LORDS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 16 November 1976)

§ Lord McCLUSKEY
My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 17 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 18. Your Lordships will recall that I spoke about this when dealing with Amendment No. 8.

§ Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL
My Lords, I should like to say a few words about this specific Amendment so as not to get it muddled up with the other one with which the noble and learned Lord dealt. We on this side welcome the Government at least paying lip service to the need to have the power to respond rapidly and to have the ability to exploit market opportunities. One of our fears is that the working of the market place may be irreparably damaged if it is dominated by large State-owned Corporations, such as are brought into being by the passing of the Bill. I was also glad that the noble and learned Lord admitted that there was a conflict between proper Parliamentary control and on the other hand sufficient independence in the nationalised Corporations to ensure commercial flexibility. This is another of our misgivings about the principle of nationalisation.
The noble and learned Lord admits that under the Bill the Secretary of State is getting a considerable extension of powers, and in justification he claims that these are general powers and not specific powers. I should like to suggest to him that even if that is true℄and I am not suggesting that it is anything else℄if the Bill is read as a whole, one cannot escape the conclusion that throughout the Bill there is a great extension of the Secretary of State's powers beyond anything which we have seen in previous Statutes. I am not again taking the point that we should slavishly follow precedent, because I am sure we all accept that we have to maintain a degree of flexibility (in the sense that I should like to use that word) and react to evolving situations, which happen in 1148 the world of Government just as they do anywhere else. What I am saying is that, surely, if we are going to extend these powers we should at least consider the possibility that we need a corresponding increase in Parliamentary control. I should like to end up by asking the noble and learned Lord the simple question: Does he not think that it is really rather inconsistent of the Government to resist the strengthening of Parliamentary control in harness with the extension of Governmental powers?

Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE
My Lords, I do not really understand this kind of system, not having been in this House for very long. Am I entitled to say something?

§ Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL
Yes

Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE
I merely want to support the Amendment, to insert subsection (3A), because I think it tremendously important that Parliament, both the Commons and the Lords, should not be weakened in any way. That is not to say that I necessarily always agree with what the present Government do, but I do not think it would be in the interests of democracy if we never had any disagreement. Anyway, I do not think that we ought to eliminate Parliament; and when any question of importance is raised, then I think it is important that there should be resolutions in both the Commons and the Lords.
What interests me is that the Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason: Because it would greatly restrict the Corporations' ability to respond quickly to new commercial opportunities". My Lords, I was in another place for 38 years, and whether my own Government or the Labour Government, I always felt that they were not really very quick anyhow. I should have wanted them to have been much quicker; and to me it seems absolutely ridiculous to say, greatly restrict the Corporations' ability to respond quickly". They may feel like that in another place now, but many people there, both in my Party and in the Government Party, have no idea of the length of time it 1149 often takes the responsible Minister to arrive at any quick decision. I think it is a most ridiculous Reason—and I mean ridiculous.
I sometimes feel that I am a little too outspoken in this House. I always like to do things politely, but I like to state my own views, and I have every intention of stating them. I think the Reason which has been put forward by the Commons is perfectly ridiculous and I just wanted to say that. I hope to goodness that on one or two occasions, anyhow, my side of the House will vote. I like my words recorded in Hansard. I think it is not very good always to come forward with excellent views and then not to vote on them, because I do not think the country understands that. I sometimes think that when the country hears on the media, or reads in the newspapers, what goes on here they really wonder that the House of Lords is after. If you state you are against something, you ought to be able to vote against it, and I should like to do that. I think this is a most ridiculous thing that has come from the Commons, and I do not really think we ought to allow that ridiculous Reason to be put into Hansard without somebody opposing it.

§ Lord McCLUSKEY
My Lords, I do not know whether I should say anything which will stiffen the resolve of noble Lords opposite to force this matter to a vote. I think we are agreed—and I would certainly agree with the noble Lord who spoke, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal—that the effect of the Amendment would necessarily be to cause delay. I think we are also agreed that what is needed in the broad national interest is to ensure that the Corporations are able, with the commercial speed of response which noble Lords would praise in other contexts, to extend their activities into related fields; that is, related to the product, to the technical skills, know-how, assets or other resources of the main business. So we are at one on that; and surely the noble Baroness would also acknoweldge that, if on each occasion the Corporation had to go to the Secretary of State and thereafter the Secretary of State had to have a Resolution approved by each House of Parliament, that would be liable to cause what in some cases would be an intolerable and possibly damaging delay.

Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE
My Lords, would the noble and learned Lord allow me one moment? I am very grateful. I think probably the noble Lord is aware that I have already said that I am surprised that the Secretary of State does not drop dead, because he is asked to do so much. I should not like any Secretary of State to drop dead from overwork; but I do not agree with what the noble and learned Lord is saying at all, and I am very glad to have the opportunity to say so. I mean—

Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE
Because it is putting too much responsibility on the Secretary of State, that is no reason why Parliament, both in another place and here, should not have the right to say something. I do not like things happening about which Parliament, both Houses, have not the right to say something.

§ Lord McCLUSKEY
My Lords, I do not know whether it would improve the chances of survival of a Secretary of State if he had always to come forward to both Houses for an Affirmative Resolution. The other matter that the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, dealt with was the extension of powers. Here one is simply building upon experience. The experience of previous nationalisation Statutes and of the operation of these industries has indicated that the powers can be improved, and that is what has been sought to be done in different parts of this Bill.