department or other Departments, and not for the purpose of passing on information to trade union representatives. Therefore I was a little surprised when the noble Lord spoke about transmitting information to trade union representatives. As I understand it, the words, "Subject to subsection (3)" mean that it is subject to exemption in a case where there has been a conviction. I wonder whether the Minister can confirm my interpretation that the whole of this clause relates to information furnished to the Minister for Government purposes and not to passing on information to trade union representatives, because that seems to be the meaning of the words in the previous subsection: …but has not been furnished to the representative of each relevant trade union under Section 25 above". It could be that the interpretation is one of timing—that the information is in a state where it has reached the Minister but has not yet been considered for the later stage of passing it on to trade unions. I think that there is ambiguity here, and I should be grateful for clarification.

Lord DRUMALBYN

May I go a little further into this. I thought that the Minister's explanation was rather peculiar.

Lord MELCHETT

I was going to explain that I had made a mistake. It may save the Committee's time if I clarify the position. In fact I have not made a mistake, but there is a printing error in the Bill which may be leading the Committee into confusion. Certainly it led me into confusion in my reply. All I said was correct, but the fact is that in subsection (3) on page 26 the Bill should read: … has been convicted of an offence under Section 28(1)(b) below in relation to it. and not Section 28(1)(a). The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has hit upon a printing error. I am not sure whether or not that is inadvertent accuracy but I hope that it will clear up some of the misapprehensions which both noble Lords opposite have about this provision.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

While we are revising our versions of the Bill, I would say straight away that I have been able to assist the Government by picking up some other errors in the Bill, but I do not think anyone could have foreseen that this was an error because it referred to a paragraph which actually existed. Of course, it changes the whole complexion of this subsection, and I am glad that we raised it because paragraph (b) is certainly a stage of the procedure which is a good deal further on than the preliminary notice. That explanation makes this subsection more comprehensible and it is easier to understand why it is in the Bill. I cannot resist reminding your Lordships that on several occasions the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has genially invited us to read the Bill, but in this case it would not have helped us. I was asking the noble Lord about this other point in regard to interpretation. I entirely understand that if it is a "fast one" at this stage of the Bill, he may wish to reserve the explanation until later, but it is an interpretation which I think ought to be given at some stage.

Lord DRUMALBYN

I would only say in passing that the fact that a company refuses to disclose information in accordance with Clause 28(1)(b) and either Clause 23 or 24, does not necessarily mean that that clause is, to use a kind of Latin grammar phrase "meet to be disclosed." I think this still has to be looked at. It might not be in the national interest to disclose it, and there might still be special reasons for not disclosing it. If the company feel so strongly that they refuse to disclose it even to the Minister, the likelihood is that there are very good reasons for it. I personally should like to study this further.

Lord MELCHETT

It is not merely that they have failed to comply with Clause 28(1)(b), but they have actually been convicted of an offence.

Lord DRUMALBYN

Yes, exactly.

Lord MELCHETT

And then the Minister, instead of issuing another notice—in other words, doing exactly what he has just done before and having the company convicted—we feel must have the power to proceed in a slightly different way. After all, it is not much use to the Minister or anybody else if he keeps issuing notices, the company keeps refusing to comply, keeps getting convicted and fined, and the Minister has the power only to issue another notice. Of course, the Minister still retains some discretion about whether or not he discloses the information. If it is going to be harmful to the national interest. I imagine that the Minister would not disclose it. If the noble Lord thinks about it, I am sure he will feel that it would be a mockery of these provisions in the Bill if the only power the Minister has when somebody is convicted of failing to comply with an order is merely to reissue the same order so that the person may be reconvicted, and nothing more happens than that. That is the purpose of this reserve power. I am afraid that in the confusion about listening to whether it was clause 28(1) paragraph (a) or (b), I did not catch the "fast one" which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, claimed to have sent over the table.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

I was asking for an interpretation of the previous subsection (2). I have not tabled an Amendment to that subsection, but of course it runs straight into subsection (3) and I was asking whether my interpretation was correct. I merely said that if in the short time available the noble Lord was not able to give me the answer, I was ready to wait until the next stage of the Bill. I will clarify it again as the noble Lord has invited me to. In subsection (2) it appears that this clause is related only to information which is furnished to the Minister and not to information which he is going to seek to pass on to trade union representatives. The confidentiality clause (which this is) relates to information within the Government machine but including three agencies. In his initial reply to me the noble Lord spoke in terms of the information being transmitted to trade union representatives. That surprised me, because I did not think it arose in this clause. I realised that there might be ambiguity in the wording, which I will again repeat, that has not been furnished to the representative of each relevant trade union under Section 25 above. That might indicate that it was a matter of the stage reached rather than the different kind of information; that it was related only to the information going to the Government as opposed to the trade union representatives and therefore was information that was likely to be confidential.

Lord DRUMALBYN

There is a further point here. The noble Lord has been arguing that once a person has been convicted of an offence of refusing or failing without reasonable cause to furnish information, the Department should then be exempted from the requirement not to disclose the information. That is as I understand the position. If they do disclose the information, is the £40 a day fine to go on running for ever? They have disclosed the information, the person who has been convicted of an offence is to be guilty of a further offence so long as the default is continued. I suggest that the noble Lord should look at this. To say the least, it looks a little untidy.

Lord MELCHETT

It may be untidy, but it would certainly he incompetent of the company if they did not disclose the information. I will certainly—if the noble Lord wishes to say something to me perhaps he will rise.

Lord DRUMALBYN

How can they disclose something that has already been disclosed? That is a nonsense, if I may say so.

Lord MELCHETT

If I may say so, I should have thought the company could disclose something from the company although the Minister has already disclosed it from the Minister, but I may well be wrong about that. I will write to the noble Lord if I am wrong, but there would be nothing to stop the company ceasing to be in breach of the law by disclosing the information itself once the Minister had done so.

To answer the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, my understanding of subsection (2) is that it means the confidentiality provisions cease to apply after information has been furnished to the trade unions. But until then the confidentiality provisions apply, except for the provisions of subsection (3), which is what we have been discussing under this Amendment, even where the information has not been furnished and the company has committed an offence. I hope that clears up the interpretation of subsection (2).

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

That is a very important statement of interpretation, because it means that this clause refers not only to information which is being disclosed to the Government and not intended to go any further, but also information which may be going on to the trade unions so long as it is with the Minister and before the process is started of suggesting that it be transmitted to the trade unions. I see no difficulty about that; it is covering both eventualities. I am grateful to the noble Lord for having explained the intention of this part, which was not clear. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.39 p.m.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 273:

Page 26, line 10, at end insert— (5) If in contravention of this section information to which this section applies is disclosed and if the person by whom the information was furnished in consequence sustains commercial loss or damage, the Minister to whom the information was furnished shall compensate that person in full for that loss or damage.

The noble Lord said: This Amendment simply raises the question of whether there should be any compensation available if there is a breach of confidence somewhere in the Government machine or through the Government machine, resulting in damages to a company which has supplied this information. It could be said that companies are being kept to a fairly strict discipline, including the whole process of convictions and fines if they do not observe the system correctly, and this simply raises the question of whether there is any way in which, if the company is let down in some way, it can claim compensation for damage which has been proved to have occurred as a result. I beg to move.

Lord BESWICK

I recognise the argument that if the Government require a company or body to provide information of a possibly sensitive kind, and Parliament imposes a duty of confidentiality on that provision, then the Government should reasonably pay compensation because of that breach. Although the noble Lord said that it was a simple matter, it is a little more complicated than that. Information of a commercially sensitive sort has been required before in a number of different Acts; for instance, the Statistics of Trade Act 1947, the Counter-Inflation Act 1973, the Insurance Companies (Amendment) Act 1973, and so on. There is no novelty in a Government or other bodies such as the Monopolies Commission or the Prices Commission, for example, having obtained information either voluntarily or by Statute whose disclosure could cause embarrassment or damage.

What we have put forward in this Bill is exactly comparable to what has been done in some previous legislation. We have proposed that improper disclosure by the Minister or by any other body to which he has passed the information, as he is allowed to by Clause 26, should be a criminal offence. The only difference between this Bill and earlier Statutes is that we have increased the maximum fine payable for a summary conviction; on indictment, a person convicted of an offence may be liable to an unlimited fine or a term of imprisonment not exceeding two years.

One of the matters which should be looked at with some care is as to whether the introduction of an Amendment on the lines proposed could affect the construction which might be placed by the courts on all the other Acts I have mentioned which impose a specific duty to preserve the confidentiality of information which has been required by the Government. It could be that a specific definition of rights in this Bill might reduce the Common Law rights which might exist in other cases. The noble Lord will no doubt bear in mind that the Law Commission have published a working paper, No. 58, on breach of confidence. Again, it would be desirable to consider more fully than has yet been possible what would be the effect of legislating in one specific case when wider and more general legislation has been proposed by the Law Commission, in work which stems from the Report of the Younger Committee on Privacy.

I hope that what I have said indicates the seriousness of what the noble Lord says. I hope he will accept that there is a complication which probably extends further than he thought. With the assurance that I am giving, that the matter is one which is at present receiving study, I hope that he will see fit to withdraw this particular Amendment.

Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS

Do I understand the noble Lord to suggest that that may well be included in this Bill?—because there ought to be some discipline from that side, too. All the discipline at the moment seems to be directed against management, and that one understands, because they are the source of information that is wanted. But if it is wrongly or carelessly disclosed, which damages the company, it ought to be written in somewhere that compensation will cover it, otherwise there is no discipline at all to be ultra careful in the interests of a company.

Lord BESWICK

Far from there not being discipline, I have detailed the criminal offence as created by the improper disclosure of information. When the noble Lord gets on to a civil offence, it would not be proper to put anything in the Bill which might have an effect upon other areas of legislation. I suggested, though apparently not too clearly, that it is a matter which requires more thought. Some thought has been given to it by the Law Commission, and on the basis of their Report we are giving it further study.

Lord LEATHERLAND

Is there not just a risk that the proposal contained in this Amendment and, perhaps, to some extent, the concessionary attitude of my noble friends on the Front Bench, might go too far? Let us visualise a position in which, let us say, Imperial Chemical Industries, with a capital of many millions of pounds, gives some information to the Minister. Let us assume that by some mishap, that information leaks. Let us then further assume that some wicked people in the Stock Market decide to mount a colossal bear market with the result that the capital value of ICI as quoted on the Stock Exchange is reduced by hundreds of millions of pounds. Is the Minister going to have to be responsible for paying compensation to that extent?

A Noble Lord

Why not?

Lord BESWICK

What I have said I should have thought would have satisfied my noble friend. I have said that we are proposing not to move without due consideration.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

I am glad that the problem is recognised. As the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, said, through this Bill companies are now being asked to enter into a system by which they will be directed to provide information. So the Government ought to consider the position even though it is complicated when, as a result of all that companies have done by compulsion, they suffer damage. But as the noble Lord has said that this is being considered in a wider context, I will not press it at this moment and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.

8.55 p.m.

Lord BESWICK

I beg to move Amendment No. 274.

Amendment moved—

After Clause 26, page 26, line 10, at end insert ("PART V").—(Lord Beswick.)

Lord DRUMALBYN

May I ask a more than usually tiresome question? Amendment No. 280A says "Transpose Clause 28 to after Clause 26". Does Part V in fact come at the end of line 10, or does the transposed clause come at the beginning of Part V?

Lord BESWICK

At four minutes to nine that is a particularly tiresome question, and I am afraid I have not got the answer.

Clause 27 agreed to.

Clause 28 [Offences, and enforcement of orders]:

8.58 p.m.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 275:

Page 26, line 22, after ("information") insert ("within a reasonable time")

The noble Lord said: At an earlier stage, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, suggested that this Amendment might be considered at the same time, but I did not agree because it came at a later stage in the Bill and was not, I thought, related exactly to the point I was then making. Fortuitously, it happens that this Amendment now has rather more significance than I had thought as a result of the misprint just announced. It is an Amendment to paragraph (b) which should be referred to in subsection (3) in the previous Clause 26. The suggestion is that in addition to "reasonable cause" in this subsection which reads, refuses or fails without reasonable cause to furnish information", there should also be inserted, "within a reasonable time", because there is nothing to indicate that a company has had enough time to co-operate and furnish the information. I am not sure that it is covered by, "without reasonable cause", but in so far as the Government have put in the words, "without reasonable cause" I should have thought that they could have inserted, "within reasonable time" particularly as (b) now has rather more importance than we previously thought. I beg to move.

Lord MELCHETT

I am afraid that once again, with one eye on the clock, I do not think discussing this point yet again is a reasonable use of time, because we covered it on an earlier Amendment. I said then that I would ask your Lordships to look at paragraph (a) of Clause 24(1), which specifically states that reasonable time must be given and that this shall not be less than 28 days. If the time specified in the notice were to be unreasonable, or if the information simply were not available, it would be a defence in terms of paragraph (b) of Clause 28(1), in that both these would be a reasonable cause for failure to have provided the information and hence the company would have committed no offence in thus failing to provide it. I regret to say I do not think the fact that there was a misprint in the Bill alters the insignificance of this particular Amendment.

Lord BROWN

May I add a little further argument. I was going to comment on the previous Amendment, but thought it was unnecessary at that stage. Clause 24(5) says: A Minister shall not serve a notice… without giving… the company… concerned an opportunity of making representations to him. If the time given is not reasonable, if the company suggests to the Minister that the time is not reasonable, no doubt he will alter his mind, and in the last analysis it is the Minister who has to say whether or not it is reasonable. There are all sorts of safeguards against unreasonable time being imposed on the company.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

The significance I was speaking of was the significance to this paragraph (b), not necessarily to the Amendment. The noble Lord in reply has indicated that where it is written in other parts of the Bill it will have its effect here. This is a subsection dealing with offences and imposing a fine, and it was therefore necessary to ensure that this point about reasonable time was applicable in this subsection of this clause as well as in other parts of the Bill, but in view of the complete assurance we have had from the noble Lord that that is the case, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord BESWICK

I beg to move Amendment No. 275A, and perhaps we may take with it No. 276A, No. 277A and No. 280A. All these are drafting Amendments which recognise the proposed division of the Bill into different Parts. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 27, line 13, after "this") insert ("Part of this")—Lord Beswick.)

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

I beg to to move Amendment No. 276. This is seeking an explanation of why subsection (7) is needed in the Bill. We should be grateful if the Government could give an explanation. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 27, line 22, leave out subsection (7).—(Lord Campbell of Croy.)

Lord LOVELL-DAVIS

Subsection (7) is simply a standard provision of legilation dealing with offences by bodies corporate and that is why it is included in the Bill. Its purpose, like that of subsection (6) is to provide that persons responsible for failure to meet the requirements imposed by the Statute may be held to be individually liable for the offence thus committed by the body corporate. It therefore covers those cases where the affairs of the body corporate are not managed by a board of directors elected by members but are directly managed by the members, for example, the nationalised industries, and extends to them the same provisions as apply to managers and officers of bodies corporate by virtue of subsection (6). Similar provisions exist in the Fair Trading Act 1973, Section 132(2) of the Civil Aviation Act 1971, and the Gas Act 1972. I hope that explanation satisfies the noble Lord.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

I am grateful for the explanation, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord BESWICK

I beg to move Amendment No. 276A.

Amendment moved—

Page 27, line 26, after ("this") insert ("Part of this").—(Lord Beswick.)

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

I beg to move Amendment No. 277. It may be that my noble friend Lord Balfour will consider it convenient for his immediately-following Amendment to be discussed at the same time. I have a natural curiosity as to why in the Bill Scotland should appear to be missed out, why it should not seem necessary to make separate provision for Scotland, when subsection (8) deals with England and Wales and Northern Ireland. I am sure there is some explanation and your Lordships would be interested to hear what it is. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 27, line 31, at end insert—

("(c) in Scotland except at the instance of the Lord Advocate").—(Lord Campbell of Croy.)

Lord LOVELL-DAVIS

I am happy to say there is nothing sinister in the omission of Scotland. The Bill, like other Statutes, specifices that the appropriate Attorney General's permission shall be obtained for prosecutions in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Like other Statutes, it makes no mention of Scotland. This is because in Scotland all prosecutions—other than two categories, neither of which is relevant to the Industry Bill—require the consent of prosecuting authorities. The proposal to designate the Lord Advocate as sole prosecuting authority would disrupt an existing and adequate system without adding any benefit.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

I think I can speak for my noble friend and myself in thanking the noble Lord for that explanation, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord BESWICK

I beg to move Amendment No. 278A.

Amendment moved—

Page 27, line 32, after ("this") insert ("Part of this").—(Lord Beswick.)

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Alport)

If Amendment No. 278B is approved I cannot call Amendments Nos. 279 and 289.

Lord BESWICK

I beg to move Amendment No. 278B. I spoke to this on Amendment No. 130A.

Amendment moved—

Page 27, line 37, leave out subsections (10) and (11).—(Lord Beswick.)

The Earl of BALFOUR

Could I take the opportunity of asking the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, whether he would look at the bottom of page 27, at the last two paragraphs, where no criminal proceedings take place? Should it not extend to a vesting order as well as a prohibition order? If the noble Lord prefers it, I can leave this and put it down at Report, but I felt I should like the opportunity to ask the question.

Lord MELCHETT

I understand the noble Earl is speaking of his two Amendments which will not be called if this Amendment is passed. Perhaps I can briefly explain the purpose of the two subsections the noble Earl was seeking to amend. That might set his mind at rest. The noble Earl's two Amendments seek to alter the two subsections which are somewhat different from the other provisions in this clause, in that they do not create offences but instead state that any contravention of a prohibition order shall not constitute a criminal offence, but civil proceedings may be brought in respect of a prohibition order. The subsections are confined to prohibition orders, and the question to which they relate is how a prohibition order is to be enforced. The answer they embody in statutory form is that breach of a prohibition order is not to be a criminal offence, but civil proceedings may be brought.

The Secretary of State, if he believed the person to be acting in a manner contrary to a prohibition order, could seek an injunction from the court preventing that person from doing so. Any actions taken in the face of such an injunction would amount to contempt of court, thus making the person guilty of the contempt and liable to committal to prison. This provides a proper and adequate means of ensuring that prohibition orders are respected and criminal proceedings are therefore unnecessary. I hope that that answers the point of the noble Earl.

The Earl of BALFOUR

Yes.

Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.

9.9 p.m.

Lord BESWICK

I beg to move Amendment No. 280A.

Amendment moved—

Transpose Clause 28 to after Clause 26.—(Lord Beswick.)

Clause 29 agreed to.

Clause 30 [Interpretation]:

Lord BESWICK

I beg to move Amendment No. 281A. I spoke to this with Amendment No. 100A.

Amendment moved—

Page 28, leave out lines 25 and 26.—(Lord Beswick.)

Lord BESWICK moved Amendment No. 283:

Page 28, line 28, at end insert—

(""holding company" means a holding company as defined by section 154 of the Companies Act 1948 or section 148 of the Companies Act (Northern Ireland) 1960;")

The noble Lord said: I am bound to say that I am not properly advised about this, but it simply provides a definition of a holding company in terms of the existing definitions of the Companies Acts. It is the same as the previous definition which was in Clause 10(2)(b) but which was deleted as part of Amendment No. 97. It is more appropriately placed in the interpretation clause because "holding company" appears elsewhere in this Bill, for example in Clause 22(2)(b) in addition to Clause 10. I beg to move.

Lord BESWICK

moved Amendment No. 284:

Page 28, line 37, at end insert—

(""planning agreement" has the meaning assigned to it by section 16(2) above;")

The noble Lord said: This Amendment explains the meaning of a planning agreement. The same definition also appears in Clause 16, but since the phrase now occurs not only in Clause 16 but in paragraph 2 of Schedule 4 it is appropriate that a reference to the definition in Clause 16 be made in the interpretation clause. I beg to move.

Lord MELCHETT

I beg to move Amendment No. 284A. This was spoken to with Amendment No. 100.

Amendment moved—

Page 28, leave out lines 38 and 39.—(Lord Melchett.)

Lord WIGODER

My noble friends and I find ourselves with a formidable ally on this Amendment. For our part we do not desire to move.

Lord LOVELL-DAVIS

Then it falls to me to move Amendment No. 285 on behalf of the Government.

Amendment moved—

Page 28, leave out from beginning of line 40 to end of line 4 on page 29.—(Lord Lovell-Davis.)

Lord BESWICK

I beg to move Amendment No. 285A. This was taken with Amendment No. 100A.

Amendment moved—

Page 29, leave out lines 10 and 11.—(Lord Beswick.)

9.13 p.m.

The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 286:

Page 29, line 29, at end insert ("mining and quarrying.")

The noble Earl said: In dealing with Clause 30(2) may I ask your Lordships to look at Clause 30(1) under "manufacturing industry". It says that this means, subject to subsection (2) below, activities which are described in any of the minimum list headings in Orders III to XIX (inclusive)…. Mining and quarrying do not appear in that, but they are both highly labour intensive industries. I should perhaps point out to your Lordships that the intention is that mining and quarrying should go in, if it is accepted, after packaging. There has been a slight muddling of the page numbers, but this is where it is intended to go.

Lord MELCHETT

To show how reasonable we become once we start making progress with Amendments, I fully accept the logic behind this Amendment and if the noble Earl. Lord Balfour, will agree to withdraw it the Government hope to come forward with a similar Amendment, though with slightly different wording, on Report.

The Earl of BALFOUR

With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 31 [Orders]:

9.15 p.m.

Lord MELCHETT

I beg to move Amendment No. 287, which was discussed with Amendment No. 40.

Amendment moved—

Page 30, line 5, at end insert—

("(3) It is hereby declared that any power of giving directions or making determinations conferred on the Secretary of State by any provision of this Act includes power to vary or revoke directions or determinations given or made under that provision.")—Lord Melchett.)

Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clause agreed do.

Schedule 1 [The National Enterprise Board]:

9.16 p.m.

The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 288:

Page 31, line 39, at end insert ("or is unsuitable to continue as a member")

The noble Earl said: This is typical Scottish caution and I merely intend by this Amendment to insert the phrase: or is unsuitable to continue as a member which appears in much Scottish legislation.

Lord LOVELL-DAVIS

I am in sympathy with the basic purpose of this Amendment. It is a very important matter that the Secretary of State should be able to exercise his ultimate responsibility for the NEB by controlling the composition of the Board, and this inevitably means that he must be able, should the need ever arise—and, of course we all hope that it never will—to declare vacant the office of any member of the NEB who is manifestly unsuitable to continue as a member.

The need is to find words which give the Secretary of State the appropriate discretion without at the same time depriving Board members of reasonable security, and in the extreme without permitting a situation in which members continued in office only at the Minister's pleasure, and were open to pressure from him to exercise their duties in particular ways against the threat of dismissal. The Government have chosen to use the words "unable or unfit" as the means of giving proper discretion. Although the word "unsuitability" carries connotations very similar to the words "unable or unfit", it could probably cover wider considerations, such as political suitability with regard to the Government in power. This would clearly be undesirable and the Government feel that the existing wording conveys their intentions more clearly.

Clause 6(1)(d) ensures that a member's office be declared vacant in other circumstances than those specifically set out in Clause 6(1)(a) to (c), which cover the more readily foreseeable circumstances in which it would plainly be undesirable for members to continue in office; protracted absence from meetings of the Board, bankruptcy, physical and mental illness. Unfortunately these are not, I need hardly remind your Lordships, the only misfortunes and weaknesses to which human beings are subject, and more general grounds for removal from office must be available to the Secretary of State. I am sure noble Lords will agree that a general reserve power such as already exists as a common provision in relation to public corporations must be available to the Secretary of State in the case of the NEB. On the other hand, the power is not arbitrary and there must be specific considerations of inability or unfitness before the office of any member can be declared vacant. I hope that this explanation will satisfy the noble Earl.

The Earl of BALFOUR

Yes, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.19 p.m.

The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 289:

Page 33, line 4, after ("member") insert "or his spouse")

The noble Earl said: In this part of the Bill we read: A member who is in any way directly or indirectly interested in a contract made or proposed to be made by the Board…. I feel that the phrase "or his spouse" should he included here. The highest standard of care must be taken in a matter like this and people in this position might manage to get some gain through passing on information, perhaps to their spouses.

Lord MELCHETT

I hope that I will not shatter the friendship which I trust has built up between the noble Earl and myself since I was able to accept an Amendment of his, but I cannot resist pointing out that this Amendment would have the effect that the spouse of a member of the Board would have to turn up at the Board meeting to declare his or her interest rather than, as I think the noble Earl intends, that the member of the Board should declare his or her spouse's interest at the Board meeting. But the fact is that we feel there are safeguards to cover the important point which the noble Earl has raised. They are two. First, under paragraph 1 of the Schedule, the Secretary of State is given the duty of satisfying himself that persons he is considering appointing to the Board do not have financial or other interests likely to prejudice their performance as members of the Board. This would enable him to require such information as he may specify to be furnished by the persons—that is, the Board members—involved. He would therefore be able to require any details about interests of the members' spouse which he thought relevant to be disclosed.

Secondly, the requirement under paragraph 13 for relevant interests of members to be declared at meetings of the Board is very broadly drawn—and deliberately so: the obligation to declare interests relates to a member who is in any way directly or indirectly interested in a contract or any other matter. In our view it must be implicit in this requirement that any relevant interest of the member's spouse would have to be declared as being an indirect interest in the matter to be discussed. I hope that, with those assurances, the noble Earl will see fit to withdraw the Amendment.

The Earl of BALFOUR

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Whether Schedule 1 shall be the first Schedule to the Bill?

Lord BOYLE of HANDSWORTH

I should like to say one word about one crucial category of people who are not specifically referred to in this first Schedule to the Bill, namely, the permanent advisers to the Board. We are quite rightly concerned with the question of Board members, but it is difficult to imagine more important work for the Civil Service than that of giving permanent advice to the Board, with their very wide functions. I hope we can be assured that the Minister for the Civil Service will not only be concerned with the salaries of the members of the Board but will also work closely with the Secretary of State to ensure the quality of those who are to advise the Board.

Lord BESWICK

I can say only that this point has not escaped the notice of those who are concerned with this and that it has been taken very much to heart. One of the encouraging features of this whole business is the evidence that we have in this country persons of the quality which will be required.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2 [Financial and Administrative provisions relating to Board]:

9.25 p.m.

Lord BESWICK moved Amendment No. 290:

Page 38, line 38, at end insert—

("(2A) A copy of the register under section 1(9) above, as amended from time to time, shall be annexed to each such report.")

The noble Lord said: When we discussed Amendments 19 and 20 to Clause 1, we transferred responsibility for keeping the register of interests of Board members from the Board to the Secretary of State. The Amendment, together with Amendments Nos. 291 and 292, are relatively minor Amendments to the provisions for registering Board members' financial interests.

The Government feel that it is more appropriate for the Secretary of State to maintain the register than the Board themselves, since it is the Secretary of State who has to satisfy himself under the provisions of paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 that the members have no financial interest likely prejudicially to affect the performance of their functions. It also seems appropriate that the register should be made available to Parliament each year, so there is provision for a copy to be annexed to the Board's annual report which must be laid before both Houses of Parliament by the Secretary of State. I hope that what I have said will be accepted as extending also to Amendments Nos. 291 and 292. I beg to move.

Lord BESWICK

I beg to move Amendment No. 291.

Amendment moved—

Page 38, line 39, leave out ("so laid") and insert ("laid before Parliament under subparagraph (2) above").—(Lord Beswick.)

Lord BESWICK

I beg to move Amendment No. 292.

Amendment moved—

Page 38, line 42, leave out ("Board's").—(Lord Beswick.)

Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 3 [Arbitration]:

9.25 p.m.

Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 292J:

Page 39, line 20, after ("solicitor") insert ("who has practised for at least seven years")

The noble Lord said: This Schedule appoints a tribunal to deal with disputes arising over vesting and compensation orders. It will deal with very considerable sums, sometimes matters of considerable and lasting importance, and not necessarily only in questions of value. Its appeal is direct to the Court of Appeal and we feel it proper that the chairman should have a minimum qualification. Your Lordships will be aware that under the Courts Act 1971 minimum qualifications are provided for inter alia coroners and circuit judges. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, who is to reply—or for whom another noble Lord will reply—was kind enough to tell me that the phrase which I had used in this Amendment was perhaps not exactly acceptable, since the word "practised" is not clearly defined. The noble Lord may prefer that I should return at Report stage, or substitute this Amendment with the manuscript Amendment that I have in my hand, which replaces the phrase concerning standing with the phrase "of at least seven years' standing" I should be happy to do either if it is his intention that the purposes of this Amendment should be incorporated in the Bill.

Lord BESWICK

The noble Lord accurately remembers what we spoke about in the Lobby. I accept the principle of what he says. It is also a fact that to have an Amendment referring to a lawyer who has practised for seven years would be somewhat restrictive. That could, for example, leave out a barrister who is not in Chambers but who has considerable experience of precisely the area of work we have in mind. I should rather not have the noble Lord whip a manuscript Amendment out of his coat tails at this stage, but it would be better if we had "seven years' standing", and if he would agree, the noble Lord could put it forward at Report stage.

Lord ELTON

I thank the noble Lord for that reply and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord LOVELL-DAVIS moved Amendment No. 292A:

Page 40, line 36, leave out ("25") and insert ("27").

The noble Lord said: With this Amendment I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 292B. These are small Amendments. The first is to correct a drafting mistake by putting in the correct paragraph reference, and the second is to make the normal provision that there shall be Ministerial control over salaries that are paid from monies voted by Parliament. This will bring paragraph 12(2) into line with paragraph 12(1), which provides for the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service of salaries paid to tribunal members. Here we propose similar control over the salaries of officials appointed by the tribunal. I beg to move.

Lord LOVELL-DAVIS

I beg to move Amendment No. 292B.

Amendment moved—

Page 40, line 38, after ("may") insert (", with the approval of the Secretary of State given with the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service,")—(Lord Lovell-Davis.)

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 4 [Disclosure of information by Government]:

9.29 p.m.

Lord BESWICK moved Amendment 292C:

Page 42, line 41, leave out from beginning to end of line 12 on page 43, and insert—

("PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE MACRO-ECONOMIC MODEL

1. 1. For the purposes of this Schedule the Treasury shall keep a macro-economic model suitable for demonstrating the likely effects on economic events in the United Kingdom of different assumptions about the following matters, namely—
   1. (a) government economic policies;
   2. (b) economic events outside the United Kingdom; and
   3. (c) such (if any) other matters as appear to the Treasury from time to time likely to have a substantial effect on economic events in the United Kingdom.
2. 2. The model shall enable forecasts to be made—
   1. (a) of any of the following, namely—
      1. (i) the level of growth domestic product;
      2. (ii) unemployment;
      3. (iii) the balance of payments on current account;
      4. (iv) the general index of retail prices; and
      5. (v) average earnings; and
   2. (b) of such (if any) other economic variables as are appropriate in the opinion of the Treasury from time to time.
3. 3. The references to forecasts in paragraph 2 above are references to forecasts relating to successive periods of three months and not to shorter periods.
4. 4. The model shall be maintained on a computer.
5. 5. The model shall be available to members of the public during office hours upon payment of such reasonable fee as the Treasury may determine.
6. 6. Not less than twice in each year commencing with a date not later than one year from the coming into force of this Act, the Treasury shall publish forecasts produced with the aid of the model as to such matters and based on such alternative assumptions as appear to them to be appropriate.
7. 7. Any forecast under this Schedule shall indicate, where possible, the margin of error attaching to it.
8. 8. The Treasury shall from time to time publish an analysis of errors in such forecasts that would have remained even if the assumptions set out in the forecasts and on which they were based had been correct.")

The noble Lord said: The Amendment I now move is intended to maintain the essence of paragraph 1 of the Schedule which was introduced into the Bill in another place. The recasting it proposes is to improve the clarity of the text and to express it in an appropriate legal formulation. Changes of substance are few. Provision is made for the Treasury to have some discretion as to the ground which the forecasts will cover, and to provide these not less than twice a year rather than quarterly. Secondly, a provision is made for the Treasury to charge a fee for the use of the facility. Thirdly, provision is made for a suitable period of time before the Treasury is required to bring the new facility into operation. As I hope is clear, the Amendment is an attempt to improve the first part of this Schedule. It has been the subject of constructive discussion outside the Chamber as well as in the other House, and I hope that it will be acceptable to both sides of the Committee. I beg to move.

Lord RHODES moved Amendment No. 292H as an Amendment to Amendment No. 292C:

Line 1, leave out ("PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE MACRO-ECONOMIC MODEL") and insert ("DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION BY GOVERNMENT")

The noble Lord said: I want to make it clear that my Amendment is very important. The Government are giving important information and analyses and we should not disguise what is being done by a technical sounding title like "macroeconomic models", which in any case is not the sole object of Schedule 4. If my suggestion could be included I should be satisfied. I beg to move.

Lord BROWN

With respect to my noble friend, predictions made from a computer are not information. They are predictions, nothing more. If one were to call these "information" it would put a false value on them. We are at the beginning of a process of using macroeconomic models based on computer science, and to go into the realms of the future and to regard these as positive information would be highly misleading. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw this Amendment.

Lord RHODES

May I refer to a comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, only half an hour ago when he said that the point of obtaining information is to use it, and this is what we are attempting in this Amendment.

Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY

On the matters of programmes pertaining to computers the information is programmed into the computer and the result depends on what the computer has done to it. No one is pretending that these are major facts necessarily reaching to the depths of the economic universe. Nevertheless they are information as to what the computer produces if you feed certain assumptions into it. Therefore it is information and I certainly support the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes.

Lord RITCHIE-CALDER

May I ask the Committee to consider the words "facts" and "information". Is information fact or not? Are we getting information from the Government, or are we getting facts, or are we getting something called the product of macroeconomic models?

Lord BOWDEN

The more important question is whether the Government are required to display the postulates which they made when they fed this information into the machine. The devastating fact is that far from frequently—in my experience almost invariably—when unreliable data has been subjected to very complicated calculations, it is assumed that in some mysterious way the original information gains a certain credibility which in fact it does not possess. I feel that it is at least as important, and will be as important for the future of this extremely important enterprise, that the Government should reveal their original postulates, their original assumptions, as that they should reveal the results of the calculations. They are often the more important, the more suspect and the more subject to argument. I wonder how far this point is covered.

While on my feet I should like to ask a very important question, namely: How in practice do you distinguish micro from macro-economics? The Government's policy of what they blandly call "fine tuning", which is what I am sure they mean by macro-economics, often leads to the bankruptcy of quite large industries, and this devastating effect is usually described as "micro", despite the effect it may have on society at large. I think we need a clarification of the phraseology and some guarantee that the information published will include far more than the results of dubious calculations based on unknown data.

Lord WIGODER

May I refer to Clause 22. Subsection (10) of that clause says: Ministers of the Crown and Treasury shall publish, make available and provide access to information and analysis as specified in Schedule 4 to this Act. An attempt to remove subsection (10) from Clause 22 has already failed. Is it not more logical in those circumstances that Schedule 4, which is referred to specifically in Clause 22, should therefore have the heading "Disclosure of information by Government" as proposed in the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes?

Lord BESWICK

I cannot understand why there is such argument about it. I entirely agree.

Lord RHODES

Thank you.

Lord RHODES moved Amendment No. 292D, as an Amendment to Amendment No. 292C.

Paragraph 5, after ("public") insert ("to make forecasts based on their own assumptions using the aforesaid computer")

The noble Lord said: This is to get a bit more clarity into it too because paragraph 5 deals with the public access and I am making it quite clear, by inserting, to make forecasts based on their own assumptions using the aforesaid computer that the access is not just to this macroeconomic model. The macro-economic model is there in the Treasury already but it is not being used as we want it to be used and it is not being used as it will be used in the future. We want to make it clear that the access is to forecasting and not specifically to this model which on its own is quite indigestible for anybody, however intelligent or academic they may be.

May I say that charging, which is also in this paragraph, is necessary to limit frivolous use; but cheap or free access should be made available. When I say "public" access I mean those who are qualified and obey the precepts laid down in the Schedule: such as Parliament, the TUC, the CBI, research associations and the Press. I beg to move.

Lord BESWICK

Perhaps it would be helpful if I said straightaway that I am happy to accept this; except that on Report it might be advisable to make a minor amendment. For example, I am told by the people who specialise in these things that "aforesaid" is not a word normally put into a Statute and we may have to change it. Otherwise I accept the principle.

9.39 p.m.

Lord RHODES moved Amendment No. 292E as an Amendment to Amendment No. 292C.

Paragraph 6, leave out ("such matters") and insert ("all economic variables in the model")

The noble Lord said: This Amendment arises from very grave suspicions, because I would think that the term "such matters" is one of those Civil Service ambiguous references that can mean anything or mean nothing at all. The sole purpose of this Amendment is to prevent the Treasury from putting a blue pencil through "forecasting"; because if they did it would upset all the work that has been done in the Commons, speaking with a near unified voice, to put this in. I beg to move.

Lord BESWICK

I wonder whether we can look at this Amendment more critically than the other two. As it is drafted, it would place on the Government a duty to publish forecasts of alternative assumptions about a whole range of variables, including such sensitive items as wage rates, exchange rates, prices and so forth. As I have said already, the Government have a duty to consider the effect on events in this country and abroad of publication of such forecasts, and consider it essential that the Treasury should be given discretion to exercise their judgment on these matters when the national interest is involved. Noble Lords will agree that the Government have a duty not to release material which may be prejudicial to the national interest. Moreover, the model would contain a large number of variables, possibly running into many hundreds, and to publish forceasts of them all would be a mammoth and, I suggest, possibly not very rewarding task. While we have accepted the two previous Amendments, I suggest this one be not agreed to.

Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON

invite your Lordships to accept the Amendment moved by my noble friend. Paragraph 2 of the new Schedule reads: The model shall enable forecasts to be made… of any of the following… the level of growth domestic product… unemployment… the balance of payments… the general index of retail prices… and average earnings. It also covers a whole number of other factors. I can see it to be entirely in the public interest that these matters be made known. Some of our learned economists have made mathematical calculations in the past with pencils and paper, and their forecasts almost invariably over the past 25 years have been falsifying events. It is all very well for them to cast doubt and scorn on the possibility of a computer using a mathematical projection being able to put forward certain facts that ought to be considered by the public. It may well be that, in the event, after periods of six months or three months, subject to correction, the errors of the computer will become known. This is more than can be said for some of the errors which have been committed and compounded by virtually every public economist in this country over a quarter of a century.

Therefore it is in the public interest that the Government make certain forecasts public on the basis of data fed into the computer. The nature of the data can be disclosed so that the public can judge and form their own conclusions as to what predictions can be made. This amended clause which has been proposed by the Minister prescribed that the model shall enable forecasts to be made. It does not say society, or anybody else—

The Earl of BALFOUR

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but I must ask one question: is the noble Lord speaking to Amendment No. 292D or 292E?

Lord BRUCE OF DONINGTON

I am speaking to Amendment No. 292E which was the Amendment moved by my noble friend. It is desirable, particularly in the years that lie ahead, that the public should be made aware of the alternative forecasts that can be made regarding the future of our economy on alternative assumptions. Therefore I consider it highly desirable that the Government should accept not merely the text of this Amendment but the whole spirit that lies behind it.

Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY

This is a very difficult question and I take the point of the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, when he questioned which Amendment was being spoken to. Although undoubtedly we are speaking to Amendment No. 292E, Amendment 292D also is very much involved in this question. I feel strongly with the speakers who have spoken so far that we should have as much information as possible regarding the matters which have been fed into the computer and these hypotheses. I think this was the point that the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, was speaking to on the last Amendment and is no doubt going to speak to again.

However, it seems to me that there are undoubtedly parameters to this. Obviously the Government are rather cautious about the number of things they wish to be fed in; and it did not seem to me that the noble Lord, Lord Beswiek, when he was speaking about highly delicate matters on wages, et cetera, put up a case at all. I think those are matters which should be made public. But one would not have to think much further than that to come across matters which it is very much in the public interest that they are not revealed. I hesitate to refer to particular examples, but civil servants always have their own views about what their masters are doing and there could be moments in the history of this country in which the Treasury would wish to put in rather highly sensitive matters which, if it were revealed they had been put in, would, given the nature of the Press and the media, gain absolutely sensational headlines. That there could be such matters is not open to doubt, but I am absolutely and entirely behind the purpose of the Amendment.

I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, this question. Is the point he is trying to insert, in Amendment No. 292E, not covered by having had No. 292D accepted? If there is freedom to use this computer; if there is freedom for members of the public—and that means, of course, highly skilful and highly informed members of the public—to put their own suppositions into the computer, they will probably do so in a way that the Treasury would also do, and they can get out the same answers and get the same information which can be released to the public. But what will then not happen is this. If the Treasury for some reason wishes to put in some really highly sensitive matters—and I am not just talking about wage claims or rates of inflation, but really sensitive matters—it would not necessarily have to reveal this. I wonder whether Amendment No. 292D does not cover the great substance of what the noble Lord. Lord Rhodes, wants.

9.48 p.m.

Viscount HANWORTH

We have to fact the fact that computer models can be extremely complicated with a very large number of variables indeed, and it is not only the variables; it is the weighting that is given to them. So I have considerable doubts whether this Amendment ought to be accepted. It may be that another compromise is possible. As I think the last speaker said, we probably have all we want in Amendment No. 292D. But to make it compulsory to provide this information is going far to( ) far, and it will be far more complicated than can be of use to any except a very skilled economist, who incidentally is trained in this kind of thing—not every economist is.

Lord BOWDEN

I should like to make two points. First, it is inconceivable that every possible variable should be tried; the task would be wildly beyond the powers of any computer, however powerful. On the other hand, the purpose of doing this enterprise is precisely to be able to compare the economic effects of proposed courses of action. Unless the consequences of these actions are known in fair detail it seems to me that the whole purpose of the exercise is stultified. As I said a few moments ago. I should like to extend the meaning of the word "macro" by the use of the phrase, "or economic variables" to include such effects, for example, as the dramatic effect the 25 per cent. VAT on electronics is having on the electronics industry, which seems to me to be disintegrating under the effect of it.

That is precisely the kind of thing which should emerge from an analysis made with a fairly complicated computer of the kind of action which the Treasury has traditionally taken. I would go so far as to say that many of the economic ills which beset this country at the moment are due to the attempts that the Treasury has traditionally made at what it calls "fine-tuning". These attempts have been made without an adequate survey of their total effect on the economy Of the country at large. It is precisely to make certain that this kind of thing does not occur again that this section of the Bill is so important. I hope that without committing the Treasury to doing the impossible, which is to try everything, we shall require it to publish as many alternative versions of alternative policy that the Government may wish to implement and find out what effect they will have on the economy as a whole.

Lord KAHN

I suffer from something far more serious than doubts about the value of this Amendment. When we return to the original Amendment, Amendment No. 292C as amended, I hope it will not be so late that the Committee will resent my saying a few words in general about that part of the Schedule to which Amendment No. 292C relates. I am afraid my remarks will be rather critical. I want to say now only that they will be even more critical if the Amendment which is now under discussion is passed, and I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, in asking the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Lord WYNNE-JONES

It seems to me that we are in a position with which I have been familiar for a large amount of my active scientific life; namely, trying to decide how one uses an expensive facility. When one was faced with treating the use of an expensive facility, one found an enormous number of people—I am talking about the Department of which for many years I was its head—who came forward with schemes and proposals. They were all intelligent people, and they produced hundreds of different schemes. Unfortunately, it was left to me to decide what should be done about them. As my noble friend Lord Bowden has just said, the number of variables is so great that there is no conceivable way of accepting all of them. It would be so expensive of resources and time and it would waste so much energy that it would become an utter nonsense. Therefore one has to reach a decision about what is to be done.

We are always faced with the problem of whether we reach a decision which enables the reasonable things to be done or whether we take into account a large number of unreasonable things. I am a great believer in the unreasonable, because I believe that so frequently the reasonable does not produce the answer. Nevertheless, however far one goes one must draw the line somewhere. Therefore I suggest that it is important that we realise that the Treasury ought to be expected to make these resources available, but they should not be expected to make them available to every Tom, Dick, or Harry, or whatever are the names of the different people concerned. In the end it means that if you do this you waste your resources to the extent that you get nothing done at all. Therefore, I suggest that what has been put forward by my noble friend Lord Beswick is probably, in the circumstances, the best we can do but I would hope that we shall be able to continue to exert continuous pressure.

Lord BOYLE of HANDSWORTH

I personally hope that the Government will resist and that this Committee will resist this Amendment. I should like briefly to explain one argument that influences me. I think the cause of saying that the Government should make more and more information available is always a popular one, and indeed I would say that in the last twenty years or so Governments and Departments have frequently been open to criticism for refusing to "come clean" about certain facts and figures which were germane to the argument. If noble Lords want to see this case set out well, I think Professor John Griffiths' recent book about Committee proceedings in Parliament made this point very effectively in its final chapter.

I see one great difficulty about this Amendment and, if I may say so, I think it is one that noble Lords ought to face quite fearlessly. If you go so far as this Amendment goes, you get into one very great difficulty. If we were to pass this Amendment tonight, it would be difficult for the published information and for the range of options, the range of contingencies that must by law be made available, not to include the possible effects of Government policies that have not yet come into being. That is not a new problem. It arose, as some more senior noble Lords than myself will remember, in the old days in the earlier economic surveys. People used to read the economic surveys—and I am thinking particularly of those appearing in the years fairly soon after 1947—trying to get a clue from the forecasts as to just what policies Governments would be following. I may be old-fashioned about this, and if so I apologise, but I personally believe it is important that policies should be introduced by the Government, discussed in both Houses of Parliament and put into effect by Parliament before they become part of the general assumptions or even likely contingencies that become part of the general discussion in this country. For that reason more than any other, I would not feel happy at going so far as the last of these three Amendments.

This is not an easy subject. If we defeat this Amendment tonight, I am sure it will continue to be a bone of contention, but I believe that from the point of view of the delicate interplay between Government and Parliament the wisest course for this Committee to take would be not to pass the third of these Amendments.

Lord BESWICK

I wonder whether we could come to a decision about this. I think there is complete agreement on all sides of the Committee that we need to move on to an era in which the Government make available more information—the Government in general and the Treasury in particular. There is no difference between us on that, and in the Amendment I have already moved I have spelled out the kind of information which I think should be made available.

When we come down to the small print and to Amendment No. 292E, we are really moving into an era where we could be demanding so much information that it becomes worthless. My noble friend Lord Bowden, with his usual passion on these subjects, gave us a practical case. He probably will not be surprised to know that I had myself thought that the particular instance he gave was a prime example of how not to do things, if I may say this about my own Government.

There is every reason to expect that the arrangement set out in my Amendment would provide for that kind of information—the effect on a certain industry of a certain rate of VAT. This certainly would be given, but there could be other cases where the national interest would be involved. If there is one certain way of creating a crisis, it is for a more authoritative Government Department to say that a crisis is possible. If that is projected, it is quite likely that people will make their dispositions accordingly and you will have created the very situation that you want to avoid. A certain measure of discretion here is essential.

I do not myself believe that the Treasury could altogether escape from the blame that they have created suspicions in the past. I think we are moving into a new area of consultation and greater confidence in which all available information would be made to those who can properly use it. The later Amendment I propose to make emphasises that still more. With that kind of attitude, I hope we can leave the Amendment which I have moved unaltered by Amendment No. 292E.

Lord RHODES

I have been impressed by what the noble Lord, Lord Boyle of Handsworth, and the Minister have said. I should like to be assured, however, that the phraseology in such matters does not give a loophole to the Treaury to expurgate forecasts. If the Minister will give me a categorical assurance that it does not mean that, I will withdraw my Amendment.

Lord BESWICK

I should be claiming more power than I have if I told the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, that there may not be some occasions in the future when the Treasury would be open to criticism. I am being perfectly honest with him. My understanding of the situation is that we are trying to avoid the situation in his own Amendment, in which he says, "All economic variables in the model". I have with me a professional definition of what is involved in this macro-economic model. If you ask for all economic variables to be made available, you really are asking for too much. I am asking for a certain latitude. I grant the noble Lord that such matters could—I am not saying they would, but could—leave open certain loopholes. I can only say that the intention is not to use this phrasing for the purpose he fears. I cannot give a guarantee; I can only say that that is the impression I have had from various conversations I have had.

Lord RHODES

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Whether Amendment No. 292C, as amended, shall be agreed to?

10.0 p.m.

Lord KAHN

I know it is getting late, but this Schedule is one of very great importance, and if I may be allowed to say a few words about that part of the Schedule to which this Amendment relates, it will save time so far as I am concerned when we come to later Amendments to this Schedule. I hope that what I have to say will be regarded as reasonably consistent with what has already been said by the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, and by my noble friend Lord Boyle of Handsworth.

I think I am right in saying that nothing on the lines of the Schedule appeared in the Bill as it went to the Committee upstairs in another place. Something similar to the Schedule was passed through the Committee as a result of an Opposition Amendment supported by Back-Bench Members of the Labour Party, but was rejected on Report stage on the Floor of the House in another place. This Schedule was proposed to the Committee upstairs by a Back-Bench Member of the Labour Party, but in fact when it came to a vote it was passed by 16 votes to 4 in the Committee upstairs. I am bound to admit that it was supported not only by all Members of the other Parties who were members of the Committee, but also by Members of the Labour Party, apart from four who were Ministers and Labour Whips.

Although the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, may wish to disagree, I maintain that the Schedule to which this Amendment relates, although it owes its origin to the Bill, admittedly has an importance which lies entirely without the scope of the Bill and which would either be important or, in my opinion, objectionable, irrespective of whether or not the Bill receives the Royal Assent. I regard it—but I speak subject to correction—as really owing its origins to the members of the Conservative Party, and I cannot believe that members of that Party really believe in this sort of thing.

With great respect I feel bound to take the view that either the intention was to discredit the operation of the Bill when it becomes law, or, if not that, to expose the Treasury to public ridicule. And though I entirely agree that, in spite of the two Amendments that have been passed to it, Lord Beswick's Amendment to Schedule 4 which is now under discussion is a great improvement on the relevant part of that Schedule, I still think that the result will expose the Treasury to public ridicule. It is well known to Members of the Committee that the science of economic forecasting is in a very primitive state. It would be far better if the Treasury were left and encouraged to develop the science in private and in co-operation with other Government Departments, rather than be subject to the frustration involved in having to operate within the public view.

One thing I regret about Lord Beswick's Amendment, as opposed to the part of the Schedule to which it relates as printed in the Bill, is that it makes a specific reference to the computer. It ays: "The model shall be maintained on a computer". The computer can be, but very often is not, a remarkably good servant in the hands of those few people who know how to keep it under control, but it can prove an extremely unruly master. I sometimes wish and say to myself and to friends of mine that it might perhaps be better if civil servants were occasionally to subject what emerges from the computer to testing by adopting the old-fashioned method of using the back of an old envelope, which enables judgment based on experience to be exercised.

Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON

I am sorry to detain your Lordships again on this, but in my view Schedule 4 is one of the most important parts of this Bill. The reason why I supported the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Rhodes was because I thought that the nature of paragraph 2(b) of the proposed Schedule was unduly restrictive. One of the most important things we have to consider over the next decade is the projected level of capital investment in this country, and within that figure the level of investment in manufacturing industry and in other industry. If possible, I should like an assurance from my noble friend that the items included in paragraph 2(b) will include these most important projections of capital expenditure, and the nature of it, which have a profound effect upon all the other variables which may be included in the model.

10.10 p.m.

Lord RHODES

I make no apology for prolonging this debate; I am not obeying the injunction of the Yorkshire coat of arms, "hear all and say nowt". I have listened to 20 years of this debate: I have got it into my system, I have got something to say and I am going to say it, and I might as well say it at this juncture. The Amendments that we are moving are important; they are not just technical. May I say at this juncture that, although there are technical phrases used in the Schedule, I cannot claim to use them myself in everyday language; but I can claim to understand some of the practical application of the language.

The Schedule as printed in the Bill was put down at the Committee stage in another place, as the noble Lord, Lord Kahn, has just said. It was carried, even though four Ministers voted against it. Then it received a resounding majority—I think it was 242 to about 122—on the Report stage. The House left no doubt about what it wanted. The House of Commons is the House that we here have to take notice of, because so often we have been told what will happen unless we do.

Lord KAHN

May I interrupt the noble Lord?

Lord RHODES

No, just let me have my say. You have heard the dynamism of the noble Lord, Lord Kahn, and all that he has said for the conventional attitude. Look what a mess this conventional attitude has got us into, and people of his ken! The noble Lord, Lord Kahn, can reply afterwards. Why did this Schedule command such support? I believe that it was spontaneous recognition of the fact that here was an opportunity to support an effort to create an industrial strategy that will work. Ever since I came to Westminster, 30 years ago, I have seen Government after Government, of both Parties, handing out billions of public money; Industry Act has followed Industry Act on to the Statute Book, and then into limbo. Adult decisions have been taken almost at random; money handed to one company and nothing for another, and very often under political duress, without any confidence that it was the right thing to do.

It must be 17 years ago that a colleague of Lord Kahn came to the Parliamentary Scientific Committee of the House and brought with him a model that he was working on, now known as this macro-economic model. Do you know that half the Parliamentary Scientific Committee had a giggle over what that Professor Stone brought to the House, but they do not today. It so happened that in 1959 at about the time Professor Stone came to the Standing Committee, I made a journey to Japan, when they were just starting their forecasts. It so happened that in 1947 I was in Japan when into the ante-room to General McArthur a young man came. He was asking for 830,000 tons of coking coal to make so many tons of steel and he got it. Today that man is the head of Nippon Steel. Nippon Steel makes 33 million tons while we make 17 million tons, with a break-even of 25 million tons. Today, the Japanese are making 106 million tons of steel a year. They prognosticated in 1962 that in the following ten years they would increase their motor vehicle production from 500,000 to 5 million, and that is what they did by 1972. That is one of the reasons why they employ a system similar to the one we are advocating now; and one of the reasons why I am advocating this is because one Government will upset what another have put on the Statute Book—

Lord BESWICK

May I interrupt my noble friend? He was about to give one reason why he is advocating this, but is he aware that there is no difference between us here? We accept both the principle and a large part of the detail of the original Amendment and there is no argument about this at all. Would my noble friend indicate whether he finds my Amendment acceptable?

Lord RHODES

I am coming to that. I accept my noble friend's remarks as being a polite way of telling me to sit down, but I am so seldom on my feet that I shall take advantage of staying on them for a little longer, whatever the consequences. I was saying that one Government upset the actions of the Government who preceded them with almost stupid regularity, and we should adopt a system, perhaps something like our budgetary system, which works by policy changes from one Government to another. Considering the form of words in this Amendment, I am satisfied that the Government have met handsomely the demands of the other place. The team who have been working on this Bill is one of the best I have seen in the House of Lords, one of the most painstaking and courteous. It has been a pleasure to listen to my noble friends in this team, and I say that not as a piece of flannelling but as a reminder that I look forward to debating the next Amendment which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Beswick, and the one which follows it, which stands in my name, and I promise to move that one briefly.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

The Government appear to be replacing paragraph 1 of the original Schedule as it came to this Committee and later they will be seeking to replace paragraph 2 and to remove paragraph 3, so completely changing the urtext of the Schedule. We have been waiting since Wednesday to hear an explanation from the Government as to why this was being done, and the noble Lord has briefly explained today. So far as I can see, the effect of the new Schedule is to relieve the Government to some extent of what the other place was expecting the Government to contribute in the disclosure of information. In this paragraph, the Government are seeking a situation in which the Treasury can expurgate its forecasts before they are published. We listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, explaining that the national interest could be involved if some of the forecasts were issued without expurgation, but this is to a great extent watering down what was clearly the purpose of the other place in the original text of the Schedule.

The Government will later be moving another Amendment which will also have the effect of relieving them of what had been expected in another place. This is a matter which I hope we shall be able to consider at Report stage, since we are looking at material which is new to the Committee and which has been explained only this evening. In the meantime, can the noble Lord tell us whether the text as he moved it and as twice amended—and with the reservation that there is, on one Amendment, the possibility of redrafting by the Government—is the text to replace paragraph 1 to which the Government will adhere in later stages of the Bill both here and in another place? Or do the Government propose even more changes to their text later on?

Lord BESWICK

I feel that we should not exaggerate the changes made by the Amendment as against the original Amendment in another place. I should like briefly to state what those changes are. They are that alternative assumptions will be allowed on other matters as well as on policy changes and external events. This will enable alternatives to be used for pay and prices and other sensitive variables, as well as single published figures which could influence public behaviour; a fee will be charged for the use of the model by members of the public; forecasts are to be published not less than twice a year rather than quarterly; there is to be un to one year's grace before implementation of publication; likely margins of error are to be indicated where possible, but not standard errors which virtually cannot be calculated in a model like that of the Treasury.

Those are the main changes which are proposed and I do not feel that they should give rise to any suspicion. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, asked whether we had in mind further changes in another place. I can tell him that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, there is no intention of making any changes, except the minor change to which I referred—that is the use of the word "aforesaid".

I am not quite certain what the noble Lord, Lord Kahn, was advising us to do. I hope he was suggesting that, on balance, it would be better to accept my amended version rather than the original version. I share his instinctive and old-fashioned objection to the use of the word "computer" in an Act of Parliament. I have asked whether it is a precedent and I am told that the wretched word appears in the Solicitors Act 1974, so we cannot object to it on principle. I was asked by my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington whether the requirements would include estimates of capital expenditure. That would be covered by sub-paragraph (b) of the Amendment, but if it was the wish of the Committee to make this absolutely clear I should be quite happy to consider an Amendment to that effect on Report stage.

10.25 p.m.

Lord BESWICK moved Amendment No. 292F:

Page 43, line 13, leave out paragraph 2 and insert— . It shall be the duty of a Minister of the Crown with whom a body corporate enters into a planning agreement to participate with that body in demonstrating so far as possible, upon the application of that body, the relationship between the undertaking to which the agreement relates and the national economy.

The noble Lord said: This Amendment, dealing with the second paragraph of Schedule 4, again sets out to give a somewhat improved version of what was originally asked for. The second paragraph of Schedule 4 as it stands raises an issue of a somewhat different order from that raised in the first paragraph. It would impose upon the Government a resource requirement of quite formidable proportions, if they were to maintain models not only in respect of each planning agreement company, but also in respect of its markets, suppliers and sources of manpower. Even if it were possible for the Government to provide a subsidised service of this kind for the nation's major companies—which it is not—the Government have neither the resources nor the information available to undertake modelling work on this vast scale. The estimate given to me of the potential cost is that it could run into several millions of pounds a year. I do not believe that this is the intention of the movers, and I hope that my Amendment will he acceptable. I beg to move.

10.27 p.m.

Lord RHODES moved Amendment No. 2921 as an Amendment to Amendment 292F.

In the proposed new paragraph leave out ("with whom a body corporate enters into a planning agreement") and insert ("who proposes to enter into, or has entered into a planning agreement with a body corporate").

The noble Lord said: I am with the Minister almost entirely, but there is one little difference and in all probability he will be able to concede it. When a Minister proposes an agreement with a firm he should make absolutely crystal clear what is involved. The words in my Amendment try to give effect to that aim. If a firm go to the Treasury after an agreement has been mooted, the firm is entitled, before it commits itself, to get to know what it is all about. I beg to move.

Lord BESWICK

The noble Lord was so kind in his reference to my colleagues and myself that I cannot resist the temptation to accept his Amendment, and I do not intend to try to resist. Therefore, I agree that it should be an amendment to my Amendment.

Lord BESWICK moved Amendment No. 292G:

Page 43, line 19, leave out paragraph 3.

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is a somewhat more radical surgical operation. I hope that I have indicated by the Amendments to paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Schedule that the Government are prepared to take a constructive line. The suggestion here is that the Government should produce a "trade-off" matrix, and this implies that the Government should express their economic policy in numerical terms, substituting a series of numbers for complex priorities. Such a process is dependent on the ability of the Government to state the whole of the complex of value judgments implicit in economic policy in terms of a mathematical formulation. It also implies an ability to evaluate a whole range of hypothetical situations in such terms. Whatever the future may have in store for us—and I hope it has a lot of happy things in store for us—I think it is fair to say that Parliament and the Government have some way to go before they see the process of judgment and decision-taking being approached in this fashion. I therefore invite the Committee to approve this Amendment. I beg to move.

The Earl of BALFOUR

If Amendment No. 292G is accepted, can Amendment No. 293 still be moved?

Several Noble Lords

Yes.

The Earl of BALFOUR

I am not too sure about this, but I hope that it can, because I should like to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, has to say.

The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES

Yes, certainly the noble Lord can do that.

10.30 p.m.

Lord RHODES moved Amendment No. 293:

Page 43, line 19, leave out paragraph 3 and insert—

("3.—(1) Not less than twice in each year commencing with a date not later than three years from the coming into force of this Act, the Treasury shall publish forecasts, produced with the aid of the model or of another macroeconomic model, with those levels of economic policy and other variables which best satisfy alternative sets of priorities of marginal changes in each economic variable, the priorities being expressed in quantitative terms, and the alternative sets of priorities being chosen as appears to the Treasury appropriate.

(2) From the same date as in subparagraph (1) the facility used to make forecasts which best satisfy alternative sets of priorities as specified therein, shall be available to members of the public to make forecasts with sets of priorities specified by themselves, the facility being available during office hours upon payment of such reasonable fee as the Treasury may determine.")

The noble Lord said: I cannot emulate the phraseology of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. This Amendment seeks to establish that forecasts can and often do go wrong, and in the past when things have gone wrong we have lurched from one mess into another. This Amendment seeks to ensure that contingency plans should be at hand to cope with this situation. Time and time again it has been demonstrated that it is disastrous to react only when a crisis actually occurs. There should be available alternative options based on priorities which Ministers themselves have selected.

To back up what I have said, you can call in aid many instances where this situation has arisen. In recent years, within six months the 1970 Government made a U-turn in policy. House prices rose to the skies, while building costs were very low. And what happened? Building costs rose to join the prices for high-priced property due to the ability of speculative people to gamble in property. Take the textile cyclical boom that we are now suffering from. If there were optional plans that had to do with these arrangements and the escape clauses in GATT—to put forward a very simple illustration—we should not be having the mess that we are having now.

Consider the simplicity of the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer during the last Election. The Election was fought for a week on whether the inflation level was 8 per cent, 16 per cent, or, as it turned out to be, 25 per cent. I could go on, but it is late. I beg to move.

Lord BOYLE of HANDSWORTH

If the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, can give me just a moment, I hope that the Government will resist this Amendment. I say this on two grounds. First, I think the kind of work envisaged here is very much more suitable for a university department or a body like the National Institute of Economic and Social Research than as a duty on the Government to put in a Statute passed by Parliament. Secondly, and perhaps more important, consider the words at the end of the first paragraph of this Amendment— and the alternative sets of priorities being chosen as appears to the Treasury appropriate. Again I take the old fashioned view that when one is setting out in any official publication alternative sets of priorities this must be a matter for Ministerial responsibility. It cannot be a matter for something called the Treasury. As might be expected. We have heard tonight some critical remarks about the Treasury, as well as some critical remarks about economies.

As I am on my feet may I say that I do not agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, about my noble friend Lord Kahn. I can think of at least three or four separate matters on which, if his advice has been heeded—like marrying the public housing programmes and the industrial programmes—in a number of respects we should be better off today. Granted that the Treasury and economists have often made errors and that information has sometimes been unnecessarily denied, I must say, for myself, I would rather settle for the large Amendment that we have just passed. I think this represents a major step forward in a new field, a major new development of policy. I would strongly advise this Committee to leave it at that on this occasion.

To my old friends on the Opposition Benches, I think there is something to be said for defeating a Government and deciding to take the consequences. I am bound to say that there can be such things as somewhat opportunist Amendments. To carry on with the last part and try to produce a substitute for the original third paragraph in the words moved would come close to the kind of opportunism which seems unwise.

Lord KAHN

While I agree with most of what my noble friend Lord Boyle of Handsworth has said, I am afraid that I cannot agree with him that the passage of this Schedule indicates any kind of progress. I have already made my comments on that. As regards this Amendment. I am bound to say that I have read it a considerable number of times and cannot make any sense out of it. I do not know what is meant by "levels of economic policy" or by "marginal changes". If by "marginal changes" is meant small changes, I would point out to the Committee that some of us some years ago in relation to defence expenditure took the line that what was called for was not a marginal reduction but a large reduction. I do not know quite how far it is expressed in "quantitative terms" but the really serious aspect of this Amendment, leaving aside what is meant by "levels of economic policy" is forcing the Treasury to give indications of what Government policy may be. First, it gives even more importance to the position of the Treasury in the Government that it ought to have. Apart from that, it is very wrong indeed to ask for public statements.

Here I can refer to what my noble friend Lord Boyle of Handsworth said about earlier economic forecasts from 1947 onwards. Anything that is published relating to alternative economic policies is bound to be read sometimes rightly and sometimes wrongly. If it is read rightly, very often it has a perverse effect and sometimes a favourable one as an indication of what Government policy is going to be. Looking at it in the obverse sense, if the Government want to produce a certain result they may give the wrong indication of their policy in order to produce the result they want.

Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY

I do not know whether Lord Rhodes is going to press this Amendment. I am not competent to oppose the main arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Kahn, but I do not think this Amendment should go by without a word being spoken against the views put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Boyle of Handsworth, on this and the previous Amendment. I do not think it is right that we should say that the Treasury cannot be given a duty to give us information about what they think would happen on various suppositions merely because suppositions might or might not a part of Government policy. If they will forgive me, I think that the noble Lords, Lord Boyle and Lord Kahn, in so far as they touched on this particular matter, were thinking in terms of a situation where the Treasury were still producing forecasts almost entirely geared to what the Government were going to do and that any slight variation about that might perhaps give the papers and the economic experts a hint as to what departure they were going to make.

The suggestion, as I see it, in the Amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, by the Government and the whole of this Schedule, are completely different: it is that there should be two duties on the Treasury. The first explicity and implicity exists at the moment to serve the Government in forecasting what happens if Government policies are followed, or if various things happen which the Government foresee. The second is that in this Bill we are asking the Treasury to use the resources at their disposal for producing some real information, admittedly speculative in the sense that economic forecasting through a computer is a very fallible method. Nevertheless, we are asking that they should do their best to put at the disposal of the whole community the information that they have, and the expertise that they have, and allow people besides the Cabinet to make judgments about what effect different policies are going to have.

It is entirely right that this should happen and something we should support. Whether this is the right Amendment, whether some of the technical objections made by the noble Lord, Lord Kahn, are right, is another matter. I do not think the Amendment should go by without somebody saying that there are—and I have seen some noble Lords nodding their heads—some who think that this is what the Treasury should be doing. It is in no way improper; it would in no way hinder the good government of this country and, indeed, would support it.

10.42 p.m.

Lord BESWICK

I am glad to follow the noble Lord. If he saw heads nodding about the desirability of information being made available, and the expertise of the Treasury being at the disposal of those who have to make decisions in various economic areas, those heads were nodding because without any doubt that is what we are seeking to do. There is no difference between us Here we are dealing with something which is somewhat different. We are here placing obligations which it would be difficult to carry out and, even if it were possible to compel the Treasury to carry out what is stated here, I doubt whether it would be of great value.

The Government accept that application of methods of optimal control to the economy is potentially a valuable tool of analysis. For some time now, work in this area has been proceeding in the United States. Most of this has been in the academic world although the Federal Reserve Board has succeeded with an application in a limited area. In this country my honourable friend Dr. Bray has been in the van of those concerned to develop applications for the United Kingdom. But it is our view that the development and application of these methods to large-scale economic models is still very much at an early experimental stage. So far as we know, no institution in the United States or the United Kingdom at present applies these techniques to a large-scale forecasting model and a very substantial amount of development work is required before useful practical applications might be expected. Our first objection is simply that it is quite wrong to commit the Treasury to produce an adequate solution to the substantial technical problems involved within a limited period of three years. It is in the nature of research projects that they may be unsuccessful even when substantial resources are committed.

Secondly, the extent to which it is desirable to commit major resources to this activity in the present state of knowledge must be a matter of professional judgment. The devotion of more resources to the improvement of the basic forecasting model rather than to development of optimisation techniques is clearly an option which requires to be carefully considered.

The next statement that has been given to me is one which I am sure many noble Lords will accept. The solutions of any policy optimising procedures are only as good as the structure of the model which underlies them. In other words, the sum total of this is: let us walk before we run.

Lord BOWDEN

I am sure we can accept most of what the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has said. But I think we ought to distinguish between the purpose of this exercise and what I call weather forecasting. If all that our computers do is to tell us what is going to happen, we can await events. We may get ready to flee from the oncoming storm. But the purpose of this exercise is to provide us with alternative courses of economic policy which we can decide in the light of the best information available. I would willingly accept that most of the forecasts which have so far been made, either by computer or otherwise, have turned out in the event to be wrong. It is the fact that the country has staggered from crisis to crisis, rather than the thought that the Treasury may be exposed to ridicule, as the noble Lord, Lord Kahn, has said, which really concerns me most. I believe that in so far as this can be done, it is a very worthy objective, although it may well be in the circumstances we are not yet able to do it. This is a matter of opinion and we might perhaps come to some agreement that this work should be encouraged by all possible means without committing the Treasury to achieving any particular results in the time specified in the Amendment.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

I do not wish to detain your Lordships at this hour. Some of us have been here more or less without moving since half past two this afternoon. But paragraph 3 having been removed at the behest of the Government, the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, is now proposing a new one aimed to fit in with the replacement of paragraphs 1 and 2. Various speakers in this debate so far have pointed out that this is a new method which, although the Americans have used it some way ahead of us, is not yet fully approved, but none the less could be of great assistance, not only to the Government but also to industry and those concerned with the economy in this country.

The noble Lord, Lord Boyle of Hands-worth, who earlier cautioned us on an Amendment about the dangers there could be in some forecasts being disclosed too early, in this case agreed that these operations could well be carried out but suggested they might more suitably be carried out at a university or some other establishment than the Treasury. The noble Lord, Lord Kahn, suggested that some of the wording in Lord Rhodes's Amendment might be altered. But I have the feeling that none the less at this stage it would be prudent to allow this new paragraph 3 to be inserted in the Bill to replace what has been taken out, on the understanding that its wording would be looked at again at a later stage and be subject to any changes such as the noble Lord, Lord Kahn, has suggested.

The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, told us that time was needed and that it might not be possible to carry out these operations as early as the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, would wish. Again, the question of the starting time could be considered, if that is an argument. But it would be a pity to allow this provision to disappear completely at this stage and not to put in the paragraph which Lord Rhodes has proposed to replace the one that has been removed.

Lord BROWN

I think we are playing with fire. I can imagine the situation of the self-fulfilling prophecy if we include this paragraph in the Bill, whereby certain predictions are fed into the computer about the level of sterling in the market and so on, and by the time it gets out people will have taken all the actions which make a precipitous fall in sterling come true. I suggest that to go too far in this direction without knowing exactly what is going to happen as a result of all the information that is going to be released is extremely dangerous. We ought to go very cautiously and reject this paragraph because it might lead to dangers of which at the moment we have no idea.

Lord BESWICK

May I ask this of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy? He said that I had said we could not do this in the time-scale and he thought that nevertheless we ought to try. Is he proposing to lay down in an Act of Parliament that certain things should be done even though he accepts that within that time-scale it is very unlikely we can do them?

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

No; the noble Lord has misunderstood me. I was suggesting the opposite: that an objection which the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, had raised—that this was something which could not be carried out in the immediate future and not as early as the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, was contemplating—was not a reason for dispensing with it. One could look at the time-scale of the introduction of the system. That again would be something which could be looked at rather than simply to say, "We are not going to do this at all."

Lord BESWICK

We cannot just look at it. If this Amendment is accepted, we are imposing a legal obligation upon a Government Department to do something which apparently the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has accepted could not be done within the time-scale.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

I am afraid the noble Lord is still not understanding me. I understood that this was an operation which could be carried out. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, reckons that it could be carried out, but he says there would be difficulties about doing so in the near future. I am suggesting that this Amendment could be made and that this new paragraph, paragraph 3, could be incorporated into the Bill, subject to changes such as the starting time. I said at the beginning that in accepting it we should not be wedded precisely to the wording as it is at present. One of the suggestions that I made was that the question of the timing might still be left open if the objection which the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has raised is a valid one which causes difficulty.

Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS

If these words are written into the Bill, I do not see how government as we know it would be able to function. In theory, both sides of the argument are correct. The point which has been made by the noble Lord. Lord Rhodes, is very sound and has been accepted. The information ought to be there and ought to be made public, but it ought not to be made public by the Treasury. The argument of the noble Lord, Lord Boyle, is also extremely sound. It is good that this information should be made available so that people could influence Government and make their contribution, but I do not see how Government could function if one were to give it the authority of coming from the Treasury. Indeed, one of the criticisms of the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, is confirmation that this happens now to some extent. When he spoke about "U" turns, he meant that the responsible Ministers had been influenced by information which had been fed to them from the various Government channels. It is true that they have to face the criticism of making "U" turns and everything that goes with that.

One has tried to study over the years the form of government that is operated in this country today, and I should have thought that to have one's cards on the table facing upwards all the time is a very dangerous precedent. The information ought to be there when the universities get it, and any other organisation, such as those suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Boyle, should make it available. But do not give it the authority of coming from the Treasury because if a hint is given that it comes from the Treasury it is taken as a fact and is bound to influence what people do and the certain irresponsible actions which may flow from it. If we can arrive at a point where a little of both arguments is put into operation, I shall welcome it. However, we should not write the Amendment into the Bill at this stage. I should not feel happy about voting in support of that proposal.

Lord RHODES

This Amendment has had a good airing. I am not going to press it to a Division. It is accepted to a certain extent in America and is practised, I understand, by the Federal Reserve Bank. We have made a good deal of progress. Both Houses have shown their dissatisfaction with the present method of forecasting. If my Amendment has done that it has achieved a great deal. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 5 [Advisor Committees]:

The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES

Before I call Amendment No. 296A I should point out that if this Amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 297.

Lord MELCHETT

I spoke to Amendment No. 296A with No. 163A. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 44, line 7, after ("by") insert ("the authorised representative of").—(Lord Melchett.)

Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining Schedules agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.