LORDS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 11 November 1975)

§ Lord BALOGH
My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 2.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY
My Lords, several Amendments which were made by your Lordships' House have been accepted by another place and have considerably improved the Bill. We regret that this Amendment was not also made. Let me remind your Lordships of the matter we are considering, because there has been some confusion on this. Our Amendment did not aim to exclude serving civil servants who could be seconded to senior positions on the British National Oil Corporation. That can be done without legislation. The point is that they would then be employees working for BNOC during their period of second ment like others working for the Corporation. Nor was the proposal in any way affecting retired civil servants who could also serve on the Corporation. But the proposal which was originally in the Bill, and which is now to be restored, is something quite different and it is new to nationalised bodies. It is that at least two civil servants should be members of the Corporation, though still employed by their Departments and responsible to their Ministers.
In the other place last week, the Secretary of State for Energy spoke of gross irresponsibility in our argument in favour of this Amendment; but I suggest that he was guilty of gross misrepresentation of our argument. It is the oldest and silliest political trick in the world to pretend that your opponents have said something that they have not said, and then attack it. We have not suggested that the two civil servants to be on the Corporation would disclose confidential information about companies in competition with the Corporation. But the Government have failed so far to answer questions on how the civil servants, still employed and paid by their Departments, will contribute to the discussions of the Corporation.
This is an opportunity, again, for the Government to tell us. Do these civil servants remain silent in deliberations where their knowledge of confidential information about competitors' plans would influence their advice? If not, may not other members of the Corporation be disposed to change their minds if the civil servants are suggesting a different course from them, knowing that the civil servants are speaking from knowledge of additional information?—although, of 1759 course, I emphasise that that information would not be disclosed. Those are the questions which the noble Lord can answer today, because they have not yet been answered and the Government have had plenty of notice.

§ Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN
My Lords, may I say briefly from the Liberal Benches that we regret that the Govern-merit have still deemed it necessary expressly to legislate for two civil servants to be on the board of BNOC. We feel that the Government are giving themselves difficulties in this matter, particularly having regard to possible international misunderstandings. Also, there may be constitutional implications, although I do not propose to go into that aspect this evening. During Committee stage I put down an Amendment to the effect that the civil servants should be seconded to BNOC but, on advice, I withdrew that Amendment because I understood that civil servants could be amended without further statutory provisions.

§ Lord BALOGH
My Lords, the noble Lord means that civil servants could be seconded.

§ Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN
My Lords, I beg your pardon—could be seconded without further statutory provisions. That position still remains, of course, and it may be that the Government will think of this point once again in the future.

§ Lord BALOGH
My Lords, I hope that I can soothe the worries of the noble Lord opposite and those of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, about this. There is no constitutional implication, and there is certainly no foreign implication, because we have had umpteen State corporations which have officials, whether or not those officials are amended! I think the doubts expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, about confidentiality can he put at rest. We have given assurances over and over again, on the one hand concerning the Official Secrets Act and, on the other hand, that the ordinary rules of the Civil Service will prevent any sort of abuse of their knowledge by those people. Incidentally, I can add that one will be from the Treasury and the other from my Department. I do not quite understand the 1760 worries of the noble Lord, because BNOC will not be a competitor with companies operating in the British North Sea, because they will he partners of each and every one; so that I do not see where the difficulty arises on this point. One may, of course, disagree with the idea that there should be State participation, but we have discussed that umpteen times and it seems to me that this is not the occasion to continue that debate.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY
My Lords, would the noble Lord give way? I am most grateful to him because he has raised something that was not said in our previous debates. We recognise that BNOC will be a partner in some cases—for example, in some oilfields—but in other cases we could see that BNOC would be in competition, because presumably it will not be taking part in every oilfield.

§ Lord BALOGH
Certainly, my Lords. This is the whole idea. The whole idea is that there will be State participation in each and every commercial oilfield: it is like Norway. Therefore the question as such does not arise. After all, most of the big corporations who operate in the North Sea have partners with whom they compete but which really share their secrets in this field. For instance, there are Esso and Shell in the Brent; there is a tiny Shell-Esso participation in the Forties; the Piper field, as your Lordships will know, has a large number of people. I do not quite understand this and therefore very much hope —I have learned a new Parliamentary trick tonight—that noble Lords will not insist on their Amendment.