LORDS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 16 November 1976)

§ Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 69, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 70. The Government are anxious to see proper co-ordination between the new Corporations and publicly-owned companies in Northern 1242 Ireland which are carrying out the same activities. I hope that I have been able to make that clear to the noble Viscount and his noble friends. We believe that Clause 48 tabled at Report in another place by members of the Party opposite should secure this objective so far as British Shipbuilders and Harland and Wolff are concerned. The Government accepted the argument made by your Lordships that the principle is just as important for the aircraft industry in Great Britain and Northern Ireland and therefore brought forward an Amendment during Report stage in this House which extends the scope of the clause to cover British Aerospace and Short Brothers and Harland.

I should make it clear that the clause as it is extended, and as it has been agreed by another place, in no way departs from the independence of the Northern Ireland companies. But it should ensure that the Corporations and the Northern Ireland companies are in a better position to face foreign competition. However, the intended requirement in your Lordships' Amendment No. 69, that the same information and facilities should be made available to Shorts and to Harland and Wolff as to the Corporations' wholly-owned subsidiaries, could go much beyond what we consider desirable. The Amendment could result in integrating the activities of these companies in the new Corporations.

As I have explained on numerous occasions, the Government are opposed to this because we feel strongly that these firms should continue to be considered primarily in the context of Northern Ireland. Of course there is a need for co-ordination. Hence our acceptance of Clause 48 and our Amendment to extend it to aerospace. In this way the two companies can retain the separate identities, which we believe they should have without becoming isolated from the industry in Great Britain. However, for the reasons I have given now and when your Lordships last discussed the Amendment, I would ask the noble Lords not to insist on Amendment No. 69.

Viscount ROCHDALE

My Lords, I shall be very brief but, as I moved the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, there are one or two things that I really must say. I believe that my noble friend Lord Brookeborough and I who first put down the Amendment would wish to say how glad we are that the Amendment to incorporate Short Brothers and Harland has been maintained by another place. I have always assumed that in matters dealing with Northern Ireland all Governments follow a bipartisan policy. In view of the fact that the noble Lord is Minister of State in the Northern Ireland Office, I should not wish to embarrass him in anything that I may say. On the other hand, I think that the noble Lord must be careful not to take undue advantage of that latitude, and the fact that he acquiesces in the line that the Commons have taken to delete our Amendment makes it rather difficult for us.

If the Bill had been an entirely non-controversial one, and if all Parties had agreed that a certain line of action had to be taken which would have adversely affected Northern Ireland, that might have been permissible, if it was seen to be in the general national interest. But as we all know, this is a highly controversial Bill, and if one has a highly controversial Bill and one allows in it something that will damage interests in Northern Ireland just to make it easier for Party political matters to go through in the rest of the country, that is not right. That is rather how one sees the line that has been taken on our Amendment. I should not have thought that it can help the credibility of the noble Lord when he wears his other hat in Belfast.

However, I do not intend to pursue this matter further, but I should like to look for a moment at the Reason given by another place for not agreeing with the Amendment. The Reason refers to excess integration. The noble Lord himself referred to those words. The word "integration", whether or not it is excessive, has never been mentioned, and I claim that nothing in our Amendment would bring about integration. The fact that these two words have been used makes me realise all the more that the Amendment has not really been studied and understood. However, the noble Lord has given certain assurances that 1244 it is the Government's intention that there should be a degree of co-ordination.

In conclusion, I would say merely that I very much hope that those who have to operate this clause in their day-to-day work will consider very carefully what has been said on this Amendment, and will consider the reasons for the Amendment which were given in considerable detail at both Committee stage and the Report stage, and will then do their utmost to use such discretion as their political leaders allow them to minimise the very genuine fears which we on this side of the House have as to how it may affect the companies.