HL Deb 08 June 1978 vol 392 cc1463-73

7.5 p.m.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Wallace of Coslany.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

The Lord AMHERST OF HACKNEY in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [The Co-operative Development Agency]:

Lord ROCHESTER moved an Amendment: Page 1, line 13, at end insert ("and such other persons or representatives of other organisations as he may think fit.").

The noble Lord said: The purpose of the Amendment before us is simply to record in the Bill an assurance which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, speaking on behalf of the Government, was, as I understood it, kind enough to give to me at Second Reading, when he responded to the hope I then expressed that in appointing a chairman and members of the Co-operative Development Agency, the Secretary of State would prove willing to consult not only, as is now provided for in Clause 1(3), …with persons appearing to him to represent the interests of the co-operative movement", but also with others having the interests of the co-operatives at heart, even though they might not themselves be members of that movement.

In replying to the debate on that occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, assured me that the Government were sympathetic to the views which I then expressed, and he confirmed that the Secretary of State's consultations would not be necessarily or exclusively restricted to those having a formal connection with the Co-operative movement. This Amendment, therefore, is deliberately framed in terms as wide and permissive as I could muster, so that it is left to the Secretary of State to determine who are the people or the representatives of organisations other than the Co-operative movement whom he might consult, and then only if he thinks fit.

It may be said that, since I have already been given this verbal assurance, that should suffice for my purpose. It is not that I mistrust the noble Lord, Lord Wallace—on the contrary I have every reason to trust him thoroughly following our connection on a number of matters that have been debated recently—but Governments come and go and Ministers with them. I therefore prefer to put the matter the other way round and to submit that since an assurance on the lines of the Amendment before us has already been given by the Government, there seems to be no good reason why the recording of that assurance in the Bill should be resisted.

There is a further small point to bear in mind, but I do not want to make much of it. During the short time when the Agency is expected to be dependent for finance on the Government—and we must all hope, as was said on Second Reading, that within a period of three years or so the Agency will be able to stand on its own feet—its members may need, for one reason or another, to he replaced by other people. Presumably, once established, the consultative procedure that I am now proposing in this Amendment would serve as a precedent in the case of any such new appointments that prove necessary. Throughout the time that it is in a dependent state, the Agency can surely only gain from the proposed widening of the area of consultation concerning its membership, so that as much relevant experience as possible is available to the Secretary of State in this regard.

I think it will be accepted by all members of the Committee who took part in the Second Reading debate on this Bill that both my Party and I myself are wholeheartedly in support of the Bill in principle. In my view, it is important that we should, if possible, maintain a consensus in the passage of the Bill through all its stages in your Lordships' House. Therefore, I very much hope that no dispute will arise among us on this question, and indeed that this Amendment will be supported by other members of the Committee and will be willingly accepted by the Government. I beg to move.

7.12 p.m.

Viscount LONG

Now that we have the Chamber to ourselves, we can debate this Amendment very quietly while everybody else is having dinner. Before I turn to the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, I should like to correct something that I said on Second Reading. I believe that I put several noughts after the figure four, and I apologise to the Committee for not correcting myself. I think that it was my hearing that was at fault, and of course I meant not 400, but only four.

Having said that, I should like to say that I supported this Bill on Second Reading, although there seems to be a certain amount of criticism levelled at me for not doing so. What I wanted to say, and what I did say, was that I wholly supported the idea, because I believe in free enterprise and in groups of people being able to get together somehow or other to form small joint ventures in industry or whatever it may be. So I did agree to this Bill, but was probably misunderstood.

I have a great deal of sympathy for the Amendment before us, and I quite understand the way in which the noble Lord has put it. His Party has argued about it in another place, and there is a great deal of thinking behind it. I understand that, under the Bill, the Secretary of State will be able to appoint, persons appearing to him to represent the interests of the co-operative movement, which rather suggests that that is as far as it goes, and the idea behind the Amendment is to be able to include persons in other organisations in order to advance the situation in regard to the Agency. It is important to realise that what we have been doing in industry in past years is trying to get the young and new brains into the boardrooms, in order to make industry in this country more progressive.

Where I am a little nervous—and, as I said, I support the Amendment—is about whether, if the movement wished to borrow money or to be granted a loan through the Secretary of State, someone might say, "I know someone who must come in on this." In that case, the movement might have its arm twisted and be forced to take in someone it did not want. If great care is not taken, some kind of industrial whizz-kid could be brought in, which could be very harmful to the Co-operative movement or to the Agency. I am trying to see the worst side of what could happen.

I am hopeful that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, who was very kind to us all on Second Reading, will be able to help the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and will see whether he can agree, in some way or another, to this Amendment. It will be helpful to the Co-operative movement if this Amendment can be allowed, but the Bill states that the Secretary of State can nominate certain persons and, for the sake of safety, that is as far as it should go. Although I am not against the Amendment, I should like to add that caution. I am anxious only that we should not destroy a very great movement by adopting a too flexible attitude and allowing someone to come in who could harm it. I leave it at that. I shall be interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, says, and I hope that he will be able to strike a balance.

7.18 p.m.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, for his contribution and for his Amendment, which I shall deal with in a moment. But may I first deal with what was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Long. With all my connection with the Co-operative movement, which is not so deeply entrenched as that of some noble Lords in this House, I simply cannot visualise a whizz-kid entering that movement. So many people have risen from the ranks to managership and directorship that the whole set-up is contrary to the whizz-kid concept. Therefore I think that the noble Viscount can be completely assured on that point. Another point which is affected by this Amendment is that, once the Agency is established, it can itself from time to time suggest changes in its operations and procedures. It can make its suggestions for the approval of Ministers and of Parliament. That point was made on Second Reading.

May I now come to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. I completely sympathise with the objective of the noble Lord, which is entirely in line with the Government's intention that the Secretary of State should be able to consult with persons outside the Co-operative movement about appointments. I made that point on Second Reading. There is no question whatever about that. Consultation will be widespread. The Government welcome constructive suggestions from any organisation or any individual.

There is, however, a conceptual difficulty about the Amendment as drafted. One might describe it—I assure the noble Lord that no offence is intended—as a logical nonsense to impose upon the Secretary of State a duty to do what he sees fit. A duty to do what he likes is hardly a duty in any meaningful sense. However, I fully appreciate the spirit in which the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, has moved the Amendment. It is a serious attempt to strengthen and improve an important aspect of the Bill. Therefore, in the event of the Amendment being withdrawn the Government would be prepared to have another look at this point. I must make it clear, and I am sure that the noble Lord will accept this, that the Government would do so entirely without commitment. If, however, we could on reconsideration devise an appropriate form of words to incorporate the noble Lord's intentions, a Government Amendment would be put down for consideration on Report, and we should welcome any helpful assistance that the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, was able to give.

I am somewhat doubtful as to whether we shall be able to overcome the difficulty to which I have referred, but I make the offer to reconsider the matter in good faith and hope that this course will commend itself to your Lordships' Committee. I know that it is difficult to prepare legislation, and the Parliamentary draftsmen have a tremendous task and responsibility. There are times, however, when complications and difficulties can be solved by a simple suggestion. That is where laymen can sometimes come into the picture, and I very much hope that this will be the case.

The Government would like to find a solution because we know what the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, wants and we welcome the contribution made by the noble Viscount, Lord Long, who supported the general idea. I shall leave it at that. The Government will do what they can before the Report stage to achieve the result which the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, wants. There are difficulties, but I think that it is possible that we may be able to overcome them.

Viscount LONG

I apologise for having used the phrase "whizz-kid". These "fly-by-nights" in business worry me, and we have seen a great deal of this. I apologise for using that word, but I think that the sense in which I used it was fully understood.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

Yes, it was.

Viscount LONG

I am grateful to the noble Lord.

Lord ROCHESTER

I am most grateful both to the noble Viscount, Lord Long, and to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, for the way in which they have received this Amendment. If I may deal with one or two of the points which were made by the noble Viscount and correct a misapprehension or two, this Amendment was not argued in another place. To the best of my knowledge, nothing on precisely these lines has until now come before either House. Indeed, had the matter been argued in another place I do not think that I should have been putting forward the Amendment. It would have seemed to me to be an improper course, because it would have meant that there had already been argument on this issue in another place and that we in this House were seeking to override the conclusion reached there. So this is a new point.

Secondly, the Amendment has to do only with the process of consultation that goes on over the appointment of the chairman and members of the Agency. It has nothing to do with the financing of the Agency and it has nothing to do, per se, with the composition of the Agency. Therefore, it does not create any danger, as I see it, of anybody coming into the movement who may be averse to it. It has to do only with this limited process of consultation.

I was glad to hear that both the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, and the Government are in complete sympathy with the principle that underlies the Amendment which I have moved and with the intention to which it seeks to give expression. I am bound to say that I do not quite recognise the force of the difficulty to which the noble Lord referred, but I should be the last person to claim for myself any expertise in the matter of Parliamentary draftsmanship—far from it.

If, indeed, it is the case that minds more accomplished in these matters than my own see a "logical nonsense", as I believe the noble Lord put it, in the precise terms of this Amendment, then I am only too happy to grasp the hand that I think he held out to me. If an accommodation can be reached between us which enables another Amendment, having the same purpose but framed in a somewhat different way, and upon which we may all agree, to come before your Lordships at the Report stage, then I shall be only too happy. For I meant what I said. I believe that it is important that throughout the passage of this Bill there should be a consensus among us.

I want this Bill to be placed on the Statute Book without delay. I do not think that there is even the need for me to reserve the right in some sense to come back to this question on Report. Because of the terms in which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, has spoken, I believe it is understood that we shall return to it then, and I hope very much, together with the noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, that we may then reach agreement. Having said that, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 [Powers of Agency]:

On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord ROCHESTER

This is the moment at which I should like to give the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, the opportunity to comment, if he will be so kind, on a further point which I raised in our debate at Second Reading and which, he will recall, had to do with the question of whether the Agency could be empowered to make loans or grants for what might broadly be called educational purposes.

I shall not repeat all that I said at Second Reading. However, I instanced as an example of what I had in mind that the need might arise for the Agency to promote some informative activity concerning co-operative enterprise; yet, as the Bill now stands, under Clause 3 the Agency appears to be prohibited from making loans or grants for any such acitivity. It was this deficiency that I hoped it might prove possible for the Government to remedy by means of a suitable Amendment.

I recognise the difficulty that the Government are in. It is hard to empower the Agency to finance educational activities without opening the door to other activities in a way that may be politically inexpedient. However, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, will recall that at Second Reading he undertook to inform me of any progress that it might be possible for the Government to make in this matter. I wonder whether he can hold out any hope that, when the Report stage of the Bill is reached—next week or whenever it is—the Government might themselves table an Amendment covering the point I have in mind. I would certainly welcome any such statement.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, for his remarks. It is a difficult situation for me to explain at the moment. As I indicated on Second Reading, the position is that the Minister of State will be meeting the Liberal spokesman, Mr. Wainwright, who put forward the interesting proposal in the first place. The Minister of State is very anxious, but unfortunately the private arrangements of Mr. Wainwright have been such that he has been taking a well-deserved holiday, and I do not begrudge him that, in anticipation perhaps that his constituency will be heavily engaged during the Summer Recess—who knows? So the situation is that at the moment I cannot make any definite statement, but I can say that the Minister of State will be meeting Mr. Wainwright on 14th June so that they may discuss together and find out in detail what Mr. Wainwright has in mind. He put forward this suggestion in another place.

Once they have sorted themselves out for better or for worse, if I may use that phrase, then I hope—and I can say no more than that—that on 15th June when, all being well, we shall have the Report stage of this Bill, I may be able to say something. I cannot say anything now because whether the talks will be finalised on the 14th June remains a matter between the Minister of State and Mr. Wainwright. We are very much in their hands. I can say quite frankly that there are some considerable difficulties over this suggestion; but, as I said before, difficulties have a way of being resolved one way or another and I will report to the House, if it is at all possible, after the discussions between Mr. Wainwright and the Minister of State on the 14th June.

Viscount LONG

I am grateful for what the noble Lord has said. However there does not seem to be a great deal of time for the noble Lord to be able to get a report and then bring it to the House. That being the case, I wonder how we are to obtain the information, which sometimes takes a week or more. We shall be very lucky if we get it straight away. I do not want to press the noble Lord, but I think it would be helpful if we could get some information.

Lord ROCHESTER

I see the difficulty to which the noble Viscount has referred. On the other hand, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, for what he has said. I do not think that it should be beyond the bounds of possibility that some Amendment could be brought forward at the Report stage, even at such short notice; but I am a child in these procedural matters. Later still, of course, there will be the Third Reading, so in one way or another I hope that it may be possible to reach some accommodation in principle. I recognise the difficulty to which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, has referred; but if it is possible I hope that we can reach some satisfactory solution on this point. If it is appropriate for me to say so, I am satisfied with the assurance that has been given by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, and I do not think that I can reasonably ask for more at this stage.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

If I may make one more remark, one of the benefits of this House is the fact that we have so much informal and personal contact, and if it is at all possible for me to get any "tips from the stable" that I can pass on, I will willingly do so; but we shall have to see how we get on and do the best we can to cope with the situation.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Remaining clauses and the Schedules agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported without amendment: Report received.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until eight o'clock.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

[The Sitting was suspended from 7.37 p.m. until 8 p.m.]

Forward to