Sitting of 18 February 1975

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS
BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)
LONDON TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)
Orders for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

LONDON TRANSPORT (ADDITIONAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time upon Thursday 27th February at Seven o'clock.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EMPLOYMENT

    Deptford (Training Centre)
    Mr. Guy Barnettasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he can now say when the training centre planned for Deptford will be built.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Harold Walker): The Manpower Services Commission informs me that discussions are still taking place with the local planning authorities concerned. There is nothing I can add to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend on 11th December 1974.—[Vol. 883, c. 167–8.]
    Mr. Barnett: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is an entirely unsatisfactory situation? Does he appreciate that there is no skillcentre in any of the four South-East London boroughs? Does he realise that it is an area of high demand for skilled labour because it is an old traditional engineering and industrial area? What will he do to speed things up to ensure that this vital need on the part of industry in South-East London is satisfied quickly?
    Mr. Walker: I share the anxiety of my hon. Friend. There is a need to make more rapid progress with the development of the site. I know that the Training Services Agency shares our anxiety. I am sure my hon. Friend knows that it is a difficult site to develop because of the number of planning authorities involved and because of the intersection of waterways. There are training centres and skillcentres which provide a service covering the area to which my hon. Friend has referred. I refer particularly to those in Enfield and Waddon and to the annexe at Sydenham. I share my hon. Friend's anxiety that we should make progress, and I will draw the attention of the planning authorities to his remarks.

    Oil Drilling Technology
    Mr. Woodallasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he can now say

    1085
    what provision is to be made for training in oil drilling technology.
    Mr. Harold Walker: I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that a drilling technology training centre is being established in Scotland with the aid of funds from the Manpower Services Commission. The centre will provide courses in drilling technology for graduate engineers and senior rig crew. The initial phase will be located at Livingston and should become operational this summer.
    Mr. Woodall: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he now say what sort of numbers he expects to be able to train and who will be meeting the cost?
    Mr. Walker: When the centre becomes fully operational we expect that it will have an annual throughput of about 600 trainees a year. The capital cost is estimated at £255,000 for the initial stage. That is being met by a grant from the Manpower Services Commission and by a loan which the Training Services Agency has been authorised to make. My hon. Friend asked about operating costs. Our eventual aim is to make the centre self-supporting. The Manpower Services Commission has authorised the Training Services Agency to offer a grant to meet any shortfall until the build-up has reached full occupancy.
    Mr. Sproat: Will the Minister confirm that the site at Livingston will not necessarily be the permanent long-term centre for oil drilling technology training and that the Government's mind is still open about where the major development should be sited? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many people regard it as crazy that the centre of oil drilling technology training should be relatively far removed from the centre of oil activity and where oil personnel are situated—namely, Aberdeen and the North-East?
    Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman will recognise, as I said in my original answer, that this is the initial phase. The permanent site is primarily a matter for the Petroleum Industry Training Board. The board is considering a number of sites for the permanent centre.

    Social Contract
    Mr. Stanleyasked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will now revise the terms of the social contract.
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has for amending the social contract.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Foot): The social contract concerns the whole range of common objectives which the Government seek to pursue in concert with the TUC, but perhaps hon. Members in their Questions are more specifically concerned with the guidelines on wage settlements. Since these are the TUC's guidelines, any amendment of them would clearly be a matter for the TUC. What the Government wish to see is not changes in the guidelines but the maximum possible compliance with them.
    Mr. Stanley: Is it not clear that the ever-elastic social contract is producing a rate of wage inflation way beyond what the economy or public or private industry can afford? As the social contract is now actively stoking up unemployment, will the right hon. Gentleman measure up to his national responsibilities and reduce the rate of wage inflation? If he is unwilling to do that, will he, in the national interest, resign?
    Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on every count and especially, if I may say so, on the last. It is not the case that compliance with the social contract is causing the difficulties that he describes. It is our desire, as I said in my orginal answer, to secure the maximum possible compliance. The increases that have taken place and the inflation that has taken place have been due not to the social contract but to other factors altogether.
    Mr. Noble: Will my right hon. Friend accept that his comments on the social contract should take account of the fact that there have been Government measures to remove anomalies, particularly in regard to the teachers? Will he note that there still remains a grave anomaly, as set out in Early-Day Motion

    1087
    No. 254, signed by over 50 Members? Will he draw that motion to the attention of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science with a view to the removal of that anomaly?
    Mr. Foot: I have had Early-Day Motion No. 254 drawn to my attention, notably by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), who never ceases to put these matters to me with his customary force and skill. I assure my hon. Friend that we are fully aware of that motion and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science will take proper note of it.
    Mr. Lawson: Is it not sheer humbug to pretend that the miners' settlement is within the social contract? If the Secretary of State is genuinely concerned to secure greater compliance with the terms of that contract, would it not help if he were to echo the warning of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that non-adherence by the unions to the social contract will inevitably lead to mass unemployment?
    Mr. Foot: Perhaps I could recommend the hon. Gentleman, before making these judgments, to read the speech which I made at the weekend.
    Mr. Lawson: I have.
    Mr. Foot: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman read it in the newspapers. The speech was reported and even more widely misreported, in the newspapers. I hope he will read the whole speech, which sets the miners' settlement in proper perspective. I said in that speech that it was undeniable that the settlement went beyond the guidelines in keeping up with the cost-of-living figures. That is true, but there are many other factors to be taken into consideration. All in all, I believe that the miners' settlement was a good one for the miners, the industry and, above all, for the country.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: If and when my hon. Friend announces a revised social contract, will he think up a scheme within the contract to provide that on occasions when Conservative Members and Press and television reporters criticise poorer paid people on receiving wage increases, those criticis should declare
    1088
    how much they receive for their articles, which is sometimes as much as £200 or £300, or for a few minutes' contribution on radio or television, namely, a fee of £40 or £50? Will they not remember those large fees when they are condemning the miners for trying to achieve £30 or £40 a week?
    Mr. Foot: I agree that such declarations would take the edge off televsion perorations.
    Mr. Tugendhat: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House the benefit of his view on the remarks by Mr. Scargill last night that it is not a social contract but a social "con" trick and that the miners were right to act in defiance of it?
    Mr. Foot: I disagree with what Arthur Scargill said on the subject of the social contract. I happen to agree with the policy of the NUM on the matter—namely, with what the NUM said at its conference and at the Trades Union Congress.

    Disabled Persons
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the level of unemployment of registered disabled compared with a year ago.
    Mr. Harold Walker: I regret that I cannot provide more up-to-date information than that which I gave to the hon. Member on 5th November 1974, when I said that 59,882 registered disabled people were unemployed in September 1974 compared with 66,259 in September 1973.
    Mr. Marten: Does the Minister agree that there are still far too many registered disabled who are unemployed? What is the proportion of employers who do not come up to the 3 per cent. standard? Is he satisfied that employers are doing their best?
    Mr. Walker: No, I am not satisfied with the present position. For that reason I recently instituted a scheme of purging what I consider to be the black spots. We have selected six areas for intensive enforcement of the scheme. If at the end of a six-months' period that is seen to be effective, we shall give careful consideration to repeating the exercise elsewhere.

    1089
    I am sorry that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the figure he seeks. The situation is complicated since we have to distinguish between firms which fall behind the 3 per cent. quota—which require the permission of the Department—and those which do not have departmental permission. I shall let the hon. Gentleman have the figures, but I repeat that I am far from satisfied with the position. There are far too many employers without a quota at present. I am prepared to do all I can to bring employers within the 3 per cent. requirement.
    Mr. Leadbitter: My hon. Friend will agree that the expression of intent is made several times every year but is not followed by any specific action. Does he agree that the best way to encourage employers to take a proper quota of these workers is to examine the performance of all Government Departments, local authorities and public utilities? Does he agree that if the Government, as one of the largest employers in the land, were to set an example, other employers elsewhere might follow suit?
    Mr. Walker: When I referred to a repetition of the present exercise which I have inaugurated, I did not see this as an on-going operation. My hon. Friend will appreciate that a consultative document was issued in 1973 on the future of the quota scheme. Therefore, until the necessary considerations and consultations have been completed we cannot reach final decisions. I agree that some Government Departments have fallen below the quota. I am very much aware of this fact and I have drawn it to the attention of the Departments concerned. I am now asking for information about what the House of Commons is doing in this respect. I hope that the authorities of the House will provide us with that information.

    Short-time Working
    Mr. Rostasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest figure of the number of people in short-time work.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Fraser): It is estimated that in the week ended 14th December 1974 71,600 operatives in manufacturing industries in Great Britain
    1090
    were stood off or working short time. Information about short time amongst other workers is not available.
    Mr. Rost: The figures are hopelessly out of date. How much more acceleration in price and pay inflation leading to mass unemployment and short-time working will the Minister preside over before he accepts ministerial responsibility for the non-existence of the social contract? What does he do in his Department while the country inflates into bankruptcy and recession?
    Mr. Fraser: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment does a great deal more to ensure a high rate of employment than did his predecessors at the Department. On the question of short-time working, I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await publication of the figures later this month. There has been a small drop in the December figure compared with November. Short-time working exists mainly in the consumer and the motor car industries and cannot be attributed to wage inflation.
    Mr. Hayhoe: Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that we shall have the full figures of short-time working and unemployment in the normal way later this month?
    Mr. Fraser: I cannot say whether the figures on short-time working will be published later this week, but on 20th February the normal figures on vacancies will be published.

    May Day
    Miss Richardsonasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give consideration to declaring 1st May a paid public holiday.
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): The Government have received a number of representations about the declaration of a May Day bank holiday which we are at present considering.
    Miss Richardson: I welcome that reply, particularly since the undertaking to consider the matter was included in Labour's programme in 1973. I am sure the House will agree that such a move will make a great gesture towards the operation of the social contract. May I underline that such a holiday must be

    1091
    paid? We should remember that certain industries with wages councils have to specify holidays or there is no obligation to pay. Many people were not paid for New Year's Day because of this situation and, therefore, I hope that 1st May will be regarded as a paid holiday.
    Mr. Booth: Bank holidays apply in law only to banking and certain other financial institutions. Nearly all employers in England and Wales observe them as paid holidays. I am confident that they will observe any new bank holiday that is instituted.
    Miss Fookes: Will the Minister say what celebration we are supposed to be having on 1st May as a public holiday?
    Mr. Booth: It might be more appropriate if we announced that at a time when we are ready to declare May Day as a public holiday. I am surprised to find any hon. Member who is not aware of the tremendous political significance of May Day to the whole of the Labour movement.

    Retraining (EEC Grants)
    Mr. Blakerasked the Secretary of State for Employment how much the United Kingdom has been allocated for retraining from the EEC Social Fund since 1st January 1974; and what further applications he is now making.
    Mr. Hurdasked the Secretary of State for Employment what grants have been allocated to the United Kingdom for retraining purposes from the EEC Social Fund since 1st January 1973; and what further applications by his Department for such grants are still pending.
    Mr. John Fraser: For 1973 about £19 million; a further £19 million for 1974; and £6 million so far for 1975. Training applications in respect of 1975 still pending amount to £10·5 million. Further applications will be submitted in respect of Government-operated schemes of training, to run from August 1975 into 1976, and yet other applications, including some of a smaller scale and non-governmental, are expected to be submitted as the year progresses.
    Mr. Blaker: Is the Minister aware that those figures are welcome? In view of the importance of retraining, especially
    1092
    when the Secretary of State is pressing for more investment in new machinery, will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, in consultation with the Secretary of State for Industry, he is pressing, and will continue to press, for the maximum possible allocation to Britain from the fund?
    Mr. Fraser: I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that my Department seeks the maximum possible allocations from the Social Fund for training and for other purposes.
    Mr. Hurd: Can the Minister say what proportion of the Government's training programme is now financed by the EEC? Will he confirm what I think he said in his original answer, that the processing and preparation of applications will go on without any check so that the applications will be submitted before next year?
    Mr. Fraser: I cannot, without notice, give the hon. Gentleman the proportion of the total cost of that training programme paid out of the Social Fund. There was no delay in submitting the applications which were made. I am anxious that the Commission should deal with them quickly and pay the money quickly after making the allocation.

    Manpower Services Commission
    Mr. Watkinsonasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the operation of the Manpower Services Commission; and if he will consider expanding its activities.
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will take steps to enable the Manpower Services Commission to have a fully effective manpower intelligence and planning function.
    Mr. Foot: I am satisfied with the present operations of the Manpower Services Commission. As proposed in the Labour Party manifesto, we are considering how to expand the commission's role. That expansion will certainly include an enlargement of the commission's manpower intelligence and planning function. The commission is about to recruit a Director of Manpower Intelligence and Planning whose first task will be to assess the commission's needs in this field.
    Mr. Watkinson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Manpower Services Commission is advocating an expansion programme, and will the Government adopt that programme? Will he take note that although there are over half a million school leavers each year only 200,000 are at present receiving training, which compares badly with our European neighbours?
    Mr. Foot: On the question of the expansion of the rôle of the Manpower Services Commission, I have already referred to the Labour Party manifesto on the subject, which we intend to carry out in this particular as in other particulars. We are holding further discussions with the Manpower Services Commission on these and other matters later this month. As regards the problems of school leavers, I hope that the proposals of the Manpower Services Commission and the Training Services Agency, which we were discussing, will lead to an improvement. That is what we desire. We think that that is a most important aspect of the problem.
    Mr. Marten: This has been going on for quite a long time. Is there any reason why the advice of the Manpower Services Commission should not be fed back to undergraduates and school leavers straight away and without waiting?
    Mr. Foot: It is not only a question of feeding back information. I did not understand that from my hon. Friend's question. I think it is also a question of providing further training facilities, to which I thought my hon. Friend referred. That is what we are seeking to work out, and we are in constant touch with the Manpower Services Commission about it.

    Retraining Schemes (Rural Areas)
    Mr. Cormackasked the Secretary of State for Employment what arrangements he is making to review retraining schemes in rural areas.
    Mr. Harold Walker: The Manpower Services Commission informs me that the Training Services Agency is expanding the training opportunities scheme and that the increased facilities will benefit those living in rural areas. In addition, the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas has embarked on an expansion
    1094
    programme designed to increase the range and scope of training which it provides in traditional rural crafts and other occupations.
    Mr. Cormack: While thanking the Under-Secretary of State for that reply, may I point out that forestry is one of our most important rural industries? May I stress the necessity for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to clarify his recent welcome capital transfer tax concessions with regard to forestry? Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what plans he has specifically to encourage young men to take up forestry?
    Mr. Walker: The latter part of the question is obviously a matter for the Training Services Agency. I should require notice to find out exactly what is happening. As regards the first part of his question, the hon. Gentlement has had his opportunity to make his point to the Chancellor about the excellent capital transfer tax which was proposed by my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Guy Barnett: Is my hon. Friend aware that the best opportunities are available for young people wanting to go into forestry if they enter the Forestry Commission?
    Mr. Walker: I take note of that.

    Professional Executive Recruitment Service (Scotland)
    Mr. David Steelasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will now take steps to increase the Professional Executive Recruitment Service in Scotland.
    Mr. John Fraser: I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that no immediate increases are contemplated, but the needs of the service are being kept under close review.
    Mr. Steel: Will the Minister confirm that local authorities are not obliged to use this service? Does he not think that it would be good if they did so, in view of the reorganisation of local Government?
    Mr. Fraser: I have discussed this matter with the PER. I hope that local authorities will make use of the service. I am sure that the PER will do everything

    1095
    possible to encourage notification of vacancies from local authorities.
    Sir P. Bryan: Clients of PER obtain the services of PER below cost. The PER is subsidised to the tune of about £600,000 a year. Do foreign clients receive a subsidised service? For instance, I have seen PER advertisements in the Sunday Times for jobs in Saudi Arabia and South Africa to the tune of £13,000 a year. Do those foreign clients receive the subsidised service or do they pay the true cost?
    Mr. Fraser: The aim of the PER is to be self-financing, apart from payments from the Government for the social cost of the scheme. The PER is now moving towards the self-financing target. The advertising of foreign vacancies will to that small extent be subsidised. I am glad to see that PER is competing with private agencies, and long may it do so.

    Employment Protection Bill (Consultation Document)
    Mr. Brittanasked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will publish the representations he has received about the consultative document on the proposed Employment Protection Bill.
    Mr. Foot: All the representations we have received about the Employment Protection Bill are being carefully considered but, in accordance with usual practice, I shall not be publishing them.
    Mr. Brittan: Does the Secretary of State agree that however attractive some of the proposals in the proposed Bill may be, their implementation will add enormously to the costs of industry, especially to the small businesses which are now suffering badly? Will he give his estimate of the cost of the implementation of those proposals or at least undertake to publish an estimate in the near future?
    Mr. Foot: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that the proper time for the House to discuss these matters is when the Bill is presented. When that is done, we shall give estimates of what we believe to be the economic consequences of these measures. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's view that this will impose an enormous burden of industry. Representations have been made to us on that subject. We have taken them into account. However, the Bill also offers great advan-
    1096
    tages for industry, including the carrying out of a further item in the social contract. I know how much the hon. Gentleman wishes to comply with it.
    Mr. Tomlinson: Will my right hon. Friend take note that, rather than wishing for publication of the representations that have been received on the consultative document, most of his right hon. and hon. Friends are waiting for him to publish the Employment Protection Bill, which is of far greater priority than the consultations, although obviously the consultations must be taken into account?
    Mr. Foot: I agree with my hon. Friend that that is the best way to go about it. I hope that a Bill will be introduced to the House of Commons in March, before Easter. The sooner we can make progress with it, the better.
    Mr. Tugendhat: Before Christmas, the Secretary of State said that the Bill would be introduced in January. Before that, he said that it would be introduced before Christmas. Is not this an example of how mucked up the Government's legislative programme has become? Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that he will be able to get a measure of this sort through the House this Session together with the referendum proposals and everything else?
    Mr. Foot: Everybody knows that we will get the referendum through. We certainly intend to get the Bill through too. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not hinting at any conceivable obstruction, because this is one of the central Bills in the carrying out of the social contract, and I know how eager Conservative Members are for that.

    Homeworkers
    Mr. Rookerasked the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received concerning provisions for homeworkers in the Employment Protection Bill.
    Mr. Harold Walker: A number of points about the operation of the Wages Councils Act in relation to homeworkers have been raised, principally by the TUC, and have been the subject of discussion between officials of my Department and of the TUC.
    Mr. Rooker: Does my hon. Friend accept that the TUC deserves congratulation on taking up at long last the plight of the homeworkers? Is he aware that only about half of the many thousands of homeworkers are registered with local authorities as required by law? If he does not include them in the Employment Protection Bill, will he take steps to tighten up that regulation?
    Mr. Walker: I know that my hon. Friend has done a lot of homework on this subject and will therefore be aware that the requirement for registration under the Factories Act is limited to a number of scheduled trades and occupations and is primarily for health and safety purposes. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act empowers the Health and Safety Commission to introduce a more comprehensive register. I agree that there is a problem here. I am glad that the TUC has drawn attention to it. We are giving further careful consideration to how best we can tackle the problem of homeworkers and the need for more protection for them.
    Mr. Tomlinson: Does my hon. Friend accept that there will be a major travesty if the Employment Protection Bill does not adequately deal with this vast area of exploited labour? This is a section in which large numbers of people are totally exploited. The Employment Protection Bill will have a hollow ring unless it deals with this problem.
    Mr. Walker: One way in which the Employment Protection Bill will make a contribution—I do not pitch it any higher—is by the inclusion of a provision to amend the definition of "worker" as defined in the Wages Councils Act, so that it will clearly cover homeworkers. This will give wages councils more effective power to safeguard homeworkers' earnings. Many homeworkers are not in wages councils industries. I recognise that there is a problem here and, as I said, we are giving very careful consideration, particularly in the light of two recent CIR reports, to how best to follow up the recommendations made by the CIR. I have in mind particularly CIR Report No. 77.

    Editorial Freedom
    Mr. McCrindleasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many com-
    1098
    munications he has received on the subject of editorial freedom in connection with amendments of the law since 11th October 1974.
    Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend and I have received about 100 communications from about 75 sources, suggesting various forms of proposed statutory safeguards.
    Mr. McCrindle: Has the Secretary of State seen the suggestion by Lord Goodman that the only person who is convinced that he is introducing a new charter of liberty for the British Press is the right hon. Gentleman himself? Is there any chance that the Secretary of State is likely to repent at later stages of the Bill, or does he propose to continue as the self-appointed defender of a freedom of the British Press which is not agreed to by the whole of Fleet Street?
    Mr. Foot: The House came to a healthy conclusion on the matter in the recent debate. On Third Reading the House gave its verdict, which happened to concur with my view on the matter. I am gratified by its conjunction. It is most ill-advised of the hon. Gentleman or anyone else, including Lord Goodman, to cast aspersions on the charter for the freedom of the Press which is being discussed in another place. Progress is being made with that proposal. For anybody in any quarter to cast aspersions on it is most misguided, because I believe that that is the real way to protect the freedom of the Press.
    Mr. Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend arrange to investigate the editorial policies of the Daily Express which, in adopting cheque book journalism, is restricting access to the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse) and, in the terms of one of the more recent victims of that newspaper's cheque book attitude, is behaving like the KGB? Will he ensure that when the referendum starts, freedom of the Press will be given to those who want to get out of Europe as well as to those who want to stay in?
    Mr. Foot: I have one or two other matters on my mind at the moment without cleaning up the Augean stables in the Daily Express offices. I am not starting on that, even at the invitation of my hon. Friend, and no one would be more persuasive than he in doing so. I believe

    1099
    that we are making good progress with the Bill. The sooner it is on the statute book, the better for all concerned.
    Mr. Hayhoe: Is the Secretary of State aware that, in the opinion of many who are well able to judge, it is he who is misguided on the subject of Press freedom? Will he, even at this late stage, help to facilitate an amendment to the legislation in the House of Lords which would be acceptable in all parts of the House? Is he aware that it would be totally wrong to assume that the vote following his emotive and passionate speech the other night is the end of the matter? It certainly is not.
    Mr. Foot: In my opinion, the proper place to decide the whole question is this House of Commons, the elected representative of the people of this country. As I said in the debate, I hope that their Lordships will not poke their noble noses into this matter.

    Equal Pay
    Mr. Kilroy-Silkasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will take further action designed to ensure more rapid progress towards the implementation of equal pay.
    Mr. John Fraser: I am currently considering whether to refer collective agreements which contain discriminatory provisions to the Industrial Arbitration Board for advice, and I am in correspondence with a number of negotiating bodies in this connection. I am also conducting a publicity campaign about the Act. My Department is continuing to monitor the state of progress towards equal pay generally and the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service has agreed to my request to continue to provide information and advice on a wide basis to firms which need it.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Is my hon. Friend aware that that answer is not dissimilar from a previous answer he gave me in December? Is he further aware that there are far too many discriminatory collective agreements? Will he now take positive and firm action to refer those discriminatory collective agreements to the Industrial Arbitration Board so that more rapid progress can be made in future than in the past towards equal pay?
    Mr. Fraser: I am trying to be positive and firm. I am sure that the letters I have sent to negotiating bodies are having a good effect on progress towards equal pay. If I identify agreements which are not being renegotiated and where I do not think that equal pay will be achieved, I shall seriously consider a reference. I am also considering including in the Anti-Discrimination Bill provisions which will enable the Equal Opportunities Commission to investigate and forward the cause of equal pay.

    Ports (Employee Participation)
    Mr. Dodsworthasked the Secretary of State for Employment what consultations he had had regarding the extension of worker participation in the ports industry.
    Mr. Booth: My right hon. Friend has received many representations from both sides of industry about the Government's commitment to ensure that the coverage of the Dockworkers' Employment Scheme is appropriate to modern conditions. He will shortly be issuing detailed proposals about implementation.
    Mr. Dodsworth: I am grateful for that reply. Before the Minister concludes his consultations, will he pay particular attention to the excellent labour relations which have existed and do exist in some privately-owned and operated ports which have been productive without statutory enforcement?
    Mr. Booth: Before publishing our detailed proposals we shall take careful account of representations made to us by many sectors concerned with dock work, including those from the private ports which have included references to industrial relations at those ports.
    Mr. Leadbitter: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that we are currently discussing the earliest possible implementation of public ownership of the ports in the United Kingdom? As we are intent on pursuing a large element of worker participation in those proposals, we look forward to Conservative Members, particularly the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Dodsworth), supporting us when the proposals come forward.
    Mr. Booth: The public ownership of ports and port reorganisation are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. In so far as these matters affect industrial democracy in that area, the Department of Employment has a continuing interest and will welcome any developments which port reorganisation may bring about.
    Mr. Hayhoe: Are not industrial relations in the private ports much better than in the other ports?
    Mr. Booth: Our investigations into the whole industrial relations situation does not lead us to that conclusion.

    Wage Guidelines (Compliance)
    Mr. Duffyasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the degree of compliance with wage guidelines; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Foot: As I have said before, the guidelines have had a considerable measure of success and constitute the best basis for the future, but I would emphasise the importance of the maximum possible compliance with them.
    Mr. Duffy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members will agree that last week's settlement on behalf of the miners was registered in respect of a unique work force in our economy and that any disposition by other claimants to use it as a gateway will aggravate inflation and undermine the living standards of pensioners and others without power to negotiate?
    Mr. Foot: As I said in reply to a previous question, my comments last week put that settlement into its general perspective.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Since compliance with the guidelines is so important, will the Secretary of State reconsider his decision not to publish the details of the guidelines as a State paper?
    Mr. Foot: We have been into that before, and I shall be happy to have a discussion on it in the future. It is a much better subject for debate than for question and answer. I do not believe it would be a sensible way of proceeding if we commented on every settlement and
    1102
    the detail of every settlement, partly because I do not think it would help to deal with inflation.
    Mr. George Rodgers: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the activities of the people who invested in a rising stock market and subsequently sold out, having cleaned up a substantial profit? Does he not think that these people similarly should be subject to some guidance so far as income is concerned?
    Mr. Foot: That is another question. It is like the invitation of one of my hon. Friends who asked me to clean up the Augean stables. I have a few other things to do, and even Hercules could not do these things in his spare time.
    Mr. Prior: Following the question of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), may I ask why the right hon. Gentleman takes the view that when it comes to journalists only the House of Commons can decide but that in the matter of the social contract he can decide, without any recourse and information to the House of Commons at all?
    Mr. Foot: That is not my view at all. I am strongly in favour of the House of Commons having questions about the social contract, as we have had today, and debates. We had a full debate, initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), a few weeks ago on the social contract, but very few Conservative Members turned up, including the right hon. Gentleman himself. I am not complaining, but I think the best way to deal with this is by debating all these questions in the House of Commons.
    Mr. Prior: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question?
    Mr. Foot: I shall do my best to answer any Questions that the right hon. Gentleman puts down. As I have said before—and I believe that the argument we had showed the real reasons for it—we had an exchange of correspondence published in Hansard for the benefit of hon. Members, but I think it would be a mistaken course in the interests of dealing with inflation if we had a detailed publication about each individual wage settlement.

    Employment Agencies
    Mr. Leslie Huckfieldasked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a statement on his future intentions on private employment agencies, following the representations he has received from the TUC.
    Mr. Harold Walker: As I informed the House on 23rd January, my right hon. Friend intends to implement the Employment Agencies Act 1973 but proposes to strengthen it by transferring responsibility for licensing and enforcement to himself. We have it in mind to discuss with the Manpower Services Commission the possibility of its undertaking a study in this field. In the light of the results of such a study and of the experience of the Department in operating the Act, we would be able to review the whole situation.
    Mr. Huckfield: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of us on this side of the House feel that merely tightening up and issuing a few more regulations for the control of private employment agencies does not go half far enough? Is he aware that many of us will be happy only when services of this kind are provided only by the Employment Services Agency? Will he reaffirm that it is still his Department's ultimate intention to ensure that this comes about?
    Mr. Walker: Certainly we recognise the desirability and the need to strengthen the Employment Services Agency so that it provides a more effective service. I should tell my hon. Friend, however, that this is a much more complex subject than often appears on the surface. I hoped that my reference to a review would have made quite clear that we have by no means ruled out consideration of the eventual abolition of fee-charging placement agencies.

    MOTOR INDUSTRY
    Mr. Hurdasked the Prime Minister how many civil servants now report to him directly on the future of the motor industry.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member
    1104
    for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) on 11th February.
    Mr. Hurd: May I congratulate the Prime Minister and his hat on their safe return together? May I ask him, whatever advice he receives, to accept that for a year more and more people in the Cowley Works have accepted the need for radical change and that it would be a fatal mistake to ask the taxpayer to subsidise an existing set-up, including a complicated and confusing trade union structure? Does the right hon. Gentleman feel that special legislation would be required to implement whatever Sir Don Ryder advises?
    The Prime Minister: I recognise the concern of the hon. Member about the position particularly at Cowley. He will know that some months ago British Leyland approached the Government about its problems and the need for investment and said that the company could be viable by cutting out some of the loss-making big sectors, which would probably mean, one might have thought, Cowley and Longridge. We said that we did not believe it right to have a mini car industry and that it should be a full-size industry. We offered to discuss the investment programme, and in the course of our discussion the liquidity problems became clear. Sir Don Ryder is going into this with great vigour and speed. I hope that we shall have a viable British motor car industry.
    Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in 1974, as far as new registration of financial out-turn is concerned, the two multinational corporations, Chrysler and General Motors, which are represented in this country, did considerably worse than British Leyland, as a result of which my constituents in Coventry who work for Chrysler are working only two days a week at the moment? Is there not now a case for extending the terms of the Ryder committee of inquiry to include at least Chrysler as well?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that is necessary at this stage. I discussed these matters and our common interest in this question of employment, investment and trade with the President of the United States. I have made one or two inquiries. Chrysler, with which

    1105
    my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been corresponding, was mentioned. My clear understanding is that on the company's part there is an undeniable intention to continue its operations in the United Kingdom and a readiness to discuss with the British Government how the continuing efficiency of those operations can be secured.
    Mr. Heseltine: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the second half of my hon. Friend's question and say whether the Government are considering legislation which is not currently before the House to deal with the problem of British Leyland?
    The Prime Minister: The answer is "No, Sir". But, of course, we have not got the report of Sir Don Ryder and his team. They are, as I said, working very vigorously on this problem. I hope that whatever solution they come up with will be capable of being dealt with under existing legislation, including possibly legislation passed by the previous Government. But if legislation were needed to save a major indigenous industry we would not hesitate to bring it before the House.

    TUC (MEETING)
    Mr. Atkinsonasked the Prime Minister when he next proposes to meet the TUC.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) on 11th February.
    Mr. Atkinson: Can my right hon. Friend say whether yesterday he had a chance to read the Cambridge Economic Review which set out its case for rejecting totally deflationary policies? Did he also notice in that report that the case was made for the imposition of import controls, which is in line with the policy now being developed by the TUC, has been stated by every trade union which has as yet issued an economic report and is, indeed, supported by no fewer than 100 Members on the Labour back benches?
    The Prime Minister: I did not read that until today. From the time the Government came into office we have made
    1106
    it clear that we reject deflationary policies as a means of solving problems caused to a considerable extent by the oil price situation. To embark on deflationary policies and bring about a diminution of world trade would be bad for us as a major trading nation. The same is true of the use of import controls.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the social contract is fair when those who settle within its guidelines have to pay for the excessive wages of those who settle outside them through increased costs of coal and electricity?
    The Prime Minister: These matters were fully dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment in the statement he made recently. I entirely agree with what he said. If the hon. Member is referring to the mineworkers' settlement, to which my right hon. Friend referred, I hope he and other hon. Members will recognise that no one in this country, perhaps not even the Tory Party, wants to go back to the confrontation of a year ago. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) does, but no one else does. The hon. Member may not have noticed what my right hon. Friend said, namely that this was a major restructuring agreement. Conservative Members will be aware of the need for more coal-face workers. They will also know that we cannot go on—it would be wrong to go on—with the situation in which, through inadequate recruitment to the mines, we have to use that odious practice of underground mining contractors—the lump. What has been agreed is calculated to enable us to solve these structural problems.
    Mr. R. C. Mitchell: The Prime Minister has been having meetings with the TUC and the CBI on these matters. Will he also have similar meetings with the new national consumer authority so that the voice of the consumer can be heard?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is quite right. The previous Government scrapped any semblance of consumer representation in this country. We have restored it, at a high level. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection has made it clear that she will have the closest connection with the new authority. So will I.
    Mr. Prior: Will the Prime Minister now answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison): whether he considers it is fair that those who make settlements outside the guidelines of the social contract should have those settlements paid for by others who must meet increased prices? Will he further say whether he thinks that a settlement such as that which has been reached by the miners falls within the social contract?
    The Prime Minister: That question was answered by my right hon. Friend I agree with him. On the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman I would refer him to the statement—I will send him a copy of it if he has not seen it—made by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) to the effect that the Government were right not to interfere in the negotiations between the NUM and the Coal Board and that the miners had always been a special case. I have the full text here if the right hon. Gentleman would like to read what he said on that occasion. I am interested to hear the language he is now talking, because he was not talking it a year ago.
    Mr. Prior: Answer the question.

    BRUSSELS
    Mr. Rifkindasked the Prime Minister when he next intends to pay an official visit to Brussels.
    The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.
    Mr. Rifkind: Will the Prime Minister confirm that the recent successful negotiations in Brussels and elsewhere with the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries fully meet the Government's requirements concerning the Third World? Will he confirm that the Third World and New Zealand are anxious that Britain should remain within the Community?
    The Prime Minister: The ACP negotiations, on which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development reported to the House, were a great achievement. We all take great satisfaction from them. I have publicly stated that I believe that it makes a big contribution to meeting the particular requirement set out in our manifesto. I have had full discussions with the New
    1108
    Zealand Prime Minister, who says that this is entirely a matter for Britain and the referendum. He told me that New Zealand is anxious about the effect on New Zealand trade with Britain of the terms so meekly accepted by the last Conservative Government, which we criticised at the time. This is because those terms limit what New Zealand can sell us. I am happy to tell the House that we do not accept those terms of 1971 and we are negotiating for a continuance of New Zealand trade with this country, which the Tory Party was prepared to throw away.
    Mr. David Steel: Since the renegotiations are now going along so splendidly, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he can tell the House how long it will be before he is able to go to Brussels and assure the British people working there for the Commission that they will not have to pack their bags and come home to join the unemployed?
    The Prime Minister: The negotiations are not in the main taking place in Brussels, except in so far as from time to time the Council of Ministers meets there. The negotiations are now in the hands not of the Brussels organisation so much as of the Foreign Ministers. Progress is being made. There is still a very long way to go, as the House knows. I hope we shall make considerable progress on outstanding issues at the summit meeting in Dublin next month.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend make it a fundamental point of the renegotiations that there shall be no interference by the Common Market with the full implementation of the provisions of the Industry Bill when it is enacted, even if this means renegotiating Articles 92, 94 and 189 of the Treaty of Rome? Does he agree that legislation such as the Industry Bill is vitally necessary if the country is to be put on a sound economic footing once again?
    The Prime Minister: In all the debates we have had, in this country and overseas, I have always been assured by pro-Marketeers that nothing in the rules or practices of the Common Market is intended to interfere with the right of a member country to take further industries or parts of industries into public ownership. This is what we are always told

    1109
    and I believe people to be genuine when they say these things. At the moment I am slightly more worried—and it is an important manifesto point—about certain aspects of regional aid and about the ECSC Treaty as it concerns the steel industry.

    WALES
    Sir A. Meyerasked the Prime Minister when he next proposes to visit Wales.
    The Prime Minister: I hope to do so on 15th March, Sir.
    Sir A. Meyer: When the right hon. Gentleman visits Wales, will he take the opportunity to talk to a number of ordinary people and find out what they think about the proposals for an elected Welsh Assembly? Will he find out their views on how much this expensive nonsense will add to their bills as ratepayers and taxpayers?
    The Prime Minister: I note what the hon. Member says. He will be aware that our consultative document published last summer was the subject of the most detailed consultations with all organisations in Wales—including the people he no doubt has in mind—and that the White Paper we produced and the ideas put forward in the debate by Ministers exactly reflect the consensus expressed in Wales.
    Mr. D. E. Thomas: When the Prime Minister visits Wales, will he visit the steel workers there? Will he explain to them, particularly those in Ebbw Vale, why the Government's redundancy strategy in the report made by the Minister of State, did not include a basic reassessment of the BSC steel strategy? Will he undertake that an investment of £600,000 will be made ready for Ebbw Vale to reline the blast furnaces before there is any further talk of rundown?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) was forthcoming in welcoming the statement made by my right hon. Friend, which affected other areas in Wales and which provides more employment in Shotton, contrary to what the previous Government were proposing some little time ago. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for
    1110
    Employment could answer the question about Ebbw Vale much better than I. It is an extremely difficult problem, going back into history. We are concerned to ensure employment for those working in Ebbw Vale. We believe in the immense power of the British Steel Corporation and the possibility of joint ventures with other employers. This is a problem that can be solved.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will my right hon. Friend accept from someone who was born in the Ebbw Vale constituency, who worked in the Ebbw Vale Steelworks for two years and whose father worked there for 27 years until his death, that the interests of the Ebbw Vale steelworkers and the Monmouthshire valleys will not be served by populist, instant answers like those proffered by Plaid Cymru, which seeks to gain a few cheap votes out of the disaster and agony of the men and women of South Wales and Ebbw Vale in particular?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. The people of Ebbw Vale know that since 1929 they have had two superb representatives in this House, and they have had and have full confidence in them.
    Mr. Hooson: Is the Prime Minister aware that the great concern in Wales is over the tremendous increase in the cost of local government due to the Local Government Act passed by the Conservative Government? Is he prepared to look again at the proposals for a Welsh Assembly, with a view to doing away with one tier of local government before we have this Assembly in Wales?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. and learned Gentleman is right. The reform, or whatever it was, or the restructuring of local government by the previous Conservative Government was a disaster not only for Wales but for other parts of the country. It is less democratic, particularly in regard to many aspects of Welsh affairs—one thinks of water as an example—and it is highly costly. We are all bearing the cost of it. We shall look at these matters, but I cannot give any assurance now about what changes will be made. We think that it was done incorrectly last time, and we shall be looking for reforms.

PRIME MINISTER (MOSCOW VISIT)
The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:—
Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his discussions in Moscow.
Mr. Blakerasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement about his discusions with Soviet leaders during his recent visit to Moscow.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): Yes, Sir.
I should like to take this earliest opportunity to tell the House about the visit which my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and I paid to the Soviet Union from 13th to 17th February. It was a visit which followed much careful and patient work on both sides to ensure that it would be fruitful: and when I came to sign the Joint Statement with Mr. Brezhnev, we agreed that our meetings and the agreements which we had concluded laid firm foundations for a new start in the relations between our two countries.
During the course of the visit my right hon. Friend and I had meetings, collectively and seperately, with Mr. Brezhnev, Mr. Kosygin, Mr. Gromyko and other members of the Soviet leadership. Apart from the Joint Statement setting out the results of our meetings, I signed agreements with Mr. Brezhnev dealing with the international non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and consultations between our two countries. I also signed agreements with Mr. Kosygin, dealing with economic, scientific and technological co-operation, in health matters and medical research. Copies of all these agreements are being placed in the Library and will be published as a White Paper as soon as possible.
The House will realise from the nature of these agreements that our discussions covered both multilateral and bilateral questions. On the former there was, of course, no question of negotiation, since other parties are involved. Nevertheless, we had very useful conversations on major world issues and in particular about the steps necessary to bring the work of the
1112
Geneva Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe to a stage which would justify the early holding of a Summit meeting.
I made clear that if we could now make rapid progress on the two or three outstanding issues at Geneva we should hope to see the conference convene later this year, if possible by the summer.
It would be my hope that a successful outcome for this conference would open up the possibility of making more progress in the Vienna Conference on the Mutual Reduction of Armaments and Armed Forces and associated measures in Central Europe, which we also discussed in Moscow.
The signature of the declaration on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons is the first bilateral initiative of this kind and will, I trust, give a constructive lead to the Review Conference meeting in Geneva in May.
The House will have seen our joint call for a World Disarmament Conference.
As for bilateral issues we discussed, the Protocol on Consultations is designed to ensure that we build on this new chapter in the relations between our two countries, with a view to enlarging the area of agreement between Soviet views and our own, and to reducing the area of misunderstanding and suspicion.
On trade we identified a wide range of industrial and scientific prospects of mutual interest: and agreed not only to a substantial increase in our trade but also to a better balance in it. This, coupled with the new credit arrangements, involving £950 million for new contracts with British firms, provide the opportunity for our exporters which we have long been seeking. It should bring considerable opportunities for British industry, and additional job opportunities for British workers.
Neither the Soviet leadership nor my right hon. Friend and I concealed the issues on which we differ. The fact that we differ does not mean that we cannot work, each in our own way, towards common aims, bilaterally and within the world setting. This was a visit which concentrated on the areas where practical progress could be made, and, from my experience of negotiations with them over 28 years, I was encouraged by the

1113
extent to which we were dealing in real issues not platitudes.
Perhaps even more to the point, Mr. Brezhnev and I reiterated our joint determination to establish continuing working contracts to implement the agreements we reached in the fullest possible way. As a result I believe that the visit has marked, as we hoped it would, the opening of a new phase in our relations with the Soviet Union—a phase in which there is reason to hope that these relations will be safer, warmer and more constructive than we have enjoyed for a number of years.
Mr. Frank Allaun: Will the Prime Minister accept that this is a hopeful day for détente, a day on which, as Macaulay might has said, even the ranks of the cold warriors could scarce forbear to cheer?
Will my right hon. Friend elaborate on two points—first, on the prospects of more jobs for British workers and, secondly, on what progress was proposed towards nuclear disarmament in line with the non-proliferation treaty, for example, by ending underground tests, as this would go a long way towards preventing the danger of further countries joining the nuclear arms race.
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the welcome that he has given to the agreement. He will be glad to know that the view he expressed is shared elsewhere. For example, in his broadcast at lunchtime Dr. Henry Kissinger gave a warm welcome to what had been achieved, as he did when he congratulated my right hon. Friend and myself last night on these matters.
It was a British initiative that we should seek to have a separate statement on nuclear disarmament. We have put forward certain ideas on tests. This will take a lot more exploration. It has always been a difficult matter. My hon. Friend will be aware of the progress referred to in the joint statement in relation to other aspects of the nuclear problem. We are concerned, for example, about trade in nuclear matters. We are concerned about the control and verification of peaceful nuclear explosions.
My hon. Friend will be glad to know—although this is not in the communiqué—
1114
that we have reached agreement on some degree of co-operation on peaceful nuclear energy because their reactor is one which, while different from ours, has many common components and much common ground with ours.
So far as pressure tubes and other matters are concerned, we hope to have a close relationship with the Russians to supply them with peaceful nuclear technology, and they will supply us with theirs. In this whole field considerable progress has been made.
Mr. Frank Allaun: What about jobs?
The Prime Minister: At the Kremlin lunch Mr. Brezhnev said he thought that what was likely to come out of this would be good for jobs for our people and for the Russian people, too. While the credit facilities are available only in respect of contracts on which progress is made, if anything like this amount of credit is taken up, as my hon. Friend will be capable of calculating, it means a substantial increase in employment for our people in peaceful trade.
Mr. Blaker: Will the Prime Minister confirm that he expects that most of the contracts within the credit of £950 million to which he referred will be met by private industry? If that is so, will he consult his right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Industry and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider whether the best way of putting private industry into a position where it can seize this opportunity with vigour is a policy of browbeating, intimidation and high taxation?
The Prime Minister: Whatever the subject announced, some hon. Gentlemen would have gone off with that kind of intervention. I am glad to tell the hon. Gentleman, because he does not seem to have checked for himself, that before I went to Moscow I met all the top brass and the big companies who for years have traded with the Soviet Union or who are now seeking contracts with them. They said they believed it was necessary to get a new political agreement with the Soviet Union. They are very keen to go ahead. The people concerned include some of the main paymasters of the Conservative Party, and I am surprised that members of the Conservative Party are not reflecting their pleasure in this matter.

1115
Some of the people whom I met were talking of the possibility of agreements for the development, for example, of Soviet raw materials of interest to us where the foreign content of a single development can be between £200 million and £300 million. In that very lengthy meeting no one referred to any of the points which seem to obsess the mind of the hon. Member.
Mr. Wellbeloved: On the Prime Minister's talks about the European Conference on Security and Co-operation, will he say how the Soviet authorities responded to the view that the best way to establish lasting peace and friendship between our two countries is to adopt the Western position on the free flow of people, information and ideas between the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom?
The Prime Minister: We made our position clear on this question and also on the confidence-engendering measures—for example, notification of troop movements—as well as on the outstanding problem on the question of the peaceful change of frontiers. The Soviet leaders fully understand our position. Progress has been made. Given further progress on these three issues—we discussed them with Dr. Kissinger last night and he had been discussing them with Mr. Gromyko in Geneva in the afternoon—I think we can achieve sufficient to delight my hon. Friend and to make the summit conference possible.
Mrs. Thatcher: May I put three points to the Prime Minister? Is he aware that we welcome increasing contact and dialogue with the Soviet Union provided that it never lulls this House or the country into a sense of false security? I think that the Prime Minister will agree with that. I understand that the Prime Minister has agreed to the third stage of the European Conference on Security and Co-operation. Will he say whether he has any concessions in return on, for example, negotiations on easier movement of information across the Iron Curtain?
Thirdly, will the Prime Minister give more detail of the trading agreement, which looks to many of us as though he has brought back from Russia a pretty
1116
good agreement for Russia, bearing in mind that this country has to pay on the usual trading terms for the £400 million of imports annually from Russia? Can he therefore tell us the rate of interest on the new line of credit, what provision there is for depreciation and the period of repayment of each drawing of credit?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady and I thank her for her welcome for my statement. Of course, she is absolutely right that, having reached this considerable measure of agreement, we recognise, they recognise, and our allies and their allies recognise—it is in the communiqué—that there are deep differences of view on important world affairs as well as on our particular constitutional arrangements. However, nothing happened in these discussions or in the agreement that in any way meant any lulling or creation of false security. Some of us are quite old hands on these matters. We started from what had been a pretty cold and chill period in relations leading up to the last few months.
She said that I had agreed to the summit conference. She will be aware from what I said and from the communiqué that this was not unconditional. I said exactly what has been said by other Western leaders, including those of the United States. We are anxious to have as early as possible the summit conference, which has been talked about for five years or more, but only on the condition of sufficient progress being made on the outstanding issues being discussed in Geneva. We discussed these matters. I mentioned them this afternoon. We did not mention them in the communiqué because these are issues for multilateral discussion, and, like the Soviet Union, we have to talk to our allies. We talked to the United States Government last night.
I think that the right hon. Lady fell a little below her usual standards of fairness—[An HON. MEMBER: "You mean she asked a good question."]—and what I know is her desire always to put the most favourable construction on the Government's actions when she said that it was a good agreement for Russian trade. It was a good agreement for trade both ways, because the trade will be both ways.

1117
On the question of the credit, she must be aware, I think, that the terms we have offered are comparable with those involved with other Western countries—for example, France. It has never been the practice of any Government to publish in this House the details of credit agreements. We do not propose to change the policy pursued by the previous Conservative Government for which the right hon. Member, as always, supports the full collective responsibility for everything that then happened.
The interest rate is comparable with that of other countries. Of course, she will recognise that while there may be doubts about why the Soviet Union needs credit, it is a fact of life. If we want this trade, there has to be credit. Every other Western country is trading with the Soviet Union on that basis. We have every vested interest in increasing the Soviet Union's production of copper, pulp, and other scarce materials, which will be of great advantage to our terms of trade.
Mr. Thorpe: Since any contracts will for the most part be with Soviet State trading agencies, and since the Soviet Union exports 50 million tons of oil a year, will the Prime Minister say why this line of credit should be required? Is it not somewhat ironic that we are borrowing what we can from the Shah of Persia and are then extending credit to the Soviet Union? Was there a renegotiation of COCOM in regard to the embargo on the sale of strategically important materials?
On the Anglo-Soviet round table conference which is scheduled, did the Prime Minister, following the time in which Mr. Solzhenitsyn was compelled to leave the Soviet Union and other distinguished people such as the Panovs and Rostropovich wished to leave, gain any indication of a likely relaxation of cultural life in the Soviet Union?
The Prime Minister: I think I have answered the point about credit. It may appear illogical that in their position as the world's biggest oil producer the Soviet Union should require credit. However if we want to trade with them—and we want this trade—it must involve credit according to their practices with every other country.
1118
For the first time in my experience of dealing with the Russians, COCOM was not mentioned. The round table conference proposal by my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary is of great value. We have consulted Chatham House and they are asking one of their established organisations to work together to see whether we cannot get a higher flow of people from our two countries to meet for discussions on almost every subject. This is of great advantage and it will be welcome. Those who talk about opening up the Soviet Union, changing the attitudes of the Russians, and about the issue of personal freedom will be the first to welcome the proposal.
I forgot to reply to one point raised by the Leader of the Opposition. She referred to £400 million of imports from the Soviet Union. I have always regarded that figure with a certain degree of scepticism because it includes £180 million of diamonds which we largely re-export. There is an imbalance and the right hon. Lady will welcome that we are now working not only for more trade but for better balanced trade, and what we are doing will achieve that.
The right hon. Member for Devon. North (Mr. Thorpe) raised the point about various Jewish and other Soviet citizens, including artists, writers and musicians. These matters are always discussed. I have found that after 17 or 18 years of dealing with specific cases it is better not to deal with these matters publicly but to use all the influence that one has. Quite a large number came out as a result of my representations over 18 years. It does not help for me to mention individual names, but I had a telegram from the Panovs thanking me for what I did in getting them out, and from Ruth Alessandrovich.
Mr. Michael Stewart: Did my right hon. Friend find that the fact that this country is a member of the European Community in any way hampered the development of good understanding with the Soviet Union?
The Prime Minister: The matter was discussed briefly in our talks. The Russians rather took exception to the fact that, as a result of no action of theirs, tariffs were now being charged on goods supplied from the Soviet Union to Britain,

1119
because of the assimilation of our tariff rates in respect of countries outside the Common Market. So far one can say that a high proportion of Soviet imports into this country are tariff-free anyway. I was able to give Mr. Kosygin figures of items where the tariffs have been raised. In the small proportion there has been a fall in our imports, most have been unchanged, and in a bigger proportion there has been a continued increase. But I was able to explain to him the position Her Majesty's Government were taking up in relation to the renegotiations and the referendum.
Sir Frederic Bennett: The Prime Minister has said that he does not want to publish full details of the trade agreement, a matter which we understand. However, will he confirm that on the terms stated there can be no material benefit to our balance of payments under any circumstances in less than five years from now? Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman chooses to make remarks about overseas experience. He said that he has been to the Soviet Union 19 times. If by now he does not understand the Soviet Union's motivations, he is either more gullible—or some other worse word—than even I have thought.
The Prime Minister: There is no ministerial responsibility for what the hon. Gentleman thinks whatever it is he thinks with. Therefore, I cannot take responsibility for it.
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman about the five years. There will be advantage to us within that period, although many of the so-called jumbo contracts—the £100 million, £200 million and £300 million contracts, which our industrialists and their employees are keen to secure—may well be spread in terms of shipments over a considerable period, and therefore in terms of credit as well. I am satisfied
1120
that the agreement is highly advantageous to Britain with regard to trade, payments and employment, as well as the broader issues.
I think that I have dealt with the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question. Some of us have a great deal of experience. There are deep differences. We do not allow any of the trade advantage to the Russians or to us to interfere with basic issues of human relationships or of politics, our alliances and the rest. The Russians do not. We do not. We are both realistic. One day the hon. Gentleman will wake up and know what it is all about.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. These matters must be pursued in other ways.

HOSPITALS (SUTTON AND CHEAM)
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane) yesterday raised a point about the Hansard record of the Adjournment debate on 5th November last.
These differences of recollection are not easy, particularly when the occasion is over three months ago.
I have considered carefully what the hon. Member said. I also heard the Minister tell the House what he meant to say, and what he thinks that he did say in the relevant part of his speech.
I have consulted the Editor of the Official Report. The reporter's notes confirm what is printed in Hansard. No corrections of any sort were made to that passage in the Minister's speech.
In these circumstances I cannot order any alteration.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (ENFORCEMENT ORDERS) BILL
3.55 p.m.
Mr. Michael Marshall: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to give further powers to local authorities with regard to planning application enforcement orders.
The object of the Bill is to amend Section 90 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 so that local planning authorities land enforcement notices may be reinforced by the provision of stop notices covering use as well as operation.
I am delighted to have this opportunity to seek leave to bring in the Bill on the same day as the Dobry Report is published. The report, by a committee which examined the whole question of our development control system, lays great stress on the problems arising from enforcement appeals. Paragraph 6.20, which gives great strength to the Bill, says:
"It is clear that the great edifice of enforcement appeals imposes an unfair burden on the authorities, as, subject to planning merits, the vast majority of enforcement notices served are sound and therefore the work involved and the complexity of the system is out of proportion to the need to protect individual rights. There does seem to be a case here for doing streamlining and trying to take a few short cuts."
It is precisely along those lines that I am seeking to introduce the Bill.
When a local authority is considering land planning applications, it has power under the 1971 Act to refuse the applications and to serve enforcement notices for use or operation. Appeal may be made to the Secretary of State under either category. However, a local authority's back-up power of a stop notice extends only to operations and not to use.
I will not burden the House with the legal arguments about operation and use. Many hon. Members will be aware of the problems of definition. For the purposes of the Bill, I briefly describe operations in this context as building, mining, engineering activities of a permanent kind, which will permanently affect the land involved. In the same context, use implies a temporary purposes which has no such permanent effect.
1122
However, it is that kind of use that has led to abuses of the planning procedure. I should like to give two specific examples based on the activities of Sunday trading organisations.
First, in my constituency a company called Grathleigh Ltd. opened a Sunday trading market on the disused Ford airfield in April 1973. A planning application was submitted on 6th June. It was refused and an enforcement notice was served on 18th June. Then, because of the delays in the appeal mechanism which are all too familiar to many hon. Members, it took 15 months for a public inquiry to be held, and 18 months in all before the appeal was rejected. That rejection came only a week or two ago.
Throughout that period the market continued to operate. Stalls were erected and dismantled, and major traffic problems were caused on roads which are not suited to heavy traffic. No rates were paid by the operators. In carrying out the necessary steps under the planning system, the local authority was obliged to incur expenditure running into thousands of pounds. All the while, there was unfair competition to local traders. The operators concerned now freely admit that, having had their appeal refused, they intend to find another airfield where they can begin the same practice once again.
I turn to a second and parallel example. My hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) will agree. Thanks to the help of the House of Commons Library, and through Mr. Hart in the Library, who has been particularly helpful, I have gathered that a number of other instances are on record on the same problem. In Melton Mowbray, according to my hon. Friend, there is a precisely similar case of a concern which started Sunday trading on a disused airfield, which it had conducted pending appeal against the planning procedure for about two years. I understand that it has now found another airfield where once again the same process has been repeated. My hon. Friend the Member for Melton is in correspondence with the Minister of State to speed up the planning procedure appeal once more.
The only difference between the two examples I have cited is that at least in the case of my hon. Friend the Member

1123
for Melton the operators in his constituency gave him some warning, if only indirectly. I hope, Mr. Speaker, you will take it from me that I am quoting fact and not making some kind of lighthearted post-prandial comment when I tell you that the concern operating in my hon. Friend's constituency is operating under the name of Spook Erections Limited. What is perhaps not insignificant is that the managing director of Spook Erections Limited is also a director of Grathleigh Limited and a leading protagonist in the same argument with my own county council in Sussex. I understand that he has also been active in putting forward similar proposals at Melbourne airfield in Yorkshire.
The whole sequence of events which I have described may be repeated up and down the country, and one of my purposes in bringing this Bill forward this afternoon is to see whether other hon. Members have had similar experience in their own constituencies. I must also assume that the Minister of State and the Secretary of State are both deeply involved in this whole question of planning appeals. For this is my main argument in favour of the Bill this afternoon.
In both the cases I have quoted these matters could easily have been resolved if a stop notice had also been available for use. Much time and expense, both national and local, could have been saved. Potential operators would have seen where they stood and either would have decided to press on despite the appeal
1124
mechanism or, more likely perhaps, would have looked for other sites where their planning applications would be accepted in the first place. There is ample safeguard against the frivolous use of Section 177 of the 1971 Act, under which the local authority is involved in heavy expense if an appeal is upheld.
I therefore ask the House to give me leave to bring in this Bill this afternoon. I am heartened to find that the Dobry Report specifically suggests this change in the existing legislation. I believe that it will be in the interest of our local authorities, our constituencies and the Department of the Environment itself. In these circumstances I look to the Government as well as to the House to find time to make sure that the Bill reaches the statute book.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Michael Marshall, Mr. Ian Gow, Mr. Michael Latham, Mr. Robert Hicks, Mr. Douglas Hurd, Mr. Patrick Cormack and Mr. Peter Rost.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (ENFORCEMENT ORDERS) BILL
  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (ENFORCEMENT ORDERS)
  Mr. Michael Marshall accordingly presented a Bill to give further powers to local authorities with regard to planning application enforcement orders: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday next and to be printed. [Bill 87.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  INDUSTRY BILL
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [17th February], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Mr. Speaker: I still have more than 20 hon. and right hon. Members who wish to speak from the back benches. I hope that hon. Members will take note of that fact.
  4.5 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Viggers: I am deeply grateful for this opportunity of continuing the speech which I commenced at two seconds to eleven last night.
  This is a controversial Bill not only in what it seeks to achieve but even in the interpretation put upon its power and sphere of activities. To some hon. Members on the Government side it appears a moderate Bill. To others it is the basis of the trade union breakthrough and the dawn of industrial democracy. What is the truth? There are three main purposes of the Bill. The first is to set up the National Enterprise Board, the second is to bring in Planning Agreements and the third is to provide for the provision of information. The last two are linked.
  First, on the National Enterprise Board, I am sure that most of us on this side of the House have nothing against the creation of a Government agency to act as a holding board of Government-held stakes in industry. But what an agency this National Enterprise Board is! By Clause 6 the Board is entirely subject to the Secretary of State for Industry. I quote:
  "… the Secretary of State may give the Board directions of a general or specific character as to the exercise of their functions; and it shall be the duty of the Board to give effect to any such directions."
  By Clause 3 of the Bill the Board shall be subject to the Secretary of State's direction in respect of powers previously exercisable under Sections 7 and 8 of the Industry Act 1972. The Board's powers:
  "… shall not be exercisable by the Board except in any particular case in which the Secretary of State has directed the Board to exercise them."
  1126
  And,
  "It shall be the Board's duty to give effect to any such direction."
  By Clause 15 all the vital safeguards of the 1972 Industry Act are swept away. First, the Government want to remove the limitation on the Government's powers to purchase shares only where no reasonable alternative exists; secondly, they want to take away the requirement for the disposal of shares as soon as practical; thirdly, they want to take away the limitation of the percentage that may be taken in companies outside the assisted areas to 50 per cent.; fourthly, they want to remove the date—31st December 1977—beyond which there will be no powers to take equity outside the assisted areas.
  By Clause 7 of the new Bill there is no real limit on the financial provisions available to the Secretary of State, because the limit of £700 million—which can be extended by agreement to £1,000 million—does not include amounts paid out under Clause 3 of the new Bill. The Secretary of State has virtually a free hand in the expenditure of Government money, subject only to one proviso, and that proviso is not parliamentary but practical. The Secretary of State will be subject to the practical limitation of having to find the money to carry out his plans.
  The operation of the National Enterprise Board will depend upon the extent to which the Secretary of State can persuade other Ministers to surrender money from their budgets to enable him to carry through his industrial plans, and to subordinate their budgets to his huge demands. And huge indeed his demands will be. He will need money for the companies already under the wing of the State. They will include British Leyland, which will clearly need hundreds of millions of pounds. They will include the extraordinary experiments at Meriden and Kirkby. And if the Government have their way they will include shipbuilding and aircraft companies. Altogether a massive amount of capital will be required. The expense will be massive, and the benefit to the country is problematical.
  I come next to Planning Agreements and the provision of information. There is no doubt that industry and the Government need to co-operate on the basis

  1127
  of a longer time scale than Government normally contemplate. In the debate yesterday some of my hon. Friends mentioned three to five years as the time scale for decisions in industry. I would maintain that the time scale for a major decision is five or even ten years from the time of the development of the concept to the time that the factory which is the result of the concept is producing.
  There is nothing inherently wrong with Planning Agreements or with the provision of information, but—and this goes to the root of the problem—the present Bill envisages information being provided to trade unions, not to employees.
  As for Planning Agreements, we heard several hon. Members from below the Gangway—members of the Tribune Group—say yesterday that they saw Planning Agreements and the provision of information as weapons for them to use against management and to help them on the road to increased worker control and nationalisation.
  The Government and their supporters claim to speak for workers. But they do not. We can refer to an objective criterion on this by quoting from The Times of 13th January 1975. The Times commissioned the Opinion Research Centre to carry out a survey on opinions about nationalisation. The headline says it all:
  "Most British workers are against nationalisation".
  The findings are based on the views of a sample of 2,000 people who work full-time for organisations employing more than 20 people. They consider the views of employees about whether their employers are doing a good job. People who think that their employers are doing a very good job account for 33 per cent., those who think that their employers are doing quite a good job, 40 per cent., those who think that they are doing only a fair job, 20 per cent., those who think that they are doing a poor job, 5 per cent. Those working for private enterprise tend to think their company is doing a better job than do the employees of nationalised industries.
  Another question put was:
  "On balance which do you think would do more to strengthen British business and industry—for the Government to become more involved with the management and planning
  1128
  of company affairs, or to be less involved …?"
  Those who thought that the balance at the moment was about right were 31 per cent. The percentage who thought that the Government should become more involved with the management and planning of company affairs was 19 per cent. Those who thought that the Government should be less involved, leaving companies to run their own affairs, were 46 per cent.
  Having established their spontaneous opinion, employees in the private sector were shown two cards, one set suggesting good effects of nationalisation of their own company and one suggesting the opposite. They were asked to say which would happen. Those expecting a better deal for employees under nationalisation were 19 per cent., and those expecting a worse deal for employees were 24 per cent. Those who expected more efficient management under nationalisation were 12 per cent. and those expecting less efficient management were 37 per cent. Those expecting a better deal for people buying the company's products or services were 11 per cent. and those who expected a worse deal for them were 23 per cent. Those who expected better export sales were 10 per cent., and those expecting worse export sales were 15 per cent. But here is the clincher: those expecting fewer industrial disputes and strikes were 9 per cent. and those expecting more under nationalisation were 30 per cent.
  The summary is contained in the final question:
  "Taking everything into account, do you support or oppose the nationalisation of your own company?"
  Those who supported nationalisation were 18 per cent. Those who opposed it were 67 per cent.
  Mr. John Lee: If there is any validity in the arguments which the hon. Gentleman seeks to support by referring to that opinion poll, what does he fear from the disclosure of information to trade unions or workers or, for that matter, to anyone else?
  Mr. Viggers: I have nothing against the provision of information. I am in favour of it. It is the use to which it will be put that worries me. If the hon. Gentleman reads yesterday's debate, he

  1129
  will see that his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and other Government supporters said that they saw planning agreements and the provision of information as weapons for them to use against management. It is to that that I object.
  If workers are against nationalisation, who is in favour of it? Who wants nationalisation and State control? It is not the employees. They do not want union management. They want good management. The advocates of State control are the pseudo-intellectuals and the commissars-manqués of the Socialist Left wing. What could be more divisive and backward-looking than a petrification of the old battleground between unions and management? That is not the way forward.
  We know that industrial investment has been disappointing. But the answer lies away from the sterile field of Socialism, with its spreading tentacles of central Government and its diminution of individual choice and personal freedom.
  Investment will follow a restoration of confidence and security, and it flows directly from a fiscal and economic climate in which investment is worth while because it is profitable.
  This is not a good Bill. It is vague on key issues, and the powers which it gives to the Secretary of State are unwise. As my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) said yesterday, we shall repeal it.
  4.15 p.m.
  The Paymaster-General (Mr. Edmund Dell): The hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) will find that I shall deal with many of his remarks during the course of my speech. But I warn him in advance that I shall not be speaking as a commissar manqué.
  Again and again throughout the years we have heard in this House from both Front Benchers and back benchers the continual lament about industry's failure to invest, about our poor export performance and about our perennial balance of payments problems. These have been attributed in part to the failures of industrial management and in part to failures of the economic policies of successive Governments.
  1130
  It is hardly deniable that our economic record since the war has not been one of success, that we have fallen behind our industrial competitors, and that we stand in grave danger of falling further yet. But, however one attributes responsibility for this situation, the truth is that the interventionist policies of successive Governments have not been particularly successful either.
  Governments have concentrated too largely on grandiose projects which have diverted resources and skills from stress of our industrial economy which would have brought the nation a higher return. If we examine the record of this country's industrial policy since the war and up until the mid-1960s, at any rate, the area of Government activity which did most beneficial service to our industrial competitiveness was probably the Export Credits Guarantee Department, whose useful functions are seldom the subject of ideological controversy across the Floor of the House.
  With the creation in 1966 and 1967 of the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation, there came the beginning of a new approach, a Government agency that could use public money to promote industrial development. I am sure that the fundamental principle of using public money in this way was right. But, in my judgment, the particular IRC approach was in certain respects defective. There was, for example, too great a dedication to mergers. The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) quoted me yesterday as having written that the IRC was too little under Government control. Now that we propose greater Government control, there are further complaints.
  On the basis of experience with the IRC, there was a learning process. Part of the learning was indeed by industry, which had opposed the creation of the IRC but came to understand that it had great potential value as an instrument of Government support for industry. I am sure that if a Labour Government had been returned in 1970, the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation would have formed the basis for a further development of constructive Government involvement with industry.
  Instead, the Conservative Government abolished the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation. They did so much to the

  1131
  regret of much of industry. They did so in their Selsdon period of thoughtless disengagement from industry, the period which the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) curiously described yesterday as the period of total abstinence. But it was on the basis of experience with the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation that many of us proposed the creation in this country of a State Holding Company, based on existing Government shareholdings in industry, which could carry forward in new ways the type of work which the IRC had begun.
  During the last year and again yesterday, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite quoted words which I used in 1973, and indeed would not now change. Certainly I was against equipping a State Holding Company with powers of compulsory acquisition over the private sector of our economy, and indeed I criticised the extent of the proposed acquisitions. This Bill contains no power of compulsory acquisition, except in one limited case, which I think is welcome to industry and to which I shall come in a minute.
  What right hon. and hon. Gentlemen of the Opposition do not quote is the continuing support I have given from an early stage of the debate to the idea of a State Holding Company. On 10th December 1971, on a Private Member's day, I proposed a motion,
  "That this House urges Her Majesty's Government to establish a State Holding Company."
  I made no proposals for any power of compulsory acquisition. But I did propose that such a State Holding Company should have the power to establish publicly-owned enterprises or to act jointly either with private capital or with nationalised industries to establish new enterprises. I explained the purposes of the State Holding Company in words which, I think I dare claim, anticipated the White Paper "The Regeneration of British Industry". There is no need for a State Holding Company to have powers of compulsory acquisition. Indeed, as I will explain later, in my judgment such a power would be counter-productive.
  There is, however, one power of compulsory acquisition in this Bill, a power vested not in the National Enterprise Board but in the Minister, and it is a power subject to the approval of this
  1132
  House. It exists only in the limited cases covered by Clauses 9–13; that is for the purpose of preventing undesirable foreign acquisitions of existing firms. I believe that such a power is needed and indeed that much of industry will regard such a power as needed. But even here this power is limited by the possibility of a prohibition order which would avoid acquisition by the Government. Therefore the need compulsorily to acquire to prevent foreign takeovers should be exceptional.
  Mr. Michael Heseltine: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question which the Minister of State, Department of Industry said that he would answer yesterday but then did not answer? Has the National Enterprise Board powers to make aggressive takeover bids for companies?
  Mr. Dell: If the hon. Gentleman will wait, I shall be discussing this whole question. I think that he should wait for me to deal with these matters in some order. I am dealing at present with acquisitions by foreign companies of existing British firms.
  Mr. David Crouch: Has the right hon. Gentleman left Clause 2? He was touching on that clause before he came to the acquisitions by foreign companies in this country. If I remember rightly, his letter published in The Guardian issued a warning, to which I referred in my speech last night, to his own party and to the Government, about the danger of extending the National Enterprise Board and giving that Board powers to move into the profitable areas of industry, whereas in other countries where such bodies as the NEB already exists such as Sweden, there is no move to enlarge the enterprise boards so that they can move ad lib into the profitable areas. Where does the right hon. Gentleman stand on this matter? Will he give us some constructive thought?
  Mr. Dell: The hon. Gentleman has read my letter in The Guardian. I am sorry that I did not hear his speech, nor have I read it. What I opposed in my letter to The Guardian was the compulsory acquisition of large sections of the private sector of British industry to be put under the control of the NEB. I say that there is no power of compulsory acquisition in the Bill.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: This is an important point. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would want to give a clear reply to the House so that there is no confusion in industry on this point. Can the NEB make a resisted bid for a company? Where the company does not want the NEB to buy in, what happens if it resists?
  Mr. Dell: As I have just said in answer to the hon. Member for Henley, I propose to come to this point and to deal with it in due order. If hon. Members will wait, I shall give them the opportunity of intervening then.
  I was about to refer to the fact that the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) asked yesterday why a power is needed in this respect, that is, to protect against the take-overs by foreign firms, going beyond the Exchange Control Act. The answer is that there could well be cases where it was thought necessary, particularly in current circumstances, to protect an existing firm against foreign take-over for reasons which did not justify the use of the Exchange Control Act. Moreover, the hon. Member is wrong in thinking this power inconsistent with the encouragement the Chancellor of the Exchequer wishes to give to inward investment. This power protects existing firms. It is not available for use against new investments.
  I would make clear, moreover, that these powers do not provide a means by which the Government could interfere in international companies already based in this country, where there is no proposal for change of ownership, nor with the expansion of those activities, nor with foreign companies coming in and setting up new enterprises here.
  While I am on the subject of international companies, I should like to say a little more about this. What we expect of international companies with activities in this country is the same degree of attention to the interests of this country and the workers they employ in this country as we would expect from domestically-owned companies, no more and no less. There is no threat to the multinationals in this Bill. Multinational companies have made an important contribution to our economy, just as British investment in many countries abroad has contributed to the development of other economies.
  1134
  In many cases, as a matter of fact, foreign-owned companies are among the more efficient and have grown faster. This all adds to our national wealth and our standard of living and provides employment. We must recognise and welcome their activities. The present Government are perfectly aware of the harm which could be done to the economy and to the interests of British working people by frightening off these companies. But we are of course, like any other country, entitled to expect responsible behaviour from them, and in the vast majority of cases we have no complaints on that score. I can assure them, in relation to the information powers, that there is no intention to single them out for special attention.
  Mr. Tom King: The whole House will welcome the statement about encouragement for inward investment, which is much more responsible, as is the statement about the contribution of multinational companies. But does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the real threat lies in the disclosure provisions, and that if confidential processes are being operated by multinational companies and they are thinking of introducing them into this country, they may think twice and put them into another country?
  Mr. Dell: If the hon. Gentleman will let me get on, I shall be dealing with the disclosure provisions.
  I have said that a power of compulsory acquisition vested in the National Enterprise Board would be counter-productive. The White Paper makes the reason perfectly clear. It says in paragraph 1
  "We need … a vigorous, alert, responsible and profitable private sector."
  Such an objective, a profitable private sector, would certainly be gravely prejudiced if the National Enterprise Board had a power of compulsory acquisition. We expect the National Enterprise Board to act in voluntary co-operation with private sector companies. It is the Government's intention that the National Enterprise Board will act with agreement. I place that on the record and we can certainly discuss whether it should be placed on the record in a more formal manner.
  Mr. Heseltine: As the right hon. Gentleman is now absolutely on the point we are discussing, it could be said that if a bid is made for a company's equity on the market and the shareholders agree to accept it, that that is by agreement; but it might be against the agreement of the directors of the company. Will he explain exactly what "agreement" means in the terms in which he is using the word?
  Mr. Dell: The hon. Gentleman has exactly identified the point. What he says is right. What I have said is that it is the policy of the Government that the NEB will act with agreement, and we are considering in what form that must be put on the record. I can go no further on that point today.
  I take no credit for expressing, as the White Paper does, this need for a profitable private sector. In a mixed economy, the economic success of the Government and the nation depends on the success of the private sector quite as much as it does on the success of the public sector. Any idea that we can substitute for it, that Whitehall can manage British industry, that it can take its investment decisions, its marketing decisions, its research and development decisions, would be an illusion. Nor would I suggest that to the extent to which the private sector has failed to invest, there is anything like a full answer to the problem in the Bill. Our investment record depends on the will of those who work in industry as well as on the general economic climate.
  That does not mean there is no value in consultation. It does not mean there is no value in co-operation between the private sector and an agency such as the National Enterprise Board, nor does it mean that co-operation between the two and indeed competition between the two, cannot help to promote investment and development in the British economy.
  I know that it is suggested that the NEB may use public money to undermine the private sector by subsidised competition. This is a nightmare without substance. It is the sort of nightmare that was raised when the IRC was founded, when the Industrial Expansion Act was passed, indeed, when the Industry Act 1972 was going through this House. I pay tribute to the skill of Conservative hon. Members with extrava-
  1136
  gant language. I am never quite sure whether it is the efficiency of the public sector or the subsidised inefficiency of the public sector that is thought to be the more dangerous to the private sector.
  The hon. Member for Henley suggested yesterday that the Treasury's powers regarding the National Enterprise Board were ineffective, that we were brought in to deal with a secondary range of minor powers such as those dealing with shipbuilding credit and the NRDC. This criticism is entirely misplaced. The Treasury is given a prominent rôle in determining the financial duties of the board in Clause 5. Moreover, under Schedule 2 Treasury approval is needed before the Secretary of State can lend any sums to the Board from the National Loans Fund, or make any advances from the Consolidated Fund by way of public dividend capital. All this amounts to a major control on the proceedings of the Board. It would prevent, if there were need to prevent, the undermining of private sector firms by subsidised competition.
  In any case, one should set the resources at the disposal of the National Enterprise Board against the scale of resources available to the private sector. The £700 million or £1,000 million available to the National Enterprise Board is intended to cover a number of years. These figures are not at all out of line with the financial provision made by the Conservative Government under Sections 7 and 8 of the 1972 Industry Act. These sums are right for their purpose, the purpose of stimulating new investment, new enterprises and joint enterprises with the private sector within the bounds of what is likely to be practicable in such a period.
  Certainly there must be criteria for intervention, and the National Enterprise Board must act on a commercial basis, whether its interventions consist of assistance to the private sector under Sections 7 or 8 of the 1972 Industry Act or joint ventures between the NEB and private sector companies, or joint ventures with nationalised industries, or the establishment of wholly publicly-owned enterprises.
  Mr. John Roper: Does my right hon. Friend think that the interventions which the NEB is likely to make

  1137
  are likely to fall foul of the various clauses of the Treaty of Rome or the regulations which the Commission has made?
  Mr. Dell: I do not think that they will fall foul. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister answered a question like that today. There are rules, but if there were not this country would be in danger of competition within the Community from countries richer than ours. They would be able to give better subsidies than we can afford. There were rules within the European Free Trade Area. The only way in which we could avoid rules of this sort in these days would be by shutting ourselves in a fortress.
  Profitability and the return on capital, measured in financial terms, remain the best prima facie indication of a company's efficiency in using resources and meeting its customers' needs. If we are to achieve the overriding objective of improving our industrial performance, resources need to be directed wherever possible to companies which have the soundest performance and the best prospects as regards viability and the rate of return, or where there are outstanding opportunities of improving performance. It may be argued that such companies will in any case command the necessary resources without the benefit of the National Enterprise Board. But there can be shortages of management, as well as of money on the right terms, and the National Enterprise Board can help to direct management as well as money. This was certainly one of the better achievements of the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation.
  The hon. Member for Henley said yesterday that the Government's policy of highly selective investment in industry will mean that the weakest will come to collect the cash and the strongest will be gradually debilitated. There is certainly always a danger that Government money will go to the weakest, and that has certainly been a large part of our experience of industrial policy in recent years. Indeed, I criticised the Industry Bill of 1972 on the grounds that there was little in it to protect the public against precisely that kind of danger.
  It is precisely for that reason that in my judgment if intervention is to be financed by public money it should be
  1138
  through the instrumentality of an agency such as the National Enterprise Board, upon which obligations can be placed and which will be responsible for its results.
  Mr. Heseltine: Is the Minister aware that the Industrial Development Advisory Board was set up to protect the public in just the way that he has pointed out—a Board that has been ignored five times by the present Secretary of State for Industry?
  Mr. Dell: The Secretary of State is entitled under the Act to ignore the advice of the Industrial Development Advisory Board. I will come to other aspects of the Act in a moment, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that the board was considered so important by the previous Conservative Government that they did not even include a mention of it in the original draft that was presented to the House.
  I was going on to say that if there are to be subsidies to particular companies to protect them from collapse for social reasons—and all Government act in that way—the subsidies should be overt and the Government should provide the money for them directly. The National Enterprise Board is to be required under this Bill to run a commercial operation. So it is equally right that where the National Enterprise Board acts on behalf of the Secretary of State in a social rather than a commercial context, that fact must be clear and clearly defended on its own merits.
  In summary the position is that the Secretary of State, with the consent of the Treasury, will determine the financial duties of the Board, which will result in an adequate return on the capital employed by the Board. We would envisage that there will be a minimum rate of return, at any rate so far as the Board's wholly-owned subsidiaries are concerned.
  The Bill will allow different financial duties to be determined in relation to different assets and activities. But as the White Paper makes clear, where the Government require the NEB to depart from its commercial objectives on social grounds, and the Government are subsidising the NEB, these subsidies will be accounted for separately. This enables the Government to make use of the

  1139
  expertise and knowledge which the NEB will have. It certainly does not imply that the money provided to the National Enterprise Board to prosecute its commercial functions will be used on any other basis than that the NEB must back success and the prospect of success. We are, after all, discussing very largely not the question whether there should be intervention by Government but how it should be conducted.
  Whatever was the case at the time of Selsdon it is now accepted between the principal parties that the Government need a power to intervene and a capacity to intervene in industry. The right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition, was quoted in the Daily Telegraph of 14th February as saying to the 1922 Committee:
  "If an industry got into difficulty you might have to help it out. But you would do so by making that industry fit and healthy again, so that it could tackle its own problems. This would be intervention on a temporary basis—quite a different form of intervention from going in to take it over."
  Whether it is permanent intervention or temporary intervention, it is still intervention. We can say of the right hon. Lady that she starts well this side of Selsdon. I would simply issue the warning that if one starts on a course of intervention it is not always so easy to put a limit to it. If large amounts of public money are invested in private companies it is not satisfactory that the future of those enterprises should be left simply to private management. The Government are responsible for that money. One needs strict criteria and control. One needs the right instruments.
  But there is another reason for a Government needing the power and capacity to intervene going beyond the need from time to time to help weak industries. Again, it was a reason accepted after its Selsdon period by the former Conservative Government. It is because Government, with the economic record of this country since the war, cannot limit themselves simply to incentives or to macro-economic influences to encourage investment by British industry.
  Nor did the right hon. Gentleman for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) find his other stimulus to investment—namely, dinners with businessmen at Chequers—a particularly effective method. The economic record of this
  1140
  country since the war has not been magnificent. The fact that it has not been magnificent provokes questions. Are there ways in which we could do better? How could it be otherwise than that such questions should be asked? These questions are not to be answered by a confrontation of established ideologies.
  Practical experience shows that among the most damaging features of British economic policy since the war has been the uncertainty it has engendered. Industry has been compelled to ask itself in any period of growth how much trust it could put in its duration. Every investment decision has been made more risky by such uncertainties. It also seems sensible that there should be discussion between Government and industry to see whether there are ways in which Government can help to reduce the special risks attached to investment decisions in a slow-growing economy. Thus correct demand management policy is the principal instrument in the hands of Government.
  Dr. John A. Cunningham: Is thais not the most crucial argument in terms of regional policy? Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that the powers which the Government are about to take and which many of us support are not intended to be used piecemeal, or in an arbitrary fashion, or as a short-term expedient, but are intended to be used strategically? If not, the regeneration of British industry that we seek will not result.
  Mr. Dell: That is certainly the intention. I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Industry, will deal later with the subject of regional employment.
  Incentives have also been used and they have their value. The Government already help with investment incentives. By international standards our investment incentives are very substantial. What industry and the country want above all is steady growth. Governments which have failed to ensure steady growth have provided large investment incentives instead as a very poor second best.
  The present Government have left the investment incentives inherited from the previous Government unaltered—first, because we do not want to make another change in the system for what could

  1141
  only be marginal benefits but, secondly and primarily, because no one can expect industry—after its experience since the war—to rely in its investment decisions on the prospect of steady growth simply because the Government say that that is their objective. It will take many years of happier experience before such a trend will be regarded as reliably established. I regard investment incentives as simply an inevitable ingredient in a slow-growth economy.
  In addition, I have always placed great emphasis on the rôle of competition policy. But something more is also needed—namely, a direct power to stimulate investment and development, particularly perhaps counter-cyclical investment and development. This will not bring many benefits in the short term.
  It would be entirely wrong to overestimate what an instrument such as the National Enterprise Board, or indeed any other form of direct Government intervention, can achieve to deal with the problems we face in the coming months. But it is an essential supplement to other policies. It will be immediately useful to help with particular industrial problems that are bound to arise.
  There is, of course, a legitimate point of disagreement between the political parties about the instrument through which intervention should be conducted. Should the intervention be by the Government directly, or by a Government agency such as the National Enterprise Board? Successive Labour Governments have believed that there should be a Government agency. I have shared that view because I am sceptical of the capacity of Whitehall to act effectively in this field, because there is a need for a continuing responsibility and surveillance over such interventions in industry which Whitehall and Ministers cannot easily exercise—and which, on the record, they have inadequately exercised. I believe that a Government agency can act more independently, more vigorously, more rapidly. It can be staffed for the purpose. Like the IRC, it can redeploy capable managers. In my judgment, an agency represents the better technique.
  Dr. Jeremy Bray: I follow the argument about the relative rôles of the agency
  1142
  and of the Government, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that he sees the power in the Bill as intended to be used systematically to make a measurable impact on the economy as a whole and not merely in what he once described as "case work" of a kind which can be left to an agency?
  Mr. Dell: I accept that the agency will be used in a systematic way. If my hon. Friend will refer again to the excellent book to which he referred, he will see that I was making a distinction in the book between the Government's social intervention and other kinds of intervention.
  However, the Government of the right hon. Member for Sidcup, instead of setting up a Government agency, established in 1972 an industrial development executive within the then Department of Trade and Industry. They said that they had chosen that method because of the importance of Ministerial responsibility. There may be a difference of judgment as to the most effective location for an activity of this kind. It is hardly a question of principle. Indeed, as we know, that Government carefully considered the desirability of acting through an agency outside Government before concluding in favour of the Industrial Development Executive. That is quite clear from the discussions that were going on in this House at the time. In the end, they decided to reject the idea of an agency; but I have always suspected that it was not so much on what they judged to be the merits of the argument as because they did not wish to appear simply to be reviving the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation which they had abolished the year before.
  The fact that this Government have decided to establish an agency for this purpose hardly justifies the scaremongering of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I know that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Henley said that there were four safeguards in the 1972 Act which are to be repealed. The right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies), who was responsible for that Act, made the same point yesterday. The hon. Member for Henley made this point in a letter sent to the chairmen of Britain's thousand largest companies outlining the

  1143
  initial reaction of the Conservative Party to the Industry Bill.
  The safeguards to which he was referring are as follows—and I quote from his letter as printed in a Conservative Central Office handout of the 13th February:

  "1. The limiting of Government powers of purchasing shares only to those cases where no reasonable alternative form of finance exists.

  2. The requirement that shares taken should be disposed of as soon as practicable.

  3. The limitation of a percentage of a company's equity that the State may take in companies outside the assisted areas to 50 per cent.

  4. The date—31st December 1977—after which the Government would no longer have powers to take equity outside assisted areas."

  It is worth examining these four safeguards on which the hon. Gentleman so much relies and whose disappearance he so much regrets.
  Let us take the first, which he describes as the limit placed on Government powers of purchasing shares only to those cases where no reasonable alternative form of finance exists. This limitation on the right to acquire shares was regarded by the previous Conservative Government as so important that it did not appear in the original draft given to this House of Clause 8 of the 1972 Industry Bill. There has, of course, never been a comparable restriction to Section 7 of the 1972 Industry Act. This restriction was al ways a nonsense—a nonsense impeding Government action quite unnecessarily. It is largely no doubt because of this provision that Section 8 of the 1972 Industry Act has been of so little value. Nor is it needed for the protection of companies.
  So far as the NEB is concerned, the real protection for companies lies in the fact, first, that their relations with the National Enterprise Board will be entirely voluntary; secondly, that any National Enterprise Board intervention will be by agreement, and, above all in the fact, that if the company can get money elsewhere, it is at liberty to do so—including, incidentally, private sector money through Finance For Industry. These are the real safeguards and not this entirely self-defeating provision that was installed into the Industry Act at the last minute under pressure from the then Government's supporters.
  1144
  The second safeguard is the requirement that shares taken should be disposed of as soon as practicable. Once again this safeguard in Section 8(iv) of the Industry Act was regarded by the previous Government as so important that it did not appear in the original Industry Bill of 1972. Again, it was always a nonsense. It is important that the National Enterprise Board should have a continuing responsibility for the success of its investments and not least for those which it undertakes under Clause 8. It would be entirely wrong to compel it to get out as soon as "reasonably practical" as it would be required to do—or as the then Government required itself to do under pressure from back benchers.
  Mr. Viggers: Does the same point apply to Clause 7(5) as to Clause 8(4)?
  Mr. Cyril Smith: I wish to ask, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for protection from the Chair for back benchers in this debate. The fact is that the Minister has now been speaking for 35 minutes. This is the second day of the debate on this Bill. The Bill was introduced by a senior Minister yesterday. Yesterday, at the opening of the debate, Mr. Speaker appealed to back benchers to cut their speeches short and said that over 20 hon. Members wished to take part in the debate. We are now listening to another Front Bench speech and there is to be an Opposition Front Bench contribution before back benchers will have the opportunity to contribute. Will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, make a plea to the two Front Benches similar to that which Mr. Speaker made to back benchers yesterday?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Once an hon. or right hon. Member is called, the length of time he takes is up to him. Those hon. Members who spoke yesterday might exercise the self-discipline of not making interruptions today, thus saving the time of other hon. Members.
  Mr. Dell: I apologise to the House. The House will realise that I have taken this length of time because I have given way to every hon. Member who wished to intervene. I therefore take it as the wish of the House that I should give way no further.

  1145
  I shall look up the clauses, as requested by the hon. Member for Gosport, and give him an answer.
  The third safeguard is the limitation of the percentage of a company's equity that the State may take in companies outside the assisted areas to 50 per cent. Again this safeguard was thought by the previous Government to be so important, so vital a part of its industrial legislation, that it did not appear in the original 1972 Industry Bill. Once more it was always a nonsense. Why should there be a difference between assisted areas, where there is no limit on the right to acquire shares, and non-assisted areas? Does anyone imagine that the Government or the National Enterprise Board cannot control a company for most purposes with 50 per cent. of its equity? The real safeguard is that the National Enterprise Board has no power of compulsory acquisition of a company's equity.
  The final safeguard is the 1977 limitation on the powers to take equity outside assisted areas. This one, unlike all the others, was in the original 1972 Industry Bill. Although in that respect it is different from these other supposed safeguards it shares with them the fact that it was always nonsense. There is no evidence at all that need for this type of assistance will cease in 1977. Indeed if the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) is to have the opportunity of discharging the duty, which she sees, of occasionally assisting weak industries, I am afraid she will acquire this power only long, long after 1977.
  I come to the provisions regarding the disclosure of information on Clauses 20 to 24 of the Bill. These clauses have caused great, though perhaps exaggerated, anxiety. It is important to improve the level of disclosure in British industry and to ensure that employees are properly informed about their companies' plans and prospects. It is entirely wrong that, as has happened again and again, large, sudden redundancies should throw thousands of people into unemployment. There can therefore be no doubt about the need to improve the flow of information in British industry.
  There is equally a need to improve the flow of information from British industry
  1146
  to the Government and indeed vice versa. I hope that large companies when invited to enter into Planning Agreements will be alert to the demands which they can put on Government and just not those that the Government are seeking to put on them. Indeed I am surprised at the inferiority complex that so rapidly seizes so many British companies when they read a piece of legislation such as this. In my experience of the relations between Government and industry, companies are at least as well equipped to look after their own interests as are Government Departments to look after the public interest.
  However, those powers have caused anxiety and worry as to how they might be used. Provided the principles of greater information disclosure is maintained, we are ready to listen to and consider constructive criticism and alternative proposals for safeguarding information of vital importance to a firm.
  Yesterday the hon. Member for Henley referred to the failure of the political system in this country to create a partnership between Government and industry of the kind that had been created in other countries. He is absolutely right and he will also note that the other countries to which he refers do not suffer from the obsession for or against public ownership which exists in this country, nor is there the continual battle about public ownership or about the need for agencies such as the National Enterprise Board. Those countries extend public ownership when, on pragmatic grounds, they think it right. They even introduce agencies of this kind when, again on pragmatic grounds, they think it right. It does not cause uproar, nor does it lead shadow industry spokesment to circulate tendentious letters in hundreds of copies protesting against the activities of a Government who wish precisely to create the type of partnership with industry which has helped towards economic success in other countries.
  It is not so much a failure in our political system but a long tradition that the public sector and the private sector must not meet or mix, or, if they do, only with a mutual sense of incorruptible distrust for one another. It is this distrust which must be overcome. On the one hand, there is the slanging of industry by Governments that seek in industrial failure an excuse for their own mistakes,

  1147
  and, on the other hand, there is the rejection of Government intervention, except in extremis, on the ground that such intervention, especially if it comes from a Labour Government, must be motivated by greed, envy and, what is even worse, ideology.
  In building a new partnership it is essential that the Government should not over-emphasise the short-term benefits of action such as the creation of a National Enterprise Board. It is an instrument with a long-term potential. It cannot bring miraculous short-term solutions.
  Nevertheless the creation of the National Enterprise Board is a valuable and constructive initiative. The fears of industry will decline and disappear in exactly the same way as they did in the case of the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation and, indeed, the Industrial Expansion Act.
  I come back to the perceptive words of the Bolton Committee in its Report on Small Companies. It said:
  "There appears to be a tendency to mistrust initiatives of a Labour Government on principle and irrespective of their merits."
  It will, however, in due course be found and accepted in industry that the National Enterprise Board is, in fact, a useful instrument of partnership with industry. To conduct the battle today in the extreme terminology of Selsdon, as the Opposition evidently intend to do, even though they now claim to have rejected Selsdon, is in my judgment both a crime and a blunder.
  4.57 p.m.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: In congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on the time he took for the splendid illustration of the new doctrine of divided Cabinet responsibility, perhaps I should describe it as a case of the Treasury hand on the dog collar. Today we heard the Treasury speech, which was careful and orthodox, with several deep bows in the direction of the private sector which are much appreciated, and a clear recognition of the need to safeguard public money. I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman made that speech. I am sure that what he said will go some way at least to relieving the worst fears of industry.
  1148
  The Paymaster-General will not have failed to notice that the Secretary of State for Industry left the Chamber in the middle of his speech.
  The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Eric S. Heffer)rose—
  Mr. Griffiths: I have no doubt that the Secretary of State for Industry had reason to leave. I accept that. However, I believe that his departure was symbolic, as indeed is the absence for the most part of the Tribune group, who sit on the benches below the Gangway.
  Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My right hon. Friend had to leave to attend a Cabinet committee meeting. There was no other reason why he left. He left his apologies to the Paymaster-General for having left in the middle of his speech.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that honour is satisfied on both sides and that we shall continue.
  Mr. Griffiths: I continue to note that the Secretary of State has left for more important business. I make no complaint. I insist that I find it symbolic that the empty Tribune benches and the departure of the Secretary of State underline the essential division within the Labour Party on this important Bill. If the Paymaster-General, whose contribution I admired, had been in the House yesterday he would have heard the speech from the Department of Industry, all the red blood and thunder about the failures and the selfishness of private enterprise and all the language that we were given about the opening up of a new era of worker control.
  Which Minister is speaking for the Government? Which twin has the Toni? I believe that we are being treated to the evidence of a Government with a Left wing which regards the National Enterprise Board as a mechanism for Socialism and another portion of which is horrified in our present economic circumstances by the possible consequences of what the Secretary of State for Industry is now doing to industry. No doubt when the Minister of State replies this evening we shall hear the red-blooded side of the argument.

  1149
  However, I hope that the Paymaster-General will answer two questions that arose from the debate he missed yesterday. I refer him to the speech made by his hon. Friend the Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore), who is not in his place today, in which he said:
  "It is a Bill which will pave the way to a new industrial revolution—a revolution which will change the face of British industry and the social structure of the United Kingdom.…. It is a Bill which will end the single-minded ethos of the joint stock company … end the managerial society … transform and transfer industrial economics and ultimately social power in Britain."—[Official Report, 17th February 1975; Vol. 886, c. 1017.]
  For the benefit of people engaged in joint stock companies, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Government do or do not want to put an end to them, as the hon. Member for Luton, West said? For the benefit of industrial managers, may we know whether the Government want to end the managerial society? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give the answers to those questions. Perhaps he will do so now.
  Mr. Dell: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that I dealt with those points in my speech, which was apparently too long for the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith). The Government are not responsible for speeches made by backbench Members on either side of the House. Hon Members may express themselves here in any way they wish. I stand by what I said.
  Mr. Griffiths: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman stands by what he said, but I am sure he could not stand by what his right hon. Friend said.
  I turn now to what I believe is some common ground. The common ground must start with the fact that this country faces a national economic crisis. Inflation is very nearly out of control, despite the fact that we are no longer importing it. Wage increases in the public sector are now well over 25 per cent. compared with the 6½ per cent. on which the German trade unions settled in the last few days. Prices are rocketing upwards. The electricity bill for the average householder is up from just over £40 to £55 a year. Food, even with subsidies, is set to rise by an extra 20p to 40p a week. Rates are up by almost one-quarter in most parts of the country and
  1150
  in some areas by one-third. The cost of motoring, not only petrol—that is easy—but repairs, insurance and tyres, is 29 per cent. up on a year ago. And so the spiral goes on.
  Meanwhile, as a Treasury Minister would be the first to recognise, Government borrowing is swelling to proportions which cast doubt upon the Chancellor's ability to finance it. The pound is propped up by the Arabs, whose money is kept in London far more by the skill and trustworthiness of the City of London than by the Secretary of State for Industry, who constantly derides the City's great contribution to our national accounts. All the time the crisis deepens, and with it unemployment.
  I should like to ask another question to which I hope to get an answer. Mr. Jack Jones, speaking on behalf of the Transport and General Workers' Union late last week, said:
  "there is an immediate need for a special and huge jobs rescue plan in industry. The only way to start the rescue is for the Government to tell the State industries to … take on more people. The Government has really direct power in the State sector industries and it must use it now . . to stop the growing threat of a million people out of work".
  Does the right hon. Gentleman, like the Secretary of State for Industry, regard the National Enterprise Board as a mechanism for coercing industries to take on more people to meet Mr. Jack Jones' point? The Secretary of State certainly implied that and has gone round the country bamboozling workers into believing that the NEB is the answer to unemployment.
  The miners' settlement, soon to be followed by other settlements with the railways and the power stations, is already causing some members of the Cabinet to think the unthinkable—that a statutory freeze of some kind may soon be inevitable.
  There is talk of an import surcharge, In the meantime industrial production is falling sharply. Treasury Ministers, including the Chancellor to do him justice, have now hoisted the danger signals. The Chancellor told us that we may well be heading for "national bankruptcy". No longer does he tell us that inflation is slowing down.

  1151
  Therefore the question, as we come to the Bill, is what we should do to overcome this crisis before it overcomes us. I do not pretend for a moment that the Opposition have all the answers, but of one thing I am certain. Faced with so grave a crisis, which sooner or later could spill over into social unrest and episodic violence, the last things that Britain can now afford are an increase in non-productive public expenditure and the disruption of industry by the Government. Yet that is precisely what the Secretary of State for Industry apparently has in store. At a time when his colleagues are having to cut down on roads, schools and hospitals and to abandon the Channel Tunnel and the expanded nuclear power programme that the country needs, the Secretary of State for Industry proposes to splurge hundreds of millions of pounds simply to switch the ownership of large sectors of British industry from one set of hands to another.
  I can think of nothing more irrelevant to our economic problems at this time than the proposal to spend £100 million or more on switching the aircraft industry from one set of hands to another and £40 million or £50 million—we do not know the figure—on switching the shipbuilding industry from one set of hands to another.
  The Secretary of State told us that the Bill will bring in a new era. The right hon. Gentleman built his speech, as he built his whole campaign, on three main themes: first, the need for investment; secondly, the belief that the State can do a better job than private enterprise, which he quite falsely said had failed; and, thirdly, industrial democracy. I want to say a few words about each of those themes.
  Mr. Ted Leadbitter: Before the hon. Gentleman utters those few words, may I ask whether, in view of his comment about my right hon. Friend leaving the Chamber, he has noticed that his hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) has just left?
  Mr. Griffiths: The essential difference is that my hon. Friend and I happen to agree.
  I believe that is is common ground between us that British industry, public as well as private, does not invest and has
  1152
  not invested enough. I hope that it is also common ground that much of our investment, more perhaps in the public than in the private sector, has been misdirected or has produced far too low a return on capital. The questions which divide us are why this has happened and how best our investment can be not only increased by rendered more effective.
  We believe that the best and, in the long run, the only sustainable source of income for British industry is profits. This applies both to the public and the private sector. When profits are healthy, investment starts to grow, though there is always a lead time. When any industry is starved of reasonable profits, investment, again after a period of lag, rapidly starts to decline. The record of recent years bears this out completely, and in view of yesterday's debate I should make the record quite straight. Under the last Labour Government, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) said, the profits of British companies declined disastrously. In 1968 there was a 33⅓ per cent. fall from the profits of 1967, in 1969 a further 12 per cent. fall in profits compared with 1968, and in 1970 there was a 16 per cent. fall from 1969.
  Dr. Bray: What happened to investment?
  Mr. Griffiths: I am coming to investment. Here is the reason, when Labour left office, that the investment intentions of the British industry had fallen to a very low ebb. They went on falling into 1971 and 1972.
  Dr. Bray: What about actual investment?
  Mr. Griffiths: I shall deal with that. Profits honestly earned after 1970 once again started to rise, as production increased and confidence was gradually restored. Thus in 1971, adjusted profits were 12 per cent. up, and in 1972 they were up again by 12 per cent. In 1973, the year when the increased prices of oil and of other raw materials hit industry, profits rose only by just over 1 per cent. The pattern is clear—under the Labour years the consistent and disastrous falls in profit, and with them, the investment intentions, and under the Conservatives the substantial increase in profits and the return of investment to industry.

  1153
  I will tell hon. Gentlemen how industry responded. There is a lag time, a long lead time, requiring the purchase of equipment, buildings, plant and so on. In the CBI survey of more than 1,000 firms there is shown unmistakeably that in the last six months of 1971 investment intentions rose by just under 20 per cent. In 1972 they went up a further 20 per cent. In the first 10 months of 1973, before the fuel crisis, they went up by a further 18 per cent. I think there is absolutely clear evidence here that when industy is profitable it invests and when it is starved of profits it does not invest. Hon. Members talk about the private and public sectors, but it makes no difference. If industry is allowed to make profits, it will invest. If it is not allowed to make profits it will not invest. It cannot.
  Since investment lies at the heart of this Bill, I think we must see what the present Government have been doing to encourage industry to invest. The Chancellor of the Exchequer banged up corporation tax and advance corporation tax. He very much raised national insurance contributions and extended price control so that industry was unable to pass on the full effects. Local authorities, with Government encouragement, banged up industry's rates bill as much as 30 per cent. in 1974, with more to come this year.
  Meanwhile, inflation not only in the price of fuel and raw materials but increasingly in the explosion of real wage costs to industry, is driving company after company to the wall—so much so that the number of bankruptcies has risen from 882 in the third quarter of last year to 1,355 bankruptcies in the third quarter of the 1974–75 year. Hon. Members will realise that the bankruptcies of individual private firms means the joblessness of thousands of men who work in them.
  All these were body blows to industrial investment. It is, therefore, no surprise at all that the Bank of England, in its Quarterly Bulletin of last December, estimates that in the first quarter of 1974 industrial and commercial firms made no real profits at all. Rather, they suffered a financial deficit of £740 million. That is a measure of the stewardship of the present Government of British industry.
  1154
  One cannot expect investment out of a negative cash flow.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Michael Meacher): If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the relationship between profitability and investment is the key factor, how does he explain that profits successively rose considerably in the first three years under the last Conservative Government and yet when they went out of office investment was 10 per cent. below, in real terms, what it was when they came in?
  Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not follow him along that road. He spoke last night. He does not understand the rôle of confidence in investment, and so long as he stays in office, I doubt very much whether confidence will return.
  The only recourse for industrial firms if they do not generate the profits with which to supply their investments is to turn to the banks. But they are caught up by the sky-high interest rates which reflect the Chancellor's need to pay over the odds to keep Arab money in Britain.
  On the subject of investment, industry has been treated abominably by the present Government. It is, therefore, no wonder that the latest survey shows that 41 per cent. of firms expect to invest less in the next 12 months, that 31 per cent. are less optimistic about exports, that 61 per cent. are working below capacity and 34 per cent. believe that they will be forced to shed labour. We have indeed a crisis.
  Against that background, where industry's profits have been destroyed by excessive taxation and runaway inflation, it is an impertinence for the Secretary of State to go around complaining that industry has failed to invest. He and his right hon. Friends have shattered confidence. They have made investment impossible. Their attitude is like that of the mediaeval apothecary who first bled his patient white and then wondered why his patient was anaemic. There is, of course, a less charitable explanation. I would not for one moment level it at the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Michael Mates: Go on!
  Mr. Griffiths: It is that the Secretary of State for Industry, far from being unhappy about this fall in investment, is quite satisfied to see private industry being driven to the wall because he welcomes the sight of great British firms being pushed near to bankruptcy and forced against their wishes to look to him—their tormentor and soon their executioner—for help. I do not wish to do the right hon. Gentleman an injustice, but I must tell him that a large number of people who are just as dedicated to the success of British industry as he is, and who have a good deal more experience, are convinced that in his private thoughts he rejoices at the sight of his colleagues' measures and his own threats bringing great private firms to their knees because he knows that only in this way can he possibly justify his plans to take them over.
  The Conservative Party opposes this Bill absolutely, and we shall, as soon as circumstances permit, get rid of it. We oppose it because it stands not by itself but is one of a whole series of measures designed to impose State Socialism on the country. It is not by itself. On top of it there are the measures for all-out nationalisation. Beyond coal, gas, electricity, railways, waterways, airlines, the National Freight Corporation and steel, Labour is now proposing to nationalise shipbuilding, ship repairing, marine engineering, airframes, aero engines, aerospace, the remaining free enterprise ports and effectively building land.
  Nor is this the end of it. The Labour Party Manifesto says:
  "We shall take over profitable sections of individual firms including sections of pharmaceuticals, road haulage, construction and machine tools in addition to our proposals for North Sea and Celtic Sea oil and gas."
  If the Government do what they say, it means that the great bulk of our productive capacity, one way or the other, will be in the hands of the State and that, taking account of those employed in central and local government, well over half of the working population of Britain will be employees of the State. They will not have much chance to change their employer then.
  In addition, there are the financial measures, capital transfer tax, penal taxes on company profits, higher income tax and surtax—and no doubt we shall see
  1156
  more of those in the Budget—the forthcoming wealth tax and the ever-higher charges for national insurance and rates. Taken together these will mean—indeed they already do mean—that the State, one way or another, takes away from the citizens a far larger share of the gross national income than it does in any of our main industrial competitors in the free countries of the world.
  Next, the Government, in the name of industrial democracy, propose to hand over more and more of the day-to-day power in British industry and commerce to one section of the community—the leaders of the trade unions. The Government have already put through the closed shop legislation. In this Bill they seek to create a new, privileged class through the disclosure arrangements that give to union officials, and union officials only, privileges that will be denied to shareholders, consumers or even to this House.
  Before long, or so we are promised, Ministers propose to impose 50 per cent. trade union membership on the boards of companies, irrespective of whether the workers in the companies have joined a union.
  Taken together, all these measures give the lie to what the right hon. Gentleman has sought to tell the House this afternoon. We can live with him and his reasonable attitudes, but these measures add up to the most concentrated, most destructive and most class-conscious attack on what remains of private enterprise and individual capital and property ownership that we have seen in this country. They make a nonsense of the Chancellor's protestations that he wants a healthy and vigorous private sector. They give the lie to the Prime Minister's claim that, in the interests of confidence, he wants what he called a stable frontier between the private and public sectors.
  I give credit where it is due. The Tribune group has never concealed its desire to see the private enterprise mixed economy destroyed. They are honest men. Who can say that of the Government? The Chancellor of the Exchequer hands out reassurances about private capitalism behind a haze of cigar smoke at the Guildhall while the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster does the same in Wall Street. They both tell the City not to worry about the Secretary of State for Industry—"Harold has him

  1157
  tamed", they say. The Prime Minister even tells the nation that the Secretary of State is not to be master in his own house, that all the powers given to him are only window-dressing, while the real power to clip his wings remains in the Treasury. I hope that that is so.
  I was interested to note that all these soothing noises and especially the cosy chat which the Prime Minister is said to have had with the CBI at No. 10, have alarmed the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo). He made that plain yesterday. They have certainly not assisted the Secretary of State for Industry, although he would be the first to recognise that he does not inspire the same loyalty from his Cabinet colleagues as he does from the Left of his party. In my view the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow and the Tribune group need not worry. They are winning hands down, perhaps not as quickly as they would like but steadily and inexorably.
  The Labour Party is moving towards all-out Socialism, snuffing out private enterprise in industry after industry, confiscating private property, taxing away personal capital, restricting consumer choice and concentrating economic, financial and political power into fewer and fewer hands. It is doing this on the basis of no clear electoral mandate.
  I turn to the question of consent. The Secretary of State told us yesterday that he is winning consent for his measures. He was apparently reported in Monday morning's papers as saying that he finds growing support for his Bill among management. It appears that managers of British industry do not read it in quite that way.
  The Association of British Chambers of Commerce issued a statement following the Secretary of State's remarks. They said:
  "we are most puzzled by the claim … by the Secretary of State for Industry … that there is growing support for the Industry Bill among the ranks of management. The Bill and its preceding White Paper have been under steady scrutiny in Chambers of Commerce for months. Yet in all that time we have not been made aware of any measure of support from management. All that our efforts have revealed are a growing number of inherent snags, and a growing awareness of the irrelevance of the measure to the real economic problems facing us."
  1158
  The right hon. Gentleman will know that this association is hardly the voice of privilege. It represents 50,000 British companies, both large and small, industrial and commercial and in every region of Britain. It is easily the largest representative group of its kind in the country and its most active participants are drawn from just the levels of middle management which the Secretary of State quite wrongly claims to be supporting this Bill. The association concludes the statement with these words:
  "One thing we are aware of … has been the assiduous effort of certain members of the Government to visit individual Chambers and meet their members. On occasion such talks have been followed by an unfounded ministerial claim that Government ideas were received sympathetically. We were simply being polite."
  That is the comment of the managers of British industry. It underlines the self-deluding capability of the Secretary of State. He has an extraordinary ability, together with his hon. Friends, to turn up at trade union meetings, get a large round of applause and then go away convinced that he has carried the nation.
  I thought that the late Dick Crossman put it very well when, in an article published this week in The Sunday Times, he said:
  "I like Tony Benn a great deal and I had every hope of him when Harold appointed him Postmaster-General. It's a queer thing but I am not very happy about him now I see him at work.
  To begin with, on every single occasion when he is about to bring a plan to Cabinet a leak occurs giving the full details in advance."
  How is industry to treat the confidentiality of the Secretary of State on the Planning Agreements if that is the way he handles his Cabinet papers? Mr. Crossman continued:
  "In the second place, there is an odd hardness about him … he has at times a kind of mechanical Nonconformist self-righteousness about him which seems to come out even more strongly in office."
  I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell his master that his self-deceiving ability has made him, as the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) said, the scourge and not the friend of industry.
  During the debate yesterday my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) was asked whether he would attempt to set out the ways in which a Conservative Government would handle

  1159
  this mater differently. That is a fair question and in the spirit of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I would like to conclude with a few remarks on that point.
  We shall resist by every constitutional means open to us this onslaught on private enterprise and on the freedom of the individual to own and manage capital in a competitive and responsible fashion.
  We shall resist it for the following reasons: first, because it involves the squandering and waste of public money. We cannot afford to spend hundreds of millions of pounds to satisfy the Secretary of State's taste for industrial experimentation. Secondly, we shall resist it because it would dislocate industry and distract the attention of managements and workers at a time when every effort needs to be devoted to increasing output, to holding down costs and to expanding overseas sales.
  Thirdly, we shall oppose it because much of it is a phoney. The National Enterprise Board in reality is a licensed State take-over board, and the Secretary of State's regeneration will turn out to be the degeneration of British industry, just as his industrial democracy is no more than a fancy label for a shop steward's oligarchy.
  We shall oppose the Bill because, in principle, along with other actions of the Government, it lays an axe at the roots of industrial efficiency. The Conservative Party is as keen as any hon. Gentleman opposite on worker participation and the disclosure of information by private companies, but the ham-handed manner and the excessive pernickety detail which the right hon. Gentleman has instructed his parliamentary draftsmen to inflict on the day-to-day management of complex businesses reveals that total but dangerous innocence on his part that makes industry despair of Government intervention.
  Above all, we shall oppose the Bill—and, indeed, the right hon. Gentleman's whole bag of tricks—because it strikes at the heart of the free, responsible and capital-owning society which we believe the large majority of the British people instinctively prefer to the rigid collectivist system which the Labour Party seeks to impose.
  1160
  Private enterprise—and it is fair that I state this plainly so that Labour Members can disagree if they will—is to us by far the most effective method of harnessing the energy and ambitions of the individual for increasing the wealth of the nation, for pioneering new projects and technology, for holding down prices through the mechanism of competition and, above all, for widening the range of choice of goods, services and jobs.
  To us, capital ownership is the outward and visible sign of something quite basic in the spirit of man, that is the desire to have and to hold what human beings earn for themselves, and it expresses a man's reasonable desire to pass on to his children some fruits of his own labour.
  More important is the matter of freedom. At a time when the individual citizen finds himself hemmed in by big Government, big media and big unions, the wider the spread of capital ownership, the more secure his personal liberty. Where the State owns and manages everything, no one save the bureaucrat has any real freedom of choice. It is only where large numbers of citizens—preferably the large majority—themselves own and manage substantial portions of society and are protected by law from the arbitrary usurpation of their property rights that the individual can maintain, with any hope of success his independence, his personal privacy, his ability to change his employer or his basic right to disagree with those who govern him.
  5.34 p.m.
  Mr. Roger Stott: I did not interrupt the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) because I am conscious of the time, but I hope to take him up on some of the spurious arguments that he has just deployed.
  I have sat in this Chamber all today and yesterday listening to Conservative Members deploying their arguments, and it seems to me that we have been witnessing something similar to a group of surgeons looking at a sick patient and each surgeon coming up with a different answer on how to make him well.
  Those of us who have worked in industry all our lives and have had the good fortune recently to enter this House have for many years had our own ideas of why British industry is in its present decline. We have seen a growing

  1161
  malignancy in British industry, a malignancy which in some cases has become terminal. Industries as diverse as aerospace and washing machines have been floundering in a sea of incompetence, uncertainty and inefficiency.
  Year after year we have witnessed industry, both big and small, coming to the Department of Industry to seek Government assistance of one kind or another. This has happened with industries such as Upper Clyde Shipbuilders, Rolls-Royce, Fisher-Bendix, Jensen Cars, Hawker Siddeley, Govan Shipbuilders, Ferranti, and latterly the British Leyland Motor Corporation.
  In addition to the big ones, there are small companies which have received and are still receiving Government assistance, and the House ought to ask itself—and that is what it has been doing for the last two days—why British industry has got itself into such a position. Why have successive British Governments failed to achieve their industrial aims?
  There are a number of reasons for that, and I shall attempt to deploy some of them. Industry has undoubtedly suffered from the rapid rate of inflation, coupled with various economic and fiscal policies pursued by successive Governments. In addition, there are many examples of poor and bad managements which are unable to perceive the complexities of a rapidly changing technological world. The demise of small companies has led to the growth of multinational corporations and companies whose wealth in some cases is greater than the wealth of individual nations and whose power is greater than that of some sovereign States. These companies operate on a unilateral basis without any regard for the consequences of their actions either at regional or local level.
  British industry has also suffered from low productivity. This stems largely from the fact that we have had a bad period of industrial relations, brought about mainly by the catastrophic decision of the Conservative Party to bring in the Industrial Relations Act—an Act which brought a positive concerto of confrontation into the industrial scene. I am glad that that Act has finally been buried.
  There is another and even more important reason—and it has been touched
  1162
  on during the last two days—why British industry is facing its present demise. This is the lack of investment in British manufacturing industry over the past 30, 20, 10 or five years. We have been positively gorged over the last two days with statistics and figures to show why British industry is doing so poorly, or so well, depending on how one interprets the statistics.
  I asked the Library to let me have some statistics. If we take the percentage GDP invested in manufacturing industry, we learn that from 1968 to the present time we have invested 6 per cent., as against 8·2 per cent. in France, 9 per cent. in Germany, 6·2 per cent. in Italy, and 7·4 per cent. in the Netherlands. I assure the House that it gives me no pleasure to draw attention to our bottom of the league position in industrial investment.
  Another example of industrial investment was poignantly brought to my notice the other week when, with some of my colleagues, I attended a meeting at Preston called by British Leyland Motor Corporation shop stewards, because some of us have constituency interests. We listened to what the shop stewards said, and at the end of the meeting they gave us a document which I find contains answers to some questions.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry said to the shop stewards, "You tell me what you think is wrong with British Leyland. You answer four questions which I shall ask you". The document says:
  "The main reason for the sickness in the British Leyland Motor Corporation is the lack of monetary nourishment."—
  Those are their words, not mine.
  "As as result our productivity has been low—because of failure in past management to invest in equipment to do the job in hand as effectively as possible in order to compete intelligently with our competitors. It is no accident or the quality of the BLMC worker that his counterpart in Fiat, or Volkswagen can lay claim to producing twice and three times more respectively than the British Leyland Motor Corporation worker, but for the simple and indeed tragic reason that Fiat along with VW have a far higher rate of investment. Fiat and VW in 1972 as an example, invested £142 millions and £278 millions respectively against a relatively small amount of £42 millions in the British Leyland Motor Corporation."
  So, by any reasonable yardstick that can be applied it is obvious that there has

  1163
  been a failure to invest in British industry. That is tantamount to failing to invest in the future of the British nation.
  I do not claim to be an economist but I believe that there has been a failure to invest in industry because it has been more lucrative to invest in land, building, houses and many other projects. If industry is not capable of generating its own finance, it must presumably go to the market. I do not know whether the Stock Market is a true barometer of the nation, whether it is a good thermometer in the mouth of the ailing patient. However, judging from its performance last year, it was more beneficial to invest money in a lousy, derelict building in the middle of London called Centre Point than it was to invest in British Leyland. A fact like that certainly concentrates the minds of my constituents who work for BLMC.
  There is therefore an overwhelming case for the creation of an organisation which is tuned and developed to be an imaginative instrument of State participation, and I believe that the NEB is such an organisation. I should like to see the Board operate in four or five ways. It must first improve the basic industrial system and create economic wealth. Secondly, it must promote a wider public interest and make the activities of the industrial system more acountable to the public. It must also pursue a policy of involving the workpeople themselves. These aims are vital if we are to achieve the objectives of the NEB, and therefore all the interested parties must be determined to secure greater efficiency, more sensible management and a reconstruction of attitude towards industry.
  The question of the voluntary planning agreements is by far the most difficult. There are many obvious pitfalls. I am not sure whether any of us know the exact ramifications of embarking upon a policy like this. I am sure, however, that there is a need for closer co-operation between Government and industry if we are to get the best out of both. We have seen in the past the economic and fiscal policies of Governments moving in one direction while industry has been moving in another direction, neither side knowing what the other is doing.
  If there is one single main deficiency in the operation of the British industrial
  1164
  system it is the inability by all parties—Government, companies and unions—to develop a useful, logical and sensible perspective. So the objectives of planning agreements should be to try to develop the capacity to formulate a strategy both in Government and in individual corporations and to promote a systematic perception and willingness in corporate management to see itself as contributing part of the whole social system. The Government must discipline themselves to be strategically orientated, and above all they must not accede to the pretence that they know best in this matter. They must seek a genuine and effective co-operation.
  I am glad that the Bill contains provision for the extension of industrial democracy. There is a measure of agreement about industrial democracy in the House and I believe that there is an overwhelming case for it. We can see a growing determination among work people to become intimately involved in the decision-making process which shapes their destinies, and that is not unreasonable or unnatural. We have to proceed along these lines and we have to encourage that action because if we in Parliament fail to recognise this growing desire in the trade union movement and amongst the work people to have a piece of the action we do so at our peril.
  The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum of the Bill says that the extension of public ownership into profitable areas of private manufacturing will be allowed. I declare my interest to the House in that I am a sponsored Member of the Post Office Engineering Union. For all my working life until I came to the House I was employed by the Post Office as a telephone engineer. The Government are well aware that the Post Office Engineering Union has made representations in the past that it should be allowed to manufacture its own equipment. My union believes that if we are to have an effective industry that will provide the nation with an adequate telecommunications network it needs the manufacturing provision. The Post Office needs to be able to manufacture its own equipment and it must be given the tools to get the work done. I hope that the Government will look sympathetically at that point. Both the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary have accepted its validity.

  1165
  The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) said yesterday that this was a historic debate, and he was right. We are at a crossroads, on the threshold of great new opportunities. Either we carry on with the industrial policy of the past decade, which will surely lead to ruin, or we change that policy and we change it now. If we identify the problems and use the Bill to sort them out our industrial system will be a great deal better.
  5.48 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Nelson: Whether this debate will turn out to be at a crossroads or on a precipice only history will tell. I agreed with many of the earlier comments by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Stott), and I was genuinely moved by his ideas of the sort of industrial society that he would like created. The need for a new dynamism is recognised by all hon. Members.
  In considering why we have been unable to secure an adequate level of investment, it is important to look back over the history of Government intervention in industry, particularly to the trilogy of legislative measures of the last seven years which started with the Industrial Expansion Act 1968 and which brought with it the IRC. The IRC's objectives and financial commitments have been added to by successive Governments in different Acts, but the 1968 Act was passionately opposed by the Conservatives for giving extensive powers to the Government in the form of enabling legislation. Those powers in that instance amounted to about £150 million, and that now looks somewhat paltry.
  After the repeal of that Act and the introduction of the 1972 Act, which substantially increased selective and regional assistance by an initial £300 million, my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) introduced the interesting new concept of non-culpable decline of industries, and that has been curiously absent from our debate. My right hon. Friend said on that occasion
  "We certainly have no intention of propping up inefficient management or an inefficient work force, but where such a firm has an important place in the economy we need to be sure that there really are insuperable obstacles to its continuation on a sound basis."
  1166
  —[Official Report, 22nd May 1972; Vol. 837, c. 1020.]
  It is interesting to note that there were few objections raised to the 1972 Act. The present Secretary of State did however say:
  "We believe that the arbitrary nature of the Bill is likely to strain relations between Government and industry given the massive range of powers which the Secretary of State has and the large sums involved."—
  What an extraordinary statement that is seen to be when one looks at the open-ended, undefined and discretionary powers accorded to the Secretary of State in the Bill.
  I add another statement which looks like another pas de deux by a member of the Government. On that occasion the present Paymaster-General said:
  "The Secretary of State does not have in his Department the administrative capacity to spend these amounts of money selectively and wisely. I therefore suspect that a great deal of it will be spent unwisely and for political and not economic and social ends."—[Official Report, 22nd May 1972; Vol. 837, c. 1031–92.]
  I question what new change has overtaken the House, if he now vests greater confidence in the Secretary of State to make available large sums.
  Mr. Dell: I made exactly the same point today. What is necessary is a Government agency which will have continuing responsibility for its actions. That is what I recommended then, and that is what I recommend now.
  Mr. Nelson: That does not answer the point I raised, but I accept and understand the hon. Gentleman's standpoint on that.
  Since the passing of that Act, the departure has been immense, signified by the White Paper and the Bill, both of which were based on the assumption that our poor economic record over the past decade can be reversed only by Government intervention in the form of ownership and planning. I believe the opposite to be true. If it were not for the profits and the earnings of those enterprises free from Government control, we should now be unable to pay for the growing deficits of the public sector industries.
  We have had an interesting and in many ways constructive debate from the point of view of examining the determinants of the level of investment. The most

  1167
  progressive remarks were probably made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ton-bridge and Malling (Mr. Stanley) yesterday. The hon. Member for Westhoughton made many points with which I concur. In my view—I hope this will not be taken as a negative point—the propensity to invest is largely determined by factors outside Government control. The international factors of investment confidence and propensities to consume and invest are significant determinants. Having said that, the fiscal climate in which industry operates is probably the largest domestic determinant of the level of investment.
  To those quick to cry that with the large reduction in taxes, which was undertaken by the Conservative administration, such an investment scenario might not have followed, I would say that further determinants must be the economic climate, political stability and expectation of both continuing for a reasonable period of time—in other words, confidence.
  As well as needing to see the prospect of an adequate return on capital employed, industry needs a reasonable time scale, free from the stop-go policies of successive Governments, in which to operate. The Government's possibilities of obtaining this objective are to a certain extent limited by international factors. Above all, stability is the important factor, and to that extent the Government by doing nothing are not necessarily taking a negative attitude in encouraging a level of investment.
  Thirdly, the level of investment is, as economists will know, to a large extent a function of saving, the propensity for which must certainly be on the decrease.
  I agree with comments from all sides of the House on the need for a progression to more adequate industrial relations. I yesterday asked the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) in an intervention why, if he so vehemently proposed vast State extensions, countries such as Germany which had a more free enterprise system than our own, were able to achieve a far more successful economic record. His answer were threefold, the two major points of which were that there is in that country a far more
  1168
  dynamic intervention by institutions which had shareholdings in companies and there was a higher degree of distribution of dividends.
  To a large extent I accept both of those points. They are the positive points that we should be trying to amend in order to create the sort of industrial environment in which free enterprise can operate profitably, so that we shall not have to put Government and taxpayers' money into loss makers for a succession of years.
  The arguments for and against Government ownership and intervention have been the subject of detailed empirical study. In the last resort I believe it comes down to whether the opportunities and the rewards of employment and investment are greater under a State-controlled economy than under a free enterprise one. Very often the argument against the State's taking a passive rôle when major enterprises come across liquidity problems is the unemployment consequence. Arguments for a passive rôle are termed right-wing, but my philosophy is that the end result of massive Government intervention and the use of taxpayers' funds for the propping up of massive loss-making companies will not be just a high level of unemployment but an absolute level. There comes a point at which one cannot succeed in covering the deficits of a growing public sector by taking profits and revenues in the form of taxes from industry or individuals. They just will not be there. The only option is either to borrow abroad, when one's credibility has fallen, or to go back to the money-printing machine, which spells certain disaster.
  I accept the need for a mechanism by which Government may exceptionally take a temporary stake or provide temporary financing for a concern which might otherwise go bankrupt, causing a chain reaction of bankruptcies and mass unemployment. But I accept that need only on the strictest conditions concerning duration and reorganisation. It is no function of Government to make an open-ended commitment with taxpayers' funds when there is no quid pro quo in the concern involved in the form of wage restraint, at least indexed to the level of inflation. In this instance I quote the example of the £50 million

  1169
  Government guarantee for British Leyland which was forthcoming, and without such an undertaking.
  I turn now to the National Enterprise Board. I hope that the Minister winding up the debate will explain what the Board will be and who will own it. We are told in the Bill that it will be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal. We are told in Clause 1 that it will not be a servant or an agent of the Crown. I fail to see who will own it and to whom it will be responsible. I fear that eventually—with large sums being made available to it—it will start to grow of its own volition. I seriously question the composition of the Board.
  I have no doubt that an impressive array of members of the Board will be forthcoming. But I also have no doubt that the Board will be a puppet of the Government, with the Secretary of State holding all the strings. We know that all the members of the Board, under the Bill, will be appointed, paid for, financed, directed and sacked by the Secretary of State. It will be a puppet body. Both the public and this House should not be deceived into thinking otherwise.
  Thirdly, I would like a more adequate explanation of the criteria for investment which the Board will use. This afternoon the Minister—in very woolly words—tried to explain the provisions in Clause 2 appertaining to this matter.
  I should like to know in particular what financial criteria will be attributed to prospective investments and how he reconciles those criteria with the preferential treatment of the NEB under Schedule 1, Clause 18, whereby it will not be liable for stamp duty, which of course provides a very important cost determinant of acquisitions in the private sector at the moment. Under Schedule 2 preferential financing can be made available. This will promote unfair competition.
  I would also question the underlying view that the ability exists amongst members of the Board or those who direct it to acquire industries and enterprises and inject expertise and investment into them which will be far more successful in social, economic and—and I question this above all—commercial terms than that of a profusion of people in free
  1170
  enterprise industry who have direct responsibility for monitoring industrial opportunities. Indeed, who are those 250 supermen who will be advising this puppet body.
  I also want to make a comment on one aspect which has been questioned, and that is the question of debt or equity financing by Government concerns. I believe it was the Secretary of State who asked yesterday who would suggest that Government financing should not be accountable and should be undertaken without an equity stake in the industrial field. I for one would suggest that. I believe there are great advantages in debt financing through the Board or direct by the Department of Industry or the Secretary of State. For I believe this is very much in line with the intention behind Sections 7 and 8 of the 1972 Act that such finance be of short duration and it is quite possible to apply to debt financing the same or indeed more stringent conditions than are applied to equity financing. But it also goes to the base of my argument that it is no function of Government to put up taxpayers' money in the form of risk capital.
  I think it is essential that these points be answered before the Bill is given a Second Reading and I join my hon. Friends on this side of the House in opposing the underlying principle.
  6.03 p.m.
  Mr. Giles Radice: I hope the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) will forgive me if I do not follow him in all his remarks although on the whole I think he spoke in a more thoughtful way than his Front Bench spokesmen. Instead I want to join my hon. Friends on this side of the House in giving a very enthusiastic welcome to the Industry Bill.
  The objectives of the Bill were clearly outlined to the House in the impressive speech yesterday by my right hon. Friend and in an equally impressive performance by my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General. We on this side of the House are convinced that the National Enterprise Board and the Planning Agreements that go with it, if taken together, provide perhaps for the first time an effective instrument for the restructuring of British industry. The Board has, at any rate for the first few years, an adequate

  1171
  source of finance. It has the necessary powers, as laid down in Clauses 2 and 3, to do a valuable job and, through its ability, with Government approval, to acquire shareholdings and to extend public ownership, it will be able to safeguard the community interest and resources.
  The passing of this Bill through Parliament will represent, we believe, a ray of hope for British industry and those who work in it. My union, the General and Municipal Workers' Union, which sponsors me and a number of other hon. Members, strongly supports this Bill.
  I understand from the intemperate language we have heard from the benches opposite, and particularly the Front Benches, and from the media that this Bill will receive a rough handling in its passage through the House of Commons. I do not think anybody in this House seriously believes that, if by chance the passage of the Bill were mercifully speeded up, the faults of British industry, the deep-lying faults, the structural flaws, the slow rate of investment, the lack of competitive edge that everybody who has spoken so far has talked about, the authoritarian decision-making process, would be eradicated overnight. As my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General has made clear, it will take time, and if the National Enterprise Board is to make an effective contribution it also needs to operate against the right kind of background.
  In this connection I want to make three points. First, if the National Enterprise Board is not to become merely a glorified rescue service it must operate within the confines of a clearly worked out industrial strategy directly related to the present weaknesses of the British economy. We must identify those industries in which there is the greatest export potential. For example, there is now a growing and profitable market for British capital goods and engineering products in the oil-producing countries and the other countries which have benefited from the explosion in commodity prices. Yet so far, judging from the figures, we have not taken full advantage of this opportunity.
  We need also to identify the supply constraints in industries such as engineering, machine tools and steel, which lead,
  1172
  every time the British economy grows, to a sucking in of imports and therefore to balance of payments difficulties. Equally important, we must develop as quickly as possible our own North Sea oil industries. Obviously, the Departments of Industry and of Trade will need to co-ordinate their activities very closely here, and there is also an important role for the tripartite planning body, the NEDC, which has already done much valuable work in this field in identifying the obstacles to growth and in looking at ways of saving imports.
  My second point is that if the National Enterprise Board and the planning agreements are to supply that extra dimension we need so badly in regional policy then, once again, it must operate within a strategic framework. What is needed above all is a strong central commitment to regional policy and, at regional level, planning authorities with the ability to analyse the strengths and weaknesses of regional economies and, together with the National Enterprise Board and Government, to act on that knowledge. We do not have that at the moment. We need it.
  My third point is about industrial democracy. I fully support the approach of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry to this question and welcome all he has done already and is doing to involve trade unionists in the running of the economy and of industry. He is absolutely correct when he says that we must build on and develop existing trade union strength and achievements in collective bargaining. My only query is that I hope the Secretary of State will not confuse the wholly desirable dissemination of information as contained in clauses in this Bill with industrial democracy. We recognise that the subjects are connected, but industrial democracy is about power; it is not about consultation or information, desirable though these may be.
  In my view, and in the view of the TUC, it is now essential that there should be joint regulation of matters vital to workers lives, such as investment, closures and re-employment, mergers and takeovers—all the central questions of corporate strategy. I remain agnostic about the constitutional framework within which these subjects should be discussed:

  1173
  that is a matter for the trade unions and employers concerned. But, equally, I see no reason why, if trade unions wish to exercise joint control at board level, Parliament should not in the future allow that opportunity. Therefore I ask the Secretary of State not to close his mind to the idea of 50 per cent. trade union representation at board level. I believe he would be well advised to keep his options open on this.
  I shall be voting for the Industry Bill, convinced that it represents an important new initiative which deserves support not only in this House but outside it and on both sides of industry. I am confident that it will get that support in the coming months.
  6.10 p.m.
  Mr. Cyril Smith: I listened to the Secretary of State yesterday and the Paymaster-General today. It seems to me that yesterday we had the soothing of the Left and today the soothing of the Right.
  It is agreed by both sides of the House that industrial investment has been at a very low ebb for many years. If I may say so, with respect to the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Stott), he needs to learn the difference between investment in industry and investment by industry.
  There are many differences of opinion on the question why industrial investment has been at this low ebb. It has been alleged that some of the blame can be lodged at the door of the Secretary of State himself. However, since that low investment has occurred over a number of years it is a little unfair to blame the right hon. Gentleman for the present situation. He has held his present views for only a comparatively short period. It is not that long since he shed his ancestry. Only in later years and in what I regard as his least mature years has he sought to take the line towards industry that he now adopts. I do not blame him for the long history in this matter.
  I suspect that the real reason is constant Government interference with and dabbling in industry. Over the years, it has grown more and more and existed to a greater and greater extent. It is a
  1174
  position which has been adopted by successive Governments.
  For me, the weakness of the Bill is the promise of even further control and intervention. I became an employer of labour some 12 years ago. I realised soon after I started a company that I had become a kind of Government agent for the amount of bumph which employers are now expected to read and to complete on behalf of the Government. The amount of bumph is quite phenomenal and the unproductive finance which it takes to deal with it is equally ridiculous. Employers are tax collectors, insurance collectors, and fines collectors. We fill in forms for tax purposes, grant purposes, welfare purposes, payment purposes, training purposes, wage research purposes, VAT purposes and sales and purchase statistics purposes. They come one after another. Industry employs armies of non-productive people to do all this fiddling and messing about. I concede that some of it is necessary, but, equally, a great deal of it is unnecessary. I take the view that much of it is superfluous and designed simply to keep armies of civil servants in gainful employment.
  Under the Bill the list will be added to, and I was intrigued to read in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum that it is believed that only 250 additional staff will be needed to administer it. Well, we shall see, but I suspect that the net result will be not 250 additional staff but 250 additional heads of Department.
  I have never been in favour of propping up lame ducks. I said as much in the Liberal Supply debate last week. I made no secret of the fact that I differed from some of my colleagues in that respect. I believe in a free enterprise system. I also believe that if, within that system, an industry is not capable of maintaining itself, it should go to the wall. But let it be clear that if we are to have a free enterprise system, free enterprise is entitled to work and to be judged on the rules of free enterprise. It is no use applying rules to a system and then saying that the system has failed when the rules applied are unfair and do not allow the system to work in the way that it should, or in the way that it was conceived.
  If prices are controlled but wages are not, and then we say that free enterprise

  1175
  has failed, that cannot be a correct assessment or a fair judgment. If we have a free wages system, there must be a free prices system. If we control wages, we must control prices. If we control prices, we must control wages. If profits are taxed at a level which makes investment difficult, that, too, is ridiculous.
  I often wonder why some Socialists worry about getting interests in various companies. They have a great interest in my company. They take more than 50 per cent. of my profit without asking. They have a great interest in my company and in others which are making profits.
  Another weakness in the system which strikes me as ridiculous is that a company can make a profit and decide that, instead of distributing it, it would like to invest it in capital plant or building, only to find that the law is such that it is compelled to distribute part of the profit even if it does not wish to.
  There are many matters which need sorting out in terms of reinvestment in industry and by industry before we come to consider this measure. Certainly we need a reappraisal. But most of all, what industry needs is some guarantee of its future stability. I think both Front Bench spokesmen touched on this matter. Industry needs confidence in the future. It needs confidence in its future right of ownership of its business. It needs less and not more interference by people who may be excellent politicians but who, to put it bluntly, know nowt about business and about the intricate running of a business. Such people would be better leaving it to those who know about industry and who work in it. Those who have spent the whole of their lives sitting in the holy atmosphere of this place should not go preaching to people about how things should be done when they know nowt about it because they have never had to deal with it in their lives.
  I accept that we have to consider lame ducks in terms of the national economy and of unemployment, but I see no reason for State intervention on any other grounds, such as those set out in Clause 2(2)(c) which talks about the extension of public ownership.
  I am extremely interested in Clause 2(2) concerning the extension of industrial democracy. I welcome the conversion of the Conservative Party to worker
  1176
  participation. I gather that it is now in favour of it. I have never noticed it before, but I am delighted that it has been converted to the Liberal point of view.
  If we talk in terms of industrial democracy, however, this Bill is a sham. It makes no contribution to industrial democracy. It will bring no joy to workers who see control pass from an employer to the State.
  I recommend right hon. and hon. Members to talk to workers in the nationalised industries and to ask them how much influence they have in the policy or in the administration of the concern for which they work. They will say they have none. I have spoken to thousands of workers in nationalised concerns. Although it may give them some slight feeling of stability or security in their employment, in terms of participation in their industry it makes no difference to them whether it is a privately owned industry or is nationalised.
  If any hon. Member is in doubt about that, I invite him to go, as I did, to talk to the workers' action committee at Shotton steelworks. I challenged the Secretary of State on this point when he made his statement on steel a few days ago. You go and talk to them as I did, and ask them. They are in a nationalised concern—[Interruption.] I should say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I hope that Government and Opposition Members will go and talk to them.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was only going to say that I have been there.
  Mr. Smith: And I was going to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have no doubt at all that with your Welsh fervour you would have anticipated my advice. But the fact is that I talked to them after I had had lunch with the director of the steel board at Shotton.
  Mr. Thomas Swain rose—
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman must not get worked up, because he will get a shock in a minute. I had lunch with the director and pleaded with him to meet representatives of the workers' action committee. He said to me, "I am not prepared to deal with anybody but trade union representatives. I am not prepared

  1177
  to meet a workers' action committee." Indeed, the Minister of State's own boss, the Secretary of State, admitted—[Interruption.] The Minister of State may have no boss, but from the Prime Minister's speech last week it was quite apparent that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Industry has a boss. The Secretary of State admitted from the Dispatch Box, in his statement on steel, that it was the noble Lord from the other place who had met the workers' action committee rather than the director of the steel board.
  So, in terms of worker participation, as the State stands at present, it means nothing at all. Whether under the Bill it will change we have yet to see. One thing is certain; under the Bill the Secretary of State can introduce ad hoc schemes for worker participation. We need to replace the whole of the present system with an orderly movement towards forms of planned worker participation. Under the Bill the Secretary of State, far from doing a service towards worker participation, could, in fact, be responsible for destroying confidence in worker participation by introducing ad hoc schemes of different kinds throughout the country, rather than having a planned form and growth.
  Certainly that part of the Bill, as opposed to the belief in worker participation, does not thrill or interest me in the least. My Liberal colleagues and I want to see worker participation but not in an ad hoc form.
  Clauses 20 to 24 of the Bill deal with the disclosure of information. These clauses are somewhat alarming. The first thing I should like to find out is for what purpose the disclosure of information is required. It is certainly not very clear in the Bill. The Bill seems to envisage two completely different purposes, because it sees a dual procedure of disclosure. One discloses information to the Government and then one discloses it, if the Secretary of State so decides, to the trade union. In many countries the disclosure of such information is for the purpose of negotiation and wage bargaining and it cannot be used by law to harass management. The proposals in the Bill involve classifications, not all of which come within the six headings of the CIR report on information which is suitable for disclosure.
  1178
  In some respects the categories in Clause 21(2) are considerably narrower than those six headings, and have little to do with industrial relations in any form. The Bill obviously envisages a mixture of information, some of which will be useful to the Government and some of which will be useful to the trade union movement, although in the latter case it appears to be information that would not be useful for bargaining purposes. That being so, it is extremely surprising to find in Clause 24(2) that once such information has been passed to trade unions, the obligation of confidentiality is lifted. Clause 22 makes it clear that the information is to be passed to a representative of each relevant trade union. Anyone who knows anything about trade union structure will know the danger that it may not even reach the shop floor, let alone be helpful to the people involved.
  Clause 20 limits to manufacturing industries the whole operation of the disclosure of information. Hence the conclusion that we have to draw is that it has very little to do with collective bargaining. One must then ask, if it is not to do with collective bargaining, why information given to unions ceases to be confidential.
  The appeals procedure envisaged in the Bill is on the verge of the ludicrous, because it is very difficult to see on what basis information is to be supplied. It is equally difficult to see on what basis an employer can appeal against that information being made public. It remains to be seen what kind of appeal committee will be set up. There are those of us who believe that it may be yet another instance of jobs for the boys. It will be very worth while to be a trade unionist in this country because of the number of jobs that will be created for trade unionists by this Government in all sorts of fields, such as health and safety at work; worker participation; representatives on boards of directors; sitting on boards of national development corporations; sitting on appeals tribunals to hear whether information should be made public. They are going to have a field day, these lads. I would tell anybody that under this Government at the present time it is an investment to take out membership of a trade union, because he might be very surprised at the fruit to which it will lead in a short time.

  1179
  The intriguing question is: what kind of committee will be set up for the appeals procedure? Presumably, members of the committee will have some kind of expertise. What sort of expertise will it be? Will the committee consist of people who can assess whether information is confidential? If so, from where will they be drawn, and so on and so forth? It is anybody's guess what this appeals procedure will be, who will comprise the appeals procedure committees, what level of confidentiality there will be, or what confidence there will be in the confidentiality aspect by industry itself.
  In short, I am saying that this Bill is ill-conceived. To put it bluntly, in my language, it is a rotten Bill, and for that reason my colleagues and I will vote against it.
  6.28 p.m.
  Mr. Stan Thorne: Having just listened to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), I hope that he will see fit to send a copy of his speech to the Rochdale Trades Council and trade unionists in Rochdale who, I am sure, will be extremely interested in his observations today.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) is not still with us. He made a comment about the absence of members of the Tribune group during one part of his speech. While I cannot pretend to speak for the Tribune group, I happen to be a member of it. It is a pity that the hon. Member will not be here to listen to what I have to say.
  I am also sorry that the Minister of State for Industry has left the Chamber, because I had one or two questions that I wished to put to him.
  The essence of the speech of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds seemed to be that we were bent on following a perilous path, and that our footsteps were "Nationalise, nationalise". During the General Election in 1974, that seemed to be the only platform that the Opposition were putting to us and to the people. They claimed that if a Labour Government were elected nationalisation would follow, and various other things would stem from that. When one reads the Bill, however, one finds that it is quite clear that that is not so. There is
  1180
  nothing in the Bill which nationalises a large or a small industry at present. All that the Bill does is to establish a National Enterprise Board. The Board has no powers under the Bill to nationalise any part of industry.
  What does the Bill seek to do? It seeks to obtain a 30 per cent. share in profitable areas of manufacturing. Many firms in manufacturing will be only too pleased to have that sort of financial input, because clearly they are suffering from cash flow problems of various sorts. The suggestion that a further 30 per cent. share should be taken cannot be approved under the Bill. It would seem that that is a matter for Cabinet approval. Given the sort of speeches that have been made recently by members of the present Cabinet, they are hardly likely to agree with the further acquisition of 30 per cent. shareholdings in many of these firms.
  It is also quite categoric in the Bill that there is no power of compulsory acquisition. I want to ask the architects of the Bill a very simple question. Why not? It seems to me that there are certain industries which, in the national interest, could well be taken into complete public ownership. I refer particularly to the drug industry. We all know the cost of supplying medicines for the National Health Service and some of the problems that we have had in recent years in regard to manufacturing in this respect. We all know that health is something which concerns all the people in our society. It is something that we seek to foster to the best of our ability. To make profits out of people's health is completely immoral. The case for the nationalisation of the drug industry has been well made in the past. Therefore, why not consider including it in the Bill?
  Several hon. Members have commented on the promotion of industrial democracy. The Bill contains no definition of that term. The hon. Member for Rochdale commented on this matter. I share some of his cocern—but from a position that is vastly different from his. Within the Bill it is clearly stated that it is the Secretary of State's intention to establish a shift of power in favour of the workers. But shall we do that by putting forward the idea of a couple of worker-directors in one or two firms?

  1181
  Shall we do it on the basis of restructuring industries, so that decision making within them goes through some system of shop stewards' committees—the sort of thing that the hon. Member for Rochdale would obviously deplore? Is that what we really mean? Is that the sort of shift in power that the Secretary of State has in mind? If so, why does he not make it clear in the Bill?
  Given the sort of statements which have been made in public in recent months, the Secretary of State does not appear to have in mind any real concept of workers' control when he talks about industrial democracy. We had better leave it until he has had the opportunity of introducing a clarification regarding that part of the Bill. I should like to continue at some length on the subject of industrial democracy, but time does not permit it.
  The Bill is concerned with managing State holdings in companies within the private sector. That sounds fine, as far as it goes, but should not the public have a say if we are to be involved in putting money into the private sector? The obvious answer—it is contained in the Bill—is "Yes, we should have a say".
  Then there came out of the Bill certain things which perturb some of us on the Government side of the House. The Bill talks about promoting mergers, and considers that to be something of a priority. I remember that the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation was responsible for strengthening and not reducing the grip of monopolies in Britain. If the Bill is intended to prop up capitalism because that has failed to reinvest from the glorious profits which the Opposition have been telling us were made during the early 1970s, I want to seriously question it.
  For myself and for many of my hon. Friends, the Bill is about shifting the power of the economy—as the Bill says—from those who control it through private property and private investment to the workers in industry who produce the goods which are sold by the giant monopolies. That is what I thought the Bill was all about, but if the Bill is to provide for rationalisation and economies of scale, that means to many of us, under the present system of society,
  1182
  redundancy, unemployment, and a wastage of skilled manpower. The Bill does not clarify this point sufficiently for me, at any rate, to accept it in the sort of glowing terms which have been used by some hon. Members.
  The Bill talks of voluntary planning agreements, and mentions the question of information. Not much has been said, however, about the withholding of information where it is considered prejudicial to the firm. It can be withheld from trade unionists within the firm on that basis. I do not know quite what is meant by that. Does it mean that we do not really trust the trade unionists within particular firms for certain reasons?
  The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) mentioned that profits had been made in industry for a number of years but that investors did not invest because they had no confidence in prospects within the country's economy generally. It is that sort of sentiment which I do not trust, when investors take decisions—as they always do—on the basis of what is in the interests of private profit rather than the interests of the community as a whole.
  A figure of between £700 million and £1,000 million is the capital which the Department of Industry, or the NEB as it will be called, will get. I do not know whether anyone has done any arithmetic in regard to what that means in terms of capital investment in British industry generally, but it seems that the Board has one of two alternatives for that sort of money. It can take a very small interest in a very few firms, or a major interest in one or two firms. In certain firms it would not even get a major interest for that sort of money.
  What emerges from a close examination of the Bill is that public ownership, far from being the sort of thing that this Labour Government were going to introduce right, left and centre, has virtually been abandoned. The Bill seeks to continue to promote a mixed economy within capitalist Britain. It seeks to give the Government a rôle as junior partners in private industry. I feel that it will be a National Enterprise Board—I may be completely wrong—dominated by big business. Why do I think that? I take that view because we go straight away to big business for the potential

  1183
  chairman of the NEB. It seems that it is the opinion of the Government Front Bench that we have no national trade union figure who has the capability to do that sort of job. I strongly repudiate that.
  I believe that we have some capable forces in the trade union movement who would be quite able to take a firm grip of British industry under a Socialist administration. It is interesting to remind the Government—I am not sure that the Under-Secretary of State will need reminding—that only a short time ago various deputations were formed from within the motor car industry. It is now fairly clear what the workers in that industry feel about the suggestion that the National Enterprise Board might give a bit of a fillip to British Leyland.
  We are talking about £100 million for five years. That £500 million will be needed to replace outworn plant and to get the industry on a profitable basis. Where does that fit into the notion of a National Enterprise Board? It seems that we shall have spent the money before we have even started, if we are to be effective. I do not think that we shall be effective; I believe that we shall attempt once again to effect a patch-up job. It seems that the workers in British Leyland have it right. They are calling for outright 100 per cent. nationalisation of British Leyland. That is the sort of demand that we should support.
  The Bill falls well short of the sort of Socialist legislation that I expect from a Labour Government. I have some questions which I should like to put to the Minister of State if there is anyone present who represents his interests in his absence.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie): That is an unfair comment.
  Mr. Thorne: How far does the establishment of the National Enterprise Board take us towards the achievement of a planned economy such as the Minister of State and I used to talk about in the constituency Labour Party of which he and I were chairman and secretary, respectively, about 20 years ago? How effectively shall we be able to control our resources on the basis of the 30 per cent. interest in some firms? Once again
  1184
  it seems that it is necessary to tell the Government Front Bench—I know that it is useless to say this to the Opposition Front Bench—that in the House decisions should be taken that are based on people's needs and how we can meet them.
  The evidence has shown throughout my lifetime that we can effectively meet the needs of the people only if we can control resources, and if we can plan the utilisation of those resources. We can do so if we eliminate private profit. I did not say profit, but "private profit". Of course, we want industry to be organised in such a way that it will produce a small margin which can be ploughed back to the Exchequer to build houses, hospitals, schools and nurseries. That must be done. What we have to eliminate is the parasitical section of our community that continues to want to run British industry on the basis of private profit.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Before I call the next hon. Member, I would point out that there are roughly two and a quarter hours left for back benchers to participate in the debate. Unless we have shorter speeches there will be a great many disappointed Members.
  6.46 p.m.
  Mr. Churchill: The hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) will not be surprised if I do not take up his remarks. However, I might follow his line of attack against the Government. I found it extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman should find no provision in the Bill regarding the nationalisation of companies. Clause 8 provides that the NEB shall not, without the consent of the Secretary of State—and that is some safeguard—acquire shares in a company if that will give the Board control of 30 per cent. or more of the voting rights. If the hon. Gentleman believes that that is in any way a safeguard for this House or for British industry, as against the utilisation of the Bill as a vehicle for nationalising firms, I must say that he has a great innocence.
  There is one common theme which I think is accepted by both sides of the House, namely, that since the last war industrial investment in our economy and industry has been grossly inadequate.

  1185
  The difference of opinion—it is a sharp one—arises over the way in which that situation has come about and what should be done about it.
  I believe that it was the contention of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) that the principal fault rests not with industry or with the workers, but with Government. I agree that successive Governments of every political colour have sought to meddle with industry. They have brought about a situation in which there is not ony a mass of paper work and a great deal of work for civil servants in Government Departments but a massive amount of work for bureaucrats in industry to undertake in replying to the civil servants in Government Departments. There is a situation in which large sectors of British industry are wholly unprofitable. Paragraph 3 of the White Paper entitled "The Regeneration of British Industry" says that in 1971
  "investment for each worker in British manufacturing industry was less than half that in France, Japan or the United States, and well below that in Germany or Italy."
  What a damning indictment of six years of Labour Government if it reduced industry to that level. Where was the present Secretary of State for Industry during that period? Was he not in command of the Ministry of Technology? Was not one of his tasks to further the interests of British industry? Yet, after six years of Labour Government, that low level of investment prevailed.
  The former Conservative Government brought about a situation whereby, at the end of 1973, we had a high level of investment intention announced by British industry. I saw evidence of that in my constituency. In Trafford Park there is the biggest industrial complex in Western Europe. At the end of 1973, industry was working flat out. The only shortages were of skilled labour and certain components. That must be compared with the present situation.
  Let us examine industry's capital expenditure based on constant 1970 prices. The Trade and Industry Journal, published on 30th January this year, shows that in the three years from 1968 to 1970 the average investment by industry was £3·6 billion; in the years from 1972 to 1974, under a Conservative Government, the figure was £3·8 billion—an increase of
  1186
  more than £250 million per year. By 1974, the figure was £350 million a year higher—virtually £4 billion a year. It is regrettable that under the Labour administration investment this year is likely to be between 7 per cent. and 10 per cent. lower.
  What is the situation today? In a period of 15 months we have gone from a record level of investment intention to the lowest recorded level. Inflation is running at twice the rate it was a year ago; wage inflation is running at record levels; sterling is plunging, relative to other European currencies; unemployment is rising rapidly. The Minister may laugh, but in my constituency, unemployment has risen by 50 per cent. since the Labour Government came into office. This is a matter of grave concern to my constituency and to those who earn their livelihood in the industry which is situated at Trafford Park.
  Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: A few moments ago the hon. Gentleman referred to the low investment intentions during the three or four years of Conservative administration. He attributed that situation to the earlier six years of Labour Government. Is he now attributing the high unemployment levels in the last year to the previous four years of Conservative administration?
  Mr. Churchill: No, indeed. I think there is no doubt—this factor may not be sufficently appreciated by hon. Gentlemen and, above all, by right hon. Gentlemen on the Labour benches—how long it takes to create an environment of confidence in order to bring about investment, nor is it appreciated how quickly confidence can be destroyed. This is precisely what the present Labour Government have achieved—a situation in which British industry is facing rigorous price control, additional taxation, unrestrained wage inflation and, above all, the most disastrous collapse of industrial confidence. These things have been brought about directly by the threats and activities of the Secretary of State for Industry. They have brought about a collapse of industrial confidence in this country unparalleled since 1930, and, indeed even greater than the crash of confidence at that time.
  Has there been a similar crash of confidence in the economies of the United

  1187
  States, France, Germany, and Japan—countries which the Secretary of State for Industry is so fond of citing. The answer is "No". Only in the United Kingdom has there been such a gross collapse of industrial confidence.
  What is the reason for this situation? What is unique about the United Kingdom? We are not the only ones who are suffering from the increased price of Arab oil or from the levels of imported inflation. The one thing that is unique is that we have the Secretary of State for Industry. Other countries—our competitors—are not burdened with him.
  We have seen in recent weeks the Bill put forward by the Secretary of State for Employment for gagging the Press; we have also seen the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Bill for confiscating savings. We now have this Bill, introduced by the Secretary of State for Industry—a Bill which will destroy British industry. The Bill will give the Secretary of State the most sweeping powers. It will enable the NEB to purchase profitable or unprofitable industry. It will provide for Planning Agreements which will require the disclosure of hitherto confidential commercial information.
  The Secretary of State argues that the decline in the number of workers in the manufacturing industry is a matter for concern. I agree that it is a matter of concern. I have seen the situation vividly illustrated in my constituency with the decline in heavy engineering. That work has not gone to other parts of the country, such as to Merseyside, in the constituency of the Minister of State, Department of Employment. It has gone to Germany and to Japan. There has been a basic failure of investment in this country. But it has happened, above all, in those sectors of industry where the Government have a special responsibility.
  I refer to the nationalised industries, which for so long have been starved of adequate investment. They have been the industries operating with outdated works, so that 5,000 workers in the Irlam steelworks found themselves thrown on the slagheap of unemployment. Over the decades, since the vesting of the Steel Corporation, we have seen a situation of inadequate investment. Indeed, it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) who did more
  1188
  than any other Minister to inject new life and investment into the nationalised industries to try to bring them into the second half of the twentieth century.
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk: That is why the right hon. Gentleman has been dropped from the Shadow Cabinet.
  Mr. Churchill: We have a situation in which the number of employees in manufacturing industry has increased in the United Kingdom from 8 million in 1950 to 9 million in 1970—a fairly substantial increase. The nationalised industries employed 2 million people in 1950, and that figure was reduced to 1½ million workers in 1970. However, the really dramatic increase has been in central and local government bureaucracy, which has increased from 3 million in 1950 to 4·4 million today.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: What has this to do with the Bill?
  Mr. Churchill: It has a great deal to do with the Bill, because this legislation will put more civil servants on the backs of the workers and more Government interference on the backs of British industry. It certainly will provide no remedy to the problems that face British industry today.
  The number of industrial workers in the manufacturing industry and in the nationalised industries in 1950 amounted to 10 million, and today the figure is 10·5 million. However, in that period the number of civil servants has grown from 3 million to 4·4 million. In other words, the Civil Service in the last 20 years has grown 10 times as fast as has the number of workers in manufacturing industry.
  Therefore, the Bill which is now before the House will mean an acceleration in that growth. We must consider the Bill against the criterion whether it will achieve what the Secretary of State for Industry says he wants to achieve—namely, an efficient public sector. There is no evidence advanced by Government spokesmen in this debate to support the argument that Government control or interference in any way assists in bringing about efficiency in industry. Indeed, if the time it takes to process housing applications for desperately needed housing starts in my constituency is anything to

  1189
  go by, it takes four years to get a planning application approved by the Department of the Environment. If that is the situation industry is to face, we shall be quickly on the road to bankruptcy.
  Mr. Skinner: In view of the hon. Gentleman's remarks about growing bureaucracy and all that goes with it, why did he vote for VAT and local government reorganisation?
  Mr. Churchill: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware—there is no reason why he should be aware—that local government reorganisation in my constituency in the Trafford district of Manchester has brought about a rationalisation and a reduction in the cost to the taxpayer—[Interruption.] It was done under a Conservative council, and that is why it was able to make the reductions.
  The NEB is irrelevant to the solution of the problems of British industry. It will be the biggest obstacle to the regeneration of British industry. It has already had the effect of drying up investment to a remarkable degree, because the Government have declared war on the free-enterprise sector of British industry, which accounts for three out of every four jobs and for 95 per cent. of Britain's exports. Why was the Bill proposed? It is nothing other than the plaything of the Secretary of State for Industry, and something to keep him occupied—this pampered progeny of the peerage who seeks to play-act as the leader of the workers' revolution.
  The NEB will be organised, as the Government admit, on the lines of Mussolini's IRI and Franco's INI, which was a similar institution. It is strange that the Labour Party should be so keen on embracing the doctrines and the remedies of Fascism, but that is what it intends to do in the vote this evening. There is no evidence that the Bill will provide for greater efficiency in industry. It will not provide for any more investment in industry. Nor is there any evidence that it will benefit the ordinary working man, as claimed by the Secretary of State yesterday.
  I thank the Secretary of State for Industry for announcing the names of the 150 firms which are to be subject to the Planning Agreements. Eighteen are in my
  1190
  constituency, including British Oxygen, Burmah Oil, CPC (UK) Limited, the Co-Operative Wholesale Society Limited, Courtaulds, General Electric, Guest, Keen and Nettlefords, ICI, the SGB Group, Turner and Newall, and the multinational companies such as Ciba-Geigy (UK) Limited, Esso Petroleum, Gulf Oil (GB), Massey Ferguson Holdings, Michelin, Procter and Gamble, Shell Oil and Texaco.
  Is it seriously suggested that the Secretary of State, sitting in his tower block in Whitehall, with his army of 10,000 civil servants—not forgetting the 250 proposed to be added under the Bill—can seriously help industry and the workers in Trafford Park?
  Since attracting foreign cash and investment has become the cornerstone of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's plan for the economic survival of Britain, does not the Bill fly completely in the face that plan?
  Trafford Park has already suffered enough from the deprivations of Labour Governments. During the period in office of the last Labour Government, 10,000 jobs in my constituency were lost. That fact is not forgotten. During that period political gerrymandering prevented new industry coming to the area. I quote one example. The Kellogg Company of Great Britain wished to expand in my constituency, where it has a major plant. Under the Labour Government that firm was told "You cannot expand in Stretford; you must go to Huyton". I wonder whose constituency that is?
  The hon. Member for Rochdale has already referred to the Minister's concern for industrial democracy and the welfare of the working people. That does not cut much ice in Trafford Park, where all those jobs were lost under the last Labour Government. The people in Trafford know what sort of regeneration to expect from a Labour Government.
  No provision is embodied in the Bill for the workers at any plant or industry to be consulted before Planning Agreements are forced on their companies, or before nationalisation or State control ensues. Is not this an omission which the Secretary of State would do well to remedy? I find it strange that the criteria of experience laid down for members of the National Enterprise Board

  1191
  require that they should be selected from amongst persons who appear to the Secretary of State to have experience of, and who have shown capacity in, industry, technology, commercial or financial matters, administration or the organisation of workers. Does the Secretary of State have experience in any of those fields? The only job listed in Who's Who is the post held for one year—from 1949 to 1950—as a producer of the BBC North American Service. The only experience of industry he had was his disastrous tenure of office at the Ministry of Technology, when he encouraged Rolls Royce to make a contract with a United States company which subsequently brought Rolls-Royce to bankruptcy.
  A major aspect of the Bill requires the full disclosure of information by designated persons or companies. It is ironic that the 1969 Edition of Who's Who should list the school of the Secretary for Industry as the Westminster Public School, which is a school of distinction. The 1974 Edition of Who's Who does not disclose that information. So much for the Minister practising the disclosure which he requires of others. Under "Educ." he has now listed "Education still in progress"—at what cost to British industry and to the workers who will find themselves without jobs?
  Clause 21(1) imposes a duty on firms and individuals to give information to the Minister. However, Clause 25 provides for the confidentiality of that information so provided. What assurance is there to industry that confidentiality will be observed? How much reliance can be placed on the Minister? The last edition of The Sunday Times published extracts from the Crossman diaries. I quote one passage, which reads:
  "I like Tony Benn a great deal and I had every hope of him when Harold appointed him Postmaster-General. It's a queer thing but I am not very happy about him now I see him at work.
  To begin with, on every single occasion when he is about to bring a plan to Cabinet a leak occurs giving the full details in advance."
  What a damning indictment of a Cabinet Minister by one of his colleagues. This is a man who is asking Parliament for the most autocratic powers, unparalleled in any Western democracy. Those powers were assumed by Mussolini in Fascist Italy. The Bill seeks to centralise and to concentrate industrial and economic
  1192
  power into the hands of those politicians who wield political power with such gross ineptitude. I very much hope that the House will reject the Bill. If not, when the Conservative Party is returned to power—which will not be far away—we shall repeal it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I appealed for short speeches. The hon. Member has taken 23 minutes. If other hon. Members take the same time, it is no good hon. Members coming to the Chair to indicate their wish to take part in the debate.
  7.9 p.m.
  Mr. John Garrett: I am sure the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) will forgive me if I do not follow his argument, althought I thought that his observations on the reorganisation of local government were interesting. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will treat the House to them at greater length in a future debate on local government. I found the hon. Gentleman's speech to be innocent of industrial experience, and therefore on the whole not worth replying to in detail.
  The Industry Bill seem to represent the most important development in the industrial affairs of this country since the origins of the company law. I propose to discuss the Bill from the point of view of professional management. I was trained as a professional manager. I spent my working life in management and towards the end of my career, before coming to this institution, I was a management consultant.
  I welcome the Bill on three main grounds. First, it will provide the means for making the great industrial concentrations of wealth and power publicly accountable as they have never been since the wide spread of share ownership. Secondly, it can be used to attack this country's fundamental industrial weakness which is a wholly inadquate level of industrial investment, in sectors where the need for new investment in plant and machinery is greatest. Thirdly, properly understood by management and trade unions it can change the whole purpose and activity of union-management relations from a mutually hostile basis as adversaries into a co-operative appraisal of the future of a firm and the promotion of its growth.

  1193
  The Bill attempts a systematic solution of the problems of Britain's progressive industrial decline. That decline has been very long standing indeed. One of the most disappointing features about the debate so far is the way that Front Bench spokesmen on both sides of the House have leapt to their feet from time to time, each accusing the other of having caused the decline in British industry, whereas there have been plenty of objective studies on the question which shows that the origins of that decline go back a very long way.
  The best guess is that it started some time between the Great Exhibition of 1851 and the Paris Exposition of 1861. One of the most acute observers of the start of the decline was his late Royal Highness Prince Albert who pointed out that in the 1850s Britain was beginning to lose its lead in the development of new products and equipment. No Government have found a solution to that progressive decline from that day to this.
  The CBI and the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen on industry are allied in opposition to this measure. One of their themes is that it is in some way anti-management and attacks the interests of professional management in this country. I believe that proposition to be quite mistaken. In fact, I believe the opposite to be true.
  The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) reminded me during his speech of the famous Confederation General Jubilation T. Cornpone, of blessed memory, who waved his sword at the enemy and shouted "Forward" but failed to notice that he was sitting backwards on his horse. The Opposition may find that management in industry, when it understands the implications of the Bill and its opportunities for management, may be heading in precisely the opposite direction.
  I have not met anybody of my generation or younger in industrial management who in any way felt that the CBI had represented their views on anything. It is seen by management as a kind of conglomerate trade association held together only by a desire to resist the Government's legitimate interest in industry and to pressurise the Government to make particularly favourable financial arrange-
  1194
  ments for industry—preferably by outright gift.
  Few managers would dispute that the basic cause of this country's miserable economic performance over a very long period is industrial and that our industrial problem divides into three main causes: first, a low level of productive investment and productivity, which has been repeated time and again by hon. Members in the debate; secondly, a failure in what I may generally call marketing, by which I mean innovation, selling, distribution, delivery and service; and, thirdly, deep divisions of social attitudes which ensure a totally inadequate sense of common purpose in industry and an inbuilt hostility in labour-management relations.
  The Bill specifically addresses itself to the problem of investment. I believe that it can also make a substantial contribution to what I call marketing and to union relations.
  Mr. Esmond Bulmer: Would the hon. Gentleman add low productivity as another reason in his diagnosis?
  Mr. Garrett: Yes. That is what I said earlier. I said that low productivity was a feature of British industry. Yet all studies show that the British worker works longer hours, has fewer holidays, less absenteeism and puts in more overtime than his continental counterparts. The difference between the British worker and the worker in a comparable firm on the Continent is lack of investment, lack of tools and tackle, lack of adequate machinery.
  The Financial Times today points out that two paint plants in the Cowley Works of the Austin-Morris Division of British Leyland are respectively 27 and 37 years old. The motor industry generally in Japan tears down whole factories and rebuilds them on a five-year cycle to take advantage of the advances in technology, machine tools and machinery. Inadequate investment is the reason for the British worker's low productivity.
  Industrial investment in this country runs at about half the level of that in other industrial countries and never seems to respond to incentives and grants, which are so generous by international standards that more than one competing country has accused us of making outright subsidies.

  1195
  The Bill proposes two solutions for this problem. The first is direct investment by the NEB and the second is agreement between firms, unions and the Government on the scale and direction of investment. Both solutions seem to me to be inevitable. Some institution must be created to revive firms with worthwhile futures but inadequate capital—for example, Ferranti, British Leyland and Alfred Herbert. Some institutions must be created to search for new opportunities to widen Britain's industrial investment portfolio.
  There are whole new industries for which world demand is growing fast where we have a wholly inadequate performance—for example, oilfield equipment, electronics, machine tools, packaging machinery and control instrumentation. Studies have shown that the faster the growth in world demand for a product category, the lower Britain's share of that product category is. The NEB must be in the business of creating and marketing wholly new industry if we are not to be left out of the race altogether. Given the lack of interest in management by the great investing institutions in this country, professional management will find these ideas wholly acceptable.
  The Bill alters the whole concept of managerial accountability and in doing so places considerable new responsibilities upon the Government and the trade unions which are management's new partners. With the wide spread of share ownership and non-interventionist policies of the investing institutions, top management has become accountable to nobody but itself. There has been no obligation on top management to the interests of the shareholder, the community or the employee. In particular, the worker who invests his working life in a firm has had no say in the decisions which have affected his working life. That seems wholly wrong.
  The Bill proposes that the State and workers should be consulted. It therefore requires of the State an industrial policy into which firm's policies can be fitted. It also requires trade unions to take a view not only on wage bargaining but on investment, employment, location, acquisition, diversification, exports and import substitution.
  1196
  For the first time the Bill proposes management-union relations not on an adversary basis but on a collaborative basis. It obliges both management and unions rationally to consider the future of firms and obstacles to growth in their prosperity. I cannot imagine a better framework for good management. I am sure that professional management will see it as a valuable and beneficial development. For too long management has been caught between the trade unions, whose only concern was wage bargaining, and boards of directors—more often than not appointed for reasons other than ability—whose only concern was a quiet life. Those boards of directors have been under absolutely no stimulus to improve performance, to meet national objectives or to consult or involve those whom they employed.
  From the day that the Bill becomes an Act the rules will be changed. Those rules have been as restrictive on professional management as on anybody. I see the Bill as a charter for competent professional management and I support it.
  7.20 p.m.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Much as I should like to follow the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett), having spent 10 years in manufacturing industry, I must forgo that luxury, as I have to concentrate on the aspects of the Bill relating to Wales.
  This is an interesting Bill inasmuch as the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) denied that it was a Socialist Bill, the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) denied that it was a Liberal Bill, the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) denied that it was a Tory Bill and I certainly deny that it is a Nationalist Bill. In the years to come it will be interesting to see who owns up to the paternity of the Bill.
  It may be that in years to come all the hoo-ha which we have had will seem unnecessary. In the meantime, there are serious problems, and I speak against the background of Wales, a background where there has been a failure of the private sector to solve our problems. We have what I call a branch factory economy, an economy controlled from outside and one which does not provide the answers which are necessary in Wales today.

  1197
  Many of our problems have been caused in the first place by the private sector. Speaking of the branch factory syndrome in Wales, a recent report showed that of 86 branches studied, fewer than half had any ability to make investment decisions themselves. The same report, by the Welsh Council, showed that subsidies in Wales
  "needed to gain head office final approval for their expenditure budget or even the actual disbursement."
  Not only have we had a failure in the private sector. There has been a failure of nationalised industry to live up to its promise. We have had a history of closed pits, as Ogilvie has shown; and closed steel works, as Ebbw Vale has shown. We have had a history of closed railway lines and stations, and a history of nationalised industries such as electricity having its offices outside Wales. Not only control but management and clerical jobs are outside the country. This is true of the GPO, in Chester and Shrewsbury. Nationalisation of itself has failed to live up to the expectation in Wales not only in providing the jobs but also in involving the working people in decisions affecting their everyday lives.
  There has been a failure by the Government to clarify the rôle of the NEB in Wales in its relationship to the Welsh Development Agency. I spoke to some of the senior people involved in industrial development in Wales, and they were more mystified and uncertain about the situation after yesterday's debate than they were before. Many people in Wales were under the impression that the Welsh Development Agency would undertake virtually all of the NEB's functions in Wales. We were told yesterday that this is not the case, that they would co-exist in parallel. I would remind hon. Members that parallel lines never meet.
  The relationship between the Welsh Development Agency and the National Enterprise Board poses an interesting question. We believe that we shall land ourselves in an organisational mess because the matter does not appear to have been thought out. We want to know whether the NEB will undertake not to use some of its powers in Wales, and if so what powers it will not use.
  1198
  Reference was made yesterday to centralisation. Centralisation can have four conditions in our economy. First, we have private industry controlled locally; secondly, private industry controlled outside Wales; thirdly, public industry controlled in Wales, of which there is very little; fourthly, public industry controlled outside Wales. We fear that this Bill, if it does anything, will move the powers over locally-controlled industry from Wales to London.
  The argument can be put forward that the Bill attempts to transfer power to working people. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) made this point very effectively. He said that the whole question should be about power. This Bill does not transfer power to the working people. It is an excuse for that, but it does not do it. Decentralisation by central direction may be a bit of a contradiction. We want to establish a self-generative system of growth with its roots in the local communities.
  When we talk of the NEB and the Welsh Development Agency we want the emphasis of enterprise. Having said that, we accept that there are many problems in the economy relative to capital formation which must have serious thought. Capital is far too valuable and scarce a commodity to be played with, like a three shilling packet of cards in that "casino", the City of London Stock Exchange. Industry needs to be organised to work effectively; capital is vital to industry, and it, too, must be organised effectively. It must be organised in its allocation and use within a company, and it must be controlled and harnessed to the needs of the community. There are some who argue that capital, if left to itself, will find its way to the right place. I wonder. Capital, I suspect, like water, will always run to the sea unless harnessed. This means channelling, damming and pumping it. It is valuable if it is where it is needed and where the community wants it to be.
  I make this further point on the importance of capital to industry. Industry uses capital. It is an input, in the same way that labour and materials are inputs in industry. It has its wage, just like labour. If the risk is high, so the wage should be high; but the wage of the labourer implies neither ownership nor control, while the wage of capital, over

  1199
  and above risk and depreciation, gives implied power of both ownership and control.
  This is an archaic system for the last quarter of the 20th century. We need a fundamental rethink of the role of the joint stock company, which has been a vehicle for both enterprise and avarice for the past 100 years. In particular, we must think of the appropriateness of limited liability in today's world and what obligations and limitations should go with its benefits. We may question the whole working of the City of London financial institutions in this context.
  There are several questions that I should like to have gone into in detail. However, there may be a later opportunity to do this, particularly if the Committee stage of the Bill is taken on the Floor of the House.
  I should like to raise some questions relative to nationalisation, if nationalisation is to take place. Will it not be appropriate for at least 51 per cent. of the ownership of industry taken over by the State to be transferred to the workers in those industries?
  I believe that disclosure does not go half far enough. There are vital questions, such as capacity and capacity utilisation, which should be of fundamental importance to the trade unions, which are not itemised. There are questions of compensation and whether the rights to appeal against the form of compensation should be built in.
  There are questions of transfer to non-residents. There should also be the right to intervene on transfer to residents, particularly when we think of the assets stripping which goes on. There is the question of extractive and service sectors where the Bill ought to be relevant. There are questions of changes of accounting techniques particularly in allowing profit to be shown on a plant basis. All these things we shall have an opportunity to discuss in Committee. The most important matter is the question of the powers of and the links between the Welsh Development Agency and the NEB.
  I should like to put a number of questions, the answers to which will decide how we vote tonight. First, is it the Government's intention to amend the Industry Act when they introduce the Bill
  1200
  to set up the Welsh Development Agency, and will the Bill for the Welsh Development Agency appear before the Report stage of this Bill?
  Secondly, if the NEB and the Welsh Development Agency operate in parallel in Wales, what will be the link between the two?
  Third, will the Secretary of State for Wales have powers in Sections 7 and 8 of the Industry Act 1972, as stated last night by the Under-Secretary? I believe that in the consultation paper issued two weeks ago only Section 7 was mentioned.
  Fourth, what proportion of the total joint activity of the NEB and the Welsh Development Agency in Wales will be undertaken by the Welsh Development Agency? The budget of the Welsh Development Agency is only £100 million over five years, compared with £500 million called for by the Wales TUC. How does this £100 million of the Welsh Development Agency fit into the plans of the NEB? Will some additional money of the NEB be spent on Wales?
  The consultation paper states that the Welsh Development Agency will provide investment capital for Welsh industry. Will this come from within the £1,000 million limit set out in Clause 6 of the Bill? Does the Welsh Development Agency have the power of disclosure of information as set out in Clauses 20 and 21 of the Bill, or will this be a power only of the National Enterprise Board?
  Will the shipbuilding credit provisions in this Bill be transferred to the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies and will those agencies have sole responsibility for this function? Will the National Enterprise Board have total responsibility for both branch factories and subsidiaries located in Wales and, if so, will the WDA have no responsibility at all for such companies? If so, only one-third of factories in Wales employing over 25 people would be controlled by the Welsh Development Agency. Two-thirds would be under the National Enterprise Board. This would be totally unsatisfactory.
  Finally, if the Bill is defeated, can the Secretary of State assure us that the Bill setting up the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies will go forward since these two are apparently totally independent? There is a potential for

  1201
  building something very important in this Bill. We fear its centralisation and we fear that we shall not get the tools to do the job in Wales. We shall determine how we vote following answers to the questions I have put.
  7.32 p.m.
  Mr. Robert J. Bradford: It is true that the majority of industrialists in Northern Ireland have great reservations about the Bill. Some of those reservations are based on the details of the Bill. For example, we could point to the clause which deals with the disclosure of information. Our main objection to the Bill concerns the overwhelming principle of State ownership and absolute control. If anyone doubts that these are implicit in the Bill, I direct his attention to Clause 2(3), in which specific cases are cited and in which it is said that State assistance and State intervention are required to stabilise industry, together with intervention, advice and supervision.
  That is quite a different matter from the enforcement of a Socialist policy of ownership and dictatorship in industry. We cannot argue from the particular to the general, posing the theory that because State assistance and intervention is beneficial in one or a number of specific industries, all of industry would be the more healthy under its oversight and ownership.
  It is true that Northern Ireland benefits greatly from State intervention and assistance. It would be remiss of any Northern Ireland Member to ignore that fact. In spite of all the help and assistance that has been awarded to Harland and Wolff, and the aircraft industry, if this Bill had been in existence when many of these industries were seeking new sites for their plants, or if this kind of legislation had been mooted then, I fear that that kind of investment would have been greatly deterred.
  Northern Ireland has benefited greatly from outside investment. That is especially true of the textile industry. Although there is a general slump in the textile industry, the great investment which is projected in industry is invaluable and vital to the economy of Northern Ireland. For this reason, it would be greatly detrimental to the economy of Northern Ire-
  1202
  land to allow the principle of State ownership to deter much-needed investment.
  It is true to say that not even members of the European Economic Community would envisage State control to the extent envisaged in the Bill. Investment is the very life-blood of industry in Northern Ireland, and I am quite sure that that obtains for industry in the United Kingdom too. This is precisely what this Bill would deter.
  It has been suggested that the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation is a forerunner to the National Enterprise Board. It is inaccurate to equate as neatly as this the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation and the National Enterprise Board. The Northern Ireland Finance Corporation could better be described as a kind of banking or borrowing source, but with no undue control over the companies which benefit from its resources. The National Enterprise Board is rather different. Firms would not readily use that organisation, because of its stipulations and all-prevailing powers, including the disclosure of future plans, the disclosure of investment, and the method of distribution of products, all of which could be exploited by trade unionists and competitors.
  Willingness to meet competition and a desire for self-determination are the twin pillars upon which most successful industries are built. Alongside these two qualities is set the responsibility of a realistic Government to appreciate the contribution of such industrial achievement. The combination of competition, self-determination and Government assistance would assist industry. In this kind of co-operation there is the formula for a successful economy.
  The Bill is not the kind of legislation which will achieve the industrial unity which is needed at this time between management and workers. It is also not the kind of legislation that will encourage national unity, without which I believe we shall have very little economic future.
  7.37 p.m.
  Mr. Ron Thomas: The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) will forgive me if I do not follow him along the road of his argument. It is a little difficult to follow two Nationalists. They have raised pertinent

  1203
  questions on Northern Ireland and Wales. I am sure that some of these at least will be answered by the Government Front Bench later.
  I welcome the Bill. If it were the kind of immediate, dramatic, Socialist measure which the hon. Member for Belfast, South suggested and which has been suggested by many Tory Members, I would welcome it with even more enthusiasm. It is quite amazing what has been read into the provisions of the Bill.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry yesterday laid down three prime objectives. He spoke about attempting to reverse the long-term decline in British manufacturing industry by providing a new source of public investment. He spoke also about injecting national and regional accountability as well as accountability to workers in terms of strategic decision making. He spoke about the extension of industrial democracy. Some hon. Members, quite rightly, have raised the question of the industrial malaise from which we are suffering, and many hon. Members have attempted to give their own diagnosis of the reason why this has happened and why it continues to be with us.
  I do not think anyone could deny that to a very large extent it is due to a lack of capital investment—a failure to modernise our productive resources, and a failure, in my judgment, to harness the skills and energies of the working people of this country. It is true that the low level of capital investment in Britain is no new phenomenon. It has been with us, as my right hon. Friend has said, for decades.
  The statistics for the proportion of GNP invested in British industry show that we come way down in the league table, if not at the bottom of it. We are all familiar with the fact that it has recently been estimated that the amount of capital equipment available to workers in Britain is only half the amount that is available to French, Japanese and American workers. The level of capital investment and capital equipment is far lower in this country than in Germany and in most of our competitor countries.
  We tend to throw out statistics and ignore the fact that we are talking about gross domestic capital formation, and about gross figures, and that these have
  1204
  to be adjusted for capital consumption. It is the net figure that is important. It is the level of new investment which takes capital consumption into account. It is from the net figure that we hope to achieve further economic growth and increase our competitiveness. The level of capital investment has to increase merely to enable the capital stock to stand still.
  It is my belief that there has been a failure effectively to utilise the capital investments that has been injected into British industry. There has been a tendency to go for capital widening, rather than capital deepening, merely inefficiently adding on to and replacing in the same old fashioned way the sort of capital replacement in the capital widening sense rather than in the capital deepening sense which demands the use of numerical control machines, computers, feedback mechanisms, and so on, which our competitors have installed.
  The record of capital investment in British manufacturing industry has been dismal over many decades, and we have been given a number of reasons for this. We have been told by Conservative Members that it is due to the high level of taxation, or at least to the fact that the level of taxation on companies in Britain is higher than it is in competitor countries. It is true that if one takes certain selective examples one can show that there is a high level of taxation, but it must be remembered that no industrialists in the world have received such generous capital investment allowances as those which have been provided for British industrialists. On many occasions the House has been given details of Government assistance to private industry. It has been running at about £800 million a year, and in my judgment the capital investment allowances of all kinds and other forms of Government assistance more than offset the difference in terms of tax between this country and our competitors.
  In 1970, the level of capital investment was just over £2,000 million a year. Throughout the period of the Tory Government, the level of capital investment fell. It has been said many times during the debate that the only constructive proposal which Conservative Members have is to go back to the old notion of

  1205
  setting industry free. In 1970 the Conservative Government began by deciding that they would, as they put it, set industry free. They provided massive tax relief, but we then had 1 million unemployed. They introduced the Industrial Relations Act, a 20 per cent. devaluation and a wage freeze to boot, but still the level of capital investment declined.
  In addition, we were told that membership of the Common Market would provide such a competitive blast across the bows of British industry that entrepreneurs would fall over themselves to invest and to modernise in order to meet the competition from Europe. The reverse was the case. The level of capital investment continued to decline, and all we got was a kind of enigmatic smile on the unacceptable face of capitalism.
  British industrialists managed to find £1,300 million in 1972, and nearly £1,400 million in 1973, for capital investment overseas. Plenty of capital was available for investment in land, in property speculation and for speculation in commodity markets, but none for investment in British industry.
  The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) described corporate planning as a vague extension of an understanding of what might be but would never be put on paper by management. I am a little concerned about this, because it supports my judgment that there is far too little planning in British industry. There is far too much of going by hunches and putting the employment of workers at stake as a result.
  The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) rightly reminded us of the gestation period of capital investment. He interrupted a number of my hon. Friends to say that it takes three or four years for capital investment to come on flow. I do not disagree with that, but is there not planning at the start of those three or four years? Is there any market research to determine whether the capital investment should go ahead? If there is, it is something in which workpeople ought to be involved.
  Then there is the whole question of secrecy. The suggestion is that these decisions are made now as they were by the heroic inventors of the nineteenth century. The suggestion is that these
  1206
  are innovating entrepreneurs who closet themselves together and come to these great decisions which will increase their competitiveness, and if anyone finds out what they have decided all their efforts will be wasted.
  If one discusses this with people in the machine tool industry they say that, generally, capital investment decisions are bunched together and they all go forward together. If the Vauxhall Motor Company decides that it will expand, or if BLMC makes such a decision, the other car firms follow suit. I refute the suggestions that if these so-called secrets were divulged the competitiveness of these firms would come unstuck.
  There is a need for a fundamental regeneration of British industry. I do not recall my right hon. Friend saying that this would be done "at a stroke". I took him to say that the Bill was a vehicle by which the regeneration could begin. No one doubts that £700 million is no great fortune in this day and age, in terms of capital investment, and we have been told that this sum will last for a number of years Capital investment in manufacturing industry now totals more than £2,000 million a year, so with a figure of about £700 million we are talking about less than 3 per cent. of the total over 10 years.
  It has been said that the success or failure of the legislation will depend to a large extent on whether management and trade unions accept the challenge presented by it.
  I have one or two points to make on the Bill itself. The Opposition have said that in Committee they will try to remove various provisions from the Bill. Many of my hon. Friends have said that if they are on the Committee they will want to strengthen this measure.
  I welcome the concept of Planning Agreements. I should prefer far more power to be given to the Secretary of State to bring about these Planning Agreements and to make certain that firms enter into them.
  We should combine the price control mechanism with the mechanisms in the Bill. Recently we were told that prices would have to be increased to allow for capital investment. It now seems, as many

  1207
  of us have suspected for a long time, that it is the consumer who pays for investment through increased prices. If consumers have to pay for capital investment, the only way to secure accountability is through the NEB.
  If planning agreements are to remain in this restrictive setting the Bill's provisions on the disclosure of information must be strengthened. The information required under Clause 21 suggests an almost post mortem approach. Subsection (4) injects some life into that approach, and that is where I hope the emphasis will be placed. Unless the information is dynamic in terms of company planning and forecasts of developments in those companies we might just as well make do with last year's balance sheets. The required information should contain details of pricing policy, marketing strategy, research and development on new products, and so on.
  The disclosure of information to trade unions is not enough. Information is power, but there will be a need to stimulate and develop an active involvement of workpeople in this area. At the moment, on the basis of so-called managerial prerogatives, management refuses, by and large, to involve working people in affairs which concern them and to which they have a significant contribution to make. They have a contribution to make on the question of capital investment—the kind of machinery which is purchased. How often have we gone into factories and seen a machine which has ain idle for two years and been told by workers on the shop floor that it was obvious to them that the machine would never be used? Workers have a contribution to make on such things as investment, capital equipment and factory lay-out.
  This can come about only with an extended system of joint regulation. We have talked a lot about joint consultation, but in British industry it is a dirty word. It is a charade, where two sides get together for a couple of hours and talk about the canteen tea and the state of the toilets. That is not what the legislation is all about.
  A good deal has been said about the question of whether or not the legislation will be affected by decisions in the EEC. It is strange to hear Conservative Members making so much play about the
  1208
  denial of parliamentary accountability and sovereignty over the Bill when they are so willing to bend over backwards to give up the sovereignty of this House to Brussels. That is a political schizophrenia which I cannot understand.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I know that repeated requests have been made from the Chair this afternoon inviting hon. Members to be as brief as possible. The concluding speeches begin at 9 o'clock. That leaves one hour and five minutes in which 10 hon. Members wish to participate. A great deal can be said in five minutes.
  7.55 p.m.
  Mr. Kenneth Warren: I hope I shall be able to comply with your suggestion, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been in industry for 20 years and I am still there. I look forward to taking part in the Committee stage of the Bill, which was launched yesterday with much verbosity and pomp by the Secretary of State. Reinforced by his hon. Friends, he claimed that his aim is only to help British industry. I claim that the Bill is the means of turning this country into a Marxist Socialist State and that it is but a catalyst to achieve the right hon. Gentleman's aims.
  The Secretary of State and his hon. Friends may persist in this claim, but it is easy to demonstrate that the £1,000 million addition to the country's investment programme spread over the life of the Bill will scarcely scratch at the problem of under-investment. In 1972 private industry spent £4,300 million on investment in fixed capital equipment. The sum of £1,000 million spread over several years would not go anywhere. We therefore have a Bill which is designed to enable the Government to buy a controlling interest in key companies which have been kept short of cash by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We have to accept—although I do not appreciate the fact—that the Secretary of State has never worked in industry. This lack of shop-floor experience shines out of every clause.
  The right hon. Gentleman has been very strong on democracy and participation but he has not shown that he knows how industry works. He talks only of an industrial world which exists east of the Iron Curtain. Perhaps I am doing him

  1209
  an injustice, but we need a clear declaration from the Minister of State tonight that the Government do not intend the sort of Marxist Socialist transformation of society which is implicit in the Bill.
  The right hon. Gentleman spoke about mandates, but he has had no mandate from the British people to carry the Bill into law. His attempts at consultation have been misread, not only by himself but by his colleagues. He said yesterday that the Government would seek to win active support for their policies. So far they have failed. Perhaps it would be a good idea for us to have a progress report on his consultation, and I should like the block votes kept out of the records. Yesterday there was confusion during the shop-floor consultation on the Treasury Bench when the Minister of State had to ask his convenor whether or not the information on Government loans should be made public. This might have been good enough for a laugh at the time, but it showed the tragic lack of understanding of what goes on in the Department of Industry at a time when the Department is claiming to be able to transform British industry.
  Is it suggested that the Government can legislate enterprise and efficiency into industry? If it is, it displays a scandalous lack of understanding of the way in which British companies are run, and how they hope to survive in the world export markets. The Secretary of State offered neither recognition of the achievement of those companies nor praise to the workers who gave us those achievements. One has only to probe gently into the Government's statistics to illustrate the effect of government on industry and to understand that it is not industry that needs government to survive but the Government which needs industry to support it.
  Between 1964 and 1974 the level of so-called Government aid was put at £5,450 million. That included the change from investment allowances to investment grants. The latter failed to benefit half the industry of the country. In my constituency in the last 12 months unemployment has doubled, yet we qualify in no way for Government aid, and the Bill offers no help. Mine is not the only constituency with such a problem. The
  1210
  total aid figure included REP and involved many loans and agreements from which the Government could not only draw interest and capital but could recover a percentage of the revenue on sales.
  Between 1964 and 1974 industry paid £18,300 million in tax. The bright stars of Socialist Britain, the nationalised corporations, had an entirely different record over the same 10 years. They paid £98 million in tax and lost £360 million. The national expenditure and incomes blue book states that in those 10 years the State enterprises received nearly £1,700 million in subsidies and we had to write off debts of £2,410 million. Now we are invited to help the State participate further.
  Mr. Mike Noble: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has read the Conservative election campaign guide, but if he turns to page 113 he will see that his party was boasting that it held down the prices of nationalised industries deliberately, and turned them into loss makers in order to sustain some measure of price stability. Perhaps he will mention that in his speech when talking about writing off losses, because it was done by his Government for four years as a deliberate act of policy.
  Mr. Warren: That does not deny the fact that these figures are correct. The nationalised electricity industry is to put up prices by over one-third in the next four months. We must face the reality that nationalised industries have never produced any goods or services better than private enterprise. If they are so good, why do they run into so much trouble? From within the Department of Industry we have been given a sour revelation of the taste of things to come. I accept that these statistics which I have given have already been disputed, but they are there. They are the Government's statistics, and the Government must sort them out.
  The experience of private industry of the kind of help the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) is inclined to give can be seen in two examples of his intervention during the Socialist Government. There was the wonderful £25 million loan which he gave from the IRC to Leyland in order to carry

  1211
  out the merger of that company with the British Motor Corporation. We have seen the results of that. Secondly, he was the man who organised the fixed-price contract on the RB-211.
  The problem which Socialist back benchers face on the Bill is that it is not a matter of power to the people at all. It is power to the Secretary of State. The Webbs, the Laskis and the Daltons will be turning in their graves. The power the right hen. Gentleman seeks is power for himself. Under Clause 2 the National Enterprise Board is said to be able to do anything necessary for performing its function. Who decides what is "anything"? Who decides what is "necessary"? Clause 6 says that it is the Secretary of State. If companies do not do as he says, if the National Enterprise Board, does not do what is required of it, there is no need to get new chaps, as is the case with the Industrial Development Advisory Board. Clause 3 says that the Secretary of State will direct the Board, and I bet he will.
  We have the famous mushroom treatment: British industry is once more to be kept in the dark and covered with Socialist fertiliser.
  What power can the Secretary of State actually use? Clause 8 says that he can buy a maximum 30 per cent. of the shares of a company. We should compare that with Clause 15, by which he amends the 1972 Act, removing the prohibition on the Secretary of State's acquiring more than half the equity share capital of any company. The right hon. Gentleman can tell companies how high to jump and in which direction to run, no matter how lame they may be.
  The Bill is a dangerous inroad into the ability of industry to survive. Clause 10 states that the Secretary of State, if he considers that an important manufacturing industry is seriously and immediately threatened with a transfer of control, has the way wide open to help himself to it. Under the clause he can vest the capital assets of the undertaking not in the people, not in the Government, but in himself. The condition is only that of national interest. Who decides what the national interest is? I am sure that everybody has guessed by now. It is the Secretary of State.
  1212
  This drab Government is once again trying to dull the competiveness and will of British management and British workers. Companies are now finding that in order to survive they have to compete not only against others in the export markets of the world but against their own Government.
  The crazy chaos of industrial aid was revealed yesterday when the Peterlee Corporation proudly announced that it was receiving Government aid to encourage a Japanese ball-bearing company into this country, bringing foreign equipment which would receive a State subsidy. Yet British ball-bearing companies do not qualify for such aid because the equipment is already here.
  The heart of the danger to British society is that we have a Government who do not care about industry or are so confused that they will wipe out British enterprise under the weight of bureaucracy to come. It is no good the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) saying that this is stupid. This is the way it is.
  Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman is stupid.
  Mr. Warren: That is a matter of opinion which I am always ready to debate with the hon. Gentleman, but he is no longer on the shop floor, and it is not a question of "I'm all right, Jack".
  Mr. Heffer: Opposition Members should understand the position. On the one hand they say that they want inward investment, which the Government are very willing to have. On the other hand, when an attractive outside company gets the benefit of assistance in an assisted area, they say that our own industry is not getting it. They cannot have it both ways. Either we want to have inward investment and to attract outside companies into the development areas or we do not. That is what I meant when I said that the hon. Gentleman does not understand the whole question.
  Mr. Warren: There must be some control over the invitations to foreign companies to come into this country to compete against our own companies. Why do we subsidise them? It is ludicrous. There is no control in any clause of the Bill over the multinational companies which Labour Members dislike so much.
  Mr. Leadbitter rose—
  Mr. Warren: Other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall not give way.
  If I am one voice on the Opposition benches speaking out on the matter, I believe that I am also expressing the wishes and views of the vast majority of our people, including the workers on the shop floor, who do not believe that the Bill will help them. The trails of dictators are littered with fables that their brand of dictatorship is in the national interest and will be for the good of the people. The Bill bodes no good for the people of Britain. It is a bid for the takeover of their way of life.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I agree with the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren) that there are other hon. Members who want to speak. We have already had the first casualty.
  8.8 p.m.
  Mr. John Watkinson: The hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren) will not be surprised if I do not join in his extremist response to the Bill. It was typical of the Opposition's response, in that it was not constructive and was highly personalised. In personalising the debate, Conservative Members have debased it.
  The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) told us yesterday that all political parties had failed in the matter of this country's industrial performance. I agree. Does not that show that now is the time for a breakthrough, for the regeneration of British industry? It is a commonplace that as a nation we have fallen behind our competitors. We are growing at a rate of only about a half to a third that of our European neighbours. Whether we take statistics about levels of personal income, housing, education or anything else, we find that we are behind our Continental neighbours.
  The reason we are behind is that we have failed to grow as a nation, and because we have failed to grow we are unable to pay ourselves the wages which we desire and to provide ourselves with the goods and services which we demand. Because of our failure to grow economically, our wage increases have been whittled away in rising prices, and be-
  1214
  cause we have attempted to pay ourselves so much more than we can actually afford in these last few years, our real standards of living have not grown significantly.
  We have, therefore, a situation of low economic growth coupled with high unit costs of labour, and this has been brought about—as many speakers on both sides have said in debate—by our failure to invest. The fuelling power for economic growth is investment and our performance has been particularly disappointing over the past five years. I see that the figures from the DTI, and, indeed, those from the CBI, indicate a pessimistic trend in investment. We are now in the position of consistently under-investing by 10 per cent. in relation to our European neighbours.
  The reasons for this under-investment have been discussed at some length in the House. We have had mention of Government policy, the stop-go policies of previous administrations, monetary policies which have led to high interest rates—which has meant that industry has not been able to borrow—the failure of industry to respond to the multifarious offers which have been put before it by successive Governments, and a failure in the quality of our management, but I would point to one area which I think is of significance, namely, the failure of our financial institutions.
  I refer to the City of London. On the Opposition side of the House the City is regarded as a sacred cow; on our side, I would say that it is an institution which has escaped much-needed reforms. I quote from the Hudson Report, which says:
  "We are struck by the disastrous effect of the City of London on the British economy. Without discussing the ideology of the City, it is clear that it has preferred to nourish foreign enterprise rather than feed or renew the sady depleted infrastructure of British industry."
  The City is a 19th century institution. It is an institution which nurtured the world. It provides and has provided investment for foreign nations when we in this country need the investment for our own industry. It has been said that if the City is unable to channel that investment into British industry then it should be directed so to do, and those are not the words of some extremist Marxist, those are the words of Sir Fred Catherwood.

  1215
  It is time, too, that our banking institutions reformed themselves. Why is it that banking institutions in this country still lend short? They will not fuel British industry in this country. We have a situation, as I have indicated, in which rates of interest have remained high. Under the Finance for Industry provisions, because of the high interest rates it has not been possible for the pick-up to be as great as might have been hoped. Perhaps it is time to consider a situation in which we have a two-tier interest rate system comparable to that of the French.
  To deal with the breakdown in British industrial growth and industrial investment we have brought forward our Industry Bill, which in my opinion is vital for the regeneration of British industry. When papers as diverse as The Times, the Sunday Times, and Tribune can agree that this country needs a further £20,000 million invested in the next few years, perhaps those views are worthy of note.
  The Conservative answer to this, from what has appeared in their arguments, is that we should rely upon the operation of the market to supply up with these funds. But what has been the record of private enterprise in the past 15 years? In the words of the Economist, lamentable
  Let us recall those golden days of Selsdon Man, when British industry was to be set free and our opponents backed their words with actions. They released credit from the banking system on to the financial markets. And where did the money go?—into productive enterprise? No. It went into fuelling a property boom, a stock exchange boom. It did not go into productive enterprise.
  Where is the evidence to suggest that the market system will provide for the vast increase in dustrial investment which this country needs? If we look at our continental neighbours we do not see that they rely upon the working of the invisible hand to provide that investment. It is noticeable that France, with its enviable growth record, has 500 firms under State ownership, including banks and insurance institutions. Sweden has its Statesborg. Italy has its IRI. In Germany, the commercial banks are closely linked with industry. We are one of the very few countries which lack an active Government involvement in industry. Hardly
  1216
  anywhere in the world, barring America, does the law or opinion accept that Governments and representatives of the public should get on with their jobs and leave those who manage industry to get on with theirs.
  Far from being a revolutionary proposal, the Industry Bill follows the lines laid down by the Tories in their Industry Act 1972 and the experience of countries on the Continent. Through the operation of the National Enterprise Board there will be a channelling of vital investment funds into British industry. One read yesterday that Lord Stokes, at the meeting of British Leyland, indicated that that company at a crucial time, was unable to borrow funds from the banking institutions of this country in order to finance its investment programme. Lord Stokes has said that companies of the size of British Leyland can no longer be expected to exist without active Government intervention.
  But there are other aspects of the Bill to which hon. Members have drawn attention. Through the operation of disclosure, trade unionists will benefit. We are introducing into British industrial life a measure of industrial democracy. All parties in this House are in favour of some measure of participation, yet when we bring forward constructive proposals, this being a conservative nation, there is a scream of anguish from the other side.
  As the Economist has said, firms in Germany and Austria are already required by law to make much of the disclosure that is now turning the hair of British management grey.
  Can we really go on with a situation in which working people can be the last to know about matters of vital importance affecting their work and their livelihood?
  One of the benefits of the Bill is that through planning agreements and disclosure, there can be as significant effect on the quality of investment in this country. Perhaps the investment policies of previous administrations can be criticised on the basis that they have not been selective enough, that they have been too sweeping in their nature. I would have thought that, given the operation of this Bill, by which selectivity may be introduced, it could have some appeal

  1217
  to hon. Members opposite. What is certainly the case is that for the next decade British industry is going to have to make some painful decisions about its investment potential and about those industries into which investment should go.
  In these circumstances, it is vital that the work of the Manpower Service Commission should be significantly increased. The total expenditure and the services provided by that organisation are totally inadequate in the present circumstances. In any given year at present, two-fifths of the young labour force coming on to the market is not being trained industrially. This compares woefully with figures of 70 per cent. in Germany and Sweden.
  To say that we have an investment crisis will have no effect upon the public at large. We politicians have tended to devalue the currency of that term. But major reforms are needed, especially in investment, and these reforms will be provided through the operation of this legislation.
  The Opposition claim with all the conviction of nineteenth century dinosaurs that they will repeal this measure. However, the Bill will take us forward. There is no going back to the laissez-faire economy of the nineteenth century. The Bill extends to British industry an area of democracy. I believe that it carries the full-hearted support of all Government supporters and of most of the British people.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: There goes a second casualty!
  8.22 p.m.
  Miss Harvie Anderson: I am glad to have this opportunity to express briefly the widespread concern shared in Scotland at what we believe to be a bad Bill. When Government supporters say what a splendid Bill it is and how mild it is, it is interesting to hear them go on to emphasise how much more strength they would like to see in it. That does not encourage us to overcome our mistrust of it. What is more, the mistrust in Scotland has not been reduced by the experience of nationalisation there or by intervention in difficult circumstances.
  This seems to be an extraordinary moment for the Secretary of State to bring
  1218
  in this Bill in answer to his charge against private enterprise for its lack of investment. We need more investment. No one doubts that, unless it be a Government supporter who spoke earlier, to whom it appeared to come as a new thought. British industry has had drawn away from it all possible sources of investment, with the result that it is now at a point where only survival can be thought of. The Government have seen to it and are seeing to it that there is no money left to save and therefore no money left to invest.
  A number of hon. Members have referred to the better investment records of other countries. I think that it is time that we remembered that nearly half of what industry gains is taxed away in one form or another. That is far more than in any other country. None of the countries which have been mentioned—Sweden, Western Europe or Japan—is in the position in which British industrialists find themselves. In addition, we are living in times when inflation is running at the highest rate ever experienced in the country.
  We have heard little mention by Government supporters of the factor of confidence, yet confidence has been so badly shaken that potential shareholders, whether they be small shareholders or pension funds—those whom I describe as "the big boys"—shy away from investment altogether. I cannot resist bringing to the Minister's notice the fact that in recent times British Rail has invested in pictures. It has entered the antiques market. I hope that the Government will consider seriously what happens when a nationalised industry buys pictures as a form of investment, bearing in mind that anyone buying a picture may make a shrewd buy but that no matter how shrewd it may be the money invested in it is sterilised.
  The Bill is claimed to improve upon this situation, which undoubtedly it will not do. I suspect that its purpose is further to undermine the accepted structure of our society, and, in the process, to extend State ownership.
  I shall not go into the details of the powers, which we consider to be far too great, for the National Enterprise Board and for interference in companies which are profitable as well as those which are

  1219
  unprofitable. In the case of profitable companies, this measure can only exaggerate the uncertainties of the present, and those companies which cannot keep sufficient of their profits to invest are ripe again for State ownership, through no fault of their own.
  I want now to make one or two points about the clauses in the Bill. Clause 2(3) contains the words "anything" in line 42 and "or elsewhere" in line 43. I hope that careful consideration will be given to what those words mean. It may be that we shall be told at a later stage what they mean. But how wide is the scope of them, and does the word "elsewhere" apply to British companies which have works in, say, Turkey, Western Europe or South Africa, and how would the NEB be able to exercise its powers in those places.
  I come, then, to Clauses 9 to 11. I cannot understand why the Government propose to duplicate existing powers. As I understand it, assets cannot be transferred without Bank or Treasury agreement—or is the intention simply to press harder on companies seeking to make such transfers?
  In Clause 13, dealing with compensation, we have a series of provisions indicating how compensation shall or may be given. There is a great difference between "shall" and "may". I should like to know who gives the "may". I suspect that it is the Secretary of State, and that does not fill me with confidence, either.
  In line 16 of Clause 14 we find the phrase
  "… being an arrangement entered into".
  What does that phrase mean, and has such an arrangement the force of law? To our industrialists, the interpretation of the phrase means a great deal.
  Finally, but by no means least in importance, how does the power of Parliament rate in this widespread bureaucratic structure which is being set up to suck in countless companies, whether successful or unsuccessful, at the whim of a board which is not answerable to Parliament? It has always seemed to me that, with the power remaining here to raise taxes, the power as to how they are to be spent slips further and further from us.
  1220
  I do not intend to express at length my view of what has happened in the past on Clydeside when the Secretary of State has been there. He goes there when there is trouble, but we know that he has been the cause of much of the trouble.
  The Bill will be resisted by the Opposition, by industry and, contrary to what some Government supporters think, by many far-seeing workers in trade unions and on shop floors. It fails either to understand the problems that we face or to set out an acceptable solution.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): May I offer my congratulations to the right hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson)? Women seem to be in the ascendancy. The right hon. Lady has set a shining example by the brevity of her remarks.
  8.30 p.m.
  Mr. Mike Noble: I am grateful for catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker and I promise to be equally brief. When I considered the White Paper "The Regeneration of British Industry" and then the Bill, I turned to text books on the operations of capitalism. The first was written by Andrew Schonfield—"Modern Capitalism"—about 10 years ago. In many ways it is a textbook description of the capitalist economies of Western Europe. One point becomes clear in reading that book—that even 10 years ago many of the economies of Western Europe had facilities and machinery of the type that we are now seeking to introduce on this side of the House in order to ensure that they obtained the economic growth.
  The second set of books that I turned to—and there are a number of them—were written by Kenneth Galbraith. It is interesting to read from his latest book how he has finally come round to the point of view that the proposals which the Labour Government have for British industry are exactly right. In fact he would approve of them for the United States.
  There are many things that one could say about the Bill. As a Member representing one of the most neglected parts of this country, North-East Lancashire, I could say a great deal about the regions. I take every opportunity to criticise both my Government and the

  1221
  previous Tory administration for the way in which that area has been neglected. But in view of the time I intend to leave that.
  There is a great deal that could be said about investment. I shall be very brief on that point because I know that other hon. Members have said a great deal about it. One point I would make is that the strike of capital, in terms of investing in British industry, that we have witnessed over the last few years—the last four years, in fact—has been far more damaging than all the labour disputes that we have had since the General Strike in 1926. We have had a very low proportion of the gross domestic product reinvested in British industry, despite all the inducements that the last Labour Government gave and that the previous Conservative Government gave, particularly after the Industry Bill.
  We have also had misdirected investment. We saw between 1970 and 1974 the biggest property boom, not in housing—we saw that collapse—although workers needed houses, but in properties, in places such as the centre of London where there is a quick buck to be made for the friends of the Opposition.
  Finally, we saw the greatest export of capital that this country has ever witnessed. In fact, the Hudson Report, which I would recommend to the Opposition, had this to say about the export of capital:
  "The comparison between investment and earnings abroad supports the argument that Britain not only is not profiting from foreign investment but is also investing abroad beyond its means".
  This, to many people on this side of the House, has been obvious for many years. I hope that my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Industry, will impress upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer the need to ensure that investment that is available in this country secures jobs for British workers and is not allowed to flow abroad.
  The main point that I wanted to deal with concerns industrial democracy. I welcome the Bill on many grounds but particularly on the ground that it includes an element which will enable industrial democracy to flourish in those enterprises controlled by the NEB. I am
  1222
  particularly pleased that the subsection of Clause 2 which deals with this does so in very general terms.
  We witnessed last Thursday, in the debate on the motion that was put forward by the Liberal Party, the Liberals' prescription for industrial democracy. What hypocrisy to suggest that any of us sitting here can lay down guidelines for industrial democracy! Democracy is a seed which may grow into a flower and flourish or into a tree and bear fruit. But we cannot guide it from this House. We can plant the seed by creating the environment but what we must ensure is that the employees—that is, the workers and professional managers, who seek a release from the constraints of their present employers, very often because they are being prevented from exercising their professional skills, together with the workers on the shop floor—can develop a democratic structure within the confines in which they work and ensure that in the end they secure a substantial measure of control.
  My hon. Friend, the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), today has had a Lobby of several hundred of his constituents who have been in a situation with the Imperial Typewriter Company where they were faced with an immediate closure, and they had had no prior information that that was to take place. Industrial democracy and the release of information go together. We cannot prescribe industrial democracy but what we can do, what the Bill lays out and what my right hon. Friend has said he will do is to consult in order to get the correct measure of release of information. These are the things we can do. We can ensure that the situation that faces my hon. Friend's constituents in Hull does not recur. I see as the key element of the Bill this question of the release of information and the associated development of control within the company, as opposed to absentee landlords who, perhaps, never see the company in operation.
  It is a positive challenge to the trade union movement. Many of us—I was not a Member of the House at that time—saw what happened when the trade union movement was challenged in 1971 by the ill-thought measure, the so-called Industrial Relations Act. Operating within the law, the trade union movement

  1223
  carried out a programme of education of its members. Schools were held throughout the country. At the end of the day, hon. Members now on the Opposition side of the House were saying "For God's sake let us repeal this Act". It became a millstone around their necks. That was a negative challenge to the unions.
  I suggest that here we have a positive challenge to the workers of this country. They must accept the responsibilities that this measure brings. They will need training. But let us be quite clear about this: as has been said, there are many workers in British industry who know far more than any management about the bread and butter issues of the shop floor. Now we are giving them an opportunity to raise their sights.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will approach the TUC and will recommend that it organises a massive programme of education so that people know not only what the Bill means but exactly what is meant by a balance sheet. Many shareholders never get the kind of information which they are supposed to have—and they are supposed to be the owners of industry.
  Not only should we have schools for shop stewards and workers, but perhaps the TUC could extend its ambit and include, in its schools, members of management and civil servants, so that we could have a joint working relationship from the grass roots upwards in order to make sure that the information which will become available is used effectively.
  One final question worries me. I can see the situation in which we have strong trade unions being efficient and able to use the information given to them for the benefit of both employees and the consumer. But I am worried about the situation in which trade union are weak. I should like my right hon. Friend to address his mind to that problem. What measures does he foresee in circumstances in which unions do not have either the strength of some of the larger organisations or the facilities in terms of background research to make sure that they can take advantage of this measure of industrial democracy?
  I live in an area in which the industrial revolution was born from the cradle—if
  1224
  I may so put it. That area, Burnley, needs regenerating. It has been degenerating since 1911. That is the town in which I have my home, but it is not my constituency. Burnley was the largest weaving town in the country. One can see the effects of degeneration over the long term. That is not a reflection on my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Jones) or the Burnley local authority, who have done a marvellous job. One can see the same effects in my constituency.
  I warn the House that if we do not make radical improvements and changes—and provision for these is included in the Bill—many other parts of the country, including some of the more affluent areas represented by Conservative Members, will face a similar situation.
  8.39 p.m.
  Mr. Hal Miller: In deference to your request for brief speeches, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall try to cover only the main point I wish to make. In so doing I wish to bring out what I have found in common among hon. Members on both sides of the House, because it is a serious problem with which we are confronted. I shall endeavour to avoid speaking in any fractious or partisan spirit. I wish to take up some of the points made by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice).
  The Secretary of State, in introducing his Bill, said that it was no longer a question whether the economy was managed, but in whose interests it was managed. If we return to the question of who has been managing the economy, and the results of that management, we may find for ourselves a fitting humility. My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) pointed out that part of the reason for the poor performance of British industry, which on both sides of the House we have been lamenting, has been the political failure of both parties, excessive interference by Ministers—on which several chairmen of nationalised industries have given evidence—and the short time scale on which Governments habitually operate compared with the longer investment time scale of large concerns. I hope that that matter will be considered fully by the Government in connection with Planning Agreements.

  1225
  The right hon. Gentleman also postulated the possibility that under present arrangements even the Midlands would be declining into a depressed area. I have several times raised in the House the question of policy regarding the issue of industrial development certificates for the Midlands. That is one of the main factors that has been impeding investment. That is a further illustration of the way in which Governments have impeded investment in this country and the damage to confidence that has been caused by Governments' ill-considered actions.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Butler) mentioned confidence, as did the Secretary of State. We have heard about harnessing the confidence of all the British people. It is also necessary, apart from internal confidence, to gain the confidence of the international investors if we are to receive the benefits of new technologies as well as the finances of which we are in need.
  I am worried about the bogus air of certainty that is given, in particular, to the provisions regarding Planning Agreements and the establishment of the NEB. It seems to be suggested by some Labour Members that these acts of themselves will inevitably lead to the dawn of the new era for British industry. I take issue with the Government on their finding that Planning Agreements should be concluded with individual firms. Surely we must approach the sectors first and reach some conclusion before proceeding to the individual industries.
  I can see great damage to some industries if Planning Agreements are concluded with individual firms without some conclusions being reached for the sector as a whole. The motor industry has had long experience—since the original Treasury working party in 1967—of sectoral studies. A suitable framework for such studies has been found in the NEDC. The will-power to impose, if necessary, the solutions that have been clearly identified has been missing. British Leyland is obviously a case in point, the history of the matter going back to the original IRC merger.
  If we consider the motor cycle industry as a sectoral study—I have been able to engage the Minister of State on the subject of Norton Triumph Villiers—it seems that
  1226
  a sectoral planning agreement was reached with NTV some years ago. It is perhaps true that the unions were not consulted sufficiently early in that process. I accept that. But the delays that have ensued have been most damaging to the future of the whole industry. I should like the Government to consider how a Planning Agreement, as applied to an NTV situation, would have improved the situation and led to a speedier conclusion.
  On Planning Agreements we must surely have a commitment by all three parties involved—namely, Government, management and unions. What I find lacking in the Bill is any suggestion that there is a commitment on the part of the Government except in terms of the financial assistance available. The present system does not involve the whole gamut of policies which affect industry, and is without commitment by the unions. Unless there is some commitment, I believe that we shall make no serious progress.
  Labour Members have cited British Leyland. Owing to industrial action there has been a loss of production in that concern. Indeed, if the production target had been reached it would have provided that company with sufficient funds for investment. The Prime Minister recognises that public assistance to the firm with the present level of industrial dispute is no longer acceptable.
  Time is running out, and I intend to be brief. I wanted to go into the need for flexibility in Planning Agreements because in my own experience, having entered the House as a director of a textile company, I know that investment decisions have to be changed in the light of circumstances when new machinery becomes available. I believe that we shall run into great difficulty if we become too rigid in our thinking. Therefore, I hope that the Government will look again at the possibility of introducing necessary changes.
  In regard to exchange of information among the three parties to such agreements, we must recognise that there are matters which require to be kept confidential, particularly those involving new developments and closures. This consideration has excited some Labour Members, who feel that information must be

  1227
  widely broadcast, but it is not practicable widely to discuss possible future closures since that will only bring about a closure much more quickly than if one tries to control the situation, or even to avoid closure. In discussing complex planning strategy one must consider the various options which are open to government.
  Finally, I should like to know whether Planning Agreements are to be buttressed by the use of price controls. I have attempted to put this question to the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection. I suggested to her that the only consequence of holding down the price of Ford motor cars while allowing the price of British Leyland cars to rise would be to deprive British Leyland of a market and, inevitably, to increase output at the Ford company. Perhaps the Minister, in replying to the debate will say whether the Government still intend to use their price controls in this connection.
  Since I have undertaken to be brief, I shall cut short my remarks on the National Enterprise Board. I conclude by taking up the remarks of one Labour Member who said that he was not particularly clear where the ramifications of the Bill would lead. Conservative Members are afraid that the Bill will not lead to any further investment—indeed, that its provisions will suffocate investment.
  On the question of industrial democracy, when we look at the present situation in the nationalised industries and the democracy that exists in those sectors we fear that it will lead to an extinction of democracy and to a system based on Eastern. European lines. For this reason, I shall be among those who will vote against the Second Reading of the Bill.
  8.50 p.m.
  Mr. Ted Leadbitter: In the five minutes at my disposal before I give way to the Minister I hope that I shall be able to make a few short points. The House must bear in mind one fundamental fact in regard to the problem of bringing confidence back into industry and ensuring prosperity for those who work in it. Every scheme which has been brought before the House in the past by Governments of both complexions has failed to pass the test of being successful. In other words, the
  1228
  endemic problems have persisted—unemployment, regional problems and many other matters have caused a great deal of frustration. Unfortunately, they have brought about a sense of hopelessness which perhaps has not been fully reflected in this debate. If in the past we have not succeeded, and if regional policies, incentive programmes and investment programmes have not produced a dynamic industry, there must be another way. I do not suggest that this is the way. However, it is important to examine all policies.
  The Secretary of State has suggested that the Government should take over direct responsibility to help industry. It is nonsense for the Opposition to suggest that that is interference, especially in view of their past record. However, I do not wish to spoil my contribution by making sharp, irrelevant party political points.
  If the House is concerned with the question of confidence, many hon. Members have failed to underline that fact during the debate. The House cannot get away with the notion of spending 48 hours in a state of recrimination and of personalising the issue, when outside this building management and men are asking that Parliament shall act as a barometer, showing there is a new way and that it is worth trying. The House should bear in mind that the Bill will be put right in Committee, where it will be examined with great care. The Bill will be the responsibility of Parliament and not of the Secretary of State.
  Over a quarter of a century I have had experience of high unemployment levels in my constituency. There is a steel industry which has been teetering on the brink of uncertainty for several years, with 4,000 men worried about their jobs. At present, some 2,000 in my constituency are out of work. The rate of redundancy has persisted, so that whenever attempts have been made by both Governments the gap between the introduction of the new industries and the decline of the old has persisted and often widened.
  So I welcome the Bill. It will give the people in my constituency and in Scotland, Merseyside and Wales, a chance to see that the House of Commons has come to its senses. We have an opportunity to look at the Bill in a proper and objective manner, so that even though

  1229
  it is not perfect they can see that it attempts to bring about a partnership between Government, management and men, to create the prosperity which we all desire.
  8.54 p.m.
  Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: I am indebted to the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) for enabling me to contribute to the debate. I was most impressed at what he said in his conclusion. Nothing is more important than the partnership of human beings in their work and industry. But of all the idiocies which Lewis Carroll created for our amusement, none equals the Red King absurdities of this Bill by means of which the present incumbent Mad Hatter has imprisoned British industry and transferred all power not to the working men but to those who operate at the top of unions.
  The Bill proceeds on two assumptions, both of which are bad. One is arrogance and the other is deceit. The first assumes that there are geniuses in this country, hitherto untapped and assumably idle, who can do what nobody in industry has done so far. The second is that the failure of British industry can be put right by the genius of the incumbent Minister.
  Apparently six to 15 people are to be found in this country who evidently share the Minister's intellectual genius and are capable of putting industry right for all time. They must have his magical powers or, at any rate, his faith in his magical powers.
  The method by which they will work is the same democratic method by which all Government Departments work. Is that assumed to be the preferable method?
  Who are these six to 15 people who are to do so well? According to Schedule 1, if a member of the Board
  "has become bankrupt or made an arrangement with his creditors … the Secretary of State may declare his office as a member vacant."
  These are the geniuses who are to run industry in this country. Even Plato never thought that he could find more than 12 philosopher kings.
  Which of the functions will the Secretary of State serve? If the functions of the Board are, on the one hand, to promote industrial efficiency and inter-
  1230
  national competitiveness and, on the other hand, to provide, maintain and safeguard employment, what happens if they conflict? Will it be ultra vires of the Board to promote anything which is not profitable? Will it be ultra vires if it promotes something which becomes less efficient or less competitive? If so, what are the penalties for so doing?
  We then come to the fact that the Board is to take profitable sections of industry into public ownership. What is public ownership? It is a situation in which what is presently owned by members of the public is no longer owned by them. It is some nebulous form of legal uncertainty. It is owned by nobody at all. It is not public ownership. What does the Minister own in anything that is in so-called public ownership?
  We then come to the next extraordinary situation—that we are to have industrial democracy. The House should not overlook this point. What is meant by "industrial democracy"? We are dealing with human relations. The Bill refers to the sharing of power. The intention is not to enable the ordinary working man to share power but to ensure that there is a concentration of power in the hands of a few big union dictators. Small is beautiful. The bigger the firm, the bigger the organisation, the less power the man has. The Bill will ensure that the organisation always gets bigger and the man has less power.
  Mr. Douglas Crawford: Small is very beautiful.
  Mr. Fairbairn: Small is indeed very beautiful.
  Let us look at the organisations. Rolls-Royce, ICL (Computers), Kearney Preeter, NVT, British Leyland, Ferranti and Foden will be in the hands of about 15 people. What would hon. Gentlemen opposite say if a capitalist had power over all those companies? They would say that it was scandalous. Yet this is their definition of democracy. It is kakistocracy. I trust that the Minister knows enough Greek to appreciate that that means the rule of the worst people, not of the people.
  The purpose of this Bill is to put everybody who works into the power of the union dictatorship, to give it the information and the power to enable it to manipulate the policies of any Government and

  1231
  any company and the life of every citizen who works and earns his living in this country.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. John Peyton: I should like first to congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) and the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) on their remarkable self discipline. Nothing is more difficult than to make a five minutes' speech in this place at the end of a debate. Somebody once remarked that a week was a long time in politics. Anybody taking part in and sitting through a two-day debate could readily modify that statement to the effect that two days in politics can seem an age. I mean, of course, no reflection on the speeches to which we have listened.
  I should like particularly to refer to the excellent speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) in opening the debate from this side of the House this afternoon. It was a really first-class and admirable performance, and I am sorry that he was not heard by more people. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), whose presence is so easily missed in this House, delivered a much-needed powerful reinforcement to the Liberal case when he arrived today. His definition of the Bill must have caused a great deal of suffering to its admirers on the benches opposite when he condemned it as a shambles and said, in his language, that it was a rotten Bill. I do not think that any of us on the Opposition side of the House would dissent from that judgment.
  The hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne), whom I do not see in his place at the moment, produced a most impassioned plea, which stirred us all greatly, for the nationalisation of the drug industry. The thought of swallowing an aspirin manufactured under the authority of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State appals me. However, the hon. Gentleman's disapproval of the Bill was the first thing that I had heard to be said in its favour.
  The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley), whom we also miss—I hope he will be back to hear the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) replying—had a lot
  1232
  of questions, and if the Minister answers even a small fraction of those Nationalist questions he will do very well. He will have to make some other arrangement in order to get that lot into the Lobby with him.
  The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Watkinson) launched himself into one of those time-honoured hymns of hate against the City of London. I dare say the City of London will survive that, if not other aspects of the Government's activities. The hon. Member recalled the golden days of Selsdon Man. We are all very much obliged to the Labour Party, which lives on its own mythology and sometimes can spare the time of its mythologists in order to manufacture some for us. We appreciate it very much.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) made a most trenchant examination of the various aspects of the Bill. I hope the Government will prepare themselves to give some adequate answers when the Bill is in Committee. The only gem to which I would call attention is on page 12, line 30, where the Bill says:
  "Two bodies corporate are in the same group for the purposes of subsection (7A) above if one is the other's holding company or both are subsidiaries of a third body corporate."
  Not absolutely clear, but, nevertheless, one of the nicer bits of the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) supported the Bill with some enthusiasm. He should talk to his right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General, who treated the Bill with much greater respect—in fact, he hardly liked to touch the nasty thing at all. He and his right hon. Friend ought to have a little talk to see whether they are discussing the same measure. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) gave us a timely reminder that we do not live in a capsule and would do well to try to earn the confidence of the outside world—something we lack at the moment.
  It seems that we are all investors now—just for today. Normally, we are on the side of consumption and we do not bother about investment or providing for the future. It made a nice change that, for at least two days, even the Labour Party

  1233
  could bring itself painfully to concentrate upon investment.
  In moving the Second Reading the Secretary of State prompted more questions than he answered. It is only fair to say that the Paymaster-General was a great deal more respectable today. Early in his speech the Secretary of State said—
  "we intend … winning active support for these policies."—[Official Report, 17 February 1975; Vol. 886, c. 935.]
  We waited to hear how he intended to win support. He did not say. The right hon. Gentleman seemed unaware of the opinion held of him by British industry, of which he was reminded by my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies).
  Perhaps I could break off at this point and say how delighted I am to see the Patronage Secretary returning to his customary place on the Government Front Bench.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford was speaking for others besides himself when he described the Secretary of State as a danger and a menace to industry. That is a widely-held opinion. If it were not for the arrogance of the right hon. Gentleman he might take it seriously enough to want to make some kind of conscientious effort, at some time, to dislodge it and convince the broad mass of industry that it is wrong and that he has been misjudged.
  The right hon. Gentleman went on to invite the House to examine the magnitude of the problem now facing us. He prompted the question whether he has done that, or has just rushed in with some cherished nostrum of his own which he desperately hopes will fit what is admittedly a desperate situation. He did not explain how his Bill will work, and I do not suppose for a moment that anything he said will satisfy his hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman) who yesterday said that
  "there should be some reference to the fact that there is clearly a connection, which has not been specified so far, between the Bill's purpose of intervening in industry and its proclaimed aim of efficiency."
  In the next column he said:
  "Obviously this is not the time or place to spell out such choices, but it is a sorry comment on British economic practice that the
  1234
  public and those who run industry can legitimately ask, even with last summer's famous White Paper at hand, whether the choices have been seriously thought about and whether the infrastructure necessary for making them is being prepared."—[Official Report, 17th February 1975; Vol. 886, c. 1035–6.]
  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give some thought to this because, even though he does not like listening to the case that is made against him, there are many people who hope that he will pay attention and convince them that he is conscious of their anxiety, and will not spend his time talking to his neighbour on the Front Bench and not listening to the case that is made against him.
  I come to the question of Planning Agreements. The right hon. Gentleman described the system as being voluntary, but that surely is stretching language a bit. A man to whom a lifebelt is thrown can hardly be said to take that lifebelt voluntarily if he has no other choice, and it may be that in the context of modern industry there will be no choice for many people but to accept this somewhat poisoned chalice.
  The right hon. Gentleman said yesterday that investment on the scale we needed never took place. He never sought for a moment to inquire why that investment had never taken place. He never referred to the question of confidence which, of course, is at the root of all troubles. It is one of the most delicate plants and can easily be destroyed under any Government, but the right hon. Gentleman seems to be utterly careless about it.
  The Secretary of State did not refer to the possibility that we may have been making the almost fatal mistake of living beyond our means for far too long and attempting dishonestly to conceal it from ourselves.
  I should like to go on to that strange creature, the National Enterprise Board. The Paymaster-General was not always so keen about this. In June 1973 he wrote that the National Enterprise Board
  "will be the most powerful body in the country, more powerful within its field of activity even than the elected Government."
  A few days later in the Observer he said:
  "It is a bad idea. It derives from a vision of a monopolistic society ruled by technocrats."
  Those are his words, and they are an eloquent condemnation of this creature.

  1235
  Today, the Paymaster-General said that there will always be a danger that the aid will go to the weakest companies. I endorse that anxiety absolutely. I feel that the assistance now being generated by the Government will almost always go to the baby that cries the loudest and to the victim that can call to his support the maximum of political pressure. Indeed, it was my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) who, in an eloquent speech yesterday, said that industrial issues would become overlaid with politics. I agree with that verdict absolutely, and I feel that as time goes on, and as we experience the working of this measure, right hon. Gentlemen opposite will come bitterly to learn the same thing.
  Mention has been made of the IRC. I should not wish to go into that at great length save to say that the IRC had its unpleasant side, and I do not believe it at all unlikely that the NEB could itself breed some fairly unpleasant aspects before long in its career.
  The right hon. Gentleman touched very briefly on the question of information. This, as he ought to know, is a matter of great concern to many people, not because of some love of secrecy, or to keep things from their employees, or anything like that, but because there is knowledge of a commercial kind which is of enormous value to companies. In his speech yesterday the right hon. Gentleman dealt with this in less than half a column and in a way which indicated that he was barely thinking about it at all, though he said he would later be talking to the TUC and the CBI.
  These measures are not necessarily sufficient to allay the anxieties of industry on this important subject. The Minister said nothing about the way in which the Government were to equip—[Interruption.] I wonder whether I might have the attention of the Minister of State after he has finished speaking to one of his hon. Friends. I suggest to my right hon. and hon. Friends that when the Minister of State replies he should be listened to in silence and with courtesy, even though that is something he is quite unable to extend to others.
  The Secretary of State yesterday said nothing about the way in which the Government were to equip themselves to
  1236
  take on these further functions. I believe that Governments in this country would be well advised to do a good deal less until they can do the essentials much better than at present. One of the more deplorable features of our arrangements is how little time any of us ever manages to give to the framework and organisation of government which still remains, in essence, Victorian, with a terrible overgrowth of more modern times.
  This has been a depressing and dismal debate. The Paymaster-General made clear that Britain had not had a magnificent economic record since the war. I wonder whether the Bill is not attempting to deal with a whole collection of deep-seated problems in a superficial and optimistic fashion. Is it possible, for instance, that we have been living so much beyond our means that we have had insufficient resources available for investment? What part in our disappointing industrial performance has been played by the background of the slums and debris of the last century?
  The hon. Member for Rossendale referred to the degeneration of his constituency. The problem is not restricted to the hon. Member's part of the world. What have we done about that? Totally inadequate measures have been taken to cure this lasting sore, but anyone who is curious enough to find out what is wrong with this country could do worse than pay a visit to some of our major ports—places where the prosperity of the last century was located but where today there is an atmosphere of grim dereliction, sourness and stubborn, primitive attitudes against a background of dirty, scruffy buildings which can inspire no one.
  I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition will forgive me for referring to the education system. [Interruption.] It is all very well for Labour Members to mock. They so often take refuge in that fashion. Do we ask ourselves often enough whether the education system is adequately geared to take account of industry and its needs and aims? What of the burden of tax upon industry? We hear various figures, but the best figure I have been able to find was given by Professor Lawson, of the Manchester Business School, and it is that the effective rate of tax upon industry's profits over the 6½ years to October

  1237
  1974 was 63 per cent. That slightly conflicts with the facile judgments made by the Secretary of State.
  Then there is the complexity of our tax system, in which we seem almost to take pride, and above all the frequency with which we change it. An enormous amount of effort, time and skill is diverted into purely accountancy functions to get used to some new antic or requirement imposed upon industry by the Government, with no thought of the consequences of their actions. There is the question of the time requirement imposed upon industry to satisfy the demands of Government. I understand that one nationally-known firm is paying a salary bill of £250,000 a year to people whose job it is simply to frame applications to the Price Commission for increases.
  I come to another point which seems to me to be a great weakness in our economy—the nationalised industries so dear to the hearts of Labour Members. They are harassed, not controlled, by Government. What depresses me about the prospect for those firms which come within the yoke of the National Enterprise Board is the treatment already meted out to the Government's own pets, the nationalised industries.
  The capital investment programme of nationalised industries is usually approved in the year preceding that in which it is to take effect. I do not believe that the Treasury has the remotest understanding of the requirements of industry. I sometimes think that in Treasury language a long lead is something on the end of which one takes a small dog for a walk.
  The lack of power of trade union leaders to control their wild men is another source of unease and difficulty in our industrial situation. Unfortunately, a substantial part of management feels that there is no need to explain to its employees the situation of either the country generally or the concern in which they work. One of the more unfortunate habits of the House has become its keenness to lambast management on every possible occasion. It is a favourite theme of anyone who makes a speech to point out the inadequacy and ineptitude of British management. But I do not believe that any other industrial manage-
  1238
  mentin the world has to face from its own politicians a misfortune similar to that with which we habitually face ours.
  There is a kind of lingering stuffiness in the whole climate of our affairs which comes from the needs of a class system generated by a system of land tenure which prevailed in the Middle Ages. It hardly seems realistic that it should have survived, yet no one is keener or more enthusiastic to preserve it and make capital out of it than the Labour Party.
  There is also the regular insistence by the media, particularly television, on treating industrial problems, and especially industrial disputes, as though they were football matches, with the media as the referees. I know no practice that does more harm.
  I believe that the specific which is now launched before Parliament by the Government for the curing of our industrial ills will do nothing to help. I believe that the complete unwillingness of the Labour Party to advert to and concentrate upon some of the evils, shortcomings and deficiencies in our society is really at the root of our trouble, and, in particular, the facile ease with which they have urged this country to live substantially beyond its means and even sought to teach it that effort and enterprise have nothing to do with a high standard of life.
  It is a modern practice to fan discontent throughout the nation and not to promote unity. Hon. Gentlemen can scoff as they wish, but I do not believe that there is any other country in the world so perilously unaware as we in this country are of our present plight. Nor have the Government done anything to warn this country of the consequences of hazarding a system the blemishes of which it may be fun to point out but which nevertheless is still a system which has afforded to more people than ever before in human history the chance to enjoy more, in conditions of less constraint.
  I believe that the present Government of this country, fortified by less than 40 per cent. of the votes, is launching Left-wing policies upon the country, are not only risking dividing the country but are embarking upon policies which will divide this country, and not unite it—policies which will have the effect of diverting this

  1239
  nation from the real perils. I am afraid that when we discuss an important Bill such as that which we are discussing tonight—a Bill which carries with it a real threat to the industry by which we live—the attitude of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Government side is trivial and petty and will be seen in the short run to be far short of what this country requires.
  9.28 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Eric S. Heffer): Before I reply to the points that have been raised, may I say to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) that I was not being discourteous. I had a question put to me by a colleague behind me. I apologise if he thought that I was being discourteous to him.
  Despite some fanciful and typically immoderate statements by some Opposition Members, this long debate has been a very serious debate. I think that is right because for the last two days we have been discussing nothing less than the future of British industry at a time of looming international crisis. I agree with those hon. Members on both sides of the House who said that we should not expect too much from this Bill in the sense that it will not solve our problems overnight.
  However, it is a tremendous step forward. It gets to the root of our problems. It creates new and essential investment. But it will not, as some Opposition Members suggest, of itself lead to the creation of the Socialist millenium. Nor will it, as some Left-wing critics outside this House suggest, prop up and bolster a decayed system which has outlived itself. Nor is it the development of Government instruments towards the corporate State. If that were so, the work people would be expected to be passive sightseers rather than being involved in the decision making proposed in the Bill.
  My approach to the Bill and to this debate is one of total commitment to the wellbeing of those who work in British industry at all levels. I say that because the well being of all our constituents depends upon British industry being healthy. We must not fail the people, especially those who live in constituencies such as that which I represent and who have known of the burden of unemployment for so many years.
  1240
  I hope that the House will agree with me when I say that we all want to see more investment in British industry. We cannot accept a situation in which workers in the United States, in France and in Japan are backed up by twice as much investment a year as are British workers. We cannot accept a situation in which we seem incapable of getting anything like the increased output for each pound spent on investment as do competitor firms in these other countries. We as a nation must not accept a continuing relative decline in our country's industrial standing. I am sure that every right hon. and hon. Member shares my feeling in this regard.
  I make one comment in passing, however. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) tried to pretend that the increase in bankruptcies in this country between 1973 and 1974 had something to do with the change of government. We have heard the same suggested by Opposition Members many times during the debate. But do they not know that something is happening in the world in relation to the international crisis? Do they not know that unemployment in Germany is now three times as high as it was in 1973? Do they not know that unemployment in the United States is now running at 8·2 per cent.—the highest level since 1941?
  This Labour Government control neither Germany nor the United States—[HON. MEMBERS: "That is why they are doing well."]—With an unemployment rate of 8·2 per cent.? The Opposition know that it is a false argument to suggest that the lack of investment has occurred because we have had a Labour Government since February of this year.
  I am sure that the House is united in its condemnation of the waste of human resources which has resulted from our inability to lift the burden of unemployment from the development areas, which itself arises directly from our collective failure to achieve an acceptable national rate of economic growth by harnessing the creative energies of the British people.
  As I am a Minister with special responsibilities for regional industrial matters, perhaps the House will allow me to begin my response to the points made in the debate by dealing with the regional aspects of the Bill. The Bill contains

  1241
  two major proposals of concern to the regions. First, through Planning Agreements we shall seek to encourage companies to seize the opportunities open to them in Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and the English regions. Everyone will agree that much good work is already being done to this end by my Department and the other Departments concerned. But the Planning Agreement arrangements will provide a unique opportunity to go into the location of investment projects at a formative stage in the company's planning process. We shall use the powers of selective assistance in the 1972 Act to the full, during our discussions on an agreement, to assist the regions.
  Second, through the National Enterprise Board we shall be creating for the first time a public corporation in manufacturing industry with special responsibility in the regions. I think that the whole House must agree that the experience of the last 25 years shows that while financial incentives are valuable, they are, by themselves, inadequate to achieve our purposes. In fact—it has been again stated in the House by hon. Members from both sides—we have actually been running fast to stand more or less in the same place. In spite of the fact that we have created 300,000 jobs as a result of regional policies between 1960 and 1971 and of the substantial efforts before and since then, the fact remains that the areas worst hit by the depression of the 1930s—this matter was referred to by the right hon. Member for Yeovil—are still the worst areas. They are the development areas and special development areas of today.
  If we are to solve the regional problem, the powers provided by the Industry Act 1972 need to be backed by a power of direct action. This is to be provided through the National Enterprise Board, which will operate directly to create jobs in areas of high unemployment. It will do this, first, through direct investment in firms in the regions; second, by entering into joint venture with other firms in these areas; third, by giving special emphasis in the firms which it owns to expansion in the regions; and fourth, by starting new companies of its own in areas in which the need for the new jobs is urgent. I regard this particular point as
  1242
  one of the most important aspects of the Board's operations. This is what I mean when I talk about the power of direct action.
  The question of the location of the headquarters of the NEB was raised by one of my right hon. Friends. I want to make it clear that I consider that, in discharging its responsibilities to the regions, it is essential that the Board should have powerful representation through offices in the North-East and the North-West of England. In Scotland and Wales, of course, parallel responsibilities will be discharged by the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies, which I am confident will make a major contribution in their countries.
  Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister clarify the point raised by parallel responsibilities? Will the Welsh Development Agency have the right to make Planning Agreements and will it have any rights to intervene in subsidiary and branch factories in Wales?
  Mr. Heffer: The National Enterprise Board will not make Planning Agreements. Planning Agreements will be made between a company, the Government and the trade unions involved. The headquarters of a company could be anywhere. Therefore, the Planning Agreement will be made with the parent company or even with the subsidiary of such a company. The hon. Gentleman will need to wait a few moments until I turn to the relationship between the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies and the whole question of the National Enterprise Board.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Before the hon. Gentleman becomes involved in whether he will obtain the votes of the national parties, will he deal with a specific point? He has spoken of direct action in the regions by the NEB. He has talked of dealing with unemployment and many like advantages. Will the firms in the regions in which the NEB invests be expected to make a profit?
  Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman knows that on total returns there must be an adequate return on the NEB's activities. At a given moment it is obvious that financial decisions or directives will be made on the activities of the Board. The

  1243
  hon. Gentleman must understand that on occasions we may require for social reasons to assist—[Interruption.] Is not that what the whole of the regional policy is about? If Conservative Members are now deciding to abandon regional policy, to abandon every company that gets into difficulties, especially in areas of high unemployment, and to abandon the workers to unemployment, they had better tell us. They had better let the country know the precise terms of their policy. If the hon. Gentleman does not mind I shall continue with my speech.
  Mr. Crawford: When the Minister says that the Scottish Development Agency and the Welsh Development Agency shall have powers of responsibility for the NEB, does that mean that the writ of the NEB will not run in Scotland, or is he going back on what the Under-Secretary of State said last night—namely:
  "The NEB will not exercise its function in Scotland in relation to companies which span the border."
  Mr. Heffer: Of course the NEB will run in Scotland. I put this to the hon. Gentleman and to all other hon. Members from the various regions of Great Britain—
  Mr. Crawford: We are not a region.
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As has been already conceded over and over again by Ministers and Shadow Ministers, Scotland is a nation and not a region. Why are we having these problems of terminology?
  Mr. Speaker: I do my best. Fortunately I do not have to decide this particular problem.
  Mr. Heffer: Nobody is arguing that the Scottish people have not their own national characteristics and consider themselves possibly as a nation.
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Not "possibly" but as a fact.
  Mr. Heffer: Nobody is arguing about that. What I am trying to say to the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) and to her hon. Friends in the SNP—[Interruption.] If they will listen for a moment, they may hear something to their advantage. What I was about
  1244
  to say was that they can benefit from the activities of the NEB, if the Board is given a directive by my right hon. Friend after the fullest discussion with the whole Government. I make that point because this Bill is the responsibility of the whole Government and not merely of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. If we make a directive to put in factories to create employment in Scotland, in Wales, or in any of the English regions, will anybody on the Opposition benches object? That is what the activities of the NEB will bring about, and I regard it as a matter of great importance.
  With its headquarters in London the Board will be enabled to contact, at top level, companies which have their headquarters in the South-East; and with offices in the North-East and North-West, enabling it to build up links with local firms, the NEB will be strategically located to discharge its responsibilities to the nation and the regions most effectively.
  We have been asked during the debate about the relationship between the NEB and the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies. Those two agencies will be quite distinct from the NEB. They will be set up as fully independent bodies under their own statutes. These agencies are to have an important rôle in support of Government in securing greater industrial development in Scotland and Wales. In England the NEB will have a parallel function and certain wider functions which can be discharged only on a United Kingdom basis—for example, in industrial reorganisation, or as a source of investment capital to companies operating on a national basis and also, on occasions, as an agent of Government for channelling assistance to companies in England or companies operating on a national basis.
  It will be through the NEB that the Government will pursue their policy of extending public ownership into profitable manufacturing industry. There will need to be arrangements for close consultation between the Board, the two agencies and the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation. We shall discuss this matter with the Secretaries of State concerned.
  Therefore, through Planning Agreements, the NEB, the Scottish and Welsh

  1245
  Development Agencies, and the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation, we shall have a powerful armoury to help forward our work of solving the intractable problems of unemployment in the old industrial areas which have remained almost unchanged since the 1930s.
  Mr. Tom King: The Minister has spelt out an impressive range of functions for the NEB. Since there is no mention of the matter in the Bill, will he say how many staff will be needed for the NEB to staff its head office or its regional offices?
  Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman knows that it is not possible for anybody to give the exact figure of the staff involved. That will depend on the extension and growth of activities of the National Enterprise Board.
  Mr. Heseltine rose—
  Mr. Heffer: I have already given way several times. I have an important speech to make and I intend to finish it in ten minutes.
  Dealing with information, while many Members on both sides of the House will find little difficulty in agreeing on the need for new measures in the regions, it is clear that we are deeply divided on the proposals for providing information to workers through their trade unions.
  The provisions on information in this Bill represent the Government's deeply-held conviction that the regeneration of British industry depends not only on investment, on schemes of reorganisation and reconstruction, and so on, but also on increasing the effectiveness of our major companies by enabling workers to take a creative part in the conduct of industry.
  The time is past when workers were content solely with being employed. Nor should the nation be satisfied with a situation in which all too often the only effective means of expression available to workers is their right of veto through industrial action.
  If we as a nation are to solve our economic problems, I am convinced that workers must have an opportunity to be involved creatively in the decisions that govern the future of the enterprises in which they work.
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: What has the Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland to say?
  Mr. Heffer: We have been told—
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Ask the Shadow Secretary of State.
  Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Lady well?
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Lady is very well. However, the Shadow Secretary of State is not well. He has not risen to his feet.
  Mr. Speaker: Fortunately, neither are matters for me.
  Mr. Heffer: We have been told that it is the conviction of all hon. Members that there must be greater industrial democracy. However, greater industrial democracy can be achieved only if workers are provided with basic information about company plans, against which the Opposition are now arguing. A great deal of confusion has been expressed by the Opposition. The Conservative Members of Parliament have said repeatedly that the information will be given only to trade union officials. I want to make it clear that that is not the position. The information will be available to trade union officials and to shop floor representatives who, on the basis of British shop floor experience, will call meetings and pass on their information where necessary and discuss it with workers on the shop floor. That is what the question of information is about.
  It is obvious that I shall not be able to say one third of what I had intended to say in the debate. I emphasise that it is not the Government's wish to base relationships between workers and management in industry upon the use of compulsory information powers. Where a company has good arrangements for informing and consulting its workers through their trade unions on the formation of its plans, the use of compulsory powers would be irrelevant. Arrangements entered into on a voluntary basis are much more satisfactory than the use of a statute.
  We are therefore retaining the important concept set out in our White Paper that the information powers should be reserve powers. We shall have detailed consultations with representatives of industry and

  1247
  the trade union movement on the way in which these powers should be used and the way in which the various safeguarding provisions should be interpreted. I want to make it absolutely clear that we shall certainly wish to advise the House on the outcome of these consultations when the relevant parts of the Bill come into Committee.
  Mr. Heseltine: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Heffer: I will now, yes.
  Mr. Heseltine: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously saying that he has not had consultations with the TUC and the CBI on these powers before putting them to the House in draft form? Why has he not consulted industry before putting them to us in the Bill?
  Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman is surely aware that the White Paper has been discussed at Neddy. Consultations have taken place with the TUC and the CBI. The hon. Gentleman is fully aware of that. I was making it clear that this Government, even in the course of a Committee stage, are prepared to discuss the matter with interested bodies. That does not mean that we shall give way on the matter. It means that we are prepared to discuss it.
  In conclusion, I want to deal directly with some of the wholly mistaken comments that have been made on the Bill—as mistaken, if I may say so, as the
  apparent assumption by some hon. Gentlemen opposite that we can solve our economic problems by the remedies that have failed us for at least 20 years. That is a view that we on the Government side of the House totally reject.
  I also want to nail the mistaken view that this is the policy of one Secretary of State who has been deliberately built up as the favourite bogyman of the age. As I said earlier, the truth is that it represents the policy of the whole Government. It has been set out in publication after publication of the Labour Party. It was clearly explained in the White Paper. It has been further explained at length by the Prime Minister in speeches to the Labour Party Conference and in the country.
  I repudiate entirely the allegation that in the National Enterprise Board we have created an instrument of intervention outside the bounds of Government and parliamentary control. All significant acquisitions of companies by the NEB will be subject to the approval of the Government.
  Hon. Gentlemen opposite have suggested that we are out to build a Soviet-style society. That is nonsense, and they know it. We intend to advance the interests of the British working people by creating an industry acceptable to the whole country.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 313, Noes 299.

  Division No. 94.]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

  Allaun, Frank

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Anderson, Donald

  Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

  Cronin, John

  Archer, Peter

  Buchan, Norman

  Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Buchanan, Richard

  Cryer, Bob

  Ashley, Jack

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Ashton, Joe

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Atkinson, Norman

  Campbell, Ian

  Davidson, Arthur

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Canavan, Dennis

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Cant, R. B.

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel

  Carmichael, Neil

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Bates, Alf

  Carter, Ray

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Bean, R. E.

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Deakins, Eric

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Cartwright, John

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Delargy, Hugh

  Bishop, E. S.

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Cohen, Stanley

  Dempsey, James

  Boardman, H.

  Coleman, Donald

  Doig, Peter

  Booth, Albert

  Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen

  Dormand, J. D.

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Concannon, J. D.

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Conlan, Bernard

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Dunn, James A.

  Bradley, Tom

  Corbett, Robin

  Dunnett, Jack

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Eadie, Alex

  Lamborn, Harry

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Edeiman, Maurice

  Lamond, James

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Edge, Geoff

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Rooker, J. W.

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Lee, John

  Roper, John

  English, Michael

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Ennals, David

  Lever, Rt Hon Harold

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilm'nock)

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Ryman, John

  Evans John (Newton)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Sandelson, Neville

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Litterick, Tom

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Faulds, Andrew

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Selby, Harry

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Loyden, Eddie

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Luard, Evan

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Flannery, Martin

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

  Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  McElhone, Frank

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Ford, Ben

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Sillars, James

  Forrester, John

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Silverman, Julius

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Skinner, Dennis

  Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Small, William

  Freeson, Reginald

  Maclennan, Robert

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Snape, Peter

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Spearing, Nigel

  George, Bruce

  Madden, Max

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Magee, Bryan

  Stallard, A. W.

  Ginsburg, David

  Mahon, Simon

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Golding, John

  Marks, Kenneth

  Stoddart, David

  Gould, Bryan

  Marquand, David

  Stott, Roger

  Gourlay, Harry

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Strang, Gavin

  Graham, Ted

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

  Grant John (Islington C)

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Grocott, Bruce

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Swain, Thomas

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Meacher, Michael

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Hamling, William

  Mendelson, John

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Hardy, Peter

  Mikardo, Ian

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Harper, Joseph

  Millan, Bruce

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

  Tierney, Sydney

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

  Tinn, James

  Hatton, Frank

  Molloy, William

  Tomlinson, John

  Hayman Mrs Helene

  Moonman, Eric

  Tomney, Frank

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Torney, Tom

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Hooley, Frank

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Horam, John

  Moyle, Roland

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Huckfield, Les

  Newens, Stanley

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Noble, Mike

  Ward, Michael

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Watkins, David

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N)

  Ogden, Eric

  Watkinson, John

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Weetch, Ken

  Hunter, Adam

  O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

  Weitzman, David

  Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Wellbeloved, James

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Ovenden, John

  White, James (Pollok)

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Owen, Dr David

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Janner, Greville

  Padley, Walter

  Whitlock, William

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Palmer, Arthur

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Park, George

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Parker, John

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

  Parry, Robert

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  John, Brynmor

  Peart, Rt Hon Fred

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Pendry, Tom

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Perry, Ernest

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Prescott, John

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Judd, Frank

  Price C. (Lewisham W)

  Woodall, Alec

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Woof, Robert

  Kelley, Richard

  Radice, Giles

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Kerr, Russell

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Kinnock, Neil

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Lambie, David

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Mr. John Ellis and

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Mr. Laurie Pavitt.

  1250

  1251

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Fox, Marcus

  MacGregor, John

  Alison, Michael

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Freud Clement

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Arnold, Tom

  Fry, Peter

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Marten, Neil

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Mates, Michael

  Baker, Kenneth

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

  Mather, Carol

  Banks, Robert

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Maude, Angus

  Beith, A. J.

  Glyn Dr Alan

  Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

  Bell, Ronald

  Goodhart, Philip

  Mawby, Ray

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Benyon, W.

  Gorst, John

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Biffen, John

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Mills, Peter

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Blaker, Peter

  Gray, Hamish

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Body, Richard

  Grieve, Percy

  Moate, Roger

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Molyneaux, James

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Monro, Hector

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Grist, Ian

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Bradford, Rev Robert

  Grylls, Michael

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Hall, Sir John

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Brittan, Leon

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F

  Morgan, Geraint

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Brotherton, Michael

  Hampson Dr Keith

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hannam, John

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Mudd, David

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Hastings, Stephen

  Neave, Airey

  Buck, Antony

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Nelson, Anthony

  Budgen, Nick

  Hawkins, Paul

  Neubert, Michael

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Newton, Tony

  Burden, F. A.

  Henderson, Douglas

  Normanton, Tom

  Carlisle, Mark

  Heseltine, Michael

  Nott, John

  Carr, Rt Hon Robert

  Hicks, Robert

  Onslow, Cranley

  Carson, John

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Holland, Philip

  Osborn, John

  Channon, Paul

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Hordern, Peter

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Howell David (Guildford)

  Pardoe, John

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Clegg, Walter

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Cockcroft, John

  Hunt, John

  Penhaligon, David

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Hurd Douglas

  Percival, Ian

  Cope, John

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Cordle, John H.

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Cormack, Patrick

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  Corrie, John

  James, David

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Costain, A. P.

  Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

  Jessel, Toby

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Crawford, Douglas

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Raison, Timothy

  Critchley, Julian

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Crouch, David

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Crowder, F. P

  Jopling, Michael

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Kaberry Sir Donald

  Reid, George

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Kimball, Marcus

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Dunlop, John

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Durant, Tony

  Kirk, Peter

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Dykes, Hugh

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lamont, Norman

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Lane, David

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Elliott, Sir William

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Emery, Peter

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Lawson, Nigel

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Farr, John

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Fell, Anthony

  Lloyd, Ian

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Loveridge, John

  Scott, Nicholas

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Luce, Richard

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Fletcher Alex (Edinburgh N)

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  McCrindle, Robert

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  McCusker, H.

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  1252

  1253

  Shepherd, Colin

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Shersby, Michael

  Stokes, John

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

  Silvester, Fred

  Tapsell, Peter

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

  Sims, Roger

  Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

  Wall, Patrick

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Tebbit, Norman

  Watt, Hamish

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Wells, John

  Speed, Keith

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Spence, John

  Thompson, George

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Sproat, Iain

  Trotter, Neville

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Stainton, Keith

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Stanley, John

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Younger, Hon George

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Viggers, Peter

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Wakeham, John

  Mr. Adam Butler and

  Mr. John Stradling Thomas.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question put, That the Bill be committed to a Committee of
  the whole House.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]
  The House divided: Ayes 300, Noes 311.

  Division No. 95.]

  AYES

  [10.16 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Crouch, David

  Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Crowder, F. P.

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Alison, Michael

  Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

  Hastings, Stephen

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Arnold, Tom

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Hawkins, Paul

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Awdry, Daniel

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Henderson, Douglas

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Heseltine, Michael

  Baker, Kenneth

  Durant, Tony

  Hicks, Robert

  Banks, Robert

  Dykes, Hugh

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Beith, A. J.

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Holland, Philip

  Bell, Ronald

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Elliott, Sir William

  Hordern, Peter

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Emery, Peter

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Benyon, W.

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  Howell David (Guildford)

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Biffen, John

  Eyre, Reginald

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Hunt, John

  Blaker, Peter

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Hurd Douglas

  Body, Richard

  Farr, John

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Fell, Anthony

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  James, David

  Bradford, Rev Robert

  Fletcher Alex (Edinburgh N)

  Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Jessel, Toby

  Brittan, Leon

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Brotherton, Michael

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Fox, Marcus

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  Jopling, Michael

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Freud Clement

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Buck, Antony

  Fry, Peter

  Kaberry Sir Donald

  Budgen, Nick

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Burden, F. A.

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

  Kimball, Marcus

  Carlisle, Mark

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Carr, Rt Hon Robert

  Glyn Dr Alan

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Carson, John

  Goodhart, Philip

  Kirk, Peter

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Goodhew, Victor

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Channon, Paul

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Lamont, Norman

  Churchill, W. S

  Gorst, John

  Lane, David

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Clegg, Walter

  Gray, Hamish

  Lawson, Nigel

  Cockcroft, John

  Grieve, Percy

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Cope, John

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Cordle, John H.

  Grist, Ian

  Lloyd, Ian

  Cormack, Patrick

  Grylls, Michael

  Loveridge, John

  Corrie, John

  Hall, Sir John

  Luce, Richard

  Costain, A. P.

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Crawford, Douglas

  Hampson Dr Keith

  McCusker, H.

  Critchley, Julian

  Hannam, John

  Macfarlane, Neil

  MacGregor, John

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Stainton, Keith

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  Stanley, John

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  Marten, Neil

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Mates, Michael

  Raison, Timothy

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Mather, Carol

  Rathbone, Tim

  Stokes, John

  Maude, Angus

  Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Tapsell, Peter

  Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

  Mawby, Ray

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Reid, George

  Tebbit, Norman

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Mills, Peter

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Thompson, George

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Moate, Roger

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Townsend, Cryil D.

  Molyneaux, James

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Trotter, Neville

  Monro, Hector

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Viggers, Peter

  Morgan, Geraint

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Wakeham, John

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

  Mudd, David

  Scott, Nicholas

  Wall, Patrick

  Neave, Airey

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Warren, Kenneth

  Nelson, Anthony

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Watt, Hamish

  Neubert, Michael

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Newton, Tony

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Wells, John

  Normanton, Tom

  Shepherd, Colin

  Welsh, Andrew

  Nott, John

  Shersby, Michael

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Onslow, Cranley

  Silvester, Fred

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  Sims, Roger

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Osborn, John

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Pardoe, John

  Speed, Keith

  Younger, Hon George

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Spencer, John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Mr. Adam Butler and

  Penhaligon, David

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Mr. John Stradling Thomas.

  Percival, Ian

  Sproat, Iain

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Deakins, Eric

  Allaun, Frank

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Anderson, Donald

  Campbell, Ian

  de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Archer, Peter

  Canavan, Dennis

  Delargy, Hugh

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Cant, R. B.

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Ashley, Jack

  Carmichael, Neil

  Dempsey, James

  Ashton, Joe

  Carter, Ray

  Doig, Peter

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Dormand, J. D.

  Atkinson, Norman

  Cartwight, John

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Dunn, James A.

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Bates, Alf

  Cohen, Stanley

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Bean, R. E.

  Coleman, Donald

  Eadie, Alex

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen

  Edelman, Maurice

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Edge, Geoff

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Conlan, Bernard

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Corbett, Robin

  English, Michael

  Boardman, H.

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Ennals, David

  Booth, Albert

  Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Evans John (Newton)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Cronin, John

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

  Faulds, Andrew

  Bradley, Tom

  Cryer, Bob

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Flannery, Martin

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Buchan, Norman

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Buchanan, Richard

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Ford, Ben

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Forrester, John

  1256

  1257

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilm'nock)

  Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

  Ryman, John

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Sandelson, Neville

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  McEihone, Frank

  Sedgemore, Brian

  George, Bruce

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Selby, Harry

  Gilbert, Dr John

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Ginsburg, David

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

  Golding, John

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Gould, Bryan

  Maclennan, Robert

  Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

  Gourlay, Harry

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

  Graham, Ted

  McNamara, Kevin

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Grant John (Islington C)

  Madden, Max

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Magee, Bryan

  Sillars, James

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mahon, Simon

  Silverman, Julius

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hamling, William

  Marquand, David

  Small, William

  Hardy, Peter

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Harper, Joseph

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Snape, Peter

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Spearing, Nigel

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Meacher, Michael

  Stallard, A. W.

  Hatton, Frank

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Hayman Mrs Helene

  Mendelson, John

  Stoddart, David

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Mikardo, Ian

  Stott, Roger

  Heffer Eric S.

  Millan, Bruce

  Strang, Gavin

  Hooley, Frank

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

  Horam, John

  Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

  Swain, Thomas

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Molloy, William

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Huckfield, Les

  Moonman, Eric

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Moyle, Roland

  Tierney, Sydney

  Hunter, Adam

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Tinn, James

  Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Tomlinson, John

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Newens, Stanley

  Tomney, Frank

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Noble, Mike

  Torney, Tom

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Urwin, T. W.

  Janner, Greville

  Ogden, Eric

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

  Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  John, Brynmor

  Ovenden, John

  Ward, Michael

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Owen, Dr David

  Watkins, David

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Padley, Walter

  Watkinson, John

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Weetch, Ken

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Park, George

  Weitzman, David

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Parker, John

  Wellbeloved, James

  Judd, Frank

  Parry, Robert

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Peart, Rt Hon Fred

  White, James (Pollok)

  Kelley, Richard

  Pendry, Tom

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Kerr, Russell

  Perry, Ernest

  Whitlock, William

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Kinnock, Neil

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Lambie, David

  Prescott, John

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Lamborn, Harry

  Price C. (Lewisham W)

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Lamond, James

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Radice, Giles

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)

  Lee, John

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Lever, Rt Hon Harold

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Woodall, Alec

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Woof, Robert

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Lipton, Marcus

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Litterick, Tom

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Rooker, J. W.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Loyden, Eddie

  Roper, John

  Mr. John Ellis and

  Luard, Evan

  Rose, Paul B.

  Mr. Laurie Pavitt.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  INDUSTRY [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to establish a National Enterprise Board, to confer on the Secretary of State power to prohibit the passing to persons not resident in the United Kingdom of control of undertakings engaged in manufacturing industry, and power to acquire compulsorily the capital or assets of such undertakings where control has passed to such persons or there is a probability that it will pass, to amend the Industry Act 1972 and the Development of Inventions Act 1967, to make provision for the disclosure of information relating to manufacturing undertakings to the Secretary of State or the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and to trade unions, and for connected purposes, it is expedient to authorise, subject to the prescribed limits—

  (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament—

  (a) of any expenses of the Secretary of State or the Minister incurred in consequence of the provisions of the said Act of the present Session,

  (b) of any other sums so payable by either of them, including any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act in sums payable under any other Act;

  (2) the payment out of the National Loans Fund of sums required for making loans to the National Enterprise Board; and

  (3) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of sums required for fulfilling any

  guarantee given by the Treasury in respect of sums borrowed by that Board;
  and in this Resolution 'the prescribed limits' means—

  (a) the limit of £1,000 million imposed by the said Act of the present Session on the aggregate amount outstanding, otherwise than by way of interest, in respect of—

  (i) the general external borrowing (as defined in the Act) of the National Enterprise Board and their wholly owned subsidiaries;

  (ii) sums issued by the Treasury in fulfilment of guarantees in respect of sums borrowed by the Board from a person other than the Secretary of State;

  (iii) sums paid to the Board as public dividend capital (as defined in the said Act); and

  (iv) loans guaranteed by the Board othewise than in the exercise of powers conferred on the Secretary of State by sections 7 and 8 of the Industry Act 1972 and exercisable by the Board by virtue of the said Act of the present Session; and

  (b) the limit of £1,800 million imposed by virtue of the said Act of the present Session on liabilities of the Secretary of State under guarantees given by him under section 10 of the Industry Act 1972 and section 7 of the Shipbuilding Industry Act 1967;

  And that it is expedient to authorise any payment into the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund under the said Act of the present Session.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]
  The House divided:—Ayes 314, Noes, 280.

  Division No. 96.]

  AYES

  [10.30. p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Allaun, Frank

  Buchan, Norman

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Anderson, Donald

  Buchanan, Richard

  Dalyell, Tam

  Archer, Peter

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Ashley, Jack

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Ashton, Joe

  Campbell, Ian

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Cant, R. B.

  Deakins, Eric

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Carmichael, Neil

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Carter, Ray

  de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Delargy, Hugh

  Bates, Alf

  Cartwright, John

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Bean, R. E.

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Dempsey, James

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Doig, Peter

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Cohen, Stanley

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Bishop, E. S.

  Coleman, Donald

  Dunn, James A.

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen

  Dunnett, Jack

  Boardman, H.

  Concannon, J. D.

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Booth, Albert

  Conlan, Bernard

  Eadie, Alex

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Edelman, Maurice

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Corbett, Robin

  Edge, Geoff

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  Bradley, Tom

  Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Cronin, John

  English, Michael

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

  Ennals, David

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Cryer, Bob

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Lever, Rt Hon Harold

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Evans John (Newton)

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Roper, John

  Faulds, Andrew

  Lipton, Marcus

  Rose, Paul B.

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Litterick, Tom

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilm'nock)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Rowlands, Ted

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Ryman, John

  Flannery, Martin

  Luard, Evan

  Sandelson, Neville

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlingon)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Selby, Harry

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Ford, Ben

  McCartney, Hugh

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

  Forrester, John

  McElhone, Frank

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

  Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Sillars, James

  George, Bruce

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Silverman, Julius

  Gilbert, Dr John

  McNamara, Kevin

  Skinner, Dennis

  Ginsburg, David

  Madden, Max

  Small, William

  Golding, John

  Magee, Bryan

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Gould, Bryan

  Mahon, Simon

  Snape, Peter

  Gourlay, Harry

  Marks, Kenneth

  Spearing, Nigel

  Graham, Ted

  Marquand, David

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Grant John (Islington C)

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Grocott, Bruce

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Slott, Roger

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Strang, Gavin

  Hamling, William

  Meacher, Michael

  Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

  Hardy, Peter

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Harper, Joseph

  Mendelson, John

  Swain, Thomas

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Millan, Bruce

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Hatton, Frank

  Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Hayman Mrs Helene

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Molloy, William

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Moonman, Eric

  Tierney, Sydney

  Hooley, Frank

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Tinn James

  Horam, John

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Tomlinson, John

  Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Tomney, Frank

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Moyle, Roland

  Torney, Tom

  Huckfield, Les

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Urwin, T. W.

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Newens, Stanley

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N)

  Noble, Mike

  Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)

  Huches, Roy (Newport)

  Oakes Gordon

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Hunter, Adam

  Ogden, Eric

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Ward, Michael

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

  Watkins, David

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Watkinson, John

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Weetch, Ken

  Janner, Greville

  Ovenden, John

  Weitzman, David

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Owen, Dr David

  Wellbeloved, James

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Padley, Walter

  White, Frank R, (Bury)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Palmer, Arthur

  White, James (Pollok)

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

  Park, George

  Whitehead, Phillip

  John, Brynmor

  Parker, John

  Whitlock, William

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Parry, Robert

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Peart, Rt Hon Fred

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Pendry, Tom

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Perry, Ernest

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Judd, Frank

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Kelley, Richard

  Prescott, John

  Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)

  Kerr, Russell

  Price C. (Lewisham W)

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Kinnock, Neil

  Radice, Giles

  Woodall Alec

  Lambie, David

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Woof, Robert

  Lamborn, Harry

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Lamond, James

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Lee, John

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Mr. J. D. Dormand and

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Mr. David Stoddart.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Awdry, Daniel

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Arnold, Tom

  Baker, Kenneth

  Alison, Michael

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Banks, Robert

  1262

  1263

  Beith, A. J.

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Bell, Ronald

  Grist, Ian

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Grylls, Michael

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Hall, Sir John

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Benyon, W.

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Mudd, David

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Neave, Airey

  Biffen, John

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Nelson, Anthony

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Hannam, John

  Neubert, Michael

  Blaker, Peter

  Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Newton, Tony

  Body, Richard

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Normanton, Tom

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Hastings, Stephen

  Nott, John

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Onslow, Cranley

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Osborn, John

  Brittan, Leon

  Heseltine, Michael

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  Brotherton, Michael

  Hicks, Robert

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Holland, Philip

  Pardoe, John

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Buck, Antony

  Hordern, Peter

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Budgen, Nicl.

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Penhaligon, David

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Howell David (Guildford)

  Percival, Ian

  Burden, F. A.

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Carlisle, Mark

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Carr, Rt Hon Robert

  Hunt, John

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Hurd Douglas

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Channon, Paul

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Churchill, W. S.

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Raison, Timothy

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  James, David

  Rathbone, Tim

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)

  Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Clegg, Walter

  Jessel, Toby

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Cockcroft, John

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Cope, John

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Cordle, John H.

  Jopling, Michael

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Cormack, Patrick

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Corrie, John

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Costain, A. P.

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Critchley, Julian

  Kimball, Marcus

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Crouch, David

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Crowder, F. P.

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

  Kirk, Peter

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Lamont, Norman

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lane, David

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Durant, Tony

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lawson, Nigel

  st. John-Stevas, Norman

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Le Merchant, Spencer

  Scott, Nicholas

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Elliott, Sir William

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Emery, Peter

  Lloyd, Ian

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Loveridge, John

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Luce, Richard

  Shepherd, Colin

  Farr, John

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Shersby, Michael

  Fell, Anthony

  McCrindle, Robert

  Silvester, Fred

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  McCusker, H.

  Sims, Roger

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Fletcher Alex (Edinburgh N)

  MacGregor, John

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Speed, Keith

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Fox, Marcus

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  Marten, Neil

  Sproat, Iain

  Freud Clement

  Mates, Michael

  Stainton, Keith

  Fry, Peter

  Maude, Angus

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

  Stanley, John

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Mawby, Ray

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Stokes, John

  Glyn Dr Alan

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Goodhart, Philip

  Mills, Peter

  Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Gorst, John

  Moate, Roger

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Molyneaux, James

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Monro, Hector

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Gray, Hamish

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Grieve, Percy

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Trotter, Neville

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Morgan, Geraint

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  1264

  1265

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Wall, Patrick

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Warren, Kenneth

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Viggers, Peter

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Younger, Hon George

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  Wells, John

  Wakeham, John

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Mr. John stradling Thomas and

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Mr. Adam Butler.

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  INDUSTRY (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE)
  10.41 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Eric S. Heffer): I beg to move:
  That the Financial Assistance for Industry (Increase of Limit) Order 1975, a draft of which was laid before this House on 31st January, be approved.
  Section 8(6) of the Industry Act 1972 stipulates that the aggregate of sums paid plus the liabilities under any guarantee granted under Section 8, exclusive of any liability in respect of interest on a principal sum so guaranteed, and less any sums received by way of repayment, shall not exceed the limits defined in Section 8(7). This provides that the limit shall be £150 million, but may be increased, on not more than four occasions, by order made with the consent of the Treasury, such increases not exceeding £100 million on any occasion.
  Section 7, which deals with financial assistance, is principally directed towards the provision, maintenance or safeguarding of employment in assisted areas and is not subject to these limits. The order is therefore concerned solely with sums which the Government have paid or undertaken to pay under Section 8 with the aim of benefiting the economy of any part or area of the United Kingdom and is in the national interest. The aggregate of assistance on the basis defined in Section 8(6) approved since the Industry Act 1972 was granted the Royal Assent now stands at just over £125 million. The Government consider it prudent to invite the House to approve the order increasing the limit from £150 million to £250 million.
  Mr. John Stanley: It would help the House greatly, in view of the fact that a large amount of this assistance has been publicised, if the hon. Gentleman will provide the House with a breakdown of the £125 million to which he has just referred.
  Mr. Heffer: If the hon. Gentleman will only contain himself I will endeavour to do my best in that direction either a little later in my introductory speech or when I reply to the points that are raised in the debate.
  Mr. Michael Heseltine: On the last occasion that the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry responded to an occasion such as this he told us that he would reply at the end of the debate and give the sort of detailed information that my hon. Friend the Member for Ton-bridge and Malling (Mr. Stanley) requests. Then, with what the right hon. Gentleman regards as a sort of skill, he totally avoided giving answers to the points that had been raised. There will be many orders of this sort coming before the House under the Industry Bill and I must tell the hon. Gentleman seriously that we will not tolerate being treated in this way by him or by his right hon. Friend. We shall resist the orders increasingly and with greater determination unless we are given the facts as we ask for them and as we are entitled to have them.
  Mr. Heffer: If hon. Members will only contain themselves I will come to the points that have been raised. I am not trying to avoid any of the questions that will be asked. Hon. Members should also understand that I will not tolerate rudeness from any hon. Member.
  The House will wish to be reminded of the schemes of assistance approved to date. There have been two broad industry schemes introduced under Section 8. The first, announced in July 1973, was aimed at encouraging firms in the wool textile industry to improve their production facilities through modernisation of machinery and mills, and to eliminate surplus capacity. The second, announced in November 1973, was designed to help United Kingdom firms to compete with overseas suppliers in the market for goods and services in the United Kingdom sector of the continental shelf. Both of these were introduced by the previous administration, and the total of sums earmarked and payments due on eligible contracts registered stands at some £48 million.
  Assistance to individual companies under Section 8 has been granted for the formation of Norton Villiers Triumph and Kearney and Trecker Marwin (Holdings) Ltd., for two projects in support of activities on the United Kingdom continental shelf, and through certain

  1269
  guarantees. In July 1973, assistance of £4·9 million was provided to set up NVT, and in the same year £1·45 million to Kearney and Trecker Marwin Ltd.
  Mr. Peter Rost: Will the Minister confirm what equity stake was made by the Government in NVT?
  Mr. Heffer: I cannot offhand give the answer. If I can obtain that information before the end of the debate, I will give it to the hon. Gentleman.
  The total expenditure and commitments incurred through proposals advanced by the Conservative administration amount to nearly £55 million.
  Since the Labour Government took office, further assistance of up to £3·5 million, mainly in preference shares, has been offered for the formation of Kearney and Trecker Marwin (Holdings) Limited. Offers to a value of nearly £1·2 million have been made to assist in the construction of an oil rig maintenance vessel and a drill ship and guarantees totalling £3·25 million have been made available to the principal bankers of Alfred Herbert Limited and Scientific & Medical Instruments Limited in order to sustain their operations while their longer-term future is settled. The guarantees of £50 million to support BLMC and its subsidiaries, approved by the House on 18th December last, is currently under negotiation with the company and other interests involved.
  In addition, £4·95 million was offered under the terms announced by my right hon. Friend on 29th July last year to establish a workers' co-operative to manufacture motor cycles at Meriden, and a resolution seeking the authority of the House for a guarantee of £8 million to NVT stands on the Order Paper. Discussions are well advanced towards the completion of the necessary arrangements to establish the co-operative, and when these have been completed the House will be requested to approve this resolution. The total value of these offers and commitments leaves less than £25 million of the present £150 million uncommitted.
  Mr. John Farr: I think that the Minister, probably unwittingly, has left out the £1·75 million promised
  1270
  to the Scottish Daily Express when certain workers on 27th July 1974 promised to set up a co-operative. Will he say why this sum is not included in the list?
  Mr. Heffer: We are talking about Section 8 assistance, not about Section 7 assistance. Section 7 assistance does not come within the present order.
  We are currently considering a number of schemes aimed at assisting particular sectors of industry, and there are several companies in discussion about possible assistance to secure their operations. Moreover, there remains the possibility of further unexpected calls upon the Government to support companies eligible for assistance under Section 8. I am sure therefore that the House would not wish the Government's freedom to apply the powers available under this section to such constructive purposes to be inhibited by the current statutory limit.
  Mr. Tim Renton: Before concluding his remarks, will the hon. Gentleman give us some idea of the approximate annual profit that might be expected from the £125 million advanced under Section 8?
  Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman is asking for more than I can possibly give him now. I am not trying to duck the matter. I do not know the figure. There is no point in my trying to duck anything. However, I shall see whether anything can be done to collect the information. I think that it will prove a difficult job. Nevertheless, if it can be done, I shall let the hon. Gentleman know.
  Finally, I ask the House to approve the order.
  10.51 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Heseltine: The way in which the Minister provided the information was exemplary, and my intervention earlier in the debate was unnecessary. I pay that tribute to the hon. Gentleman. The only justification for my intervention was that, having heard almost the same words from him as I heard from his right hon. Friend in the earlier debate, I was fearful that we were to be treated in the same way. I am delighted that we are not to be so treated and hope that this precedent will be followed in the future.

  1271
  I should be grateful if the Minister could give us a little information about the £40 million off-shore credit scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Ton-bridge and Malling (Mr. Stanley) asked for that information in a recent Written Question. The answer did not include information about the £40 million referred to this evening as one of the outstanding liabilities under the Industry Act. I think that it will help to fill in our background knowledge if the hon. Member will include this information when he replies.
  The Opposition are anxious about the way in which this money, if it is made available, might be used. It should not be suggested that the Opposition intend to be obstructive over the way in which the Industry Act is used. We rightly put that measure on the statute book. We believed that it had a valuable purpose to play. If properly administered, with the proper safeguards, it will undoubtedly be of value to industry.
  Our preoccupation is not with the principle of the work that can be done under the Industry Act, in the last resort, in Section 8 cases. Rather it is with the sort of techniques which the Government have used, both in the substance of the aid that they have given and in the techniques—this point is more significant—that they have used to avoid both public and parliamentary scrutiny of what they have been doing.
  Hon. Members may find that the set of dates I intend to give is pure coincidence. However, those hon. Members who have been in Parliament for some time may think that the coincidence to which I now refer stretches the mind to the point of incredulity. On Friday 26th July we heard about the Scottish Daily Express, on Friday 1st November we heard about the IBD, on Friday 6th December about British Leyland, on Friday 13th December about Aston Martin, and on 20th December about Kirkby. If I am to be told that this is not because the Secretary for Industry understands that the national Press on Saturdays reaches a smaller circulation than the publications on Fridays or on any other day of the week, I shall refuse to believe it.
  We all know that Ministers have at their disposal the opportunity to present
  1272
  information to this House at the moment most likely to maximise or minimise its impact. We have all seen that happen. I should be grateful if, in future, the Secretary of State for Industry, his officials or Ministers in the Department would ensure a reasonable spread of coincidence about the dates on which information is disclosed to the House and to the public. At least balance the odds. Give us a break. Let the Press and hon. Members have a chance. The Government have their Fridays. At least give us the odd Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday.
  I should like to draw the attention of the House to one of the new refinements that the Secretary of State for Industry has developed in this technique of blandishing us with non-information. There was, for example, the way in which the Kirkby statement, which had to be published at the insistence of the Industrial Development Advisory Board, was produced. The right hon. Gentleman knew—I must be frank and declare that the word got to me in advance—that that was what might be termed a hot potato and that it would not be expedient for that information to reach the House of Commons except at the most convenient moment from his point of view.
  I got to hear of that situation rather later than the Minister. Therefore, I took the immensely obvious defensive procedure of putting down a priority Written Question on the Monday before the House rose for the Christmas Recess because I knew that it would have to be answered on the Thursday. I asked whether the Secretary of State for Industry would make a statement about the information that he had about the Kirkby co-operative. On the Thursday I got the answer. The right hon. Gentleman said:
  "I am arranging for a statement to be laid before the House before the recess."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th December 1974; Vol. 883, c. 580.]
  I need not point out to hon. Members that the House was rising on the following day.
  I did not even get the Answer to that Question on the Thursday until well past the normal time for getting Answers to Questions. I had to ring the right hon. Gentleman's Department at five o'clock to ask where my priority Written Answer was. Needless to say, I was here at

  1273
  11 o'clock on the Friday morning waiting for the answer in the form of the statement that I knew had to come. But it did not arrive. Therefore, at twelve o'clock and one o'clock, when it still had not come, I decided to try to get it through the usual channels. I then had some lunch. I was not diligent between one o'clock and two o'clock. But by two o'clock I was back on duty, and by that time the answer had arrived.
  I have to tell hon. Members that the staff of this House were at that time in some state of merriment not in any way associated with the issue of the Kirkby document. Even the Press Gallery was not quite as attentive to its duties as it might normally be.
  The Secretary of State hoped that he had achieved the ultimate objective of releasing the least palatable piece of information about the Industry Act at the most harmless moment that he could conceivably have chosen.
  I have set out the record at some length, not without a certain amount of admiration for the duplicity with which the right hon. Gentleman informed us of the situation, because it shows what politicians who believe in the art of politics as opposed to anything else are capable of doing when they put their minds to it. If the right hon. Gentleman spent more time on the problems of British industry than on Parliament, British industry would be better off. We have seen through him and would be grateful if in future he would not try it again.
  I turn next to another area of accountability and mistreatment under the Act. I refer to the treatment of the Industrial Development Advisory Board. The Board was set up because, as we know from the two-day debate on the Industry Bill, politicians are likely to interfere, for curious reasons, in the disposal of funds at their command. Therefore, Parliament in its wisdom—the Paymaster-General was right to point out that it was pressure from outside, not from Parliament itself—put the safeguard of the Industrial Development Advisory Board and other measures into the Industry Act 1972.
  It has not been convenient for the Secretary of State for Industry to find
  1274
  any form of discipline imposed on the way that he disposes of the funds made available to him under the Act. Therefore, when the Court Line situation arose he did not take the trouble to consult his advisers, although statutorily he should have done so. When Harland and Wolff was to receive money, the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, told the House that it was not even necessary to consult the Industrial Development Advisory Board.
  Then we had the Kirkby situation. We know that the Board insisted on its voice being heard, but its advice on Meriden, the Scottish Daily Express and Alfred Herbert was ignored.
  What happened to Meriden? A year has gone by and the co-operative still is not under way. Are we honestly being told—
  The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Michael Meacher): Meriden?
  Mr. Heseltine: Yes, Meriden. The hon. Gentleman may have forgotten because it must be a long time since he looked at the papers. When is Meriden likely to go into production? I am delighted that the Minister of State reminded the Under-Secretary that it is not functioning. This is a year later. A great deal of negotiation has gone on and files have been filled up. The one thing that we are concerned about is the production of motor cycles, and that is not happening. I am not sure what the commitment of the taxpayer is—£13 million or £16 million?—but not one motor cycle has been produced. I should like to know when a motor cycle is made at Meriden. I do not ask for a financial return. If I could get a motor cycle from Meriden, I would be satisfied.
  I see that there has been another postponement of the terms in the case of the Scottish Daily Express. How much delusion are the members of the present Government prepared to impose on those people in Scotland who are encouraged to commit their money to a project which hon. Members opposite must know is an odds-on favourite for costing them the capital which they have obtained from their redundancy payments? That is what the Government are doing. They are encouraging those people in the Scottish Daily Express who have been

  1275
  made redundant and have received redundancy payments to "blow" it on a wild whoopee. Let us hear a bit more about the justification for that, and a few assurances that we shall not have any more of that in the future.
  The fact that this is an order made under the 1972 Industry Act ought to have drawn us on to common ground. If one thing has come out of the debates that we have had in the last two days, I understand that it is the overwhelming view of everybody in this House that we should try to find sensible, practical, realistic and relevant proposals to deal with British industry, and not the doctrinal claptrap that we have heard from hon. Members opposite. I should have thought that the Industry Act, which gave us the opportunity to help industry in the most flexible way possible, would have provided a meeting ground on which we could give to industry the sort of basic and certain framework which it has been crying out for all these years.
  Not a bit of it. The Division that we had tonight made certain that the Committee will deal with any proposal for the removal of all the safeguards which the industry insisted on having in the 1972 measure to stop the meddling by politicians. We have had not a word of justification except the doctrinal one. We heard that there would not be enough flexibility. I do not know where there has been any failure to have flexibility. Perhaps we could have a word about that, though it would probably be more appropriate in Committee.
  My concern with this order is twofold, apart from what I have already said. First, I am concerned that if the Bill we debated tonight becomes law, it will now be possible that this Section 8 money will be made available to companies without the safeguards which are built into the 1972 legislation. I must make it clear on behalf of the Opposition that when we become the Government of this country we shall seek to dispose of the shares taken into public ownership under the new powers which are being taken in the amended 1972 legislation which the House debated tonight.
  One last word on the question of abuse of parliamentary accountability and the misuse of taxpayers' money. Although I understand that the Kirkby situation
  1276
  comes under Section 7 of the Industry Act, it is important that the sort of standards that have been applied in the Kirkby case should be put clearly on the record and that the public and those whose duty it is to scrutinise our behaviour here should understand what has gone on.
  This must not become a precedent. It may be that the Secretary of State for Industry needs to have a sort of totem pole around which to dance like a wild Dervish, but it is an intolerable way of going on in the efficient management of the economy. I ask the Minister of State to tell us whether he believes that the precedent of Kirkby is one which he would be prepared to use in considering Section 8 cases.
  Perhaps I can put briefly to the House what has happened in Kirkby. The loans made to Meriden and the Scottish Daily News are repayable to the Department of Industry. No such position exists with the repayment of the Kirkby money, except in the case of the liquidation of the co-operative that has now been formed. Why is it that this should be the case? The Secretary of State told the House that the grant to KME becomes repayable if the co-operative fails. He was giving the impression that there was the same sort of security as applies to Meriden and the Scottish Daily News. Anyone following the issue would, on the precedents available, have assumed that there was security.
  With the loan to the Scottish Daily News, the Government rank pari passu with all secured lenders, after priority creditors. In the Meriden venture the Secretary of State has a first charge on the assets of the co-operative. In those two cases, one involving a Section 8 order, there was a safeguard for the State's money. With the Kirkby grant there is a safeguard only if it goes into liquidation, and then the Government rank after all other secured and unsecured creditors of the co-operative. That is unquestionably a case of misleading the House.
  If the Kirkby co-operative runs into difficulties and incurs losses, when the liquidation takes place the money will go first to the creditors and then to pay off the losses. There will be no question of the grant from the State being secured.

  1277
  We shall get what is left. With Meriden or the Scottish Daily News we get first, or equal, precedence. Why was that situation allowed to develop? What is the difference between these undertakings? This is an important question.
  I should be obliged if the Minister of State would listen to me rather than talk to his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. He may well find himself before the Public Accounts Committee or the Expenditure Committee dealing with this, so he had better find answers to my questions. I am trying to warn him publicly. The first instalment of the KME grant has been paid. As far as we can establish from Written Answers, the co-operative framework has not yet been finalised. The consequence is that the money has been paid into a company the sole shareholders of which are Messrs. Spriggs and Jenkins. There is no restraint, as I understand it, on the transfer of the shares which they own.
  I make it clear that I have no intention of casting any aspersions on the integrity of these two persons. I am merely concerned with the issues of public accountability. The Government have handed over £2 million, quite free, to a privately-owned company before the proper constitution of that company has been established. If that is not an issue which ought to be investigated by the House, I do not know what is.
  It is sad that an Act which should have united the House in a common purpose should be so used. On two occasions we have seen the Secretary of State in trouble. He was hauled before the Ombudsman for his misuse of the Act in relation to Court Line. I will not prejudge any findings there. On the second occasion we have, with Kirkby, a precedent which will, I hope, be examined by the PAC and the Expenditure Committee. It is an intolerable situation for the right hon. Gentleman to put himself in. He continually finds that an outside body has to come in and monitor his work because Parliament is unable to find out effectively and quickly the full facts, which he has hidden behind a range of answers which evade the truth to the maximum degree possible.
  I believe that the Government are guilty of misusing the Act. It is a sad reflection
  1278
  on their inability and a confirmation of our belief that the Labour Party are playing this game for political reasons rather than for industrial reasons.
  11.11 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Dodsworth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) for outlining the detailed facts which give cause for concern about the control of expenditure and particularly about the way in which funds are provided under an affirmative order, as in this case.
  The other cause for congratulation is that we have heard a rather more original view of the reasons for satisfaction with the affirmative order procedure. Normally, as under the Public Works Loan Board, the Prices Act and the Export Guarantees Amendment Bill the Minister said that it was a matter of administrative convenience, that they were only concerned to save our valuable time and that we need only approve the Bill and the order would appear in due course. It was said that we need not worry our pretty heads because we could be sure that the Treasury and other Government Departments would satisfy themselves that expenditure was properly and legitimately carried out. We have heard clear and ample evidence that we cannot rely on that at all. It is more than a purely administrative matter, more than a purely departmental matter. It is a test of parliamentary control which we should maintain on expenditure and affairs.
  We have to see that we have a proper method of approval and control. I am grateful that the question was asked—how has the money been spent so far? It is a peculiarly difficult question to which to obtain an answer. On a number of occasions I have tried to find a definitive list of firms with orders and the money spent. I have placed Questions to all the appropriate Departments to satisfy myself on that point. I shall look forward to the answers with interest. They will no doubt cause further Questions.
  There should be a monitoring of the industries involved in this Department. Here we do not just have expenditure of money as in the case of subsidies but a continuing involved situation, and there is an obligation on the part of the Government to satisfy themselves that the

  1279
  ongoing activity is continually monitored. We should ask ourselves about the reporting procedure required so that the House and the Department can be fully informed.
  The case to which my hon. Friend the Member for Henley referred clearly demonstrated the difficulties where there was disagreement with the Industrial Advisory Board and complete disregard of the correct procedures and of all the facts and information which would lead to more normal business judgment. All this leads one to wonder whether the most extensive powers in the Industry Bill will not make it more difficult for us in the future.
  I tried to add up the sums of money involved. It is worth carrying out that exercise, because although we are covering £100 million added to £150 million, we have to look at the totals involved. An examination of the Bill shows that we had originally approved £1,550 million. When the Bill becomes law that will become £2,350 million, but it could be increased by subsequent orders to £3,450 million.
  We have an escalation in the activities of the State which are contained by combining the current approvals with possible approvals, depending on whether the Government can succeed in persuading the House that the Bill which received a Second Reading today should become law. Clause 7 approves £700 million, and that can be increased to £1,000 million by order. Clause 16 has £1,000 million which is now increased to £1,400 million, and will or can be increased in the future to £1,800 million. There is a prior approval in the matter, but I mention it as it is contained in Clause 16. Under this order we have an increase of £100 million.
  We have a total situation of substantial and massive amounts of money for which the Department is responsible. I took a brief opportunity to see the resources that were available. Can we say that in this Department we have the men and the methods, because we can see that it is determined to have the money?
  The resources of the Department of Industry are 4,746 people. Of those, 1,992 are in the scientific grade. We might run through some of the people
  1280
  who may be expected to deal with this large sum of money and the intermittent detailed matters of business and commercial administration that are necessarily involved. There are 36 economists, 66 statisticians—that is historical I think—but—and my hon. Friend the Member for Henley will appreciate this—there are 73 information officers. There we have the men for the job in the Department—73 information officers.
  I agree that this Department is well blessed with professional accountants. It is better served than the Treasury, which has succeeded in having one professional accountant out of a total staff of 1,189. The Department of Industry has 81 accountants, eight of them of senior director, director or assistant director grade, and 73 chief accountants. When one considers that this Department has activities spread throughout the whole of British industry and that this is the level of professional acumen which it seeks to acquire, one sees that there is a pretty poor prosepct for this country with the expenditure of these vast sums of money.
  I shall not detain the House any longer, except to say that here is a matter which is a grave and sad reflection on the way in which large sums of money will be administered in the future. It is a matter to which we shall have to address ourselves in much more detail to satisfy ourselves that we are discharging our proper duty of parliamentary control.
  11.18 p.m.
  Mr. Nick Budgen: This order illustrates the Minister's preference for what he calls public expenditure, that is to say, public investment which can be made for political and social objectives.
  For the last two days the House has been debating the failure of investment, and various ideas have been put forward about why there has been a lamentable failure in investment over the last few years. Labour Members have spoken about the inability of the City to face its national responsibilities. They have talked about the need for more investment because the country wants more growth. But they have failed to recognise that investment is not made for fun. Investment is not made for social objectives alone. Investment is generally made on behalf of other people, and it is made in

  1281
  the expectation of profit. This expectation of profit is what we mean by confidence, and the unhappy fact is that the Government have added one more factor which inhibits confidence and which will in the future prevent private investment in industry.
  Among the traditional factors which have inhibited confidence have been the variety of attitudes of Government to profit. These have varied from something between guilt and outright hostility. Successive Governments have also failed to control inflation. As a result "guesstimates" have been extremely difficult to make. There has been persistent direct interference by Government in industry—interference in the form of taxation, dividend and price control, and the subsidising of nationalised industries. The debate tonight illustrates a new and more terrible danger which will inhibit confidence to invest. Until the Government came to power, industrialists believed that politicians would certainly not encourage people to break the law. But I wonder whether any industrialist today would be certain that he could trust the Secretary of State for Industry, with all his self-righteousness to fulfil his most important duty not to encourage workers to break the law.
  By his attitude to sit-ins the Secretary of State has further undermined the rule of law. He has attempted to achieve what he calls industrial democracy by any means within his power. At the beginning of the sit-ins at the Upper Clyde he told the workers there during a visit that they had done more in 10 weeks to advance the cause of industrial democracy than all the blueprints he and his colleagues had worked on for the previous 10 years.
  He failed to realise that a sit-in is no more than an illegal occupation by workers of premises they do not own. There has been no word of condemnation from his lips of the illegality of sit-ins. When in August 1974 he went to a banquet held by the Lord Mayor of Coventry he preceded the banquet by addressing 400 men at the premises of Norton-Villiers-Triumph at Meriden. He had the effrontery to say that the wigwam and brazier which had been used to sustain the gallant and noble workers who
  1282
  had operated that illegal sit-in throughout the winter were objects which should be retained for posterity as an example of human achievement.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): I do not wish to interfere in the speech which the hon. Member is making, but I must point out that it is not in order to discuss the merits of financial assistance to industry under the order. It is, however, in order to discuss the nature of past and likely future expenditure, but the principle itself is already established.
  Mr. Bugden: I accept that the principle is established, but I refer only to the effect of expenditure upon other principles. The principles to which I am devoting my remarks are the principle of the rule of law and the principle of industrial harmony.
  By undermining the rule of law the Secretary of State has stirred up class hatred and enmity. More than that, he has stirred up hatred between management and government, and he has introduced a further factor which will inhibit investment. In many parts of my constituency there are proud records of industrialists giving very full information to their workers in the hope that if the trade cycle works against them and they unhappily must declare men redundant, they will find that by their information they have given men advance warning of difficult times ahead.
  As a result of this expenditure, as a result of the Secretary of State's attitude, less disclosure will be made, because industrialists throughout the land will fear that sit-ins will take place, encouraged by this Government.
  11.25 p.m.
  Mr. Tim Renton: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Dodsworth), I wanted to speak in this debate because time and again many of us on the Opposition benches have failed to obtain any reply from the Government to Oral and Written Questions on how the sums of money granted under Section 8 of the Industry Act were being used. We have been told that it was not customary, that it was unnecessary, that it was against normal commercial practice, to give information about the profitability

  1283
  of the companies to which the money was going, or about their production.
  But we are now talking of at least £125 million advanced under the section. The House is short of information on how it will be used and what yield the taxpayer may eventually expect from it My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), with his customary modesty, said that he merely wanted a motor cycle from Meriden. I agree with him, but I would go a little further and say that when we are talking of at least £125 million it is reasonable to ask for an idea of the profit and the plans, and of the eventual benefit to the country from that sum.
  When I intervened earlier the Minister of State said that he was unable to give any answer of that kind. I hope that by now he has received some help from his officials in the box, and that when he winds up the debate he will be able to give us a little information. Otherwise, this is a sad prelude to the much greater sums that will be committed under the Industry Bill. If we can get no guidance from the Minister as to the sort of return that may come on these relatively small sums, how much worse will be the situation when the Secretary of State has committed hundreds of millions of pounds?
  I have two specific points on which I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be a little more clued up than he was in answer to my earlier intervention. The first concerns the Offshore Supplies Office, set up, I believe, under Section 8.
  Mr. Heffer: The office does not happen to come under the Department of Industry. It comes under the Department of Energy, so the hon. Gentleman is not particularly clued up either.
  Mr. Renton: I thank the Minister for helping me on that. I move straight to my second point, which concerns the inter-relationship between the order and the Export Guarantees Amendment Bill, the Second Reading of which was debated last week. I was amazed to read in last week's Economist the statement that Meriden sitters-in would soon get their £4·8 million Government loan, once the export credit guarantee was approved by Parliament. That is a matter that all of us who debated that Bill were worried
  1284
  about. The Bill contained many new powers for grants to be made to any persons, not just any banks, in furtherance of British exports. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Mr. Stanley) and others, in that debate I asked the Under-Secretary for Trade whether he could assure us that export credits would be made available only for commercially viable propositions. Three days later, we read in the Economist that an export credit guarantee might be made available to Meriden and that that would further the wishes of the Department of Industry in making grants available to that company.
  The inter-relationship between this order and the Export Guarantees Amendment Bill is a matter about which we must have an explanation, otherwise we see a situation developing in which one Government Department is encouraged to ensure uncreditworthy export risks so that the Department of Industry can go ahead with advancing more of the taxpayer's money for schemes which from the start are unprofitable and commercially unviable.
  In the case of Meriden, the Industrial Development Advisory Board advised that it was not a viable proposition. Will the Minister confirm that he will not lean on his friends in the Department of Trade to make them provide export guarantee facilities which will get him and his right hon. Friend out of some of the difficulties which they are in as a result of the loans they have made?
  11.31 p.m.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Before this organised hypocrisy from the Opposition goes much further, perhaps we might get a few facts on the record.
  The Opposition talk about parliamentary control. What were they thinking about only a few years ago when they took this country into the European Common Market and handed over parliamentary control to the bureaucrats in Brussels? They do not say anything about that tonight—
  Mr. Budgen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I were moving away from the terms of the order, I think that the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) is even further away.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: This is entirely a matter for the Chair. I wish to see how the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) develops his argument before deciding whether he is moving wide of the order.
  Mr. Heseltine: It so happens that I remember what I was thinking about as I voted in favour of the motion to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It was the words, "We will negotiate our way in, and we will not take 'No' for an answer." It was the Prime Minister who said that.
  Mr. Cryer: I am grateful for that intervention, because it authenticates my original remark. Of course, there was controversy in the Labour Party about entry into the Common Market. I do not dwell upon it, because I do not want to get out of order, but I must answer the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). Of course there was controversy. But in 1970, the Conservative Government said that they would negotiate, and no more—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must request the hon. Gentleman to keep within the terms of the order.
  Mr. Cryer: I must point out that there was no whole-hearted consent by the British people to go into the European Common Market and that it is the height of effrontery and hypocrisy for the Opposition now to talk about parliamentary control. I happen to think that it is important, and from time to time I have drawn attention to matters affecting parliamentary control, but it is hypocritical for the Opposition to say that we need it now, when it suits their convenience, although it can be thrown out of the window when we go into Europe.
  The money which we are asked to authorise has gone to rescue ventures which in the ordinary capitalist sense have failed, just as the level of investment in the whole of industry has failed when it has been in the hands of the private owners of capital.
  It is apparent from some of the remarks that we have heard that the Opposition are quite prepared to withstand rising unemployment. We have had hon. Members inveighing against workers who are no longer prepared to doff their caps meekly to their bosses and walk through
  1286
  the door. They have been prepared to sit in, to use their initiative, to develop their spirit, and to form co-operatives. No one denies that there are difficulties in forming these co-operatives, but many Opposition Members will look sick when they are successful. The tenor of their remarks is quite clear. They do not want the co-operatives to be successful. They do not want Kirkby, Meriden or the new daily newspaper to be successful. They would gloat at failure. It ill becomes a party which purports to represent the nation and the finest spirit—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I requested the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) to keep within the terms of the order. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) is straying from them. I asked him to confine himself to the order. He must not discuss the merits of financial assistance to industry in principle. He must speak to the order, including, if he so wishes, past and likely future expenditure.
  Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because in the past the merit of granting this money under the Industry Act 1972, which was passed by the Conservative Government, was not in question. Hon. Members of the Opposition are merely political opportunists seeking whatever straw they can find in order to try to discredit the present Labour Government.
  I hope that this extra money will be spent in the way in which it has been spent in the past—in helping people to form co-operatives. Co-operation has a long and distinguished history. It is developed in this country and provides a very large proportion of retail distribution.
  If we can set a productive co-operative torch alight, the Opposition are doomed indeed, because earlier tonight—I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am keeping within the rules of order—their lackluster performance indicated that their ideology is in a very sad state. If co-operative development agencies such as those which have been financed under these provisions in the past—and hopefully will be in the future—are successful, hon. Members opposite will be condemned to the Opposition benches for all foreseeable time.

  1287
  I want to make another comment about the sort of expenditure which can occur in the future. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has been involved today with the formation of a concern relating to Imperial Typewriters. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has also been involved in this very worthy cause.
  Mr. John Prescott: We shall be directors.
  Mr. Cryer: That typewriter factory has been unilaterally closed by the decision of a tiny number of directors in a board room entirely remote from the work force and the workshops. If those workers acting in concert can set up a British typewriter production and assembly line and rescue that industry, surely both sides of the House should welcome it.
  One of the ways in which we can prevent the domination of foreign capital in this country is by British people actually directing investment to their own productive facilities. It is extraordinary that the Opposition should find no objecton to American or Arab capital flowing in. The Americans and Arabs can come here and buy up what they like. But when it comes to an order increasing the money available for our own Secretary of State to extend the British people's ownership of the means of distribution and production, the Opposition object to that.
  This order and the co-operatives which have been financed have kindled a torch in this country. My hon. Friends and I believe that once kindled, that torch will never be put out.
  11.40 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Rost: There is no doubt that the House must reject this order. If it had needed any further convincing I think that the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) would have provided it.
  There is no question but that it would be highly irresponsible for the House to grant even another pound to the Department of Industry, yet alone another £100 million. The evidence is accumulating the whole time. The Department of Industry has already abused the Industry Act 1972 and it is obviously intending
  1288
  to abuse it further. The issues of parliamentary responsibility and accountability are the most important matters that the House has to consider. There can be no doubt that the Government intend indiscriminately to grant themselves public funds through Parliament, to avoid accounting for the expenditure and to spend the money in a way which will allow them to pursue their political objectives.
  I do not want to be held responsible for granting another £100 million so that the Secretary of State for Industry can go on adding to his personal portfolio of unviable speculations at the expense of the taxpayer. It is time that the House took a grip of itself and called a halt.
  I ask the Minister three specific questions relating to past expenditure under the Act and projected expenditure. First, why is it that some of the expenditure past and future that is going to workers' co-operatives will be granted without any equity stake being taken in return? Why is it that no equity is being taken yet the Government regard it as right to pilfer equity from private enterprise in any way that they can through the Industry Bill or by other means? Why is it that no equity is being taken from the co-operatives that are being set up—
  Mr. Tom Litterick: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) has referred to the "personal portfolio" of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and has used the word "pilfer". I understand by the ordinary use of the English language that "personal portfolio" means something very personal and that "pilfer" implies something criminal—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I believe that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) used the terms as generalities. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not intend to refer to the Secretary of State's portfolio in the manner that has been suggested.
  Mr. Rost: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not wish there to be any misunderstanding. Perhaps I may change "private" to "political". I refer to the political portfolio of the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Litterick: What does that mean?
  Mr. Rost: I am sure that Labour Members know very well what it means, as do my hon. Friends
  Why is it right that no equity should be taken by the taxpayers in the workers' co-operatives? In most cases it is the taxpayer who is granting the funds and taking all the equity risk. Yet the equity is to be taken by the Government for other grants to be provided under the new Industry Bill.
  Secondly, why is it that in the case of the Kirkby co-operative the taxpayer cannot win? Why is it that the grant which is being given to the co-operative does not have to be repaid except in the event of liquidation, in which case nothing will be repaid? If the co-operative happens to succeed—not that any of us believe that that is possible—and becomes profitable, why is it that the taxpayer will not get back his loan? Is the Minister suggesting that the grant that is being provided by the taxpayer to the co-operative is on a one-way basis? If the co-operative succeeds the taxpayer is not to be repaid, and the whole of any profit that might result from the loan will accrue to the shareholders entirely without any liability to repay the loan. The House is entitled to an explanation why the taxpayer loses both ways and has no way of being repaid.
  My third point refers to projected future expenditure. There are rumblings going around that the next workers' co-operative will be at the Imperial Typewriter premises at Leicester and Hull. Again the House is entitled to know on what basis any grant will be made to that project. Will it be made only if the feasibility study—a study which is now being undertaken independently at the Government's request and which presumably will be published—concludes that it is a viable project? I hope the Minister will give a firm undertaking that no more public money will be sunk into co-operatives, or any other ventures unless an independent feasibility study at least gives to a scheme the benefit of the doubt, justifying speculative investment. Therefore, if we are to have any accountability at all, one of the first objectives is to get an undertaking from the Minister.
  1290
  I believe that we should reject the idea of handing this further amount of funds to the Government. They have acted in a highly irresponsible manner so far and this will give them further licence for irresponsibility.
  11.47 p.m.
  Mr. William Molloy: I shall be very brief. I should like to give an example of one situation in my constituency which should help Opposition Members to understand what is meant by the order.
  Had this order existed 18 months ago, the British glass container industry might not have lost a vital part of its organisation which used to exist in my constituency and which has now gone to Western Germany—[Interruption.] One expects that sort of reaction from the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), with his hatred of anything that happens to be British. He should get up to challenge what I am saying rather than laugh derisively from a sedentary position—which, come to think of it, perhaps is the best position for the hon. Gentleman to occupy.
  Let us consider what would have happened had this order existed a year or so ago. A firm in my constituency called Rockware Glass had existed there for many years with no industrial problems whatever. Indeed, in a troublesome period in the 1930s workers, in efforts to save the firm, worked for a month without wages. However, a few years ago, as a result of the predatory efforts of Slater Walker, Rockware Glass was compelled to sell a large factory and to take steps to protect two others. The result was that the United Kingdom lost a large factory in my constituency which had been engaged in producing glass containers, and nearly a thousand skilled craftsmen lost their jobs. That trade then went from Great Britain to another country in the Common Market—no doubt to the delight of the hon. Member for Henley who at that time had some responsibility in those matters. Middle and top level management and the trade unions asked me to see whether anything could be done to help. Nothing could be done. If this order had existed, something could have been done to save a vital part of British industry.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member is indulging in references to a hypothetical situation. The order did not exist at that time. We are now discussing this order. The hon. Member should confine himself to the order as it stands.
  Mr. Molloy: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there is nothing hypothetical about a thousand men being thrown out of work.
  This is my contribution. If this order had existed some years ago, the disaster which hit my constituency and the glass container industry of Great Britain could have been avoided.
  11.52 p.m.
  Mr. John Farr: I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) said concerning the diffidence if not the disdain of Ministers in the Department of Industry with regard to the workings of the Industry Act 1972.
  My hon. Friend gave illustrations of the difficulty he had in getting through to the Minister's Department. I can do better than that, because on 29th July 1974 I took the precaution of officially giving notice to the Secretary of State for Industry and the Department that we would raise in the debate on whether the House should rise for the Summer Adjournment the question of aid to the Scottish Daily Express and the Meriden co-operative. Those matters were raised by several hon. Members between 3.30 p.m. and 6.30 p.m. on that day. Not one Minister from the hon. Gentleman's Department bothered to turn up. There was no response to the many speeches made. I regard that as a disdainful attitude which characterises some of the statements made by the Minister and by his colleagues.
  A considerable sum of money is involved, since the limit is to be raised to £250 million. Under the Industry Act a further £300 million can be raised by further Parliamentary Order. The total support authorised by Section 8 (7) of the 1972 Industry Act amounts to £550 million to be used as the Minister sees fit.
  The Opposition object to the fact that the safeguards in Section 9 of that Act are ignored. Section 9 laid down the procedure whereby the Industry Develop-
  1292
  ment Advisory Board was to be consulted if it was proposed to make funds available under Sections 7 and 8 of the 1972 Act. One might say that that is a sound procedure. However, the Secretary of State for Industry, after consulting the Board, repeatedly ignores its advice and flies in the face of the experts, thereby placing public money at risk in one dubious enterprise after another.
  If the Minister is to continue coming to Parliament for authority to raise another £100 million and then £200 million under this section, I feel that the next time he comes along, if not today, although it is a Conservative Act, we must say that enough is enough and that no more money must be made available unless he undertakes to accept and to be guided by the expert advice available to him, under Section 9, which is continually rejected.
  I shall not vote against the order. However, unless the Minister mends his ways in this respect and pays more attention to Parliament's wishes, does not indulge in these Friday manoeuvres regarding announcements, knowing that Parliament cannot question them, and does not announce the raising of sums of just under £5 million which do not need prior parliamentary approval, he will run into more trouble than he faces tonight.
  11.56 p.m.
  Mr. Heffer: I think that the House has at times gone well beyond the terms of the order. I make no criticism about that. We are dealing with Section 8, but we seem to have gone into Section 4 and the whole philosophy of the Tory Party. Indeed, many of my hon. Friends have expressed the philosophy of the Labour Party, too. I found the debate extremely interesting, but it must be agreed that it was somewhat wide ranging.
  First, I should like to deal with the Industrial Development Advisory Board. My right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General clearly explained to the House today that when the 1972 legislation was drafted there was no provision for such a body as the IDAB. It did not exist. It was not in that proposed legislation. But, after pressure by hon. Gentlemen and possibly by their friends outside the House, the IDAB was eventually established.

  1293
  I do not want to be critical of the IDAB. That would be quite wrong. However, I should point out that it is composed of 11 bankers, accountants and financiers and one trade unionist. I do not say that as a criticism of the IDAB. I merely explain the position.
  The IDAB advises Ministers. We also have civil servants who advise Ministers. Do we want Ministers who must always be subservient to every piece of advice that is tendered by civil servants or outside advisers, or do we want Ministers who are prepared at times to say, "This is the Government's view", and are prepared to get up in this Chamber or anywhere else to defend their decisions? I should think that we want Ministers of that calibre, and that is the whole point.
  Out of 87 cases before the IDAB, only five have been disagreed to by the Board. Again I am not criticising IDAB. I am just giving a statement of fact. It is interesting to note that three of the five happen to be concerned with workers' co-operatives. I am not suggesting that the philosophy of IDAB is against workers' co-operatives. On the contrary. I think it does a very good job on the basis of the criteria laid down by the Act. But, as I said earlier, my right hon. Friend, Ministers in the Department and, in fact, the Government as a whole certainly must take advice, and they must listen to advice, but they have to take the final decision themselves, and we believe that we have taken the right decisions in this case.
  Let us consider this question of Kirkby. We are asked why we have not taken equity in Kirkby, whereas we demand equity in the case of grants and loans to private enterprise. Hon. Gentlemen should know that there are grants and loans given to private enterprise every day of the week, when there is no equity whatsoever. Often the question is not even raised. Sometimes it is raised and sometimes it is not.
  Mr. Rost rose—
  Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman should understand more about the Act which his Government brought in. All we are doing is administering that Act to the best of our ability and in the fairest possible way. If worker co-operatives wish to apply for assistance
  1294
  in the form of loans and grants they will be treated by us as sympathetically as are private enterprise and private companies.
  Mr. Rost: Could the hon. Gentleman give another example of a grant by Government to industry which is virtually a 100 per cent. grant as it is to Kirkby?
  Mr. Heffer: Hon. Gentlemen opposite are now raising a question the answer to which I should like them to consider. We are giving privately and confidentially assistance to private industry every day of the week. If hon. Members do not want only the global sum of the assistance which is given but also want to be told every loan and grant, if they want every piece of information about the money that is provided to private enterprise spelt out in detail, the friends of hon. Members opposite in industry will desert them in seconds. They do not want that sort of information made public. It is not our intention, any more than it was the previous Government's, to give the details of every loan and grant under the Act to individual companies.
  Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: My hon. Friend is aware that the grant to the Kirkby co-operative in my constituency is less than is given for the running costs of the Royal yacht in one year. Would hon. Members opposite prefer that 800 men in the factory in my constituency should be on the dole? If they would, let them say so now. Is that what they would like in an area of excessively high unemployment?
  Mr. Heffer: May I ask the House to let me continue. I have five minutes left, and I will try to answer in detail some of the points which were raised by hon. Members opposite. I will ignore much of the extravagant language that was used by some hon. Members.
  I was asked what was the equity stake in NVT. It was nil. It was all in preference shares. I was asked the position on the return on Section 8 investment. This is an impossible question for me to answer because some £53 million is in the form of guarantees which are being extended while the future of particular companies is being examined. Clearly, until the capital structure of those companies has been tested it is not possible to make any estimate of the return on capital.

  1295
  Nearly £13 million is made up of offers made but not implemented. No precise estimate is possible.
  Mr. Tim Renton rose—
  Mr. Heffer: If I give way I cannot answer all the points raised with me, some of them by the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton). I said when I started that I would try to answer the questions put to me. I do not try to dodge questions. If I do not know the answer, I am an honest enough politician to say that I do not know the answer and that I will write to an hon. Member when I get the answer. Anyone who claims to know all the answers must be God.
  The export credit question which was raised refers to the special £8 million to NVT under Section 8. There is a motion on the Order Paper for support for NVT and when it comes before the House it will be discussed at great length and all the questions can be put in detail.
  One hon. Member raised the point why we use equity in one case, grants in others and loans in others. The answer is simple. Each case is very different. Any hon. Gentleman who has had anything to do with the administration of the Act knows that each case is different. Therefore, one has to deal with it on an individual basis, and it is not possible to give a blanket answer that on each occasion we shall do precisely the same.
  The question of Court Line was raised. My right hon. Friend explained to the satisfaction of IDAB that on that occasion, because of the short notice, he was unable to get to IDAB. We had either
  to deal with the case and save thousands of jobs quickly, or alternatively, we could have gone right through the long process—[Interruption]. The hon. Member said that there were holidays, and that would be a good reason why one could not get the IDAB together quickly. [Interruption.] Is it suggested that IDAB does not have holidays?
  Mr. Heseltine: It was not just that the Government were to save jobs, they were to save holidays.
  Mr. Robin Corbett: That is not true. The Court Line directors said that.
  Mr. Heffer: Exactly. There was no question that it was discussed at the earliest possible moment.
  I cannot deal with all the points raised. I should like to deal in great detail with offshore supply because I have interesting information which could and should have been given, but I discover that I have no time left. There has been a complaint that the Department does not give the information. My goodness! The hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling produces about three priority Written Questions a day. I do not complain about that, but he should not complain that he does not get all the information—
  It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business).
  The House divided: Ayes 245, Noes 13.

  Division No. 97.]

  AYES

  [12.11 a.m.

  Allaun, Frank

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Archer, Peter

  Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Buchan, Norman

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Ashton, Joe

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Campbell, Ian

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Canavan, Dennis

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Cant, R. B.

  Deakins, Eric

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel

  Carmichael Neil

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Bates, Alf

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Bean, R. E.

  Cohen, Stanley

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Coleman, Donald

  Dempsey, James

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Doig, Peter

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Conlan, Bernard

  Dormand, J. D.

  Bishop, E. S.

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Corbett, Robin

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Boardman, H.

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Dunn, James A.

  Booth, Albert

  Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Eadie, Alex

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Cronin, John

  Edelman, Maurice

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

  Edge, Geoff

  Bradley, Tom

  Cryer, Bob

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  English, Michael

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Ennals, David

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Rooker, J. W.

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  Lee, John

  Roper, John

  Evans John (Newton)

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilm'nock)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Litterick, Tom

  Rowlands, Ted

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Loyden, Eddie

  Ryman, John

  Flannery, Martin

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Sandelson, Neville

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlingon)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Selby, Harry

  Ford, Ben

  McElhone, Frank

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

  Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Sillars, James

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Silverman, Julius

  George, Bruce

  Madden, Max

  Skinner, Dennis

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Magee, Bryan

  Small, William

  Golding, John

  Mahon, Simon

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Gould, Bryan

  Marks, Kenneth

  Snape, Peter

  Gourlay, Harry

  Marquand, David

  Spearing, Nigel

  Graham, Ted

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Grant John (Islington C)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Meacher, Michael

  Stott, Roger

  Hamling, William

  Mendelson, John

  Strang, Gavin

  Hardy, Peter

  Mikardo, Ian

  Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

  Harper, Joseph

  Millan, Bruce

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Hart, Rt Kon Judith

  Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Hatton, Frank

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Molloy, William

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Hooley, Frank

  Moonman, Eric

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Horam, John

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Tinn, James

  Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

  Moyle, Roland

  Tomlinson, John

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Torney, Tom

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Newens, Stanley

  Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N)

  Noble, Mike

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Hunter, Adam

  Ogden, Eric

  Ward, Michael

  Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

  O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

  Watkins, David

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Watkinson, John

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Ovenden, John

  Watt, Hamish

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Owen, Dr David

  Welsh, Andrew

  Janner, Greville

  Palmer, Arthur

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Park, George

  White, James (Pollok)

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Parker, John

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Parry, Robert

  Whitlock, William

  John, Brynmor

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Peart, Rt Hon Fred

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Pendry, Tom

  Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Prescott, John

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Judd, Frank

  Price C. (Lewisham W)

  Woodall, Alec

  Kelley, Richard

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Woof, Robert

  Kerr, Russell

  Radice, Giles

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Lambie, David

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES

  Lamborn, Harry

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Mr. James Hamilton and

  Lamond, James

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Mr. David Stoddart.

  NOES

  Budgen, Nick

  Lawson, Nigel

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Hampson Dr Keith

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hordern, Peter

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Mr. (John Farr and

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  That the Financial Assistance of Industry (Increase of Limit) Order 1975, a draft of which was laid before this House on 31st January, be approved.
  Resolved,

  ADJOURNMENT
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pavitt.]

  LONDON TRANSPORT (ATTACKS ON STAFF)
  12.21 a.m.
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: I welcome this opportunity to raise the growing problem of assaults by hooligans on London Transport staff on both bus and rail. There is considerable public concern following the tragic death of a conductor a few weeks ago as a result of a vicious assault while he was on duty.
  I was first made aware of the problem some four years ago when I was working at County Hall and was taken on a visit to London Transport where the figures were explained to me. The unions, of course, have known about the problem for rather longer than that. They have been lobbying various Home Secretaries since 1966.
  Last year there were 1,059 assaults on bus staff and 273 on railway staff. In 1973 there were 911 assaults on bus staff and 228 on railway staff. In my borough of Bexley during the last 12 months there were eight assaults on bus crews compared with six assaults in the previous 12 months. There have been two incidents recently. Last December a crewman was assaulted twice within a month and threatened with a knife. Recently a driver-operator, while driving a one-man-operated bus—such a bus can carry up to 80 people—was struck repeatedly on the head with a piece of wood. Luckily we have not yet had in my borough an incident quite as ghastly as the case in another borough of a 56-year-old conductress who was sexually assaulted, knocked down and then kicked unconscious.
  Time prevents me from coupling with the assaults the vandalism on London Transport. London Transport has told me, however, that about 20,000 light bulbs are destroyed each year along with about 1,000 fire extinguishers, and the annual bill is about £25,000. That bill is met by the travelling public.
  It is alarming that youngsters are increasingly responsible for assaults—I believe that they are involved in 30 per cent. of cases. There seems to be no set pattern. When public houses are closing and discotheques are finishing there is a certain rush, as there is when schools finish in the afternoon. I am told that some of the worst assaults have happened
  1300
  outside these set hours. Leaving aside the effect on the victims, the results of such attacks are, first, the loss of mileage by London Transport buses. Secondly there are considerable gaps in the service. Bexley, being an outer London borough, suffers particularly from this. Many of those who curse London Transport for not supplying a bus according to schedule late at night are unaware that the reason is that the driver or conductor has had a punch-up further up the route.
  Recruiting is bound to suffer. There is a serious shortage of London Transport staff. The tragedy is that such assaults are turning the travelling public away from public transport at a time when we are all, in all parties, determined to try to get them back on it.
  I do not deny that the problem is part of a big problem of violence that haunts the centres of our major conurbations. In part it is connected with the rising levels of juvenile delinquency. Perhaps the inadequacies of the 1969 Act have something to do with that. It is also connected with the shortage of police, particularly Metropolitan Police.
  What can and must be done by the authorities? I take the buses first. Certain hooters are being installed. They are complementary to two-way radios, and no substitute for them. About 120 buses out of 6,000 are fitted with such a device, as well as flashing lights. London Transport kindly invited me to a demonstration last Friday, when I was impressed with the hooter that was demonstrated.
  The installation of radios is of major importance. I am told that it will take many years to complete the programme. It should be speeded up. Only about 300 sets have been fitted so far. One of the hold-ups is in the provision of sites for the main aerials. I appeal for better co-operation from the London boroughs. I have been told that planning applications take from 12 to 15 months. The Royal Borough of Kensington has apparently delayed since June over an important site. It should be able to work a little quicker than that. Centre Point has considerable potential for at least something—perhaps an aerial. Again, there is a hold up. Perhaps the co-operative movement will be able to help.

  1301
  There is a need for more channels for the sets. They need at least 20, and I understand that only 15 have been allocated by the Home Office for London Transport. Why is it that a new taxi cab operator appears to be able to get a channel comparatively easily while London Transport stems to be stuck on 15?
  Finance is never far from the question. I urge the Government to help with subsidies so that the radios can be installed without delay.
  On the Underground, closed circuit television is a possibility in certain trouble spots. London Transport is experimenting with ticket collectors' boxes which give greater protection.
  The nub of the matter appears to be that the penalties available, which I believe are sufficient, are not being imposed. I have been appalled by the light sentences being given when the culprit is caught—and it is very rare that he is. In many cases the criminal is out of prison before the bus conductor or conductress is out of hospital and back at work.
  Time prevents my going into details, but I have a record compiled by London Transport of offences and sentences. It shows that the position has become ludicrous. A driver was attacked by four youths and kicked and punched about the body, suffering bruising to both legs. Four youths were convicted of assaulting a bus driver, and one was also convicted of fare evasion. They were fined £10 each and ordered to pay £5 costs. That is no suitable sentence.
  I take another case. A conductor was punched about the face, causing bruising and damage to his spectacles. A man was convicted of assaulting the conductor and damaging a pair of spectacles. He was conditionally discharged and ordered to pay £8 compensation.
  I hope that the Minister will be able to say whether the Lord Chancellor has sent out a letter on the need for sentences which will provide some respectable deterrent. I appreciate that magistrates must have some discretion, but I suspect that the Minister will agree that the position at the moment is totally unsatisfactory. I appreciate too, that it is difficult for the Home Office, but, in the
  1302
  past, the Lord Chancellor has given instructions or guidance, and I hope that this may happen in this case.
  Following a meeting on 3rd February between respresentatives of the union and the Home Secretary, apparently the union has been waiting for a statement in the House by the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps we may be told what has happened to that statement.
  I believe that there is a clear need for the legal powers of the police to be extended. What can the Home Office do to speed this up? I hope that we shall not have to wait for the Law Revision Committee to report.
  It has been suggested that London bus crews are public servants and, as such, should have the same protection as law enforcement officers. What are the Minister's views about that? What is the Home Office doing to find out how similar problems have been tackled abroad—for example, in Hamburg or Detroit?
  What advice is the Home Office giving members of the public who may witness such an incident? I appreciate that this is a difficult one to judge, but my own advice would be to observe and to report by telephone to the police as quickly as possible. However, clearly there are cases, especially where youngsters are involved—perhaps rowdy kids on the way home from school—where the public should be prepared to step in to protect a conductor or driver. After all, the conductors and drivers are there to help the travelling public, to help individuals, and they should be helped from time to time in return.
  Much more must be done to get posters displayed in the proper places on London Transport—for example, in buses and on the Underground—pointing out the penalties for assaults on London Transport staff and drawing the public's attention to the amount of vandalism which takes place on public transport in London.
  Much more needs to be done to obtain better public understanding of what is at stake. We all know how public opinion takes a long time to be aroused. It was aroused by the murder a few weeks ago. It was not aroused, apparently, by the record of assaults stretching back many a year.

  1303
  There is a tremendous need for speedy and determined action by all the authorities concerned. Public transport services in our capital are under a very real threat.
  12.33 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summerskill): I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) has chosen to raise the serious problem of attacks on London Transport staff, which, regrettably, have become a feature of urban life in recent years and which are to be deeply deplored.
  We were all shocked by the tragic death of Mr. Ronald Jones, a conductor, last month, and on behalf of the Government I take this opportunity of expressing my sympathy to Mr. Jones's family and colleagues.
  On 3rd February, the General Secretary and other officials of the Transport and General Workers' Union, and the Chairman of London Transport, came to see my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Minister for Transport to discuss measures which might improve the situation. My right hon. Friends agreed to take action on a number of points. I think it fair to say that the announcement of the action the Government proposed to take was received with approval by both employers and unions, as evidence of the Government's determination to deal with the problem. My right hon. Friend issued a full Press statement on 3rd February containing the immediate results of the meeting. We hope that the measures to be taken will help to improve the situation.
  Mr. Townsend: At this point, will the Minister let us know what is happening about the statement to the House?
  Dr. Summerskill: I shall certainly refer the hon. Member's request to my right hon. Friend.
  There can be no doubt that misconduct on buses and underground trains, of which assaults on staff are the most serious feature, is a growing problem. The hon. Gentleman gave some figures and descriptions to illustrate this. Perhaps I might supplement his figures.
  In 1972, 669 assaults on London Transport staff were reported to the police.
  1304
  The equivalent figure for 1973 was 771. the corresponding figure for 1974 is not yet available, but there can be no doubt it will show a further increase.
  Statistics for 1974 are available, however, for the number of incidents on buses considered worthy of report to the police in 1974—and, in fact, 849 such incidents on buses were reported. Not all involved assaults on staff—though most did—and conversely not all assaults will have been reported. Nevertheless it is an alarmingly high figure. Analysis shows, as the hon. Gentleman has indicated, that 28 per cent. of these incidents occurred between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. and 22 per cent. between 10 p.m. and midnight. In no fewer than 70 per cent. of the cases—589 in all—the offender was never identified. In a further 190 cases, names and addresses were exchanged, and in 70, arrests were made. These statistics underline the major problem in dealing with assaults on bus crews—the problem of getting police to the scene before the offender has fled.
  The total London Transport bus fleet consists of 6,500 buses. They travel many millions of miles every year. This poses particular problems in terms of law enforcement. The Metropolitan Police—whose resources are already stretched in other directions—cannot be everywhere at once. When an assault is committed in present circumstances it will usually take some time for the police to be summoned, and when they arrive the offenders have often long since left the scene. Police must be got to the scene of an assault more quickly if they are to have any chance of catching offenders.
  In this connection radio is potentially of very great importance on the theory that a violent assault will usually be preceded by a few minutes of minor disturbance, during which the police may be alerted. Other cities in the United Kingdom, including Leicester and Glasgow, have found bus radios helpful—not only in dealing with assaults, but also in maintaining regular services. London Transport has 300 buses fitted with two-way radios, and the intention is to have 1,000 equipped by the end of the year. Bus operators have been advised that part of the cost of installation can be met by grant. One difficulty is that the public service vehicle regulations do not at

  1305
  present permit bus drivers to speak by radio when their vehicles are in motion. The Department of the Environment is drafting regulations to overcome this problem. There is nothing to prevent their installation or use while stationary.
  In addition, two types of alarm system have been under consideration. One is the klaxon or siren alarm, but this carries the risk of confusion with that of an emergency services vehicle. London Transport and others concerned have also been considering the form of alarm which depends on continuous flashing of the indicator lights and sounding the horn. I understand that a number of alarm systems were demonstrated to the police and others interested at the Victoria Garage on Friday 14th February last.
  A provisional decision was made in favour of an alarm system which flashes the lights and sounds the horn intermittently and more loudly. London Transport has already equipped some of its fleet with a form of this system on an experimental basis. Amending regulations are being prepared by the Department of the Environment as a matter of urgency.
  The Metropolitan Police, for their part, have been doing what they can within the limits of their resources to extend the protection given to bus crews. In October of last year they established a new formal system of liaison with London bus garages. Over 60 garage liaison officers of the rank of inspector have been appointed. They attend the regular meetings of the local garage consultative committees on which employers and staff are represented. They are available for informal consultation at any time. The Metropolitan Police held a seminar on this subject on 31st January which was addressed by representatives of the Transport and General Workers' Union and London Transport. They are also taking a close and continuing interest in proposals for alarms and other possible improvements.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary regards close liaison between the police and the employers and the unions as an important factor, particularly in the opportunity it provides for identifying the main trouble spots, analysing the causes of the trouble and discussing specific plans for dealing with it.
  1306
  The Chairman of London Transport has told the Home Secretary that he will propose to his Executive that police officers should be allowed to travel free on buses in the hope that, if they were encouraged to use bus services, their presence would provide added protection for the crews. This proposal is under careful consideration.
  My right hon. Friend has also announced his acceptance of the need to give the police more powers to deal with offenders. Of course, they already have the power to arrest where an arrestable offence has been committed and they arrive on the scene in time to apprehend the offender. But they have no power to arrest for a breach of the Public Service Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Conductors and Passengers) Regulations 1936, which govern the behaviour of passengers and crew members. At present offences against these regulations—they cover a wide range from riotous or disorderly conduct, or refusing to pay one's fare, to spitting or distracting the driver—can be prosecuted only by way of summons.
  My right hon. Friends consider this to be the right method of enforcement in principle, but its effectiveness depends on obtaining the offender's name and address. As the regulations stand, an offending passenger may be required by the driver or conductor, or by a police officer, to give his name and address, refusal to do so being in itself an offence. Clearly if the offender leaves the bus without giving his correct name and address he cannot be brought to court. My right hon. Friend announced, following his meeting with London Transport and the union leaders, that the law would be amended as soon as possible to provide the police with powers of arrest to deal with this situation. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is taking steps to ensure that the necessary legislation is prepared as a matter of urgency.
  Mr. Townsend: Will the hon. Lady confirm that we are not waiting for the Criminal Law Revision Committee to report? That would obviously delay matters.
  Dr. Summerskill: If I may I will confirm that point by letter but I think I am right in saying that we are not waiting for the Committee to report. I

  1307
  hope that the hon. Gentleman will not take what I have said as being definite.
  The hon. Gentleman raised the extremely important matter of penalties. I know that union leaders are concerned about the penalties imposed by the courts on those offenders who are traced and prosecuted.
  As the hon. Gentleman realises, this is a matter for the courts and my right hon. Friend has now power to intervene. However, my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has taken the opportunity of an address to a branch of the Magistrates' Association to draw attention to the seriousness of the problem of assaults on public transport workers.
  I also wish to refer the hon. Gentleman to some recent remarks made by Judge Sebag Montefiore when sentencing a first offender for punching a bus conductor on an East London bus. The judge said:
  "Bus crews are entitled to look to judges for and the enforcement of law for protection. Anyone who appears before me on such offences,
  1308
  whether he has previous convictions or not, will receive a custodial sentence."
  I have noted all the other points and suggestions made by the hon. Gentleman and they will receive careful consideration. Those who man our public transport system perform a vital public service. They deserve public support. If assaults continue, there can be no doubt that more men and women will leave the industry—with the effect of reducing the efficiency of London's public transport system. Buses and trains are run for the benefit of the public, but behaviour of this kind can have only the effect, in the long term, of reducing the service available to them. Busmen in particular suffer because they are isolated targets for drunken and loutish misbehaviour. Their morale has been somewhat shaken and, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has indicated, the Government intend to do all they can to support them in the vital work they do.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned at thirteen minutes to One o'clock.

EMPLOYMENT
  Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service
  Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service
  Trade Unions (Management Participation)
  Trade Unions (Management Participation)
  Chester and Deeside
  Chester and Deeside
  Western Scotland (Retraining)
  Western Scotland (Retraining)
  Disabled Workers Quota
  Disabled Workers Quota
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Heysham and Belfast
  Heysham and Belfast
  Plymouth
  Plymouth
  Self-Employment
  Self-Employment
  Wales
  Wales
  Social Contract
  Social Contract
  Redundancies (London)
  Redundancies (London)
  Ipswich (Training)
  Ipswich (Training)
  Motor Industry
  Motor Industry
  Knowsley
  Knowsley
  Kirkby
  Kirkby
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Health and Safety Inquiries
  Health and Safety Inquiries
  Tied Houses
  Tied Houses
  Health and Safety Breaches (Proof)
  Health and Safety Breaches (Proof)
  Ministerial Appointments
  Ministerial Appointments
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Hospitals (Voluntary Services)
  Hospitals (Voluntary Services)
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Incomes
  Family Incomes
  Cancer, Bronchitis and Pneumoconiosis
  Cancer, Bronchitis and Pneumoconiosis
  Infant Mortality
  Infant Mortality
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Women's Pensions
  Women's Pensions
  National Health Service
  National Health Service
  Hospital Consultants (Pay)
  Hospital Consultants (Pay)
  Infectious Diseases
  Infectious Diseases
  Hospitals, Merseyside (Industrial Dispute)
  Hospitals, Merseyside (Industrial Dispute)
  Hospitals (Tunbridge Wells)
  Hospitals (Tunbridge Wells)
  Wage Stop
  Wage Stop
  Invalid Vehicles
  Invalid Vehicles
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons
  Hillingdon Hospital (Theatre Technicians)
  Hillingdon Hospital (Theatre Technicians)
INDUSTRY
  Industrial Development Certificates (London)
  Industrial Development Certificates (London)
  Iron and Steel
  Iron and Steel
  Regional Aid
  Regional Aid
  Employment (Merseyside)
  Employment (Merseyside)
  SELF-EMPLOYED PERSONS
  SELF-EMPLOYED PERSONS
  SINGAPORE
  SINGAPORE
  MR. TINDEMANS
  MR. TINDEMANS
  PRIME MINISTER (WASHINGTON BROADCAST)
  PRIME MINISTER (WASHINGTON BROADCAST)
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
  WESSEX
  WESSEX
  WALES
  WALES
  KIRKBY
  KIRKBY
  INDUSTRY (DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS)
  INDUSTRY (DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS)
  TRADES UNION CONGRESS
  TRADES UNION CONGRESS
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  PRIME MINISTER (MOSCOW VISIT)
  PRIME MINISTER (MOSCOW VISIT)
  SELF-EMPLOYED PERSONS
  SELF-EMPLOYED PERSONS
  CRICHEL DOWN
  CRICHEL DOWN
  ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (CHANCELLOR'S SPEECH)
  ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (CHANCELLOR'S SPEECH)
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (RECORDERSHIPS)
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (RECORDERSHIPS)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Horticulture (Fuel Costs)
  Horticulture (Fuel Costs)
  Erurcic Acid
  Erurcic Acid
  Dairy Farms (EEC Conversion Scheme)
  Dairy Farms (EEC Conversion Scheme)
  Rabbits
  Rabbits
  Beef (Intervention Stocks)
  Beef (Intervention Stocks)
  Milk (EEC Regulations)
  Milk (EEC Regulations)
  Poultry and Eggs
  Poultry and Eggs
DEFENCE
  Equipment Exports
  Equipment Exports
  Tanks
  Tanks
  Multi-rôle Combat Aircraft
  Multi-rôle Combat Aircraft
  Gosport
  Gosport
  Mileage Allowances
  Mileage Allowances
  Helicopters (Royal Air Force)
  Helicopters (Royal Air Force)
  Helicopter Pilots (Training)
  Helicopter Pilots (Training)
  Offshore Oil and Gas Installations
  Offshore Oil and Gas Installations
  Brawdy (Flying Training Unit)
  Brawdy (Flying Training Unit)
  Employment (Manchester)
  Employment (Manchester)
ENERGY
  North Sea Oil Installations (Safety)
  North Sea Oil Installations (Safety)
  National Coal Board (EEC Receipts)
  National Coal Board (EEC Receipts)
  Miners' Free Coal
  Miners' Free Coal
  Burmah Oil Company
  Burmah Oil Company
  Petrol Savings
  Petrol Savings
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  School Transport (Report)
  School Transport (Report)
  Teachers (Pensions)
  Teachers (Pensions)
  Teachers (Pay)
  Teachers (Pay)
  Reading (Teaching)
  Reading (Teaching)
ENVIRONMENT
  Water and River Authorities (Employees)
  Water and River Authorities (Employees)
  Beaches
  Beaches
  Rate Product
  Rate Product
  Pelican Crossings
  Pelican Crossings
  Housing Costs and Rents
  Housing Costs and Rents
  Buses (Rural Areas)
  Buses (Rural Areas)
  Rates (London)
  Rates (London)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Naples Consulate (Postal Voting Forms)
  Naples Consulate (Postal Voting Forms)
  Lomé Convention
  Lomé Convention
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Police (Interrogations)
  Police (Interrogations)
  Metropolitan Police (Senior Officers' Pay)
  Metropolitan Police (Senior Officers' Pay)
  Citizenship
  Citizenship
  Animals (Experiments)
  Animals (Experiments)
  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  PROFESSIONAL INSTITUTIONS (CODES OF CONDUCT)
  PROFESSIONAL INSTITUTIONS (CODES OF CONDUCT)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Capital Transfer Tax
  Capital Transfer Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Miners' Free Coal
  Miners' Free Coal
  Tax Cases (Appeal Costs)
  Tax Cases (Appeal Costs)
  Public Sector Incomes, Expenditure and Output
  Public Sector Incomes, Expenditure and Output
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Inflation
  Inflation
  Capital Gains Tax
  Capital Gains Tax
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Terrorist Activities
  Terrorist Activities
  Lieutenancy
  Lieutenancy
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Price Commission
  Price Commission
  Norvic Securities Ltd.
  Norvic Securities Ltd.
  Advice Centres (Merseyside)
  Advice Centres (Merseyside)
SCOTLAND
  EEC Council (Ministerial Attendances)
  EEC Council (Ministerial Attendances)
TRADE
  Shipping Losses
  Shipping Losses
  Maritime Accidents (Inquiries)
  Maritime Accidents (Inquiries)
  Air-Sea Rescue Services
  Air-Sea Rescue Services
  Shipping (Loss of Life)
  Shipping (Loss of Life)
  M Notices (Departmental Procedure)
  M Notices (Departmental Procedure)
  Companies Acts (Inquiries)
  Companies Acts (Inquiries)
  South African Workers
  South African Workers
  Chile (ECGD Insurance Cover)
  Chile (ECGD Insurance Cover)
WALES
  Rabbits
  Rabbits

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the; Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Worcester.

LORD GIBSON
Richard Patrick Tallentyre Gibson, Esquire, having been created Baron Gibson, of Penn's Rocks in the County of East Sussex, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Moore and the Lord Goodman.
PERSONAL STATEMENT BY LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON
Lord BELHAVEN and STENTON: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to make a personal statement arising out of the Starred Question which stands today on the Order Paper in the name of the noble Lord. Lord Brockway. The Question refers to an article in the Press in which there is a suggestion that I might have abused my position as a Member of your Lordships' House to forward my own interest and that of the syndicate concerned. I should like to take this opportunity of stating that this suggestion is entirely without foundation.

LUNCHEON VOUCHERS
2.48 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: 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 is the maximum value of luncheon vouchers permitted by the Inland Revenue without income tax liability; and when this value was last reviewed.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, luncheon vouchers issued to employees are not taxed provided their value does not exceed 15p for each working day. This
162
extra-statutory concession is kept under constant review.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. May I ask whether he is aware that the amount was last reviewed in 1948, and has he any idea by how much the cost of luncheons has increased since that date? Is he further aware that in France the limit is 50p a day and in Sweden is 68p a day?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, first, the noble Lord is, I think, inaccurate when he says that, the amount was last reviewed in 1948. As I said, it is under constant review, and the fact that there has been no change does not mean that it has not been reviewed. In any case, it was particularly reviewed in January 1959 by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer—the noble Viscount, Lord Amory as he now is—who gave it formal basis. I would also refer the noble Lord to an Answer to a similar Question which was given by my right honourable friend in the other place on 14th November 1974, at column 185, when he said that an increase in the amount of tax allowance on luncheon vouchers was, in his opinion, not justified.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, if the noble Lord has 15p, will he take it out into the City of Westminster and see exactly what he can buy for 15p—and then come back and report to the House?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I have no need to go out. I know what 15p will buy. There is a complete misconception here. The luncheon voucher allowance of 15p was never intended to cover the cost of the meal. The facts are these. Some employers had canteens and they subsidised them to some extent. It was intended that the tax allowance of up to 15p should cover the subsidy which the employee did not get because there was no canteen. That was the intention of the allowance. It is our information that the average subsidy does not greatly exceed the present 15p.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware, as he will be if he has read the paragraphs in The Times newspaper, in the Daily Telegraph and in reputable newspaper organs, of the many luncheons; and dinners provided out of the Government's hospitality fund for Ministers and ex-Ministers—although have never been invited to one—and for

163
innumerable civil servants who receive very good luncheons, according to what I hear? Would he ask his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to turn his attention to the possibility of raising revenue from that source?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I think that, obviously, that is quite another question.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, does the noble Lord not appreciate that when luncheon vouchers were first fixed at this sum, it was quite possible to buy a two-course hot lunch for what was then three shillings?
Lord JACQUES: Yes, my Lords, I understand that; but it was not the intention to cover the cost of the meal. The intention was to cover the hidden subsidy of the employer with a canteen. In our view, it still covers it.
Lord MERRIVALE: Would not the Minister agree that the inflation rate in France is considerably less than in this country? If the value of a luncheon voucher has been fixed at 50p over there, are there not reasons—the noble Lord the Leader of the House shakes his head —for a review to be considered, taking into account the cost of living in France and here and the lesser inflation rate in France compared to that here?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, it is not a question of the cost of living or of inflation. The question is whether French employers subsidise canteens more than do British employers. If so, then the French would be justified in making a higher allowance for luncheon vouchers.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Tory Party, when in power from 1970 to 1974, did not look at this issue? Why do they cry now?
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, does the noble Lord know the difference in value between 15p when it was finally fixed in 1959, and its value now?
The LORD PRTVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd): My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is pursuing a point which has been effectively dealt with; and I suggest that we now move to another Question.

POST OFFICE: CHARITY STAMPS
2.54 p.m.
Lord AIREDALE: 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, in view of advertisements in the Press, and in particular in the Radio Times of 8th-14th February, which state "the new charity postage stamps … send l½p towards the help of handicapped people", they will defray the Post Office expenses which will otherwise be borne by the charitable fund.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: No, my Lords. Her Majesty's Government are not responsible for the conduct of the charity stamp experiment or for any advertisements related to it.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, I am much obliged for that Answer. I was not suggesting, or intending to suggest, that the Government were responsible. But in so far as the people who rely upon these advertisements have been led to suppose that the administrative expenses do not begin until the l½p has arrived at the charitable body, will the Government keep faith with these people by making what amounts to a charitable donation of a few thousand pounds?
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, I see no reason for the Government to do so, in view of what I have already said. I think that the noble Lord's question is best addressed to the sponsors of the advertisements. It is generally recognised that all charities have their administrative costs. At the same time, it ought to be made clear that the Post Office, in all their advertisements and Press handouts, have made it clear that the proceeds paid to the charities concerned will be the net proceeds.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, has the noble Lord read the advertisement to which I am referring? Can he say that there is any reference at all to any administrative expenses being deducted from the l½p, before the 1½p is paid to the charity?
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, must be referring to the advertisement which appears, and which continues to appear, in the Radio Times. This would have been changed, I think, had it not been for the fact that the Radio Times, in common with other large circulation organs of that type, has to be printed much in advance. I believe that the advertisement may be changed in the future.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, I accept what the Minister has now said. Will he now retract his statement made just now, in which he said that the advertisements made it perfectly clear? —because they do not make it perfectly clear.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, I thought I made it clear that the advertisements to which I was referring were those issued by the Post Office. The advertisement to which the noble Lord referred was issued not by the Post Office but by the Board of Trustees appointed by the National Council for Social Services.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, may we be assured that the administrative expenses will be shared between the Post Office and the charities in proportion to the amount that they get from the stamp; that is, 4½p and l½p.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, I do not see any real reason for that to happen. The Post Office will simply take the costs involved in producing this stamp. What the charities do, I am afraid I am not in a position to answer.

ABACO
2.58 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, in view of the personal statement by the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven and Stenton, may I say that as a matter of courtesy I informed him of this Question; but I made it clear to him that I was 1:0 make no reference to the charges against him.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will draw the attention
166
of the Commonwealth Secretariat to the article in the Daily Mail of 11th February giving details of a plan by an American syndicate to take over the island of Abaco in the Bahamas and to turn it into a millionaires' resort under an independent administration, thereby destroying self-government.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, the Bahamas is an independent State, and questions affecting its territorial integrity are entirely for its own Government to consider. The Commonwealth Secretariat has no executive function and cannot interfere in the internal affairs of other countries.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister, as usual, for that Answer, may I ask him this question? While the Commonwealth Secretariat has no executive authority, has it not the authority, in the interest of Commonwealth nations, to draw their attention to occasions when very serious objective charges are made against one part of their territories?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: No, my Lords, the Commonwealth Secretariat has no such authority. It is not for it to report on one member-State to another in the Commonwealth.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that if what is to be inferred from my noble friend's supplementary question were so, it would do away with the independence which has been granted to the Bahamas?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I think that is self-evident. I am grateful to my noble friend for pointing it out.
Lord MAELOR: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a wealthy Englishman is to take over the island of Bardsey in Wales to turn it into a millionaires' resort, under an independent administration, thereby destroying self-government? I would remind my noble friend that until recently—
Noble Lords: Order‡
Lord MAELOR: Is my noble friend aware that until recently there was a

167
King in this island, King Pritchard, and that the people there did not even pay rates; they had total self-government, and no luncheon vouchers?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am well aware of these very important constitutional facts. I am also relieved to hear there are a few wealthy Englishmen left and that they propose to spend their wealth in Wales.

PUBLIC SEARCH ROOM
Lord TEVIOT: 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 a decision has been reached as to the future location of the Public Search Room of the Registrar General's Department.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Yes, my Lords. The Director of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys and Registrar General is today announcing which parts of the Office will be dispersed to Southport, and also that the Public Search Room will remain at St. Catherine's House, London.
Lord TEVIOT: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for the great trouble he has taken and for his personal intervention in this matter? The many people and various bodies affected by this move will also be extremely grateful to him.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord, but your Lordships' House should know that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, himself deserves a great deal of credit for this situation because of his persistence which we have experienced over nearly the last 12 months. I hope the situation will indicate to him that our minds were not closed on this matter and that we have been much assisted by him and his friends in reaching this decision.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, may I express on behalf of all of us great appreciation of what the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has said and express our thanks to him for keeping to his under-taking given when we debated this matter
168
before Christmas, and for keeping to the guarantee given by the previous Government about the Public Search Room? I am delighted to add my tribute to my noble colleague Lord Teviot for his tenacity.
Lord TEVIOT: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I am extremely grateful for his kind remarks and those of my noble friend? Can he give any indication of the service we are likely to enjoy when the rest of the Department, possibly, goes to Southport? What kind of delay will there be in the production of certificates? Will a telex system be installed?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Not at this stage, my Lords. If I may presume to give the noble Lord advice, I suggest he be content with the situation as it is. We are in the process of working out the back-up services that can be given.

HOUSING RENTS AND SUBSIDIES BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS BILL
3.5 p.m.
Lords WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill provides for increases in pensions and other benefits under the National Insurance and industrial injuries schemes. These benefits were last increased in the week beginning 22nd July 1974, and it is proposed that they should be further increased from the week beginning 7th April of this year. The Bill also provides for the first increase in family allowances since 1968 and for the first increase in supplementary benefit disregards since 1966. I am sure the whole House will give a warm welcome not only to the increases and improvements provided by the Bill but also to the two entirely new disablement benefits which are introduced by it.
The increase in National Insurance benefits are provided under Clause 1 and Schedule 1. The standard rate of long-term benefits, namely retirement, invalidity and widows' pensions, will be increased by £1·60, from £10 to £11·60,

169
for single persons, and by £2·50, from £16 to £18·50, for married couples. As your Lordships will know, the Government have undertaken to increase pensions and other long-term benefits in line with the movement in the general level of earnings, unless on a particular occasion it would be more advantageous to beneficiaries if regard were had to the movement in the general level of prices. On this occasion earnings are more advantageous. The standard rate of pension for single persons will be increased, after rounding, by 16 per cent.; for married couples the increase will be just over 15½ per cent. Since pensions are being increased by reference to the movement in gross earnings, the majority of pensioners will fare better than the working population who have deductions made for National Insurance contributions and income tax.
The Government are well aware that prices and earnings have not stood still since our proposals were announced in November, and I would remind your Lordships that a further uprating has been promised for later this year. In the present inflationary situation pensions and benefits will be uprated as frequently as is necessary. But already in our two uprarings since we took office just under a year ago pensions will have been increased in money terms—I acknowledge it is just money terms—by 50 per cent. Our first uprating in July 1974 was such that in January of this year the pension still, after six months, represented an improvement in real terms, after allowing for price increases, of 4 per cent. for single persons and over 3 per cent. for married couples on the levels introduced by the Administration of noble Lords opposite in October 1973.
Other benefits will be increased proportionately. Details of the increases are given in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill and in the Government Actuary's Report, which no doubt many of your Lordships have seen. To give just a couple of examples, a widowed mother with one dependent child will have her benefit increased by £2·35 per week, from £14·90 to £17·25; and an invalidity pensioner whose incapacity began before the age of 35 and who has a dependent wife and two children will have his benefit increased by £4·35 per week, from £27·85 to £32·20,
170
including family allowances. There will be pro rata increases in benefits payable at the reduced rates. Your Lordships will welcome the fact that from April the increments to pensions, which are payable when retirement is deferred, will not only be increased but will also be uprated, for the first time, in line with the pension increases.
There will be corresponding increases in benefits under the industrial injuries scheme; for example, disablement pensions at the 100 per cent. rate will go up from £16·40 to £19. Short-term benefits—that is, unemployment benefit, sickness benefit, maternity allowance under the national insurance scheme and injury benefit under the industrial injuries scheme—which are linked for uprating purposes to the movement in prices will be increased by 14 per cent. This means that the increase will be £1·20 for a single person and £2 for a married couple. A man who is entitled to unemployment benefit, for example, with increases in respect of a dependent wife and three children, will have his flat rate benefit increased by £3·20. In consequence, his income will go up from £22 to £25·20, including family allowances. The Government intend to maintain the purchasing power of the flat-rate, short-term benefits, and an earnings-related supplement can be paid in addition to these flat-rate benefits.
If your Lordships will allow me to return to the Bill, Clause 2 and Schedule 2 deal with the increases in benefits under the industrial injuries scheme. As your Lordships know, war pensions will be similarly increased by means of Instruments under the Royal Prerogative. Your Lordships know also that war pensions have always been dealt with in this way. Before I turn to the other main provisions of the Bill, I should refer to supplementary benefit scale rates. These will be increased, by means of Regulations which are now before your Lordships' House under the Affirmative Resolution procedure, from the same time as the corresponding contributory benefits. The main scale rates are being increased by the same amounts as the corresponding contributory benefits, and in this way we can ensure that those social security beneficiaries who are in most need get the full benefit of the proposed increases.

171
Another step in this direction has been taken by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment who, having consulted his Advisory Committee, proposes to make corresponding increases in the needs allowances for rent and rate rebates and rent allowances to ensure that, as in last July's uprating, housing benefits will not normally be affected by the increases in social security benefits. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced proposals for new and improved tax allowances for elderly people over the age of 65.
The Government had to have regard, when our proposals were prepared, to the serious economic difficulties facing this country which make restraint on public expenditure essential. We were determined to protect, to the fullest possible extent, pensioners and other people who depend on social security benefits. We considered that a further relaxation in the earnings rule—which was substantially relaxed in July of last year by this Government— could not be justified on the grounds of priority. But I am sure that it will not have escaped the attention of noble Lords that the Government's view did not prevail in another place.
Several Noble Lords: Hear, hear‡
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, it is all very well for noble Lords to say, "Hear, hear! "Perhaps they would give the House an account of what they did when they were in power, when the financial position of this country was a lot better than it is now. If we are to have cries of "Hear, hear!", let them be backed by sound facts. It is all right, my Lords: I am not cross
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord is getting cross‡
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: No, my Lords, I never get cross‡ I just want to maintain a balance. As I was saying, the Bill which is before your Lordships' House contains subsection (3) of Clause 1 which was added in another place, the purport of which was to increase from April 1975, from £13 to £20, the level of earnings at which retirement pensions are affected. Your Lordships know what happened in the other place. The change
172
would also apply to the wives of invalidity and retirement pensioners who reside with them. The Bill provides for the level of £20 to be raised to £35 after one year, and for the £35 to go up to £50 after another year. We have to face the cost of this; I do not think anyone on either side of the House has not had doubts in recent months about this matter. We must take into account the times in which we are living and the financial implications. The cost to the National Insurance Fund of this change for pensioners who have earnings would be £60 million in the current financial year of 1975–76, if the £20 became operative then, £110 million in 1976–77 and £145 million in 1977–78. I believe that that is in excess of £300 million.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord and ask him whether those figures arc net of tax? In other words, are they gross figures?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, as I understand it, this would be the cost to the National Insurance Fund. This is what the National Insurance Fund would have to bear in additional cost.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord once again, this is not the net cost to the Exchequer. The Exchequer will recover income tax on these sums.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Yes, my Lords, that is perfectly true. But if the noble Lord, as I am sure he has done, works out the amount involved, it is not very significant when one considers what the actual cost will eventually be. I said just now that the purport of the provision is to increase the level of earnings from April 1975. I used the word "purport" quite deliberately, because the Government are advised—I want to say this with some degree of emphasis and, if I may say so, rather slowly—that there may be some question as to whether the new sub-section technically achieves all that its sponsors intended when this was passed in another place. The Government are still considering this point. At this stage I am unable to go beyond that, because I understand that the technicalities are legal ones and that advice is being taken.
I move on now to Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill which replace the existing requirements for future upratings. The

173
link between long-term benefits and earnings which we first provided statutorily last year is retained, but in a simplex form which I am sure will commend itself to your Lordships.
My Lords, I turn now to Clauses 5, 6 and 7, which provide the framework for a non-contributory invalidity pension and an invalid care allowance. These new benefits are the first fruits of the report to Parliament last September on Social Security Provision for Chronically Sick and Disabled People by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. This is a matter which was debated on more than one occasion in your Lordships' House.
That Report resulted from a review in depth of the position of sick and disabled people in relation to the existing fabric of benefits, and it identifies three priority areas. First, there were found to be some 220,000 men and single women who had been totally incapable of work for a long time but who were receiving only means-tested supplementary benefit, or in some cases less than that. Secondly, there were housewives—40,000 or so married women who wore so disabled as to be not only incapable of work but also unable to perform normal household duties. Thirdly, there were those mainly single women who had sacrificed jobs, careers and, in some cases, marriage to wait—if I may use the expression kindly—hand and foot on a severely disabled parent or parents. These devoted daughters were also obliged to resort to supplementary benefit. What, therefore, the Government have set out to do in Clauses 5 to 7 is to provide modest but radically new non-means-tested benefits for well over a quarter of a million people who, though deprived of the chance to earn or to do their housework, are without rights under the contributory arrangements.
Perhaps I should stress, my Lords, that the noncontributory invalidity pension is not a benefit for disablement as such. If non-contributory invalidity pension were a benefit for, perhaps, "loss of faculty "or" restriction of activities ", it would make no sense at all to introduce it for those who have no contribution record, while denying it to those who had one. Clause 6 makes clear that the non-contributory invalidity pension is a benefit for incapacity for work or, in the case of the house-
174
wife, incapacity for work and incapacity to perform normal household duties. The non-contributory invalidity pension is set at the non-contributory level of £6·90 in April, 1975, terms. We are hoping to make the first payments this year, except for housewives. The Amendment agreed to in Standing Committee in another place merely anticipated the Government's own legislation on housewives' non-contributory invalidity pension by a month or two. But it is still the case that the benefit cannot be brought in for some time, and perhaps your Lordships will permit me to explain why.
Inability to perform normal household duties is an entirely new concept. It is less of a purely medical question than incapacity for work; so the procedure for claiming may well require non-medical as well as medical evidence. A fair and workable scheme must be evolved. Thus we are faced with two major hurdles: devising appropriate arrangements and fitting them into the operational programme. The Government share with disabled people and their organisations a desire to improve the lot of the disabled housewife as soon as possible. But the facts must be faced frankly and squarely. There is a formidable array of tasks facing the Department of Health and Social Security over the next two years, some of them imposed by this Bill. I would be less than frank with your Lordships if I were to suggest that housewives non-contributory invalidity pension was likely to come in before 1977, though the Government will aim for the earliest practicable date.
Before I turn to Clause 7 and invalid care allowance perhaps I could helpfully refer to a point which properly belongs to Clause 11 and Schedule 3 to the Bill which deal with sums to be disregarded in calculating supplementary benefit. There can be no question of disregarding non-contributory invalidity pensions, in whole or in part. To do so would make nonsense of the long-standing principle that State benefits having the same purpose—personal maintenance benefits in this case—should not overlap or be duplicated; and of our policy of reducing reliance on means-tested benefits.
The invalid care allowance, for which Clause 7 provides, is on many counts a leap into the dark. We do not know

175
how it will work out in practice and we might as well be frank about it. In another place it was explained that we do not even have any means of estimating what the initial uptake will be. So the wise and responsible approach is to tread warily. There are ample powers in Clause 7 to extend the invalid care allowance net once it has been cast. The single daughter, for whom the National Council for the Single Woman and her Dependants have compaigned so vigorously, will be in from the beginning; so will other relatives such as sons, nieces, et cetera, and the invalid care allowance, also at £6·90 a week in April, 1975, terms, will be put into payment in the course of the financial year 1976–77.
My Lords, some recent criticism of our proposals has emphasised that people who are disabled are ordinary members of the community, but has overlooked the implications of this in terms of this uprating. All I would say is, first, that the increases in benefits will put £110 million a. year into the pockets of those receiving benefit specifically for chronic sickness or disablement; in addition, 2½ million retirement pensioners who have some measure of disablement will benefit from the higher pensions the Bill brings. This £110 million is additional to the £26 million net which a £6·90 noncontributory invalidity pension and invalid care allowance would cost in a full year. Secondly, legislation will be introduced before very long to provide for the new mobility allowance which we announced last September; and our new long-term pensions proposals include earnings-related invalidity pensions. Non-contributory invalidity pension and invalid care allowance are, therefore, but a step —though I believe your Lordships will concede it to be a substantial one—on the road to better benefits for sick and disabled people.
Clause 8 of the Bill provides for various minor amendments to social security legislation with similar provisions for Northern Ireland, where appropriate. I do not think that I need to deal in detail with the contents of that clause. Next I turn to Clause 9, which provides for the first increase in family allowances since they were previously increased, by a Labour Government, in 1968. On this occasion, while the increases will be subject to normal taxation, there will be no
176
"claw-back". The increases will take effect from the week beginning 7th April 1975, and we are proposing that family allowances should be paid at a uniform rate of £1.50 a week for each child after the first. Thus the rate for the second child will be increased by 60p a week and for each subsequent child by 50p a week. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has promised that a Statement will be made in another place about the details of our further proposals for extending a cash payment to the first child through our child benefit scheme. This is a Statement which I hope will be made in the not too distant future.
Clause 10 of the Bill provides a purely technical change. So finally, in trying to confine my remarks to the main provisions, I turn to Clause 11 which, with Schedule 3, provides for substantial improvements in supplementary benefit disregards. Under these proposals all savings up to £1,200 will be completely disregarded in calculating supplementary benefit and the disregards of income will be simplified. The amount of earnings to be disregarded will be doubled. As you know, my Lords, certain part-time workers are allowed £2 not to be taken into account. The figure will in future be one of £4, and there are several other categories where the disregard will be doubled. This improvement, which was one of the recommendations of the Finer Committee on One-Parent Families, will be, we feel—and we hope your Lordships will feel so top—of particular help to this type of family. In addition, the earnings of dependent children who are under 16 or are still at school will be completely disregarded. These changes in the supplementary benefit scheme will be implemented as soon as it is operationally possible after the main uprating of benefit rates has been completed.
The increases and improvements will benefit about 11½ million people apart from the 4½ million families whose family allowances are to be increased. The increases and improvements contained in the Bill, apart from the changes in the earnings rule to which I have already referred, will cost over £1,070 million in a full year. To this can be added over £90 million for the increases in rates under the supplementary benefit and war pensions schemes, so that the total cost of what I have been describing will exceed £1,160 million. On top of that will

177
be the cost of the changes in the earnings rule.
My Lords, I have spoken at some length and perhaps I ought to apologise to your Lordships for having done so, but I will now conclude my remarks. The Government are committed to protecting and improving the lot of the elderly and others who are no longer part of the working population. This Bill demonstrates how we are continuing to discharge that commitment and how, despite the present serious economic difficulties, we are resolved to carry on along the road to—I know it is a much-hackneyed phrase but I want to use it—social justice. I commend the Bill to your Lordships and I hope your Lordships will welcome it and will give it—and I want to emphasise this—a speedy passage. Thank you for your attention, my Lords.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down may I ask him about one small point. I did not want to interrupt him earlier in such a closely reasoned speech. He referred to the increments for deferring pensions, but I am not quite clear where that comes in this Bill.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, it will not come into this particular Bill. I imagine it will come in the Bill for better pensions, which I hope will be available fairly soon.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, before my noble friend deservedly relaxes after his explicit and clear speech, for which we all thank him, I should like to ask him a question on industrial injuries. Has the noble Lord a note of the amount by which that benefit will be increased? In my day in the Ministry one of the largest funds was the industrial injuries fund, and I should like to ask whether he now has figures about that, and whether that industrial injuries fund has been raided by any other Departmental Minister?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I have an enormous amount of information here, including the tables showing the increases. If the noble Lord will allow me a moment or two to look at them I can probably give him the information in the next few minutes.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: It will do later, my Lords.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
3.37 p.m.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for having explained this Bill in detail to us and for having "kept his cool", despite the fact that at one moment he appeared to be rather cross with us! On the whole, we welcome the Bill. Obviously, increases in benefit for those in need are always welcome, although at the same time when costs of this magnitude are involved I think we must remember that this cost falls on those who subscribe to the National Insurance fund or on the taxpayer.
The Bill is much improved as a result of two major Amendments made in another place against the advice of the Government. These were, first, the phased relaxation of the earnings rule, by three annual stages, as the noble Lord explained to us; and secondly, the extension of the new non-contributory invalidity pension for disabled people to cover disabled housewives who cannot perform their normal household duties.
So far as the earnings rule is concerned it has never been popular; indeed it has been extremely unpopular on all sides of this House, and in that connection I always think of my noble friend Lord Reigate, who is to speak later in this debate. He has been a dire opponent of the earnings rule for many years, and I am sure now he is enjoying his triumph. My memory, too, goes back to the days when we were discussing our Social Security Bill of 1973 and when in solid array noble Lords opposite were trooping into the Lobby against the Government, asking for the complete abolition of the earnings rule, not merely its relaxation. On that occasion I made no attempt whatever to defend the rule on its merits, only as a matter of priorities.
Now the Labour Party in government are reaping the whirlwind. Now the situation has changed, and they find themselves in the position of defending the maintenance of the rule on grounds of

179
cost. However, as the noble Lord has explained to us, they failed to carry all their own supporters with them and the result is that we have the relaxation of the rule, which I am sure will be welcomed on all sides of this House. The noble Lord kindly spelled out the fact that there was some doubt about the wording of this clause and that there were legal technicalities which had to be gone into. I would ask him whether he would undertake to inform the House, before the Bill leaves us, as to what these technicalities are and to what extent they have been overcome?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. Of course I shall give that undertaking. The only thing I ask him to do is not to press me today, because I could not give a satisfactory and intelligent reply as the matter is still being considered; but, of course, the House must know this.
Lord ABERDARE: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, because he made out that there was a difficulty. It would be wrong to pass the Bill not knowing what the difficulty was and whether it was possible to tackle it. So far as provision for the disabled housewives is concerned, in their original Clause 6 the Government proposed a new non-contributory invalidity pension limited to people incapable of work and excluding married women living with their husbands or maintained by them. There was no provision for the disabled married woman who was incapable of performing normal household duties. If passed in that form, the Bill would have led to a number of most peculiar anomalies. A disabled husband with a working wife would receive the new benefit, while a disabled wife with a working husband would not; yet clearly the extra amount of cars and household work would be exactly the same. Another anomaly would be that a disabled single woman living in the same house as her brother would receive the benefit, but a married woman with a husband doing the same amount of work for her brother would not. A third anomaly would be that a single disabled woman would have the benefit immediately taken away on marriage, and this would have been an unexpected financial detriment adding
180
very much to the difficulties of a young handicapped wife.
I mention those anomalies merely because although the situation has been put right by this Amendment to the Bill it will nevertheless persist in the intervening period until the extra allowance is expected to cover the disabled housewife. I would plead with the noble Lord that, despite the difficulties—and I do appreciate that within the Department, in the administration of this new benefit, there will be difficulties—he should try to bring in this benefit as soon as possible to avoid those anomalies. He spoke of 1977, which was the date mentioned in another place. I think this is much too far ahead and I hope that the noble Lord and his right honourable friends will do their utmost to introduce this benefit much earlier than 1977.
I should like to welcome the new invalid care allowance which will bring help to some of those who care regularly for a severely disabled person. I would ask the noble Lord whether he can explain it in more detail. I think he did it in rather a limited way when he was talking about restriction on the benefit to close relations. This will be covered by the regulations under Clause 7(1)(c) which reads:
"… the severely disabled person is either such relative of his as may be prescribed or a person of any such other description as may be prescribed."
My Lords, as the noble Lord said, this will cover the case—with which we are most concerned—of the devoted daughter looking after a disabled parent or parents and may well cover other fairly close relationships; but there will certainly be other equally deserving cases where the person caring for the disabled person is a friend or a neighbour and will not be entitled to this new allowance. I wonder whether it is right to discriminate in this way on grounds of relationship rather than on grounds of need? It will lead to many border-line cases and many anomalies. There will be border-line cases as it is in deciding on the qualification for the benefit, and I should not have thought it desirable to introduce another element of doubt over the question of the relationship between the caring and the cared for.
The noble Lord said it was impossible to forecast the number of claims. I

181
thought that there was a figure of 11,500 people involved in possible claims for invalid care allowance. With that relatively small number, I think it would have been better to avoid difficult border-line decisions and to rest on the degree of disablement and the need for regular care, rather than the relationship between the two persons.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord. We were just discussing this and I wonder whether the noble Lord said that the disabled housewives would not benefit until 1977?
Lord ABERDARE: I was trying to urge the noble Lord to amend this and bring it in a little earlier. In his speech he said it would not be possible for those persons to benefit until 1977, which corresponds to what was said in another place.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I thank the noble Lord. I apologise.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, in Clause 9 there is an increase in family allowance, but it still excludes the eldest child. I think it is a tragedy for our Social Services that the Government have set their face against the tax credit scheme. This was a highly ingenious plan which would have brought real benefit to many people and—something I should have thought would have particularly appealed to the noble Lords opposite—it would have greatly reduced means tests for benefits. It would have helped the family by giving credit for the eldest child, and it would have particularly helped the one-parent family, which was the subject of the Finer Report. I believe this is a great opportunity missed by the Government who, with this Bill, have done no more than uprate family allowances for the second child and subsequent children. There is no doubt in my mind that a tax credit scheme would have brought far greater benefit to those in need than any amount of food subsidies. I believe the Government have their priorities wrong here and it is very sad that the tax credit scheme has been dropped.
Lastly may I ask the noble Lord one question on the financial side related to the Actuary's report. This was based on an assumption of 650,000 unemployed.
182
Unfortunately, that figure has already been exceeded and may well rise further. I should like to know whether the financial details worked out by the Actuary will be badly affected. I understand that for every 100,000 unemployed the National Insurance Fund loses a net £70 million as between the decrease in contributions and the increase in payments; and in that case the Fund could be very badly affected by the present level of unemployment and especially if unemployment rises further. Can the noble Lord assure me that the Fund is, in fact, in a solvent state and that it will not be necessary to raise contributions? In general, my Lords, we welcome the improvements to the Bill. We believe it is a better Bill since it left another place, and I would press the noble Lord only to see whether he can speed up some of the provisions that depend on the financial provisions in the Bill.
3.50 p.m.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, it is with considerable trepidation that I rise to address your Lordships' House for the first time, but I am fortified by the hope that the House will extend to me the indulgence which I understand is customary on these occasions. If I were seeking a phrase to express my reaction to this Bill, I think I would choose the Gilbertian exclamation, "modified rapture ". In this Bill there are many pluses, but these are balanced by a number of minuses. For example, we must all welcome the increase in benefits, the highest in actual terms ever made. Yet we have been reminded this afternoon that all these increases do is to restore the value of benefits severely eroded by inflation.
Even now, there is good reason to question whether a 16 per cent. increase for long-term benefits provided by the Bill will cover the rise in costs from July 1974 to April 1975. Alter all, coal went up 20 per cent. in November, and we heard yesterday that it is shortly to go up yet another 10 to 12 per cent. Electricity is to go up this spring by 25 to 30 per cent. It is vitally important at least to maintain the real value of benefits. We have been told there will be a further uprating in the autumn. This is to be welcomed, but the danger is that the upratings will never catch up with the increases in the cost of living.

183
My Lords, if we are to eliminate poverty, we cannot be content merely to maintain the value of benefits. We must increase the value of benefits. I ask your Lordships to take, for example, the case of the retirement pension. The essential point about the retirement pension in this country is that it is inadequate. One-third of retirement pensioners are on supplementary benefit; one-third are probably just above that level. The first step in a retirement pension policy must be to secure a substantial increase in the real value of the retirement pension at the earliest possible date. I am aware of the considerable problems of cost, but should we not be prepared to shoulder the burden in this generation, rather than content ourselves with plans for ensuring that a future generation shoulders a burden which we decline?
I am glad that the Bill comes before us containing Clause 1(3), the subsection which raises the earnings rule limit over three years to £50. I would prefer, had it been possible, to eliminate the earnings rule altogether, because it has always seemed to me wrong that someone with a large investment income can enjoy the whole of his pension, whereas someone with no other resources is penalised for earning a comparatively few pounds. It is important to establish as soon as possible the principle that the retirement pension is paid as of right, subject, of course, to tax, but regardless of all other sources of income. Eventually, in the future, I hope it will be possible for any man or woman to draw their pension at any time between the ages of 60 and 70, whatever they may be earning at that time, the amount of the pension being adjusted to the point in the ten-year term at which the individual begins to draw the pension.
The only qualification I would make for drawing the pension is a suitable period of residence in this country. If this could be done, one would have one individual person's pension, which every individual with the qualification of being over the retirement age would be able to draw, whether married or not. The present married couple's pension would disappear. If this were provided within the scope of the tax credit scheme, then a housing credit could take care of the difference in costs facing those who live
184
alone and those who live in the same household as others. The present anomaly, perpetuated in the Bill, whereby a married couple receive less than two single persons living in the same household, would be removed.
My Lords, I welcome the introduction of the noncontributory invalidity pension and the invalid care allowance. These are considerable pluses, but there are minuses as well, because it will be a little while, as we have heard, before they are actually available. There will be a longer delay in the case of the non-contributory invalidity pension for housewives. I support the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that the Government should introduce this at the earliest possible moment. It is disappointing, perhaps, that the invalidity pension is fixed at only 60 per cent. of the retirement pension level for a single person; that is to say, £6·90 a week. The increase in family allowances is long overdue and much to be welcomed. The leveling-up of the benefit for the second child to that of the third and subsequent children is a common sense improvement, but by the time the Bill is implemented seven years will have passed since the last increase. This is another minus.
According to a Government statement the retail price index, which underestimates the price increase for poor families, increased by 55·7 per cent. during the period between the last family allowance increase and May 1974. That is the increase to May 1974, but of course we all know how prices have risen since then. In spite of the substantial increases, it looks as though family allowances, raised 66 per cent. for the second child and 50 per cent. for the third and subsequent children, may not have been restored to the real value which they acquired at the time the last increase was made. There is a welcome commitment in the Bill to review National Insurance benefits annually in the light of increases in earnings and prices, but unfortunately this commitment does not extend to family allowances.
Finally, I regret that it was not found possible to provide a family allowance for the first child. This would help all families with children, but in particular would help 7 million mothers in this country and half the nation's children, who are excluded from the existing family

185
allowance system. In this connection, it is relevant to bear in mind that one-third of poor families have only one child. I realise that the Government are pledged to introduce this reform, and hope it will not be long delayed. When it comes, I hope it will be coupled with a further increase in the family allowance generally, the abolition of income tax on children's allowances and the extension of the claw-back principle. A family endowment scheme of this kind would make a start on the road towards a full tax credit system. I have given some indications of the pluses and minuses in this Bill, as I see them Once again, I welcome the pluses, while expressing those reservations about the minuses.
3.58 p.m.
Lord CRAWSHAW: My Lords, the honour falls to me this afternoon to speak on behalf of the whole House in congratulating most warmly the noble Lord, Lord Banks, on his maiden speech. His was a most composed performance, and he showed himself to be a complete master of this very complicated field of pensions. I gather that the noble Lord in the past has been chairman of the Liberal Party. Therefore, I am sure he is going to be a great asset both to his Party and to the whole House. As I am, so to speak, the "sandwich" speaker in today's debate, I should like to say how much we look forward to hearing the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington.
My Lords, I am aware that I address your Lordships fairly frequently on this sort of subject—I hope not too often. My interest was aroused because of my previous interest in the Social Security Act of 1973. It seems to me that so much of what is in this Bill follows very closely upon that Act. I realise that today's debate takes place against a background of high inflation and calls from many quarters for curbs on Government spending, which many people believe to be the, or at any rate a, cause of this inflation. We have heard this afternoon from the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, that the measures in this Bill, quite apart from the earnings rule, will in fact cost the Exchequer over £1,100 million. This is not really the time for a general economic debate, but I should like to pick up one or two points the noble Lord, Lord Banks, made on this subject, because a Bill such as this is highly vulnerable in an
186
inflationary situation, and the provisions and benefits which it sets out to make, and which we hope will accrue to many people, could all too quickly be seriously eroded unless our currency is protected. No doubt these considerations and their relationship to the proposals in this Bill are uppermost in the minds of, among other people, the former Secretary of State for Social Services in the last Conservative Government.
Another problem in passing legislation such as this is the need to keep it as simple as possible, so that, first, an enormous and expensive bureaucracy does not need to be set up to administer it, and, secondly, people can readily understand what is being done and help to ensure that the benefits reach those in the greatest need. We have so often seen—I know this perfectly well from my own experience—the difficulties in the rent allowance scheme, for instance, where the proposals are very good but the question of the benefits reaching those that need them most is always very difficult. As I say, this Bill is essentially a corollary to the 1973 Act. To my mind, there is hardly any political content in it; it is not a matter of its being Left or Right Wing. I believe it to be simply an old-fashioned act of chivalry, and it deals with matters which should be the concern of every Briton worth the name.
I hope I should not be accused of fawning if I were to say that I have sometimes been overwhelmed by the chivalry and support which your Lordships have given to propositions which in the past I and others have made along the lines of the provisions of this Bill. I hesitate to take issue with such an eminent authority as Edmund Burke, but I feel he was inaccurate on several counts, including his forecast of the fortunes of the EEC, when he said in a famous passage:
" The age of chivalry is gone; that of sophists, economists and calculators has succeeded, and the glory of Europe is extinguished forever ".
Turning to the details of the Bill, I am glad that at least three points that we debated fairly fully here in 1973 have been included. I welcome, along with other noble Lords, the abolition of the earnings rule for retirement pensioners, and also, incidentally, for the wives of invalidity pensioners; I do not think that

187
has been mentioned up to now. I also welcome the concept of the non-contributory invalidity pension in Clause 6. It has always seemed to me that the worst off people in this field, or in any other field for that matter, are those who have not been in a position to contribute to the National Insurance fund; that is, those who are very severely stricken before even starting work; and, of course —and this has been mentioned several times this afternoon—the disabled house-wives. I am glad that they receive recognition in this Bill. In passing, I should like to add my congratulations to those Back-Bench Members of the other place who have so successfully championed their cause. It shows what can be done by our Parliamentary democracy.
I understand—I think the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, confirmed this this afternoon—that the Secretary of State has had trouble in defining disabled housewives. It is not really my field to preach to the Secretary of State exactly what a housewife is, especially in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Castle, but we did in fact discuss this in the debate here on the 12th June 1973. It was the noble Countess, Lady Loudoun, who explained that normally a housewife's job is cooking, housework and shopping. House-wives who can do two out of three of these chores are usually defined as active. Those who can do only one or none are defined as non-active. I hope that is a basis of definition which will appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell.
New ground has been broken by the concept of a non-contributory invalidity pensioner; though obviously at this stage, and I accept this, anomalies will exist. For example, he will receive £6.90 under the Bill, or 60 per cent. of that paid to a contributory pensioner, who will receive £11.60; whereas his child—that is, the child of the non-contributory invalidity pensioner—will receive £5.65, in fact the same as the child of the contributory invalidity pensioner.
Like other noble Lords, I welcome the new concept of the invalid care allowance. I remember this being argued very forcefully in this House by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, in 1973. I accept the problem of the anomaly here, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Aberdare, on the question of relationship, and I
188
expect we shall deal with that at the Committee stage.
When this Bill was being debated in the other place, I originally pricked up my ears when I heard that the earnings rule for retirement pensioners was to be abolished. I am concerned that there is nothing proposed in this Bill to encourage the invalidity pensioner, or indeed the non-contributory invalidity pensioner, to return to part-time and from there to fulltime work. Although the earnings rule for the retirement pensioner and the wife of the invalidity pensioner is to be abolished, the invalidity pensioner himself is still only to be allowed to earn £4.50 before he loses his entitlement to his entire pension. In our debate at the Committee stage of the 1973 Act, in which no fewer than 12 noble Lords took part, I quoted the case of a professional man, aged 45, with three children, who had multiple sclerosis and was no longer able to go out to work. He was then entitled to an invalidity pension of £19 a week, which by now will be about £25. He wanted to do part-time work in his own home, but he dare not risk it because of the rule which lays down that as soon as he earns more than £4.50 a week he loses his entire pension.
As a result of this rule, about one-third of invalidity pensioners fall back on supplementary benefits instead of doing something to earn their keep, and the supplementary benefits are a considerable charge on the Exchequer. I appreciate that this is really a Committee stage point, but I wanted to warn the Government that I shall be pursuing this matter. I received considerable support on the last occasion, and only withdrew my Amendment because of the general review that was about to take place. But I am much encouraged to go into this question further on this occasion because of the abolition of the earnings rule for the retirement pensioner and the wife of the invalidity pensioner, and the opinion expressed in the previous debate by my noble friend Lord Aberdare, when he contended that the invalidity pensioner in fact had a stronger case than the retirement pensioner. I rather tend to agree with the view expressed by my noble friend. This apart, I support the trends and the new concepts in this Bill, and I look forward to further improvements at the Committee stage.
4.11 p.m.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, I rise to ask the indulgence of the House which is customarily extended to all those that have the opportunity of addressing it for the first time. I only hope that I am able to emulate the noble Lord, Lord Banks, in the magnificent effort he made in the course of his admirable speech. With the permission of the House, I should like to consider the Bill within the setting of the whole social security provisions currently in force in this country. Indeed, in so doing I shall be following the example of my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell who touched on a number of matters that are, strictly speaking, outside the ambit of the formal provisions of the Bill itself.
Immediately following the last war, over thirty years ago now, Parliament enacted a whole series of social security provisions which, at that time, were calculated to remove the whole spectre of insecurity from the mass of the people of our country. A number of Bills were passed, and the basic assumptions on which all those enactments were based were, first, that there should be a first-class National Health Service; secondly, that there should be adequate provision for housing; thirdly, that there would be conditions of full employment; and, fourthly, that there would be some progress towards the ensuring of a fairer share to all the people of our country in the results of the productive effort of the nation. It seems to me that today affords one occasion when we may look back to see how far we have progressed towards those ideals put forward so forcibly at that time.
I should first like to draw your Lord-ships' attention to the position as it seemed to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in 1972. My right honourable friend is not one who is addicted to extremes. He is a man of great moderation who measures his words carefully, and this is what he wrote in 1972:
"The total of all those whose income is below, at, or a little above supplementary benefit scale level is about 10·6 million; 2 million below, 46 million on benefit, and 4 million just above."
I venture to suggest to your Lordships that this was not the state of affairs which one would have envisaged a quarter of a
190
century earlier, and that despite the efforts of successive Governments to bring in social reforms, and despite the introduction of that quite revolutionary measure, the Redundancy Payments Act 1963.
Coming to consider the existing Bill, one has to remember that since 1972 there has been the passing of the Social Security Act 1973, more recently the Social Security (Amendment) Act, and now we have the current Bill. I would respectfully suggest to your Lordships that we have to consider how far all these measures—the three that I have named, and indeed others—have gone to alter, or substantially to ameliorate, the conditions that were so aptly described by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in 1972. I should say that undoubtedly some amelioration must have taken place, and I certainly do not want in any way to imply that Her Majesty's Government, or my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Health and Social Security, have done anything other than their best, but my conjecture is, in the absence of any alternative information, that although some impact must have been made, despite inflation, on the figures quoted by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in 1972, there still remains a very solid core of people existing at, on, or slightly above subsistence level.
These people, however many millions they may be—they may be something less than the 10·6 million quoted by my right honourable friend, and say they are perhaps now, owing to the efforts of Her Majesty's Government, reduced to 7 million—are people. They are people who, in the majority of instances, are living in bad housing; they are people, in quite a large number of instances, who are living without hope; they are people who, in quite a number of instances—particularly the people who are very old—are living without that degree of personal serenity which one would hope for everyone towards the end of their natural life; they are people, the people to whom I am referring, without hope and without purpose. They are people for whom the mere provision of money does not bring happiness. They are the people for whom, like so many others, money merely makes unhappiness more comfortable.
It is not, of course, the entire fault of successive Governments that; this state of

191
affairs has come about. We know quite well—though we have no up-to-date figures—that quite a large number of people entitled to draw benefit for a variety of reasons do not in fact draw it. One of the reasons is the degree of illiteracy among the population. None of your Lordships present the other day during the débate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, can be under any illusion as to the extent of illiteracy in our, presumably, civilised country. The fact of the matter is that quite a large number of people in the country cannot read, let alone understand, the regulations that are put forward from time to time.
Moreover, the regulations themselves are far from simple. They are couched by tradition, in the terms of people who understand the world of insurance better than they understand the close domesticity of family life. They are couched in terms which are replete with cut-off points, earnings rules, disregards, cohabitation rules and so on. Further there are a large number of people who are extremely suspicious over the years of any contact at all with authority. For reasons of their own, these people do not like the intrusion of officials in their own private affairs. Then there are those who are too proud to take the amounts that the State provides and to which they are entitled. And for a very good reason too. There is a current viewpoint to which considerable, and, in my view, undesirable, publicity is given; that is, that all people who apply for benefits of this kind are scroungers and shirkers—and nobody with a degree of pride likes to be regarded on that basis. I think the time has arrived (although this is not the occasion to enlarge upon it) when some serious consideration ought to be given to taking the whole of the social security provisions outside the insurance world and think anew. My Lords, my time is up and I cannot possibly give any hint as to what kind of proposals I would put forward. But I thank your Lordships for your indulgence and I am grateful for your attention.
4.22 p.m.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, this is the first time in my membership of your Lordships' House that I have had the privilege of congratulating a speaker on
192
a maiden speech. The very civilised custom of your Lordships' House of arranging a list of speakers at least enabled me to rush to the reference books to ascertain the record of the noble Lord who has just spoken. I learned that he was a Member of Parliament from 1945 to 1950 when I joined that august assembly, so he must now belong to that very select minority who have made more than one maiden speech within these four walls. I listened with great interest to the speech which touched on rather more general issues than I think have been broached so far in this debate. It was all the better for that. I congratulate the noble Lord very much on what he said.
I should like also to offer my congratulations to the other noble Lord, Lord Banks, on his maiden speech. He seemed to me to display—apart from any other qualities—a most admirable view on the subject of the earnings rule. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, in the course of his remarks referred to the complexity of these matters. I intended to open my remarks by also referring to this problem. I must declare an interest in that in the course of recent months I have had to study something called "NI 15" on the subject of retirement pensions. I refreshed my memory of it yesterday and I can say only that, with all the advantages of a university education, clearly written though the document is, it is extremely difficult to follow. The noble Lord's remarks are very apposite because I do not see how, without a great deal of counsel and advice, average citizens of less education can always ascertain that they are getting the rights to which they are entitled. I believe he touched on a very real problem.
Apart from that point, on this Bill I should like to confine myself to one or two matters. First, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for having interrupted him at the end of his very well reasoned and admirable speech. I had gathered the impression from his speech that the increments which are given for deferred pensions were to be increased in the Bill. But I think I am right in saying that that is not so.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I not only misinformed the noble Lord but I misinformed the House. I shall

193
deal with the matter at some length at the end of the day, provided he wishes me to do so.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, I am quite happy about it because I intended to refer to the matter anyway.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, as I understand the position, it stems from the Social Security Act 1973 and it will not be in the "Better Pensions" Bill as I thought.
Lord REIGATE: I am left a little baffled, but no doubt the noble Lord will be able to clear any doubts that I raise when he comes to reply. I was about to commend the fact that the Government's White Paper announced proposals for increasing; the increments, which would mean that the man who defers his retirement will be able to earn an extra one-third to the basic pension. I think that this is very good and a long overdue change. I must give full credit to Her Majesty's Government if they have done it. as I hope they have. But, first, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he will confirm that it will ex-tend to those pensioners who have earned increments and are now drawing them, because it will mean a great deal of difference to those earning the extra £1.78 per week if that is doubled by the addition of another £1.78, which would be the effect of the new proposals. All the same when one looks at the increment matter generally it is still not a very viable proposition from the point of view of the man who is deferring his pension. I would not care to go so far as to say it was a swindle, but any insurance company which attempted to get away with the amounts which are paid, which are not based on any actuarial calculations, would find itself in considerable trouble with the Government Department concerned. The situation has been the same since 1946, and I once found in a reply to a Parliamentary Question that there never has been any actuarial basis for the increment which is offered.
Whatever other reasons a man may have for deferring his retirement, the increment is surely one of the least attractive. To take one example; the self-employed person, a man aged 65 pays approximately £600 a year (I am rounding up the figures to
194
make it easier) for five years, as a result of which he receives for himself and for his widow an increment to his retirement pension of £95 per annum only. He has forgone a pension of about £500 a year and yet his expectation of life at the age of 70 is, to put it mildly, substantially less than it was at the age of 65; so of course is that of his widow. So there are no grounds for advising a man to defer his retirement because it is worth his while. I have chosen the self-employed person in this example, but even with an employed person you get other variations. With the employed person, even if you leave out the employer's contribution, it is still a bad bargain. One rather curious feature about it is that this must be almost the only case in which women, for once, are treated more favourably. Even then it is a bad deal. But women, after all, pay less in contributions, they retire younger and they live longer, so they get a better deal than the men. But for both sexes it is a bad deal.
It will come as no surprise that the other matter to which I should like to refer is the earnings rule. I am appalled to find that in four and a half years as a Member of your Lordships' House this is the fifth time I have bored your Lordships with my views on this matter, and I have not tried to count the number of times I have addressed another place on this subject. I welcome with a resounding cheer the amendments made in another place. While I think this is a great victory, it is not a defeat for the Labour Government. It is certainly not a win for the Opposition; both Front Benches have been equally bad in their time. It is a victory for Parliament over the pundits. Let us also remember that it is not abolition but, effectively, an annulment. If it comes to an inter-Parliamentary battle, I think that the dishonour is distributed equally uneasily between the sides. The only point, if this does not suit the Labour Government, is that there may be some rough justice in the fact that, after all, it was they who invented the earnings rule in 1946.
My Lords, I regret that the time limit of 1980 for total abolition was not acceptable in another place. I think that it might be worth considering putting down an Amendment perhaps giving 1985

195
as the date by which the rule would finally be removed from the Statute Book. The fact is that the earnings rule has always been unpopular and has always been misunderstood. Its effects have never had the investigation that they should have received, but, faced with continuing opposition over nearly 30 years, no Goveminent has evolved or sought to evolve a plan for its gradual abolition. Both Parties have talked of "ultimate abolition" or of "phasing out"—mellifluous and meaningless words—but now it has been done for us. Every Government since 1950 has relaxed the earnings limit, not unaided by a Private Member in another place in 1956, but each rise has only more or less kept pace with the rise in earnings, so that the effect has been nullified.
When I hear the arguments against further reaxation—such as "We can't afford it "or" We have other priorities"—I am reminded that somebody once said that Socialism was the language of priorities. That has always seemed to me to be rather a glimpse of the obvious, because every political creed is the language of priorities; that is what politics are about. In this case, the priority has at last been chosen for us by public pressure and by the firm ruling of the House of Commons.
My Lords, we are sometimes told—or we have been told in the past—that if we relax or abolish the earnings rule we shall not be able to do this or that. The example which was most frequently cited in the recent debate in another place was that it would not enable us to increase the death benefit. This is true and always has been true. It was no less true when the earnings rule was raised from £9·50 to £13·50. Each relaxation must be at the expense of other benefits which could be brought in, but that does not make it any less right to give it priority on this occasion. I am tempted to say, if that is the argument, that indiscriminate food subsidies are just as much at the expense of an increase in the death benefit.
We are also told about the cost— and I was not quite clear about the figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. The last figure that I read for the cost of total abolition was £175 million a year after clawback—that rather awful phrase used to describe the activi-
196
ties of the Inland Revenue. I must also say that I mistrust all these figures. When I first interested myself in this question 20 years ago, the figure was £100 million. Two years ago, my noble friend Lord Aberdare said that it was £125 million and now it is £175 million. With great respect, I do not believe any of the figures, because I do not think that anyone can possibly calculate them.
It is impossible to calculate the full effect on tax, on the increments or on the changing pattern of whole or part-time employment. Anyway, what is £175 million? It has to be seen against a background of the Government Actuary's Report, which tells us that the income of the National Insurance industrial injuries fund in the current financial year will be just under £7,000 million. That means an increase of 0·5 per cent. on the contributions and, even for the selfemployed—who are probably the worst hit by the earnings rule and the lower paid of whom would stand to benefit most by abolition—it might mean an increase in the weekly stamp from about £2·41 to £2·43. I think that that would be thought by many of them to be a very worthwhile increase.
My Lords, this is certainly a great day for all those of us who for years have disliked the earnings rule and have sought to abolish it. If the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, were in her place, I am sure that she, like me, would wish, with the assistance of the right reverend Prelate, to sing a solemn Te Deum, followed by the Nunc Dimittis, because at last the earnings rule has gone.
Lord CAMOYS: My Lords, permit me to add—
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am sorry but, if the House will allow me to say so, I have seen the noble Lord make two attempts to get up. I do not know whether he wants to ask a question or to speak.
Lord CAMOYS: My Lords, I have a very brief question. Why is the first child always discriminated against?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if the noble Lord wants to put a question, I think he should have put it to me before I sat down, or he could perhaps put it in the gap following the speech of the

197
noble Lord, Lord Sandys, though I understand that another noble Lord is to speak after him.
Lord CAMOYS: My Lords, my apologies to the Minister and to my fellow Peers.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, no apology at all is required.
4.38 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, permit me to add my congratulations to those already given to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and to my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington on their maiden speeches. Both speakers showed a comprehension of the detail and of the wide-ranging social significance of the Bill which is before the House today. My noble friend Lord Bruce was already in the House of Commons when I arrived there in 1949, and your Lordships will remember that we were then occupying your Lordships' Chamber for the purpose of meetings of the House of Commons. I made my maiden speech from about where the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, is now sitting.
When I arrived I looked around my friends for someone on whom to model my Parliamentary style and behaviour. My noble friend Lord Bruce was one person to whom I gave very close consideration: his voice was clear and his style and invective were very much to my taste, but I thought that I could never match him in lashing the Tories as he could do in another place. We may see a glimpse of that style in the course of his contributions in your Lordships' House in the future. I hope so, because I feel that a little vitality, invigoration, conviction and enthusiasm will do this House no harm. I hope that we shall hear from my noble friend many times in the future.
This is an important and a welcome Bill, but it is not a Bill for congratulation on plans fulfilled and hopes accomplished. When we look back on the past seventeen years only, we see the whole path of social reform strewn with the wreckage of attempts to bring about this great reform of social security that so many of us have dreamed of and have worked for, but have not yet seen. In 1957—seventeen years ago—the Labour Party produced its comprehensive
198
National Superannuation Scheme. In 1960, a Conservative Government, in introducing the graduated pension scheme, declared that the flat rate principle was no longer enough, that it could not satisfy the retirement needs of those in the higher wages and salary groups and some supplementation of the flat rate scheme was clearly called for. So we had the graduated scheme, called the Boyd-Carpenter Scheme, of 1960 which many of my friends said was a swindle. I never used that word myself, because I never thought it was; but, nevertheless, it was a swindle that was going to be swept away at the earliest possible moment. Then, in 1970—ten years afterwards—a Labour Government introduced the National Superannuation Scheme, then in the hands of our late friend, Richard Crossman. That scheme passed through all its stages in the House of Commons —except Report and Third Reading— and then fell at the time of the General Election in 1970. That was to be the earnings related scheme, the new concept of social security to replace the outworn Beveridge idea of flat rate benefits for flat rate contributions.
A Conservative Government then introduced their social security scheme of 1973. We were back with the flat rate concept, with the supplementation of approved occupational schemes. A change of Government came about in 1974 and that scheme was scrapped, and we are now awaiting the Labour Government's new version of social security reform. Meanwhile, we have this Bill to go through the processes of uprating the flat rate benefits. It is no occasion for congratulations upon the accomplishment of some great reform. I wish to refer, my Lords, to one or two important matters upon which I have criticisms to make. I believe Parliament develops the critical faculty, and I think that this is the place for that to be done. Fulsome praise for all that Governments do is bad for them; they become complacent and lazy, and full of virtue, and therefore I think that a little criticism, even of one's friends, does not go amiss. I had plenty of it myself and I do not see why others should not bear it, too.
With regard to family allowances, my noble friend, Lord Wells-Pestell, said that the improvement would be made in family allowances right across the board,

199
without any clawback. This means that only the normal incidence of taxation will be brought to bear on noncontributory family allowances, no matter what the income of the parents. I was a very strong advocate of the clawback system in 1965 and 1966. I believed that the separation of child relief for tax purposes and non-contributory family allowances for social benefit purposes was not the most satisfactory combination to provide family endowment, and I wanted to bring them together, so that as income rose there could be a diminishing benefit from the increase in the family allowances to a point at which the benefit was extinguished altogether. That was the principle of the clawback scheme.
My noble friend Lord Gordon-Walker, who assumed the mantle of responsibility for the social services after I relinquished it, did, in fact, see the clawback scheme through. It caused a great deal of trouble because of the inept way in which it was introduced, and the timing of it was bad—shockingly bad. The Inland Revenue was inundated with hundreds of thousands of requests for an explanation of why there had been a reduction in the tax reliefs before anybody had the increase in the family allowances. That was what went wrong in 1966. It was clumsy, and good ideas can be spoiled by clumsy application. But the principle, I thought, was a good one. But a concept—again which the Labour Party had, and to which I subscribed wholeheartedly in the years gone by—of a minimum income guarantee came later, in more sophisticated form, in the tax credit scheme. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, in questioning why the tax credit scheme appears to have been put aside entirely.
I think that in the use of vast resources at a time of national stringency, one has to look carefully at whether one is doing the best with what is being spent, even in the field of social benefits. I have never regarded it as shameful to be searching all the time for an acceptable means test. I know that the phrase "means test" is unpopular and is regarded by some people as an index to humiliations. But income tax is a means test. A tax to pay is not a humiliation; it is accepted; it is part of our official system. Some people are even proud to be in the tax brackets and
200
to be paying so much tax, or, indeed, to be paying tax at all. But a means test to receive—because of its association with the horrors of the Poor Law of the last century or two—is viewed with disfavour. If one uses the same means test to dispense social benefit, on the one hand, and to demand payment, on the other, then that means test does not provide any basis for discontent.
The tax credit scheme would have given a benefit to the first child. I heard my noble friend say that there is to be a Statement made before long about how the Government propose to deal with family allowances for the first child. I hope, however, that the tax credit scheme will not be thrown completely aside, because I believe that it contains the basis for a use of a combination of tax and social benefits which would be a more economic use of resources and provide ample benefits for those who need them without much of the disfavour of the conventional means test. I sat on the Select Committee on the tax credit scheme. I differed in some respects from my honourable friends who sat with me. As an old taxes man, I believe that there is more in income tax than meets the eye, and it can be used for beneficent purposes as well as to scourge the rich.
I turn now to the earnings rule, to which the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, also referred. I shall not shed any tears over the departure of the earnings rule. Nevertheless, I have always defended it and I have never gone into a Lobby against it. I know of no social security scheme in the world in which there is not an earnings rule as a condition of the retirement pension. So it is not just one of the quirks of the British system. It has been regarded as quite fundamental to the acceptance and application of the retirement principle. After all, why have we accepted the retirement principle? It is to provide adequate income to replace the earnings lost during retirement. Therefore, to ask that there should be a limitation on earnings in retirement is not inconsistent with the fulfilment of one's purpose of providing an adequate income in retirement.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord has made a fair point; but would he not agree with me that the trouble has always been that it

201
has been a retirement pension for five years and then it becomes an old-age pension?
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I do not defend the cutting off of the earnings rule at the age of 70. I have had the benefit of it myself, and I think it is quite undeserved. It is ridiculous that I should be deemed to have retired, even though I am 76. As long as one can go on earning, one does not need a retirement pension—at least, not a full retirement pension. But right from the beginning, it was accepted that there comes a point at which it might be unkind to pursue an aged gentleman who still has the capacity to earn something of his living and ask him, "Have you retired? Is what you are doing consistent with retirement? "They said, "Let him go. He does not have very long to go. Let him go on; and what he can earn, he can keep." But I submit to the noble Lord, let us not throw out the whole earnings rule because of that difficulty five years after the age of retirement.
I notice that there is no lamentation in the Bill. The Government have expressed no regrets in the Schedule at the departure of the earnings rule; so, presumably, they are going to accept it. It is not mentioned even in the rubric; there is nothing on the tombstone. Out it goes. I think the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, said that he is sorry it has been phased out; that it ought to be thrown out. It is being phased out, and what an angry outburst from the Chancellor of the Exchequer when it happened! Let it go. I will say no more about it.
My Lords, I come finally to the position of women. I have always said that social security is mostly about women. If you look at the figures you will find— whether it is a retirement pension, a war pension or an industrial pension—that women are the major beneficiaries of our social benefits: millions of them, war widows, civil widows, industrial widows. When I first accepted responsibility for doing something to guide the development of the social services in 1964, the first thing I said was, "Women! We must get women in our scheme of reform on a more radical basis than we have had before!" And where are we now? We have two important new benefits in
202
Clauses 6 and 7, both of which will mostly benefit women. They are welcome. But as for the rest, I must make a plea for a more radical approach to the position of women in social security. Among women there are single women, married women, married mothers, unmarried mothers, separated wives, deserted wives, divorced wives and widows. Each condition requires some attention in our social security scheme. Widowhood is a respectable condition; separation is not; divorce is not; an unmarried mother is not. There is a moral judgment; implied in the way in which we treat those women in our social security scheme.
A married woman's social security rests chiefly upon her having a faithful husband or upon the alms of the Supplementary Benefits Commission. That is almost true. There should be a fall-back benefit in our social security scheme for women who suffer the growing hazards of marriage. What always amazes me is the way in which women voluntarily join with men in the institution of marriage, with so little economic security. They would never do it in any other aspect of life. Their emotions put them at risk. And at risk they are! It is often said that this is a man's world. The regrettable and astonishing thing is how many women are prepared to leave it to men to reform it. Women have had votes for many years; but they have not used them as women should have done—to get this kind of reform brought about in our social security system. Why is it that when women enter into public life they appear to be bashful about behaving as women? Why do they want to behave as men and to espouse the causes of men? Why should they be diffident about stating clearly, loudly and consistently the grievances of women? We should soon get them changed if that were to happen.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, some of us have spoken up as women for the cause of women. Perhaps the noble Lord has not read previous speeches that have been delivered in this House.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, my remarks have had exactly the purpose I intended them to have. I will accept the rebuke of my noble friend and will anticipate the rebuke of my noble friend Lady Gaitskell.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, if my noble friend will allow me to say so, I think it is a gross libel to say that we have not taken up the benefits for women. It really is not true.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I am glad to have introduced a little controversy into the debates in your Lordships' House. I take all that. I stand rebuked. I was not throwing any caps about and expecting anybody to try them on. But there is a serious note here. I do not want to exaggerate it; but my noble friends who have just intervened know very well that they share my own regret that the women's movement is not stronger in the direction that some of us wish to see. That is my message to your Lordships' House on this scheme. I sincerely hope that when the major reform proposals come before this House later, we shall see something more about women than we have seen in this Bill. If we do not, then I shall crave the indulgence of the House to make a very similar speech again.
4.59 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I can only say that I regret that the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, was not present to hear some of his comments. Certainly very great vigour was added to a debate which has been vigorous throughout. I should like to open my remarks by adding to those which preceded me my congratulations to our two maiden speakers this afternoon. Rarely has this House listened to two such distinguished, fluent, informative and interesting speeches. Both noble Lords have considerable experience in this particular field. I find myself in a rather different category because I wish to speak to a special part of this Bill.
I would draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that this is, I believe, the first Social Security Benefits Bill or Social Security Bill we have had in your Lordships' House for many years about which one voice is now, alas! stilled—the voice of the late Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, who, over a period of about sixty years championed the cause of the ex-Serviceman, and, I should hasten to say, the ex-Servicewoman of all three Services.
204
I would put down in these stormy seas of inflation a marker-buoy with a flag of the Royal British Legion clearly attached to it. There is a particular case for mentioning our retired ex-Service personnel. I was glad to note in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, that war pensioners were referred to. I would draw attention to one phrase he mentioned in regard to a 50 per cent. increase in pensions in the last 12 months: they have yielded in real terms a mere 3 per cent. for a married couple and 4 per cent. for a single person. I think in referring to those figures I quote the noble Lord correctly. This prodigious increase has yielded such a very small real benefit.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, in his interesting speech pointed out the efforts over the past many years to achieve something. Of course, every previous Social Security Bill has added greatly but it has been eroded in the passage of time. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, that surely there is a case for introducing something we were speaking about yesterday in the course of dealing with the Children Bill: a system of indexing. There is a case for indexing pensions and for indexing everything else in regard to our economic affairs, rather than having an annual review. As has been so rightly said in, I believe, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Banks, we never catch up; we never manage to fill in those extra months because in the course of time a gain is so rapidly eroded.
My noble friend Lord Aberdare has told the House that broadly we welcome the Bill from out side, but we would address to your Lordships some criticisms. The speech of my noble friend Lord Reigate made a special point in that regard. We certainly intend to assist the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, in a speedy passage of the Bill, which I think was referred to in the noble Lord's closing sentence. This may have some sinister connotations. Perhaps I might pick out one. I hope that the noble Lord will seek the assistance of the Government Chief Whip in preventing what is happening in respect of other legislation, especially the Children Bill, of having a mere seven days between Committee and Report. This is a particular difficulty for many of your Lordships, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, knows

205
more about it than anyone else since, according to my count, he has been carrying on for the Government almost single-handed from the Front Bench opposite for certainly the last 10 hours of our deliberations.
I would return to a point in the Bill which is important and which we will deal with at a later stage, and it concerns phraseology. It is the question of what is a severely disabled person and identification of the phrase "incapable of work ". We feel it is a bad definition in the Bill. In the course of our debates we shall seek to discover what is the Government's reading of this phrase, and possibly to quantify it in some way. This may be impossible, but the phrase "incapable of work" appears to be a blanket phrase and difficult of interpretation.
I would draw one or two further matters to your Lordships' attention, but I do not wish to make a long speech since we have had many considerable speeches and there will be other business before your Lordships this afternoon. Nevertheless, it would be churlish not to welcome all those clauses of the Bill dealing with the chronically sick pension. Of course it is a little confusing to have a Social Security Benefits Bill and a Social Security Pensions Bill. Nevertheless, this new system of differentiating between the two has been quite straight-forward. But we have in front of us in Clauses 5, 6 and 7 this quite new approach which we have all from this side of the House said how much we welcome. I will join with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, in not over-congratulating the Government. His comment was apposite in that regard. However, the whole tone of the debate in your Lordships' House this afternoon has been almost universal in welcoming this Bill as a whole.
I return to the problem of the Royal British Legion. The particular problem which Servicemen and Servicewomen find themselves in is related to the special status which they have in the country as a whole. The nature of military service, in the beginning, naturally is unique. The Serviceman is subject to military law. Not only does this impose considerable limits upon his freedom, but some of his civil rights are taken away, notably because of the Crown Proceedings Act
206
1947. It would probably not be for the benefit of your Lordships' House if I were to dilate to a considerable extent on this subject. We shall be bringing before your Lordships a number of Amendments at Committee stage, and I would much welcome the opportunity before then of direct discussion, if it is possible, with Lord Wells-Pestell, who has been particularly courteous in this regard. With these few remarks, my Lords, I will close my speech and thank your Lordships for listening to my intervention.
5.8 p.m.
Lord COLERAINE: My Lords, I should be most grateful to your Lord-ships if you would allow me for a very few minutes to make an unexpected and unintended intervention into a field in which I am not expert and with which I am not greatly familiar. I do so only to make one point which I believe is important and which I think no one has made this afternoon. Before I do so, I would congratulate most warmly the two maiden speakers whom we have heard this afternoon. I envied as much as I admired the composure, clarity of thought and exposition displayed by the noble Lord, Lord Banks. So far as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, is concerned, I was spared the embarrassment of my noble friend Lord Reigate of having to rush to get a reference book, because I remember well when he came into another place, a young man fresh, I think, from the Army. He seems to me, except in one respect, to which the noble Lord, Lord Houghlon of Sowerby, referred, not to have changed at all. The respect in which he does seem to have changed is that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, appears to be rather milder than the honourable Member for one of the divisions of Portsmouth (I think it was) whom I remember in another place. However, I would congratulate him on his thoughtful and interesting speech. In the case of a maiden speech, it is usual to say that we hope that the speaker will be heard again. In both cases I have indulged that hope. In the case of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, I think that I can go further than hope and indulge a certainty.
The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, is not only the most generous-minded and most kindly of men; if he will allow me

207
to say so, he is also the most fair-minded of men. I want to take him up on one sentence towards the end of his speech. Although I cannot quote it textually and made no note of it at the time, I hope he will agree that I am not misrepresenting what he said. What I understood him to say was that in spite of our difficult economic position, the Government were able to produce this Bill which added to the national expenditure at the rate of £1,100 million annually. My quarrel with the noble Lord is over one phrase. It is not "in spite of" our economic difficulties that the Government have introduced this Bill; it is "because of" our economic difficulties that they have had to introduce it. What I myself am very much afraid of is that in the long run, and perhaps in the short run, it will increase our economic difficulties simply by the massive increase in public expenditure which it proposes.
I am old enough not to have experienced but to remember very vividly the inflation in Germany not only after the last war but after the first war. I doubt whether there is any Member of your Lordships' House who can put his hand on his heart and declare categorically that we are not beginning to slip dangerously quickly towards that degree of inflation which Germany has experienced twice in my lifetime—and, as I say, in my vivid recollection. An old-fashioned phrase that people used to use in the face of discipline was, "He is being cruel in order to be kind." I have an uneasy feeling that in this Bill we are, perhaps, being kind in order to be cruel.
5.13 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, so far as I am able I will try to deal with the questions which noble Lords have raised. At the end I hope to have covered them all, but if I have not done so perhaps noble Lords will draw my attention to the fact so that I may deal with their questions in some other way.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, who raised the question of tax credits. I believe that it was the Party opposite who admitted that it would take something like five years to introduce these after the passing of the legislation. I take that to mean that in itself, apart from the question of expertise, it is quite a difficult
208
thing to do. My recollection is that this was the view of the Party opposite.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I do not want to debate this matter with the noble Lord. However, there was a possibility of introducing part of the tax credit scheme, namely, the benefit for the first child.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, it is not that we are unsympathetic but that we are very mindful of the difficulties. That is why the present Government have plans for child benefits which will be payable in respect of every child in the family. As I tried to explain earlier on, an announcement will be made as soon as possible. In effect, these plans take the place of the child credit portion of the tax credit scheme. This is a matter upon which I hope to make a Statement at some later date, when my right honourable friend has done so.
If I remember rightly, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, also referred to the earnings rule, although it may have been the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, who did so. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, based his speech upon the earnings rule, but I think that other noble Lords also referred to it. If an allowance were made for tax at current tax rates, I am informed that the cost in 1975–76 would be reduced by £15 million to £45 million. I mentioned £60 million; £15 million of the £60 million would be tax. In 1976–77 the cost would be reduced by £25 million, namely from £110 million to £85 million. In 1977–78 the cost would be reduced by approximately £35 million to £110 million. This is the information which I have been given, and I have no reason to suspect that it is anything but accurate.
So I come back to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. He asked what increase in unemployment would affect the finances of the scheme. I seem to remember that in your Lordships' House not so very long ago I said something about this particular matter. The balances of the National Insurance Fund are reduced by about £105 million for every 100,000 who are unemployed above the figure of 650,000. Therefore we have 650,000 who are unemployed; for every 100,000 above that, the cost to the National Insurance Fund is £105 million. However, it will not affect the rates of

209
the benefit proposed in the Bill, for the reason that unemployment is only one of several factors which affect the income and expenditure of the Fund. For example, rising earnings will increase the income. There are also substantial reserves. I am trusting entirely to memory now and I may be wrong; however, I seem to remember telling your Lordships' House some time ago that the reserve was in the region of £1,500 million which could be called upon, if necessary, before the time for the next review of the contribution rates arose.
The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, had a point on the invalid care allowance for non-relatives. As I understand the situation, the invalid care allowance has been designed primarily to meet the case of the single daughter. However, the Government do not intend to confine the allowance to the daughter-parent relationship. The intention is that the regulation should prescribe a wide range of relatives. Whether or not this meets the noble Lord's point, I do not know. At the outset, the invalid care allowance would not be available to other than these relatives. The emphasis is on the; words "at the outset". Under Clause 7 we shall have powers to extend the allowance to other groups, and it follows that long-standing friends are not necessarily excluded for all time. However, I think that we shall have to deal with this in stages. The first stage is the single daughter; then it can go on to include other relatives, and, as I say, it does not exclude or preclude other people.
As the noble Lord knows, the invalid care allowance is brand new; it is an untried benefit. As I have tried to say, frankly we do not know how it will work in practice. We do not even know what the initial uptake will be. I think the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said that he thought it would be in the region of 11,500 people, but the number of beneficiaries may be much higher—we do not know. I understand that there is no available information from which an estimate can be made. Though the invalid care allowance is, I think I used the phrase, "a leap in the dark" on so many counts, the Department of Health and Social Security—and nobody knows this better than the noble Lord himself—will have to find staff, office accommodation and make a hundred and one other plans to
210
ensure a successful start to that allowance. The risk involved is being willingly accepted, but the Government are not willing to extend the risk by widening the scope of the invalid care allowance at the outset and adding a further unknown quantity to the initial unknown uptake. It would be much wiser if we gained experience as we went along, and then, if necessary, we can begin to extend it. I think I have dealt with all the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare.
It is customary in your Lordships' House to start by saying something about the maiden speeches, but I propose to deal with them in order—but that is not to say in order of merit. It is much easier for my tidy mind if I do do it this way. I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Banks, for his partial acceptance: (shall I say?) of the Bill. I think we have to be frank about this. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, said that it is a Bill that does not call for much congratulation. Perhaps it does not, but if he had been introducing it he would probably have felt very differently about it. Let us face the fact that if we can in the present financial climate maintain benefits at the level of earnings. I think we have achieved something; if we are able to introduce into a Bill new forms of payment, I think we have achieved something. I do not think any of us on this side of the House, and it may go for everybody in the House, is content with the provisions but it is probably the best that we can do. I hope that the noble Lord will speak often in the future, for one reason if for no other. I felt more than once the slight prick of the point of a rapier, and I think this is very desirable. It indicates that behind it there is a good deal of feeling and knowledge, and there is no better place to have both than in your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, mentioned the earnings of the invalidity pensioners and regretted that the disqualification remained at £4·50 a week. Both the existing contributory invalidity pension and the new non-contributory invalidity pension are benefits for people who are incapable of work—by definition, therefore, unable to earn. This is the purpose of the whole scheme. This is how we see it and why we have introduced it in this Bill. Notwithstanding this, invalidity

211
pensioners are often able to keep themselves occupied by a small amount of work, normally under medical supervision, without losing their pensions. They are allowed what are often called therapeutic earnings of £4·50 a week. The non-contributory invalidity pension is not a benefit for the partially incapacitated or disabled people with low earnings.
In paragraphs 46 to 51 of the Report of the Secretary of State, which dealt with the problems of disabled people in employment—which is by no means as simple as it appears—your Lordships will see the exposition of this complex problem. In paragraph 51 the Government promised to go further into the problem and this will certainly be done. Meanwhile, priority has been given to the non-contributory invalidity pension, because as paragraph 54 reads:
"The loss of ability to earn is stark, over-whelming and readily identifiable ".
I would hope that that would satisfy the noble Lord.
It may be presumptuous on my part to congratulate my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington. He brings to your Lordships' House a good deal of experience of Government not only in another place but in other spheres. He is quite right when he says that there remains a solid core of people existing at subsistence level. The only comfort for many of us who have fought for a good many years to try to raise people above that level is that in a very large measure we have succeeded. We realise that there are still unpleasant pockets which we hope to deal with from time to time. But, again, one can only bring forward legislation which is possible in a climate of financial ability and whether it is this year or next year or in the years to come, social justice and social progress can only be made in that climate. I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington, because this is the kind of House that warms to people who have something to say when it is backed with a great deal of experience. That is certainly the position of my noble friend.
There are a number of matters which I want to direct to the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, and I hope I shall get them all right. I should like to say something
212
about the increments. I find this a little involved. The new and improved method of calculating increments which will come into effect in April was provided under the Social Security Act of 1973. Under this method a pensioner will earn one-eighth of 1 per cent. for every week for which he postpones his retirement. Thus the 6½ per cent. for each year referred to in Better Pensions—and this is where went wrong; I knew it is was in Better Pensions—is the rate which will apply from April this year, so it will not be a new proposal. Increments earned before April 1975 will from that date be uprated in line with the main pension, and on this occasion it will mean about 16 per cent. I hope I have succeeded in making that clear.
Coming to the earnings rule and the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, about total abolition, I do not think there is a great deal between us. So far as I and the Government see it, it is a question of timing and a question as to whether in the present financial climate (I apologise for using that phrase again) we can afford to do so. Let me put it like this: the cost figures of total abolition are made up, first, of the pension which people now earning above the limit and not retired would receive; secondly, the pension which people now having their previous pensions reduced or extinguished would receive; and, thirdly, the reduction in expenditure on sickness and unemployment benefit to people under Clause 1— that is the people now earning above the limit and not retired. Fourthly, the loss of contributions that would have been paid by those people in Clause 1; namely, the ones who are earning. Fifthly, the amount of income tax that would be paid on the pensions.
There is no clear evidence that people would do more work and earn more pro-vided the earnings rule were abolished. I think this is just a matter of opinion. No calculation can be made of the income tax that might be paid on extra earnings, because we just do not know. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Reigate—I see that he agrees. It is, of course, quite likely that some people would reduce their earnings if the rule were abolished, as they could maintain their income by a combination, perhaps, of pension and low earnings.

213
I think that the noble Lord will not mind my saying this, because I have known him a long time and he has a sense of humour. If the noble Lord who spoke in 1973 at the Report stage of the Social Security Bill were to look up Hansard for 4th July 1973, volume 344, col. 279, he would see this recorded against his name:
" My record on this matter is fairly consistent. I think that when I die 'earnings rule' will be written on my heart. It will take its place there with a number of other graffiti, but I am sure it will be the largest."
I am not suggesting that that should be on his tombstone‡
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. I thought he was about to quote some words I once used in your Lordships' House which might almost be paralleled by the noble Lord, Lord Hougliton of Sowerby. I said that I could put up a very good defence of the earnings rule.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I have heard the noble Lord say that, too. Perhaps I can leave the noble Lord alone now! I really do not know what to say to my noble friend Lord Houghton. I was a bit dispirited when he said that this. Bill was not a matter for congratulation and that it was no great reform, but he would be the first to recognise that we never made a claim—
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend for giving way. I said that it was not a matter for congratulation for plans fulfilled and hopes achieved, which is in a much broader context than the provisions of this Bill.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, of course the noble Lord is perfectly right, but to a large extent the position we are in at the present moment is not of our own making and I think we have to try to meet the needs of those less fortunately placed in the community. One aspect of this country is that—whether we are on the Right, on the Left or in the centre—there is an acceptance, varying in degree, that we have a responsibility for those less fortunately placed. What I think we are doing in this Bill is giving them the best possible standard of living in the circumstances.
214
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys—and when I say "I", naturally, I mean we, the Government. We are grateful that noble Lords on the other side of the House will assist in a speedy passage of the Bill. There is much legislation going through both Houses at the present moment. I know exactly how the noble Lord feels about the Children Bill and he can imagine also how I feel on this matter. I am sorry to put it like this, but we have to move things through speedily if we want to put them on the Statute Book at the right time. The only point I would make to him—and I know he will not take this amiss—is that if there are going to be Amendments (and he said there would be), I hope they can be tabled as quickly as possible so that we may look at them carefully.
When I moved the Second Reading of the Children Bill on Tuesday, 21st January, I think I am right in saying that on the following Friday morning there were 18 printed Amendments in the Printed Paper Office. When I arrived here on Monday there were 102, and it is really frightfully difficult to do justice to them when the Committee stage is being started the very next day. This is not a criticism; it is merely a cry from the heart to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, to ask if there are to be Amendments, for them to be tabled as quickly as possible.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, obviously I cannot reply for my noble friends. Any noble Lord is entitled to table an Amendment when he or she wishes, but it is a very difficult thing in a revising Chamber to combine speed with accuracy. We can and must have accuracy, but speed is not always to be desired.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Finally, my Lords, I come to the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine. There is nothing between us at all; what he says is absolutely true. It is because of the difficulties we are in that a Bill of this nature comes before your Lordships' House; but I was trying to say that we are doing it despite those difficulties. I wonder how much social legislation is on our Statute Book today of a type comparable with other countries which have had, perhaps, fewer difficulties than we have had. When I look back to 1945—and remember that we emerged

215
from the war with every bit of investment gone because we had been required to sell it or to use it to prosecute the war—despite the difficulties we were in, we were able to introduce great social reforms like the National Health Service. Whatever the position of that Service today, I think it is already recorded in history as a great social reform.
What I am trying to say is that there is a sense of awareness and a sense of need in the people who guide our destinies —if I may so refer to the two Houses of Parliament—that certain things must be done regardless of our financial climate. There is nothing at all between the noble Lord and myself on this; it was merely a question of how it should be phrased and I accept his phrase as he gave it. I am grateful to noble Lords who have participated in this debate and for the comments they have made. I hope to be able to read what has been said so that we can pick up anything that ought to be picked up.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

OFFSHORE PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL
5.38 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Acquisition of land for purposes connected with offshore petroleum]:
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, leave out from ("for") to (" the") in line 11 and insert (" purposes relating to exploration for or exploitation of offshore petroleum in ")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 1 of the Bill covers its scope and this Amendment is addressed to that scope also. The need for a short Bill was clear nearly a year and a half ago—a Bill with a very narrow scope—because the attainable programme to extract our offshore oil as soon as possible was likely to be seriously delayed. If certain types of special concrete platforms could not be built in time, oil which could have been extracted in 1977 and 1978 would be delayed.
There are exacting conditions for the building of such platforms, and few areas where it can be carried out. The prime illustration was at Loch Carron, where the conditions are to be found and where two applications were made for planning permission. Eventually, after well over a year, permission was given for one site there at Kishorn, but we must face the fact that we have lost valuable time, and a quantity of oil which we would otherwise have obtained from our own oil-fields in 1977 and 1978 has been delayed. As a result, our balance of payments in those years would have been substantially better than it will now be, and some orders for platforms worth over £100 million went abroad, because, I believe, it became clear last March that urgency in this matter was no longer recognised by the new Government. So the requirement a year ago was the quick passage of a Bill adding a modernising adjustment to streamline planning procedures for a limited range of projects—mainly, platform building and pipeline terminals. That was the scope of the Bill required a year ago.
We now have before us a Bill, Clause 1 of which would apply to virtually anything connected with offshore oil. Sub-section (2) of Clause 1, defines four categories for which an expedited acquisition order procedure is prescribed, but subsection (2)(d) is very wide and, in particular, refers to,
" sources of material or other services or facilities ".
Subsection (1), in addition, provides for compulsory acquisition—not expedited, but compulsory acquisition—
" for any purpose relating to exploration for or exploitation of offshore "
oil; and subsection (2), is so wide that it is difficult to see why subsection (1) is needed. In the discussion which we had at Committee stage on two Amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, told us that it was most unlikely that this power would be used; that was his defence of it—it was a general insurance policy for possibly unexpected requirements in the future. That is not an attitude which normally commends itself to Parliament, which considers it one of its tasks to limit additional powers to what are needed by the Executive.
I have not myself charged the Government with seeking to use and extend

217
public ownership for doctrinaire reasons, although some of my noble friends may be anxious on this score as a result of the speech of the Secretary of State for Industry in another place yesterday. For my part, I have simply queried the necessity of seeking these powers which we are told are most unlikely to be used. The examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, last week at the Committee stage—and I refer to column 1099 of Hansard—were the need for service leases which he foresaw, pipe-coating works and warehouse storage. These fall within the categories of subsection (2)(a), (b) and (d) respectively, and it is largely because the noble Lord was unable to give examples which fall outside subsection (2), and to tell us of something which would fall within subsection (1), that we felt we must put down this further Amendment. Indeed, he encouraged us to do so.
We believe that subsection (2) is much wider than is necessary, and covers all the possible purposes for which the expedited compulsory acquisition system and the ordinary compulsory acquisition system would be needed. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, to give us examples, if he does not agree, of projects that would not be covered by subsection (2) and, in particular, by the words
" sources of material or other services or facilities "
which are very wide. Secondly, can he really tell us that he needs compulsory purchase in order to deal with them? This Amendment includes the Government's drafting of those four categories, so that the drafting should not be defective. I recognise that some consequential Amendments might need to be made later in the Bill, but that is a drafting matter and I have not attempted it. I think this Amendment crystallises what came out of our debate last week, and I hope that the Government will be able to accept it. My Lords, I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord FOOT: My Lords, when we debated this same issue in the Committee stage, and noble Lords on the Opposition Benches moved an Amendment which had virtually the same effect as this Amendment today, I urged upon them then that they should carry it to a Division. They were dissuaded from
218
doing so by the persuasion of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, at the last moment. But on this occasion, unless we receive a more satisfactory answer from the Government than we did then, I hope that the noble Lord who moved the Amendment will indeed carry it to a Division, because I believe there is here a matter of important principle—a particularly important principle to this House.
I make no apology for attempting a short analysis of subsections (1) and (2) of this Bill as they now stand, because it is conceded—indeed, it is said in the Explanatory Memorandum to this Bill— that they comprise the very heart of the Bill. They are the main provisions of the Bill, the guts of the Bill, and I think it appropriate and right that this House should understand quite clearly what it is being invited to do, what it is being asked to do, and what powers it is being asked to vest in the Secretary of State for Scotland, so far as the exploration for and exploitation of offshore petroleum are concerned.
My Lords, what is the chief objective —indeed the whole objective—of this Bill? It is to provide an accelerated procedure for the acquisition of land that is required for the purpose of extraction of the petroleum from the North Sea. If one looks at subsection (2)(a), (b), (c) and (d), one will see, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has just said, that the Government are seeking the most comprehensive powers for the acquisition of land. What they are seeking in subsection (2) is to be allowed to use their accelerated or expedited procedure, in order to acquire land for any purpose connected with the construction of works and installations and so on for getting the oil out of the seabed. When you turn to subsection (2)(b), you find that they are seeking power to acquire land by the expedited procedure for any purpose connected with establishing equipment for getting the oil ashore. Then, under subsection (2)(c), you will see that there they are asking for everything which is necessary in order to receive the oil on the land, to store it on the land, and eventually to dispatch it to wherever it has to go.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has been pointing out, that in subsection (2)(d) you then have a sort of long-stop clause

219
which gives the Government, the Executive, power to acquire land for all sorts of ancillary purposes connected with the purposes denned in subsection (2)(a), (b) and (c). One would have thought that that was enough. But when you turn back to subsection (1) as it now stands, you find that there the Government say, "No, that is not enough; we also want the Secretary of State to have a general, undefined, imprecise power to acquire any land at all in Scotland, so long as it is related, however tenuously, to the exploration for and exploitation of offshore petroleum".
The root objection to this proposal, is that we are being invited to vest in the Executive these wide, undefined powers to acquire any land that the Secretary of State may seek to acquire—and, if necessary, acquire compulsorily. The only limitation put upon that enormous power is that the acquisition shall in some way be related to the exploration for or exploitation of the offshore oil. I suggest that this is a classic example of Executive arrogance, a classic example of the thirst of the Executive for arbitrary and undefined power. To my mind, that is the root objection to the general power sought under this provision.
I follow in the footsteps of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, in saying that I do not attribute to this Government any sinister purpose. I am not complaining that the Government have something up their sleeve which they do not want us to know about. I am concerned with the general principle; that is, the role of Parliament vis- -vis the Executive. In my respectful submission, one of the fundamental duties of this House and, indeed, of the other House and of Parliament as a whole, is to see that the Executive is not given wide, imprecise, undefined powers at its request. The Executive should be given powers of this order, particularly powers to acquire land and interfere with individual rights and to take other people's property away, only if they are prepared to define precisely how they will be used. This is what the Civil War in this country was all about, if I may say so. It is a mournful thought that it may be appropriate that a Government should be seeking to obtain these arbitrary powers for the Executive at a time when the statue of
220
the Lord Protector is boarded up. When the day comes, and I hope it will be soon, when they take the boarding down, it may not be surprising if we find that Cromwell has turned in his temporary tomb as a result of what is being done here today.
My Lords, what does this Amendment seek to do? It seeks to do something very simple. It says," No, you are not entitled to have powers of this kind; take, if you will, your expedited procedure in relation to all those purposes defined in subsection (2). It may be that they are too widely drawn; if so, let us reduce them. It may be that they are too narowly drawn; if so, let us enlarge them. But what you are not entitled to do is to set out in detail all these purposes for which you want to take powers, and then ask, over and above that, to have a general, imprecise, undefined power to do virtually anything you like ". The noble Lord laughs, but the only qualification for doing anything you like, or for the Secretary of State to do anything he likes, is that it shall be related in some way to the extraction of oil from the North Sea.
I suggest that in a case of this kind, when the Government seek powers of this order, the burden of proof is on them—indeed, a very heavy burden of proof lies on them—to show that there is some overwhelming need for the Government to be given such powers. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, was saying, in the previous debate we were given no justification for granting these wide powers to the Government. In effect, we have heard two arguments attempting to justify subsection (1). The first argument is that those of us who seek to resist the granting of these powers are, in effect, thwarting or forgetting the national interest. I reject that argument completely. I think it comes close to being a contemptible argument, because it assumes that everything must give way to the urgency of getting oil out of the North Sea—that must be the paramount consideration and everything has to be subordinated to it.
In my book, the national interest is not entirely a matter of economics, even if it is vitally important economically that we should extract the oil from the North Sea as quickly as possible. There are other considerations to be borne in mind. When one talks about the national

221
interest, the two things which come to my mind as being comprised in it are the defence of individual rights, and the defence of the environment. How often in the past have we been persuaded to allow our countryside to be despoiled? How often have we been persuaded to allow civil rights and the rights of property to be taken away in the name of immediate economic expediency? I reject that argument altogether.
My Lords, the other justification which was advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, on a previous occasion was the argument that in subsection (2) the Government have endeavoured to set out all the occasions when they may need to acquire land, or when the Secretary of State, may need to acquire it, but they may have left something out. We may not find that it is foreseen—
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Hughes): My Lords, may I be permitted to interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Foot, at that point? I did not say that. I said that in sub-section (1) we had attempted to name all those cases where the urgency procedure might arise. The reason for the other part being there is that we could not argue beyond that the need for the expedited procedure.
Lord FOOT: My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord has said. If he will refer back to the debate on the Committee stage, he will find that he did, in fact, use the argument of urgency in relation to the powers which he seeks to acquire under subsection (1). However, we will not argue about that. The argument of the noble Lord was that they have tried to set out in subsection (2) all those occasions when they may need to use the expedited procedure for the acquisition of land. But they want this long-stop provision, this imprecise and uncertain power given to the Secretary of State in order to deal with cases that have not been foreseen, and with circumstances which they have not been able to allow for.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, quoted just now three examples which we were given by the Minister on that occasion of when these powers under subsection (1) may be required—the acquisition of land for service leasing, the acquisition of land for the purpose of
222
Pipe-coating works, and the acquisition of land for warehouse storage. Those were the only examples which the noble Lord gave. It seems to me two points are to be made about them. The first has already been made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. Is it not clear that all those three examples given by the noble Lord are covered by paragraph (d)? The noble Lord shakes his head. If he is right, I go on to my second point, which is that if they are not already covered by paragraph (d), why not put them into that paragraph now? Then we should know exactly what powers we are conferring on the Secretary of State. It is a very simple operation, not at all difficult. All the noble Lord has to do is go away with the draftsman and put his three examples into paragraph (d) and the whole of our problems will be over. It is for those reasons that I would again ask and invite the proposers of this Amendment, if we do not receive a more satisfactory answer than we have had before, to carry this; matter to a Division, because I believe it is in this House that this sort of issue ought to be discussed, and indeed ought to be decided.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I should like to support this Amendment very warmly. The words "for any purpose" in sub-section (1) are far too wide. If you carry it to the limit, you might say that you could acquire land in, say, the centre of Perthshire to manufacture paint for the oil rigs. I should say, as the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has said, that the powers granted under subsection (2) are ample— probably too wide in themselves—to cover any eventuality. I have taken no part in the debate on this Bill because I was not able to be here, but what I cannot quite understand in regard to exploration is why Her Majesty's Government want to acquire land on the mainland of Scotland to explore for oil. I quite agree that this is perhaps not relevant to the Amendment, but I should like some enlightenment. I was under the impression that if you are exploring for offshore oil you are exploring in the sea and are therefore exploring with ships. There are plenty of harbours for those ships. Why do they want to acquire land to explore for oil in the sea? It does not really add up.

223
To return to the Amendment, you might have a position where a Government take over salmon fishing or acquire some land for a golf course in order to amuse the individuals engaged in the exploitation of offshore oil. Since I have been in this House—about 18 or 19 years —I have seen every year, rather like the Hindu expression, "slowly slowly catchee monkee", more power going from Parliament to the Executive. The public appear to be quite unaware of it.
Lord HENLEY: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Viscount could not have spent some of the last 18 or 19 years reading the reports of Second Reading debates, because a good many of these points have already been made at considerable length.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I did not quite hear what the noble Lord said. I know the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will say that we had the Highlands and Islands Development Act about 10 years ago and we have not used those compulsory powers. I accept that, but if you are speaking to a civil servant he knows that he has those powers. If you do not agree he has that threat; these powers are there. I will not detain your Lordships, but I warmly support this Amendment. It is far too wide to say "for any purpose"; it can embrace anything.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, I was not here at the beginning but I have listened to the last two speeches. I was rather surprised, and I was almost on my feet to intervene, when the noble Lord, Lord Foot, and the noble Viscount were speaking. The whole argument has been on compulsion and compulsory powers because of North Sea oil. If noble Lords look back in history to previous Governments right from the beginning of this century, and even to when the Liberal Party were in power, certain powers and rights were conferred upon local authorities. They were given compulsory powers to purchase land for the development of certain sectors within their areas for the benefit of the general public, even for social services—the building of houses, the building of the main highways running across the country at the moment. Compulsory powers were given to local
224
authorities acting as the agents of Her Majesty's Government, principally in regard to the motorway system which is now in operation.
I want to put a question to the two noble Lords who have spoken, and it is this. Each and every one of us is aware that one of our basic commodities in this country is coal. We have been reminded, in speeches and Statements that have been made in your Lordships' House, that there is one area in this country where there are millions of tons of coal not yet tapped. It is there, according to the geologists, and it will be of great service to this nation once extraction does take place. I refer to the area of Selby, in Yorkshire, and compulsory powers would have to be used to take over that land, as the old coal owners used to do when they wished to sink their shafts and engage miners to produce coal for the benefit of the nation. That is just what the Government are doing here in trying to extract the principal commodity which this country urgently requires, because of the position with which we are faced following the action taken by the oil countries of the Middle East.
Therefore, listening to the speeches I cannot for the life of me understand, speaking as one who spent so long in local government before entering the other place, the approach taken by noble Lords sitting on the Liberal and Tory Benches. I cannot understand why they should take this line of approach when they have been parties to giving powers to local authorities up and down the country, to enable them by compulsion to take land away from landowners for the benefit of their own areas and of the nation.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, with due respect to the noble Lord, I do not think what he has said is really relevant to the Amendment.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, if I may use the same language as used by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, with respect— I did not notice an awful lot of it—I do not think anything that has been said so far would justify me in accepting the Amendment. If in the past, when I have been moving an Amendment in your Lordships' House which has been the

225
subject of opposition from the other side and have occasionally felt that I might be wrong, those doubts were sometimes totally removed when I found that the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, was on the other side. I knew then that I could not possibly be wrong.
Today the examples which he gave were similar to the kind of thing said on the Highlands and Islands Development Bill when it was before your Lordships' House. The idea that we would want to acquire a piece of land in the centre of Perthshire in order to construct a factory to make paint to apply to pipes for North Sea oil, puts, perhaps, in less reasonable language the same kind of argument as was being advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, in his much more brilliant oratory, when he talked about the tenuous connection that might exist between subsection (1) and the necessary purposes of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, indicated that his Amendment might be technically defective. I must concede that that may be so; but, as I indicated at the last stage, I never like arguing against a proposal merely on grounds of drafting, because if that is all that is wrong with it, it can be sorted out. That is not my objection to the Amendment. My objection is that, although it purports to retain the more general reference in subsection (1) to exploration and exploitation, it effectively restricts the scope of land acquisition under the Bill. In connection with exploration, although I think that the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Henley—unfortunately not heard by the noble Viscount —-effectively dealt with his queries on that point, I would draw his attention to the fact that exploration of the North Sea does not depend on somebody descending from mid-air in the Atlantic; almost every one of the operations starts on land, and mostly in Scotland.
The Amendment would effectively restrict the scope of land acquisition under the Bill to the purposes listed in subsection (2). As I have made perfectly clear, subsection (2) defines as narrowly, or as widely—whichever way one likes to look at it—the subjects for which the Government think that the powers of the expedited procedure are necessary. The Government accept that the powers of
226
expedited procedure are a limitation of the ordinary rights of property in this matter and, for that reason, they felt under an obligation to confine it to those situations where it could reasonably be expected that it would cover the whole range. If there was any possible ground of need, where the question of this urgency would not arise, the Government felt that they were not justified in seeking to subject these other matters to the expedited procedure.
The noble Lord, Lord Foot, and I think by implication the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, invites us to contemplate all the purposes for which we might require land for oil exploration, and to apply the expedited procedure to them all. We do not think that we would be justified in doing that. We have said that there are two types: one where, because of urgency, we apply the expedited procedures, and others, where it would be desirable, or quite satisfactory, to go through the ordinary procedure, which would cover acquisition by agreement or by compulsory purchase. This is where the paint factory in Perth-shire of the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, and Lord Foot's tenuous connection with oil come into the same category. If the Secretary of State is proposing to acquire land by the ordinary compulsory procedure, he has to be able to satisfy that a requirement exists for that to be done. A compulsory purchase order would not go through, unless it was shown quite clearly that the need existed for the land to be acquired for that purpose. I can assure the noble Lords, therefore, that the question of land being acquired for a ridiculous or tenuous purpose is so unlikely to be accomplished that it ought not to carry weight in support of this Amendment.
However, the Amendment would not just do this; it would similarly restrict the powers of the Secretary of State to carry out or contribute to the cost of works under Clause 10, and to make loans or give guarantees under Clause 11, since these clauses are tied to the purposes for which land may be acquired. If the amendment was made, it would be only in those cases where land had been acquired under the expedited procedure that we could use the powers in Clauses 10 and 11. I am quite certain that nothing that the noble Lords, Lord Campbell

227
or Lord Foot, have said, would indicate that they wished these powers to be so restricted.
The effect of the Amendment would be to make the Bill a less versatile, less useful tool, for the Government's task in helping to ensure speedy development of, and lasting benefit from, our offshore oil. At Committee stage, I mentioned examples of purposes for which land could be acquired under subsection (1), and the noble Lords have both referred to this. But I am informed that subsection (2) does not cover service bases—and, incidentally, in Hansard, it says "leases"' where it is the word "bases" that is intended—it does not cover pipe-coating works, and it does not cover general warehousing facilities. Subsection (2)(d) related only to services, et cetera, for the development or use of land, and that is what is normally referred to in the rather unlovely word "infrastructure". I have been invited to give further examples, and this my advisers anticipated.
Would the noble Lord permit me to give them and then I shall give way. Suppose that a shore-based testing facility is required for underwater apparatus intended for use in the North Sea, there might be difficulty in obtaining a site or in obtaining finance. Under subsection (1) of the Bill as at present drafted, the Secretary of State could step in to provide the land, pay for part of the cost, or make a loan to enable the work to proceed. Yet facilities for testing, and for research and development are not mentioned in subsection (2). The kind of assistance that I have described would not be possible under the narrow terms of the Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, invited me, having identified something of this kind, to insert it in sub-section (2). I would say, No, because on known information we should not be justified in seeking the expedited procedure for that purpose. If it is not justified, then we ought not to do it.
Alternatively, a need might emerge for the establishment in Scotland of a repair yard for, perhaps, semi-submersible drilling rigs. There could be difficulty over obtaining a suitable site, or the intending operator might have difficulty in obtaining a loan from the banks and finance houses. Once again, the Secretary of State could—if he thought the yard was
228
necessary for oil exploration—take action under subsection (1). He would not, however, be able to do so if this amendment was made, because subsection (2) says nothing about repair facilities. This is not a defect in the drafting; it is a point of substance.
As I have said, subsection (2) is concerned with developments where land may be needed as a matter of urgency. It represents the Government's well considered and strictly limited list of such developments. We have no wish to add to it; nor need we do so, since subsection (1) permits us to acquire land for other purposes of the kind I have mentioned, either by agreement or under normal compulsory purchase procedures. For years the normal compulsory purchase procedures have been regarded as a satisfactory method of dealing with Government or local authority acquisition of land for these purposes. In this connection I can see no reason why the ordinary compulsory purchase machinery should be regarded as defective. I said that I would allow the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, to intervene.
Lord CRAIGTON: My Lords, I apologise if I have misunderstood the noble Lord, but was not one of his arguments, in rejecting our Amendment, that if subsection (1) were deleted, he would have to acquire land by expedited procedure? Subsection (5) says quite clearly that if he considers that the land should be purchased as a matter of urgency, he may, instead of being authorised to purchase the land, purchase it by the quicker procedure. Surely even without subsection (1) he still has powers of compulsory purchase without using the expedited acquisition procedure?
Lord HUGHES: Not if the Bill is amended as proposed in this Amendment. That is why the Government do not wish to accept it. I have tried to give concrete examples—
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: Will the noble Lord give way? The two examples he has given raise the question of the definition in paragraph (a). His first example, we would have thought, would have come under the wording:
" or other installations for use in or under the sea in connection with the exploration for or exploitation of offshore petroleum ".

229
If it is not covered by that what do these words mean?
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, was Secretary of State for Scotland, and he must have discussed exactly this sort of situation with the lawyers and draftsmen in the office. All I can say is that this matter has been gone into very thoroughly and the advice we have is that the Bill as drafted would be defective in these respects if the Amendment were accepted.
Lord FOOT: My Lords, if that is right then we are being asked to accept from the noble Lord that the words of paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) do not include and cover the examples which he gave us the other day and those he gave us today; and we are being asked to accept "that simply because the noble Lord is informed by somebody or other that they are not inclusive of his examples. Are we to hear from the Lord Chancellor, for example, or have a legal opinion as to why it is said that the words of paragraphs (a), (b) (c) and (d) do not include these examples?
Lord HUGHES: No, my Lords, it is perhaps a defect in your Lordships' House that the Liberal Party have for so long been out of office that they do not get the benefit of this experience.
Several Noble Lords: Oh‡
Lord HUGHES: It is a perfectly fair point. Any of your Lordships who has been a Minister knows the machinery inside Government Departments for seeking the explanation, the need and necessity for the language used in Bills; and when that is obtained within the Department you do not rush off to seek the advice of the Lord Chancellor or another legal officer.
Lord WINDLESHAM: My Lords, it is quite true that Ministers have the advice of civil servants, but it is also customary for Ministers to be able to explain that advice when they come to Parliament.
Lord HUGHES: This, then, my Lords, I must accept is a defect attributable to me and not to the civil servants because in two stages I have endeavoured to
230
explain. But there is a saying, the truth of which is often demonstrated in your Lordships' House, that
" A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still,"
and at the Committee stage, when a similar Amendment was made, I used the language against the noble Lord, Lord Foot, that he had encouraged, if not incited, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, not to withdraw the Amendment at that stage. The noble Lord has made it perfectly clear that nothing I said then, and nothing I am saying now, is having any effect on him whatsoever. This I must accept as being due to my deficiency.
I have endeavoured to make it plain that there is a difference between the need for acquiring land quickly and acquiring land without need for speed. In the clause as drafted, in these two parts, we have endeavoured to cover both aspects, limiting the expedited procedure to those aspects which we have identified. The advice which I have been given, departmentally, from my officers, is that matters to which I have referred are not covered by the clause. I am not a lawyer and I am not competent to argue against that advice. I have been persuaded that the advice I have received is correct. Other people, not having had it directly but second-hand through me, may not find that advice as convincing as I found it at first hand. That I must apologise for, but the procedures of the House do not allow me to produce the civil servants here to advance to your Lordships the arguments which they have advanced to me. If it is the desire of noble Lords opposite that the procedures of the House should be so altered as to make that course possible, then that is not a subject for this afternoon.
Lord STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord for one moment, I understood his argument in relation to paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d). I may be wrong, and if so I should like him to correct me, but I believe it was based principally on the fact that they referred to the expedited procedure. But I have read this clause through time and again and can find no reference to these applying to the expedited procedure. Will the noble Lord correct me if I am wrong?
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, speaking from memory I think it is Clause 1 (5) so the noble Lord will not have to read too far into the Bill to find it. But perhaps for a moment we may leave aside this question because I think I could talk long enough and not persuade noble Lords who have already spoken from the other side of the House about the need for differentiating between land acquisition for these two purposes. The fact remains that the Amendment would prevent the powers being used for Clauses 10 and 11, and nothing that either the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, or the noble Lord, Lord Foot, have said, has indicated that they wish Clauses 10 and 11 to be dissociated from Clause 1. So, from that point alone, the Amendment could not possibly be accepted. It would be straining the word a little to say that the effect of the Amendment would be "wrecking", because it would in fact be capable, if it were insisted upon, of making all the other Amendments necessary. But if this Amendment were inserted it almost requires a redrafting of the Bill, and not just the insertion of other consequential Amendments. At this stage a redrafting of that nature could certainly not be carried out in your Lordships' House.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I say I have been interested to follow what he said about these compulsory powers, but can he enlighten me about this point? If he will look at Clause 1 and imagine that it reads, as I think it would if the Amendment were passed,
"The Secretary of State may acquire by agreement, or compulsorily, any land in Scotland for the purposes of (a), (b), (c) and (d) "—
If he then turns over to subsection (5) he will find that the Secretary of State may use the expedited procedure instead of compulsory purchase in the ordinary way. He is not required to use expedited procedure. He is merely enabled to. If therefore he wished compulsorily to acquire under the ordinary procedure for any of the four purposes now set out in subsection (2), he could do so. What therefore prevents him doing it in the ordinary way if he so wishes? This is the way that it is being narrowed down in my noble friend's Amendment, and
232
I do not see why, or upon what basis, the noble Lord is criticising my noble friend's drafting in that respect.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, the noble Viscount has completely missed the point. If the Amendment is carried it is perfectly true that the Secretary of State may acquire land for the purposes (a) to (d) by the expedited procedure or by the normal procedure. But these are the only purposes for which he can acquire either one way or the other. If it is narrowed he cannot even acquire by agreement. He cannot acquire outside these purposes. This is why the Amendment so restricts the operations. I have tried to make it perfectly clear that we have deliberately narrowed them down to the cases where we would be justified in using an expedited procedure which no one on the Government side, either here or else-where, has denied is an interference with the ordinary rights of property. Because it is an interference it has to be justified on the narrowest possible base that will accomplish the purpose. The noble Viscount has completely missed that point. Certainly, if for any of these purposes, urgency does not arise, then the ordinary procedures will be carried out. But if there are other purposes for which land is required, which we do not envisage at this stage, we may be wrong in excluding some of these other things from the expedited procedure. However, if we are not wrong and it becomes necessary to acquire land for other purposes, we are bound to do so under the ordinary procedures which are laid down—the ordinary machinery of compulsory purchase following, if there is a planning application, the necessary planning procedures.
My Lords, I had virtually concluded what I wanted to say when the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, intervened. It is fairly clear from the number of interventions that there have been that I have miserably failed in trying to persuade noble Lords opposite of the intention of the Bill. All I can say before your Lordships divide—and the indications are that that is what your Lordships will do—is to ask your Lord-ships not to blame the Bill for the deficiencies of my explanation and to remember that if your Lordships accept the Amendment there is an obligation upon you, in justice, to seek to remedy

233
the other defects which will arise particularly in respect of Clauses 10 and 11. Your Lordships have until Thursday to find such a remedy.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I must admire the noble Lord for fighting a single-handed battle against an enormous amount of heavy artillery, but it will not be news to him that the examples that he has given have not convinced my noble friends or noble Lords on the Liberal Benches. I feel that we must get away from the argument that it is unreasonable to expect the Government to use the powers in the way suggested. Rather, we must stand that argument on its head. If the Government think that the sort of powers which could be used are so unreasonable, why take powers to do those things? The Government must accept that, if they want very wide powers, the obligation to prove the case lies with them.
The same argument applies to the CPOs. If the noble Lord is so pleased with the CPO procedure, would it not be best to continue with the present CPO procedures? There is one very grave objection—that they end up with the Secretary of State as judge and jury in his own case. We accept, of course, that there are the two different types of case. In spite of what my noble friend Lord Strathclyde said, we realise that there are the non-expedited cases that the noble
Lord wishes to maintain. But I believe that, at the end of the day, we are bound to turn back to what the noble Lord has said both at the end of his last speech during the Committee stage and today. He has invited us to do the Government's work for him. With respect, I do not think that he can reasonably expect us to do that.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I am not inviting the Opposition to do the Government's work for them. What I am inviting the Opposition to do is. if they make a mess of the Bill, to meet the obligation which falls upon them to sort out their own mess.
Lord STRATHCONA. and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, we do not accept that at all. What we are saying is, "If you do not like the mess we have made of the clause, let us go back to what you said at the Committee stage and see whether you can have a better shot at it". So far as Clauses 10 and 11 are concerned, we feel that anybody could draft the quite small consequential Amendments needed. I cannot recommend my noble friend to withdraw the Amendment.
6.34 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 88; Not-Contents, 56.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Davidson, V.

Meston, L.

Airedale, L.

Denham, L.

Mills, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Monck, V.

Ashbourne, L.

Dulverton, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Auckland, L.

Dundonald, E.

Muirshiel, V.

Balerno, L.

Elton, L. [Teller]

Netherthorpe, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Northchurch, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Ferrers, E

Norwich, V.

Belstead. L.

Foot, L.

Onslow, E.

Berkeley, B.

Fortescue, E.

Pender, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Gainford, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Glenkinglas, L.

Pike, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Harvington, L.

Reigate, L.

Chelmer, L.

Hawke, L.

Rochester, L.

Chelwood. L.

Henley, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller]

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Hertford, M.

St. Helens, L.

Coleraine, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

St. Just, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Killearn, L.

Sandys, L.

Courtown, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Selkirk, E.

Cowley, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Selsdon, L.

Craigton, L.

Long, V.

Sempill, Ly.

Crawshaw, L.

Lyell, L.

Sharples, B.

Cromartie, E.

Mancroft, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L

Masham of Ilton, B.

Strathcona and Mount Royal,

Daventry, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Vivian, L.

Wigoder, L.

Tenby, V.

Wakeficld of Kendal, L.

Windlesham, L.

Thurlow, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Young, B.

Vcrulam, E.

Wemyss, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

Milford, L.

Arwyn, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Balogh, L.

Gardiner, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Blyton, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Peddie, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Phillips, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Greenwood of Rossendalc, L.

Rusholme, L.

Castle, L.

Henderson, L.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Champion, L.

Hood, V.

Shinwell, L.

Chorley, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Slater, L.

Collison, L.

Hoy, L.

Somers, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Hughes, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Craigavon, V.

Jacques, L. [Teller]

Stow Hill, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Janner, L.

Strang, L.

Crook, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Crowthcr-Hunt, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Darwen, L.

Lovell-Davis, L. [Teller]

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Maelor, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Melchett, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.41 p.m.
Lord CRAIGTON Lord CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 29, at end insert—
" ( ) An expedited acquisition order shall not be made in respect of any land or part thereof which has been declared to be inalienable by virtue of any enactment."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of your Lordships I should like to discuss this Amendment with Amendment No. 7. This Amendment is to exclude inalienable land from the expedited acquisition order procedure. I will not repeat all the points I made during the previous stage. Nearly all the properties of the National Trust for Scotland are declared to be inalienable and we are talking today of that small part of the land which the Trust holds in Scotland, which is the coastline representing 40 out of the 6,400 miles of Scottish coastline. Therefore, very little land so far held by the Trust is involved.
The presumption in seeking to persuade the Government to accept this Amendment is that the value of land held by the Trust is valuable because it is held as sacrosanct, as untouched. If it is donated to the National Trust for Scotland, it is often donated on condition that it shall be held as inalienable. That is the main reason for the giving of the land in the first place. So anything that strikes at the present legislation on which inalienability is based is also striking at
236
one of the reasons why the Trust has been able to build up this precious heritage of land that it holds in Scotland. The Trust fears that any breach in this good faith and in this legal protection will lead to a substantial diminution in the future giving of land. The Trust feels and I agree with it, that if the expedited acquisition procedure once overrides the procedure for declaring land inalienable and the rights that were given, it can be done again.
I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for having written to me very courteously in reply to a number of points I raised during the previous stage, and I wish to read part of the letter that the noble Lord wrote to me about this Amendment which I am now moving for a second time. The noble Lord stated:
"… we think that failure to provide for the acquisition of inalienable land by expedited order could prove a serious defect at some time in the future. There could arise a case when the national interest in terms of acquiring land quickly for a crucial oil development had to be balanced against the ' national interest' as represented by the National Trust's inalienable tenure of land. The Bill provides a means—through the Affirmative Resolution procedure—for Parliament to resolve any such conflict. That is what should be allowed to happen. To accept the amendment"—
my Amendment—
" would be to prejudge the issue now and to say in effect: 'We cannot foresee what situation we may face in the future but inalienable land—and the qualified nature of that "inalienability" and the Trust's power to declare additional land to be inalienable must be

237
emphasised—must remain in this respect forever inviolate'. In these uncertain times, that seems a judgment that we would find it hard to justify."
The noble Lord made three points there. He said first, without doubt, that if my Amendment is not agreed to inalienable land will come under the Affirmative Resolution procedure laid down in this Bill. Secondly, he agreed that the national interest is represented by the National Trust's inalienable tenure of land. But, finally, he said that inalienable land,
" must remain in this respect forever inviolate ",
if my Amendment is accepted. If that were so, I would not move this Amendment.
I regret to point out to the noble Lord that I am not suggesting for one moment that inalienable land should be forever held inviolate. In the Acquisition of Land Authorisation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1947, it is stated in paragraph 9 of Schedule 1:
"A compulsory order shall, in so far as it authorises the compulsory purchase of land … belonging to the National Trust for Scotland which is held by the Trust inalienably, be subject to special parliamentary procedure in any case where an objection has been duly made by the … National Trust for Scotland, … and has not been withdrawn."
So, my Lords, we are not arguing that the National Trust for Scoiland should, against the national interest, hold land which it holds by law as inalienable. We are simply arguing about two methods of Parliamentary discussion and approval. There is already, as I say, an alternative procedure.
What does the argument come down to? On the one hand, how much quicker—if at all—is one procedure compared with the other? Under the Bill, the expedited acquisition order goes under the Affirmative Resolution procedure. But there might, as your Lordships know, be a Special Order—it might come under the Special Order procedure—before that Affirmative Resolution is considered by this House. There may be delay, although it is fairly quick. But how long would the method of giving your Lordships the right to decide about inalienable land take? As I calculate it, there are 52 days of statutory delays for various reasons. There is the time taken by the Chairman of Committees in this
238
House, and by the Chairman of Ways and Means in another place, to satisfy themselves that there is substantial ground for objection and to make a précis of the case to be reported to both Houses. And then there is, if it is so ordained, consideration by the Joint Committee, and the only case I can find is that concerning the Saltrom by-pass which, in 1968, involved a sitting from the 19th to the 26th November in consideration of a case similar to the sort of case that would arise if my Amendment were accepted. So the delay which may be 70 days, is surely worth while in the vague possibility of this happening to alienable land without the Trust having agreed to accept whatever the Government want.
So your Lordships have to judge: on the one hand, the little longer time and, on the other hand, the near certainty that the amount of land given to the National Trust for Scotland—and later, also, I believe, the English National Trust will feel this;—will be less because this Amendment is not passed. I hope that the noble Lord will consider my Amendment and will consider with it the substantial undertaking given by my noble friend Lord Wemyss at the Committee stage of the Bill. I beg noble Lords to consider this carefully and hope that the noble Lord opposite will be able to accept my Amendment.
The Earl of WEMYSS and MARCH: My Lords, in supporting the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Craigton, I find that it is becoming more and more difficult to say anything new on this extremely important subject. The noble Lord has said it all very well and much else has been said by other speakers at earlier stages of the debate. There is one special point which I should like to emphasise. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, understands the matter very well; but if noble Lords—or, what is much more likely, anybody outside this House—were to read literally the noble Lord's words uttered in Committee stage on February 10th (and they can be found in col. 1146 of Hansard) they would find that he said something to the effect that somebody in the future—meaning, presumably, somebody in Scotland—can make land inalienable. I repeat, "somebody". This is not so. Nobody in Scotland and nobody

239
in the United Kingdom, except for the two National Trusts, can make land inalienable. This is a special privilege granted to these two Trusts by Parliament and to them only.
It is possible that some person in the future could offer land to one or other of the National Trusts on the condition that it should be made inalienable. But the Trust does not have to accept this; the Trust does not have to declare land inalienable because of such a condition. It could always refuse the offer. Even if it were heavily bribed to accept it, I can assure noble Lords that in the present crisis (as I have already assured you) this would not happen. You may take my word for it. In other words, I can repeat what I have said before, having since the Committee stage had discussions with the Executive Committee of the Trust, that the Trust will not, without the greatest care, and, if this Amendment is agreed, without consulting the Government, declare inalienable any more land which might well be wanted for oil-related purposes.
This, therefore, I submit, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and to your Lordships, narrows down the whole field. All that we are talking about in practice is the present inalienable land of the National Trust for Scotland and nothing else at all. Everyone has admitted that the use of this land for something of the kind envisaged in the Bill, though not impossible, is most unlikely. Even so far as the expressions in the noble Lord's letter which has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, are concerned—" the land being forever inviolate "—I confirm that this is not an accurate statement of the situation; and this kind of expression exaggerates the fear that ought to be felt. The land is not inviolate. Parliament can always release it from its inviolability, from its inalienability, if you like. Not only that, but the Trust itself, if it were convinced of the pressing national need in some example (which would probably have been shown by the planning process) is most unlikely to resist to the death not to do much more than go through the motions of resisting inalienable land acquisition under existing procedure.
240
I think that this narrows the case to a most unlikely contingency affecting only a small extent of coast and, we all hope, probably only for a few years. For this very small thing, Her Majesty's Government, unless they accept this Amendment, propose to destroy this principle of inalienability which is of great moral force and of great practical use. I beg Her Majesty's Government to think again about this. We still hope that they will accept the Amendment; and if they will do so, I can make a promise which goes beyond what was said in our executive discussions last week. I feel compelled to go beyond it because our discussions were held in the comparatively sunny climate brought about by the noble Lord's words in the House last week, before the clouds came over again and we all buttoned up our overcoats as we now must, in view of the letter that he wrote to my noble friend Lord Craigton.
I can promise positively—and I do not think I shall be repudiated by the National Trust for Scotland—that we will declare no more land at all inalienable until we have had time—with the Government—to make a genuine effort to work out a formula for the future for testing whether land should be declared inalienable henceforward, if it might possibly be wanted for the purposes of Clause 1(2) of this Bill. This could be on the lines of the procedure already in use by the National Trust with the Government in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will have a last-minute, an llth-hour, repentance on this matter. I almost said a "deathbed repentance";but I bit the words back because I hope that the noble Lord has not yet gone to that length.
6.58 p.m.
Lord CHORLEY: My Lords, I, too, have spoken on this point at both earlier stages of the Bill. Some of your Lordships know, that I speak from long experience as the Deputy Chairman of the English, Welsh and Northern Irish National Trust which has close on half a million members and which—I can assure your Lordships—is solidly behind the National Trust for Scotland on this point. I do not want to repeat arguments which I have put forward previously. At the

241
end of the Committee stage on this matter, the situation looked rather promising because of a valuable interjection by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, who asked whether the danger was not that some people might come along and wish to transfer their land to the National Trust of Scotland, not for the purpose of protecting its beauty but because they did not want the Government to get it. If the National Trust of Scotland made it inalienable, that would give rise to an unfortunate and difficult position.
The noble Earl, Lord Perth, suggested that this could be overcome in every case where the National Trust for Scotland was offered land—at any rate, coastal land— by their inquiring of the relevant authorities in the Government how they would view such an acceptance and such an inalienability order made by the National Trust for Scotland. As appeared from the earlier part of the debate, my noble friend Lord Hughes said that so far as he was concerned, he was quite satisfied as regards the existing land. It was such a small area; it had all been looked at and there had been this careful inquiry at Drambuie. He said that what worried him was the possibility of this subterfuge type of transfer to the National Trust in a case where the object was not really to protect natural beauty but to defeat the Government.
I had a dim recollection that in the National Trust of England we had been faced by this kind of difficulty on a few occasions just after the end of the war. Your Lordships will remember that during the war years there was a great deal of requisitioning of land and some landowners felt they had not been treated at all fairly over it. At the National Trust we were offered land in a number of cases—not many—in some of which it rather seemed to us that there might be an indirect motive of the kind which the noble Earl, Lord Perth, mentioned and of which I have already spoken in my earlier remarks tonight. Therefore, we laid down—I should say in the late 1940s or early 1950s—a rule that we would never accept land with the intention of making it inalienable without first submitting the matter to what is now the Department of the Environment and obtaining their views on it, and making quite sure that it was not required in the national interest by the Government, by
242
local government, by a statutory corporation or any organisation of that kind. That procedure was introduced and has been pursued, I think on every occasion, since that time. I have checked this point with the Secretary of the National Trust during the last 48 hours and he assures me that that is so.
Surely, this is as much as is needed. It has worked admirably throughout the last 25 years so far as England, Wales and Northern Ireland are concerned. Why should it not work equally well in Scotland? I assumed that that was what the National Trust of Scotland had been offering to the Government as a result of the deliberations of their executive committee last week. Surely, if it works so well in England it will work equally well in Scotland. That knocks the bottom out of the argument which the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has now produced, which is going back a long way from what he said at the end of the Committee stage last week. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will insist. There is the safeguard, as has been pointed out, of the Parliamentary procedure. It could be in only a rare case that it would have to be brought into effect, but the safeguard is there. In all these circumstances, I appeal to my noble friend Lord Hughes to accept this Amendment and to rely on the ample safeguards which exist.
7.4 p.m.
Viscount NORWICH: My Lords, as a member of the executive committee of the National Trust for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, I should like to add my support to that of previous speakers for this Amendment. The point is an extremely simple one. It is that since 1907, when the National Trust Acts were originally passed, the privilege that the two National Trusts have had to declare land inalienable has been more than any other single factor responsible for the tremendous success that they have had. Our own English, Welsh, Northern Irish National Trust now has under its protection something in the nature of 1 per cent. of the total acreage of England, Wales and Northern Ireland—something like 1 mile in every 10 of coastline. It is an extraordinary achievement. It is absolutely unquestionable that only a minute percentage of that amount of land would ever have been given to us had the donors not been confident in their

243
hearts that, by declaring this land inalienable, they were in fact protecting it for ever.
Every time this principle of inalienability is chipped away unnecessarily, and, above all, when it is chipped away indiscriminately—it is not a question of taking each case on its merits but of simply saying, "Inalienability does not count" and striking it off—it not only makes it easier for successive Governments to take away what has, after all, been given to us in trust in the past. It also, equally importantly, diminishes the possibility of other potential donors in future trusting us to look after land they love and know is worth preserving. I assure your Lordships that the decision to declare land inalienable is not taken easily. It is taken only after great care and great consideration. There is no serious risk. We have already seen in the case of Saltram how, when good reasons apply, the decision can be revoked. I therefore implore your Lordships to give all your support to this Amendment, which will protect and uphold the greatest single trump card we possess for conservation in this country.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, comes to reply he will consider sympathetically what has been moved by my noble friend Lord Craigton. When he replies, could he clarify a point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley? We understand that subsection (6) of Clause 1 would have the effect of cutting out the special Parliamentary procedure of a Joint Committee of both Houses where inalienable land is involved. Our understanding is that under the expedited procedure the Petition and the Select Committee would not be possible. The two National Trusts made clear in a letter in The Times last November, to which I referred when we considered the Bill earlier, that they are content where inalienable land is concerned to go by the decision taken in the appropriate way by Parliament, but that they are against the special Parliamentary procedure being truncated. If that is the proper interpretation of the Bill, that the Statutory Instrument under subsection (6) would not allow petitioning and the setting up of a Joint Committee, I would put it to
244
the noble Lord that it is detracting from the Parliamentary procedures.
We believe that Members of your Lordships' House and of the other place, because they know of the urgency of our need to obtain offshore oil, would not in this Parliamentary procedure waste time, and it would simply be a matter of a few days, if that. If the Government are proposing to cut out that procedure, would they even now consider changing the Bill to make sure that that procedure is retained? To include inalienable land within the scope of the Bill and yet, as my noble friends have pointed out, at the same time to cut out the traditional, prescribed procedure for taking a decision in Parliament, seems to us to be dealing with inalienability in a cavalier fashion.
7.8 p.m.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I must admit I am somewhat surprised at the last statement by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. The Government have not at any time concealed the fact that the purpose of this provision is to substitute an Affirmative Resolution, in the case of the National Trust land as in other expedited procedure matters, for the special Parliamentary procedure which would apply. I do not know why the noble Lord is asking about that at this stage. That was made abundantly clear at the last stage of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Craigton, in moving his Amendment has enabled me to shorten my remarks, because much of my brief was contained in a letter which I wrote to him; and as he read it very accurately (I followed it with what was before me) there is no need for me to repeat it. The only thing I want to say in that connection is that there is a certain misunderstanding about a reference I made in the letter.
I think the noble Lord referred to three points which I made; accepted the validity of two, and queried the last one. I think the noble Earl, Lord Wemyss, also found that one a little difficult to swallow. But I would point out that they have missed some words in the letter. I did not say that the land would be forever inviolate, because it was in relation to the expedited procedure; that was what was covered by the three words "in this respect". Therefore, it would be in

245
respect of the use of the special procedure (hat the land would be for ever inviolate though, obviously, if we went through the procedure and the House confirmed an Affirmative Resolution in relation to a piece of land which hitherto had been inalienable, it would cease to be inalienable—just as it would if the House considered it through the special Parliamentary procedure.
The noble Lord, Lord Craigton, concluded his remarks by saying, "I hope that the noble Lord will find it possible to accept this Amendment". We had a discussion before coming into the House in which the noble Lord made it perfectly clear that, no matter what I said, he was going to divide the House. Equally, I made it perfectly clear to him that I did not think he would be able to persuade me to accept the Amendment. Therefore, we know where we finish on this Amendment. I do not think I shall be able to persuade the noble Lord not to divide the House on his Amendment, because I do not believe that I can say to him anything which is new. However, what I hope is that, in dividing the House, noble Lords will not do so under the misapprehension under which the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, is suffering.
This Bill does not destroy inalienability. What the expedited procedure docs is to subject inalienable land to the same procedure as otherwise; but land which is not touched by an application of that kind remains inalienable and in future any land which comes under this procedure will so remain. Therefore, the principle is not touched by what is included in the Bill. What is touched is the application of the special procedure to a particular piece of land. When the noble Lord talks about the Bill not allowing each case to be looked at on its merits, in this regard that is just exactly what the Bill does do, because it is any particular piece of land which is looked at on its merits; whereas what the Amendment asks the Government to do is to give a blanket exemption to National Trust land.
Fortunately for me, National Trusts do not operate like certain political Parties. A number of people have declared an interest in the National Trust for England, Wales and Northern Ireland and also in
246
the National Trust for Scotland. I can also declare a very minor interest in that I am a contributor. If, therefore, the National Trust were a political Party I should be in danger of expulsion for not agreeing with them in what I am saying, and it is just possible that there are other people who find themselves in the same position. I think that the noble Earl, Lord Wemyss, will concede that, generally, the attitude of the Scottish Office and of individual Ministers of all Governments has been to lean over backwards to help the National Trust for Scotland. In this respect, I think our record is pretty good, particularly in the Drambuie situation where the Secretary of State showed that he was conscious of the need to differentiate between different aspects of the national interest. In that case, where it would have been so easy to come down on the side of oil, the Secretary of State came, down on the side of amenity.
I appreciate very much what the National Trust has done. Even more do I appreciate the extent to which the noble Earl, Lord Wemyss, has gone beyond the terms of the letter which he wrote to me. I should like to say—this fits in very much with what my noble friend Lord Chorley said about the position which applies South of the Border—that if the consultations which have been offered take place, it would, at the very least (and it might do a good deal more than that) identify sites which are unlikely to be needed for oil development. If that were the case, the probability is that the Government of the day would say to the National Trust, "If you wish to make this land inalienable, go ahead and do so because, so far as we can see, it is unlikely to be required for oil".
At Committee stage I suggested a possible way of dealing with this matter that would take care of the doubts for the future and would relate matters solely to the present position. However, I was sticking my neck out when I suggested that we might look at the possibility of exempting from the effect of the Bill land presently in the inalienable ownership of the National Trust. This question has been looked at very carefully and, as the noble Earl, Lord Wemyss, said at the last stage and has said again today— because he has been completely fair in this matter—he, and, by the same token,

247
we, cannot exclude the possibility that some of the land in the existing ownership of the Trust might be affected. It seems to be unlikely, but we cannot say with certainty that all of the 40 miles which are referred to are excluded completely from possible oil use. I feel that we should all prefer it if they were excluded, but we cannot say so with certainty. For that reason, the suggestion which I put forward as a possible compromise cannot be accepted by my colleagues who have primary responsibility in this matter.
The noble Earl, Lord Wewyss, has said that if there were a case where land —may we take it that at the moment we are talking about the land in this category which is in their possession at the present time—was required for oil purposes, he did not think that the National Trust would fight this proposal to the last ditch. It seems to me that the Affirmative Resolution procedure is being offered in this Bill as a substitute for the more prolonged special Parliamentary procedure. In a case where the National Trust disagrees with the Government (although we must accept that there may be circumstances in which the National Trust, on consideration of the matter, would not oppose the acquisition of its land, because that has not been ruled out by anything they have said) and feels that it is necessary to oppose the Government in taking over the land, the Affirmative Resolution procedure gives to the National Trust the opportunity of the case being stated
fairly before both Houses of Parliament. It seems to me, therefore, that, as the Bill stands, it will give to the National Trust the opportunity of stating its case but that it will not give to the National Trust the opportunity of fighting to the last ditch. If, however, it has deprived itself in advance of any wish to fight to the last ditch, then I do not think that the procedure which is included in the Bill will be unfair to the National Trust.
I am sorry, therefore, that I am unable to advise acceptance of the Amendment. However, I shall be surprised, having regard to the fears which are held about this matter—and I must admit quite frankly that they are fears which are widely and sincerely held—that I shall have persuaded the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, to withdraw his Amendment. However, the Amendment involves the Government in a commitment which in the national interest they do not believe that they would be justified in accepting.
Lord CRAIGTON: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his careful and good-humoured reply. Clearly he has not fully appreciated the vital importance in the national interest of not breaching the legal status of inalienability. For that reason alone, I hope that my noble friends will support me.
7.19 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 63; Not-Contents, 46.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Dulverton, L.

Muirshiel, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Dundonald, E.

Northchurch, B.

Auckland, L.

Elton, L.

Norwich, V.

Balerno, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Onslow, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Falmouth, V.

Penrhyn, L.

Belstead, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Berkeley, B.

Ferrier, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Foot, L.

St. Helens, L.

Chelmer, L.

Gainford, L.

St. Just, L.

Chelwood, L.

Harvington, L.

Sandys, L.

Chorley, L.

Henley, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Hood, V.

Somers, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Stamp, L.

Cowley, E.

Inchyra, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Craigton, L. [Teller. ]

Kilmarnock, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V

Cranbrook, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Tenby, V.

Crawshaw, L.

Long, V.

Tranmire, L.

Cromartie, E. [Teller. ]

Lyell, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Ward of Witley, V.

Davidson, V.

Mills, V.

Wemyss, E.

Denham, L.

Monck, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arwyn, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Melchett, L.

Balogh, L.

George-Brown, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Beswick, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Birk, B.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Peddie, L.

Blyton, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Phillips, B.

Broadbridge, L.

Henderson, L.

Rusholme, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Castle, L.

Hoy, L.

Shinwell, L.

Champion, L.

Hughes, L.

Slater, L.

Collison, L.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

Stow Hill, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Janner, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Crook, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Wallace of Coslang, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Darwen, L.

Lovell-Davis, L. [Teller.]

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Maelor, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Pusher of Camden, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
7.27 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 43, at end insert—
(") Where more than eight months have already elapsed between the receipt by the competent authority of an application for planning consent and the issuance of a decision letter granting consent in that case, in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972, subsections (5), (6), (7) and (8) of this section shall not apply.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment arises following the helpful setting out by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes [Official Report, 10/2/75, col. 1156] in reply to our questions at Committee stage, of situations where there are obligations to hold public inquiries following applications for planning permission. The noble Lord told us of the occasions when a planning inquiry was obligatory, and of others where it could be held at the discretion of the Secretary of State, depending on the weight of objections which had been lodged. He confirmed that unless an Amendment was made to the Planning Act, inquiries must accordingly take place, no matter how urgent and essential a project to win offshore oil might be. At col. 1196, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, in describing similar inquiries, said
" A compulosry purchase order which is subject to a public inquiry rarely takes less than six months … and sometimes it can take very much longer …"
The noble Lord has really made my point for me. We can all recall urgent matters in Scotland where an inquiry following a planning application has taken
250
well over six months. Dunnet Bay was one that was concerned with the oil industry—it was to build steel platforms. Fortunately that did not delay the operations because the company, Chicago Bridge—and the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, is familiar with this as it was near his area—decided after planning permission had been given, to go to Ireland. I think I must point out, since the news has just emerged in the last few days, that that company has now decided to give up its operation in County Mayo in Ireland—having already started a considerable amount of work—because they did not get an order. I think that completely vindicates the condition of the planning permission at Dunnet Bay which I gave as Secretary of State, that the Company should obtain an order before work started, otherwise we would now have at Dunnet Bay a great mess, a large hole having been dug, and the company packing up and going away. I need hardly say I also laid down conditions of reinstatement.
The inquiry took a considerable time. Other examples are Edinburgh Airport, the motorway near Perth and, of course, the Loch Carron situation which took over a year. But, so far as I know, there have been no delays over acquisition of land. At Kishorn in the Loch Carron area, the landowner was a willing seller; there was no need for any compulsory purchase order or compulsory acquisition procedure. This Bill could not have helped at all in that Loch Carron situation.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Campsie, was under a misunderstanding on this point at Committee stage—at column 1102 of Hansard—because he

251
spoke of delays arising from lengthy procedures which could be invoked. I agree with him. I pointed out how these delays have occurred, that they were to do with planning procedures and not with the acquisition of land. If the noble Lord knows of any cases where offshore oil has been held up because of difficulties over the acquisition of land, I should be glad if he would let me know in due course, because I do not myself know of any. It is the protracted planning procedures which have caused delay to date, but this Bill does nothing to streamline or improve them. It does not touch on them at all. I know that the Government have been saying for months that they did not want to disturb the planning procedures, and I hope that that was not simply in order to be different from us. But as a result they now feel unable to do what is really required; that is, to have an effective time-saving system for urgent cases of national importance relating to the winning of offshore oil.
This Amendment considers the situation where an inquiry has been found necessary under the planning Acts in such an urgent or important case, and where the proceedings have been prolonged for more than eight months. If a delay of that order occurs, is it really then reasonable to use a special expedited procedure system to save further delay, probably measured in a few days? I know that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes may say, "Yes, it is, because if it happens to come in the early summer the three months weather window may be missed." I understand that point, but it is illogical —indeed, some might call it crazy—to allow the first stage of the most likely cause of delay, a planning inquiry, to go meandering on unchecked and then, after it has taken eight months or more, to slap on an accelerated system for the later stage of land acquisition.
I do not intend to press this Amendment; the Government could not accept such a basic change in the Bill at this stage. But I suggest it illustrates how this Bill, if it is used at all when it is enacted, would face that difficult situation where the expedited acquisition order procedure would be used after many months of delay had already occurred over a site. This is an illogical way of
252
tackling what we all recognise could be a problem of national importance.
On the day on which Mr. Dobry has made a report about planning procedures concerning England and Wales, and has made recommendations as to how they may be streamlined—he has dealt with a lot of minor cases such as building garages, but has also made recommendations for England and Wales on the similar problems of the time taken by planning inquiries in controversial cases, like most of the ones we are considering —I hope the Government will recognise the stage where delay over land needed for offshore oil purposes is likely to occur. Further I hope they will recognise that the procedures for compulsory acquisitions, which they are putting forward in this Bill, could prove quite irrelevant compared with the months of delay which could still occur owing to planning procedures. I beg to move.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, the thought occurs to me, perhaps rightly and properly, that the subject of the Bill which never was is almost becoming the King Charles' head of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy; the constant reiteration of the advantages of curtailing planning procedure, compared with the advantages of curtailing compulsory purchase procedure. Obviously it is a point of view which is held quite strongly by the opposing sides of the House in this matter, and I think I could not possibly say that one is wrong and the other is right. We happen to think that what we are doing is the better way of dealing with it, in that it does not interfere with the widest ranging examination of a problem and that to curtail the examination on the first stage and then allow unlimited examination on the second stage is in fact the wrong way to go about it. However, I do not think any useful purpose will be served by arguing that, because what has been said already makes it quite clear that we differ in our views. I want to emphasise that we did not do this merely in order to be different, although generally speaking it would seem to us to be right if we differed from what the Administration of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, had done, but in this case we did not arrive at it in that simple way.

253
I can see the argument that the noble Lord has put forward: that the planning procedure has been allowed to run on for more than eight months; there is in fact no need for urgency, and therefore why apply an urgent procedure. I am afraid the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, is overlooking the fact that the length of time that will elapse in a matter of this kind is not necessarily within the control of the Secretary of State. There have been, and there could be, circumstances of desperate urgency where a proper examination should be made. For instance, at Drumbuie, where there was a proper examination as to whether it was the view of the National Trust— and after all, the House has just said that in certain circumstances the view of the National Trust must have preference. In such circumstances it would have been wrong for us to cut short the procedure that was carried out in that inquiry.
There could be another case of the kind, and we have therefore said that we want to take all proper steps to eliminate needless delays in planning. In this connection, in view of what the noble Lord has said about the Dobry Report which has been published today, I expect to be able to make a Statement on Thursday concerning improvements in planning procedures in Scotland, to which I referred briefly at the last stage of this Bill. I am hoping that it will be completed in time for me to make a reference to it at the next stage of the Bill. As the matter has been touched on so much in your Lordships' House, it would seem appropriate that your Lordships should be among the first to know what we are proposing to do to help in this direction. If there were a circumstance in which the delay in planning lasted more than eight months, and perhaps in a case where there was no obvious need for urgency during the inquiry, but the urgency could have developed at a later stage, the effect of the Amendment would be to compound the delay by compelling the normal compulsory purchase procedure to go through.
The noble Lord has asked whether there is any case where we have been prevented from acquiring land. The answer is, No, there has not been such a case, because up to the present all the land acquired for our purposes has been acquired by agreement. If it can be
254
so acquired, so much the better, because everyone knows that acquiring by agreement is always a much more speedy process than acquiring by compulsion. As I say, if that is the position, then so much the better. But at the present time there are cases where, if the statements are to be followed up, there is at least the possibility that we shall be unable to acquire by agreement the land at present needed for oil purposes. In that case, compulsory purchase may in fact be followed out. The one thing which is quite certain is that if you have an owner determined to avoid a compulsory purchase there are many ways in which the procedure can be carried out at considerable length.
I rather hesitate to tell your Lordships, "I am informed ", because the next thing I shall be asked is, "What is the value of this information that you have got". While I cannot bring my informants along, I am probably quite in order in reading what I have just been informed, and you can at least see from where the information has come even if you do not know the informants:
"Zetland County Council have found it necessary to make a compulsory purchase order in relation to land at Sanaignore. Purchase with the scheme may have been delayed by other factors at the same time, but the county council clearly regarded early possession of the land to be an important factor."
The need for powers of compulsory purchase in this connection are, of course, very similar to those which were taken by the Zetland County Council in their Bill.
The noble Lord has said that he does not intend to press this Amendment. I am grateful for that, because as he has admitted, it would be going completely in opposition to the procedure which the Government have pursued in this Bill. It would be quite wrong for me to say that I can prove that this procedure is better than the procedure which the noble Lord would have preferred. What I can say is that we think it is better. We believe that we will do less injustice to the rights of communities and to the rights of individuals if we accelerate on compulsory purchase rather than on planning. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, will be content that we each rest on our declared beliefs in this matter.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I make no apology for having returned to this point, because I believe it is the most important point in our bid to win offshore oil as soon as we can, and in order to keep in perspective where delay has occurred and is likely to occur in the future. We regret the delay that has already occurred in that offshore oil that we would have been able to extract in 1977 and 1978 we shall not now be able to extract, and we hope that in future such delays can be avoided.
With respect to Zetland, I suspect that the compulsory purchase order there was more related to their need to control development than to any delay which has been caused, because I was much concerned about their private legislation that was passing through. Of course they made it clear that their intention to try to control what would be a great development in a very small area of their island caused them to seek special powers, which I am glad to say Parliament granted to them.
Having again pointed out where the delay is likely to occur, in planning procedures, where it has occurred already and where we shall not get the oil we might otherwise have got, I think the point has been made, and I seek leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Terms and effect, etc. of licences under s. 4]:
7.44 p.m.
Lord BALOGH Lord BALOGH moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 5, line 35, at beginning insert (" Subject to subsection (4) below,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, noble Lords will notice that I shall move certain drafting Amendments on a topic of which I know very little. This is one of those Amendments. Its purpose is to make it absolutely clear that subsection (3) does not prevent a person from raising a court action under subsection (4) where, for example, a licensee in a designated sea area fails to pay agreed or awarded compensation. I beg to move.
Clause 9 [Arrangements to ensure reinstatement of other land developed for purposes connected with offshore petroleum]:
Lord BALOGH Lord BALOGH moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 8, line 32, leave out (" at the end of a specified period ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the Committee stage this Amendment was tabled in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Cromartie. He was unfortunately unable to be present to move it. The Government would have accepted it, because it was very closely linked to the Government Amendment which removes from Clause 9(1) the reference to Section 27(l)(b) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972.
While we do not agree with the very restricted interpretation of the words "specified period", which were argued for when the matter was debated in another place, we accept that there is need to clarify that the use of the power in Clause 9 is not restricted to circumstances where it is possible to specify in advance an exact period of time in a planning condition. The Amendment achieves this purpose by removing the words which have given rise to doubt. We hope it will assist planning authorities in imposing the requirement under Clause 9, whether the related planning condition is expressed in terms of a period of years or in some other less narrowly defined specific period. I beg to move.
The Earl of CROMARTIE: My Lords, I have a very nice letter from the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and this Amendment follows very much one for which I was not able to be present. I had suggested a period of six or seven years. A "specified period" could have been one year to 100 years. I support this Amendment as it stands now.
Clause 12 [Supplementary provisions as to acquisition and appropriation of land]:
Lord BALOGH Lord BALOGH moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 10, line 21, at beginning insert:
" ( ) The power of the Secretary of State to acquire land compulsorily under this Act shall

257
include power to acquire a servitude or other right over land by the creation of a new right."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is two-fold. The first is to clarify the position of the Crown Estate Commissioners under the Bill. Crown interests in land are dealt with in Clause 16(5) and the intention has always been that such interests would not be prejudiced by anything in the Bill. This Amendment provides an express saving for the powers of the Commissioners who are responsible for managing the Crown's interests.
The second purpose is to extend the list of enactments in relation to which a specific saving from the provisions of the Bill is provided. In particular, it is necessary to make it clear, for the avoidance of doubt, that the provisions of these listed enactments continue to have effect within designated sea areas and are not overridden by the provisions of this Bill in any such areas. It is, however, also necessary to make it clear at the same time that this saving for the effect of the listed enactments does not over-ride the need for a licence in respect of any "relevant operations" which may be authorised under any of them, or by any of the bodies mentioned.
Lord HUGHES: I am sorry, my Lords, but my noble friend has turned over two pages and it will not be necessary to repeat the story which he has given you most beautifully when we come to Amendment No. 8. I suspect your Lordships might well have passed this Amendment, notwithstanding the fact that it was the wrong explanation. But the Amendment we are dealing with is a technical one to provide a means whereby the Secretary of State can exercise his power of compulsory purchase for the purpose of the Bill, so as to create a servitude or other right in or over land without having to acquire the land itself in which the right subsists. A power of this kind may well be useful and could in fact be more acceptable to the landlord in enabling the Secretary of State to provide a new right of way under Clause 2(6) in place of the right of way extinguished by an order under Clause 2(5). I apologise to my noble friend for not noticing earlier that he had turned over two sheets instead of one. When
258
we come to Amendment No. 8, your Lordships perhaps will allow him to move it formally.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I was only about to say that when the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, was telling us about this, it sounded as if he were referring to other Amendments coming later, as though this was, indeed, a paving Amendment.
Lord CRAIGTON Lord CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 10. line 41, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment arises out of Amendment No. 2, on which your Lordships have already divided. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will be able to accept this Amendment, and not divide the House again on it. I beg to move.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I cannot accept the Amendment, but that does not mean that I am forced to divide on it.
Clause 18 [Savings]:
Lord BALOGH Lord BALOGH moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 13, leave out lines 19 to 24 and insert—
(" (a) the: powers of the Crown Estate Commissioners;
(b) the powers of the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses;
(c) the Pilotage Act 1913;
(d) Part II of the Coast Protection Act 1949 (safety of navigation);
(e) the Land Powers (Defence) Act 1958; (f) the Pipelines Act 1962;
(g) the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Act 1971;
(h) the: Dumping at Sea Act 1974;
(i) the Health and Safety at Work Etc. Act 1974;
but this subsection shall not enable any person to execute any relevant operations requiring a licence under section 4 of this Act without obtaining such a licence.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I apologise to the House. As I said earlier, I was interested in Amendments about which I knew nothing, and I have demonstrated it. I beg to move.
Clause 20 [Short title, interpretation and extent]:
Lord BALOGH Lord BALOGH moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 14, line 10, leave out ("sea bed") and insert (" foreshore ")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, may I take this Amendment and Amendment No. 10 together. These two Amendments are interrelated; they are essentially drafting changes and do not make any alteration in the provisions of the Bill or in any way in which these provisions will be operated. It is desirable that the power of acquisition, for the purposes of the Bill, should extend to areas of the seabed adjacent to platform sites. On reconsideration, it appeared more satisfactory to achieve this by applying to the seabed provisions for the temporary acquisition of land rather than by including the seabed in the definition of land, which I am advised might have left the matter unclear. Amendment No. 10 achieves this. Amendment No. 9 is to cover expressly the position of the foreshore. I beg to move.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I should like to raise a query about this, because the whole question of the seabed comes up in a new way when dealing with offshore oil. From what the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, has just said, it sounds as if he is catering for areas of the seabed in the United Kingdom Continental Shelf, which could be 10 miles, or even 100 miles, away from the shore. The noble Lord spoke of the seabed for platforms. Most of these platforms will be installed for something like 20 years about 100 miles from the shore. On the other hand, I recognise that the noble Lord may be speaking simply of the period during which they are constructed. For example, some will have to be assembled in the Firth of Clyde, and because there is only a clearance of about 25 fathoms, they will have to be further assembled at Loch Carron. It may be the noble Lord is speaking of national waters, because this is inside not only territorial limits but also inside a firth or a bay. Therefore the word, "land "covers" water ". The seabed can be treated in the same way as ordinary land.
However, if the noble Lord is talking about the seabed outside territorial waters,
260
then I should like to raise a point—and if it is too short notice to get a reply now I shall understand this. My understanding is that the agreement on allocating the Continental Shelf, so far as the North Sea is concerned, was not an agreement concerning sovereignty over the seabed, but was an agreement on ownership of the minerals—in this case the hydrocarbons—under the seabed. If we are apparently treating the seabed around a platform 100 miles away from shore as though it was land in the United Kingdom, I suggest this sounds like a new departure. So I can only assume that, in fact, it is the construction of a platform that is intended, and not its final station out at sea.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. Only the seabed in territorial waters is affected by the Bill.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 10.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 39, at end insert—
(" Except where the context otherwise requires, this Act shall apply in relation to any estate or interest in or right over the sea bed as it applies in relation to land, and the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act 1947 and the compulsory purchase enactments specified in paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 2 to this Act shall apply accordingly."—(Lord Balogh.)
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 14, line 43, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
(" (4) This Act shall not extent to Northern Ireland.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think it might be convenient if this and Amendment No. 12 were considered together. I say straight away they are probing Amendments. The first one simply queries why the Bill is not being extended to England and Wales. The second Amendment takes up a point which was made on a previous occasion by the noble Lord, Lord Balogh. If it is the case that only Scotland is involved because certain requirements can be found only there, why not restrict the Bill accordingly to that part of Scotland? During the Second Reading debate on

261
28th January 1975, the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, said that the reason for confining the Bill to Scotland was that,
"… the problem of making semi-submersible and fixed concrete structures requires sites adjacent to deep water and that these are to be found only in Scotland".—[Official Report; 28/1/75; col. 442.]
The second Amendment covers all the suitable Scottish coastline in question, and its hinterland. But, demonstrably, after our discussions the Bill is not restricted to such structure-building projects, nor is it limited to pipeline terminals, which also might conceivably be restricted to that coastline of Scotland.
My Lords, as has emerged again today, Clause 1 covers a wide range of projects connected with offshore oil, and such projects might just as well be sited in England and Wales as in Scotland. For instance, if land were required for a factory to make shoes worn by men working on oil rigs or special vessels, this would no doubt come under "other services or facilities" in paragraph (d) of Clause 1(2). That factory could as well be near Newcastle as near Edinburgh, but the Bill would apply to it only if it were near Edinburgh.
What happens when oil is found, as it is expected to be found, below the Celtic Sea or, as expected also, off the Scilly Isles and Cornwall? That area is the subject of arbitration between our country and France as to where the median lines should be drawn. To give a practical example, if a trans-shipment terminal were required at a pipeline landfall in Wales or Cornwall, and following experience in Scotland we found the conditions required meant it had to be at a place of outstanding beauty, and there were weighty objections from amenity bodies, the tourist industry and local communities concerning the possibilities of oil spills, what legislation, if any, would apply in Wales or in England? That would be a similar situation, which could be a very urgent one of national importance if the production of that oil could be carried out, and everything was ready for it in other respects, and yet the terminal and the trans-shipment facilities were holding it up.
Do the Government intend to leave legislation for England and Wales on planning and compulsory purchase as it now is, having taken out this very wide
262
insurance policy on compulsory acquisition so far as Scotland is concerned? This is the opportunity for the Government to give us some indication when this sort of problem arises—as it undoubtedly will if oil is discovered in England and Wales—whether it is their intention simply to present Parliament with a kind of carbon copy of what has already been done for Scotland, or whether they would expect to tackle it in some different way, or do nothing.
I recognise that my second Amendment might make the Bill a hybrid Bill, and there may be other defective points in it, but my purpose has been to show how the application of the Bill, being limited within Scotland at present, would mean that similar situations arising else-where in Britain—and we must expect those—would not benefit from anything that is now in this Bill. I beg to move.
8.1 p.m.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, perhaps it would help if I were to go back to the Statement made on 12th August by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy. In that Statement the crucial importance of obtaining sites for concrete platform fabrication was emphasised. Most concrete designs require sites with at least 12 fathoms of water close inshore, and all designs require access to much deeper water, of the order of 85 fathoms, to be completed. The most suitable sites are deep inlets of the sea with adjacent flat coastal land and these physical conditions exist only in Scotland.
More generally, regardless of the location of the area on the Continental Shelf in which exploration or production is taking place, it is in Scotland that the onshore effects are being directly felt. It is in relation to Scotland that the powers are needed. It was a follow-up of that to which my noble friend Lord Balogh was speaking in the reference made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. That was in his reply to the Second Reading debate. These factors seem to point strongly in the direction of a Scottish Bill.
An important additional factor, however, is that the powers in the Bill have been criticised—and once again very extensively criticised today—in relation to the debate on Amendment No. 1. The

263
Government have been accused of taking unnecessary, indeed Draconian, powers to deal with oil-related developments. We feel that in asking for these powers we are fully justified by reference to the situation which exists in Scotland. We do not claim that there is a similar need, or that there is any evidence of a similar need, elsewhere in Great Britain. If the impact of oil developments were felt more directly in England and Wales, the Government would, of course, look at the question of the adequacy of their powers to cope with it. But if we had made this a Great Britain or United Kingdom Bill, then I am quite certain that Amendments would have been tabled—even if it were accepted that these powers are necessary in Scotland— saying: Why apply them to an area of Great Britain where there is no need known at the present time? While we hope that there will be major oil discoveries in the Celtic Sea or the area at present in dispute with France—which would, incidentally, present our mutual friends in the Scottish National Party with a new problem, if the discoveries no longer merely referred to Scottish oil —that is possibly very much in the future. However, I think it would have been wrong to take these powers—which we think can be shown to be necessary in relation to an existing situation which arises only in Scotland—and extend them to areas of Great Britain where there is no justification for them at the present time.
I would remind your Lordships, also, in relation to the last Division we had in connection with the National Trust for Scotland, that on Committee stage I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, who, in reference to the National Trust said,
" Let the National Trust in England beware. The Red Flag had been hoisted."
They would undoubtedly have had cause to beware if we had sought to apply these provisions over the whole country, because they would not have been defending themselves against a possible future attack of this kind, but would have been defending themselves against one which was already in the Bill. I am quite certain that, if this Amendment had been going to a Division, a considerable number of those who
264
voted in the National Trust's defence in the last Division would not have been able to follow the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, into the Division Lobby on this one. So the justification for confining it to Scotland is well made.
I come to the second one, which goes the other way. It is said: "Very well then, if it is right to confine it to Scotland, why spread it to areas of Scotland not going to be involved? "There are technical objections to the Amendment arising from the fact that, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, indicated, it might make it a hybrid Bill; but leaving that aside, it seems to us to be impracticable to restrict the Bill's application in the way proposed. It may be true that the developments with which we are most immediately concerned in the Bill, concrete platform fabrication, are restricted, because of the site conditions they require, to geographical areas referred to in the Amendment.
The Bill is concerned not only with concrete platform fabrication, but with other sites for other types of installation which may be developed, for instance for sub-sea completion systems, and for other purposes. Pipelines and shore terminals are examples of development covered expressly by the Bill which are more likely to occur on the East Coast than the West. In fact one of the actions taken by the noble Lord himself when he was responsible at the Scottish Office, in facilitating oil developments, was to agree to the operations taking place at Peterhead Harbour, which, if I am right in my recollection, is not in the Highland Region. The operations in connection with oil are most prolific at Aberdeen; they have extended to Montrose; they have reached my home town of Dundee. So if he were seeking to restrict it to areas of Scotland, he would at least have to add to his list the Grampion Region and the Tayside Region.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I tried to make it clear that it was only if the Bill were confined to the building of special concrete platforms that it would need to apply only to that part of Scotland. But if it applies, as now, to virtually anything connected with offshore oil, the building of rigs and steel platforms and supply vessels and many

265
other things, then, of course, it would need to apply to the whole of Scotland, and one might say to England and Wales when the time comes for such things to be built there in greater quantity than they are at present.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, the noble Lord makes my case against the second Amendment better than I can make it myself. Why should I seek to destroy it when he does it for me? The noble Lord indicated that these were probing Amendments. I have indicated, I think to his satisfaction, why it should be a Scottish Bill rather than a Great Britain Bill, which would be the effect of the first Amendment; and I think having accepted that the Bill applies to more than platform sites then it does extend beyond the regions of Scotland defined in his second Amendment. I, therefore, with more confidence than I would have had, invite him to withdraw the first Amendment and not to move the second one.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, the noble Lord has again done what has happened in this Bill before, which is to say that, because of the Statemeat on August 12th and the special conditions required for building certain kinds of concrete platforms, that would of course confine it to Scotland and also confine it to virtually the West and Northern coastlines of Scotland. If that were the case, my second Amendment would be appropriate, and that was why it was put forward as a probing Amendment. But the noble Lord went on to say that the Bill covers a whole lot of other things as well: that there are pipelines and service facilities and other things at Montrose and Peterhead and other places. Indeed there are, and so there are in the North of England. A pipeline is being laid to the North of England. There is a steel platform being built on Teesside, and rigs and other installations and equipment connected with North Sea oil are being produced—particularly supply vessels—in England. That brings us to the first Amendment.
The amenity bodies are worried that the Government have the intention of simply extending this to England and Wales. I quite agree with the noble Lord—I do not think that the amenity bodies would be particularly keen to do so by this Bill. I certainly would not
266
press this probing Amendment, but the amenity bodies are anxious that when problems arise in England and Wales the Government intend simply to try to extend the provisions in this Bill to England and Wales. If I understand what the noble Lord has said, that is not his intention, and I hope that they may get some comfort from that.
I must make it clear again that the noble Lord has not really answered the question. He has answered one point by saying that the intention was to confine the Bill to the building of certain special concrete platforms—and that is certainly the impression that the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, gave—but on the other hand the Bill, when we look at it, extends to a very wide range connected with exploration, sub-sea projects, which he mentioned, and pipelines, and these are already happening not only on the West Coast of Scotland but on the East Coast and also in various parts of England. The pressure is not so great South of the Border, but that does not mean that it will not increase later on.
These probing Amendments have been moved to try to discover the Government's intentions, and to point out that the Government really cannot pretend that the Bill is connected only with certain special concrete platforms. It is not; it is much wider than that. We accept that the Bill is simply confined to Scotland, and we hope that the Government will learn lessons from it when it is enacted, and when problems arise in England and Wales perhaps bring forward rather better proposals.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, before the noble Lord withdraws the Amendment, I should like to make it clear that I did not say that the Bill was confined to the purpose of oil fabrication. The Statement of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said that that was what caused a Bill to be necessary. We should have been failing in our duty if we had produced a Bill for only these purposes. The Bill in fact covers things which are essential and which are confined to Scotland; and other things, while necessary in Scotland, could, as the noble Lord indicated, also be necessary in England, but there is no need at this stage for any of the procedures in relation to fabrication, so therefore there is

267
no need at this stage for any legislation to cover what is taking place, or may take place, in England or Wales at the present time.
I would repeat that if the impact of oil developments—and I think that I said the same sort of thing earlier on—bears more directly in England and Wales, the Government will of course look at the question of the adequacy of their powers to cope with it. In any case, the problems, if any, which arise might well take on a totally different form from those in Scotland, and might demand different solutions to those contained in the Bill. I think it perhaps would meet the noble Lord's wishes that I should emphasise that point; we do not see that all that would be required, should the situation change in England and Wales, is a short Bill applying these principles South of the Border.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I am grateful for that further explanation. The noble Lord has confirmed that when the Bill was an idea, it was because of the especially exacting conditions required for building these concrete platforms, and then while it was being drafted it was expanded into something embracing a great deal more.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I did not say, "while it was being drafted." I said that having accepted the need for legislation, we then considered what else should be in the Bill. It was no after-thought. Having accepted the need for this special thing, we then had to consider what were all the subjects the Bill should cover.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, after 12th August, when the Statement was made about the special concrete platforms and the fact that they could be built only in certain parts of Scotland, the Government, whether it was at drafting stage or some other stage before the Bill was presented, decided that they would put in the Bill a whole lot of other things. The original reason for limiting it to Scotland had, by that time, I suggest, disappeared. We have a clarification now of what is more important, which is what the Government's intentions are for the future, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [Making and revocation of expedited acquisition orders]:
8.18 p.m.
Lord HENLEY Lord HENLEY moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 16, line 14, leave out ("conclusive").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, at Second Reading, pointed out that paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 ousts the jurisdiction of the court. This means that an order cannot be challenged in the courts at all. I wonder whether, by taking out the word "conclusive", it would enable it to go before the court if it was necessary to do so.
I see one defect in this; that is, that there probably ought to be some limit as to how long an order could be challenged, and I see that in the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act 1946 at Schedule 1, paragraph 15 and paragraph 16, there is a provision by which what I want to effect could be done. It says that a certificate given by the Secretary of State should not be capable of being challenged after the expiry of a particular period. I discovered this too late to put down an Amendment that would embrace that particular provision, and for that reason I would not want to spend too much time arguing about "conclusive" or to seek to divide your Lordships on it. But I believe that it is not right that the Secretary of State should have quite such conclusive powers as he has given himself in this subsection, and I should be interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has to say about it.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I must admit that when I saw the brief on this Amendment this morning, I was not satisfied with it at all. It did not seem to me that it presented me with any reasons whatever for declining to accept this Amendment. The result was that I spent a considerable time disagreeing with the advice that I was being given. As a result, they went back to examine it because it seemed to me that leaving out the word "conclusive" would not imperil the procedure which we were seeking and lead to any lengthy delay. In the result, I am now in the position that I am to ask the noble Lord not to press the Amendment because all the argument that has taken place has enabled them

269
to present me with the real reasons, which apparently were so obvious to them that they missed them out, and I got a lot of the subsidiary material.
There is a good case for having the word "conclusive" in. The intention behind paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 is to eliminate the possibility of challenge to the validity of an expedited order arising in the courts as a result of some technical defect in the observance by the Secretary of State of the procedural requirements in paragraphs 1 and 3 of Schedule 1. These deal with such matters as the service of notices related to expedited acquisition orders and the contents of such notices.
It it is accepted that in cases of urgency there should be a rapid way of gaining access to and developing sites for oil-related purposes—and the Government regard this action as fundamental—then, in our view, it follows that the risk of such developments being delayed by challenges on technicalities should be eliminated so far as possible. Without the existing provision in paragraph 7 it would be possible for someone to go to court to challenge the validity of the order because of some minor defect in a notice. The courts would no doubt dismiss the case if it were found to be without real substance, but we all know that the determined litigant, improperly advised, can prolong—sometimes at great length—the judicial decision-making process. There have been a number of cases in Scotland where this has happened under the ordinary compulsory purchase procedure. We must ensure that this does not happen in the case of expedited orders; otherwise the whole point of having the procedure disappears.
There must of course be the possibility of a mistake being made and remaining undetected in relation to such an important matter, but we think it is extremely remote. Secondly, where a mistake of that kind comes to light early enough, the Secretary of State will be able to take appropriate action to remedy matters. He could serve an additional notice if need be or, indeed, start the whole proceedings all over again. The point is that no Secretary of State will present to a court a certificate which he knows to be false. If an error is detected then there is the opportunity of remedying it.
270
But if we take out this word "conclusive", all the value that the certificate has is reduced to a statement which could be challenged, point after point, and which could compel the procedure to be gone through item by item, requiring proof that it was advertised in a paper at such and such a time; proof that something was posted on such and such a date and that a recorded delivery receipt had been received, and so on. The whole purpose could be defeated. I gave my people a great deal of work because, on the basis of the information which I first had, I did not think I had reasons for objecting to the omission of this word. But I am now satisfied by what I have been told that it would be a cause for delay, not on the part of the person whom one would want to help, but on the part of the person who was deliberately seeking, as occasionally happens, to use the machinery of the courts to frustrate the proper purpose.
There are precedents for this sort of situation. In this case I do not think it is any great advantage to create precedents. Other precedents are related to particular subjects, and the next time this subject comes up the precedent in this Bill may be of no value. The merits of the case must be the justification. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will find it possible to withdraw his Amendment.
Lord HENLEY: My Lords, I agree that I could find no effective precedents; they were all rather small ones. I accept in considerable measure that difficulties can arise due to a litigious person. This is one of the effects of law and one tries to get around it. As my noble friend Lord Foot said earlier, it is important that if a Government are asking for extensive powers, and are seeking to shortcut various safety nets, one must look very closely at what is proposed. I think I am happy with what the noble Lord has said. I shall need to read his remarks tomorrow, to see whether, in spite of what he said, I feel that some form of words embracing what is in the Acquisition of Land Act 1946 ought to be included. I will think the point over. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  NORTHERN IRELAND: PENSION RATES
  NORTHERN IRELAND: PENSION RATES
  HOMELESSNESS
  HOMELESSNESS
  LOCAL AUTHORITY HOUSING
  LOCAL AUTHORITY HOUSING