Lords Sitting of 16 October 1975

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford.

GOSFORTH TRAFFIC SCHEMES
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government to state how much money has already been spent on three abortive schemes to by-pass Gosforth, Northumberland; and, in view of the recent heavy increase in traffic and the ever-increasing length of vehicles, what action will be taken to protect the houses, shops, and the public in that area.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, the expenditure so far incurred by the Department and its agent authorities on this scheme has been that incurred in the preparation of any schemes of this nature and cannot reasonably be labelled "abortive". Any attempt to estimate the cost of such preparatory work would make disproportionate demands on staff resources. It is hoped to reduce the amount of through traffic by suitable signposting of the Tyne Tunnel, and to safeguard pedestrians by traffic management measures.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that slightly unsatisfactory Answer, may I ask whether he will be kind enough to ensure that officials do not say that the traffic going through Gosforth is no longer than was the case in the past?—because that is completely untrue. Further, would he agree that it is important in these matters that the truth should be told and that fictitious answers should not be given?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I am happy to assure the noble Baroness that the members of this Government will continue to tell the truth about Gosforth by-pass as they have done in the past.
Lord POPPLEWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the difficulties arising at Gosforth which have been outlined by the noble Baroness are similar to those arising in many other parts of the country? Can he indicate what steps are being taken to deal with these problems which are becoming so acute and dangerous and so greatly impede pedestrians and the ordinary life of our towns and cities?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I believe that it would not be entirely true to say that the problems of Gosforth are the same as those of other parts of the country. There have been special problems about finding an alternative route through this area because it is particularly built-up and because of the problems which arose when a by-pass was originally proposed. However, steps are being taken to safeguard pedestrians in Gosforth High Street: in particular, two pelican crossings have been introduced and no-waiting restrictions have been instituted in order to try to reduce the number of vehicles parked in the High Street.

UNEMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS
3.9 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government to state the total sums paid to those persons in receipt of unemployment benefit in the last six months, and the total sums paid to those unemployed in social security benefits.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, it is estimated that in the six months ended 30th September, people unemployed were paid about £190 million in unemployment benefit and about £160 million in supplementary allowances.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that these are vast sums which have to be expended for social welfare and security purposes? May I ask him whether the funds that are available are contained in the financial reserves available to the Government and, therefore, if the Government anticipate

997
unemployment figures rising, would it not be wiser to use these funds for investment purposes instead of having to use them subsequently for the purpose of relieving unemployment?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the Government accept the view of my noble friend, and a good deal of thought is being given to how best to deal with this matter in the future. My noble friend is right: these are substantial sums, and they are not lessened by the fact that if I say that they amount to only £13 million a week, when they are compared with the total weekly expenditure on social security benefits—and perhaps it may come as a surprise to some of your Lordships to know that we are spending £165 million a week on social security benefits—what we are are paying to unemployed people represents only about 8 per cent. However, it is a substantial figure and we arc not unmindful of the need to think very carefully about this.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask what possible excuse or apology can be furnished by the present or the previous Government for having anticipated that unemployment would rise because of the imminence of a recession, but not having utilised the funds that were available which were intended for subsequent expenditure on social well being? Why did they not utilise those sums for investment purposes when we are told that part of the real trouble is the absence of investment? Surely the opportunity was available for Governments, both present and previous, to utilise those sums for investment which would have provided work for vast numbers of people who are now unemployed and who are receiving benefits which could have been avoided?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I will take note of what my noble friend has said and convey it to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, since the noble Lord has equated the record of the previous Government with this Government, is not the present rise in unemployment at least in part due to the rate of 25 per cent. inflation which has been directly the result of the present Government's policy?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord really is not being fair. He knows as well as everybody else in your Lordships' House that this is worldwide.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, in order to correctany possibility of misunderstanding arising from the supplementary question put by the noble and learned Lord opposite, may I ask my noble friend whether historically it is not demonstrable, even now, that inflation has been operating not since the present Government came into Office, but for many long years, both in my experience and in the vast experience of the noble and learned Lord opposite?
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: But will the noble Lord consider that inflation has not been operating at 26 per cent. until the noble Lord's Party got into Office?
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd): My Lords, perhaps I should stand between the House and the noble and learned Lord and suggest that we move to the next Question.

LUNG DISEASES: COMPENSATION
Lord HALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are now in a position to state what provision is to be made for sufferers from serious industrial lung disease including byssinosis and asbestosis, comparable to that already made of miners' pneumoconiosis.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the National Coal Board's compensation scheme for miners suffering from pneumoconiosis is unique. It was negotiated with the unions in order to avoid costly and wasteful litigation. The Government gave the National Coal Board financial assistance only because the potential liability in respect of former miners was so great in relation to the present size and financial situation of the industry. All sufferers from respiratory lung disease are, of course, able to apply under the State scheme of National Insurance. The

999
Government have no new plans for special provision for sufferers from these diseases.
Lord HALE: Yes, my Lords, but will the noble Lord say whether it is a fact that this aspect of these diseases has now been transferred to the Minister of Employment? Since we were told that if any scheme was put forward by the employers and the employees of the industry it would receive consideration, does this transfer mean that the Minister who is responsible for dealing with the pneumoconiosis problem is now contemplating initiating discussions, which are extremely difficult? I am told that there is no serious opposition throughout the textile industry to a scheme relating to byssinosis but I have no information whatever about asbestosis, which I am afraid is perhaps a more complicated and indeed a very much more grave problem.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the coal mining scheme was negotiated between the unions and the employers. But there is nothing to prevent that happening in other industries.
Lord POPPLEWELL: My Lords, would my noble friend get in touch with the Railways Board to see whether workers in the railway industry suffering from asbestosis come under an arrangement similar to that of the miners? Is my noble friend aware that a number of cases have now been brought to light and that the Railways Board is trying to do the best it can in its present situation, but lacks the facilities for dealing with its employees in the same way as the National Coal Board deals with its employees in the mining industry?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I say once again that there is nothing whatever to prevent the unions and the employers from formulating a scheme to deal with the position.
BARONESS WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware how grateful I am, as are many other people who know of the disadvantages of pneumoconiosis, for the fact that this scheme has been brought in? I am delighted about this scheme, and so are the miners. We are very grateful for what has happened.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, is my noble friend satisfied with the numbers of the Factory Inspectorate, who are responsible for those factories where asbestosis and byssinosis are common?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I understand that there has been some problem in the past in regard to the number of inspectors available for this work, but that is being handled.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I appreciate very deeply what has been done for the miners, as I understood this situation when I was the Member of Parliament for Slough, where there were so many ex-miners. But is my noble friend really saying that, if there are sufferers from lung diseases in other industries, it must be a matter for negotiation between the trade unions and the employers? Admitting the immediate financial difficulties, is it not the long term responsibility of the Government to see that the needs of those who suffer in this way are met?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, in the case of the miners, it was the unions and the employers who negotiated the scheme. The Government made an initial grant for, I think, two reasons: first, there was a backlog of about 40,000 which dated back to the time when the industry was on a much larger scale than it is now; secondly, the Government had to bear in mind that this matter involved an industry and that the scheme would promote good industrial relations, and it was very important to the national economy that that should be done.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, has the noble Lord any figures to indicate the number of extant cases of byssinosis and asbestosis, so that one can see the size of the problem in comparison with the miners' pneumoconiosis?
Lord JACQUES: Yes, my Lords. In the case of pneumoconiosis, the figure—which is issued under the National Insurance scheme—is about 39,000; in the case of byssinosis it is 3,000, and in the case of asbestosis it is about 800.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, does it not follow from what the noble Lord said

1001
that it is, relatively, a small problem with which, at the first convenient moment, the Government might easily find it possible to deal?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, it would be wrong of me not to agree that the problem is very much smaller than that in regard to the miners.
Lord MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the noble Lord, Lord Hale, has devoted some 40 years of his life to calling the attention of successive Governments to this scourge, which affects not only the miners but those in other industries? Will he, therefore, give due weight to the representations that the noble Lord has made?
Lord JACQUES: Certainly, my Lords.
Lord FOOT: My Lords, may I ask the Government whether there is not a particular problem in the case of asbestosis, which arises in this way: that the unfortunate sufferers from asbestosis are people engaged in a variety of different industries—they are not all in one industry, such as the mining industry—and unless the Government take the initiative to try to bring the related unions and employers together, in order to initiate a scheme of the kind which we have had in the mining industry for so long, it may simply goby default because so many different parties are involved? Among other places with which I am concerned are Her Majesty's dockyards, and is the noble Lord aware that the problem of asbestosis is particularly important there?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I will take note of what the noble Lord has said.

FOOTBALL MATCH HOOLIGANISM
3.21 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made in the endeavour to eliminate violence and hooliganism connected with football matches.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, I am glad to report that since my previous Answer on the 22nd September the measures agreed upon and recommended by the Minister for Sport's Working Party are proving to be successful in practice. The number of undesirable incidents in football grounds has been substantially reduced this season, and the new measures announced by British Rail and the Traffic Commissioners in respect of rail traffic and motor coaches are proving extremely helpful. The Government welcome all these improvements, but I can assure the House that we have no intention of relaxing our vigilance. I can also inform the House that the meeting concerning research which I mentioned on the 22nd September has now taken place, and the Sports Council and Social Science Research Council are currently discussing the scope for further research.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply on a subject which, judging from the amount of correspondence I have received since my Question last month, is one of some public concern, including too the large majority of people who want to watch football matches in peaceful conditions. May I ask the noble Baroness this supplementary question? Is anything being done on my suggestion of directed community service for the offenders on Saturday afternoons and are the Government aware of the reported threat of a bus strike in Glasgow on the day of the coming Rangers-Celtic match because of the danger of violence affecting the drivers and conductors?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, so far as possible, wherever there are facilities community service orders are being increasingly used, but I am sure the noble Lord is aware that this is still in the form of a pilot scheme and, unfortunately, so far does not cover the whole country. On his second point, the transport workers have been to see both the Minister of Sport and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to discuss this very problem; so this is also under discussion. But I would point out that the measures which have been taken are intended to bring about (and, as I explained in my

1003
original Answer, they are proving to be) an improvement in this matter. Perhaps I might add that I, too, had a great deal of correspondence on this, including correspondence from some young people who themselves felt that in some ways the conditions were very bad, but who wanted to have the opportunity to talk to somebody about the matter and to express their view of the game, not their view of the behaviour. I also had a letter from a youth officer in Manchester who said that he thought he was probably the only skilled youth worker in the country working with a group of young football supporters, and who spoke of the progress he had made because he was now working on properly planned arrangements for away matches. This is something which I hope will be taken up in many other areas.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, would the noble Baroness accept that community service orders have now really passed the pilot stage and that it is open to those in any area of the country which can satisfy the Home Office that they can be effectively operated in that area to introduce them? In fact, they are being spread very widely through the country.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I thank my noble friend very much indeed for those remarks and hope that what she has said will also help to encourage and perhaps expedite action in those areas which are being rather slow in starting up this system.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether or not she would agree that this is a field where far more use could be made of special constables, the voluntary force in this country, either by employing these special constables themselves on or near football grounds, or else by using them to relieve the regular police on other routine duties, so freeing more of them to be available in or near football grounds?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, that is an interesting suggestion, but I think that since the discussions which have been started by the Home Office are now going on between the Sports Council and the Social Science Research Council one should leave it to them. But the noble
1004
Lord may be interested to know that one of the first priorities may be to develop a cross-fertilisation of ideas on crowd control techniques among individual police forces. This the Home Office is considering now, and I should have thought that it was better to leap that way and to see what results before proceeding on the suggestion put forward by the noble Lord.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, following up my question, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she is aware that in some districts in this country great encouragement is given to special constables and in others far less, and that they in fact deserve the maximum encouragement we can give them all over the country?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I will certainly note that, of course.

CROWN AGENTS
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 I will repeat a Statement on the Crown Agents.
TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL
Returned from the Commons with certain of the Lords Amendments agreed to; with one other Lords Amendment agreed to with an Amendment; and with the remaining Lords Amendments disagreed to, with Reasons for such disagreement; the said Commons Amendment and Reasons to be printed.

INDUSTRY BILL
3.28 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Lord Beswick): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord BESWICK Lord BESWICK moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 8, leave out ("or joint chief executives").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wonder whether we could take twice as

1005
many Amendments at once and deal with Amendments No. 1 and No. 2 together! It was put to me during the previous stages that it was inconsistent with best thinking on the structure of a board to provide for two chief executives. I thought there was much in the argument that was made, and I said that I would have a look at it. There was also the point that many noble Lords the noble Lord, Lord Nelson, I recall particularly, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, as well—suggested that it would be wrong to leave the chief executive off the board. I therefore put these two Amendments to your Lordships. The first is to rule out the joint chief executives, and the second ensures that no reference at all is made as to whether or not the chief executive is on the board. I thing it is better to leave the matter open for the board themselves to decide. I beg to move.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, very much for having considered this point. As he said, it was pressed very strongly by your Lordships that it was wrong to have joint chief executives, and I am very grateful to him for having taken out the reference to joint chief executives by Amendment No. 1. Amendment No. 2, which we are discussing at the same time, does not really seem to get us any further, because it simply says nothing. The old subsection (6) really did not say anything, either—it said that he could either be a member of the board or he need not be a member of the board—so I am sure there is no need to have this subsection. It does not really advance the case much further as to whether he is or is not to be a member of the board.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I thought that the general feeling was that we should not legislate in this sense for or against. It is now completely left out, which is the right and proper way of handling it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord BESWICK: I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 10, leave out subsection (6).—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [General purposes and functions]:
Lord RAGLAN Lord RAGLAN moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 7, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must begin by apologising for bringing this back again, having raised it on Report; but since raising it then I have had the opportunity of consulting with my noble friends, including my noble friend Lord Houghton, and of reading through the Reports of the Standing Committees on the Welsh and Scottish Agencies where this point was much discussed. I have been reinforced in my belief that this matter is no ordinary one of policy but is something which should make every democratically-minded person exceedingly uneasy at the direction the Government is taking and the powers assumed by it—powers which in my view are in any case totally unnecessary.
I agree that there can be two interpretations of this subsection. One is that the powers it confers are no more than those possessed by an ordinary individual or those which may be contained in the Articles of a private company. Yet these powers are not spelt out for the ordinary person and the Articles of a company do not have the same impact as those of a Statute setting up a Government board. I must say that one of the continual criticisms which the Labour Party have rightly had of private industry in the past has been its lack of public accountability. It seems to me that we are in very great danger of building up a public sector which will be even more difficult to hold to public account than was the private sector; because our newly-created public industry has behind it not only the power of Statute but the power and prestige of the Government.
I am aware that this Third Reading is not the moment for a long debate on a complex subject of that importance; but sometimes people ask me: "Why do you talk about this and that? Do you ever get anything done? "My answer is that, surprising though it may seem to the questioner, one often does get things done because, contrary to what one is sometimes led to believe, there are many sensible people about and if you choose something sensible to say they will listen. I am pleased to say that, due at least

1007
in part to my agitation, the equivalent subsections in the Welsh and Scottish Agency Bills appear, at first sight, to have been slightly more tightly drawn in the Commons. There was much debate on this subsection in the Committees and the Government Minister kept saying that he would look at it again, but I am sorry to say he kept doing very little.
The general point has still not been taken by the Government or their advisers; and the point is that if you insert into a Statute that a Government agency can do anything it likes so long as it is legal, then you are asking for trouble. Even if, as I have said, the subsection is read in the way which I believe my noble friend would wish, I doubt whether the Board would be held accountable in the way that they should be. We are not simply dealing with a private company where the shareholders are not particularly concerned about how the firm is run or what it does, so long as the money comes in. We are trying to get away from all that; yet we are putting it into a Government Bill, into a Parliamentary Statute.
Secondly, my Lords, I am in charge of a Government agency which spends several million pounds of public money every year; and I hope and believe that in so doing we add to the sum of human happiness; but we have not got such powers as are specified in this Bill, nor do we need them, nor do I want them, nor would I be happy to have them and nor do I feel in any way fettered by not having them. It is in my experience untrue to say that this Board needs these powers and could not work without them. They are superfluous. If the Board feel that they cannot do something and really must have the power to do it, then they can go to the Minister or to Parliament. That is what they are there for. Surely that is our very purpose in setting up a public agency.
My Lords, lastly, it has been implicit as well as explicit in all that I have said on this subject during the passage of the three related Bills that I believe—and with the passage of time have become more convinced—that the powers conferred in this subsection are dangerous. If the Government are not aware of that and do not soon become aware of it and
1008
do not cease to insert provisions of this kind when promoting Government agencies, they are storing up a lot of potential trouble for the future. I know that there are precedents for these powers. There is the Post Office Act 1969 and various Acts under the Conservative Government, including the Civil Aviation Act 1971, and so on. These precedents are therefore fairly new. They are, none of them, my noble friends' fault nor Lord Beswick's fault, nor the fault of the last Government nor necessarily a matter of great blame for the Government before it.
Perhaps no one in this House has been less stinting in his praise of the Civil Service than myself; but I know how Governments are apt to work and the pressure of time on Ministers and civil servants. This subsection, or its approximation, would have been inserted originally in some Bill because somebody thought it would be a good idea. Nobody questioned it. The Ministers were thinking of other things; and the wretched thing passed into precedent to be inserted without question in every subsequent Bill. That is how a precedent of this kind happens. No one has queried this one before.
My Lords, when I first read this subsection or its equivalent in the Welsh Development Agency Bill I could not sleep for wondering what things were coming to. If you read it as I did, it can largely vitiate the need for any other legislation than that necessary to set up the Agency and define its composition and functions. In this Bill, this is doneunder Clause 1, Clause 2(1) and Clause 2(2). My fears in this respect have been substantiated in learning of the comments of a Scottish Minister that to insert the words which are here printed:
"… specified in subsection (2) above"
as in this subsection, is widening the powers of the Bill; because it then relates the unrestricted powers conferred by the subsection to the functions of the Agency laid down in the previous subsection and it leaves the Agency less restricted by the duties and functions asset out in later clauses of the Bill. In other words, on the say so of a Government Minister, this subsection has a significant meaning. It confers powers. It is not a harmless way of saying something of no great significance. It confers powers of a wide

1009
nature which, if they are specifically related to subsection (2) makes matters worse and not, as I first imagined, better.
My Lords, the least the Government can do is to remove the words "specified in subsection 2 above". But there is altogether something very wrong indeed here, something which needs to be given deep, serious and full reflection and consideration. If I thought that dropping this subsection would cripple the agency and prevent it from being effective I would not be raising the matter. I have doubts about the eventual efficacy of the agency; but those thoughts are not for now. I believe that it should be given as good a chance as possible. The presence of this subsection (and its equivalent in Bills of a related kind) raises the fundamental question of how much power should be conferred on a Government agency. It raises questions of accountability, of democracy, of the protection of the public from the arbitrary action of a public agency which might become as great a threat as the ones suffered by the public from private companies in the past.
My Lords, I apologise for raising the matter again. I shall not press the Amendment. I shall be content with having raised the point. I think that in fact it would not be proper to press the Amendment because the terms of the subsection are common to several other Bills. The Government, the Civil Service and Parliament must have serious regard to the type of creature which is being created in these Government agencies, and do all in their power to ensure their public responsibility and accountability. That means taking more care with the powers allotted to them than seems hitherto to have been the case. I beg to move.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I beg to support the Amendment moved by my noble friend. He has moved it in terms of deep concern and sober reflection upon what this clause implies. I regard a constant challenge to bureaucracy as one of the conditions of democracy, and this is one of the things I have always told bureaucracy it has to put up with. The moment one yields too freely to bureaucracy, the more certainly we are moving towards the authori-
1010
tarion State. All power yielded is a curb of the liberty of somebody somewhere, and that is why we have to look with care at a sweeping clause of this kind. This clause concedes powers to the Board, not to the Government, and the Board will be an institution of bureaucratic activity in the field of industry.
One wonders what it is that this clause is supposed to provide for. It would be interesting to have a list of the conceivable possibilities that this clause might be regarded as desirable or necessary to cover. I firmly believe that if this clause were deleted from the Bill nobody would know the difference in the powers and activities of the Board, and they would be able to do their job without any substantial let or hindrance. This is a kind of long-stop clause: "We provided for everything. Now let us provide for something more and do it in an undefined way. Do not let us be specific. Let us say that the Board may do any mortal thing calculated to facilitate the discharge of the functions specified."
I am advised that in its terms this clause is common to other Acts of Parliament, but that is no reason why we should not question it whenever we see it. The common form must be under challenge, too. Do not noble Lords on the Benches opposite realise what this Government have been able to do with powers of a sweeping character taken by the previous Government. They have grumbled that Labour are doing things with the powers which the Conservatives never intended them to do. These powers have been used for purposes for which they were never envisaged by those who created them That should surely be a warning to all concerned.
My Lords, I am afraid that I was a moment late in arriving at your Lordships' House as I was at another meeting. I am sure my noble friend has made it clear that we do not propose to turn your Lordships' House inside out, to upend the Constitution, to create a crisis or anything of that kind with this Amendment. But it will be enough, at least for the present, if by moving this Amendment we can elicit from my noble friend—who was so eager to rise a moment ago—a full and comforting explanation of the powers of this clause. I am sure we all await his reply with great interest.
3.45 p.m.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, has extended what he has said over a rather wide area and, like the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, I accept his obvious concern over this matter in the general sense. But I should confine myself to the effect that this Amendment would have on this Bill. The provision which this Amendment seeks to delete is a standard one. Comparable provisions giving public corporations the power to do all things necessary, incidental or conducive to the discharge of their functions, are to be found in all Statutes setting up nationalised corporations—for example, the Gas Act 1972, Section 6(1); the Post Office Act 1969; the Civil Aviation Act 1971, as the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, said, a Conservative Act; the Iron and Steel Acts of 1949 and 1967. The Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, as long ago as 1946, for example, said:
"The Board shall have power to do anything and to enter into any transaction calculated to facilitate the proper discharge of their duties … or is incidental or conducive thereto."
The purpose of the provision is to ensure that the Board have the right to pursue any appropriate action—within the law—calculated to facilitate the discharge of their functions in fulfilling the purposes which they have been given. Subsection (3) does no more than that, and it does not in any way exempt the Board from the general law of the land. Without this general provision, it would be necessary to devise an exhaustive list of specific powers to govern all the possible things which the Board might need to do—a task which I am sure noble Lords will agree would be extraordinarily difficult. The Board would be in danger of acting ultra vires if they did something which was not specifically listed.
It was because doubts were expressed in Committee in another place that the Government introduced subsection (5) of Clause 2 which says:
"For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that the foregoing provisions of this section relate only to the capacity of the Board as a statutory corporation, and nothing in the said provisions shall be construed as authorising the disregard by the Board of any enactment or rule of law".
Subsection (5) makes it clear beyond doubt that although the NEB are free to
1012
do anything which it is lawful for any person to do in pursuit of their functions and purposes, no special privileges have been conferred.
The National Enterprise Board are in fact in very much the same position as a private sector company. The general law with regard to Companies Act companies, to which the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, referred, is that they have power to carry out the objects set out in the Memorandum of Association, and also to do anything which is reasonably necessary to enable them to carry out these objects. In the case of the NEB, the functions set out in Clause 2(2) are equivalent to the objects of a Companies Act company. Clause 2(3) is intended to do no more than give the NEB the comparable power to do things necessary, incidental or conducive to the discharge of those functions. I hope that what I have said will dispel any uneasiness which the noble Lord may have felt, if in this specific case he was of the opinion that this clause conferred any new or special powers on the NEB.
Lord RAGLAN: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his explanation. I thought that that was what he would say. I am not at all satisfied, of course, because it does not cover the wider points which I raised. It passed through my mind, when the noble Lord mentioned that if the provision was not put in there was danger of the Board being ultra vires by doing something not specifically listed, to ask: what is the point of specifically listing anything if the Board can do anything? Also, I hope that the Government will take proper note of what my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby said about precedent. Because something has been in being without question for a very long time, it does not mean to say it is immutable. For a radical Party to adopt that stance would not get them very far. Their whole raison d'être is that they challenge precedent and keep altering things as they go along. I must ask my noble friend whether I may come to see him and consult his advisers at some other time, regarding whether we can do something about reducing the absurdly wide powers which this provision confers upon this Board and upon other Government agencies. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.50 p.m.
Lord ABERDARE Lord ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 30, at end insert—
("( ) It shall be the duty of the Board to have regard to guide lines set out for them by the Secretary of State.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4, which will be only too familiar in its terms to noble Lords opposite, because we have put down this Amendment at every stage of the Bill in an endeavour to extract from the Government some news about these guidelines which are to be given to the National Enterprise Board. In view of what was said at Report stage, may I make it quite clear that this is not something which we have sought to get out of the Government. These are guide lines which the Government themselves promised as far back as the 9th June, when the then Secretary of State for Industry, Mr. Wedgwood Benn, said in another place at col. 14 in answer to a Question:
"The Government will consider the publication of a further White Paper on the working of the proposed Industry Act in the course of the review of the Bill which we have undertaken to carry out."
It has since been confirmed to us throughout the consideration of this Bill by your Lordships that these guide lines were being prepared. I still hope that we may get some assurance that the guide lines will be available to Parliament before the Bill is enacted, because in many other instances there have been cases of Bills going through Parliament in connection with which there have been documents of immense importance to the interpretation of the Bills and such documents have been pressed for and usually provided to Parliament before the Bills have been enacted. For example, I can think of the Code of Practice connected with the Industrial Relations Bill. There have also been other documents of a similar kind. I should have thought it only reasonable to ask the Government to produce these guide lines to the National Enterprise Board, in order that Parliament may fully understand what the Board are expected to do and how they are expected to act, because although the Bill gives them very specific powers, it is in the interpretation of those powers that so much good or harm can be done. It is therefore very much in the interests of the economic future of the country that
1014
industry should gain confidence in the Government which at the moment they sadly lack. I should think that these guide lines would be of the greatest importance, and so I hope that on this occasion the noble Lord will be able to give us some indication of when they will be available. I hope he will be able to say that they will be available before the Bill becomes an Act.
I know that on previous occasions the noble Lord has reproached this side of the House for asking for guide lines too soon because Amendments have been accepted and the Government wish to see what the Bill looks like when it finally emerges. But I do not think that can be accepted as an excuse in the present case, because in the case of the Community Land Bill the Government have found it possible to produce a document in advance, incorporating Amendments which they themselves wished to put into the Bill—and that was done before the Report stage. If it was possible for that to be done in that instance, I should have thought it would be perfectly proper and easy for the Government to produce their draft guide lines relating to the Industry Bill as they would like to see it emerge. I beg to move.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, it crossed my mind, when the noble Lord said that he had raised this matter at every stage of the Bill, to query whether it was appropriate to raise it yet again on Third Reading. If we reach decisions at earlier stages, we do not normally return to them on Third Reading, but I raise that simply as an academic point.
The Amendment which is down on the Marshalled List today does not quite represent the argument put by the noble Lord, who is asking for regard to be taken of the guide lines. I would put to him that the wording in the Amendment would not be satisfactory either to him or to us. It is not sufficient to say that the Board should have regard to the guide lines. I suppose many of us have said before in this House that we should have regard to what has been said, and have then found that it would be unnecessary to actually carry out what was said. We would wish to have something rather stronger than that, and in fact the Bill itself now goes further than the noble Lord is suggesting in his Amendment. The Amendment does not require any

1015
guide lines to be made public. It makes no provision for guide lines ever to be changed. In Clause 7 of the Bill we spell out some of these things more clearly. The powers of direction in Clause 7 permit guide lines to be given binding effect. They require that they should be reported promptly to each House of Parliament; and in Clause 37 there is explicit provision for any direction to be varied or revoked. That is the course we are pursuing and I should have thought it would have commended itself to the noble Lord opposite.
As to whether the guide lines should be published before the Bill reaches the Statute Book, I must say to the noble Lord that the argument I have advanced before gets stronger at each stage. At each stage we have had a different Bill. It would have been quite absurd for guide lines to be presented to the House on Second Reading when we now have a Bill, following the Committee and Report stages, which is completely different. The powers of the Board and the parameters of action laid down by the present wording of the Bill are quite different from what we originally intended. The guidelines we might have put before the House earlier would have been quite irrelevant, and so it was sensible to wait to see what sort of Bill will eventually reach the Statute Book. When we see that, I give an assurance that we shall draw on the points which have been raised in discussion in both Houses of Parliament, and shall put the draft guide lines before this House for their approval in due course—but this cannot be until after the Bill gets on to the Statute Book.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has told us that because of the changes which have been made to the Bill during its passage through your Lordships' House it has not been possible for the guide lines to be issued until the Bill reaches the Statute Book. But, of course, this Amendment enables us to ask the Government about the latest situation, which the noble Lord has just given to us. Therefore I do not think he should have been surprised to see the Amendment on the Marshalled List again on Third Reading, because we have at various times given notice of our desire to know when the guide lines on particu-
1016
lar aspects would be available. The one I wish to touch upon concerns the relationship between the National Enterprise Board and other Agencies acting in the same field, because during our debates concerning the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies, and on this Bill, we have been promised guide lines which would indicate how these various bodies would be expected to collaborate with each other.
Therefore, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he could take this opportunity of telling us more about that; whether these guide lines which are to be published will help in that direction or whether separate guide lines will be issued. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, when on the Front Bench, gave an undertaking that guide lines concerned with the overlapping functions and operations of all the various bodies would have been available by now. The bodies I am referring to are not only the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies, but also the British National Oil Corporation, whose area of activity will overlap with the National Enterprise Board. Then in the North and West of Scotland there is the existing Highland Development Board, so some indication to the public, to industry and to Parliament is required of the kind of guide lines which are to be given on the separation of functions. I must mention the British National Oil Corporation, because it is only recently that your Lordships' House has been able to consider proposals for that; and we were considering them again yesterday.
If the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has been following the debates on the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Bill he will know that the British National Oil Corporation is by no means concerned only with activities in the oilfields at sea. It has powers to take part, for example, in the petrochemical industry and plastics and a whole range of substances which will be used increasingly by industry as oil from our own oilfields becomes available. To quote from the Petroleum Bill, BNOC will be able to
"buy, sell and otherwise deal in petroleum and anything derived from it".
That means that both the National Enterprise Board and the Oil Corporation are likely to be getting involved with the same companies in work related to petroleum and its derivatives; for example,

1017
the chemical industry. It is therefore important that the guide lines that we were promised earlier on, on the question of separation of functions between these various bodies, should become known at an early date. Perhaps the noble Lord can tell us whether these will be part of the general guide lines which he has been talking about, or whether they will be coming sooner.
I should just remind your Lordships about the situation in Scotland because the Highland Board is already operating there and its area and functions are widely understood—the Highland Board is the Highland Development Board; its main purpose is to inject money into industry through grants and loans, so it has very similar functions. Not only that, but there are to be three other statutory appointed bodies working in the same field: that is, the National Enterprise Board, the Scottish Development Agency and the British National Oil Corporation. I would remind your Lordships that the new oil activities have their main impact on the North of Scotland. So in that area there is a great danger of bureaucracy getting completely out of hand. What the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, was saying on the last Amendment about the dangers of bureaucracy will certainly apply when there are four agencies there, all likely to be tripping each other up or overlapping in their activities. Can the noble Lord tell us whether these guide lines will clarify and regulate the fields and functions of the National Enterprise Board in relation to these other bodies, or are there to be separate guide lines on that point which we have discussed in earlier debates, and, if so, will they be issued earlier or later?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, in reply to what has been said I am afraid I cannot go into the question of what the guide lines would be for the Scottish Development Agency or for BNOC. I can only say what relates to this Bill. The guide lines were indicated on 3rd July. They were spelt out; they have been before the House. I know that the noble Lord has very carefully read what was said because he referred to them on other occasions. All I am enabled to do now is to put before this House a draft in detail of points that were summarised in that statement of 3rd July. I assure the House that a draft will be laid before the
1018
House as soon as possible. It will not necessarily be a matter for amendment, but it will be before both Houses of Parliament as soon as is possible. The topics covered are stated in that summary given on 3rd July.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I of course have no intention of pressing this Amendment. I think what the noble Lord said in reply to me at the beginning of his remarks was unnecessary. He knows perfectly well that this Amendment was not intended to do more than to find out what the situation was with regard to the guide lines. I still think it is very unsatisfactory that no guide lines, even in draft form, have been available to this House in the course of the passage of the Bill through the House. As I said, these guide lines were foreshadowed in June, and it is now October and nothing has been forthcoming. Regardless of the fact that the Bill has admittedly been amended in the sense that we think it is greatly improved, I still think that the Government could have published draft guide lines on the basis that they have already said that they will not accept many of our Amendments, and we could have seen the kind of thoughts that were in their mind in regard to the National Enterprise Board before we ceased to deal with the Bill. I think it very unsatisfactory, but in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CROWN AGENTS
4.5 p.m.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House I will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Overseas Development. It is, I am afraid, a rather lengthy Statement, but as it is an important and technical matter I hope the House will bear with me. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, I wish to make a further Statement about the financial position of the Crown Agents and other matters relating to that organisation.
"My predecessor announced in December 1974 that the Government had agreed to provide a recoverable grant

1019
of £85 million to the Crown Agents to cover the writing down of asset values in their 1974 accounts as then foreseen and to provide financial backing appropriate to their operations, and that standby facilities had also been arranged with the Bank of England. I have now received the audited Accounts for 1973 and 1974 and have placed copies in the Libraries of both Houses. The balance sheet as at 31st December 1974 shows that the Government grant of £85 million was not enough in the event to avoid a technical state of insolvency, with liabilities exceeding assets at that date by some £15 million. This was because a greater degree of writing down of asset values and provision for losses were found necessary for the period covered by the Accounts.
"I should emphasise that the Crown Agents have no immediate liquidity problems. They have still not needed to draw on the £85 million grant nor on the standby facility. I am also reassured by the thorough and energetic action which has already been taken by the new Board of the Crown Agents, under its Chairman Mr. Cuckney, to clear up the problems of the past and lay the groundwork of a more soundly based future for the organisation. I should like to pay my own tribute to their efforts.
"Nevertheless, without Government backing the Crown Agents would at present be in a difficult position, which could affect the confidence of depositors and others. I have therefore thought it desirable formally to reaffirm the assurance given by my predecessor in December 1974, that Her Majesty's Government stand behind the Crown Agents. Honourable Members will find the terms of my assurance to the Chairman in his covering report on the 1974 Accounts, and I emphasise now to the House that the Government wish to see the Crown Agents continue in being for the sake of the valuable services which they are able to render both to their many overseas Principals in the developing world and to Her Majesty's Government in their relations with overseas countries.
"Like my predecessor I am however concerned that the future activities of
1020
the Crown Agents, and their relations with Ministers, should be on a more closely defined basis. The Government have been giving much thought to the future status, structure and functions of the Crown Agents. We have decided that the right solution will be to introduce legislation which would confer independent legal personality on the Crown Agents by incorporating them, define their functions for the future and provide that specified powers of direction should rest with Ministers. This would create a well understood relationship of a kind which exists between a number of bodies in the public sector and the Ministers responsible for them. It would clarify the responsibilities of the Government in exercising the broad oversight over the activities of the Crown Agents that has been shown to be desirable by all that has happened; while leaving it to the Board to run their own day-to-day affairs. It would not disturb the traditional relationship between them and their Principals.
"My predecessor told the House in April that she hoped to publish a White Paper during the present Session giving the Government's thinking on these matters. I shall not quite be able to meet that target, but I hope to publish a White Paper shortly to set out our present view of the provisions which will or may be required in the legislation to incorporate the Crown Agents.
"Meanwhile, I should inform the House of a further complication arising from the past activities of the Crown Agents which will have to be dealt with separately and in advance of this legislation. I was informed in August by the Chairman that certain loans made by the Crown Agents, either directly or through a nominee company, might be challenged as unenforceable, on the grounds that the Crown Agents were neither licensed moneylenders under the terms of the Moneylenders Acts nor a bank for the purposes of those Acts. The Crown Agents are advised that if this matter was brought before the courts, they would have a good defence, particularly on the basis that they and their staff are exempt from the operation of these Acts as Crown servants. However, if there were a challenge in the courts the matter might take a long

1021
time to resolve. Meanwhile the Crown Agents' financial position might be seriously worsened by the withholding of loan repayments and the interest due, and in other ways.
"This would increase the potential call on the Exchequer for financial support for the Crown Agents to a degree which we should find quite unacceptable in the circumstances. It would mean that a heavy additional liability would fall on the public purse and that other creditors of those property and other companies to which the Crown Agents had made loans would be in a position to benefit by taking advantage of an uncertainty in the application of legislation. I think it is essential to put this anomalous situation right. The Government will therefore introduce a Bill, for consideration as early as possible in the next Session, to put the matter beyond doubt."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Earl COWLEY: My Lords, I am certain that the whole House is grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating this important Statement, especially in view of the difficult financial position which has been facing the Crown Agents. We are grateful and pleased that the Government have decided to reaffirm their support and backing for the Crown Agents in order that the position of their depositors might be safeguarded and international confidence, which is so vital, might be maintained. Furthermore, the Crown Agents play an important part in providing much needed foreign exchange to our balance of payments. Consequently, we should also like to add our own appreciation to Mr. Cuckney and his colleagues for the work they have been doing over the last few months.
We cannot, of course, comment in detail on the Government's proposals to turn the Crown Agents into a public corporation until we have seen the proposed legislation itself. However, we are glad that the Crown Agents' reputation for confidentiality is to be maintained and that they are not to be turned into a Government Department, which would raise practical problems like managing World Bank loans. However, we shall have to await the legislation itself before deciding whether the Government
1022
have got right the balance between accountability and confidentiality. We agree that it is important that the position of the Agents' losses which were incurred mainly in fringe banking and property markets and the legal position under the Moneylenders Acts should be settled as soon as possible. However, I hope that the Government will ensure that the overseas principals are not put in a position of being liable for or paying these losses.
I have one detailed question for the noble Baroness. She mentioned the proposed White Paper but not the report of Judge Fay. Could the noble Baroness tell the House when this report will be produced and whether it will be published.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, may I thank the noble Earl for his very generous response to an extremely important Statement about a very tangled situation. I should like to repeat the assurances that Her Majesty's Government give to the principals—that there will be the same complete confidentiality and that everything that will be outlined in the White Paper, to which we look forward, will guarantee their position. I should like to make it absolutely clear that confidentiality will be maintained. Of course, the White Paper is still "baking in the oven" but I am quite sure that the noble Earl will be satisfied with that aspect of it when it emerges. I think that everyone in your Lordships' House and, indeed, in the City, will welcome the clarification of the legal identity of this rather anomalous organisation. Indeed, it has been thought about since practically the beginning of the century and many Administrations have been concerned in trying to grasp the nettle. We have now grasped it and I very much look forward to the White Paper.
If I might refer to the Fay Committee—this is the Committee of Inquiry under Judge Fay with Sir Edmund Compton and Mr. Peter Godfrey—I cannot give the noble Earl an exact date, but it should report some time in 1976, the report will be made to the Minister and the Minister will make a report to the Houses of Parliament.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, as one who has been critical of the Crown Agents and their administration right up

1023
to the year 1972, may I say how much I welcome this Statement. I believe it will clear up the absolutely incongruous status which in the past the Crown Agents had in relation to the Government and the developing countries. May I say how glad I am to hear from this Statement that the Minister will be following the policies which his predecessor laid down. I believe that now we have to have confidence in the personnel who have been appointed to control the Crown Agents and that the Government, the Crown Agents and the developing countries whom they serve will derive everything that is good from the changes which have been made.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. As he is listened to not only in this country but all over the world his words are particularly welcome.
Lord ALPORT: My Lords, when the legislation for the new form of Crown Agents has been drawn up may I ask the noble Baroness whether the Government will consider that the circumstances which brought the Crown Agents into being and the relations which that organisation had with its clients and depositors overseas cannot be continued in anything like the same form in the present conditions and will not try too closely to reproduce the kind of background of activity and responsibilities which the Crown Agents have had in the past because it may be that it is no longer realistic to do so. Like the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, and others, I am glad that this very difficult situation is being tackled in this way and realise the tragedy that has taken place as a result of the history of the last three or four years.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I have noted very carefully what the noble Lord has said and will pass on his remarks to my right honourable friend.

INDUSTRY BILL
4.17 p.m.
Third Reading resumed.
Clause 3 [Exercise by Board of powers to give selective financial assistance under Industry Act 1972]:
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS Lord LOVELL-DAVIS moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 4, line 36, at end insert ("and incidental to").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical Government drafting Amendment which is designed to avoid any possible confusion. I am afraid that today I cannot repeat my bargain offer of yesterday on the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Bill when, over-generously, I gave the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, the chance to withdraw my own Amendment. When the Board acquire property (and this normally means a shareholding) as a result of a direction by the Secretary of State to give selective financial assistance, the Secretary of State is required by subsection (9) of Clause 3 to reimburse the consideration given for the acquisition and the costs and expenses of acquiring it. These sums of money then count towards the Board's capital debt under the provisions of paragraph 6(5) of Schedule 2.
Owing to an oversight, the wording in Schedule 2 is at present slightly different. It refers to costs and expenses of and incidental to the acquisition. The fuller formulation is correct. Since the clause and the Schedule are, of course, intended to refer to the same sums of money, it is desirable that the wording should be the same so that there is no possibility of their being interpreted as having different legal meanings. It would clearly be absurd for the Board to assume a debt for expenses which had not been reimbursed by the Secretary of State. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [General power of Secretary of State to give Board directions]:
4.20 p.m.
Lord ABERDARE Lord ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 7, line 24, leave out ("(3)") and insert ("(4)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, to repeat the words just used by the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, this is a purely technical Opposition Amendment designed to try to avoid confusion, and we hope that what seems to us to have been a misprint in the Bill could prove to be the subject of one Amendment which, after a great deal of effort, we can actually get accepted. I beg to move.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords for tabling an Amendment to remedy this cross-referencing error, which we are very glad to accept. We had in fact spotted it ourselves and intended to table an Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Upper limits on Board's powers]:
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 10, line 1, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (1A) of this section").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we discussed Amendment No. 9 on Report and the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, then said that by including the words:
"or in accordance with any general authority given by the Secretary of State"—
and I now quote what he said:
"it was not the intention to make it possible for the Secretary of State to circumvent the requirement here with regard to a 30 per cent. holding or to the investment of £10 million."—[Official Report, 5/8/75; col. 1570.]
We are here concerned with a clause which says:
"Neither the Board nor any of their subsidiaries shall acquire any of the share capital of a body corporate except with the consent of the Secretary of State"—
and then the words—
"or in accordance with any general authority given by the Secretary of State."
Broadly speaking, the acquisition would give the Board control, if the cost of the acquisition would be over £10 million. The trouble is, of course, that whether or not it was the intention to do so, this is precisely what the clause does and I think it would be impossible to deny that. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, is himself inclined to think that the clause went rather too far and he outlined to us the sort of case that the clause, as
1026
amended in another place, was designed to cover. As I understand the position, when this clause was dealt with in another place it did not originally consider subsidiaries at all, and it was represented—I think from the Opposition—that subsidiaries should have exactly the same restraint put upon them as the Board. Then, because it was felt, as I understand it, that this might mean, in the case of subsidiaries, recourse to the Secretary of State for his consent in a number of minor cases, the words at line 3 on page 10 of the Bill:
"… with the consent of the Secretary of State or in accordance with any general authority given by the Secretary of State…",
were added to the Bill, thus making it possible for the Secretary of State to adopt either procedure in any case at any time. It is left entirely to his discretion.
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, was good enough to say:
"… we have in Clause 10 a system of executive control which provides that the Secretary of State has to approve the making of a large investment or the acquisition of a 30 per cent. holding. That is what we should all like, I believe."—[Official Report; 5/8/75, col. 1570.]
I heartily concur with that, but there can be little doubt that the alternative procedure of giving a general authority would very considerably relax that general provision. It could be construed as meaning that a company may, by general authority, invest £10 million, as the noble Lord said—Ithink he really meant up to £10 million—in each of a number of different sales outlets. He instanced the example of British Leyland wanting to acquire a number of sales outlets in different parts of the country. This would be what I have described in my Amendment as a series of acquisitions.
Of course, the simple way of dealing with this problem would be to omit the words that I have quoted, and that would be the effect of Amendment No. 9. There would then be only the one way in which the Board or the subsidiary would have to go to the Secretary of State for consent in every case where acquisition would give the Board control or the consideration would exceed £10 million.
The Amendments to which I am speaking, namely, Nos. 7, 8 and 10, if, with the leave of the House, we may consider them all together, would in effect enable the Secretary of State to give a general

1027
authority to the Board to acquire a controlling interest in companies in the circumstances envisaged by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, subject to two conditions. The first condition is that in their application the Board either specified en bloc the companies they propose to acquire, or else—and more likely, I should have thought—they specified the class of companies they propose to acquire, that being, in the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, sales outlets for certain products. The second condition is that no single acquisition covered by the general authority shall cost more than £250,000, and that the total value of the series of acquisitions shall not exceed £10 million.
The noble Lord may think that the figure of £250,000 which I have inserted for a single acquisition is too restrictive. He may also think that the general authority should permit the total cost of the series of acquisitions to exceed £10 million. If so, it would be possible for the amounts to be amended in another place. Even apart from the amounts mentioned—that is the £250,000 and the £10 million—I do not suppose that the wording of my Amendment will be wholly acceptable to the Government; but we are now at the Third Reading and there is no opportunity apart from this of putting the clause right before the Bill goes back to another place. Therefore, we have three choices in this matter: we can leave the Bill as it is, and that means giving the Secretary of State power, if he so chooses, to disregard the requirement for his consent to be given in every case where the Board or one of their subsidiaries propose to acquire a controlling interest, however much the acquisition is to cost.
When I say "disregard", I mean to choose the alternative course, giving a general consent. He could proceed simply by way of a general authority. I am not saying that he would do so; I am saying that he could do so, and I think I am entitled to feel greatly reinforced by what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, said at an earlier stage of these proceedings. He said we must be constantly challenging the powers of bureaucracy with which he included—not, perhaps, to the liking of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick—the National Enterprise Board. He also said that the powers
1028
to which the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, was referring, provided by one Government, are used for purposes for which they were never intended. So the powers exist. With respect, I think it is not open in this case for the noble Lord to say that they cannot be used, and would not be used, more widely if they are left as they are. So much for the first course.
My Lords, the second course is that we can accept my Amendments, knowing full well that they may need to be amended in another place, but accepting the principle that it is unnecessary for the Secretary of State to give his consent for each of a series of acquisitions when the policy of buying up a number of companies in the same class, or a number of specified companies, has been approved. What I do not think your Lordships should be asked to do is to dispense with the requirements for consent in cases where the Board propose to take a controlled interest and give a general authority enabling the Board, or any of their subsidiaries, to acquire individual bodies corporate, provided that the value of the consideration does not exceed £10 million. I do not think that this is in line with the original intentions of the Government. I do not think that it would be right at this stage to give power to do that. That is why I have limited the Amendments which I am proposing to the kind of case that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, was suggesting, which really involved a series of purchases in implementation of an agreed policy.
My Lords, the other choice is for your Lordships to approve Amendment No. 9 and give the other place the opportunity to specify what they think the limits of any general authority should be, and the circumstances in which it should be given by the Secretary of State. I would urge very strongly that we ought not to leave the clause as it is. It does not make sense to stipulate the circumstances in which the Board have to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State, and then, in the same breath, to say that that requirement can be dispensed with at any time and in any circumstances simply by means of a general authority given by the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, briefly I should like to add my voice in support

1029
of what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. It seems to me that there is a very strong case for an Amendment of this kind. The clause puts limits on the powers of the Board in terms of both the 30 per cent. or more of the votes, and in terms of the £10 million in respect of their acquisitions. It does not really seem sensible that there should also be the words,
"in accordance with any general authority given by the Secretary of State",
which could allow those limits to be exceeded in certain circumstances.
My Lords, I think my noble friend is much to be congratulated on having produced an Amendment which, on the face of it, certainly seems to accomplish what we have in mind. We know that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has considered this matter very carefully, because he said he would on Report stage. I hope that he will be able to give us some encouragement, either by accepting this Amendment, or in giving an undertaking to amend further the Bill before it finishes its passage.
4.35 p.m.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I was expecting the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, to rise, as I know he felt very strongly about this matter, too. A little earlier on, I had occasion to criticise noble Lords opposite for raising yet again on Third Reading matters which had been thoroughly ventilated during the earlier stages of the Bill, but I quite recognise that in this case my arguments do not apply. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is quite right, and so is the noble Earl. I gave an undertaking to look at this. I quite understand their reasons for bringing forward these Amendments. Perhaps I may just state the position and the background.
When the Bill was under consideration in another place, the Government accepted that the need for Ministerial approval for acquisitions of shares costing more than £10 million, or where more than 30 per cent. of the equity was involved, should be extended from acquisitions by the National Enterprise Board and their wholly-owned subsidiaries to include all the Board's subsidiaries. This had the effect of considerably widening the impact of control. It brought into the scope of the Bill the business activities of com
1030
panies in which there might be substantial outside shareholders. It was to avoid the potentially wasteful and frustrating extension of Government oversight that this idea of the general consent came into being.
The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said something about the bureaucrats. He said that we did not want to extend the power of the bureaucrats, but that argument cuts both ways. We want to enable the National Enterprise Board or their subsidiaries to operate in a commercial way without continual frustration from, and interference by, the Government. Therefore, it was thought proper that there should be power in the Bill for the Secretary of State to give general consent in a certain category of cases. I do not believe that noble Lords opposite and I differ about this need for a general consent and I hope, therefore, that they will not press Amendment No. 8, which would have the effect of ruling out altogether the possibility of a general consent.
But when we come to the question as to how we can ensure that the general consent provision is not abused, we then get into more difficulty. As I have said, I understand—and I have expressed this understanding before—the wish for a limitation in the general case as well as in the particular case. But when one sets out to accomplish that, we are faced with certain problems. The fact is that unless we build a quite elaborate legislative pattern, it is impossible to cover every eventuality in matters of this kind. It is necessary to recognise that the proper operation of legislation depends upon observance by the Government and the National Enterprise Board of the spirit of the legislative provisions as interpreted by the Government and Parliament, and subject to the sanction of the ability of Parliament to call the responsible Minister to account for the discharge of his responsibility. I do not conceive that it is possible, even if we do not have the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that the National Enterprise Board, under a general consent, would invest £9,999,000 in particular companies every Friday afternoon. I do not think anyone in the House would expect this kind of abuse to follow.
If we try to limit the amount by Act of Parliament—and I understand the;

1031
motive behind the feelings of noble Lords opposite—we get into difficulties. I should have thought that £250,000 would be too restrictive. There may be a general consent which would involve an investment of £250,000 and altogether, under the general consent, it may be not more than £250,000. I do not think that that kind of interference is what the noble Lord would wish to see. Therefore, I cannot recommend the House to accept the Amendment which he has so well moved.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, if I may first comment on the reference to the bureaucrats, of course I was quoting there the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I was careful to avoid saying that this was the opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, or, indeed, that it was mine in this case. We agree that if we are to have the National Enterprise Board they should work in a commercial way. We are in a real difficulty here. My advice to your Lordships would be to carry this Amendment with its imperfections. As I said, I am not sure that £250,000 was not too restrictive. I am inclined to think that a total for a series of acquisitions of £10 million would be all right; I was tempted to add at the end words to allow the Secretary of State to extend that, but this was taxing my drafting abilities rather hard and I thought we had better leave that for another place.
I think it is right to give the other place another chance to look at this, and I hope, therefore, the noble Lord will accept the Amendment in this spirit. I think if he does so it will make it possible for the other place to look at the series of Amendments in a way that they would not otherwise do. I am really asking him, in a sense, to do something which is rarely done, and that is for the
Government themselves to agree that this is something that should be looked at further at this stage. If the noble Lord cannot do that, I think he will understand if we say that we think we ought to test the opinion of the House in the Division Lobbies.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, the fact is that I cannot give an undertaking as to what the other place might do if we pass this Amendment.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, that was not quite what I asked. I was asking whether the noble Lord would let the Amendment go through without a Division, which would be an indication from this House to another place that there was some feeling, probably in all parts of the House, that this is a matter that could well be looked at again. I will understand it if the noble Lord cannot do that, but I hope he will.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I have given an assurance that there is no intention that the provisions of this general consent would be abused. I would expect that the NEB would operate within the general spirit of the law that we are enacting. I am afraid that I cannot give the undertaking the noble Lord has asked for.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I would accept the noble Lord's assurance in regard to the NEB as originally constituted under this Government, but that cannot bind the Government forever or the NEB forever. In those circumstances, I feel that we must press this to a Division.
4.43 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents. 94; Not-Contents, 59.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Camoys, L.

Denham, L.

Airedale, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Digby, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Carrington, L.

Drumalbyn, L. [Teller.]

Alport, L.

Cathcart, E.

Eccles, V.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Effingham, E.

Armstrong, L.

Clwyd, L.

Elles, B.

Auckland, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Elton, L.

Balfour, E. [Teller.]

Cornwallis, L.

Emmet of Amberley. B

Barnby, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Erskine of Rerrick, L.

Berkeley, B.

Cowley, E.

Falkland, V.

Birdwood, L.

Cromartie, E.

Ferrers, E.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Fortescue, E.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Daventry, V.

Glasgow, E.

Caccia, L.

Davidson, V.

Goschen, V.

Grenfell, L.

Monck, V.

Sandys, L.

Gridley, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Somers, L.

Harvington, L.

Newall, L.

Stamp, L.

Hayter, L.

Northchurch, B.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Henley, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ogmore, L.

Strathspey, L.

Ironside, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Sudeley, L.

Kimberlely, E.

Porritt, L.

Terrington, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Long, V.

Rhyl, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Loudoun, C.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Vickers, B.

Lyell, L.

Rockley, L.

Vivian, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Mancroft, L.

St. Davids, V.

Wigoder, L.

Mansfield, E.

St. Helens, L.

Wise, L.

Merrivale, L.

Sandford, L.

Young, B.

Meston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arwyn, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Phillips, B.

Aylestone, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Balogh, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Raglan, L.

Beswick, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Sainsbury, L

Birk, B.

Hale, L.

Segal, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Hall, V.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Brockway, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Shinwell, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stedman, B.

Champion, L.

Jacques, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Collison, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Leatherland, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Crook, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Summerskill, B.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Lyons of Brighton. L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

McLeavy, L.

Willis, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Melchett, L. [Teller.]

Winterbottom, L. [Teller.]

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Pannell, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Pargiter, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

Peddie, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.51 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 9.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 3, after ("or") insert ("in the circumstances described in subsection (1A) of this section").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 10.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 12, at end insert—
("(1A) The circumstances referred to in subsection (1) of this section are that the Board has applied to the Secretary of State for a general authority for one of its subsidiaries to make a series of acquisitions of the share capital of specified bodies corporate, or bodies corporate of a specified class, some or all of which acquisitions would entitle the Board to exercise or control the exercise of 30 per cent. or more of the votes at any general meeting of the respective bodies corporate; provided that in the case of no such acquisition shall
1034
the value of the consideration exceed £250,000, nor would the total value in the series of acquisitions exceed £10,000,000.")—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
Clause 12 [Meaning of change of Control]:
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS Lord LOVELL-DAVIS moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 10, line 37, leave out from beginning to ("only") in line 4 on page 11, and insert—
("(1) There is a change of control of an important manufacturing undertaking for the purposes of this Part of this Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Part II of the Bill is somewhat complex, as noble Lords will recognise. I apologise at this stage in the Bill's progress for coming forward with Amendments that may appear somewhat greater than those normal at this stage, but I hope to be able to explain their purpose and the need for them. Quite simply, we are here concerned to close two gaps which we have unwittingly introduced into our

1035
powers, either of which could represent a serious weakness. The first arises from the present drafting of Clause 12(2), which provides that when an important manufacturing undertaking is carried on by a body corporate, there is a change of control of it only if particular events happen in relation to that body corporate. However, we have now recognised that this would prevent us from acting if a change of control of an important manufacturing undertaking arose not from a change in relation to the body corporate carrying on the undertaking, but quite simply through the sale of the undertaking—that is to say, the sale of the business. This might occur through the undertaking being sold by the body corporate to a foreign company. As the Bill is now drafted, we should be unable to prevent it. This is clearly wrong, and we seek to remedy this by providing that there is a change of control if a person not resident in the United Kingdom acquires the whole or part of an important manufacturing undertaking; or if a person carrying on such an undertaking ceases to be resident in the United Kingdom. This is achieved by paragraphs (b) and (a) respectively in the new subsection (2).
This covers the sale of the undertaking to a foreign person or foreign company. It does not, however, cover the sale of the undertaking to a British company that is controlled by a foreign company. Yet it would be an obvious loophole if the powers could be circumvented through the sale of the business to a company which, although incorporated in the United Kingdom and hence resident here, was controlled—perhaps 100 per cent. owned—from abroad. We therefore propose an Amendment to make it quite clear, through the addition of paragraph (c) to Clause 12(2), that this is covered.
The Amendments which we propose are important—and I should have asked, first of all, whether I could speak to Amendments Nos. 11, 12 and 13 together—in that they close loopholes which would detract from the main purpose of the Bill. They do not, however, introduce any new principles to the Bill. They restore effects which were in the Bill when it was introduced into another place, and which were accidentally removed by other Amendments in the other
1036
place. They preserve the essential purpose of these subsections, of stating clearly and exhaustively those circumstances which enable the powers to be used. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for his explanation, which was certainly needed, of the purposes behind this group of Amendments, closely followed by Amendments Nos. 14 to 19. I am grateful to him for making this exposition which, I hope, being on the record will be of assistance to others outside this Chamber who have similarly been somewhat in the dark as to what the final motive of this was.
I should like to register a mild protest at the manner in which this shoal of Amendments has arrived on our desks. I think that the noble Lord is familiar with the difficulties which this has posed of actual interpretation, because of the scissors and paste work. Later in the day his Department was kind enough to give us a draft of the clause, as amended. This was helpful. It might indeed have been the correct way to proceed from the beginning. With those thanks and observations, I shall conclude.
The Earl of BALFOUR: My Lords, I am once again sorry to be on my feet reading. I am somewhat concerned about Amendment No. 13, and I gather that these Amendments are being moved together. It says:

(b) "a person not resident in the United Kingdom acquires… part of the undertaking;

(c) a body corporate resident in the United Kingdom but controlled by a person not so resident acquires… part of the undertaking;"

I feel that if we had "a substantial part of the undertaking" this might be all right. But, so far as I can see, because it is just "part of the undertaking" the person might hold just a small part and allow for a change of control from the point of view of acquisition under the provisions of this Bill.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, we are talking about change of control of a company. If the part was so small, this would not arise at all. It would have to be, by its very nature, substantial enough to affect the control of the undertaking, of the body corporate, so it could

1037
not in fact be small. No action would need to be taken.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 12.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 4, after ("of") insert ("a relevant event.
(2) In subsection (1) above "relevant event" means").—(Lord Lovell-Davis.)
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 13.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 5, at end insert—
("(a) the person carrying on the whole or part of the undertaking ceases to be resident in the United Kingdom;
(b) a person not resident in the United Kingdom acquires the whole or part of the undertaking;
(c) a body corporate resident in the United Kingdom but controlled by a person not so resident acquires the whole or part of the undertaking;").—(Lord Lovell-Davies.)
4.58 p.m.
Lord BESWICK Lord BESWICK moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 11, line 8, leave out ("that body corporate") and insert ("a body corporate carrying on the whole or part of the undertaking").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wonder whether we can take Amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 17 with Amendment No. 14. These Amendments are consequential upon those which we have just agreed. In the earlier Amendments the words, "where the person carrying on an important manufacturing undertaking or part of an important manufacturing undertaking is a body corporate", now in lines 1 to 3 on page 11, were removed. This leaves the references to "that body corporate" in lines 9 and 13, and to "it" in lines 10 and 15, without antecedents. It is therefore necessary to spell out that the body corporate is one "carrying on the whole or part of the undertaking"; and that it refers to "such a body corporate". These are verbal Amendments, and do not change the meaning from that which we have just agreed. I beg to move.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 15.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 10, leave out ("it") and insert ("such a body").—(Lord Beswick.)
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 16.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 13, leave out ("that body corporate") and insert ("a body corporate carrying on the whole or part of the undertaking").—(Lord Beswick.)
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move Amendent No. 17.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 15, leave out ("it") and insert ("such a body").—(Lord Beswick.)
Lord BESWICK Lord BESWICK moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 11, line 18, leave out ("one body corporate is in control of another if it is") and insert ("a body corporate or individual").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House if, with this Amendment, we took Amendment No. 19. Amendment No. 18 provides a wider definition of control, in that it extends the definition of control to the case when an individual is entitled to cast 30 per cent. or more of the votes of a body corporate. The Bill as it stood was confined to the case when a body corporate was entitled to cast 30 per cent. of votes. The extension to individuals is necessary to make quite clear the position in paragraph (c) of subsection 11(2), where the person not resident in the United Kingdom may be either a natural person—that is, an individual—or a body corporate. The Amendment therefore brings certainty of definition to this case.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential upon Amendment No. 18. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 20, leave out ("the latter") and insert ("a body corporate is in control of that").—(Lord Berwick.)
Clause 13 [Power to make orders]:
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS Lord LOVELL-DAVIS moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 12, line 2, leave out from ("and") to ("that") in line 4, and insert—
("(a) prohibit").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there is a slight printing error in the Amendment as it appears on the Marshalled List. In Amendment No. 20 the words to be inserted should read ("(i) prohibit") and in Amendment No. 21 the words to be inserted should start ("and (ii) prohibit"). This substitution of (i) for (a) and (ii) for (b) is necessary because subsection (1) already contains an (a) and a (b).
I will, with permission, speak to both Amendments Nos. 20 and 21. These Amendments seek to make a prohibition order simpler and more effective. As the Bill is at present drafted the Secretary of State is entitled to make an order to prohibit actions which "in his opinion" would constitute or lead to a change of control. It would clearly be unsatisfactory simply to make a prohibition order saying that anything that the Secretary of State thought led to a change of control was prohibited; to enable those affected to know what was prohibited, the order would have to list the things which he thought would have that effect. This has the considerable disadvantage that the order would have to be very long and spell out the specific actions prohibited, and its purpose could be defeated if the person concerned took an action clearly designed to achieve a change of control, or perhaps even achieving that change of control, but which was not so specified in the prohibition order. This could come about either because he took some action not foreseen by the Secretary of State; or because he took an action which, although very close to an action specified in the order, was sufficiently different to avoid the specific prohibition.
We wish to deal with this problem by enabling an order to be completely objective; if an order simply says, "I prohibit that change of control", it will allow the Secretary of State, if an action is taken to bring about a change of control, to stop that action without the specific action having been listed in the prohibition order. There will be no question here
1040
of the Secretary of State's opinion; the question whether an action did or did not bring about a change of control would here be one in the last resort for the courts. This would be in addition to the power of the Secretary of State, as before, to specify in his order particular actions which in his opinion would constitute or lead to a change of control, so that he could still specify particular actions which must not be taken. That power may be needed to deal with people acting in collusion, or through men of straw, where a change of control may be concealed behind some facade. The clause after amendment as we propose will be very similar to the powers in the Fair Trading Act 1973.
The Amendments proposed here will, I hope, appeal to the common sense of your Lordships' House. It would be wrong for the intentions of a prohibition order to be clearly and incontrovertibly breached simply because a specific action enabling this to happen had not been listed in the order. The Amendments are designed to make the order workable without widening the power and discretion of the Secretary of State in any way.
Lord ELTON: My Lords. I think that at this late stage we must take the noble Lord's word for it that the intention of this Amendment and consequently the uses to which the Amendment is put will simply be to enable the Secretary of State to make clear what the aims of the prohibition order are, and to prevent the evasion of those aims by the inadvertent omission of one possible route of avoiding that aim being taken; provided that is the only implication which can arise from it, we are satisfied.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: I beg to move Amendment No. 21, which is consequential upon Amendment No. 20.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 4, after ("control") insert ("and
(b) prohibit or restrict the doing of things which in his opinion would constitute or lead to it;").—Lord Lovell-Davis.)
Lord BESWICK Lord BESWICK moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 12, line 44, after ("which") insert (", at the time that the draft of the order is

1041
laid before Parliament under section 15(3) below,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is another Amendment which is intended to remove doubt. As the Bill stands it is not clear whether the shares appearing to the Secretary of State to be involved in the change of control were those which so appeared when the order was laid in draft or when it was made. By necessity, of course, the order when laid would refer to the shares as they were identified on the date when it was laid. If, however, the order could vest shares which he owned only when the order was made, it would be open to the foreigner, through some marginal sale of shares, to alter his holding before the order was made, without in any way altering his control, and thus make the order invalid. Since an order cannot be amended, any such change would require the order to be withdrawn and a new one tabled. This process could be continued indefinitely and to avoid this we wish to specify that these are the shares involved when the order is laid. This is a question of removing doubt. It is more simple and I hope noble Lords opposite will have no difficulty in accepting it.
Lord BESWICK Lord BESWICK moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 13, line 2, leave out ("under the law of the United Kingdom or of a part of") and insert ("in").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 24, 36 and 37. On Report we promised to bring forward an amendment to meet the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, about how to refer to the law under which a company is incorporated. These drafting Amendments do, I hope, take full account of the point he made so well on that occasion and I am grateful to him for that help.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I know that my noble and learned friend will appreciate that the Government undertook to make these Amendments. I am not learned in the law as he is but, as a fellow Scot, I am grateful to the noble Lord for having taken the trouble to put down these Amendments.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move formally Amendment No. 24.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 7, leave out ("under the law of the United Kingdom or of a part of") and insert ("in").—(Lord Beswick.)
Clause 14 [Notices to extend vesting orders to other holdings]:
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS Lord LOVELL-DAVIS moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 13, line 41, after ("capital") insert ("or rights").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a simple drafting Amendment to ensure that those who have a prospective right to subscribe for share capital are covered in this subsection, as they are already in subsections 14(1) and (2).
Clause 15 [Parliamentary control of orders]:
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS Lord LOVELL-DAVIS moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 14, line 18, at end insert—
"(a) in a case such as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of section 13(2) above, after the end of a period of three months from the service of a notice under section 16(6) below of the Secretary of State's intention to lay the draft before Parliament;".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on Report my noble friend Lord Melchett gave an undertaking that the Government would introduce an Amendment which would achieve the effect of an Amendment which had been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. This was to provide that a vesting order could not be laid more than three months after the Secretary of State had given notice of his intention to lay such an order. This Amendment is intended to discharge that undertaking. The principle having been agreed on Report, I will not detain the House by describing it further.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: I beg to move Amendment No. 27.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 20, leave out ("subsection (2) of section 13 above") and insert ("that subsection").—(Lord Lovell-Davis.)
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: I should inform your Lordships that Amendment No. 28 has been misprinted by the omission of the words "of that subsection" after "(c)"and before the word "exist".
5.10 p.m.
Lord BESWICK Lord BESWICK moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 14, line 22, after ("order") insert ("unless such circumstances as are mentioned in paragraph (a) or (c) exist at the time when the draft of the order is laid before Parliament under subsection (3) above").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as the noble Lord has told us there is a slight misprint here. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for identifying it and I am again in his debt.
This Amendment has two aims. First, we wish to place beyond doubt the effect of the limitation on when a vesting order may be made after a previous prohibition order. As it stood, paragraph (a) of Clause 15(4) could be interpreted as meaning that once a prohibition order had been made in respect of a company, if a vesting order was not made within three months, no vesting order could thereafter be made in respect of that company. But it would clearly be wrong if, simply because a prohibition order had been made in respect of a bid for a company by foreigner A, we were on that account six months later powerless to act when it was acquired by foreigner B. We wish to make clear that the three months' time limit applies only to a vesting in relation to the prohibition order, and does not rule out a separate vesting order being made to prevent a threatened change of control, or to deal with a change of control that has already occurred. In terms of Clause 13(2), this particular time limit is confined to paragraph (b), and does not affect vesting orders made in respect of (a) and (c).
Secondly, we wish to ensure that if at any time a prohibition order is for some reason ineffective, so that a change of control takes place or is threatened, notwithstanding that a prohibition order is in force, then a vesting order can still be made. This is not, perhaps, a very likely case, but it could come about as the result of actions taken outside the jurisdiction of United Kingdom law, and it
1044
is a possibility which we should provide for. I beg to move.
Clause 16 [Contents of vesting orders]:
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS Lord LOVELL-DAVIS moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 15, line 11, at end insert—
("(1A) A vesting order which provides for the vesting of assets employed in an undertaking may prohibit or set aside any transfer of assets so employed or of any right in respect of such assets.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this Amendment I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 30, 31, 32 and 33. These Amendments close a potential loophole in the safeguarding provisions. As the Bill stands, Clause 16(2) allows a vesting order to safeguard capital or assets "which will vest" under the order. But if assets were disposed of after the intention to make a vesting order had been announced but before the order came into force, they would no longer be employed in the undertaking. Consequently, they would not vest and could not be made subject to any safeguarding provisions. To prevent this occurring, the new subsection proposed will enable transfers of assets which are covered by a vesting order, and which take place after notice has been given of the intention to make the vesting order, to be set aside. This is on the same basis as the existing provision in Clause 16(6), and introduces no new principle. It merely removes an unintended disparity between the safeguarding powers which apply when a vesting order vests assets, and the powers which apply when a vesting order vests share capital. I beg to move.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 30, 31 and 32 en bloc.
Amendments moved—
Page 15, line 15, leave out ("or assets")
Page 15, line 24, at end insert ("a transfer of")
Page 15, line 25, leave out ("(2)(a)") and insert ("(1A)").—(Lord Lovell-Davis.)
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 33.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 34, leave out ("subsection (2) above refers") and insert ("this section applies").—(Lord Beswick.)
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS Lord LOVELL-DAVIS moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 15, line 36, leave out ("given notice to") and insert ("served notice on").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission I shall speak to Amendment No. 35 with this Amendment. These are drafting Amendments, to refer here as elsewhere to the "serving" of notices rather than the "giving" of notices. This brings these references into line with the rest of the Bill, and particularly with Clause 35 which defines how notices may be served. I beg to move.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 35.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 47, leave out ("given") and insert ("served").—(Lord Lovell-Davis.)
Clause 18 [Territorial scope of orders]:
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 36 and 37. These Amendments are consequential on Amendments Nos. 23 and 24.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 17, leave out ("under the law of the United Kingdom or of a part of") and insert ("in")
Page 16, line 28, leave out ("under the law of the United Kingdom or of a part of") and insert ("in").—(Lord Beswick.)
Clause 20 [Arbitration of disputes relating to vesting and compensation orders]:
Lord BESWICK Lord BESWICK moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 17, line 30, leave out ("any dispute which arises in connection with") and insert ("a dispute which arises out of").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this Amendment, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 42 and 43. These Amendments are designed to clarify the relationship between the courts and the arbitration tribunal provided for in Schedule 3. As the Bill now stands, any dispute arising in connection with a vesting or compensation order must go to the arbitration tribunal. It is possible that this could be construed as meaning that the question of whether an order was ultra vires would have to be considered by the
1046
tribunal, and could not be considered by the courts. We think it quite wrong to prevent the courts dealing with the vires of an order, and this Amendment is designed to ensure that this unintended construction is not put on the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS Lord LOVELL-DAVIS moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 17, line 33, after ("corporate") insert ("the whole or part of")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment provides that a dispute may be considered by the arbitration tribunal if a company, the whole or part of whose shares had been vested, is a party to it rather than this being confined to a company the whole of whose share capital had been vested. This is a simple consequential Amendment. As a matter of logic, the arbitration tribunal should be able to consider a dispute if a body corporate only part of whose share capital is being vested is a party to it. As the Bill is drafted, this would not be possible unless the whole of its share capital is vested. This is to be widened by the Amendment. I beg to move.
Lord BESWICK: I beg to move Amendment No. 40. This is a misprint which should read "either of them" not "either or them".
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 34, leave out first ("or") and insert ("of").—(Lord Beswick.)
Lord BESWICK Lord BESWICK moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 17, line 34, at end insert—
("(a) if the provisions of the order require it to be submitted to arbitration; or
(b) if one of the parties wishes it to be so submitted;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this Amendment we are to take Amendment No. 62. This brings up the possibility that all those who are parties to a dispute arising out of an order would prefer to see it settled in the courts—which may be quicker and cheaper—rather than by the arbitration tribunal. The courts are, of course, already in existence whereas a tribunal might need to be specially constituted. As the Bill stands, it is not possible for a matter to be dealt

1047
with by the courts: all disputes must go to the arbitration tribunal. This we wish to amend, to ensure that there is automatic recourse to the arbitration tribunal if any party to a dispute arising out of the order wishes to take the question to arbitration, but leaving open the possibility of resolving the question in the courts. This in no way prevents a party to a dispute taking the matter to the arbitration tribunal, but it allows the parties—if all are unanimous—to resolve the matter in the courts. I beg to move.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 together. I spoke to these Amendments with Amendment No. 38.
Amendments moved—
Page 17, line 35, leave out ("in connection with") and insert ("out of")
Page 17, line 37, leave out ("in connection with") and insert ("out of").—(Lord Beswick.)
Clause 22 [Extension of powers to give selective financial assistance under Industry Act 1972]:
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 44:
Leave out Clause 22 and insert the following new Clause:
Extension of powers to give selective financial assistance under Industry Act 1972
"22. The provisions of Part I of Schedule (Amendments to Part II of Industry Act 1972) to this Act shall be made to the Industry Act 1972 and accordingly Part II of that Act shall have effect as set out in Part II of the Schedule."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this Amendment I should like to speak to Amendment No. 63. These are technical Amendments whose function is to deal with Clause 22. I should say, since I appear to be carrying Clause 22 with loving and careful hands from one end of the Bill to the other, that I am not at all well disposed towards what it does and would not wish to be regarded as having fathered it in any way. That aside, it seemed to me and my colleagues that it would be to the public interest if it were presented in such a way that it could be understood by the layman without too much recourse to legal advice. Therefore, with considerable help—for which I am grateful—from the Public Bill Office, I
1048
resorted to the device of a Keeling schedule which repeats in Clause 63 the substance of the sections in the 1972 Act as they will appear after they have been amended, as well as putting down the Amendments as they are printed at present in the body of Clause 22. It is a simple operation in appearance, but it is a delicate operation. I hope that it will be to the convenience of the users of the Bill, as well as to the House, that this Amendment should be carried.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I certainly do not intend to saddle the noble Lord with the responsibility for the Bill or for this clause of the Bill. But I commend his action in making its wording clearer, and I am glad to accept the Amendment.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, it would be greatly amiss not to acknowledge my personal debt to the noble Lord, not only for his accession to that point of view, but also for pointing out two verbal slips in the drafting of the Amendment.
Clause 27 [Disclosure of information by Government]:
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment, which is simply a drafting Amendment, in order to refer to "the" Treasury. God does not need the definite article, but for the time being the Treasury does.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 4, after ("and") insert ("the").—(Lord Lovell-Davis.)
Clause 28 [Persons to whom duty to disclose information applies]:
5.22 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 22, line 6, at end insert:
(""employee representative" means a person who is employed by the company or companies concerned and who is elected to represent employees, or any group or class of employees, of the company or companies concerned.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think that with this Amendment it would be convenient to consider Amendment No. 69 which is the consequential Amendment to the long Title of the Bill. The

1049
House has had opportunities for full discussion at the Committee and Report stages of the Bill of the various possibilities at this point of the Bill, and this Amendment is tabled after having taken fully into account all that was said on those occasions from both sides of the House. The Amendment completes a group of amendments which the House has already made to the Bill. I commend the Amendment as the most suitable description for the purposes of this Part of the Bill; that is, the wording at the beginning of the subsection.
The Government set themselves a problem, which all of us who have been considering this Part of the Bill have also had, when they embarked on a system of compulsory disclosure. It raises the question of indicating the categories of person who can be the representatives of the workforce of a company. There are many different situations in the circumstances of different companies. Where information is being satisfactorily disclosed now under voluntary arrangements, companies use the system thought to be best and most suitable in each case.
Let us consider the Government's original proposal which was relevant to trade union representatives. That raised at least two objections. I remind your Lordships that it would not necessarily have meant employees of the company. That was the first objection. The second objection was that it would have been unsatisfactory when companies had a large proportion of their workforce—or even a majority—who were not members of trade unions; and there are tens of thousands of employees in manufacturing industry who are not members of unions.
We do not need to go into that again, but I wish to remind the House of the reasons behind our arguments in the previous debates. We have to cater for the different situations in various companies. Of course, we could have put forward another kind of Amendment to cover every possibility. That would have been a very long Amendment. It would not have been easy even then to be sure of covering every situation which exists in every company; some have works councils while others do not, and so on. But I also submit that it is not necessary to try to cover every possibility for this purpose. Certainly the Government did not undertake to do that in their original
1050
version; nor have we. If the original wording in the Bill as the Government presented it had been retained, it would not then have been clear which trade union representatives were to be designated under this Part of the Bill; for example, in some large companies there are many unions—l5 or more—whereas there is only a handful of representatives presumably expected to act in this role under this Part of the Bill. Therefore the company had the task of deciding who were the relevant ones, to use the original words. Under this Amendment it will still require common sense and reasonableness in the light of the situation of each company, and so what was recognised in the original version of the Bill also applies here.
There is a possibility, which those of us who have been concerned about getting right the wording in this Part of the Bill have recognised, of an extremist group—anarchists or whatever you like—deciding to get together inside a company and to elect a representative. I believe that that situation existed anyway. Unfortunately, extremists can do the same within trade unions as well as outside trade unions. Under the Bill as it stands at present it is still a matter for the company concerned to select the representatives for the purposes of this Part of the Bill.
The Amendment has been left to this stage, the Third Reading, in order to gain the benefit of all the previous debates on this subject, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will recognise this. There is no intention of inconveniencing the Government by leaving this Amendment to this stage. We simply wanted to take account of the views which have been put on all sides of the House, and I and my noble friends, as well as the Liberal Party, now put forward this as being what we believe to be the best Amendment for this Part of the Bill, to complete the group of Amendments that have already been passed. We think that it is necessary guidance, that it should be in the Bill, and that it conforms with the Amendments already made. I beg to move.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, the issue as to whether disclosure should be to employee representatives or trade union representatives has been debated many

1051
times in your Lordships' House, and it is quite unnecessary to go over the ground again at this stage. There was a substantial body of opinion in the House that in this Bill the appropriate term was "employee representative" and my noble friends on these Benches supported that view. This Amendment is really the interpretation clause for that particular term "employee representative", and on behalf of my noble friends I wish to commend the Amendment to the House.
5.26 p.m.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, said, we have had a good many discussions on this point. I believe that noble Lords opposite have been wrong in the Amendments they have made to the Bill hitherto. I say that although I recognise fully the kind of doubts and anxieties they have about the wording which the Government had in the Bill. But if anything emphasises the fact that noble Lords opposite are wrong, it is this Amendment. It discloses the weakness of the case they have hitherto put forward. I seriously ask them to think again as to whether they want a situation in which employees of a company, who freely of their own decision have a professional to represent them—a trade unionist, a trade union official—and to put forward their case, find in this Bill a provision which would make it impossible for this man to represent them. Surely that is entirely wrong?
I put it to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, that that would be as illogical as to have an Act of Parliament which stated that no citizen of this country shall be represented in the courts by a member of the legal profession. The trade union official stands in the same relation to the employees as does the lawyer to his client—
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will agree that there is nothing in this definition clause which prevents a trade union official from being the employee representative?
Lord BESWICK: The Amendment says that an:
"employee representative' means a person who is employed by the company or companies concerned …",
But many trade union officials—and indeed in larger companies almost all
1052
trade union officials—are not employees of the companies concerned. If there were a serious case which the employees wished to have considered, and where they had hitherto relied upon a trade union official, this provision would make it impossible for them to call upon him. I put it quite seriously to the noble Lord that it would be a mistake to have this type of definition in the Bill. I say, as I have said before, that, having sympathy for the general approach that noble Lords opposite have displayed on some of these matters, it is not in their interest to have this kind of Amendment made to the Bill.
On the other point, the other Lord has already indicated that this is a weakness in the Amendment. It would be possible for any group of persons, whether responsible or irresponsible, to demand the right to have the information given to them. Any group or class of employees—not a trade union group; not a registered trade unionist responsible over a period of years who has had a position in the company; not such people but some other group—could demand that they be so treated. I would say, looking at it from the point of view of the management of a company, that if they had to conform to the law as the noble Lords opposite intend to amend it, the managers would be in considerable difficulty. I will not say I beg of noble Lords opposite because I am sure that another place would put this right, but I suggest that this is not an Amendment which they should press.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, perhaps I could comment on the noble Lord's two points. First, so far as professional trade union representation is concerned, one has to bear in mind that one is dealing with major manufacturing undertakings in this case. This is what Clause 28 is all about. It says:
"… including the outlook for the major companies in that sector, that Minister, if it appears to him that one of the following conditions is satisfied … may serve a preliminary notice on the company or companies concerned".
In the major companies it is to be expected that the elected trade union representatives would have considerable experience; and, indeed, the elected representatives of other employees would also have experience.

1053
My Lords, I gather from the further observations made by the noble Lord that he is under some misapprehension about this. We are not saying that trade union representatives should not be chosen by the employer as among the people to whom to give the information: and let the noble Lord bear in mind that, as he will see if he reads the Bill carefully, whether or not it is intended, it is the employer who chooses the people to whom he is going to give the information, and he passes that to the Secretary of State. Obviously, in a closed shop he has no option: quite obviously, he chooses the trade union representatives in the closed shop. Where there are a number of trade union representatives, then I should think he will choose those from the number of trade unions involved; if there is a works council as well he will probably choose them, too; or if there is such a variety that the works council is a better instrument to use, he will choose representatives of the works council. But the whole glory of this is the flexibility, the ability to adjust to the needs and circumstances of the particular company.
This is what we think participation and democracy is about. It is about variety, not about straitjackets and particular formulae devised, prescribed and prefabricated by a Government. This is what we are concerned with here; and I really think there is nothing here that would force an employer to choose some militant minority group. As the noble Lord said, they could demand representation, but I should be very surprised indeed if they got it, if they were chosen as employee representatives in those circumstances. Obviously, you are not going to have representatives of any conceivable kind of group. You could have groups of all kinds within a company for different purposes. What we are concerned with are the groups which are in contact collectively with the management and are those which are negotiating with the management those which are recognised by the management in some form or other, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has said before. Whatever their status—whether they are staff associations, whether they are works councils, whether they are trade unions or whatever—everybody can be represented with the purpose that all employees in that organisation are represented in some way or other. This
1054
is the really important thing, that they should all be represented, and not just those who happen to belong to trade unions.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has not greeted this Amendment. Though he did not like the other Amendments where "employee representatives" were inserted in the Bill, I had hoped that he would be able to congratulate us on having found the right formula at this point in the Bill. I think the objection he has raised is that there could be some trade unionists who might be the representatives but who, because they are not employed by the manufacturing company in question, would not be eligible for this operation. But in those circumstances, surely where a company had a large part or a considerable part of its workforce as members of trade unions, there would also be trade unionists who were employees.
This is not information for collective bargaining. I think it is important that I should re-emphasise this. The purposes of the Bill are to provide information in the manufacturing area involving certain companies, and it is very much an individual company matter. On Monday I was supporting an Amendment to the Employment Protection Bill in the section of that Bill on the provision of information for collective bargaining purposes. That is another Bill before this House and there is a whole section of it dealing with the provision of information for collective bargaining purposes where it is quite appropriate for trade union representatives to be acting in the normal way. But in this Bill, as we see it, it is a matter for each individual company. The information is being provided to the Government and then the Government decide, with the help of an appeals committee, what information should also go to the employee representatives of that company. It is not to be confused with the provision of information for collective bargaining purposes, which of course is where trade union representatives would come in on a wider scale.
As my noble friend, Lord Drumalbyn has pointed out, in some cases this enables very large groups, perhaps the majority of employees in a company who

1055
are not members of a union, to be represented. In any case, as the Bill was originally drafted—because this has not been changed—in line 24 on page 22 of the Bill, the choice of the employee representatives is with the employer. The company has to decide, under the original version of the Bill, on the relevant trade union representatives. As I indicated earlier, if a very large company has 20 trade unions who cover membership of the employees, that could be quite a difficult choice. If there were tens of thousands of employees and there were only about a dozen people in one union, presumably that would not be a relevant trade union representative. So the choice still lies with the employer, and as my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn pointed out, the employer is most unlikely to choose the representative of a small group which might be formed in the circumstances mentioned by the noble Lord and which represented some extremist view. But I must repeat that that danger would have applied also to the original trade union representation because, unfortunately, we know only too well that there are some trade union leaders who are Communists and whose declared aims are to destroy the structure of what they call the capitalist system that is to say, private industry. So one could as probably get a representative of a very small minority whose interests were not the same as the interests of the company within the trade union system as outside it.
I recognise that the noble Lord has pointed out that this could mean that a trade unionist who was not employed by the company would not be included, but we do not believe that for the purposes of this Bill that matters. He is involved in other things—collective bargaining, and so on. This formula gives a much wider representation and it enables other employees who are not members of a union also to have representation in the very different circumstances which one finds in different companies throughout the country. I hope the Government will accept this, even though I recognise that it does not fit in with the general proposals which they put before us at the beginning.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, if I may say so, I was appalled at the noble Lord's
1056
attitude in certain parts of his speech. When he said that this is not a matter for negotiating pay and conditions, and therefore it does not concern the trade unionists, that showed an attitude of mind—
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, the noble Lord has misunderstood me. I did not say that it did not concern the trade unionists, but that the information here was of concern within the company. The Bill that I was speaking about on Monday—I do not know whether the noble Lord was here then when I spoke at some length on the Employment Protection Bill—is to deal with information for collective bargaining. The wider representation of the unions, not necessarily restricted to an individual manufacturing company, would be relevant where it would not be relevant here.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, if the noble Lord reads the Report of what he has said, I think he will find that I did not misrepresent him. He said that this is not concerned with collective bargaining, and therefore we need not bring the full-time professional union official into it. That is the case that he has been making: because this has nothing to do with pay and conditions of service. But this is contrary—and here I am ranging widely—to the whole of the thinking over recent years. Surely noble Lords opposite want to get trade union officials thinking of something broader than simply pay and conditions of service. What a state of affairs we should be in at the present time if Mr. Jack Jones had concerned himself only with pay and conditions of service. Think of the contribution now being made in various bodies by trade union officials, because they are looking rather more widely than hitherto, rather more widely than pay and conditions of service.
I read—and I ask noble Lords to look at it—the document which the Transport and General Workers' Union circulated about a month ago, when they said that it is no longer enough to think about pay and conditions of service, and that they have to think about a fair society. They are trying to educate their people to consider social and national considerations as a whole. Noble Lords should welcome this, instead of saying that because it does not affect negotiating matters, they need

1057
not be brought in. Let us look at what the Bill says. It says:
"… which is needed to form or to further national economic policies, or needed for consultations between Government, employers or workers on the outlook for a particular sector of manufacturing industry, …".
These are broad considerations. These are matters on which the trade union officials should be consulted. I think that the noble Lord is going backwards if he is trying to exclude them from matters of this sort.
He mentioned—and allowed himself to expose fears which he really ought to keep hidden a little more—that some of the trade union officials may be Communists. Of course they may; but I
know of far more cases where the trade union official is not a Communist, and where there have been groups of Communists in the company concerned which the trade union official has done his utmost to try to restrain. Let us not think that because a trade unionist is an official and full-time member, he is not a responsible person. In my experience, they are among some of the most responsible people in the community. I think it would be wrong to legislate for their exclusion. I hope that the House will reject this Amendment.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 46) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 84; Not-Contents, 48.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Northchurch, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Erskine of Rerrick, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Alport, L.

Falkland, V.

Pike, B.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Amulree, L.

Glasgow, E.

Rhyl, L.

Armstrong, L.

Goschen, V.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Auckland, L.

Grenfell, L.

Rockley, L.

Balfour, E.

Gridley, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Boothby, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

St. Davids, V.

Byers, L.

Halisham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Salisbury, M.

Caccia, L.

Sandford, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Halsbury, E.

Sandys, L.

Carrington, L.

Harvington, L.

Seear, B.

Cathcart, E.

Henley, L.

Selkirk, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Somers, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Kimberley, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Colwyn, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathspey, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Sudeley, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Long, V.

Terrington, L.

Craigton, L.

Loudoun, C.

Trefgarne, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Vickers, B.

Daventry, V.

Mancroft, L.

Vivian, L.

Davidson, V.

Mansfield, E.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Merrivale, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B

Digby, L.

Meston, L.

Wigoder, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Monck, V.

Windlesham, L.

Eccles, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Wise, L.

Elles, B.

Young, B.

Elton, L.

Newall, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Lyons of Brighton, L.

Arwyn, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

McLeavy, L.

Aylestone, L.

Feversham, L.

Mais, L.

Beswick, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Melchett, L.

Birk, B.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Pannell, L.

Brockway, L.

Hale, L.

Phillips, B.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Hall, V.

Raglan, L.

Champion, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Chorley, L.

Hough ton of Sowerby, L.

Segal, L.

Colison, L.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Shinwell, L.

Crook, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stedman, B.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Wells-Pestell, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Willis, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.52 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 22, line 32, at end insert—
("( ) A Minister shall not serve such a preliminary notice unless it appears to him that the company or companies concerned will not voluntarily furnish the information to him and to employee representatives.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have put down this Amendment because we expected the Government to have given further thought to this point and to have put down an Amendment or Amendments themselves to simplify the procedure in this part of the Bill on the disclosure of information by compulsion. If one looks at Part IV of the Bill, a company could be excused if they were to consider that it was unduly complicated. They could well conclude, as we do, that there are more stages, and more action required at the various stages, than are really necessary. I have raised this matter on the Committee and Report stages and have been in touch with the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. I accept his reply that the Government have looked at this again and indicated that they do not want to make changes or try to shorten or streamline the procedure. I must make it clear we still think it is more complicated than necessary and that more action is necessitated than is required. More hoops than are needed have to be jumped through at various stages.
Surely the procedure should not be started unless it is clear that a company are not prepared to produce the information voluntarily. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said at an earlier stage that it was the Government's intention not to engage this machinery in the Bill unless the Minister had already satisfied himself that a company were not prepared to provide the information voluntarily. We cannot understand why this should not be in the Bill at this point. It is provided in the Bill at the next stage. If your Lordships turn to page 23 of the Bill, you will see the same wording as in my Amendment. That is at the stage
1060
where a Minister is going to make an order. It says:
"A Minister shall not make such an order unless it appears to him that the company or companies concerned will not voluntarily furnish the information …".
At the earlier stage of serving a preliminary notice, the names of the companies are to be submitted to Parliament. It is not as if it is some early private note to a company. This is engaging the machinery and providing the names of companies to Parliament. It could well be that the appearance of a company's name on a list before this House and in another place could give an impression that the company was laggard or backsliding in the provision of information, or indeed they could be regarded as transgressors—as having failed to provide the information—unless it is clearly written into the Bill that the Minister is of the opinion that they are not willing to provide it voluntarily.
As I said, the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, indicated this was the way the Government intended to operate. I should like to have his assurance on that and, if so, we cannot think why this should not be written into the Bill so that it is perfectly clear. When a company's name is submitted to Parliament, everybody will know, including those outside Parliament who are following these things, that the Minister has already asked the company to provide the information and, at the first reaction, the company are not prepared to give it. I hope that the Government will accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
5.56 p.m.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I was asked whether I would confirm that it is the intention that this information disclosure should be a voluntary arrangement. As I have said previously, and I say again, we believe there should, and will in the overwhelming majority of cases, be a voluntary arrangement. Undoubtedly that is the best way of getting the necessary confidence and cooperation in any company. The noble Lord asked why we did not therefore put it in the Bill again in the form of words he has selected. The assurance I have repeated—which has been given in

1061
the other House as well—is incorporated in the Bill. May I draw your Lordships' attention to paragraph (b) of the definition of a preliminary notice on page 22 of the Bill. This establishes that an order will be made only,
"if the Minister is not satisfied that information … will be given voluntarily both to him and to employee representatives".
I would also draw your Lordships' attention to subsection (6) of Clause 28, which firmly and explicitly states that no order may he made unless it appears to the Minister that,
"the company or companies concerned will not voluntarily furnish the information to him and to employee representatives".
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: Would the noble Lord give way? That was the part I quoted. It is because it is written in the Bill at that stage that I cannot understand why it is not also included in the earlier stage, when the preliminary notice is to be given and the names of the companies submitted to Parliament.
Lord BESWICK: That is because I am suggesting it is not necessary. It is a voluntary arrangement and these powers are not invoked unless it is seen that the voluntary arrangements are inadequate.
The question raised by the Amendment is therefore not whether the power to require information by order will be used when voluntary arrangements are adequate: the Bill already rules this out. It is rather the narrower question—and this is what the noble Lord is getting at—of whether a further provision is necessary, to prevent a preliminary notice being issued if voluntary arrangements would be adequate. But why would a Minister make a preliminary notice in circumstances where there could be no question of an order being made? It would be an absurd and pointless exercise, leading to and achieving nothing. I therefore believe that this Amendment is simply unnecessary, since the real point—that the power to require information by orders should not extend to occasions when voluntary arrangements are acceptable—has already been fully and explicitly met in the Bill.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has not fully understood the point of my Amendment. This Bill has been spread over weeks, indeed months, and I do not know whether he remembers that at an
1062
earlier stage he stated categorically that the preliminary notice would not be served until a Minister had satisfied himself that a company was not prepared to disclose the information voluntarily. The part which he and I have quoted from the Bill is from a later stage, where the Minister does not make an order unless he has so satisfied himself. What I am saying is that the Minister also gave the same undertaking—it is recorded in Hansard—concerning the preliminary notice. Having been given that undertaking, I was suggesting that this ought to have been in the Bill so that it is clear to everybody that what applies at the top of page 23 in subsection (6) also applies, as the noble Lord the Minister has said it would, to the preliminary notice which is served earlier.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt; and I do so only in order to ask a question. Why should a preliminary notice be given at all if it is quite obvious that the voluntary arrangements are working?
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, because we think the Government should have put to a company a request for certain information. I must remind him again—I do not want to go over ground that we covered during the last debate and resume the small controversy we had on that occasion—that it is the Government in the first place who are asking for information, for economic reasons and not for the purposes of collective bargaining. It is the Government who ask the company for information in the first place, and then, later, the question of the disclosure of that information to the unions is considered. In the meantime, it is possible that the company is carrying out very satisfactorily the ordinary communication of information to its employees, but because one of the purposes of this Bill is to obtain information for certain national economic reasons, the Government will ask a company to provide a certain item of information. We hope that in most circumstances the company would say "Yes", because it would be the kind of information which the Government would expect to receive and which the company ought to give; but the company, knowing that that information may also become public later if passed to union representatives or

1063
employee representatives, might disagree. At that stage the Government serve a preliminary notice.
On a previous occasion—which I fear the noble Lord may have forgotten, quite understandably, because there have been so many Bills before this House spread over so many weeks—the noble Lord stated that the preliminary notice would not be served unless the Minister had asked for the information and the company had made it clear they were not prepared to supply it. We accepted that if in fact the company did not refuse but just took a long time to supply the information, that would be a reasonable case for a preliminary notice; but we also thought that the wording—and it was not wording which I thought up: it was wording from the Bill at a later stage—should be put in here because it simply carries out the undertaking and the explanation of the Bill which the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, gave at an earlier stage.
I realise that at this stage of the Bill, by leave of the House, I can speak twice, but no more, so that I am quite ready to give way to the noble Lord the Minister if there is anything more that he wishes to add on this. But it will be important for it to be understood, when this Bill comes into operation, that the preliminary notice, according to what the Minister said at an earlier stage, is served only when the Minister has satisfied himself that he has asked for certain information, which at that stage is not going to the trade unions but meanwhile the supply of information within the company to employees is being carried out under other arrangements. either voluntary ones or in connection with requirements which are already enacted or which will be required under the Employment Protection Bill, which covers the question of information needed for collective bargaining purposes. So we could have the situation where a company has a very satisfactory system of supplying information to its employees, yet when the Government ask for some major piece of information connected with economic planning the company fails to respond favourably. Only then is the preliminary notice to be served and the name of the company submitted to Parliament.
1064
That is what the Minister said on an earlier occasion, and this Amendment would have the effect of carrying it out. I do not know whether the Minister wishes to say anything more?—I am sorry, but it appears that he is not going to say anything more at this stage. I certainly do not intend to press this Amendment, but I would tell him that it is exceedingly important that companies should know that the Minister has said at an earlier stage that a preliminary notice would not be served until the Minister was satisfied that the company was not going to supply the information voluntarily. Under this Bill, that has nothing to do with the system of supplying information within the company, which operation may be going on quite satisfactorily on other subjects.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I certainly confirm that undertaking, but there is really nothing more I can add to it.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, in that case I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 29 [Duty to give information to Minister]:
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS Lord LOVELL-DAVIS moved Amendments Nos. 48 and 49:
Page 24, line 5, leave out ("or")
Page 24, line 8, leave out ("under paragraph (c) above is to be construed") and insert ("which is made, wholly or partly, in relation to a future specified date or a future specified period, is to be construed, to the extent that it relates to that date or that period,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think it will be for the convenience of the House if I take both Amendments together. The purpose of these Amendments is quite straightforward. We wish to make it clear that we may require information under one, or two, or all three of the descriptions given in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection 29(3). As it was drafted, the word "or" might have been read as suggesting these were alternatives, and that would clearly be wrong. We wish to be able to ask for information about both the present and the future, not just the present or the future.
We therefore propose two Amendments: the first is simply to delete "or",

1065
and thus remove the suggestion that paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) are alternatives. The second Amendment, although more complex in its drafting, is designed to remove the suggestion that a requirement for information would necessarily fall under one, and only one, head. The phrases, "wholly or partly", and, "to the extent that it relates" are intended to make it quite clear that information may be required about the future only, or that information about the future may be only a part of the information required. I beg to move.
Clause 30 [Information for trade unions]:
6.8 p.m.
Lord BESWICK Lord BESWICK moved Amendments Nos. 50 and 51:
Page 24, line 27, leave out from ("companies") to second ("the") in line 29.
Page 24, line 32, at end insert ("and any notice served under this subsection shall specify a reasonable period, which shall not be less than 28 days, as the period within which references may be required under section 31(1) below.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 hang together, and it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak to then) together. The Amendments are designed to clarify a confusion about timetables which exists in Clauses 30 and 31. As the Bill reads at present, there is some confusion between the time limit provisionally set for the provision of information by Clause 30(1)(a), the time within which a reference can be required to the independent committee under 31(1), and the time limit definitively set for the provision of information. That is the kind of thing that could arise as the Bill is at present drafted.
The notice under Clause 30(1)(a) would set a time limit within which information was provisionally required, and Clause 31(1) would make it clear that at any time up to the end of that period a reference may be required to the independent committee. Clause 31(10) and (11) envisage that once the time for requiring reference to the committee is past, a new time limit will be established within which the information must be furnished. The Amendments remove this
1066
confusion and set up a clear timetable. The notice under Clause 30(1)(a) will inform the company that they arc provisionally required to provide the information to employee representatives and will tell the company how long they have to exercise their right to require a reference to the committee under Clause 31(1). If this time expires without a reference being required, under Clause 31(10) and (11) the Minister will tell them that the provisional requirement has become final, and will set the date by which it has to be carried out.
I said that I would clarify the confusion. I am not absolutely sure that I have succeeded immediately, but I think that if noble Lords read my words they will see that what I have said does set things right.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, having been able to look beforehand at the changes the noble Lord is proposing I would say that this is a clarification which is helpful. As I indicated in my earlier remarks, we were hoping that there would be even more clarification and simplification, but this certainly is helpful. May I at this point indicate something which we were not able to do by Amendment but which requires a change before the Bill is reprinted to go to another place. The marginal rubric does of course need to be changed in view of both Clause 30, which we are considering now, and the following clause: it is no longer "trade unions" but "employee representatives". I hope that will be noted so that that change, which cannot be dealt with by Amendment, is carried out as a further clarification before the Bill leaves us.
Clause 36 [Interpretation]:
Lord BESWICK Lord BESWICK moved Amendments Nos. 52 to 55:
Page 29, line 29, after ("means") insert ("subject to subsection (1A) below,")
Page 29, line 30, leave out ("March") and insert ("December")
Page 29, line 32, leave out ("March") and insert ("December").
Page 30, line 16, at end insert—
"(1A) The Secretary of State may direct that any accounting year of the Board shall end on a date before or after that on which it would otherwise end."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 52, 53, 54 and 55 might with convenience be taken together. I would be quite ready to accept criticism from noble Lords opposite if they say that we have taken a long time to come to these Amendments, but it is a fact that there are sound arguments which have become apparent for making the change I am suggesting. Under Section 153 of the Companies Act, the directors of a holding company must ensure that, except where in their opinion there are good reasons against it, the financial year of its subsidiaries coincides with the company's own financial year. Since the NEB will be required to adopt the best commercial standards in accounting matters, it follows that the NEB and their subsidiaries should have the same financial year.
In the early years the NEB's principal financial subsidiaries will be the Rolls-Royce Company and British Leyland. The Rolls-Royce financial year already ends on 31st December and British Leyland's at present ends on 30th September and arrangements are being made to change it to 31st December so that they will all coincide. I am sure one would agree that it is advantageous and in accordance with the best practices, and I beg to move.
Clause 38 [Citation etc.]:
6.13 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 31, line 11, after ("Act") insert (", not being enactments to which section 22 applies,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendment No. 67 at the same time as to No. 56. Both Amendments are in effect consequential on Amendment No. 44. Clause 38, to which this Amendment relates, gives effect to minor amendments to the 1972 Act consequential upon the enactment of this Bill. It is proper therefore that all such Amendments that fall within that part of the 1972 Act to which the Schedule incorporated in the Bill by Amendment No. 63 applies should appear in that Schedule. The parts of the Act affected by the Schedule and recapitulated therein are Sections 7, 8 and 9. This Amendment
1068
is therefore a signpost to Amendment No. 67 in which consequential Amendments to those sections of the 1972 Act are removed from Schedule 6 and placed in the new Schedule after Schedule 3, thus enabling all alterations to the 1972 Act to be seen at a glance in one place. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, as the noble Lord says, this Amendment is consequential on No. 44, as indeed would be Nos. 63 and 67, and they all effect improvements which we are glad to accept.
Schedule 1 [The National Enterprise Board]:
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, this is purely a drafting Amendment. The present wording of paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 implies that the Board can have only one deputy chairman, whereas subsection (4) of the first clause of the Bill states specifically that the Secretary of State may appoint one or more of the Board's members to be deputy chairman or deputy chairmen. This very small Amendment remedies the anomaly and brings paragraph 4 into line with paragraphs 3 and 5. My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 24, at end insert ("a").—(Lord Lovell-Davis.)
Schedule 2 [Financial and administrative provisions relating to the Board]:
Lord BESWICK Lord BESWICK moved Amendments Nos. 58 and 59:
Page 36, line 15, at end insert—
("(4) References to borrowing in this paragraph do not include borrowing under section 3 above.")
Page 36, line 18, after ("borrow") insert ("from him under paragraph 1 above").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 58 and 59 are intended to correct a somewhat obscure technical deficiency in the Bill which has come to light. Clause 3 of the Bill enables the Board to exercise under the direction of the Secretary of State's powers to give selective financial assistance under the Industry Act 1972. The Secretary of State must however reimburse the Board

1069
with the cost for providing such assistance. Thus under subsection (11) if the Board makes a loan to a company the Secretary of State must make a loan of the same amount to the Board. The difficulty arises because, as the Bill stands at present, loans by the Secretary of State to the Board come from the National Loans Fund under the provisions of paragraph 2 of Schedule 2. Selective financial assistance loans are normally at concessionary rates of interest, but loans from the National Loans Fund are not allowed to be at concessionary rates: interest must cover the cost of Treasury borrowing. Obviously, we want the NEB to be able to give concessionary loans against reimbursement when acting on behalf of the Secretary of State in the same way as the Secretary of State is able to give concessionary loans when acting directly. I am sure this is the right provision to make and I beg to move.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS Lord LOVELL-DAVIS moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 39, line 14, after ("Board") insert ("(other than interim statements under subparagraph (4) below)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Government accepted a Liberal proposal in another place that, in addition to producing annual accounts and statements of accounts, the Board should also produce an interim statement after the first six months of each accounting year. There is provision in the Bill for the annual accounts to be audited, but it was never the intention that the interim accounts should be audited. This is not entirely clear in the Bill as presently drafted and this Amendment is intended to make the provision quite unambiguous. The Government envisage that the NEB's half-yearly interim financial statements will be similar to those which companies quoted on the Stock Exchange are required to produce under the Rules of Admission of Securities. It is not the normal practice for these brief interim statements of financial results to be audited. The Bill provides however for the NEB's interim statements to be laid before Parliament. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, this minor technical Amendment puts right an anomaly in Schedule 2. Throughout Schedule 2, with one exception, the term "accounting year" is used and it is defined in Clause 36. The term "financial year" has, however, crept into paragraph 7(3). This is not defined although it was intended to mean the same as "accounting year". It is clearly desirable that the same term should be used throughout the Bill and this Amendment seeks to remedy this anomaly. My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 30, leave out ("financial") and insert ("accounting").—(Lord Lovell-Davis.)
Schedule 3 [Arbitration]:
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, we discussed this Amendment with Amendment No. 41. I beg to move Amendment No. 62.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 22, at end insert (", at a time when no proceedings relating to it have been commenced in any court,").—(Lord Beswick.)
Lord ELTON: My Lords, we discussed Amendment No. 63 with Amendments Nos. 44 and 56, and therefore my longest Amendment will have my shortest introduction. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Schedule 3, insert the following new Schedule:—

SCHEDULE
  AMENDMENTS TO PART II OF INDUSTRY ACT 1972

    PART I
    Amendments extending powers to give selective financial assistance under Industry Act 1972
    1. The following provisions of section 7 (selective financial assistance for industry in assisted areas) of the Industry Act 1972 are repealed, namely—

    (a) the words in subsection (4) from the beginning to "and"(which restrict the power to give assistance by means of investment by acquisition of loan or share capital to cases where the Secretary of State is satisfied that financial assistance cannot, or cannot appropriately, be given in any other way); and

    (b) subsection (5) (which requires the Secretary of State to dispose of shares or stock as soon as, in his opinion, it is reasonably practicable to do so).

    2. The following provisions of section 8 of that Act (general powers of selective financial assistance) are repealed, namely—

    (a) subsection (1)(c) (which prevents the exercise of the powers conferred by the section unless financial assistance cannot, or cannot appropriately, be provided otherwise than by the Secretary of State);

    (b) in subsection (3)—

    (i) the words from the beginning to "and" in the first place where it occurs, (which correspond to the words in section 7(4) repealed by paragraph (1)(a) above); and

    (ii) paragraph (b) (which prevents the Secretary of State, in exercise of his powers under the section, acquiring more than half, by nominal value, of the equity share capital of any company);

    (c) subsection (4) (which corresponds to section 7(5)); and

    (d) subsection (5) (which limits the duration of the Secretary of State's powers under making of a payment in pursuance of an undertaking previously given, to the period ending 31st December 1977).

    Minor and consequential amendments to Part II of Industry Act 1972
    3. In section 7(4) of that Act (selective financial assistance for industry in assisted areas), for the words "so described" there shall be substituted the words "described in subsection (3)(a) above".
    4. In section 8(3) of that Act (selective financial assistance: general powers), for the words "so described" there shall be substituted the words "described in subsection (3)(a) of the last preceding section".
    5. The following subsection shall be added at the end of section 9 of that Act (Industrial Development Advisory Board):—
    "(5) Any reference in this section to the Secretary of State's functions under sections 7 and 8 of this Act includes a reference to his functions under section 3 of the Industry Act 1975."

    PART II OF INDUSTRY ACT 1972 AS AMENDED BY THIS ACT
    PART II

      FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR INDUSTRY
      Selective financial assistance for industry in assisted areas
      7.—(1) For the purposes set out in the following provisions of this section the Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, provide financial assisitance where, in his opinion—

      (a) the financial assistance is likely to provide, maintain or safeguard employment in any part of the assisted areas, and

      (b) the undertakings for which the assistance is provided are or will be wholly or mainly in the assisted areas.

      (2) The purposes mentioned in subsection (1) of this section are—

      (a) to promote the development or modernisation of an industry,

      (b) to promote the efficiency of an industry,

      (c) to create, expand or sustain productive capacity in an industry, or in undertakings in an industry,

      (d) to promote the reconstruction, reorganisation or conversion of an industry or of undertakings in an industry,

      (e) to encourage the growth of or the proper distribution of undertakings in, an industry,

      (f) to encourage arrangements for ensuring that any contraction of an industry proceeds in an orderly way.

      (3) Subject to the following provisions of this section, financial assistance under this section may be given on any terms or conditions, and by any description of investment or lending or guarantee, or by making grants, and may, in particular, be—

      (a) investment by acquisition of loan or share capital in any company, including an acquisition effected by the Secretary of State through another company, being a company formed for the purpose of giving financial assistance under this Part of this Act,

      (b) investment by the acquisition of any undertaking or of any assets,

      (c) a loan, whether secured or unsecured and whether or not carrying interest, or interest at a commercial rate,

      (d) any form of insurance or guarantee to meet any contingency, and in particular to meet default on payment of a loan, or of interest on a loan, or non-fulfilment of a contract.

      (4)… The Secretary of State, in giving financial assistance in the way described in subsection (3)(a) above shall not acquire any shares or stock in a company without the consent of that company.
      (5) …
      (6) In this section "industry", unless the context otherwise requires, includes any description of commercial activity, and references to an industry include references to any section of an industry.
      (7) In this section "the assisted areas" means the development areas, the intermediate areas and Northern Ireland.
      Selective financial assistance: general powers.
      8.—(1) For the purposes set out in subsection (2) of the last preceding section the Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, provide financial assistance where, in his opinion—

      (a) the financial assistance is likely to benefit the economy of the United Kingdom, or of any part or area of the United Kingdom, and

      (b) it is in the national interest that the financial assistance should be provided on

      1073
      the scale, and in the form and manner, proposed.

      (c)…

      (2) Financial assistance under this section may, subject to the following provisions of this section, be given in any of the ways set out in subsection (3) of the last preceding section.
      (3) … The Secretary of State, in giving financial assistance in the way described in subsection (3)(a) of the last preceding section—

      (a) shall not acquire any shares or stock in a company without the consent of that company,

      (b) …

      (4) …
      (5) …
      (6) The aggregate of—

      (a) the sums paid by the Secretary of State under this section, plus

      (b) the liabilities of the Secretary of State under any guarantees given by him under this section (exclusive of any liability in respect of interest on a principal sum so guaranteed).

      less any sum received by the Secretary of State by way of repayment of loans under this section, or repayment of principal sums paid to meet a guarantee under this section, shall not at any time exceed the limit specified in subsection (7) below.
      (7) The said limit shall be £150 million, but the Secretary of State may, on not more than four occasions, by order made with the consent of the Treasury increase or further increase that limit by a sum specified in the order, being a sum not exceeding £100 million.
      An order under this subsection shall be contained in a statutory instrument, and such an order shall not be made unless a draft of the order has been approved by a resolution of the Commons House of Parliament.
      (8) The sums which the Secretary of State pays or undertakes to pay by way of financial assistance under this section in respect of any one project shall not exceed £5 million, except so far as any excess over the said sum of £5 million has been authorised by a resolution of the Commons House of Parliament:
      Provided that this subsection shall not apply where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the payment or undertaking is urgently needed at a time when it is impracticable to obtain the approval of the Commons House of Parliament; and in that case the Secretary of State shall lay a statement concerning the financial assistance before each House of Parliament.
      Industrial Development Advisory Board
      9.—(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint a board, which shall be called the Industrial Development Advisory Board, to advise him with respect to the exercise of his functions under sections 7 and 8 of this Act.
      (2) The Board shall consist of a chairman and not less than six nor more than twelve other members.
      (3) The members of the Board shall include persons who appear to the Secretary of State to have wide experience of, and to have shown capacity in, industry, banking, accounting and finance.
      (4) If the Board make a recommendation with respect to any matter at the request of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State exercises his functions under sections 7 and 8 of this Act contrary to their recommendation, he shall, if the Board so request, lay a statement as to the matter before Parliament.
      (5) Any reference in this section to the Secretary of State's functions under sections 7 and 8 of this Act includes a reference to his functions under section 3 of the Industry Act 1975.")—(Lord Elton.)
      Lord BESWICK: My Lords, when I turn over the pages of the Amendment I cannot forbear from saying that never was so much done by so few.
      Schedule 5 [Appeal Committees]:
      Lord BESWICK: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 64, 65 and 66 can be taken together. They are all minor Amendments which have been requested by the Council on Tribunals to make it clear that the Secretary of State's power to make regulations by Statutory Instrument applies to the procedure for or in connection with a reference to the advisory committee and not to the consideration of a case. I beg to move.
      Amendments moved—
      Page 46, line 37, leave out ("by statutory instrument").
      Page 46, line 38, leave out ("consideration of references by") and insert ("procedure for or in connection with references to").
      Page 46, line 43, at end insert—
      ("(2A) Regulations under this paragraph shall be made by statutory instrument.")—(Lord Beswick.)
      Schedule 6 [Minor and consequential amendments of Industry Act 1972]:
      Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 67.
      Amendment moved—
      Page 47, line 9, leave out paragraphs 2 to 4.—(Lord Aberdare.)
      Schedule 7 [Repeals]:
      Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, Amendment No. 68 is a drafting Amendment which is designed to clarify the

      1075
      reference to repeals to the Industry Act 1972 and to bring this reference into line with others in the Schedule. It is intended to show that the repeal will affect the words in subsection (4) of Section 7 of the 1972 Act from the start of that subsection to the word "and", and will also affect the whole of subsection (5). I beg to move.
      Amendment moved—
      Page 47, line 32, after ("7") insert (", in subsection").—(Lord Lovell-Davis.)
      In the Title:
      Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, Amendment No. 69 is a consequential Amendment made necessary as a result of Amendments which the House has made. I beg to move.
      Amendment moved—
      Line 13, leave out ("trade unions") and insert ("employee representatives").—(Lord Campbell of Croy.)
      6.24 p.m.
      Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. When we started dealing with this Bill in our House, I said that not since the 1945–50 Parliament had one Bill been so clouded with unnecessary controversy, and I hoped that in this House we could lift that cloud somewhat and show more clearly that the Bill was not designed to hit or hurt anybody, but to provide an effective instrument to regenerate British industry. I am not absolutely sure to what extent our 40 hours of discussion have helped to lift that cloud. However, may I pay tribute to the courteous and constructive way in which the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and his team on the Opposition Benches have made the discussions possible. They have had a very considerable burden to carry.
      To the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, who, perched on his top Bench, has very often carried on a one-man fight, we are particularly indebted for the way in which he has endeavoured to show us how the Bill could be improved. May I also say how grateful I am to my colleagues, the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, and the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. I could not have had better support than I have had
      1076
      from them, and I am sure that the whole House is grateful to them for the helpful part which they have played. So we have tried.
      Any change—indeed, any progress—arouses criticism, but what is interesting in this case is that criticism has come from both the Right and the Left. To some this Bill has seemed the arrival of a Socialist State. To others it has appeared to be a retreat from progress towards the promised Socialist land. I hope that we have done something to show that much of the criticism from the two extreme wings has been under-informed.
      May I particularly thank your Lordships for the help which has been given in improving Part II of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, has played a prominent part. This is a Part of considerable technical difficulty. The questions put to me and to my colleagues and fielded back, I may say, to our advisers have required us to consider the details of this Part with especial care and have brought to light a number of shortcomings. May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who made the point during the course of discussing one Amendment, that I regret that on Third Reading it has been necessary to move a number of Amendments to this Part of the Bill, but it goes some way to show the value of this House as a Revising Chamber.
      I will not say much about the basic policy underlying the Bill. In the current economic climate, against a background of low investment in manufacturing industry and high unemployment, the need for the Bill has become more and more evident as the months have passed. I believe it is increasingly recognised that Britain must undergo a second industrial revolution, not one overriden by human conflict, but a revolution of re-equipment and an industrial understanding between workers of all grades which can lead to the fullest use of that equipment.
      I have said already that we have spent over 40 hours discussing this Bill. During Committee and Report stages, some 180 Amendments were made, of which 51 were tabled by noble Lords from the Benches opposite. A number of the Amendments were on identical points. Indeed, there were 19 consequential Amendments to the one moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. I should like to make the point that of those 180

      1077
      Amendments up to Report stage only 51 were tabled by noble Lords opposite. If there are criticisms—as I believe there have been from some of my friends in another place—about the way this Bill has been savaged by noble Lords, and I shall say a little about that, the fact is that the majority of the Amendments have arisen because the Bill was inadequate when it reached us. It shows credit to noble Lords on all sides that they have contrived to put right so many of the shortcomings that arose, I believe, because the Bill was not properly considered in another place.
      However, noble Lords opposite found it necessary to divide the House on 11 occasions on matters which the Government regard as central provisions of the legislation. If I was given to such language, I suppose I should call some of them wrecking Amendments. At Committee stage, the power of the National Enterprise Board to establish industrial undertakings was removed, together with the function of extending public ownership into profitable areas of manufacturing industry. Moreover, the possibility of paying compensation by the normal process of paying in Government stock was cut out. At Report stage, the powers proposed for the National Enterprise Board were further curtailed. The National Enterprise Board's function of promoting industrial democracy in undertakings it controls was watered down. All this was contrary to an explicit commitment given in the Government's White Paper.
      With regard to planning agreements, the provision permitting the Government to give increased certainty about financial assistance for any project identified in the agreement was amended to make it mandatory on the Government to give such increased certainty. Then we had the legions opposite mobilised by the noble Lord the Chief Whip opposite, to whom I would pay a tribute, if he were here, for the very skilful way in which he appears to have been able to mobilise voting power when it was needed, and they have changed the provisions relating to the disclosure of information.
      There is no greater advocate of this Revising Chamber than myself, and I pay tribute to the work which it has done on Parts of the Bill. However, the
      1078
      changes made to this legislation as a consequence of these Divisions have not resulted, to put it mildly, in an improved Bill. It certainly has not brought it more into line with our Election pledges; nor equally, if not more important, has it improved the efficiency of the instrument which impartial observers believe to be necessary. No doubt the other place will have the opportunity to reflect on the changes made when the Bill eventually finds itself on the Statute Book. I am sure that it will be improved again to bring it nearer to that which we first brought to the House, and I hope and believe that it will play its part in the regeneration of British industry. I beg to move.
      Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I should like to respond to what the noble Lord has said. He certainly started his speech with words of sweet reasonableness, although towards the end he began to get more Party political. But may I first thank him and the noble Lords, Lord Lovell-Davis and Lord Melchett, for their patience in the course of over 40 hours of discussions that we have had. I believe the fact that so many Government Amendments have appeared at Third Reading justifies the amount of time we have taken over this Bill. It would have been a great mistake to rush it through, rather than wait to take the Third Reading now.
      The fact of the matter is that we disliked this Bill intensely when it arrived in this House, and we have done our best to try to amend it in a way which we believe to be right. We have removed from it a number of features that we thought were objectionable although, as the noble Lord has foreshadowed all along, the Government will undoubtedly do their utmost to reverse these in another place. But I rather regret the fact that the noble Lord and others, in the course of discussions on this Bill, have accused us of being dogmatic, of degutting the Bill or of savaging it. This is not at all what we have been trying to do. We have indeed been reflecting the views of a great many experienced people who are at present running the private sector of British industry, and we have been trying to help the Government to see a way in which they can restore the confidence of the private sector of British industry in their plans

      1079
      for a National Enterprise Board and for the disclosure of information. If the Government are serious in their wish to encourage the private sector of industry, it is absolutely essential that they should regain the confidence of that sector.
      I hope the Government will not take our Amendments as merely being factious or dogmatic and that they will consider carefully their scope. I hope that some, at least, will be acceptable, which could go a long way towards restoring that essential confidence which any Government needs from industry. With regard to the noble Lord's comments on the numbers who took part in the Divisions and carried some of the Amendments against the Government's advice, I would merely point out to the noble Lord that they represented the strength of conviction on the part of noble Lords who voted. In one instance, certainly, that comes to mind, we did not win a Division because the noble Lord opposite had the better of the argument, and I hope that this position will continue to obtain in this House; that when noble Lords opposite have good arguments they can win Divisions. Finally, I, too, should like to thank my noble friends who have been such a tower of strength in putting the Opposition's case—my noble friends Lord Campbell of Croy and Lord Elton, and also, particularly, my noble friends Lord Drumalbyn and Lord Balfour, who have played such a prominent part in these proceedings.
      The Earl of BALFOUR: My Lords, I should just like to record for once in your Lordships' House my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for his letters and communications, and for the very kind remarks he has made. I should also like to thank my own Front Bench. I am sure it would be the wish of all your Lordships, and I know it would certainly be the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, to record our thanks to the staff of your Lordships' House, who are always so helpful in any approach that is ever made by any of us. It was not my intention to be destructive in regard to this Bill, but it was my intention to try to find as many as possible of the faults which could be questioned when the Bill becomes an Act. That was the entire object of my exercise in your Lordships'
      1080
      House and I thank all noble Lords for their tremendous help.
      On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

    COMMUNITY LAND BILL
    6.35 p.m.
    Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. As I understand it, the function of a Second Reading is to debate the principles and fundamental policies and philosophy of the piece of legislation under debate. Points are raised which then surface in more concrete form in Committee. Since there has been no change whatsoever in the principle, policy or philosophy inherent in this Bill, I find it quite extraordinary that noble Lords should want a repeat performance of what has already been so thoroughly thrashed out. This does not mean that I do not appreciate the right of noble Lords to take this all over again, but in exercising my freedom of speech I am not going to take up the time of the House by repeating what I said last time round, and I cannot see any way in which I could alter it, or indeed improve on it.
    We discussed the principal objectives and some considerable detail of this Bill when we debated its twin sister, the No. 2 Bill, on 4th August. On that occasion I described—and made available—the Amendments which the Government then had in mind. Having re-read the Report of the debate, I am satisfied that my noble friend Lord Melchett and I explained it fully. During that debate, 22 noble Lords participated and all put their own points of view and even then, if I may say so, there was a considerable amount of repetition. Since then there have been no fundamental changes to the Bill; indeed, all the changes—those that I discussed then and those in the Bill before us today; and, incidentally, this Bill is identical to Monday's White Paper—were put in to meet points put to us both by the Opposition in the other place and by outside bodies; a very large exercise, I should say, in consultation and Parliamentary democracy. Therefore, what I intend to do tonight is to explain the changes which have taken place since our previous debate.
    I referred in my speech on 4th August to the Statement that my right honourable

    1081
    friend the Minister had made on 15th July about the treatment of land owned by the Churches and other charities. There were four points in the Minister's Statement, but one of these related to development land tax which is not in this Bill. Of the other three, two were dealt with by Amendments made at Report stage in another place. First, Churches and other charities will be able to carry out development on land which they owned on 12th September 1974—the date of the Land White Paper—without the land having to come into the ownership of an authority. This is provided for in Clause 4(4)(a). Secondly, where land held by Churches or other charities on White Paper day is acquired when it is no longer needed for the purposes of the charity and can be made available for some other development, the charity will be entitled to receive compensation on a market value basis for a period of at least 10 years from White Paper day.
    The third issue is the basis of compensation for charity land after the second appointed day, or the 10-year period if that is longer. The intention here is that charities should receive a value based on the prevailing use of surrounding land. The provisions needed have raised a number of complex issues requiring discussion with interested bodies, and my right honourable friend the Minister is having a further meeting with the Churches Main Committee tomorrow. Thereafter I hope we shall be able to table Amendments to complete the promised package.
    I turn now to excepted development. It was, of course, never intended that the provisions in the Bill should apply to all development. The White Paper promised permanent exemptions from acquisition under the scheme, and also transitional exemptions designed to avoid disruption of essential development programmes in the early years. We published a Consultative Document on this in May. There have been wide-ranging and useful consultations. As a result, we now propose a different way of defining the scope of the scheme.
    The key to this is a redefinition of the term "relevant development"; and linked with this a new definition of "development land". The effect of the Bill as it now stands is broadly as follows.
    The community land scheme will relate to "development land". Development
    1082
    land is now defined as land needed for relevant development within 10 years; and relevant development excludes not only the minor development in Schedule 1, but also a wide range of other development which is to be included in regulations. All the special procedures in the Bill apply only where development land is at issue. First, the duties conferred on authorities relate as to development land. Secondly, only planning applications for relevant development will be subject to the special procedures in the Bill. Thirdly, the proposed changes in compulsory purchase procedure will apply only where an authority are buying development land.
    My right honourable friend the Minister has made available a statement about the content of the proposed regulations, and copies of this are available in the Printed Paper Office. I am sure that this will be helpful when we are looking at the detailed provisions in Committee. We do not think it would be appropriate to define excepted development in the Bill. To get the definitions right, we need to sit down with those concerned with development and look at the detailed drafting of what is proposed. This is something that can be far better achieved where one is using regulations. The position of Parliament will, of course, be fully safeguarded by the fact that the regulations will be subject to Affirmative Resolution in both Houses.
    One of the criticisms constantly hurled at the Bill is that there has not been enough time to discuss it, yet 156 hours were spent in unguillotined Committee. Mr. Raison, the Shadow Spokesman, said on Report stage in another place,
    "I do not believe that any Bill can ever have been subject to such a detailed appraisal …".—[Official Report, Commons, 14/10/75; Cols. 1268–9.]
    I sense, as do many others, a chemical change of mood which expressed itself both in the Commons and in the Press, which has mellowed from a posture of aggressive antagonism to one of suggesting reasoned and constructive criticism. Even the Daily Telegraph, hardly a warm friend of the Bill, recently had an article advocating this approach. What we cannot afford is delay.
    When I made my statement on Monday, I was urged to withdraw the Bill and bring it back next Session. There

    1083
    are many signs that even those who have reservations about this Bill would not now welcome that course. I know very well that there are many in the property world who, while they may prefer not to have the Bill at all, accept that it provides a base for a workable partnership between developers and local authorities, and the longer it stays in limbo the more everything will run down and people will not know where they are. This is a realistic attitude. Noble Lords opposite who detest the social philosophy of positive planning and of returning profit to the community, would do well to consider this in a less blinkered fashion.
    My Lords, I believe that what people want now is certainty, not further delay. So, for goodness' sake, let us get on with it, let us discuss it and get this measure through! Therefore, I commend this Bill, like its predecessor, to your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
    Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Baroness Birk.)
    6.44 p.m.
    Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I should like to start with some compliments, although I am afraid there will not be many, to the noble Baroness in response to her speech. The Parliamentary procedure we are now subjected to is almost as monstrous as the legislation itself, although she is not personally responsible for that. Indeed, she and her Department have done their best to mitigate the problems which this appalling procedure has caused us. I think I ought to offer the noble Baroness our condolences, in that the enthusiastic support which she might expect if the Bill were all that its authors claim for it seems to have melted away, and there is not a single member of her Party opposite prepared to speak in its favour.
    Baroness BIRK: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, will allow me to explain. The reason, as I understand it from those I have spoken to—although I have not gone round trying to stop people speaking, or trying to make them speak—is that they consider we have had a Second Reading. This is why of their own momentum nobody has come forward.
    Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, we will see when we come to Committee! I should like to start by affirming that I do not own any freehold land, and as to my own home, I am a tenant of the Westminster City Council. But even if I did, my attack on this Bill, and the attack on this Bill from this side of the House is not at all in defence of a limited class of large landowners but a defence of the freedoms and rights of millions of citizens, home owners; the defence of the authority of local government, and the defence of the sovereignty of Parliament. It is an attempt to curb and contain the over-weaning and ever-increasing tyranny of the State from everything and everybody, and land in particular.
    My Lords, after that, it will probably surprise your Lordships to hear me say that, in some respects, we can welcome the Bill now before us. It is, indeed, a very different Bill from the one we had before us only two months ago. I welcome it for these reasons. There is now some recognition that some regard has to be had for planning. There is now some recognition that the community, after whom the Bill is named, have some right to participate in the exercise of its functions. There is some recognition that Parliament has a right to know firmly and in advance what kinds of development are to be within and what kinds of development are to be without the scope of the Bill. There is some recognition—very slight at present—that local councillors are not elected merely to act as pawns to the Secretary of State.
    My Lords, there are some claims at last about the frightful cost of the whole thing; the cost of setting up the Welsh Land Authority has been recalculated and changed from £750,000 to £100,000; this shows the meticulous and precise care with which they look after our money! In Schedule 4, the home owner's normal right to a public local inquiry has been partially reinstated, and orders under that Schedule made subject to Affirmative Resolution. The land acquisition amendment schemes are to be published. The Government have made some efforts to recognise the special position of Churches and charities although, as we shall hear later, they have so far failed to satisfy either.
    May I say in passing how much I welcome the presence of my old friend

    1085
    the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford in this debate, making his maiden speech. All this has happened since our debate last August, to say nothing of the shower of notes on topics that were not in the White Paper. The White Paper on the Development Land Tax has at last emerged, and this is why we have needed another Second Reading debate. We have another Bill, and another White Paper, and also all these notes. However, Her Majesty's Government seem to have satisfied the Sand and Gravel Association, and they seem to have satisfied the parish councils. We congratulate them on that. If anyone else is satisfied, we have yet to learn about it.
    My Lords, of course, we regret that the conventions bar us from helping to complete full repentance by the Minister, as a vote here tonight certainly would. Our role, alas!, is now to accept the aims of this monstrous legislation, but by our amendment of it, get the other place to consider the many ways in which it may still be made less offensive to the Constitution, less injurious to good local government, and less of an affront to the rights of private citizens everywhere. Meanwhile, we on this side can console ourselves that no single piece of legislation that the Party opposite has introduced this Session will lose them more friends and make them more enemies than this one.
    The enormity of what is being enacted here may only slowly dawn on the electorate. I shall be surprised if we do not begin to see its effect in the May local elections. We shall certainly do our best to see to that. We deeply regret the cost, the injury, the burdens, the affronts that this legislation will lay upon our people, but we console ourselves that its very passage and implementation will surely speed on the day when we have a mandate to repeal this Bill, as we must surely do.
    The next criticism which I must levy on this Bill is the degree to which it is unprepared. One would have thought that the Party opposite, if they believed that the nationalisation or municipalisation of the land was an important and widely popular plank in their platform, would have got their plans ready for it. But not a bit. Here we are, 18 months on
    1086
    Since they took Office, and crucial features of the whole crazy enterprise have yet to see the light of day. The Government's ideas on development land tax were not published at all until after the Committee stage in another place. I do not need to remind your Lordships that the whole financial basis of the Authority's land acquisitions rests on getting their land net of development land tax. No one knows yet how the Government propose that this transaction shall be handled or the tax assessed, and the operation of the Central Land Board in the 'forties foundered on this very point, and if this scheme founders, too, so much the better.
    When it comes to the disposal of land for development to builders, the Government seem equally at a loss to know what to do. They do not want the local authorities to convey the land to builders; they want them to convey it to the eventual owner and to bring the builder in by way of building agreements. They say this as though everyone knows just what a building agreement is and would agree at once that it was apt for the purpose and obviously acceptable all round. But, in fact, no such thing exists. Are they thinking of the Section 52 agreements, and if so, why do they think the builders will be willing to enter into them under these conditions. No one yet knows what the Government are thinking of when they talk about building agreements. Whether a workable or acceptable agreement can be devised is, to say the least, extremely doubtful. What is certain is that at present another vital link in the whole system is missing.
    My Lords, let us turn to judge this Bill on its own objectives and to be as fair as we possibly can. The first is to enable the community to control the development of land in accordance with its priorities and its needs. But is not that exactly what our planning staffs of local planning authorities have been attempting to do for their electors for the last two generations? The Silkins can take credit for important innovations in the 'forties. The Labour Party can take credit again for valuable improvements in town and country planning in the 1968 Act. The community were indeed given more say in shaping the quality of their environment in those enactments. The

    1087
    Party opposite were enthusiastic, perhaps overly enthusiastic, in espousing public participation in those days, and at many levels: in structure planning, at local inquiries, even in community forums.
    In the course of enacting the Local Government Act, my own Party conferred more planning powers at the more local level of the districts, they gave more say to parishes, they fostered the growth of civic societies. Does this Bill continue that process of giving more people in the community more say?—not a bit of it; the very reverse. At every turn, in every clause, subsection and Schedule, and no doubt in every regulation still to come and every bit of guidance still to be drafted, it is not the local community or the private individual, in any guise, shape or form, which is to have more say, more individual rights or more local responsibility; it is the Secretary of State and his civil servants in Whitehall.
    Let me take the first, but by no means the worst, example from Clause 2. If two local authorities need to work together, it is not left for them to apply the standard co-operative arrangements available to them under the law. No, my Lords, the Secretary of State has powers under Clause 2 to decide whether they need to work together and, if so, how it is to be arranged. Under Clause 50, a much worse example, if the Secretary of State considers it expedient he can take away the powers Parliament has given to one authority and give them to another or give them to himself, and in this way he can completely disenfranchise the whole local electorate of any democratic say in how these powers are exercised by the people whom they themselves elected. Mr. Silkin has already threatened to do this in the course of the Third Reading and Report stages in another place (col. 1092 of Hansard).
    Whereas up to this time local authorities have been able to dispose of land at their own discretion, henceforward under Clause 43 they can neither acquire nor dispose of land without the Minister's permission. Yet, at the same time, Clause 39 empowers the Secretary of State to dispose of public service land without consulting any local authority in the area concerned or any previous owner,
    "… to dispose of it to such person in such manner subject to such conditions as may
    1088
    appear to the Secretary of State to be expedient".
    Are we now to forget all those issues under the Crichel Down case and so on? This bit of the "Brave New World" comes into force a mere month after the Royal Assent, long before the Bill begins to operate.
    Then, my Lords, take Clause 20. This is the one under which the Secretary of State imposes by order on local authorities the duty to take over private land for development. There is no obligation whatever upon the Secretary of State to consult them as representatives of their communities about what particular powers they need over what particular forms of development, nor over their readiness to discharge the responsibilities that he wants to lay upon them. Nor is there any scope whatever for any local public participation over how and when each Clause 20 order should be applied in each area. One would think that the community, in some local shape or form, would be involved as they now are, as a matter of regular practice, in establishing and implementing planning policies in their area.
    When it comes to deciding the scale and pace of public acquisition of land in their area, the community is not involved, and it is not mentioned in Clauses 17, 18, 19 or 20, or in Schedules 3 or 4. There is no glimmer of a suggestion of any such thing as a community forum, of public participation, consultation or advisory committees by which the local community can express any view about the operations of the Community Land Bill, which is supposed to be for their benefit and is issued in their name. They are left to trust in the tyranny of the Secretary of State and assign their own elected councillors to act as his agents. Such rights and such say as is left by this Bill for Parliament, county councils, district councils, parish and local councils, and private individuals and bodies like Churches and charities, have had to be wrung from the Minister in Committee and Report stages in another place, and we intend to wring some more. But to pretend that after the passage of this Bill more people in each community up and down the land will have more say about the development and quality of their own environment is humbug, and we shall see before long how many local electors have been deceived by it.

    1089
    My Lords, the Bill has another objective, which is to restore to the community the increase in the value of land arising from its efforts. The impression that this phrase is designed to put about is that up to now this has not happened at all, that all the gains have been ill-gotten, that all the gains have gone to people who did nothing to earn them, and that every community has made prodigious efforts and has had no reward. But, in fact, all these gains have been taxed for the last 10 years, first by capital gains tax, then as development gains tax and now, as Her Majesty's Government propose, by development land tax.
    Certainly I would acknowledge—and my noble friends behind me would, too,—that some years ago we could have done with swingeing higher taxation in some notorious cases But now, in this general recession, and in the building industry recession in particular, I should have thought that it was absolutely clear that as soon as progress in fighting inflation permits it there must be not an increase but a reduction in the rate of taxation on development to bring land forward fast enough to get houses built, to keep the housebuilders from going bankrupt and their staffs from yet further unemployment. The White Paper speaks of the aim of restoring the increase in value to the community. The Secretary of State has many ways of doing that at present, starting with the rate support grant, the great armament of regional grants, block grants, specific grants, housing grants and urban programmes of varying kinds, all already in operation, all to hand, all with professional trained staffs operating them.
    Now let us consider what the Bill adds to that. Nothing at all to start with. In fact, a huge new department in central and local government has first to be created and established everywhere. Although many weeks ago Mr. Crosland himself was telling local authorities, rather crossly, that the party was over, he and they are now between them sending out 14,150 more invitations to start another party to celebrate the passage of this Bill. This new outfit will cost around £62 million a year just to run; over £1 million a week It begins by borrowing hundreds of millions of pounds more so that they can start buying land, which they are to
    1090
    do net of development land tax. Although, as I have said, how that is to be assessed and worked out no one yet knows. Eventually they start selling land at market value, and then the profits—and they cannot fail to make a profit on the deal however inexpertly and slowly it is done—go to paying their own salaries and paying interest on the money first borrowed. Meanwhile, and for some months if not years, I presume the community of taxpayers (that is you and I) has to foot the bill.
    Eventually there may be a surplus. Again that can hardly be avoided. It might be thought that the local community will then begin to benefit. But no; they can only keep whatever proportion of that surplus the Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks is good for them. They must hand over—and let us get the exact wording from Clause 45—"such proportion of any surplus (notice how cagey that is) there might be in their account—
    "as the Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury directs shall be paid by the authority to the Secretary of State."
    How is that for tyranny? And in subsection (5), just to show how benevolent the Secretary of State might be, we have the phrase:
    "The Secretary of State may, out of sums received by him under subsection (2) above, with the approval of the Treasury and after consulting such associations of authorities as appear to him to be concerned"—
    that is nice of him—
    "pay such amounts to such authorities as he considers expedient."
    How is that for benevolence?
    In what conceivable sense can that arbitrary piece of bureaucracy be a better, simpler, fairer, cheaper system than the development gains tax, the tax which we first devised and which Her Majesty's Government have now been glad to adopt. Why on earth cannot they use what they have on hand? If they want less land and more unemployment in the building industry and fewer houses built, they can increase it. Incidentally anyone can see at once that the exceptions for small builders on small sites which have been wrung from the Government in another place will be of no avail at all in getting more houses built at prices which people can pay unless it is matched and

    1091
    paralleled by exemptions from development land tax, about which we have heard nothing.
    I conclude by saying that the system now proposed involves two Acts of Parliament (one which we are dealing with, and another still to come), is as cumbersome to operate as it is costly to administer, bids fair to bring the housing programme to a full stop, and gives the community not more but less say in shaping the quality of where they live, and worst of all extends prodigiously the tyranny of the State and the erosion of our freedom.
    7.6 p.m.
    Lord HENLEY: My Lords, the noble Baroness has read us a severe lecture for wanting to debate this a second time. I think that she believes we ought to excuse ourselves. Were it not for the charm with which she lectured us, I should say that she has offered a gross affront to your Lordships. Unless she should think that my noble friend Lord Foot, whose name was on the list, has run away in the face of her strictures, let me say that he has not. He has another engagement. Let me go on to what my noble friend Lord Foot said in the Second Reading debate on the No. 2 Bill. He started by reviewing the sad, sorry history of what has gone before, the problems, the anomalies, indeed the scandals, about which we are all aware, and which all of us somehow or other want to stop, and which we have been trying to stop in one way or another for nearly sixty years.
    Having said that, my noble friend then wished the Bill well. He wished it well, I thought in more than generous terms; he regarded it as a genuine and honest attempt to have another attack at this difficult problem. He then went on to make various criticisms. The principal criticisms that he made—and they have been made by others from both sides of the House—were that local authorities were the wrong instruments; that the expense of a great new bureaucratic structure was unfortunate at a time like this, and that the problem of betterment could be better dealt with by other means. He concluded that the Bill was dangerously threatened with unworkability, and in that view he was supported from the other side of the House by the noble Baroness, Lady White, who I thought made an extremely effective speech. My
    1092
    noble friend Lord Foot ended by expressing the fear—and this was a genuine fear on his part because, as I say, he wished the Bill well—that the Government had missed an opportunity to produce an Act which really was unrepealable. I think that we on the Liberal Benches agree with everything that he said.
    He has told me since that the more he looks at the Bill the more he thinks it is totally unworkable. This appears to be the view of nearly all professional people who are involved in questions of the land, of pensions, charities, and also of professional men in general. I believe that the Church feels the same, and I shall listen with great interest to the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, to hear what he has to say about how far the Church is satisfied with the Amendments which the Government have brought forward.
    I also on that Second Reading debate made further and rather different criticisms from those of my noble friend. The chief of my criticisms were first the possibly unwitting damage to our planning system. I would say that our planning system is quite good, in spite of the letter in The Times from Mr. Maurice Ash of the Town and Country Planning Association, suggesting that it was not the best in the world. What the Government are proposing to do here may well damage it.
    My second criticism, and the one I feel most strongly about, is this question of the conflict engendered in local authorities being both planner and developer. The Government have introduced various Amendments, two of which touch on the criticisms I have made, and I am grateful for that. The compulsory purchase procedure as to inquiries has been improved; I know there are certain exceptions which want close examination, and I am referring to Schedule 4. The second Amendment for which I am grateful to the Government deals with the elimination of local authorities, in exercising their planning functions taking account of matters other than planning; that is, Clause 17. But the Government Amendments do not deal with the general criticisms that my noble friend Lord Foot and I made and they leave the main strategy of the Bill quite untouched.

    1093
    I want to protest—and this is partly why I think we needed a second Second Reading—about the difficulties in trying to follow the day-to-day working of this Bill. It has been hard enough for individual Members of your Lordships' House who have been here every day to be able to get the papers dealing with the Bill as it moved from day to day both here and in the Commons. For people outside, however, it has been almost impossible; they have not been able to get the papers from the Department of the Environment or from the various organisations which supplied those papers. I am not exaggerating when I say that many people have been put to great difficulty in trying to follow those workings. I must also comment on the unintelligibility of the Bill. I know it is a highly technical subject and, with such a subject, one expects to have a highly technical and indeed difficult Bill, with all the phraseology that an Act of Parliament must have. Nevertheless, people with long experience of these matters tell me that it is still quite unintelligible to them, that the definitions are difficult to find, that there is no interpretation clause and that it is full of mumbo-jumbo of the highest order.
    We have always got the land question wrong and here we are galloping ahead, or so it seems to me, with ideas put forward and accepted at the Labour Party Conference without them having been properly thought over; one may say that they have been thought over for 60 years and it is time we came to a conclusion, and on that I heartily agree. But the Bill shows signs of unusual haste and it may, because of this unworkability, fall into the same difficulty that the great 1947 Act fell into; that is, that part of it that dealt with restoring to the community the increase in the value of land arising from it's efforts. That part of the 1947 Act failed, the Land Commission failed and the Liberals many years ago suggested another version—site value rating it was called—which was never tried. I have never been greatly enamoured of it but I am inclined to think that it would have made a better go of it than the Bill which is before us today and that if, in fact, it had come about in 1909 we could well not have the unfortunate state of affairs reviewed by my noble friend.
    1094
    As the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, mentioned, we have another Bill to come, the Development Land Tax Bill, which goes, or should go, hand in hand with the Bill that is before us. The fact that it does not go hand in hand with it and that we have to consider it separately in another Session is a great disadvantage. I do not want to repeat all the criticisms that I have made of this Bill or that have been made by others more effectively, but I feel that this present shot is too wild to hit anyone. I wonder whether, despite the difficulties of leaving it over until the next Session of Parliament, despite the danger of freezing everything up, this might be better than the calamity of a Bill which once again proves quite unworkable, so that even what is good in it falls down for that very reason.
    7.15 p.m.
    The Bishop of CHELMSFORD: My Lords, I apologise if I am repetitious because I was not here for the earlier debate. I shall concern myself solely with the position of Churches and charities, and perhaps I may say that I speak on behalf of all the Churches represented on the Churches' Main Committee, and they in turn are supported in this matter by the National Council of Social Service. When the Bill first appeared last year it had a very depressing effect on many of us and it seemed that inevitably the work of the Church would be seriously cut back in its efforts to provide places of worship and in those many other services it gives to the community in terms of schools, youth work, centres for old people, the disabled and so on. I am staggered as I go round Essex and East London to see the depth and scope of this work.
    I do not have to argue this point because the Minister in another place admitted that we do much which would otherwise have to be provided by central or local government—and often, may I add, at much greater expense. Furthermore, a great deal of Church land, especially latterly, as it is released, is used by housing associations, such as the one we have, for housing schemes and especially for amenity housing and other social purposes. We were therefore very grateful indeed when, in July, the Minister opened a door which had seemed firmly barred and bolted, and made concessions which

    1095
    go some way to meet the short-term needs of the Churches and charities as set out.
    The former Dean of St. Paul's once said that gratitude was the expression of a lively anticipation of favours to come; so our gratitude forces us to say that this is not enough, and the reason for this is in the long-term. It does not seem that we will benefit very greatly at all, mostly because the concessions are confined, on the whole, to land held on White Paper day and because the concessions last for only 10 years. Those 10 years, the Minister tells us, will enable us to arrange our affairs in respect of the land we now own. This is a consideration, but we believe that 10 years is far too short a period for this purpose, especially in present circumstances when the land market is depressed and programmes of building and development are subject to heavy delays; and in any case we have lost a year already.
    There is in the centre of Chelmsford a piece of land which we have been trying to develop for 20 years, and only now does it appear that we may succeed, if the Department of the Environment provides the necessary funds. This position is certainly not likely to get any better, I would have thought. It is also too short a period for loans to be raised on the security of land held on White Paper day, and such loans are often a very important element in financing large undertakings to which many Churches and charities are already committed, for example things like the building of a comprehensive school or community projects of one sort or another. But, to my mind, the main problem is that the world is changing so rapidly that we just cannot keep pace with it. If this happens it seems that we shall be limited in our efforts, and our assets will, in a kind of way, be frozen so that we are unable to realise the opportunities that change will offer. In the past, as the inner cities have emptied and properties have become redundant, it has been possible to realise them and to finance work in new towns and housing areas. It has been possible to build new churches and community buildings, and also to pay clergy a bit more, which they sorely need. Now this process cannot stop. It is not that we can put our house in order and say that this shall be the pattern of our resources in building and
    1096
    otherwise at the end of 10 years or even more than that. The world will go on changing. We are told that it will do so at an ever-increasing pace. More buildings will become redundant and more new towns will be built. We need the flexibility which this Bill will seem to deny us if we are to meet the changing needs of those times.
    So the Churches, as represented by me this evening, feel bound to press for the abolition of the rigid distinction between pre- and post-White Paper day land. Otherwise, the Churches and charities will inevitably be reluctant to give up pre-White Paper land if what they get in return is subject to restrictions attaching to post-White Paper land. To take a simple example, in the past, voluntary exchanges of land have often taken place between the Church or charities and local authorities when, for instance, a school needed a playground and for similar purposes. I believe that Churches and charities will be much more reluctant to enter into that sort of arrangement in future if it appears that they will be penalised by doing so.
    So we press for freedom to develop our own land for our own use, irrespective of when the land was acquired and bearing in mind the admission of the Minister that the work we do is community work. In this connection, we do not see why, as the Government's proposals stand at present, in the case of land acquired after the White Paper day, we are to be treated far worse than the statutory undertakings and, indeed, some commercial undertakings. As I am instructed, it seems that the latter will sometimes be entitled, subject to planning permission, to develop land for their own purposes without the intervention of the local authority, irrespective of when the land was acquired. On the contrary, a charity wishing, for instance, to carry out a housing scheme for old people on a piece of land acquired since the White Paper, but acquired for that purpose, may run the risk of having to sell it to the local authority at current use value and lease it back at full development value, so losing on the way much of the value on which it was relying to finance the scheme. It is not just a question of the land or the building on that land, but of maintaining the property and the work afterwards.

    1097
    The Minister conceded that the Churches and charities should be able to develop land held on White Paper day for their own use without intervention. We would ask that the phrase "for their own use" should be more clearly defined and should be written into the Bill. For instance, we wonder whether so-called "mixed development" is included. I remember a development where there was an old people's home, a school, a centre, a church, a small street of shops and an office development. The shops were part of the amenity for the old people and the children, and the office development was to provide income for the support of the whole scheme. We should wish to know whether this would be considered to come into the category of "for their own use". We feel that it is not good enough that we should have to rely for guidance in this matter upon future documents sent out from the Department. Could this not be written into the Bill?
    I shall not delay the House longer. The noble Baroness has told us that the Minister is meeting the Churches Main Committee tomorrow and it may well be that, as a result of that meeting, everything I have been saying will be wind upon the air. I pray that it may be so. We are grateful for the mercies we have been given, but, in conclusion and in connection with this aspect of the Bill and with its treatment of the Churches and charities, I commend to the Minister the words of Sir Francis Drake:
    "There must be a beginning of any great matter, but the continuing until the end until it be thoroughly finished yields the true glory."
    7.25 p.m.
    Lord GRIDLEY: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships would like me to say how much we appreciated the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford. He has spoken eloquently and with authority. We have enjoyed his speech and we hope there will be many occasions when we shall hear him in the future. We all have a warm affection for the Bishops in our House.
    Before I cover in my speech the points I wish to raise, I should like to tell the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that I did not speak on the Second Reading of the Bill when it was debated in August. Therefore, in what I wish to say on this subject tonight I shall cover the Bill as I
    1098
    see it in its form today, with the Government's Amendments. I should also like to make it clear to the noble Baroness that I am connected with the building industry and that I know that at present there is a great fear of this measure. From my experience, I shall hope to elaborate and to place before the Government some of the fears which now exist.
    When I retired from a career overseas about 15 years ago, I became an estate agent for about five years and I was involved in the sale of houses and building land. Later, I became a non-executive director of Lawdon Limited, which is a development company whose shares are quoted on the Stock Exchange. Over the years, one became accustomed to the charge in political terms and in letters and publications in the Press that in certain quarters developers were an obscene race apart from other normal individuals and that they were profiteering out of the sale of land and houses. This may have been justified in a few cases but it certainly did not apply as a general principle. I should like to disclose that, as a non-executive director, I was first paid £500 a year, out of which one-third went in tax. Later, that was raised to £750, with one-third going in tax, leaving me with a £500 return in director's fees. I say that so that the point can be recorded and perhaps it may correct some of the impressions which I believe have motivated the spirit of the present Bill.
    I am profoundly distressed by the Bill. I believe that it will do nothing but harm to the industry and that it will certainly not succeed in the construction of one single extra house or will help developers at a time of deep depression. To explain why I believe this, I came to know from my experience as an estate agent and latterly when I have been concerned with a development company, that the sale of land and properties is a highly specialised business. It takes years of experience in the building industry to know what land to purchase and what property will sell. Under this Bill, it is the local authority which will have the power to acquire all land needed for development. Can anyone in their right senses really believe that the local authority has the experience and will take into its possession land suitable to a particular developer? That developer will be risking his capital. He must be sure of a reasonable return. He will want to be sure that the houses he constructs

    1099
    can be sold at the right price; that they are the right type to suit would-be purchasers; that the density per acre (which is an important consideration) is right, that the speed at which the houses are sold (which is another very important criterion) will be satisfactory, and that the Houses will be of the right type for the particular area in which the demand is to be created.
    The other important aspect is that services are readily available on the site. I should like to suggest that these are important considerations upon which a developer must make an economic judgment. If he is wrong he can lose all his capital. He can exercise that judgment only from a lifelong experience in the industry. Local authorities do not have this experience. If a local authority acquires land which it will not sell and which is not suitable for development under the criteria which I have expressed to your Lordships, it will not be the local authority which will lose financially; it will be the British taxpayer.
    At present this Bill is causing uncertainty to developers in regard to the criteria on which they are to judge their future plans. The development land tax at 80 per cent., later to rise to 100 per cent., does not encourage land sales. This tax causes fear in the minds of the holders of land. As regards this situation, following negotiations far advanced by our company we were about to sign a conditional contract for the purchase of land in a part of the South-East of this country, but I heard this morning that this is not now likely to materialise. As I have said, this proposed tax causes fear and uncertainty on the part of the vendors of land. If the transaction to which I have referred does not go through—andthere is every indication that it will not—there will be lost the provision of 200 houses for families in a scheme which included homes for old people.
    If the Bill reaches the Statute Book unamended, a local authority will later have the power to acquire land from the vendors at agricultural value. I believe that vendors of land and others in a similar position will fight this position tooth and nail. It is totally impossible to agree that local authorities will have
    1100
    the staff, the ability, and the time to deal in a sensible and attractive way with the many pieces of land which will come due for development. Bearing in mind the delays now being experienced—and I speak from experience of this—in planning matters, which have become quite unbelievable in some cases, this extra work must mean an inevitable slowing down of house building.
    As house builder developers we are proud of our workmanship, and if we are to become mere contractors for the local authority most of the imaginative building will disappear from this country, and no houses will be built. Other noble Lords who are to speak after me in the debate will no doubt cover other aspects of the Bill. I have concentrated solely on what I know. I must say plainly to noble Lords on the Government Benches, for whom I have a certain amount of affection—I see that at the moment most of the Benches opposite are virtually empty—that though at the Committee stage we will do our best with Amendments to improve it, this Bill, as conceived, will go far towards smashing the building industry. It will certainly not provide one single extra house!
    7.34 p.m.
    The Marquess of SALISBURY: My Lords, may I add my congratulations to those expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford. He made a notable contribution to our debate this evening in which he clearly put forward problems which will face the Church in this field. Before going to Chelmsford he played a notable part in his previous appointment and he is still remembered there with affection. I feel sure that if he is able to give us his time in this House he will establish just such a reputation here.
    Before saying anything further I should declare an interest in what the Bill deals with. On first seeing the Bill I asked myself why this Bill is necessary at all. Is it to deal with the profits emanating from the development of land? If so, as has already been pointed out, that matter can perfectly adequately, and much more simply, be dealt with by the normal methods of taxation. Is it to give control to the planning authority and to ease the availability of land? So far as

    1101
    I know, under existing planning arrangements, this can be perfectly satisfactorily carried out now.
    The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said that the Bill would make a contribution towards positive planning. I am not very clear what that term means. But so far as I am aware, all local authorities have to look forward and have to plan, and they can still acquire land which they need to fulfil their plans without all this cumbersome business which we are asked to accept under the Bill. Therefore I asked myself: "Is there an ulterior motive in this Bill?", because the ostensible objectives did not seem altogether to justify the many pages which we are to be asked to deal with. It seemed to me that it was quite probable that this was to form the basis of a more comprehensive scheme of land nationalisation in the future. The basis is here; the mechanics are provided. That would also explain the unseemly haste with which this Bill is being pushed through, so as to give time for further steps to be taken, based on the preparations that we are now considering.
    The Bill has not been well thought out, no doubt because of the hurry. Even in the past few days, innumerable Government Amendments have been tabled in another place, and your Lordships have not yet had time to digest these. Surely this is not a very sound basis on which to treat Parliament. Parliament is asked to give its most thorough consideration to these highly technical clauses, but unless there is time to work them out and read them through properly, it will surely be difficult for us to arrive at a proper conclusion. This seems to me to be an authoritarian attitude towards Parliament which, coupled with some of the proposals in the Bill itself, indicates, to me at least, that the present Government are heading towards a more authoritarian form of government.
    First, we have the way the Bill has been handled; and there are a great many of the provisions, as yet unspecified, which are to be settled by regulation. I was very glad to hear the noble Baroness say that these will be subject to Resolution in Parliament. But clearly we shall have to see just what the Bill says before we accept this position. Furthermore, the Secretary of State is left with immense
    1102
    powers. There are no provisions for guidelines as set out in the Bill. There are no limitations upon his powers or upon his sphere of activity. In effect, in the sphere of development land he is a veritable dictator. This is another aspect of the authoritarian or totalitarian theme which runs through the Bill.
    It is true that a number of additions have been put into the Bill making safeguards to protect the individual; but they were not in the original Bill. Surely the original Bill indicated what were the thoughts of the Government in this respect. The Bill is also totalitarian because it assumes that the interests of the community as a whole are not only paramount but extinguish certain individual rights without compensation or right of appeal or hearing.
    Implicit in the Bill is the suggestion that all supposed requirements or benefits of the community as a whole override individual rights. It ignores the fact that individuals are units within the community. Individual rights, my Lords, as we all know, have grown up and been developed through the centuries from a series of Charters and Acts which are now enshrined in the law of the country, and there has developed a balance between the rights of individuals and the requirements of the community. Much of this is now to be eroded by the authoritarian powers which are to be assumed by the Secretary of State.
    As I understand it, the assumption on which the Bill is based is that the requirements of the community create demand for land development, and therefore it is right that the community should have the benefits arising out of this development. This is not necessarily true. There are several towns which were created entirely as a result of private enterprise: such towns as Barrow, White haven and Eastbourne, and no doubt your Lordships can think of many others. There are areas where a factory or a port has been built and the houses have come to fulfil the need to service those enterprises—all the efforts of private enterprise, and nothing whatever to do with the community as a whole. Again, under this Bill no regard is paid to the normal requirements of supply and demand. The normal economic processes will be negatived under these arrangements and we

    1103
    shall have to see what will take their place.
    Furthermore, in these proposals to nationalise some of the land of this country it is surely wrong to treat land in isolation, as a special case, for land is the basis of so many other enterprises that it must affect almost everything that goes on in this country. It is true that we have had previous nationalisation, but it seems to me that once you start embarking on any form of land nationalisation you are getting very near to the end of the road, which is a Communist State. It may be that this is what the Government want. They may find it convenient to mask their objective by such terms as "the needs of the community". However, I doubt, if this is the thought of the Government, whether it is what the majority of the people of this country want. The Bill is a landmark in this progression, and I can see why Her Majesty's Government attach so much importance to it; for, as I have said before, land is the basis from which so much else springs.
    Perhaps I may now say a word about the powers of the Secretary of State. Some of this has already been mentioned before and I will not weary your Lordships by repeating it, but, as I understand it, under the old Clause 12 legislation can be amended by the simple process of the Secretary of State setting up a joint board of two authorities, and after this he is empowered to nullify anything that is written in the Bill at all affecting that area. The Secretary of State need not give a reason for taking over land; he does not have to establish requirements. He can confirm a compulsory purchase order on part of an area of land that it is proposed to acquire and defer a decision on the remainder. Think of the chaos that will ensue if that kind of situation arises! How is the remaining land to be managed with a sword hanging over its head? So by a stroke of the pen it is possible for an individual to be stripped of his property, and there is no redress. Nor, so far as I can see, is there intended to be, for the Bill expressly gives the Secretary of State power to deny the right of an inquiry. It specifically, as is quite normal, excepts matters of compensation; but it also says that an objection on the grounds that an acquisition is unnecessary or inexpedient will not be accepted. It is very hard to see what other
    1104
    grounds there are left to ask for an inquiry.
    What about compensation? The individual fares very badly here and his position is somewhat uncertain, but it would appear that the only compensation he may be entitled to is on the grounds of hardship. In this case he has no guarantee that he will get any compensation, either, because there may not be a tribunal for him to appeal to: it is at the discretion of the Secretary of State. The Bill says that the Secretary of State "may" appoint a tribunal. The terms of reference of the tribunal have not been settled in any form. Nothing has been laid down in the Bill, and surely on so important a matter Parliament should be given some guidance as to what it is being asked to approve. What about the limit? It is true that it has been increased to £50,000; but if there is a case of hardship why is there a ceiling in cash terms to the compensation payable? Surely it ought to be paid in full.
    May I now say a word about the way in which it is intended to operate this Bill? The first point to note is that where it is proposed to acquire land the local authority will operate, as it were, as the prosecution counsel and the judge, and the defence will not be represented. The second point to note is that whereas under present legislation local authorities receive sums of money from the developer to help with the infrastructure—such things as road and sewers; a process which I should have thought could be extended even further—now it is uncertain whether they will get anything. It is at the discretion of the Secretary of State; and, even so, he has to obtain the approval of the Treasury. We all know how difficult it is to get any money out of the Treasury funds. So we start on a somewhat uncertain wicket. It has already been said that local authorities lack skill in this matter, and I will not pursue that one, but in my experience bureaucratic arrangements in connection with the development of land are not only slow and cumbersome but are extremely expensive, and there is no benefit to be derived from them either for the community or for the local authority concerned.
    Something has been said about the need for finance for development, and I think this is an important issue which the Bill has not completely investigated

    1105
    —or it has not set it out, at any rate. Normally, of course, a builder, as he develops, is building up an asset, and he borrows money from a lender—a bank or an insurance company—and has as security the land and the increasing security of the building which goes up on it. But it seems quite possible, in the case of some of the proposed developments under this Bill, that there will be very little security for the lender. What happens then? Is the local authority to raise the money through the rates, making them even higher than they are, or is the Treasury to be asked to "fork out"? This is a point which could seriously affect both the rate of development and its cost. May I finish by saying that this scheme is not merely the sacrificial slaughter of development and landowning interests, it is an attack on real property in the widest sense, the future ramifications of which may injure the vast majority of the community which it ostensibly aims to benefit.
    7.50 p.m.
    The Earl of BALFOUR: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow my noble friend and distant cousin Lord Salisbury. He spoke from experience and brought out many important points about this Bill. I should also like to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford for his excellent maiden speech, very charmingly delivered, and to take this opportunity of thanking my noble friend Lady Young and the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for allowing us to have yet another Second Reading speech; because I must admit that had this opportunity not been forthcoming I think that perhaps I might have missed making to-day what I consider to be one of the most important speeches I have ever made in your Lordships' House.
    My Lords, I intend to speak to only two parts of the Bill: first, Clause 2 and then, Part II. In Clause 2 of the Bill, your Lordships will see that it is possible for the Secretary of State to set up joint boards. The Parliamentary draftsmen have on the whole made a genuine and gallant attempt to take advantage of the best of legislation and bring it into line throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, Clause 2 as it stands is making the situation in respect of the Community Land Bill, and to
    1106
    some extent planning functions, completely different for England, Scotland and Wales. I shall proceed to illustrate why.
    Under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 (referred to in this Bill as "the Act of 1971") two or more authorities in England could set up a joint board for any planning functions. They could also do it for any functions within this Bill. The same applies to Wales in that two or more authorities may set up a joint board for any of the functions that they intend to carry out in respect of anything to do with planning or any other matters in that connection. But your Lordships will note that under Clause 2(6) the Secretary of State has excluded himself from being able to set up a joint board in Wales and is leaving everything for Wales in the hands of this dreadful Land Authority.
    In Scotland, Part I and Schedules 1 and 2 of the Scottish Act of 1972—that is, the Town and Country Planning Act—were repealed by the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 and there is no equivalent to Section 241 of the Local Government Act 1972 to which reference is made under subsection (4) of Clause 2 of this Bill; so that here it would be possible for the Secretary of State to set up a joint board. But under Scottish legislation the local authorities no longer have any power to do that themselves.
    My Lords, I shall now go on to Part II of the Bill. When I came to study this Bill intensively during the months of July, August and September one thing that considerably concerned me was the proposed setting up of this Land Authority for Wales, because I think that the greatest disaster that will be achieved by this Land Authority is the separation, so far as Wales is concerned, of the acquisition powers under this Bill and efficient planning. I will quote briefly from a speech made during the Community Land Bill proceedings on June 26th in Standing Committee "G" of the other place. The right honourable Mr. Oakes said—and I am sure that he was speaking for the Government—
    "We are concerned … with enabling a community—via its democratically elected councils in that area—to plan its environment for the future positively, and not piecemeal negatively as it has had to do at the present time. That is the strength behind this Bill."

    1107
    My Lords, I do not pretend for one moment to like this Bill, but I have never taken a destructive attitude in this House. But here we have a third authority appearing. We have the Land Authority to acquire the land; we have the county planning authority in Wales for the major planning functions and then a district planning function for the secondary arrangements. I feel certain that this is a case where things will go seriously wrong; but I am glad to have had at least an opportunity to investigate as to why this has been done.
    My Lords, only two answers really came up. One was that the Land Authority for Wales was a forerunner to the devolution of central Government and the setting up at some time of a Welsh Assembly. I sincerely hope, if ever there is a Welsh or Scottish Assembly, that one of their first functions will not be to proceed to carry out a nationalisation process. This would be both expensive and disastrous. I think that perhaps the other reason was because parts of Wales, the counties of—and your Lordships will perhaps be indulgent over my pronunciation—Clwyd, Dyfed, Gwynedd, and Powys are relatively sparsely populated. Perhaps it was felt that a district authority within those counties did not have the financial backing in rates or was not wealthy enough in its administrative staff to carry out the functions in that respect.
    What I should like to recommend as a cure for this problem is to introduce, so far as Wales is concerned, the planning arrangements that exist in Part IX of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. This set up a county, if I may use an English phrase—we have regions in Scotland—and a district planning authority for the more populated parts of Scotland; that is, the Lowlands and up to the coast a little North of Aberdeen. But in the more sparsely populated parts of Scotland, we decided that the planning functions should be carried out by regional or county authorities. This has worked very well. In Scotland, there are nine regions. In Wales there are eight counties out of which I suggest that Clwyd, Dyfed, Gwynedd and Powys should be general planning authorities run by the county, but that the rest of Wales, which consists of South, West and Mid-Glamorgan and the County of Gwent, should be in exactly
    1108
    the same position as England with county and district planning authorities as would exist anywhere else.
    The planning arrangements in Scotland have been highly successful, and I feel very strongly that the old county boroughs of Cardiff and Swansea, within South and West Glamorgan respectively, should have just as much right to take advantage of the provisions of this Bill as the cities of Edinburgh or Dundee could in Scotland or, for that matter, a city just across the Border in the County of Avon. If there is a housing development planned by the city and capital of Wales, Cardiff, the application has to go through the county authority to the Land Authority for Wales, when, just across the Border, the old county borough of Bristol, being now a district on its own, can acquire its own land under the provisions of this Bill and organise its own planning arrangements, as could a district authority anywhere else in the whole of England.
    It has been stressed, even in your Lordships' House, that one of the purposes of this Bill is to provide a benefit to the local authorities. I can see no benefit being achieved in Wales by this Land Authority. I have drafted an alteration to the major part of Part IX to fit into this Bill, and I sincerely hope that those of your Lordships—and this is not political—who believe that the Government are wrong and that I am right will support me, because I ask the Government to give it a second thought.
    Let us look at what is happening under the Bill regarding the Land Authority in Wales. I am pleased to see that in new Clause 9 the Government have at long last realised that economies must be made, and in subsection (3) your Lordships will note that the amount of the initial debt has been reduced from £750,000 down to £100,000. That is the first sign of an economy. Then, in Clause 12 you will see that the Land Authority has to prepare a statement of account regarding land acquisitions, et cetera.
    Imagine, my Lords, that there is a development in Newport. The district of Newport, a developer in Newport and an industrialist close to it all want the same piece of land, and all three go cap in hand to the Land Authority to get it. Whichever one can talk the best gets that piece of land. But just across the border

    1109
    the City of Bath or the City of Bristol would be doing it on their own, and would not have to go through the Land Authority. The Land Authority have to keep an account, so it is more likely that the land will go to whoever offers more money for it. Here we are completely and utterly dividing planning from land acquisition within the provisions of this Bill.
    Clause 16 says that there shall be a land acquisition and management scheme organised by each county authority for the whole of the United Kingdom. But in the last subsection it says that this shall not apply to Wales. All the way through this Bill your Lordships will see, time and time again, that a part or section does not apply to Wales. To divide planning from land acquisition within the provisions of this Bill is criminal and it will not work. Let the local authorities carry out the function which they were set up to carry out. Let them get on with it. Even on disposal notification areas, Clause 23 says that before the Land Authority for Wales passes a resolution it shall consult all the local authorities. But that is all; they do not need to pay any attention to it.
    Even the supplemental provisions in Clause 47 cheerfully say:
    "The Secretary of State may act under this section in a case where it appears to him expedient that an authority should cease to be responsible for exercising… any functions under this Act."
    If your Lordships turn over the page again you will see that this section shall not apply in Wales. So once that Land Authority is set up, you can never do away with it. Schedule 3 to the Bill, regarding the Land Authority for Wales, says:
    "The Land Authority for Wales shall consist of such number of members, not less than six and not exceeding nine …"
    Will your Lordships' House accept that from six to nine people should manage the land acquisition for the whole of Wales, when a hundred councillors should be doing the same job? If ever I heard of a case of sending a boy to do a man's job—and he will do it badly—this is the best example I have ever known. Leave it to the local authorities, let them get on with their own job. After all, they are elected. This Authority is bringing bureaucracy into existence to an extent
    1110
    which I believe is almost impossible to understand.
    I have spoken, and I have spoken with all the strength I have. I ask the Government to think again, and to adopt the same principles as we have in Scotland, which might work for Wales. I am sorry that I have spoken for a long time, but I say honestly to your Lordships that I have never felt more certain that this is wrong. Scrap Part II of this Bill and put in Part IX of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, and you may find the right answer.
    8.10 p.m.
    Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: My Lords, I do not think I need to declare an interest, as others of your Lordships have done, because I speak as a tenant farmer on this Second Reading of a Bill which I consider useless and probably unworkable—though I am encouraged by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, who has said that it is definitely unworkable—and certainly unproductive and unnecessary. From a farmer's viewpoint, this Bill is just another unnecessary piece of legislation—if one can give it that misnomer—in common with CTT, wealth tax, tied cottage abolition and a multitude of other things—you name it, and we have got it! Or perhaps I should say we have had it, because that is how it appears to the farmer. I am sorry to have to drive the nail in even further, but for the first time in my farming life I have watched farming stop going forward and then go full astern. The reason for this is the mass of legislation which is directed against the individual, and particularly the small businessman and farmer. This is the cause of the farmer's misery rather than the present temporary—as I hope it is—uneconomic price for agricultural produce. If it really is State control of everything that the Government want, why do they not say so?—and then I can prepare to farm as they do in Russia, and watch you all go hungry!
    Having tried to explain that I do not like this Bill very much, I must nevertheless thank the Government for having come forward since the Second Reading in August with some substantial Amendments. I hope that noble Lords opposite will not think I am looking a gift horse in the mouth if I ask what unknown god interceded to get these concessions. If the noble Baroness will tell me, I shall

    1111
    be only too happy to make obeisance to this unknown god, because I fear that I may need him again in the future. At this stage, if I may, I should like to congratulate the right reverend Prelate on his maiden speech. He seems to have been very successful in dealing with this unknown god, and perhaps if the noble Baroness cannot tell me where to find him I could get help from the right reverend Prelate.
    If, as I suspect, there is no known emetic by means of which we could get rid of this Bill at this late hour—even if we did revive the medical profession—I should like to raise two matters. First, I should like to ask for clarification regarding exempt buildings in agriculture; and, secondly, I should like to make yet one more plea—following that made by the noble Marquess—for realistic compensation to be paid, particularly to the farmer whose land has been taken for development. Your Lordships will know that farmers, and in particular the National Farmers' Union, have never been happy about compensation for farmers who have been dispossessed. This Bill once more highlights the problem. As I understand it, when land is taken under the Bill the farmer is compensated, to start with, at market value and, after the second appointed day, at its existing use value. If the Government argue that they object to farmers or landowners making huge chance profits because of their land having been designated for building—and I must say I am inclined to agree with them on that—surely it is not right for farmers, when their land is taken away from them, to be worse off. That is certainly going to be the case if they are to be compensated only at existing use price. I need hardly remind your Lordships that it is the last few acres that give the profit and that the majority of the acres merely pay off the farmer's overheads. Surely your Lordships will agree that the only fair and easy method is equivalent reinstatement. The Government have accepted equivalent reinstatement for the Churches. Why not for the individual farmer or the businessman? This is another attack on the individual, and I seem to remember that somebody once said something about the sanctity of the individual—but perhaps that is "old hat" now.
    1112
    I should like to ask the Government for clarification at some stage or other regarding Schedule 1 as it concerns farmers, and in particular horticulturalists and those who go in for intensive farming, running piggeries, chicken-houses and so on. Am I correct in saying that these two categories could be classified as excepted development, as opposed to exempt development, which would allow a local authority power to acquire the land and develop it themselves in what I believe are called "exceptional circumstances"? There is particular confusion here, since I understand that during the Report stage in another place the Government accepted that agriculture included—and I quote—
    "horticulture and the use of land for market gardens and nursery grounds"
    whereas Schedule 1, lines 12 and 13, specifically excludes market gardens and nursery grounds.
    I cannot believe that the Government really mean what is said in Schedule 1. This could, ridiculously, lead to local authorities becoming market gardeners. I am sure that all they would grow would he rotten tomatoes. Of course, they might be useful for demonstrating against future legislation, but they are hardly what is intended by the Bill. Perhaps the Government would be prepared to avoid this messy business by making sure that all agricultural development—and I emphasise agricultural development as opposed to dwelling houses—is "exempt" rather than "excepted".
    I am sorry if I appear to be petty and suspicious over this difference between "exempt" and "excepted". It is perhaps unfortunate that the two words are placed so close together, because it makes for confusion. But it is a fact that farmers have become increasingly suspicious of Government and, as a result, now need an increasing amount of reassurance that they are not being taken for a ride. We consider the Government to be far more unpredictable and unreliable than the weather. Make no mistake, my Lords, this Bill is yet another attack against the individual and, as such, should be resisted. For unless we do so, what will be taken over next?—the Press, our minds, and perhaps our thoughts and beliefs?
    8.18 p.m.
    Lord DIGBY: My Lords, we have here another Bill to complicate our way of life; another Bill based on seeing the mote in our existing law without really considering the beam that we are putting in its place. This has been our besetting political error since the War. We see the anomalies that exist, but ignore the ones produced by new legislation. This Bill is based on two quite separate premises: first, that profit from development land should accrue to the community and, secondly, that local authority planners know best and will produce a better Britain by both initiating and controlling development. In my opinion, the first is already catered for by taxation, and the second is false, or at the very least unproven.
    With regard to the financial aspect, during the transitional period between the first and second appointed days, the basis of compensation will be net of development land tax, so that by definition there can be no gain to the community above the amount that would have been received in taxation; the community will, in fact, be worse-off because of the loan charges on the capital required to buy the land, the legal charges involved in conveying it and the staff required to operate the Act. Even after the second appointed day no one with experience of administrative costs will believe that the extra 20 per cent., accruing by purchase at existing use value, will do more than cover the administrative, legal and financial costs involved in planning, negotiating, surveying, purchasing, leasing and finally selling the developed property. There can be no overall financial grounds, although at a very parochial level it could be argued that at least local authorities get some of the surplus, if any, whereas under the taxation system it all goes to the Treasury. But I notice that even here such surplus money as the Secretary of State allows a local authority to retain can be expended only with the consent of the Secretary of State—another case of central Government professing to support independence of local government but retaining the financial reins firmly in their own hands.
    Again, the amount left to the local authority is decided by the Secretary of State. We have heard it is likely to be
    1114
    40 per cent. to the Treasury, 30 per cent. to the local authority concerned and 30 per cent. to other local authorities. It is this last 30 per cent. that concerns me as I am interested in an agricultural region, the South-West. It would appear that the first authorities to move into surplus are likely to be rural where green field sites of agricultural value are developed for residential or commercial purposes, with large profits; whereas in the older towns there may never be a surplus as valuable commercial property may be developed into housing at a loss. If 30 per cent. of these rural surpluses are diverted to the towns it will be a real loss. It may be argued that previously these surpluses were in the hands of individuals, which is true. But, on the whole, they were invested locally, due to such provisions as roll-over and the tendency to invest heavily in agriculture. If that investment is removed rural areas will suffer.
    At this stage I should like to digress a little on to the subject of agricultural investment which is more relevant to this Bill than your Lordships might suppose. I have looked at agriculture in most corners of the world and am always amazed at the size of agricultural investment in Britain compared with almost any other country. As we are one of the most densely populated countries, this is a very vital factor in our economy. Why this high investment in Britain? First, a Labour Minister of Agriculture, Tom Williams, laid a basis in the 1947 Act that assured farmers of a fair return on invested capital. Secondly, there are the British love of the land and a tradition of agricultural improvement. Thirdly, the development of agricultural land for industry and housing, although a loss to food production in itself, provided the capital for increased efficiency and thus finally a net increase in food supplies. Confidence in British agriculture is now at a low ebb. Tradition is no longer admired, and if the profits of green field development are syphoned off to the towns this Labour Government will nullify all the great and valuable achievement of their predecessor in 1947. So I believe that the financial argument in the Bill is at best unnecessary and at worst wasteful of resources and positively harmful to our economy.
    So I should like to turn to the second premise, that the planners know best.

    1115
    With many years' experience in local government I much appreciate the value of our planning system. It is easy to complain about planning failures, but one has only to go abroad to countries where planning is less strict, or corruption is prevalent, to realise the overall success of our planners. However, one must accept the fact that they are planners and not entrepreneurs, not developers, and not skilled in the economic side of development. The Government in their exposition of the financial effects say that administrative costs together with any expenditure on capital improvement will be recouped on disposal. That is Civil Service thinking with no thought as to whether the market will stand it. We hear, "will". We hear of property developers in Rolls-Royce, but we forget the ones who have gone bankrupt. Development is not easy. It has risks. I doubt whether the public service will make a success of it. People brought up in the property boom, that is now dead, will be very surprised how long it will take the community land accounts to achieve a surplus. At present we have landowners, house owners, builders, developers, surveyors, all looking for development opportunities, a multitude of ideas from many sources. Do the Government think that this could really be replaced by the local authorities? I cannot see it.
    The basis of this Bill is that the planners know best, but it is noticeable that in almost every clause the Secretary of State retains the final power. If he has such confidence in local authorities he should show it by leaving them to take the decisions. This Bill is not only mis-placed but mistimed. Local government is already fully stretched and in the face of pressures to reduce staff and cut costs this Bill will merely add new burdens. What is really needed is to get some confidence back into the building industry and money to finance it. Builders and developers rely on land as their main asset to get bank advances to finance their building. Can local authorities provide this finance? If not, the small builder may well be driven out of business for lack of capital with no collateral in the land to finance his workaday expenditure. But if local authorities do provide the finance they will have to take the risks
    1116
    of failure; and I suspect will tend to favour the large, well-established firms, again at the expense of the small builder who is such a vital cog in our construction industry. My Lords, I believe in the cobbler sticking to his last. Perhaps local authorities' great expertise in control and planning can be extended to development; but I doubt it.
    8.27 p.m.
    Earl FERRERS: My Lords, may I add my congratulations to the right reverend Prelate on his maiden speech and say how much we enjoyed it and how much I, for one, admired the dexterity with which he entered a debate on a highly controversial Bill but acceded to the Rules of Procedure and was in no way controversial. May I also pay my compliments to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and sympathise with her in what is an enormous task. Whatever she may feel about the contents of the Bill, my guess is that she probably hates it already. So there is a modicum of common ground, at least, between us. I had much sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Henley, when he made a mild but rapier-like rebuke to the noble Baroness for the way in which she introduced this Bill. We did not, or at least I did not, complain of the length of her speech, but the inference was that this was an awful bore, we had been through it all once before, and why had we to go through it all again. My first reaction, apart from the fact that I did not take part in the first Second Reading, is that Parliament has been put under appalling pressure with this Bill. We are always told we must get through things quickly. It happened with the Referendum Bill and now we have this Bill.
    The first thing the Government did was to introduce a No. 2 Bill so that it could run concurrently with the original Bill, and thus when it came to the Second Reading here we could dispose of it. I believe that to be a thoroughly objectionable practice, although one appreciates the reason why it was done. Then the Government produced the White Paper. I accept that this was supposed to be helpful, but it must he almost unprecedented for the Government to introduce a White Paper which contained the Bill as it went to the Report stage in another place, and included in it all the Government's Amendments but none of those of the Opposition, despite the fact that there

    1117
    were 275 Amendments yet to be considered. Although this may have been intended to be helpful, it shows a quite appalling disregard for the purpose of Parliament. When people become cynical about Parliament and bureaucracy, this kind of action gives ample justification for it.
    The proper Bill which we are now discussing appeared in the Printed Paper Office at only three o'clock this afternoon. As everybody knows, it is a complicated Bill. It is complicated for those who are professionals and it is devastating and desperate for the layman. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Henley—and what a pity it is that he has left the Chamber, because I am sure he would like to know that I agree with him—that it is not fair to your Lordships. Nor is it fair to advisers, whether in the Government or outside. Here is the noble Lord, Lord Henley. I was just saying how much I agreed with the noble Lord, but he has missed that gem. As I said, it is not fair to advisers, whether they are Government advisers or people outside. It is not fair to those people who will be affected by what has been described by the Minister as the most Socialist piece of legislation that this Government are likely to produce.
    It is not possible to deal with this Bill in the constructive and proper way in which it should be dealt with. It has now come to your Lordships' House, which is to go through the Bill like a dose of salts. There were 275 Amendments in another place and I understand that 300 Amendments have been put down here. Parliament is being asked to deal with approximately 600 Amendments in the course of two weeks, in the full knowledge that a mass of "unknown" is still left behind which civil servants are working on now—the regulations, the advisory notes, the circulars to local authorities, all of which this Bill invites and prescribes but about which nothing is as yet known. One just has to think of the unwritten and unscrutinised paper work which this involves. I, for one, regard it as an intolerable way to deal with any legislation, let alone major legislation, in Parliament. How can we make sure, if it is to work, that it works as well as possible? My sympathies go as much to the advisers of Her Majesty's Government as they do to anybody else.
    1118
    What is the root cause of all this? There is one reason—the meteoric rise in property values four years ago, a rise from which some people and institutions benefited. Because they have benefited, they have been classed almost as "spivs", or Rachmanites or almost as enemies of society. My noble friend Lord Sandford said that they were referred to almost as ill-gotten gains. But who are these people? They are not just a few already wealthy people; they are hundreds of thousands of people throughout the country who happened to own any property, even the smallest house. And what was their crime? They were affected by the market. Some of them took advantage of the market which happened to go up but which can, and has, gone down. Some who had to sell their property had the advantage of the market situation thrust upon them. That is the cause of this Bill.
    If it was wrong that there should have been that advantage, the fair and simple way to deal with it was by taxation. Having made people feel that in some ways they are anti-social the Government say, "Now we must get in on the act so that the community, not the individual, will benefit". They make the mistake of inferring that the local authority is synonymous with the community, and of inferring that the large profits of the past will be available in the future, that they will accrue to the benefit of the local authority and, so the inference goes, the rates or the taxes will thereby be lower. But will there be these profits?
    The Government have said that 14,000 people will be required to administer this Bill. Even on the Government's own admission, this is a staggering number of people, and I want to know where these 14,000 people will come from. Many of them are professional people. I have given notice to the noble Baroness that I shall ask this question, so I hope that she will be able to answer it. Are these people hanging about waiting to be employed, or will they be drawn from those who are already in private practice? I should like to know how many of these 14.000 will be land agents, surveyors, planners, lawyers, valuers, and how many will come under the aura of administrative staff.
    There are to be hardship tribunals. Again, where will these people be drawn

    1119
    from? Who will run them? How many will be required? Will they be run by inspectors or by QCs? How many people will constitute a tribunal and how many tribunals are likely to be set up? Once a person is a member of a tribunal, is that, rather like a profession, his job for the rest of his life? You join a tribunal and there you are. That may seem an absurd question to us, except that Clause 27 refers to the Secretary of State having the ability to give pensions to the members of tribunals. My belief is that the people are just not there. If they are not there, the Act will not work, and if they are the functions of the existing private sector will be grossly impeded.
    What will happen then? In order to avoid such disruption, inflation will be given a severe twist as increased salaries will be flung around on a competitive basis to try to retain people in their existing jobs. Under the old system, if there were profits they were put back into circulation—possibly by charities selling off part of their land and doing up their property; sometimes by individuals doing up their houses and thus giving work to the builders; possibly by a person buying a motor car and giving work to the motor car manufacturers; possibly even by buying stocks and shares and so putting money into industry. What they did not do, and what would have been wrong, was to put their money under the bed, because then their money went out of circulation.
    I do not believe that there will be these profits, nor do I believe that there will be anything to put back into circulation. Nobody will benefit, not even the community. Instead there will be an outrageous intrusion into the lives and property of individuals. There will be a massive demand for scarce professional resources. A huge bureaucratic labyrinth will be set up which nobody wants, which nobody understands, not even those who are obliged to make it work, and which will be insensitive to the individual and to common sense alike.
    At a time of major financial crisis when the Chancellor of the Exchequer is having to borrow money from abroad, it seems crazy to undertake a system which will require a capital cost of £1 million every single day to buy land and £1 million every single week to administer it. That is the Government's own estimate
    1120
    and one knows how often Government estimates are grossly undervalued. As my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley said, many aspects of the Bill will have an insidious effect on agriculture and will run counter to the expansion of the food industry, as has been demanded by the Government in their White Paper, Food From Our Own Resources. Many people engaged in agriculture right across the board, whether they are owners, owner-occupiers, tenants or work people, view with despondency the vice-like grip on the raw material of their industry which the Bill gives to the urban-orientated planners. All this, I suggest, is unnecessary. Taxation could have achieved what is required more fairly, simply and cheaply.
    My Lords, it was the Secretary of State who said that it would be tragic to embark on a social revolution only to end with a bureaucratic fiasco. I agree with him, and I think that is what he is likely to get.
    8.40 p.m.
    Lord GAINFORD: My Lords, first, it is my pleasure to add my congratulations to the right reverend Prelate. I was interested to hear his problems and worries about the Church, and I hope that should these arise in the future we of your Lordships' House will be able either to dispose of them or at least diminish them.
    My contribution is to nut forward some views of one category of person whose work is likely to be somewhat considerably influenced by this Bill, namely the local government officer. It is understood, if not actually feared, in some quarters, that this Bill will give wide powers to the Secretary of State and the local authorities. On a first consideration of the main points of the Bill, whatever power may be granted to any local authority the additional work involved will be very heavy. New departments or groups and sections inside existing Departments will have to be set up and staffed. I understand that in various local authorities there has been talk, and there have been fears and worries, about possible redundancies. Now it seems that the new schemes resulting from this Bill will need either new staff to be recruited or the present staff redeployed, having more work to do, to say nothing of possible overtime.

    1121
    Let us consider a few of the teams of men and women who will be required to deal with any plot of land, big or small, that comes within the scope of the Bill. I have noted six categories. First, we need an intelligence service for data on land ownership, acquisition and disposal. Secondly, we need accountancy for recording and considering all financial implications. Thirdly, we need the vital valuation for assessing the market, and current use and other land values that may be considered according to what use the land has been put to and what it will be required for. Then, fourthly, comes the legal part: all stages in obtaining, disposing of, or the development of, every plot of land will create many problems for the lawyers of many local authorities. Fifthly, there is the matter of acquisition and disposal. Finally, we come to the management of the land owned before disposal and land under leasehold, and the work involved in preparing land acquisition and management schemes. All these and other teams will involve much expense to organise and get into working order. There are some local authorities, particularly at county level, whose existing administrative staff may be able to deal with the situation at a comparatively quick rate but the cost to them all, at the very least, will be extremely heavy.
    Thinking back to the comments expressed in your Lordships' House on Monday, 13th October, when the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, made a Statement about this Bill, I think the protests about it being hurried through will now be shared by many local authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Byers, prophesied that we should make a hash of this Bill by rushing it through. Let us hope that any hash we make will not be so bad as he fears. But even if it is passed in this unwelcome hurry, those to whom powers are authorised will make an even worse hash if there is a rush to implement them. But I do not think this will happen. Putting this Bill into practice must be a slow process. We should remember that the local government officer need not be regarded as a tiresome, exacting official. He has a duty to find ways to help people when he has to wield his authority. He has to help them to try to meet their problems as well as telling them what has to be done.
    1122
    The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, feared that the authorities might be judge and prosecuting counsel and that there would be little opportunity for defence. I am speaking from experience, because I have been to many people in connection with building regulations and explained to them what must be done, I have had to listen to their stories of their difficulties in meeting the regulations, and then trying to find out the best way to sort out the problem. As they cannot work very fast, the one thing that is certain is that when this Bill is passed and becomes law you are not likely to find a local government officer knocking on your front door the next day. However, he will work as fast as he can, although not rushing headlong into the activities that this Bill requires.
    I should like to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, whether she can give any encouragement about the building industry. My noble friend Lord Gridley has expressed fears and prophesies about the worsening state of the trade. My work is in County Hall in the Architect's Department and my main concern is with what happens on building sites. I receive reports from clerks of works on the sites, with long lists of how many men are working there and what they are doing. Constantly I have to work out how many man-hours are spent, normal man-hours and overtime, and I also have to calculate how long it is likely that it will take to complete the building.
    It is very nice indeed when reports come in that more dwellings have been completed and handed over, but unfortunately, although we do not seem to have any lack of contractors coming forward to give their estimates, and smaller builders coming in as sub-contractors, it is very difficult to find a sufficient number of men to do all the work in the time required, and although the buildings are going up they are frequently well behind schedule. If the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, can give any encouragement to the building industry then, despite all the things I do not like about this Bill, at least there will be one good thing coming out of it.
    "More haste, less speed" is an obvious remark now with the implementation of this Bill, and I recall the words of the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, a

    1123
    former Chairman of the Greater London Council, on 4th August. He said:
    "My Lords, given a reasonable chance to bring the full scheme into operation in the gradual way—and that is the important point—which is proposed by the Government, local authorities are ready to accept the undoubted challenge offered them with every hope of success."—[Official Report; 4/8/75, col. 1391.]
    The surer way to get this Bill into progress is to make it work slowly, because the slower it is implemented the greater will be the efficiency.
    8.50 p.m.
    Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I should like to begin by adding my congratulations to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, and to say how much we all enjoyed his speech. We shall look forward to hearing from him on many occasions in the future. We have listened to an important Second Reading debate, and I should like to add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for making the time available for the debate, and for sending me the innumerable Government memoranda that have come out since 4th August. The noble Baroness criticised us for asking for a Second Reading debate on the grounds that it is totally unnecessary; she maintains we have already discussed the principles of the Bill. She said that the two principles behind it are, first, positive planning and, secondly, returning development value to the community. As I think has been well pointed out by almost everyone who has spoken in the debate, if these are the two principles behind the Bill—and I believe that to be true—it is, of course, totally unnecessary to have the Bill at all, because both things are capable of being carried out at present under existing law.
    Therefore, one might just as well argue that the whole Bill is unnecessary, as to argue that this Second Reading is unnecessary. Indeed, one might just as well argue that the Second Reading on 4th August was unnecessary on a Bill that was the most extraordinary hybrid, unheard of in this House before, and that the correct time to have had it was today when at least, even at three o'clock, we had the Bill which has been completed in the House of Commons. So I make no apology for having the debate today, because although I am making a debating point about the principles of
    1124
    the Bill, I take it far more seriously than that.
    I agree with the right honourable gentleman Mr. Crosland. I believe that this is the most important Bill, and the greatest measure of Socialism that this Government have yet produced, and because of that, it deserves to be taken very seriously indeed. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, nodding his head in agreement with me. Perhaps it is worth having a Second Reading debate to discuss the principles once again because they are well worth discussing more than once. Indeed, they will be discussed on many other occasions in the future, because being big and important principles—dare I say it even to your Lordships' House this evening?—we are unlikely to reach the final conclusions today, or in a Committee stage, or even in the course of the passage of the Bill at all.
    The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford raised extremely important points about Churches and charities. We have now had an opportunity to look for the first time at the Government's Amendments on these points. I hope very much that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, will take to heart the points made by the right reverend Prelate. I had the very great pleasure of speaking in a very important debate in this House in June on voluntary organisations. One of the very pleasing matters which came out of that debate was the tremendous area of agreement between both the Government and the Opposition on the need to strengthen the voluntary organisations in this country. This is necessary for a whole variety of reasons, not least the fact that in these very serious economic times, when, inevitably, there will be a fall in education services and statutory social services, we should look to voluntary organisations to fill the gaps left.
    There is no doubt at all from the memoranda I have received, not only from the Churches but also from the National Council of Social Service, that charities are very worried indeed about these proposals. As has already been pointed out by the right reverend Prelate, the limit of 10 years has already been reduced by one year, and is now only nine years, because it starts on 10th September 1974 which, of course, is White Paper day. By the time the Bill becomes law, which will not, in any event, be until the

    1125
    middle of November, and by the time it comes into effect, which might be 1st January, the limit will be reduced to eight and three-quarter years. Time is moving on very rapidly for the Churches and charities.
    I ask the Government to consider very seriously the claims that they make, because I believe that not only will the Bill seriously damage existing institutions, but it will also damage new charities which spring up quite frequently to meet some totally unexpected need that we cannot foresee now, and which will be damaged because they will not own any pre-White Paper day land at all. They can only have land or buildings that they can acquire currently. This is a Part of the Bill which needs close examination. I hope very much that the noble Baroness will take to heart what has been said, and will consider carefully the cost to the Churches and charities. On this side of the House, we will do all we can to support any representations that they may make, because we believe that their needs in every sense fulfil the needs of the community, often in ways that statutory organisations cannot do.
    The other matters in the Bill which I think deserve the closest attention on Committee stage have again been referred to this evening, and are matters which concern the rights of the individual. I accept that the Government have made Amendments on compulsory purchase orders and procedures at public inquiries. But the fact remains that a fundamental right that individuals have now to object at an inquiry on a compulsory purchase order is taken away from them in many instances. I accept that there are many cases in which a compulsory purchase order is right and necessary. I have often been on local government committees which have decided to acquire something compulsorily for a very good purpose. But, at the same time, there is an equal right of the individuals who are affected to object to a compulsory purchase. I should have thought that this fundamental right was something of which all of us in this country were proud, because it meant efficiency in Government and gave a democratic right to the individual—it balanced the two.
    Even after the Amendments of the Government, there will be no right of individuals to object where there is either
    1126
    an approved structure or a development plan. In this way, not only is a right taken away, but there are certain aspects in regard to which the legislation becomes retrospective, because most people have no idea whether there is a development plan in existence in the area in which they live, and if they move to a new area they will have no rights at all, because they will not even have had the right to object in the first place. The right honourable gentleman Mr. Silkin said in another place that to have two inquiries would be bureaucratic nonsense, but I think he has misunderstood the point. He is taking away the fundamental right which we must do our best to reconsider, because the position as it stands today is the right one and it ought not to be altered.
    We are again taking away the rights of individuals in the new type of local authority ventures called disposal notification areas. Here, we do not know what the local authority are necessarily going to do. We do not know that their rolling programmes will be published. We do not know whether individuals will wake up one morning and find themselves in a disposal notification area, where they cannot sell their house without telling the local authority that they are going to do so. It is easy to see what will happen to the value of their house. It is easy to see that something which people may have expected to have is being taken away from them.
    The Bill not only affects Churches and charities, but fundamentally affects pension funds. I should declare an interest now, because I have just been made a director of an insurance company. But there is no doubt that there are over 12 million people now covered by occupational pension schemes of one sort and another. The group of people growing most rapidly in these schemes are trade unionists, where large numbers have suddenly been brought into occupational pension schemes. This is something which I, at any rate, welcome very much. Pension funds depend very much on their investments, frequently in property, to keep up the value of the ultimate pension that someone will receive. There is no doubt that they are very concerned at the effect that this Bill will have on future pensions. Therefore, I think that the Bill fundamentally attacks the rights of individuals on their retirement.

    1127
    My Lords, perhaps there is one other aspect which both the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and I may suffer from. I suspect that, like myself, she is not very knowledgeable about agriculture. I may be mistaken in this. She may find it a subject as difficult to master as I do, but I think she cannot have failed to be impressed by the arguments that have been put forward this evening by my noble friends Lord Ferrers, Lord Digby and Lord Stanley of Alderley, all of whom are very knowledgeable on this matter. One thing I think we all share in common in this country today is the knowledge of the fact that we need to import half the food we eat, and that one of the ways we can help ourselves, our standard of living, our cost of living, our balance of payments, is to produce more food in this country. When the major criticism of so much of industry is that there is a shortage of investment, it seems an absolute tragedy that this Bill should attack the basis of farming, of what is without doubt one of the most efficient farming industries in the world, and one of the most efficient industries in this country; there is no doubt at all that the farming community are deeply disturbed.
    So, too, of course, are local authorities. One might expect them to be satisfied with the Bill, but the number of memoranda I have had from them over the summer indicates that what might have been a Bill which they would have liked and in many ways would give them increased powers is threatened by the extensive reserve powers of the Secretary of State. This is a very serious matter and I endorse the argument put forward by my noble friend Lord Sandford. It has denied to so many local authorities, and to the communities in them, the power to participate in the decisions which are being taken, and has threatened them, if they fail to carry out the provisions of the Bill, with a total takeover by the Secretary of State.
    I am very concerned, too, about the position of amenity societies. Under the Bill wide discretionary powers are given to local authorities to acquire land, and although subsequent amendments have been made saying that local authorities must have regard to the development plan, this is so vague a term as to be
    1128
    virtually meaningless. At a great many public inquiries—and the noble Lord, Lord Henley, who is such an authority on the world of amenity societies, will know this—many plans have been altered by amenity societies speaking on matters to do with the improvement of the environment. The fact that they will be denied this opportunity in many cases and that their views will be virtually ignored can in no way be conducive to better planning.
    My Lords, I hope that I have said enough to indicate that we on this side of the House take this Bill very seriously indeed. It is a fundamental Bill. It is a Bill that strikes at the fundamental rights of individuals in this country. We shall move a series of Amendments designed to maintain the rights that individuals now have, and where possible to extend them. I shall be moving Amendments to ask for legal aid for those who appear at public inquiries, because the legislation is now so complicated that it is asking too much of an individual to understand it without the advice of a solicitor. It is, after all, difficult enough for us, who at least have some experience in reading legislation and in trying to follow subjects, without asking the millions of owner-occupiers in this country to do the same in very complicated situations. We shall, therefore, be moving Amendments on the public inquiry procedure, and on many other aspects that have been debated this evening. I hope that the Government will listen to them and will appreciate that what we are trying to do is to defend rights which at present exist and which are being taken away.
    My Lords, I should like to hope that the fear of the noble Lord, Lord Henley—that the Bill is unworkable—is true. I should also like to hope, as the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, said in August, that it will only gradually be implemented. But if organisations and individuals are still worried this is not really surprising. The fact is that we have seen a Bill full of dictatorial powers altered in a lot of detail, but I do not believe that the spirit that activates it has altered at all.
    I was astonished to read in the report of the debate in another place of Tuesday 14th October, these words coming

    1129
    from the right honourable Minister, Mr. Silkin. He was replying to an Amendment that would have extended the time in which local authorities are required to prepare plans for land acquisition and management. It now appears that these plans must be ready by the 31st December, and it is easy to see that, as we have only just started this Bill in this place, they will have at the most six weeks, out of which will have to be taken the Christmas holiday. My honourable friend Mr. Raison was moving an Amendment to extend this period, and Mr. Silkin said this:
    "If they …"
    —that is the local authorities—
    "… are not prepared to do this by 31st December, my right honourable friend …"
    —that is Mr. Crosland—
    "… is prepared to do it for them. My right honourable friend has quite a lot of power in this matter. Not only can he step in, he can create organisations that can step in, and he can even find other local authorities who would be prepared to step in on this issue. I am sorry that it is early in the morning because I would like every local authority that is deliberately dragging its heels to listen to what I have to say. They know perfectly well, and have known for the past eight months or so, that this is exactly what the situation would be."
    My Lords, those are the words of the Minister before the Bill becomes law. What will they be like when it is law?
    9.7 p.m.
    Baroness BIRK: My Lords, in view of the tenor of the debate, I think perhaps I should start with something on which we are all entirely agreed and add my congratulations and gratitude to the right reverend Prelate for his very interesting maiden speech. I listened very carefully to what he said, took it to heart and soul. In view of the fact that the Minister is meeting the Committee from the Churches tomorrow, I think it would be far better if I did not attempt to pre-empt or guess at what will take place there, but I hope that a great many of these matters will be resolved to the right reverend Prelate's satisfaction.
    The most extraordinary thing about this debate—and I take the point made with some charm by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers—is that in fact nothing new has arisen. We have been over exactly the same ground as we went over on 4th August. I must say I appreciate that we
    1130
    have given the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, a chance to speak, and the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, as he put it, the chance to make the most important speech of his life. The only trouble with that line of thought is that if we were to continue to do that we should have innumerable Second Readings on every piece of legislation until everybody had had a chance to have their way, and we could not operate in that way. What struck me forcefully was the rather macabre, almost panic way we were told we were having reds behind every blade of grass on the one hand, while we were also told by the noble Marquess and the noble Lord, Lord Henley, the Bill was so authoritarian. If that were the position we should not need to have all this discussion.
    Lord HENLEY: My Lords, it was not me who said that.
    Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will forgive me. He was going very much at the beginning on hearsay evidence. He was reporting what his noble friend Lord Foot was supposed to have said, which was entirely different from what I understood the noble Lord to have said to me earlier this afternoon.
    Lord HENLEY: My Lords, if the noble Baroness cares to go through my noble friend's speech on 4th August she will see that I have reported him not by hearsay but exactly.
    Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I was referring to what he said to me this afternoon. As it was in the Prince's Chamber perhaps I ought to consider it privileged and not refer to it any more.
    Lord HENLEY: The Prince's Bar?
    Baroness BIRK: No, my Lords, the Prince's Chamber; so I shall not say anything more about that. If this measure were as authoritarian as noble Lords have suggested, then, as has been pointed out by some noble Lords, we should not need as complicated a measure as we have, with such enormous trouble taken and with such a vast amount of consultation. On the other hand, noble Lords who grumble that it is so complicated would be the first to jump into resentment if they felt that everything was not spelt out. What they have been asking for all the way through is in fact being

    1131
    spelt out in the Bill. This is what in fact the Amendments consist of, which I was explaining when I opened this debate this evening. This has lengthened the Bill, but it has been in response to what the Government have been asked to do.
    The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, referred to the unknown god who had conceived this amended Bill, who had produced it, and he would like to know who it was. May I say that it is a combination of the reasoning, listening power, and consultations of a Labour Government. So that is the answer to that mystery. I felt at one point that I had the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, a little on our side. I listened with great interest, and he was kind enough to give me notice in advance of his feeling about Wales. I explained then and—I shall not go into it at great length now because no doubt it will appear again at some point before us—that Wales, we consider, is a small unit, and much more self-contained than the other countries. I got the feeling from him that, unlike the rest of the speakers on his side, so far as giving power to the local authorities was concerned he was very happy about it. All he was unhappy about was that Wales did not conic into this scheme.
    Probably the saddest part from my point of view about this debate is that while I am sure noble Lords have taken the trouble to read the Bill, and they talk about its objectives, they deliberately do not want to understand what it is about. I really must return to the objectives. They are positive planning plus community ownership. I shall not go into detail about this because I went into it in considerable and, I thought, extremely clear detail on the Second Reading on the 4th August. To say that this operation can be achieved by tax is certainly not enough, because we take the view that the important thing is the ownership of the land and the opportunity to plan positively. There is a tremendous difference between that and the present situation, when local authorities have the opportunity of negative planning, of stopping things, but do not have, to the extent that they should, the opportunity to plan their areas for the future, and this is really what we are talking about.
    Frankly, whichever way one looks at it, those who say that the Bill is not
    1132
    workable really do not want it to be workable, and if it were workable and could be made workable then they do not like the principle, and over and above everything noble Lords opposite are determined to ensure that it is made unworkable by saying, even before there is a chance for it to come into being, that they will repeal it. If we really want to do something about land in this country, by talking like that and not even giving it a chance to get off the ground, noble Lords opposite are killing it before it has a possible opportunity.
    On Second Reading on 4th August I went into considerable detail on the question of phasing, yet it would appear from what we have heard from noble Lords opposite that that debate did not take place, even though it was a debate in which 22 noble Lords took part including a number from this side of the House, and at the end of it my noble friend replied in a most expert and comprehensive way. Despite that, we are treated to these diatribes which conclude that whether it be manpower, finance or anything else, it will all happen straight away. The second appointed day, when the whole phasing period has been gone through, may be anything up to 10 years hence, yet noble Lords opposite are still talking as though it is all going to happen immediately, on the first appointed day. Incidentally, the first appointed day will not be in January, but probably some time in the spring.
    The public acquisition of land is hardly abnormal, but what is abnormal is the way in which noble Lords opposite are blaming everything—not only what is happening to builders, and I will come to that subject shortly—on a Bill that has not yet been enacted. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, went through almost every ill that has attacked society in the last few decades, if not centuries, and appeared to be blaming them not only on the legislation which has already been passed by the present Government but by every former Government, including Tory Governments. They are blaming the Bill for the present situation in all manner of things, including agriculture, industry and building. You name it, noble Lords opposite blame it on a measure that is not yet on the Statute Book. This really is absolute nonsense, if noble Lords will forgive my saying so.
    Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: My Lords, the noble Baroness may think it nonsense, but that is not how we think. At the end of the day we will produce the food and if we do not like it, we will stop producing the food. The noble Baroness may not like what I am saying, but it happens to be true.
    Baroness BIRK: I was speaking about another part of the noble Lord's speech. I agree completely here with the noble Baroness, Lady Young; I, too, am not an expert in agricultural matters, but as I understand the issue on which the noble Lord just intervened, the point he is making probably depends on the size of piggery and not on the size of the pig, and if I may I will write to him on that specific point because I do not want to get it wrong. The noble Lord did me a great service because I had forgotten to mention agriculture, for this is another area where noble Lords opposite have blamed this Bill, which is not yet on the Statute Book, for the state of British agriculture at the moment. This is plain nonsense !
    I was fascinated when the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, let the Amendment cat out of the Committee bag when he said that we are to be faced with over 300 Amendments from the Opposition, so it is clear that there will be plenty of opportunity to take up all the points that have been made, including, I imagine—if this extraordinary debate tonight is followed—Amendments which will attempt to deal with pieces of legislation and structures in our society entirely outside the Community Land Bill. So far as agriculture is concerned, I stress—as this has been mentioned by many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Digby, the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers—that the Bill will not affect the rate at which agricultural land comes into development. In exercising their functions, authorities must have regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry and I am sure that noble Lords are aware that at a much earlier stage in the passage of this Bill there were consultations, concessions were made and agreement was reached on some agricultural matters. We intend to amend the General Development Order to provide for consultation with the Minister of Agriculture for acquisitions of over 10 acres of agricultural land. I welcome the
    1134
    concern for agriculture shown by noble Lords opposite, but I cannot resist pointing out that it was they who, when in Government in 1973, removed the provision for consultation with the Minister of Agriculture under Article 11(2) of the General Development Order, and that it was they who ordered the presumption on white land to come into one in favour of housing development, in the White Paper, Widening the Choice: the Next Steps in Housing. Whatever the merits of that—and I shall not discuss that point because I can see the arguments in favour of housing but they were nevertheless hardly calculated to help agriculture—I believe that this is something they should be concerned about when they are talking about agriculture now and in the future.
    I also found most extraordinary the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, and others on the question of building and the property market. The noble Lord quite rightly referred to the difficult state of that market and to the bankruptcy of developers and builders, but all this has not happened as the result of a Bill which is still not yet on the Statute Book. It happened during the period we are in now with the operation of a free market. It seems to me that developers and property people can hardly have found the operations of the crazy boom and collapse syndrone in land a gilt-edged testimonial to the advantages of the free market. When noble Lords talk as they have done about housing, this is really extremely irresponsible, because the problem with housing has been because of building and the fact, as Maurice Ash pointed out in his letter in The Times, that it is building margins and the costing of housing which have been the problem. All that can result from the Bill when it becomes law will be a far better attempt at planning and at allocating land so that there will be more chance of building.
    I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, mentioned the support of the Bill from the Sand and Gravel Association and the parish councils, but he forgot to mention a few other important bodies, though I am sure that this was a pure slip of the memory. For instance, the Bill now commands broad support from the Royal Town Planning Institute and the Town and Country Planning Institute,

    1135
    from the Sports Council and—and this is extremely important—the Central Council for Physical Recreation, which now supports it in the light of what has been said about amenity. I recognise the anxiety that many people felt about the effect of the Bill on recreational land. Even though I would not claim the wholehearted support of the Confederation of British Industry—that would be going a bit too far—or of the Housebuilders' Association, their attitude towards the Bill has nevertheless changed substantially since the Government's proposals for exempt and excepted development. I am sure that the same will be true of many other bodies when they have fully considered our proposals.
    I do not intend to make a long speech now, as I made a short speech at the beginning and I feel that we have had a fairly full, if not very satisfactory, debate. Probably we shall have days more discussion in Committee also. All I would say is that in the recent and not so recent past, this House has shown a very remarkable and inspiring lead in social reform in many measures. In some ways it has had the edge on the other place. It would be a great pity if, in this area of social justice in which the future of our country, the shape of our communities, and the distribution of land (which is a very scarce commodity) are at stake, your Lordships' House should return to the antediluvian impression that a great many people had of it; and indeed still have, sometimes quite wrongly. But if the attitude to the Bill and its treatment is such as has been suggested from what has been said tonight, I am afraid that this will not only do great harm to the Bill, and will make the passing of it even more difficult—although it will go through—but will also do great harm to this House—
    Earl FERRERS: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, would she be kind enough to give the answer to the question of which I gave her private notice beforehand?
    Baroness BIRK: I beg the noble Earl's pardon; I got rather carried away on the wider issues. I think the noble Earl is referring to the hardship tribunals—
    Earl FERRERS: I have in mind the 14,000 people employed—
    Baroness BIRK: I am sorry. I did deal with that, although I did so rather quickly. I included this when referring to one of the matters which I said noble Lords were taking for granted would happen immediately; and it was all part of the phasing. The matter which the noble Earl has in mind comes into what I have already said regarding phasing, but I shall repeat it. The figure of 14,000 is a projected figure, after the second appointed day when we have reached the state of current use value. We do not start off with employing 14,000 people. It has been made quite clear in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister that, to start with, local authorities must see how they can best deploy the work forces they have. In many cases they will be sharing expert help, and the staff will gradually build up according to the amount of work. I do not propose to give way again on this point, because it will come out in Committee, but that is the answer—
    Earl FERRERS: I am sorry, my Lords; I did not mean to interrupt the noble Baroness. But I did ask her—and I gave previous notice of this—whether she could give the break-down of how this figure of 14,000 is split up as between land agents, valuers, surveyors and others. That is what people want to know.
    Baroness BIRK: My Lords, it is quite impossible at this stage to give that information. If I gave some arbitrary figures, noble Lords would be quite right in asking how I was able at this stage to say that there would be so many lawyers needed and so many land agents needed. That would be the most extravagant and wrong way to go about it.
    We have to take some figure in staff numbers, but I cannot at this stage say how the break-down works out. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is right; it is still a notional figure. This may not be the figure. At present it is a general outside figure. But it is thought that about one-third of that number will have to be highly skilled workers, while the others will tend to be in clerical and other grades.
    I turn to the other point of which the noble Earl gave me notice, regarding the hardship tribunals. This is another matter which will not come into being until we reach the second appointed day, and so

    1137
    it is very far ahead. But here again, supposing we did not make provision for that, I am quite certain that the noble Earl—we may not agree politically, but he has a sympathetic manner, and so I expect he has a sympathetic disposition as well—would be one of the first to ask what provision we would make in cases of hardship that would possibly, and could probably, arise in any scheme, no matter how careful we were.
    Therefore we have inserted the provisions dealing with this matter, but it would be wrong for me to start thinking up—and it is not there, so I would have to be thinking it up—the detail of how this is composed. This makes me feel that I was entirely right in what I explained when I opened the debate. I accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Young said: that we have been over this course before. We went over it on 4th August. We have not got any further forward with it; the same arguments have been deployed, and we are getting bogged down on the sort of detail which should, and no doubt will, arise during the Committee stage.
    On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.