Sitting of 1 July 1975

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

    London
    Mr. Tebbitasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current level of unemployment in London.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Fraser): On 9th June the rate of unemployment for Greater London was 2·2 per cent.
    Mr. Tebbit: Does the Minister accept that this figure merely reflects the record June total of unemployed nationally? How does he explain it, considering the promise on which he was elected? Is it policy, accident, design, incompetence or what that has thrown out of work so many men and women in this country?
    Mr. Fraser: I do not think the hon. Member could have been listening to the answer. The rate of unemployment in Greater London is among the lowest in the country. A good many job opportunities and vacancies are available. I think that the hon. Member's remarks, as so often, bear very little relevance to the Question.
    Mr. Tebbit: That is utterly complacent and ignorant.
    Mr. Christopher Price: Is my hon. Friend aware that the percentage of unemployment in London conceals some serious pockets of very bad unemployment? Is he aware that South-East London in particular is suffering in the worst possible way? Will he bear this in mind in any action the Government are taking?
    Mr. Fraser: Yes. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I represent such a constituency myself.
    Mr. Tebbit: It is a different story now.
    Mr. Fraser: Where there are high pockets of unemployment, these are being studied by Government Departments. There are real problems of high unemployment and other forms of deprivation and these are being looked at.

    Workshop Representatives
    Mr. Goldingasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will take steps to improve the education of workshop representatives.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Harold Walker): The content of courses for improving the education of workshop representatives is largely for the parties concerned. We have, however, taken action in the Employment Protection Bill to facilitate such training by providing for time off for workers to undergo training in aspects of industrial relations relevant to the carrying out of their trade union duties.
    Mr. Golding: Is the Minister aware that the very rapid growth in industrial democracy which we are expecting from this Government will require the development of trade union education? Is he further aware that, while we respect the fact that trade unions will want to control their education themselves, institutions must be provided in which that education can take place?
    Mr. Walker: Certainly. It is my wish that courses of that kind should be sustained and expanded. My hon. Friend is right to identify the need for growth in this area in future. He will recognise that there are difficulties in determining whether such courses are educational or vocational and consequently which Department is responsible for their provision. Equally, I am sure my hon. Friend recognises that the TUC feels that training in industrial relations matters for trade union members and officials is primarily a job for it, but I shall look carefully at the point he has put to me.
    Mr. Fell: How can the hon. Gentleman talk about industrial democracy when certain of the top unions in this country refuse point blank to have anything to do with voting by post?
    Mr. Walker: I do not think that arises on this Question.

    Disabled Persons
    Mr. Gouldasked the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has about the numbers of firms which now meet their quotas for the employment of disabled people, broken down on a regional basis.
    Mr. Harold Walker: As the reply contains a table of figures I will, with permission, circulate in the Official Report a regional analysis of compliance with the statutory quota scheme for the employment of disabled people.
    Mr. Gould: Does the Minister accept that the available figures demonstrate the deficiencies in existing legislation which has clearly failed in its objective? What does he propose to do about it?
    Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend will know that the statutory quota scheme has been under review since the last Conservative Government issued a consultative document at the end of 1973. I hope I shall be able to present our conclusions on that review to the House very shortly.
    Mr. Marten: Would it not be an encouragement to firms if, for example, the Queen's Award to Industry was made only to firms which employed their quota of disabled people?
    Mr. Walker: This is an interesting point that has been put to me before. Anything which encourages the employment of more disabled people has to be considered very carefully, but I doubt whether the hon. Member's suggestion matches the needs of what he and I agree is a very unhappy situation.
    Mr. James Lamond: Has my hon. Friend received any information from the special investigations he set up in selected areas? Will he bear in mind that, in a period of rising unemployment nationally, unemployment among the disabled rises out of proportion to the rest of the community?
    Mr. Walker: On my hon. Friend's latter point, there is some small comfort in the fact that the trend has been contrary to what he suggested. Unemployment in the country has risen fairly sharply over the last 12 months, but the number of unemployed among the regis-
    1166
    tered disabled has risen from 10·4 per cent. in June 1974 to 12·1 per cent. in June 1975.
    My hon. Friend referred to the exercise on which we embarked last December of selecting some pockets of high levels of unemployed disabled persons, or low levels of compliance with the statutory quota. That exercise has just been concluded. I have the results, but they still need evaluation and analysis. The result seems to me prima facie to be rather discouraging and disappointing in terms of the additional jobs created for registered disabled persons.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: Is the Minister aware that there would not be enough disabled persons to go around if every firm were to fulfil its statutory quota? In view of what the Minister said when he was in opposition, does he not accept that the Act is now grossly out of date and in urgent need of revision? Does he accept that there must be some new impetus to provide good employment prospects for the disabled?
    Mr. Walker: The hon. Member does not recall accurately the point I used to make when I was in opposition. My point was concerned with more rigorous enforcement of the statutory quota scheme. In the light of the experience gained from the exercise to which I have just referred, I think we are compelled to look again at whether that is the right approach. I think that the hon. Member is correct in his assertion of the need to look again at whether statutory provisions are appropriate and adequate for the needs of the present situation.
    Following is the information as at May 1974:—

    Number of firms reviewed

    Number fulfilling the quota

    London and South East Region

    13,868

    4,367

    Eastern and Southern Region

    6,823

    2,441

    South Western Region

    3,781

    1,655

    Midland Region

    9,833

    4,057

    Yorkshire and Humberside Region

    4,952

    2,515

    North Western Region

    6,510

    3,026

    Northern Region

    2,224

    1,045

    Scotland

    5,369

    2,012

    Wales

    1,853

    989

    Total

    55,213

    22,107

    National and regional information from this year's annual review is not yet available.

    Social Contract
    Mr. R. C. Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for Employment what further discussions he has had with the TUC regarding the implementation of the social contract; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Foot): The Government have been in close consultation with the TUC in their review of the social contract and we shall be having further urgent discussions with it. I refer my hon. Friend to the statement to be made later this afternoon by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. Lane: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the guidelines of the social contract must be drastically tightened?
    Mr. Foot: It would be very much better that the hon. Member should await the statement which the Chancellor is to make.
    Mr. Prior: This is the first intimation we have had that any statement is being made by the Chancellor. Why was this important statement not shown on the notice board in the ordinary way so that hon. Members could be kept fully informed of what was happening?
    Mr. Tebbit: It is a secret statement.
    Mr. Prior: Can we take it that the pathetic faith in the social contract, which the Secretary of State has always shown and which has brought this country to the edge of disaster, will not now be followed by a further pathetic attempt by the Government to patch up something we have known could never possibly exist?
    Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman might save his feeble fire for the Chancellor. If there has been any mistake concerning notification of the statement by the Chancellor, of course that will be looked at, but I understood that the announcement had already been made clear.
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he remains satisfied with the social contract as the main
    1168
    feature of the Government's policy to maintain full employment.
    Mr. Trotterasked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is satisfied with the operation of the social contract in maintaining employment.
    Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the operation of the social contract in maintaining full employment; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Foot: As I have emphasised in reply to previous Questions today, I am certainly not satisfied in any sense whatever with the current level of employment, but a reversal of the present deplorable trend can be achieved only by intelligent policies agreed between the Government and the trade unions to combat inflation.
    Mr. Adley: Has not the right hon. Gentleman noticed that his Government's reliance on the social contract means that we have rising inflation, rising unemployment, a falling pound and falling confidence nationally and internationally? Is not the social contract merely an excuse by which the Government avoid taking difficult decisions? Will the right hon. Gentleman stop expecting people like Jack Jones to play Prime Minister and ask his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his colleagues to start trying to run the country properly?
    Mr. Foot: As I explained to the House —I thought that most right hon. and hon. Members accepted it or understood it—the social contract covers a whole range of policies which were agreed between the Government and the trade union movement, including arrangements about how pay settlements should be made. We intend that the whole of the social contract shall be carried into operation. The idea that it is concerned solely with wages is a complete misapprehension. I believe that the understanding of the social contract still points to the way in which we can overcome our problems.

    Wales
    Mr. Gwynfor Evansasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many registered male employees there were in

    1169
    Wales in June 1955, June 1965 and June 1975.
    Mr. John Fraser: At June 1974, the latest date for which information is available, the estimated number of male employees in employment in Wales was 621,000. Precisely comparable figures are not available for the earlier dates due to discontinuities in the series, but approximate figures on the current basis would be about 700,000 in June 1955 and in June 1965.
    Mr. Evans: Is the Minister aware that the disastrous fall in the number of men employed in Wales over the period of which he speaks is certainly due not to current difficulties but rather to a deep and chronic malaise in the Welsh economy due to misgovernment over a long period of years? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that since the Government in London have been unable to provide work for Welshman in Wales, it is time they yielded government of Wales to the people of Wales?
    Mr. Fraser: I do not agree with the hon. Member's premises. Total employment in Wales between 1955 and 1974 increased by 20,000. The diminution in traditional industries is in line with the movement of a similar kind through- out the rest of the United Kingdom and other industrial countries.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that investment is the key to future employment prospects in Wales and that in this respect the Industry Bill and the Welsh Development Agency (No. 2) Bill can play a fundamental rôle? Does he agree that private industry has been letting the nation down by failing to invest?
    Mr. Fraser: My hon. Friend is quite right. There is under-investment, and both these Bills should bring a great deal of benefit to Wales.
    Mr. Wigleyasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest estimate of the number of employees in employment in Wales; and how this compares with the mid-year figure for 1972, 1973 and 1974.
    Mr. John Fraser: The latest available employment estimates relate to June
    1170
    1974, when there were 992,000 employees in employment in Wales compared with 1 million in June 1973 and 973,000 in June 1972.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware that the drop between 1973 and 1974 is a direct reflection of the number of people who have had to leave Wales to look for work? That is a reflection of the increase in unemployment for men, the figure of which in respect of my constituency stood at 14·7 per cent. this spring. Is he aware that that situation is totally unsatisfactory? Will he give an assurance that the Government, in any economic package which they are now considering, will bring in no measures to worsen the unemployment situation in places such as Wales?
    Mr. Fraser: I have already replied that the Government have as an objective of their policy the bringing of employment to Wales. Between 1972 and 1974 there was a growth in the number of jobs in Wales. The Welsh Development Agency, the doubling of the regional employment premium and the making of the whole of Wales an assisted area have helped employment there. That policy will continue.

    Unemployed Persons
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the current level of unemployment; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Foot: I am naturally dissatisfied with the current level of unemployment. The figure is already much too high and the danger is that it will rise higher still for several months to come. Partly the trouble arises from the recession which has hit many countries besides our own. Our capacity to overcome the menace will depend on a combination of policies, not least and immediately upon our success in curbing inflation.
    Mr. Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend cast his mind back to the days of the Labour Party conference in 1966 when the country was suffering from relatively minor unemployment? Does he recall that he made a glorious speech attacking the possible increased unemployment that might arise from the economic package that was about to be launched at that

    1171
    time? Will he give a guarantee that he will not tolerate, in any economic package that is presented this afternoon or at any other time, provisions which set out deliberately to make the dole queues even longer?
    Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend will recall that my original reply is in exact conformity with what I said at that conference. I have just told him that the present level of unemployment is much too high, and I do not qualify that in any way. One of the purposes of any measures the Government put forward for dealing with the position is to try to curb increasing unemployment and then to bring down the unemployment figures themselves.
    Mr. Cormack: Is it not a fact that, whatever the Chancellor says this afternoon or at any other time, unemployment is almost certain to rise in the coming months? Is it not a fact that unless the Chancellor takes firm action there will be the most dreadful rise this country has ever seen? Will the right hon. Gentleman now tell us whether there is to be a statement this afternoon?
    Mr. Foot: There is to be a statement this afternoon. I referred in my original reply to the future danger of increasing unemployment. I am not complacent about that matter. The present level of unemployment is much too high. There is a danger of its going higher still, and we have to take a whole series of measures to try to deal with that situation, including measures to deal with inflation.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does my right hon. Friend accept that unemployment on Merseyside is already intolerably high, particularly among school leavers? What kind of selective action do the Government propose to take to alleviate unemployment in the area and to ensure that school leavers, who at present are leaving school with a prospect no better than the dole queue, do not become the future forgotten generation?
    Mr. Foot: I fully appreciate the fact that my hon. Friend has raised this question, coming as he does from Merseyside, where the unemployment situation is even worse than in most other parts of the country. Having been in Merseyside myself this weekend I am now even more aware of the strong feelings of my hon.
    1172
    Friends and others in the area about the situation.
    The Government have already tried to assist by making Merseyside a special development area last autumn. They have also taken steps to increase considerably the number of advance factories that are to go to Merseyside. Measures for assisting school leavers, which would also apply to the rest of the country, must be considered further, and the measures concerned with the temporary employment subsidy, on which we shall be making an announcement, will be of further assistance. One of the good signs on Merseyside is what is happening in Liverpool Docks, where the situation has improved considerably. That can make a contribution to improving the general situation on Merseyside.
    Mr. Prior: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that few Opposition Members will disagree with his original answer to the Question? The Opposition castigate the Government and the Minister for their failure to take earlier action to control inflation and their failure to deal at an earlier stage with the problems of school leavers, which will be especially marked in the next few months ahead. Two months ago the House debated that matter. It does not appear to have been followed by Government action.
    Mr. Foot: When that matter was debated the Government gave a good answer to that point when the Opposition raised it. We are also seeing what further measures we can take to assist in the situation. As to the hon. Gentleman castigating the Government for what we did in the past, some of the measures taken by the Government last year, which are still having their effect, resulted in keeping our unemployment level below the levels of most other countries in Western Europe. The Opposition bitterly criticised some of those measures when they were taken. But I agree that no one can be complacent about the situation in any part of the country.
    Mr. Peter Morrisonasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the present rate of unemployment as compared with a year ago.
    Mr. Pardoeasked the Secretary of State for Employment what are his

    1173
    latest estimates for the level of unemployment in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Foot: On 9th June 1975 the rate of unemployment in the United Kingdom was 3·7 per cent. compared with 2·3 per cent. on 10th June 1974.
    Mr. Morrison: Does the Secretary of State agree that one man's excessive wage rise is another man's lost job? Will he in future consult the vast majority of trade unionists who would prefer a reasonable wage settlement and secure employment?
    Mr. Foot: I agree that excessive wage settlements, as they have sometimes been described, can contribute to the level of unemployment. However, taking the figures over the past year, it would be wrong to say that wage settlements are mainly responsible for unemployment. The main cause of the unemployment throughout the whole of this period has been the recession which has hit the whole Western world.
    Mr. Pardoe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the measures which the Government will inevitably introduce will raise the levels of unemployment to much higher figures than those he has stated? Has he considered his personal responsibility for this situation? Does he recognise that unemployment will now be much higher as a result of the delay in bringing forward the tough measures which the economic situation necessitates? How far has he been responsible for those delays?
    Mr. Foot: I do not accept any part of what the hon. Gentleman says. Of course I accept the responsibility. As long as I am in this job I must answer for figures, which are of a serious character, such as those I read out in answer to the Question. We should discuss the causes for those figures and deal with them. The hon. Gentleman has spoken as if the sole cause was a particular form of the wages policy. I do not agree with him about that.
    Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the phenomenon created in the Greater London area when the Conservative Party was in power, when factory undertakings were allowed to be sold and warehouses were allowed take their place, and when no endeavour was made by the Conservative Government to arrest that trend? That has contributed to
    1174
    unemployment. Will my right hon. Friend discuss with the Secretary of State for the Environment means of stopping the cancer started by the Conservative Government, which has increased unemployment in the Greater London area?
    Mr. Foot: There are some measures of that character. I should have thought that hon. Members in all parts of the House, whatever differences of opinion they may have about the different cures for the problem, would agree that the nature of unemployment today is of a different character in many respects from that in years gone by—and especially because of the way in which the huge increase in oil costs has contributed to the unemployment situation in this and in other countries. We have been trying to ward off those difficulties in this country. In some respects we have been more successful than other countries, and in other respects we have not been so successful. But we must use a combination of measures to deal with the situation. The idea that a single panacea can deal with it is mistaken.

    Accident Prevention
    Mr. David Watkinsasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is being done to raise the general level of awareness of the need for accident prevention at work.
    Mr. Harold Walker: The Health and Safety Work etc. Act has established the Health and Safety Commission to plan and arrange the implementation of the wide-ranging powers provided for in the Act. A major part of its effort is already being directed, through the Health and Safety Executive, to raising the level of awareness of the need for accident prevention.
    Mr. Watkins: Has my hon. Friend seen the recent TUC statement which points out that on every average working day four people are killed and more than 3,000 are seriously injured at work? Will he therefore seek to ensure that the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act is applied with the maximum emphasis on prevention? I emphasise prevention.
    Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend is right to express his concern, as he does on so many occasions, about these appalling

    1175
    figures. In its short life so far, the Health and Safety Commission has done a tremendous amount in terms of publicising the provisions of the Act and the new obligations that it imposes. The details are much too lengthy for me to refer to now. If, however, my hon. Friend would like me to write to him setting out what has been done, I shall be pleased to do so.
    Mr. Wells: Will the Minister look at the need to educate people rather than to legislate? There is far too little awareness by the man on the shop floor and on the farm. Legislation is only restrictive. What is needed is education to obey rules.
    Mr. Walker: I am second to none in urging the need for wider education in these matters, wider understanding, the provision of courses and publicity. It is perhaps the over-dependence on those aspects and inadequate and unsuitable statutory arrangements which have contributed to the appalling figures to which my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins) referred. It seems odd that we should be strictured by a member of the Conservative Party, which last year deprived agricultural workers of the full protection of the new statutory provisions. We shall put the situation right in a short time with the provisions of the Employment Protection Bill.
    Mr. Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the ways of raising awareness is to encourage the trade union safety committees to act? Will he bring pressure on the Health and Safety Commission, which has been dilatory about this matter, to issue regulations so that trade unions and employers know where they stand? We should encourage these committees to get cracking so that the appalling level of industrial injuries can be reduced.
    Mr. Walker: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the workers' safety representatives and the proposed statutory safety committees and the contribution they can make to an increased awareness and a diminution in the toll of industrial accidents. I share his hope that the commission will make speedy progress during the drafting of the regulations and that in doing so it will have full regard to the Government's
    1176
    declared policy and the provisions embodied in the Employment Protection Bill, which by deleting one part of the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act in this matter should make its task easier. Therefore, I hope that it will respond to the appeal which has been addressed to it from the House, in which I share.
    Mr. Farr: Is the Minister aware that while the accident rate in some industries has improved, in agriculture just the opposite has taken place? Is he aware that the rate of fatal accidents per thousand employed in agriculture today is higher than it has been since the war? Will he do something about this?
    Mr. Walker: I fully appreciate that the total of accidents in agriculture has grown heavier. This makes it all the more incomprehensible that the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends last year should have deliberately deprived agricultural workers of the safeguards. I hope that, in the light of what he said, when the Employment Protection Bill reaches its Report stage he will fully support us in extending the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act to safeguard the agricultural workers in his constituency.

    Earnings
    Mr. MacGregorasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest annual percentage increase in average earnings.
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): The April index shows an overall increase in average earnings on a year earlier of 30·5 per cent. for the industries covered.
    Mr. MacGregor: Is the Minister aware that it is figures like this that are causing concern among informed observers abroad, who can see clearly that they are way out of line with productivity at home and with international increases in pay levels, and that it is this most of all that is causing the extremely disturbing lack of confidence in sterling at the present time? Will he therefore state clearly what level of wage increase is compatible with the Government's target—modest enough—of getting inflation down to 10 per cent. by 1976?
    Mr. Booth: The social contract guidelines for wages were based upon an economic judgment made at that time. It has proved in practice that the movement towards obtaining the low paid target, equal pay, meeting obligations under threshold agreements and dealing with a number of very serious problems that arose as a result of the statutory pay policy which preceded it are measures which have led to an increase above what was judged necessary at that time.
    I think it would be better if, instead of my attempting to predict a figure which is appropriate to the judgment of the present economic circumstances, I said that whatever guidelines are agreed for the second round need to be much more closely adhered to in the circumstances that exist now than was possible in those which existed when we came out of statutory wage control.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that, whatever else might happen, there will be no retardation of the progress made towards equal pay between now and the end of the year?
    Mr. Booth: I think I can say, on behalf of all Ministers in my Department, that we have persistently taken the view that, whatever policies are followed, equal pay must have the utmost priority.
    Mr. Hayhoe: But how long must it be before the Government realise that it is the social contract and its so-called guidelines which have led us into our present disastrous situation? Is not it a fact that the wage settlements to which the Secretary of State referred, when he said that other people were calling them excessive, are the very ones the Secretary of State has described as being within the social contract?
    Mr. Booth: The factors which have put the social contract guidelines to the test were created by the policy that preceded it. It cannot be deduced from these circumstances that the guidelines created the problem.

    European Community Membership Effects
    Mr. Gowasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the number of jobs which will be
    1178
    lost in the United Kingdom during the current year as a result of the United Kingdom's membership of the EEC.
    Mr. John Fraser: My Department has made no such estimate.
    Mr. Gow: Why not?
    Mr. Fraser: Because I do not think that anything useful would be served by it.

    Scotland
    Mr. Crawfordasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current rate of unemployment in Scotland.
    Mr. John Fraser: On 9th June the rate of unemployment in Scotland was 4·7 per cent.
    Mr. Crawford: Will the Minister note that the people of Scotland are not very interested in the fact that the unemployment gap between Scotland and one of the most bankrupt economies in Western Europe—England—is narrowing? Will he also note that Scotland's economy is jeopardised by its association with the crisis-ridden English economy and that the only way in which security of employment can be obtained in Scotland is by means of Scottish self-government?
    Mr. Fraser: No, I do not agree with the premise. I think it is encouraging that whereas some time ago the unemployment level was two-thirds higher in Scotland than in Great Britain as a whole, it is now only about one-quarter higher. I think that the link with the rest of the United Kingdom brings considerable benefit.
    Mr. Alexander Wilson: Is my hon. Friend aware that we are all concerned in Scotland at an unemployment figure of 180,000 and that we are nearly entirely dependent on American and English companies to supply the Scottish people with jobs? Is he also aware of the sheer apathy of the Scottish industrialists in believing and investing in industry in Scotland? [An HON. MEMBER: "Servile."] It is the truth. Will my hon. Friend take those facts into cognisance and look at the figures over the years, and try to inject some British pride into the Scottish industrialists on behalf of the Scottish people?
    Mr. Fraser: A good deal of investment in Scotland has come from abroad. The Government recognise the need for further investment to provide jobs. This is why we are putting through Parliament an Industry Bill and a Scottish Development Agency Bill to bring that kind of investment to that part of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Henderson: Is the Minister aware that the man who is unemployed in Scotland fails to see why Scottish oil should be removed from Scottish oilfields and brought here to London without any benefit to the people in Scotland?
    Mr. Fraser: I think the hon. Gentleman would agree that the investment required to bring oil ashore has come not just from the United Kingdom but from other parts of the world as well, and that there is benefit in co-operation between us.
    Mr. Canavan: Will my hon. Friend remind SNP Members and their friends in the CBI and Aims of Industry that the current level of unemployment in Scotland, or anywhere else in Britain, would not be nearly so bad if employers in the private sector could be encouraged to invest a bit more in providing jobs particularly for young school leavers, instead of spending millions of pounds on silly, irresponsible advertisements like the special supplement in the Scotsman today advertising the ridiculous farce called Free Enterprise Day which they are celebrating today?
    Mr. Fraser: I endorse the view that investment is one of the prime needs, and I have also emphasised the steps being taken by the Government to bring investment to Scotland.

    Manpower Services Commission
    Mr. Duffyasked the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects the decision to be made on the locality of the Manpower Services Commission.
    Mr. Harold Walker: We expect to be able to make an announcement about the location of the Manpower Services Commission shortly.
    Mr. Duffy: Is the Minister aware that the Hardman Report has nothing in it for Yorkshire, that no part of the country
    1180
    is more in need of the kind of employment that the Hardman Report was concerned to disperse than South Yorkshire and that his hon. Friends in that area are confident that he and his right hon. Friend will continue to put the strong claims of Sheffield and district before those who will take this decision?
    Mr. Walker: The whole House will recognise the persistence with which we have pursued this matter on behalf of my hon. Friend's constituency, and I hope that when the decision is made those responsible will take full heed of the remarks of my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Stokes: Will the Minister consider whether this large Manpower Services Commission is now justified in view of present economic conditions? Will he also say what is its total cost? Does he agree that the people concerned would be better employed in manufacturing industry?
    Mr. Walker: It was the decision of the Conservative Government, endorsed by Parliament, that created the Manpower Services Commission and also set up the Hardman Committee which recommended its dispersal.

    Pay Settlements
    Mr. Biffenasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current pattern of wage and salary settlements; and what representations he has received advocating their statutory control.
    Mr. Foot: We have made it clear that the general level of settlements is too high and must be substantially reduced. I have received no representations advocating statutory control from any representative body.
    Mr. Biffen: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's long-standing and honourable record of inveterate opposition to the statutory control of salaries and incomes, may we assume that he would regard any measure of statutory control of incomes as a resigning issue?
    Mr. Foot: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having followed my career so carefully for so long a period. I hope that he will be able to follow it in the future with the same acclaim and approval.
    Mr. Heffer: Can my right hon. Friend give us his view of precisely what is an excessive wage claim or an excessive settlement, as many Government supporters believe that a lot of wage settlements have not been excessive at all? Secondly, in giving us an assurance that there will not be a statutory incomes policy, can my right hon. Friend also indicate that the Government will not fall into the trap of an "either/or" situation—either a statutory incomes policy or excessive unemployment? Cannot he indicate that the time has come for alternative economic policies along the lines indicated by my hon. Friend in a statement last week?
    Mr. Foot: Certainly I want to do everything possible to avoid both an increase in unemployment and the imposition of any statutory system for the control of wages. I believe that one of the best ways of helping to ensure that neither of those perils occurs and that neither of those dangers develops is by ensuring that we carry out the kind of proposals contained in the guidelines under the social contract and the kind of proposals that the TUC has been discussing with the Government for implementation over the coming period.
    I agree that there may be much dispute about what is excessive. What I meant by excessive settlements is what was described as "excessive" in the guidelines of the TUC themselves.
    Mr. Prior: If the target of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for a reduction to 10 per cent. in the rate of inflation is to be reached by the end of next year, what estimate and target figure have the Government set themselves for average increases in wages during the coming year?
    Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman must wait and listen to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is of age. He can speak for himself, and I am sure that he will reply to the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Prior: But the Secretary of State is Secretary of State for Employment. These are questions which come within his Department, and they are for him to deal with. Why is he so shy about answering? He is not generally shy.
    Mr. Foot: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am not shy. It seems much more sensible and orderly that, since the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to make a statetment on that precise subject, the right hon. Gentleman should restrain himself for just a few minutes more.

    Industrial Democracy
    Mr. Rookerasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on Government plans in connection with industrial democracy.
    Mr. Foot: I hope to do so shortly.
    Mr. Rooker: Will my right hon. Friend take on board, and get his colleagues to do the same, the fact that there is likely to be a complete block on any worker involvement in advancing manufacturing technology until this policy comes into operation?
    Mr. Foot: I agree with my hon. Friend and the view which he and others have expressed in the discussions which have taken place in the House on this subject. This is one way in which we can make the most important developments over the next few years. I hope that the statement on this subject which is to be made very shortly will advance the situation. We want to advance it speedily. Whether it will be as fast as my hon. Friend would wish is another matter.

  CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (BROADCAST)
  Mr. Tebbitasked the Prime Minister if the broadcast made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Radio Leeds on the economy on 14th June represents Government policy.
  Mr. Norman Lamontasked the Prime Minister whether the broadcast of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the economy on Radio Leeds on 14th June represents Government policy.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Tebbit: Will the Prime Minister tell us whether we can expect the bold words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in that broadcast to be followed by bold

  1183
  action this afternoon, or will the Government continue their cringing abdication of duty to Jack Jones and wait for him to dictate the policy of the present Government when the country is in deep trouble?
  The Prime Minister: Although I do not accept at all any of the words used by the hon. Gentleman, I recommend him to await the statement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the end of Questions.
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the sudden interest of the Leader of the Opposition in the state of the economy coincides with the broadcasting of these proceedings and that, if nothing else, radio has at least flushed her out from her shy retirement? When these proceedings stop being broadcast, she will no doubt go back to her top priority of the Jimmy Young Show.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir, I do not accept at all what my hon. Friend said, and I did not entirely like one of his phrases about the right hon. Lady. But I think that the problem here is not any lack of interest in these matters. It is a total inability to produce any Opposition policy on them.
  Mr. David Price: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister referred to a statement being made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is no notice put up in the Members' Lobby to the effect that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is making a statement.
  Mr. Speaker: That is not really a point of order arising out of Questions.

  MIDDLESBROUGH
  Mr. Wrigglesworthasked the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to Middlesbrough.
  The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.
  Mr. Wrigglesworth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if he had visited Middlesbrough he would have found amongst my constituents considerable confusion about the Opposition's economic policy? Will he therefore consider appointing a Select Committee to investigate which alternatives they propose, and will he consider including on that Com-
  1184
  mittee the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) and the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph)?
  The Prime Minister: Since the confusion referred to by my hon. Friend is not confined to Middlesbrough, I do not see why I should make special arrangements to visit Middlesbrough to hear about it.
  Mr. Brittan: Will the Prime Minister accept that if he travelled only eight miles from Midldesbrough he would find a wide understanding of the Opposition's policy —the recognition that what is needed is firm action to cut public expenditure and to deal with inflation and, above all, an understanding that the present Government have failed the nation totally?
  The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am not sure whether he was proposing that the eight miles should be in a landward or a seaward direction. Whichever it is, it he or anyone within eight miles of Middlesbrough has this valuable information he owes it to the nation and to the Leader of the Opposition to make clear to the nation what the Opposition's policy is.
  Mr. Arthur Bottomley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the people of Middlesbrough recall with affection his last visit and would like to see him again? Does he not think that the time is opportune for him to come to Middlesbrough and the North-East to see what is being done in that area to help the North Sea development, which will do so much to help our economy?
  The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I well remember the visit, which, I hope, played a small part in the winning of a seat for Labour in Middlesbrough at that time. Certainly my right hon. Friend is right to draw my attention and that of the House to the work that is being done in relation to the North Sea. Apparently 400 companies in the Northern Region, including Middlesbrough, are doing, or intend to do, North Sea oil work. Twelve of them are currently engaged on large-value North Sea contracts Northern industry has between 15 per cent. and 20 per cent. of the British share of the North Sea hardware market. and the estimated value of work so far undertaken is £200 million,

  1185
  which represents 5,000 jobs. [Interruption.] This is important to the people of Middlesbrough. The number of jobs directly attributable to North Sea offshore work in the region is about 5.000, with a further 3,000 estimated over the next two years.

  PRIME MINISTE (OFFICIAL ENGAGEMENTS)
  Mr. Goldingasked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 1st July.
  The Prime Minister: I chaired a meeting of the Cabinet this morning and I shall be having further meetings with my colleagues and others this afternoon. Later today I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen. This evening, I expect to be in my place in this House and if, as I expect, I am convinced by the arguments, I shall be casting my vote, or votes, in the proceedings on the Industry Bill.
  Mr. Golding: Is the Prime Minister aware that many of us will wish him well? In view of the many matters of common concern between the two countries, will he tell us whether he has any intention of having further discussions with the Prime Minister of Belgium while that gentleman is in Britain?
  The Prime Minister: I spent several hours with the Prime Minister of Belgium last night. We discussed bilateral matters and the situation in the European Economic Community following the outcome of the referendum. As the House knows, Mr. Tindemans has been charged by various Heads of Government to visit all the areas of the Community and to meet not only Governments and political parties but other interested persons and groups to discuss the future development of the Community. We spent some time discussing these matters last night. He is welcome and he will now visit Scotland and Wales. The success of his visit is assured.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will the Prime Minister now do his public duty at his audience of Her Majesty by advising her that he does not have the confidence of the country, of the House or of anyone abroad? That is public knowledge.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I am never guilty of misinforming the Queen about the true facts.
  Mr. Thorpe: Did the Prime Minister assure Mr. Tindemans of the enthusiasm of this country for direct elections to the European Parliament? Was the Prime Minister successful in explaining to Mr. Tindemans the mysteries of our existing electoral system, which I find difficult?
  The Prime Minister: Mr. Tindemans did not express any interest in our electoral system in any shape or form. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will see Mr. Tindemans for discussions on these matters and will express views on this subject to him if he thinks them of interest. We did not express any view on the question of direct elections. As the right hon. Gentleman and the House know, the Parliamentary Labour Party has decided to nominate Members, with the agreement of the House, to go to the Assembly. No doubt those Members will have their eyes and ears open and consider these matters. [Interruption.] As I made clear a week ago, the matter of Lord George-Brown is not one for the Prime Minister or the leader of the party. The procedure has already been settled and will be carried out by the Parliamentary Labour Party, the Chief Whip and the chairman of the liaison committee. In no way did anyone interfere with the selection or other wise of Lord George-Brown.

  TUC AND CBI (MEETING)
  Mr. Molloyasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his most recent discussions with the TUC and the CBI.
  The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) on 24th June.
  Mr. Molloy: Will the Prime Minister take careful note of the TUC's six points? Will he reject the monetary solution proffered by some parts of the Conservative Party though not by others, and consider the position of the Leader of the Opposition, who does not know whether she wants it or not?
  The Prime Minister: Last week I expressed a welcome in the House, which I am sure is shared by all hon. Members, for the six points put forward by the TUC. It is a very constructive approach to these matters. I have no doubt that after my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made his statement, some of these matters will be taken up. I do not think that either the views of the official Opposition or of the "provisionals" below the Gangway are of any interest whatever to the House.
  Mr. Lawson: In view of the Prime Minister's constant crowing about our export performance, why is the pound doing so badly? Is there some problem about confidence in the Government?
  The Prime Minister: There is no doubt that over the first five months of this year we have reduced the balance of payments deficit to one-quarter of what it was—a 75 per cent. reduction. I have no doubt that some people are daft enough to listen to the hon. Gentleman and to people who talk like him.
  Mr. David Steel: In view of the experience of the previous Labour Government in 1966 when there was a concordat called the Declaration of Intent, which involved the TUC and the CBI, will the Prime Minister take note of the TUC's views with interest but remain in charge of the Government of this country?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, I fully accept that. Indeed, I have made clear, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will—I said this yesterday, when I opened the Royal Show, and on several previous occasions—that the Government will not hesitate to discharge their responsibility. They have the right and the duty to do so in all these matters affecting inflation. The fact that we receive no advice whatever from Opposition parties will not stand in the way of the Government discharging their duty in these matters. We are trying to proceed by consent, which was one of the high failures of the previous Conservative Government.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: At the conclusion of the right hon. Gentleman's present discussions with the TUC and the CBI, will he initiate discussions with the STUC and the Scottish Council (Development and
  1188
  Industry) about their wishes to have economic powers for the Scottish Assembly?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that earlier this year, with a number of my right hon. Friends —it was the first time that this had ever been done by any Prime Minister—I had very long and serious discussions with the STUC. [Interruption.] If anyone wants to claim that he did, he may do so. During those meetings, for the second time this year I also had meetings with representatives of the Scottish Council. Matters relating to the Scottish Development Agency were fully debated in the House last week and the House took a decision on them.
  Mr. Ron Thomas: I should like to refer to the matter of exports and sterling. Will my right hon. Friend be good enough to comment on the reports which indicate that the lack of intervention by the Bank of England, or the limited extent of that intervention, and the fall in the value of sterling are part of the Government's overall strategy?
  The Prime Minister: These are very technical matters on which hon. Members may have sharply differing views. I do not want in any way to anticipate the statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mrs. Thatcher: The Prime Minister said again this afternoon that one reason for his delay in taking action was that he wished to proceed by way of consent. Has he now obtained the consent of the TUC and the CBI?
  The Prime Minister: I have made clear —and when the right hon. Lady hears my right hon. Friend's statement she will hear—that we are in continuing discussion with the TUC and the CBI. A great deal of progress has been made, but in our view that progress has not yet gone far enough. We believe that it is right for my right hon. Friend to set out the position this afternoon. I am certainly not going to be told by the right hon. Lady, who is not notable for consulting the TUC, or by anybody else at what point we seek to consult and at what point we are supposed to go in for the policies of confrontation which she advocated when she was in government.

DOMESTIC INFLATION
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Denis Healey): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
The Government have been engaged in discussions with the TUC and the CBI about measures to achieve a drastic reduction in the rate of domestic inflation. For millions of our fellow citizens, particularly housewives and pensioners, this is the overriding priority. It is a pre-condition for reducing unemployment and increasing investment. Although these discussions are not yet concluded, I believe that it is necessary for the Government to state their intentions now.
We are determined to bring the rate of domestic inflation down to 10 per cent. by the end of the next pay round and to single figures by the end of 1976. This means the increase in wages and salaries during the next pay round cannot exceed 10 per cent. The same limit is being set for dividends.
The Government have already reached an advanced stage in preparing measures which are fair and just. These measures will ensure that all sections of the community share the burden fairly. They will set out how the 10 per cent. limit for settlements should be expressed: for example as a percentage or flat rate or some mixture of the two. They will describe how the Government can satisfy the public that the limits are being observed. They will also cover action to check the rate of price increases as the rate of pay inflation slows. In addition, they will deal with the central problem of compliance, since it is no good having an agreed limit for pay increases unless we can be certain it will not be exceeded. In particular, we must be able to satisfy those who settle early in the round that they will not be left behind by later settlements at an excessive level. I know that the TUC attaches special importance to this.
The Government will use a battery of weapons for this purpose. For example, we propose to fix cash limits for wage bills in the public sector so that all concerned may understand that the Government are not prepared to foot the bill for excessive settlements through sub-
1190
sidies or borrowing or by loading excess Costs on the public through increases in prices and charges. We shall take action through the Price Code to encourage compliance by private employers.
I propose to employ the system of cash limits more generally as a means of controlling public expenditure in the short term.
My Government—[Interruption.]—are already consulting the CBI and the TUC about the proposals. [Laughter.] I doubt whether hon. Members are doing themselves or the House very much credit by the levity with which they approach this problem, The Government welcome the efforts which the TUC has already made to arrive at a plan for lower pay increases in the next round. We should much prefer to proceed on the basis of a voluntary policy agreed with the CBI and the TUC. But a voluntary policy will not be accept-able to the Government unless it satisfies the targets they have set for reducing inflation and includes convincing arrangements for ensuring compliance. If, however, no agreement can be reached which meets these conditions, the Government will be obliged to legislate to impose a legal requirement on both public and private sector employers to comply with the 10 per cent. limit. The Government will announce their decisions in a White Paper to be published before the end of next week.
Sir G. Howe: Will the Chancellor accept that the whole House will welcome the fact that the Government have at last begun to grapple with the nation's economic problem? Hon. and right hon. Members will welcome the extent to which the Government have accepted many of the policies which we have been urging upon them for months, in particular, the use of cash limits as an effective control on public sector wages.
Will the Chancellor accept that we are concerned at the possible implications of using price control in the private sector to the survival of profitable companies and so to the continuance of jobs and employment and that we are gravely disquieted by the absence from the statement of any reference to two vital matters—the abandonment of any further plans for nationalisation and reductions in public spending.

1191
Finally, will the Chancellor acknowledge that the fact that he has been obliged to make this statement today is a confession of the total failure of the last 16 months of profligacy, dissension and incompetence?
Mr. Healey: I am grateful at least for the welcome which the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave to my announcement. He also welcomed the fact that, as he claimed, I have adopted some of his policies. The Opposition Front Bench has put forward so many policies within the last few weeks that it would be impossible for me to avoid adopting some of them.
When the right hon. and learned Gentleman asks why I did not introduce cash limits before, I might well put the same question to him and his colleagues. They were in office for three-and-a-half years up to last February but made no attempt whatever to deal with this problem. We are doing so now, and I am glad to see that we have the Opposition's support in introducing this innovation into the control of our public expenditure.
On the question of using the Price Code as a sanction against excessive settlements in the private sector, I must put this point again to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I recognise that the Price Code has been bearing heavily on many companies. It will not bear more heavily under the proposals I put forward, except on companies which make settlements in excess of a level which I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will endorse. I hope that he will agree that action along these lines is a necessary supplement to any policy for bringing down the rate of inflation.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot conceivably argue that there is any way of bringing down the rate of inflation quickly—and I hope he will agree that that must be our common objective, wherever we sit in the House —except through direct action on the level of wage settlements. It is ridiculous to imagine that changes in the Government's policy for nationalisation or cuts in public expenditure will have the slightest effect, even on the theory held by the monetarists, within the time scale in which it is essential for the country to produce results.
Mr. Heffer: Will my right hon. Friend accept that certain aspects of his statement will not be widely welcomed by Government supporters? It is a clear indication that the Government are steadily moving towards a statutory incomes policy, which is contrary to our election pledges. Is my right hon. Friend aware that for some considerable time an alternative economic strategy has been advocated by some of his hon. Friends, a strategy which should be adopted to avoid a statutory incomes policy and to deal with the serious crisis without resortting to the type of measures which my right hon. Friend is resorting to today?
Mr. Healey: I remind my hon. Friend that all of us on this side of the House fought the last election on a manifesto which pledged us to treat the reduction of inflation as our first and overriding priority. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, 8·4 per cent."] I ask my hon. Friend to recognise the truth of the statement repeatedly made by leaders of the trade union movement in recent weeks that it is not possible to bring down the rate of inflation, as we undertook to do, without achieving a substantially lower level of payment settlements in the next pay round than in the last.
What I have sought to do in my statement today is to point out to both sides of industry that we would prefer to achieve this objective by voluntary means. But achieve it we will, and I believe that the whole country will recognise that as our duty. I hope that we shall have overwhelming support from the people of this country when we carry out that duty.
Mr. Pardoe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he will have the full support of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself in his defence of the national interest against his colleagues, whether in the Cabinet or outside it? Does he recognise that to reduce pay increases to the level of 10 per cent. will involve a substantial decrease in the standard of living of all of us in this country? Will he say how much that decrease will be, and will he now accept that it is absolutely impossible to bring about that decrease by voluntary means? Will he admit that what he said this afternoon amounts to an acceptance of the position that my colleagues and I have argued consistently over 10 years or more, that

1193
this country must have a statutory incomes policy or fail?
Mr. Healey: I suppose I must welcome the offer of support by the hon. Gentleman, although I am not sure that I shall find it wholly adequate for the purposes that I intend to carry out.
The spread of the reduction of living standards which would be implied by a limit of 10 per cent. on pay increases over the coming year would depend on whether it was achieved by percentage increases all round or by a flat-rate cash increase. In the latter case, the real take-home pay—corrected for inflation, and after the deduction of tax and insurance and superannuation contributions—would rise for people on two-thirds' average earnings, would fall by about 2½ per cent. over the year as a whole for people on average earnings, and would fall by substantially more for people with above-average earnings. A percentage increase would spread the burden more equally, and to that extent the person with low average earnings would not gain but would stay in roughly the same position.
The reduction required is nothing like as great as I have seen it stated in some newspapers. It would be temporary. I believe that there will be overwhelming public support for seeking to curb this very damaging inflation by sacrifices now, rather than to remain on an inflationary merry-go-round which will ultimately destroy the whole of our society.
Mr. Jay: Although we must look carefully at the details of my right hon. Friend's White Paper, in my opinion he is absolutely right to take resolute action now. Will the House have an opportunity to debate the White Paper and my right hon. Friend's statement as soon as the White Paper is published?
Mr. Healey: Yes, Sir, of course. I can give that assurance.
Mr. Ridley: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why he thinks that these policies, whether voluntary or statutory, which have been tried by successive Governments over the past 10 years and have failed, can possibly succeed now, when all know that the true cause of our present inflation is the gross extravagance of the Government?
Mr. Healey: I know that the hon. Gentleman shares my view—he has ex-
1194
pressed it more than once, and so have many of his hon. Friends—that the root cause of our current inflation is the fiscal profligacy of the Government of which he was once a member. But I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman is realistic. I recommend the hon. Gentleman, who I know poses as a monetarist in these matters, to read a recent pamphlet by the guru of monetarism, Professor Milton Friedman, and his British acolyte, Professor Laidler, who pointed out that there was no possibility of achieving a reduction in the rate of inflation in a period acceptable to the people of this country by the methods which he espouses.
Mr. Wigley: Is the Chancellor aware that there is a grave discrepancy in income levels between Central London and other areas such as Wales, Scotland and the North-East of England? Therefore, will he give serious consideration to producing a policy, if he must, of statutory control or of other control mechanisms which allows for an increase above the average in areas where the level of incomes is much subdued at present?
Mr. Healey: I take the hon. Gentleman's point very seriously. The easiest way of securing a differential advantage for those in areas of below-average wages would be to adopt a form of limit based on a cash sum rather than a percentage.
Mr. Bidwell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that part of the British malady is not simply the rate of inflation but the rate of investment? What effect are these measures likely to have upon that'?
Mr. Healey: I am glad to be able to assure my hon. Friend that investment is certain to increase if the rate of inflation can be brought down at the rate that I have just indicated. It is difficult to conceive of any means by which investment in the private sector can be increased without a similar fall in the rate of inflation.
Mr. Tapsell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the measures that he has announced this afternoon, welcome as they are, will go even further towards reassuring international opinion if he can tell the House that before we rise for the Summer Recess he will be announcing a programme of immediate public

1195
expenditure cuts and introducing legislation to give him the reserve powers to keep wages to a maximum rise of 10 per cent. in case this should be needed during the summer?
Mr. Healey: I think that I made it clear that the Government will have to make up their mind in the next week whether they can place reliance for maintaining an adequate level of wage settlements over the next 12 months on a purely voluntary policy. If they decide that they cannot, they will introduce a necessary legal framework for the policy, probably involving some use of reserve powers, as the hon. Gentleman has just suggested.
On the question of public expenditure cuts, I must point out that the problem in this country today is not excess demand. It is not pressure on capacity. We have a large number of unemployed, and our factories are working below capacity. To increase unemployment by cutting public expenditure could in no sense help in that regard. That is well understood abroad. If we went further and took the advice of the Opposition Front Bench to cut public expenditure, and cut taxes at the same time, that would, by definition, leave the public sector borrowing requirement unchanged.
Mr. Powell: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware—his reply to the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) suggests that he is—that increases in wages and prices are the symptom and not the cause of inflation, and that, therefore, all policies, whether voluntary or statutory, which are designed directly to restrain the increase in prices and wages are futile and irrelevant?
Mr. Healey: The right hon. Gentleman is well known in the House and the country for the absoluteness of his opinions and his belief that there is always only one simple answer to every problem. Let me tell him that the experience of Governments all over the world is that an adequate attack on inflation requires a mix of policies—adequate control of the money supply; in some cases direct action on prices; in other cases direct action on wages. The search for one simple solution to our problems
1196
would lead the country into the same isolation as the right hon. Gentleman experiences in occupying that bench.
Mr. Mackintosh: Those of us who represent the lower paid and the people who suffer by inflation welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. However, does he agree that the greatest danger to the future of Britain is that we produce a package deal in the next few weeks which permits a dribble downhill—by exception, by anti-social hours, by special cases of one form of another—which allows the present erosion by inflation to continue? I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, but will he say that if there are signs that the level that he has set is being broken he will take positive action, if necessary backed by law? I believe that if he does that he will have the support of the whole country.
Mr. Healey: I am afraid that my hon. Friend does not seem to have listened very carefully to what I have said. I made it clear that unless the Government can satisfy themselves over the coming week that they can achieve a satisfactory voluntary policy which will guarantee a level of settlements over the year of no more than 10 per cent., they will not hesitate to take whatever legal action is required to impose an obligation on employers in both the public and the private sectors to comply with the limit which they have set.
On the question of allowing a policy to be eroded and diffused by exceptions, I recognise that there is a good deal in what my hon. Friend said. But the House and country must recognise that over the course of the last year the overwhelming majority of anomalies which might justify exceptional treatment have already been met by exceptional increases.
Mr. Maurice Macmillan: The Chancellor has referred to investment in industry. Will he accept that the problem is not so much the shortage of finance for investment as the lack of will, which, in turn, is largely due to the unprofitability of the private sector? Will he assure the House now that the measures he will be producing will take full account of this and recognise the need to maintain the corporate sector at a profitable level in order to ensure incentive for investment and development?
Mr. Healey: Of course I recognise—I have said this many times in the House and outside it—that the rate of return expected on capital is the key to investment, whether in the public or the private sector. But what makes the problem much more difficult at present is that it is literally impossible even to calculate a rate of return with inflation running at current rates. But I certainly accept the sense of the right hon. Gentleman's question. That is why I think that some caution is needed in the application of the Price Code to ensure that firms are not sent bankrupt, with people being thrown out of work, by too stringent an application.
Mr. Crawford: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance to the people of Scotland that they will not be made subject to any statutory control of wages and that the considerable differential in earnings—I say "earnings" and not wage levels—between Scotland and England will be levelled out? Does he agree that his statement will give added impetus to the self-government movement in Scotland, especially when the people there see that the best way of breaking through to prosperity is to pursue economic policies based on their own natural resources and their economic development?
Mr. Healey: As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, I cannot agree with the latter part of his remarks. As I pointed out when I had the honour of visiting one of the greatest Scottish cities the other day, in fact Scotland benefits very substantially from union with England in the United Kingdom, for reasons which I shall not repeat for fear of wearying the hon. Gentleman. But I also noted during my visit to Scotland that no part of the United Kingdom is suffering worse from the impact of inflation. I would hope that we would have the same support from the people of Scotland as from the people of England and Wales for adequate action to bring down inflation.
Mr. Atkinson: Does not the Chancellor accept that by spelling out minimum voluntary conditions he has now announced the introduction of compulsory wage control? Does he further accept that this policy, as outlined, will represent a severe cut in wages while at the same
1198
time allowing a rise in unemployment, and will be totally unacceptable to both the TUC and the annual conference of the Labour Party? Does he further accept that the policy now spelt out will be looked upon as a defiance of the manifesto upon which we contested the last General Election? Will he not further accept that the figures he has now given—that inflation is to be cut from its present level of 25 per cent. or 26 per cent. to 8 per cent. by the end of 1976—must of necessity mean a reduction of about 6 per cent. to 7 per cent. in real living standards during the coming year, and that a cut of such brutality will be totally unacceptable to the trade union movement?
Mr. Healey: No one is more conscious than the trade union movement—I have had continuous contact with its representatives at every level in recent months—of the damage which inflation at current rates is doing to the living standards of working people and, even more, to the hope of a happy retirement for working people, who see the value of their pension funds, particularly trade union funds, being destroyed by wage inflation at its current levels. I hope that I can rely on my hon. Friend to join me and the TUC in seeking to fulfil the pledge that we made in our manifesto to bring the rate of inflation down.
My hon. Friend raised the question of unemployment. Let me tell him that the Government—I have said this to him many times and I do not believe that he really disagrees with me—are paralysed —[Hon. Members: "Oh."]—and prevented from taking action to bring unemployment down so long as—[Interruption.] Now that we appear on the radio I think that the country will appreciate the schoolboy humour with which Opposition Members attempt to escape from the labours of trying to understand a serious problem. It is not possible for this or any Government to take measures to bring unemployment down so long as inflation is running at current rates. The only way to put the country in a position to get back to full employment is to bring the rate of inflation down.
Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Does the Chancellor realise that after 16 wasted months we are back in almost precisely the same position as we were during February

1199
1974? [Interruption.] With regard to the Chancellor's 10 per cent. limit on wage awards in the private sector, will he tell the House what action he will take if, for example, the National Union of Mineworkers puts in a claim which is 300 per cent., 400 per cent. or 500 per cent. above the limit he is trying to impose on the private sector?
Mr. Healey: If I may say so, the hon. Gentleman has passed a suitable judgment on the record of his own Government when in power. I do not accept it as a description of the record of the present Government.
Mr. Duffy: Important though consultations, consent and voluntarism are to enable my right hon. Friend to adopt his correctives—and no one on this side of the House would prefer any other policies and none of my hon. Friends can say that we have not persevered with them—is it not clear, in view of recent events, that a vital condition of stability now is an unshakeable and immutable commitment by the Government sharply to reduce inflation? If my right hon. Friend shows the necessary resolution and will between now and the end of 1976, the bulk of the population, including our own movement, will support him in the policies that are requisite to the pursuance of that target.
Mr. Healey: I believe that my hon. Friend speaks for the overwhelming majority in the Labour movement and for the overwhelming majority of the British people when he makes that judgment.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: We must press on. We are operating under a guillotine today.

NEW MEMBER
The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:
Peter James Bottomley Esq., for Woolwich, West.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
Ordered,
That the draft Maximum Number of Judges Order 1975 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.—[Mr. Edward Short.]

NORTHERN IRELAND AFFAIRS
Ordered,
That the matter of the Northern Ireland Economy being a matter relating exclusively to Northern Ireland, be referred to the Northern Ireland Committee for their consideration.—[Mr. Edward Short.]

STANDARDISATION OF CONTAINERS
4.1 p.m.
Mr. David Lane: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to promote the standardisation of containers.
In the afterglow of last Thursday's happy event, on which I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley), I hope that the House will give me leave to bring in this Bill to promote the standardisation of containers. I have in mind domestic containers and not the jumbo cargo-carrying containers that are largely standardised already.
The Bill is a modest contribution to the war on waste. In Britain we have become a throw-away, wasteful society. For various reasons we need to be more careful and, if I may use the word, conservative—"conservative" with a small "c" now, because my Bill has powerful all-party support, for which I am grateful.
Let me make it clear that I am not advocating uniformity, which is dull and undesirable. However, I believe that the variety of containers in use has become excessive. I suspect that that is also the majority view of the public, if my constituency is typical. Last March Cambridge University Survival, which is the university branch of the Conservation Society and Friends of the Earth, published the results of a survey of 600 householders in the city of Cambridge about the scope for glass reclamation in particular. Roughly nine people out of 10 supported the idea of greater standardisation of shapes and sizes of bottles and jugs, to facilitate re-use. They also said that they would not mind if more of the unusual shapes of bottles and jugs were to disappear.
My Bill would apply to other materials —notably plastics and tinplate—as well as glass. The world's limited natural resources are being used up frighteningly fast. Waste must be lessened by re-use and recycling on a larger scale. Greater standardisation will make re-use and recycling a more economic proposition. That is the reasoning behind the Bill, which is directed to one aspect of the problem of waste. It is time that we
1202
paid more attention both inside and outside the House to this whole national problem.
In recent years there has been a proliferation of types, shapes and sizes of container. For example, soft drinks used to be sold only in returnable glass bottles. Now we can get them in non-returnable glass bottles, or in cans, or in one-trip plastic containers. Up to a point this is for the convenience of consumers, who appreciate variety and easy recognition, but does convenience really require not 57 varieties but over 5,000 different types of glass container on the British market? Or is this a case of variety gone crazy?
Among the different materials glass has been specially studied because a glass bottle can be either re-used or recycled —that is, fed back into the production process. I pay tribute to the research done by Friends of the Earth. We may not agree with all that body's conclusions, but it has helped to direct public attention to this and other problems in the whole field of conservation.
We all know that reluctant feeling when we throw away an empty tonic water bottle. It seems perfectly good for re-use, but no one wants it back. Non-returnable bottles are thinner than returnable ones and need less raw material, but returnable bottles can be used for anything from eight to 40 times. It has been estimated that if all glass bottles were returnable, glass waste—which is expensive to dispose of—could be reduced by approximately 7 million tons per annum.
I realise that the economics of all this are open to argument. The costs of collection, transport, sorting and cleaning must be taken into account. However, these costs would undoubtedly be smaller if the varieties of shape and size were fewer. I wonder whether many consumers would be mortally offended if the Scotch whisky bottle they had just drained in London were given a new lease of life with gin made in Lambeth or with rum imported from Jamaica before eventually it found its way, empty again, back to the Highland distillery?
I am not pretending that this is a simple problem with a simple solution. Total costs must be considered and not just energy costs. There are complications as regards cleaning and hygiene.

1203
Some variety is essential and must continue. Legislation varies from country to country, and the export trade is important. Stupid restrictions on glass in particular would means more reliance on plastic and tinplate, which would add further to the import bill. I am not criticising the manufacturers, and especially the glass manufacturers who are anxious to promote rationalisation and have done much research to save energy and raw materials and to increase furnace efficiency.
Nevertheless, even allowing for all the factors that I have mentioned, there surely remains more room for sensible standardisation not only of glass containers but of other types as well. Many consumers would welcome it, and consumer choice in the end must be paramount. My Bill would give reserve powers to the Government to make regulations about types, shapes and sizes. But far better than Government intervention would be speedier progress in the direction of standardisation through the combined thoughts and efforts of consumers, bottlers and material manufacturers. I hope that the Bill will be a stimulus to those thoughts and efforts and to more public discussion and pressure.
The faster we can move towards sensible standardisation the greater will be the scope for re-use and recycling and the smaller will be our national waste. It is with that objective primarily in view that I beg to ask leave to introduce the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.

That the allotted days which under the Order [18th June] are given to the proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be allotted in the manner shown in the Table set out below and, subject to the provisions of that Order, each part of the proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of that Table.

TABLE

Allotted day

Proceedings

Time for conclusion of proceedings

First day

…

…

Amendments to Clauses 1 to 8, new Clauses and new Schedules relating thereto and Amendments to Schedules 1 and 2.

9.30 p.m.

…

…

Amendments to Clauses 9 to 19 and new Clauses and new Schedules relating thereto.

11.00 p.m.

Second day

…

…

Amendments to Clauses 20 to 22, new Clauses and new Schedules relating thereto and Amendments to Schedule 3.

11.00 p.m.

Third day

…

…

Amendments to Clauses 23 to 30, new Clauses and new Schedules relating thereto, Amendments to Schedules 4 and 5 and any remaining new Clauses and new Schedules.

7.30 p.m.

Third Reading

11.00 p.m.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Paul Bryan, Mrs. Millie Miller, Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones, Mr. Patrick Cormack, Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg, Miss Janet Fookes, Mr. Arthur Jones, Mr. Eric Moonman, Mr. John Pardoe, Mr. Anthony Steen, Mr. Richard Wainwright and Mr. David Lane.

STANDARDISATION OF CONTAINERS
Mr. David Lane accordingly presented a Bill to promote the standardisation of containers: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11th July and to be printed. [Bill 189.]

BUSINESS COMMITTEE (INDUSTRY BILL)
Ordered,
That the Report [26th June] of the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. Harper.]
Report considered accordingly.
Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee),
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.
Question agreed to.
The following is the Report of the Business Committee:

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  INDUSTRY BILL
  [1ST ALLOTTED DAY]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  4.12 p.m.
  Mr. Speaker: In order to save the time of the House during the guillotined proceedings on the Industry Bill, I propose to suspend the current experimental lengthening of the period allowed to hon. Members for reaching the Division Lobby.
  Accordingly, today, tomorrow and Thursday, while the Industry Bill is under discussion, there will be an interval of four minutes, not six, between the appointment of the Tellers and my order to lock the doors.
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Although personally I am quite happy with that arrangement, there will be many hon. Members in Norman Shaw House who will not have heard your announcement and who could he in difficulties.
  Mr. Speaker: I have anticipated the situation. Measures have been taken to see that my statement was communicated through the usual channels much earlier today, and therefore hon. Members will have been warned.

  INDUSTRY BILL
    Clause 1

      THE NATIONAL ENTERPRISE BOARD
      Mr. Douglas Crawford: I beg to move Amendment No. 128, in page 1, line 6, leave out' a body' and insert 'bodies'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this amendment, I understand it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
      No. 129, in page 1, line 7, after second 'Board")' insert 'and the SDA'.
      No. 130, in line 9, at end insert:
      'as regards England, functions in Scotland to be carried out by the SDA which will be the direct responsibility of the Scottish Assembly, immediately upon the establishment of that Assembly'.
      No. 131, in line 9, at end insert:
      '(1A) For the avoidance of doubt in this Act and its accompanying Schedules, in the furthering of the development of Scotland's economy and improving its environment, the SDA shall be the only statutory body of its kind. The Board shall exercise no power, jurisdiction, or control whatsoever over companies, institutions, partnerships, nationalised industries and all other industrial and commercial bodies operating in Scotland, irrespective of the geographical location of the head office or of the registered office of such companies, institutions, partnerships, nationalised industries and other industrial and commercial bodies'.
      No. 164, in line 9, at end insert:
      '(2) The National Enterprise Board will have powers extending throughout England; it shall have no authority in Wales or Scotland where the functions of economic development shall be undertaken, by Welsh and Scottish Development Agencies, respectively'.
      No. 132, in line 10, after 'Board', insert 'and the SDA shall each'.
      No. 133, in Clause 2, page 2, line 19, leave out 'United Kingdom' and insert 'England'.
      No. 134, in line 20, leave out 'United Kingdom' and insert 'England'.
      No. 135, in line 21, leave out 'United Kingdom' and insert 'England'.
      No. 136, in line 25 leave out 'United Kingdom' and insert 'England'.
      No. 137, in line 39, leave out 'United Kingdom' and insert 'England'.
      No. 138, in Clause 3, page 3, line 23, at end insert 'in England'.
      No. 139, in line 24, leave out the first 'The' and insert 'These'.
      No. 140, in line 28, at end insert 'in England'.
      No. 141, in line 30, at end insert 'in England'.
      No. 142, in Clause 4, page 4, line 39, at end insert 'in England'.
      No. 143, in Clause 6, page 5, line 17, after 'functions', insert 'in England'.
      No. 144, in Clause 7, page 5, line 38, at end insert:
      'for England, this without prejudice to the budgets proposed for the SDA'.
      No. 146, in Clause 9, page 7, line 10, leave out 'United Kingdom' and insert 'England'.
      No. 147, in line 11, leave out 'United Kingdom' and insert 'England'.
      No. 148, in line 12, leave out 'United Kingdom' and insert 'England'.
      No. 149, in line 19, leave out 'United Kingdom' and insert 'England'.
      No. 150, in Clause 10, page 7, line 26, leave out 'United Kingdom' and insert 'England'.
      No. 151, in line 27, leave out 'United Kingdom' and insert 'England'.
      No. 152, in line 40, leave out 'United Kingdom' and insert 'England'.
      No. 153, in line 42, leave out 'United Kingdom' and insert 'England'.
      No. 156, in Clause 17, page 13, line 19, after 'State', insert
      'the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Wales in England, Scotland, and Wales respectively'.
      No. 157, in Clause 18, page 13, line 41, after 'State', insert
      'the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Wales in England, Scotland, and Wales respectively'.
      No. 158, in page 13, line 43, leave out 'he' and insert 'they'.
      New Clause 5—"Limitation on powers in sections 10 and 11."
      Mr. Crawford: We are seeking a categorical assurance that there shall be no operations by the National Enterprise Board in Scotland. We are seeking to nail down the intentions of the Government, and also the situation in regard to the operation of the Scottish Development Agency in relation to the NEB. No doubt one of the Members of the Plaid Cymru will wish to say something about the Welsh Development Agency and its relationship to the amendments.
      We were told by the Secretary of State in the debate on the Scottish Development Agency Bill on 25th June,
      "My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and I will be working out the details of that relationship and in due course we shall be issuing guidance to both sides. This will be done once the two bodies are established and are able to make their own suggestions about what the relationship should be. But the guidance will deal, among other things, with arrangements for the NEB's own functions in Scotland. This guidance will make clear that the SDA will normally be responsible for schemes concerning companies wholly or predominantly based in Scotland. Where its actions or the actions of the NEB could have an effect on employment in Scotland, the NEB would be expected to exercise its powers in full consultation with the SDA.
      One point worth stressing is that there will be no rigid demarcation between a class of
      1208
      companies or undertakings in Scotland which are the concern of the agency and others which are to be reserved to the actions of the NEB."—[Official Report, 25th June 1975; Vol. 894, c. 474.]
      We in the SNP want to put the matter beyond all shadow of doubt. Therefore, we have covered the situation in Amendment No. 131 and the wording contained therein. We are not interested in anodyne phrases such as "in due course" or "issuing guidance" or about the two bodies SDA and NEB making their own suggestions about what the relationship should be.
      I refer to what the then Secretary of State said in intervention in my speech on the Industry Bill on 17th February 1975:
      "I should not like the hon. Gentleman to continue his speech under a misapprehension. The Scottish Development Agency will be the subject of special legislation and the consultative document has been issued. Following the statement in the White Paper, power finder Clause 7 of the Industry Bill will be transferred to the Secretary of State for Scotland in July of this year when the necessary administrative arrangements have been made. Therefore, he must say what he has to say about the NEB against that back-ground."—[Official Report, 17th February 1975; Vol. 886, c. 1015.]
      If that is the case, I look forward to the support of the Secretary of State for Industry and his successor as Secretary of State in the Lobbies on these amendments.
      The questions were raised when we discussed similar matters in the SDA debate last Wednesday. The hon. Members for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone) and for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) referred to the rôle of the SDA and NEB in relation to the rôle of multinational companies operating with United Kingdom-wide interests in Scotland. The question of British Leyland was mentioned by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). This referred not only to British Leyland in Scotland and Honeywell but also to Hoover, Ferranti, NCR, Borroughes and others who have their Scottish interests well looked after by the Scottish Development Agency. I am sure that the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) will make similar comments about Welsh interests.
      The Scottish Development Agency should be a body with its own rôle and money beginning with an annual budget

      1209
      of £100 million rising to £300 million in the fifth year, and with offices throughout the world and in Scotland. A number of hon. Members in the debate last week regarded that idea as absurd, but we regard the suggestion as a necessity which we shall continue to press on the Scottish electorate.
      Today the vote on this group of amendments will show the people of Scotland what party has their true interests at heart. We do not want to see control over our industries by the London-based NEB. Centralisation has gone far enough. What we propose is a practical suggestion and it paves the way for the time when—and it is not far distant—we shall have a sovereign Parliament in Scotland.
      If these amendments are opposed, no longer will the Government spokesman be able to claim any autonomy for the SDA and no longer will he be able to claim that there will be any real independent or economic powers for the Scottish Assembly. We know that the Scottish Trade Union Congress wants the powers, but that the Scottish Labour Party does not require them. We do not know what the Scottish Tory Party wants because it has not yet made that clear.
      I want the Minister to give a categorical assurance that monetary priority will be given to the SDA over the NEB and that, if anything must be cut, it must not be the Scottish Development Agency. Will the Minister consider increasing the budget of the SDA and will he give a firm assurance about the autonomy or otherwise of the agency?
      If these amendments are not accepted we shall seek to divide the House to show people of Scotland that we do not want the NEB to have any say in the industrial economic future of Scotland.
      Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I rise to support what has been said by the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) and also to speak to an amendment which has been linked with the one that we are at present discussing, namely, amendment No. 164 which is in my name and the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) and Merioneth (Mr. Thomas).
      1210
      To some extent I debated this matter in the Industry Bill Committee in an attempt to understand what would be the relationship between the National Enterprise Board and the Welsh Development Agency. The same attempt was made during Second Reading a few months ago in this Chamber. We had meetings with the then Minister of State, outside the Chamber, and last week, in the debate on the WDA, again we attempted to receive adequate answers about the inter-relationship that was intended between the NEB and the WDA.
      Mr. Crawford: The hon. Member will also be aware that the Scottish National Party was denied membership of the Industry Bill Committee which was discussing this matter.
      Mr. Wigley: Yes, I was very much aware of the fact that the SNP had been denied membership of the Committee. Indeed, I should have welcomed their presence to reinforce my case. I have no doubt that hon. Members of the Conservative Party will support the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire, because I understand that the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) put forward a similar amendment in Committee. Therefore, no doubt the Conservative Party will put the weight of its support behind the amendment.
      What is in question is the relationship between the NEB, the WDA and the SDA. Statements have been made suggesting that the WDA will have responsibility for dealing with all companies that exist completely in Wales. All companies that straddle the Wales-England border, and operate in both Wales and England, apparently will come under the NEB. However, we are told that the WDA will have some function—it will be allowed to co-operate with the NEB.
      I have had discussions with many companies in Wales and with people who have detailed involvement in industry. They are totally at a loss to know how they will deal with this undefined responsibility. I am referring to people who work not only in individual companies but who are concerned with the Welsh Development Corporation, the CBI in Wales and the trade unions. There

      1211
      is a big question mark which has not been adequately defined.
      In the Bill, even as amended, there are powers which will go to the NEB but which will not go, in the case of Wales and Scotland, to the Welsh and Scottish Development Agencies. Therefore, companies that exist only in Wales or Scotland will be subject to some restrictive powers, whereas those that straddle the borders will be subject to greater powers that come under the NEB.
      This position creates a great question mark. If those powers are desirable, we should want them in Wales for the WDA. If they are undesirable we should not want the NEB poking its nose into Wales and causing concern. The importance of this point will be appreciated by the Secretary of State and the Minister because, of the companies that employ over 100 employees in Wales, some 70 per cent. of them are companies that have branches or subsidiaries in Wales. Therefore, this question is of fundamental importance.
      On the basis of the legislation that is proposed in this Bill, and also in the Bills that will come forward for the WDA and the SDA, I cannot see how it is possible to build up sufficient liaison between these bodies. There is only one way in which there can be a clearly defined and clear-cut solution and that is if the WDA has total responsibility in Wales for all these activities. If the responsibilities are sufficient for those companies, however large, that exist only in Wales, surely this body must have the strength to deal also with companies that straddle the border.
      I ask the Secretary of State and the Minister of State what is the position of a company which has its head office in Wales but which may have a branch in England? Will that company come under the WDA or the NEB? What is the position of, say, a supranational company that has branches in Wales and Scotland but not in England? Will that company come under the WDA and SDA or the NEB? Satisfactory answers have not been given to those points. Moreover, how is the allocation of money to be made? Will the NEB have a certain proportion of the money allocated in the Bill for spending in Wales or Scotland,
      1212
      or is that money entirely for its activities within England with separate allocations under the WDA and the SDA? All these are important points which have not been adequately answered.
      Time and time again, we have tried to get answers from the Government, but time and time again it has been made patently clear that the Government have not the foggiest idea how these bodies will work with each other. For that reason we have tabled amendment No. 164. I also support the amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire.
      Dr. Jeremy Bray: I wish briefly to say that I am sure that it is the overwhelming view of the great majority of people in Scotland and Wales that the NEB should be able to operate with unfettered freedom to the benefit of the Scottish and Welsh people. The view that has been expressed by Opposition Members would confine the operations of the NEB and damage the interests of the Scottish and Welsh people.
      Mr. Douglas Henderson: My first reaction on hearing the mercifully brief intervention by the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Dr. Bray) was to recollect the effect which the British Steel Corporation—a centralised body—has had on the industrial life of Scotland. I think that the hon. Gentleman may have joined some of the criticisms of the corporation's rôle.
      We are discussing the whole issue whether the economies of Scotland and of Wales should be centralised and controlled by a body which operates in London. It is very significant that the Government have introduced a Bill for a Scottish Development Agency, which we warmly support, and a Bill for a Welsh Development Agency. However, they have not introduced a Bill for an English Development Agency because the NEB would, in anyone's view, fulfil that particular function. I cannot understand the logic of saying that with a Scottish Development Agency and a Welsh Development Agency there will be a big brother—a massive, multipowered, well-financed well-heeled big brother—to take all the big decisions, whereas the WDA and the SDA are to be left with minor

      1213
      decisions and minor projects. It would be logical to have a National Enterprise Board for the United Kingdom, if there were also an English Development Agency, because then there would be a consistent relationship.
      I see that the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Dr. Bray) is indicating, from a sedentary position, that this legislation is coming. I do not know how privy he is to the Government's legislative programme, but we have had no sign of it yet, and there is nothing in the manifesto about it.
      The people of Scotland and Wales have suffered for far too long from centralisation and from industrial and political decisions being taken outside their borders. In my view sometimes the nationalised industries get far too much stick from people who should know better. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the nationalised industries, what we have seen has been a centralisation of decision making outside of our borders, to the detriment of our countries. I should have thought it quite practical and feasible for the Government to recognise the wish of the people of both Scotland and Wales to have control of the public investment to be made in their countries without people in London making the decisions. I should have thought that they would understand that many other small countries have development agencies which deal with a vast host of multinational and other companies whether or not they have registered offices in those countries.
      Mr. Crawford: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) realises that in the context of registration he has an ally in the hon. Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone) who, in the debate on the Scottish Development Agency, said:
      "We must accept that cross-border companies and multinational companies must in time have separate Scottish company registration."—[Official Report, 25th June 1975 Vol. 894, c.520.]
      4.30 p.m.
      Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that telling point. Scotland has suffered from over-centralisation for too long. We have seen the concentration of investment, talent and power
      1214
      outwith Scotland to the extent that the Scottish Council has estimated that although Scotland has approximately 10 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom. it has less than 2 per cent. of the decision makers.
      The amendment should be accepted by the Government. I do not give up hope entirely, because the new Secretary of State is a well-known friend of Scotland and Scottish interests. If he accepts the amendment, he will thereby assure the Scottish people that the agencies which are to operate within Scotland's borders will have no interference from the National Enterprise Board.
      Mr. John Horam: The Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru have misunderstood the nature of the situation concerning the National Enterprise Board. I have considerable sympathy for the basic view that there has been too much centralisation and too many decisions taken in London. But I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree that the North of England has suffered just as much as Scotland and Wales in that respect. Indeed, we are anxious to get some kind of devolution.
      The NEB has a number of functions. Some are clearly national. While we retain the United Kingdom in its present form, decisions will have to be taken on a national basis. But some matters are regional. We must concentrate the resources of the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies on their own regional problems. They must be the focus for their regional economic problems, just as the NEB concentrates on more national problems. We cannot break up a national company into its constituent parts and deal with the Welsh subsidiary by means of the Welsh Development Agency and the rest of it by means of the NEB. We must work out a regional strategy within the STA and the WDA and a national strategy within the NEB.
      Mr. Crawford: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, especially as he is a Fellow of the same college as I attended at Cambridge. Scotland is not a region; it is a nation. That is what differentiates Scotland and Wales from the North-East of England, the North-West, and so on.
      Mr. Horam: We are entering on difficult ground. I should not care to pursue that sophisticated point.
      Mr. Crawford: It is basic.
      Mr. Horam: It may be basic, but it is also sophisticated in terms of this debate. We are talking about regional economic planning within the United Kingdom.
      Mr. Crawford: We are not.
      Mr. Horam: I am, anyway. I agree that fundamentally the two branches of the NEB exist to further regional economic concepts and devolutionary planning within Scotland and Wales.
      Mr. Wigley: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by "the two branches"?
      Mr. Horam: The Scottish Development Agency and the Welsh Development Agency.
      Mr. Wigley: I wonder whether the Secretary of State would care to intervene on that point?
      Mr. Horam: While it is true that the NEB must concentrate on national economic problems and the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies must concentrate on regional problems within the borders of Scotland and Wales, none the less an immense gap is still left in regional planning. I should like to see the development of a mini-NEB on the lines of the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies for the English development regions. I should like to see a North of England Development Agency, a Merseyside Development Agency and a South-West of England Development Agency. Those are the three development regions within the borders of England.
      We need development agencies to pursue regional economic planning in those areas. That would be a logical set-up within the confines of present thinking. It would be a major development to expand the NEB in that way by spawning further NEBs. It would command considerable support not only from my hon. Friends but from some hon. Gentlemen opposite. It would make clear cut what I hope is the Government's view—it is certainly mine—that, as long as the United Kingdom remains as it is, the NEB should tackle national problems and that regional problems should be tackled by regional
      1216
      development agencies based in the regions, the North of England Development Agency being based in Newcastle.
      Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: I support the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) whose faith in Scottish education required him to go to an English university.
      Mr. Crawford: An international university.
      Mr. Fairbairn: It became international when the hon. Gentleman went there. The hon. Gentleman was hurt at not having been a member of the Industry Bill Committee and having to restrict his attendance on the Community Land Bill Committee in order to be here this afternoon.
      Socialist philosophy appears to be to remove from flourishing private industry by taxation the funds which would otherwise be available for investment and to set up a bureaucracy to invest those funds.
      The National Enterprise Board is intended to meddle with flourishing private industry and to extend nationalisation and bureaucracy. One of the major problems in this country is the growing imbalance of bureaucracy and State interference, whether it be with industry or anything else. Under this Government we see it as an accelerating programme which vastly increases our borrowing requirement.
      When the Bill first entered Committee, I do not think that the Government appreciated that Scotland would have these two agencies which essentially carry out the same activities. They will interfere in private industry in Scotland. One will be based in London and the other will presumably have its headquarters in Edinburgh. However, both will be bureaucratic organisations essentially answerable to nobody. Both will presumably have separate policies and will spend a good deal of their time discussing whether each should do what the other intends to do. I do not believe that either one of these agencies is a good idea.
      If money is available for investment in industry in Scotland, let us have it. There are innumerable agencies in Scotland which can spend it without setting up mg one but two new fetters on Scottish in, dustry. If the Government have money

      1217
      available for investment in Scotland, let us have it. We do not need a brontosaurus bureaucracy in London and another in Edinburgh attempting to interfere with the sensible development of sophisticated go-ahead industry in Scotland. We believe that the agencies, not the funds, will do great harm to industry in Scotland.
      Mr. Crawford: I should like to emphasise that, while we are grateful for the hon. and learned Gentleman's support, we support a Scottish Development Agency because we want more jobs and investment in Scotland. We do not want a National Enterprise Board in Scotland. While we welcome the hon. and learned Gentleman's support, we do not go all the way with what he is saying.
      Mr. Fairbairn: The Conservative Party also wants jobs and investment in Scotland, but we do not need to set up another bureaucratic organisation to spend the money. That is where I part company from the hon. Gentleman. We have plenty of agencies for that purpose in Scotland. But if we must have one, we do not want both. To be Scottish for a moment, if we are to have any, let us have one in Scotland, not in London.
      Mr. Gordon Wilson: The Government appear to be suffering from split decision making. They do not seem able to make up their mind whether there should be a development agency in Scotland and another in the United Kingdom. We have confusion drifting into the debate already on the ground that the Scottish Development Agency might be the second cousin twice removed of the NEB, which is the main relative. The trouble is that this confusion is likely to breed even more when we see the two organisations in operation.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) said that one of the main problems was that for many years Scotland had suffered from a lack of decision making and that there had been a drift of the decision making power towards the centre. On the one hand, we have the Government's intention to set up a Scottish Development Agency and a Welsh Development Agency. That would be a good start, because it would at least indicate that
      1218
      certain decision making powers would return to Scotland.
      On the other hand, the Government have produced the Industry Bill, the terms of which do not exclude Scotland and Wales. It sets up the National Enterprise Board which will act as a development agency for England and, with its controlling and decision making powers, as a development agency for Scotland. Why should we have another agency for Scotland? The Government have already introduced two Bills, one in this House and one in another place, to give legislative sanction to the Scottish Development Agency. Now they are to introduce this confusion in the Industry Bill, and it goes much deeper than the basic administrative confusion which is likely to result.
      One of the problems in Scotland has been that when private firms have been taken over, there is a systematic stripping away of functions. This happens in the multinational corporations where there is no competition between one branch and another. Centralised groups tend to hog certain functions to the centre. In the past these have included research, development, quality control, production planning, production control, stock control, resources allocation, materials buying, computer services and legal and tax services where they could be divorced from the Scottish legal code. A recent article by Dr. John Firn of the Economics Department of Glasgow University pointed out that nationalised industries are among the greatest centralisers which strip away decision making powers from Scotland. When the steel industry was nationalised, steel-making areas which had autonomy did not retain it. The industry was deliberately shaken up into another form and the resulting corporate divisions lost much of their natural efficiency and decision-making powers.
      The planning division of the Scottish steel industry, which had been responsible for the planning and development of Ravenscraig and had also worked on planning projects with industries outside the United Kingdom, was dissolved. Its functions were taken away from Scotland and the skilled experts, organisers and technocrats had to move to other parts of the corporation.

      1219
      If this is happening in multinationals in the private sector as well as in the public sector, what sort of salvation is there for Scotland in this Bill? The Scottish Development Agency is intended to be the means by which economic and decision making powers can be returned to Scotland. But it will not have power to control the activities in Scotland of multinational private firms or nationalised industries. These controlling and planning powers will be reserved for the National Enterprise Board. In the past, in both the private and public sectors there has been centralising activity and a transferring of powers from the periphery to the centre. What sort of help will Scotland get from the Board which will itself be a centralised body? It is intended that it should operate throughout the United Kingdom and have a guiding or advisory effect on multinationals and nationalised industries, but, by the nature of the beast, it will be a centraliser itself. What is the purpose of that?
      The main concern in Scotland is to bring back power. This is what the Government's policy on devolution is supposed to achieve. It is supposed to remove power from this place and Whitehall and transfer it back to Scotland.
      4.45 p.m.
      The Government's intentions in industrial matters and their intentions on the political, administrative and devolutionary questions are plainly at variance. If they intend to set up a Scottish Assembly they must give it something to do. This afternoon I raised with the Prime Minister the fact that the STUC and the Scottish Council (Development and Industry), both representing, in their own ways, aspects of industrial activity in Scotland, wanted economic powers to go to the Assembly. One of the best ways of doing that would be to have a strong development agency answerable to the Assembly. What power can the Assembly have over the National Enterprise Board? If the board has statutory power to interfere with various important aspects of industry in Scotland, what power will the Assembly have to call it to task?
      Are the Government to say that the board would be answerable to Scotland where it pursued Scottish objectives—
      1220
      answerable to the Minister of Industry for Scotland, the Chief Executive or Prime Minister of Scotland or the Secretary of State for Scotland, or whatever executive arm of government is to be used—and at the same time responsible to the Secretary of State for Industry in this House? This will place the board in a schizophrenic position. Surely the old Biblical adage is true enough that
      "No man can serve two masters."
      yet the board is to be expected to do that in Scotland.
      The Government can shrug off this matter and say that the board will be able to follow through its objective, as seen by the Secretary of State for Industry and Parliament, of being a medium for economic planning in the United Kingdom. But this might not be allowed by the Scottish people, and the employees of the board will be in a very difficult situation over the question of answerability.
      Dr. Bray: The hon. Gentleman takes a very dim view of democracy. There is nothing against a master having two servants, so why should the Scottish people not be served by both the board and the agency?
      Mr. Wilson: I am impressed by the question, but it brings us back again to the responsibility of these servants. The board will have two masters—the Secretary of State for Industry in this House and, possibly, the Scottish Minister of Industry in the Scottish Assembly.
      Mr. Wigley: This point was raised in Standing Committee. We asked whether the term "Secretary of State", as it appeared in the Bill, referred only to the Secretary of State for Industry or whether it was an all-embracing term including the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales. The answer was that it was an all-embracing term. This would give the board triplicate responsibility which appears to me totally impossible.
      Mr. Wilson: I am grateful to the hon. Member for that intervention. He served on the Standing Committee. Every hon. Member, from whichever party, who served on that Committee deserves a medal for the work done on that marathon. The hon. Member's intervention enhances the point I was making. We shall head for administrative and constitutional conflict.

      1221
      One of the first things any Scottish Assembly would do would be to try to get its hands on any body which tried to conduct industrial policies which might be at variance with its own aims. The Scottish Assembly must by its nature be against centralisation. This line of thought is emerging from so many springs in Scotland that it is welling up into a torrent and it is one reason why the Government are bringing forward proposals for parliamentary as well as administrative devolution.
      The SDA will be provided with either £200 million or £300 million for an indefinite period depending upon when and if the Government come back to Parliament for more money. Once the Scottish Assembly is established in Scotland, there will be a demand for it to have control over or access to the revenues coming from oil. I have no doubt that hon. Members will say that the SNP is off on one of its well-worn tracks again. The track may be well worn, but it is a very popular one in Scotland. As I mentioned to the Secretary of State for Industry before his change of responsibilities from energy matters, this question of access to oil revenues is a matter which has cropped up not only in the United Kingdom. It has occurred also in Canada where Newfoundland is denying the right of the Federal Government of Canada a share of any oil or natural gas which may be discovered off the Newfoundland coast. The same thing is happening in Australia where the Government of Western Australia is unilaterally confirming oil and natural gas exploration licences against the will of the Federal Government.
      The first thing people in Scotland will want to know is what happens to the money from the oil. They will insist that it goes to the SDA, and the Government who are in power at that time will come under very strong pressure from the Scottish people and the Scottish Assembly, regardless of politics, for the money to be used for Scottish purposes. I never fail to be amazed at the way in which the Government take it for granted that if they set up a Scottish Assembly and if it is controlled by the Labour Party it will immediately fit in with the policies produced at Westminster. The same thing applies to the Conservatives. I can
      1222
      assure the Government and the Opposition that a Labour administration in the Scottish Assembly would automatically and very naturally seek to bring pressure to gain the maximum benefit for the people who voted for that administration.
      This leads me to the difficult situation which the NEB will face in operating in Scotland. There will be two bodies responsible for administering industrial activity. They could not but help being at variance with one another. It may be hoped that the unfriendliness which stems from the clash of responsibilities will elide and it may be possible by negotiation to prevent the points of friction from getting too hot.
      Sir Raymond Gower: Has it occurred to the hon. Member that if the activity of the main authority is confined to England, and if the development authorities in Scotland and Wales are left to carry out all the development in those parts of the United Kingdom, the three authorities will be competing and that the much stronger resources of the English body will tend to prevail? In those circumstances would it not be an advantage for Wales and Scotland to have an authority, the writ of which runs throughout the United Kingdom?
      Mr. Wilson: This situation will naturally always arise in any sphere of operations, and it has been a fundamental philosophy in favour of larger units, of rationalising and of cost benefits from cutting, for example, the research and development functions in Scottish factories. The belief is always that strength comes from the big unit.
      Mr. Crawford Mr. Crawford rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. I would remind the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) that he has made about five interventions since he used his time to address the House, and that we are under the guillotine today.
      Mr. Crawford: My intervention was on that very point, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am simply reminding the hon. Member that if everybody behaved like that we would not get very far.
      Mr. Wilson: I was about to give my hon. Friend one last chance of intervening, but instead I shall try to conclude my own remarks. I was dealing with the argument about the advantage of size. Many Scots went along with that argument for many years. For example in the 1920s the railways were amalgamated and rationalised. In the 1930s, the 1940s and the 1950s one industry after another in Scotland was taken over. The ultimate experience is that it is far better to have individual units which are capable of thriving and working and, if necessary, fighting alone to safeguard their own existence. The interests of the smaller parts are not always safeguarded by the policies of the larger units. That is fundamentally why I would disagree with the hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower).
      The second reason I oppose the argument for large units concerns the assumption that the Scottish Development Agency would necessarily be a weaker body in terms of finance. Let us not forget the question of the oil revenues. The SDA might well be a stronger unit in terms of available financing for industrial development. This point of having real money rather than paper money has occurred to many people in Scotland.
      Bodies such as the Scottish Council Research Institute in considering economic planning in the United Kingdom have looked into the centralisation which has taken place in both the private and public sector. They have considered centralisation of Government Departments and the effect it has on Scotland where so much decision making power has been stripped away. The institute came to the view in the course of a report published only last year that it would be far better for the United Kingdom as a whole if local policies were pursued as far as possible because if there is efficiency in the component parts, the sum of the parts adds up to a much stronger whole. The advocacy of a total United Kingdom approach is a stance I rarely adopt in this House. I urge the House to accept the amendments.
      5.0 p.m.
      Mr. Andrew Welsh: The changed political climate in Scotland has shown the need for a change in outlook in London towards the needs of Scotland.
      1224
      It is important that there should be a Scottish oriented and mandated development agency. We need a development agency in Scotland to think seriously about Scottish conditions. It is important that that organisation should be equipped with a realisation of Scottish economic history, and our record of low wages, high emigration, high unemployment and poor environment. As the House will discover this week, much needs to be done in Scotland. Too often decisions have been made in London without a basic knowledge of Scotland and her background.
      We need a workhorse organisation to get to the roots of these problems. If the agency is to do so, it must have adequate finance. If it has this equipment—the Scottish National Party amendment seeks to give it the necessary powers—the Scottish Development Agency can be of service to Scotland. It is important at all times that an organisation should be created to do a job of work for Scotland. We want to see an end to this branch factory mentality which has gone on for far too long and which has cost Scotland so much in past damage. An SDA with adequate decision-making powers, and free from the domination of the NEB in London, can undertake that task if it is allowed to take Scotland's needs and conditions into account.
      We wish clearly to spell out the need for an end to the policy of London centralisation, to which we have grown used. We wish to see Scottish-based minds planning in Scotland for Scottish needs.
      Mr. Michael Heseltine: I wish to speak about the impact of these amendments and the attitude of my party to what was said earlier. Anyone who has considered the proposals contained in the Bill—it can be dissociated from a Scottish development agency and a Welsh development agency—knows that virtually all the powers which are necessary to help industry with its legitimate problems were dealt with in the Industry Act 1972. After that law, only one issue was open for serious debate—whether the powers of the Industry Act 1972 should be administered by an agency or by a Government Department. I understand the merits of that argument.

      1225
      However, that is not the argument today. Today's argument is that, in addition to the Industry Act 1972, a range of new possibilities should be proposed. We must, therefore, concentrate on the argument whether the NEB will contribute to the Scottish or Welsh development agencies anything which it is not otherwise capable of doing, once we have accepted the need for an additional agency in excess of what the Industry Act 1972 provides.
      I recommend the Opposition to support the amendment. If we accept that there is, in the proposals for the National Enterprise Board, nothing which adds meaningfully to the solution of industrial problems which is not provided under the Industry Act 1972 it is right to resist the temptation to allow the NEB to spread its remit into Scotland. In addition to the powers provided by the Industry Act 1972, or through the authorities that I have mentioned, one of the principal purposes of the NEB is to nationalise profitable manufacturing companies. That remit of the NEB is not mirrored in the Scottish or Welsh development authorities.
      This is the most realistic interpretation of the debate. Should there be a London-based organisation, acting for Scotland and Wales, as well as England, with the function of buying into profitable, free enterprise companies in Scotland and Wales and to transfer the power of decision making of those companies to London away from Scotland and Wales?
      My own view is that there is no shred of justification for saying to the people of Scotland and Wales that their flourishing private sector companies should not be run, managed and operated in Wales and Scotland but should be operated from the central administration in London. There is no evidence for that. I spent the weekend in Dumfriesshire. Tomorrow I shall go to Glasgow. I expect that the arguments I shall hear from all sides will be clearly to the effect that the people of Scotland are well content to manage their own affairs within Scotland.
      I believe that this legislation, with the legislation for the nationalisation of the aircraft and shipbuilding industries, will transfer the control over the Scottish shipbuilding and aircraft manufacturing
      1226
      industries from the Scottish people to London. That is an additional reason why this proposal should be resisted.
      The arguments are clear that there is only one motivation which encourages the Government to put this proposal before us. They want a vehicle intended to spread nationalisation to Wales and Scotland in a way that the development authorities of those countries are not empowered to do. We shall naturally resist that proposal.
      I hope that the Minister will not say that the people of Wales and Scotland should be grateful to the Government, as there are now development authorities in their national names, and that they will also enjoy the benefits of the National Enterprise Board to be bestowed on them. The House will not find it acceptable if the Under-Secretary, in reply, argues along those lines, when the people of Wales and Scotland have already taken on board the industrial policies of the Government and when the Government's economic policies are in ruins.
      Far from their being justified in talking about the regeneration of British industry or the expansion of investment opportunities, in reality investment will decline by 15 per cent. next year, and the people of Wales and Scotland will suffer most. The unemployment levels in this country will be the highest since the war. Unemployment will be highest in Wales and Scotland. The theory of this legislation, in view of the economic hardships which the people of Wales and Scotland will suffer as a consequence of the policies of the past 14 months, is a travesty of the industrial policies which the Government should bestir themselves to put forward.
      Mr. Norman Buchan: I expect to hear this kind of nonsense from the Opposition. Why must it be accepted so easily that unemployment must be more serious in Scotland and Wales? There are efficient Scottish trade unionists fighting these issues. If we take into account the other areas of England and Wales, the figures show that the worst unemployment is not in Scotland.
      Mr. Heseltine: The only way in which we shall ever establish the facts is to wait. The hon. Gentleman must exercise only a

      1227
      little more patience before he discovers that what I have said is true.
      The people of Scotland and Wales, living in the areas which have always traditionally suffered, will find that the impact of the economic policies now being pursued in this country will threaten more jobs and destroy more investment than have been threatened or destroyed at any time over the past two decades. It is frightening that hon. Gentlemen have not seen the dangers to Scotland and Wales of this legislation and of the economic strategy of the Government. The people of those countries will not be deceived.
      To make the position of the Conservative Party clear I recommend that we support this amendment.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Gerald Kaufman): Before turning to the serious arguments put forward by the Members of the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru, I should like to deal with the remarks of the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). The hon. Gentleman—who was not facing the Opposition, as I was—was not in a position to observe the amused contempt on the faces of the hon. Members representing constituencies in Scotland and Wales who share the Opposition benches with him when they saw the opportunism with which he reacted to their amendment, which they put down for the honest reasons which brought them to the House.
      Mr. Fairbairn Mr. Fairbairn rose—
      Mr. Kaufman: I will come to the point raised by the hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) in a moment. The hon. Member for Henley is indeed himself a Welshman, as we know, but when he sought to be elected for a Welsh constituency he was rejected by a massive majority and he had to come to Oxfordshire in order to sit in the House of Commons, in the same way as the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) had to come to Cambridge to be educated.
      The hon. Member for Henley talked about unemployment. He is, in fact, an expert on unemployment. He was a member of the Government which produced a million unemployed very shortly after coming to office. I point out to him that when we had a million unemployed,
      1228
      as the result of the policies of his right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), it was the North-East which had higher unemployment than Scotland.
      Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex): On a point of order. Is it appropriate for the Under-Secretary of State to talk in these terms about the past history of unemployment when we are under the guillotine and have a great number of amendments to discuss in a short time?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am in the happy position that I am not responsible for what either side say, but both sides are aware that there is a guillotine.
      Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Member for Henley spoke at some length about unemployment and I am perfectly entitled to reply. He said that when unemployment came, Scotland and Wales would be the worst hit. They have always been very unhappily hit by unemployment, and we recognise that. At the same time, I point out again that, when the right hon. Member for Sidcup gave us a million unemployed, the North-West had more unemployed than Wales. I do not boast about it. It is a fact.
      These are problems which are shared by all the neglected areas of the United Kingdom, and it ill behoves us for opportunistic reasons to play to one gallery or another.
      The hon. Member for Henley cut no ice whatever with Plaid Cymru or the SNP in his remarks. He appears to believe that the Industry Act 1972 was the last word in industrial policy in this country and that nothing more needs to be done following that. If that were the case, industry in this country would have been restructured as a result of that Act, and we should not be facing the grave problems of industrial restructuring that we face, to deal with which is one—but only one—of the objectives of the Bill before us.
      The fact is that the hon. Member for Henley supports these amendments because he hopes that perhaps by uniting with the other parties on the Opposition Benches he may defeat the Government. He does not support them for any other reason. He, like the hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire, who is a good deal more open about it, simply wants to wreck this Bill. It can be done

      1229
      perfectly openly. The hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire made many extremely interesting speeches in Standing Committee in which he made no bones about this. It will not do to suggest that the Tory Opposition are supporting other Opposition parties—we have several of them, as the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) often points out—for reasons other than total opporttunism.
      Mr. Fairbairn: Does the Minister appreciate that in Committee there was an amendment in my name and that of my colleagues to the same effect, and that it was not intended to wreck this Bill? But there is a saying that if one cannot keep a thief out of one's neighbour's garden one may want to keep him, out of one's own.
      Mr. Kaufman: One of the delights of reading the hon. Member's speeches in Standing Committee was the stream of aphorisms, which I shall remember and use on suitable occasions.
      But some serious arguments have been put by hon. Gentlemen on the third opposition bench below the Gangway, and by my hon. Friends on this side. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire, in moving this series of amendments, asked for categorical assurances that the National Enterprise Board would not operate in the areas north of the border and west of the border, if I may so describe them. I cannot give him those assurances. I cannot give him them for reasons which the Tory Opposition would appreciate but which hon. Members of this Party, the SNP and Plaid Cymru would not accept, namely, that this would wreck the purposes of this Bill.
      5.15 p.m.
      I know that, despite the separatism which they are elected to advocate in this House, they, and particularly the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) do not wish to wreck the purposes of this Bill. In fact, they support many of them, as indeed does the Liberal Party.
      But among the purposes of this Bill which would be wrecked by abolishing the activities of the National Enterprise Board in Wales and Scotland would be three of the most important. The first is the restructuring or reorganising of
      1230
      industries on a United Kingdom basis. The second is the extension of public ownership into profitable areas of manufacturing industry. This is a public ownership Bill, not just a restructuring of industry Bill—the exercise of the State holding company function and the provision of investment capital to companies operating throughout the United Kingdom.
      The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) claimed that what we would be doing in this Bill, as he claimed we had done in the case of other nationalised bodies, would be to set up a centralised bureaucratic body which would be unaware of or oblivious to the problems of Scotland. He implied that the nationalised bodies are "big brothers" which ignore the interests of the three other countries of the United Kingdom and, indeed, perhaps the other regions of the United Kingdom. He cited the British Steel Corporation and made certain claims about it.
      I point out to the hon. Gentleman that he and his colleagues have never cited the National Coal Board in this connection. The fact is that if it were not for our having a "Great Britain" National Coal Board the coal industry in Scotland would collapse and not be viable. It is the profitable coal areas of England, particularly of South Yorkshire and the East Midlands, which keep the Scottish coal industry and the Welsh coal industry going. This is as it should be, and this is the purpose of a nationally based nationalised body. There are reasons, too, why we need the National Enterprise Board in addition to the SDA and the WDA.
      Mr. Gordon Wilson: I do not know whether the Minister is aware—probably not, from his remarks—that it has been the policy of my party for many years to have a Scottish coal board As to his arguments about the viability of the Scottish coalfields and the position of the National Coal Board, is he aware of the reputation of the National Coal Board for blunders and maladministration in Scotland, particularly in the 1950s, when it opened up many new pits and closed many that seemingly were quite efficient, and when the new pits ran into a great deal of trouble? Many of the difficulties which at present afflict the Scottish coal industry came from the maladministration

      1231
      of that national body, which applied to Scottish miners some of the procedures and techniques which were applicable to different types of seams and mining elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
      Mr. Kaufman: I would not claim that the National Coal Board is a perfect body, any more than the SNP or the Tory Party. What I would say is that it cannot be denied—if the hon. Gentleman wants to maintain a separate loss-making Scottish national coal industry, good luck to him—that the Scottish coal industry is viable now as part of a British coal industry, under the National Coal Board.
      The hon. Gentleman lives, I say to him in all friendliness, in a world of unreality. He talked, for example, about the national ambitions of Newfoundland, and its separatist ambitions. Newfoundland was a separate member country of the Commonwealth and it found its separatism so unviable that it decided to return and become a province of Canada. Newfoundland is an extremely bad example for him to cite in support of his case.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Horam)—who has explained to me why he cannot be present for this part of the debate—made some points which are very valid indeed in the light of what I said in reply to the hon. Member for Henley about the problems of neglected regions of England. In addition to the problems of Scotland and Wales, my own region, the North-West, is a deeply neglected region of England. We shall pay attention to this. In regard to the activities of the National Enterprise Board, we shall, for example, have strong offices of the NEB in both Merseyside and the North-East. What we shall not have is separate agencies of the kind which both Scotland and Wales will have.
      Hon. Members who represent the SNP and Plaid Cymru are some of the least naive Members of this House, and they will not wish me to repeat what was said about the powers and the extent of the Welsh Development Agency and the Scottish Development Agency in the course of the Second Reading debates on the Bills last week. I could put them on the record, but they were made clear by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in the debate on the SDA Bill and by my
      1232
      hon. Friend the Under-Secretary in the debate on the WDA Bill, and in a guillotined debate it would be wrong to repeat the very lengthy assurances which were given.
      All I say is that the remits of the SDA and the WDA will cover many of the matters which the hon. Members wish to do and will not be in conflict with the NEB, which will be able to work in partnership with them.
      Sir Raymond Gower: I think that the hon. Gentleman made an involuntary remark which may betray his thinking about these matters. He said that there would not be separate agencies of the NEB in Merseyside and the North-West. Does that mean that he regards the SDA and the WDA merely as agencies?
      Mr. Kaufman: No, and I did not say that. They will be separate bodies. They are called agencies, but they will be separate bodies, although working in partnership with the NEB.
      As usual, the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) made a powerful speech, and I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Dr. Bray) answered him amply. The hon. Gentleman asked how we could have a United Kingdom National Enterprise Board which was not answerable in Scotland if it was to be of use to Scotland. The answer is that NEB will be answerable, through my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, to the House of Commons. There are 107 Scottish and Welsh Members in this House. The few Members who are elected to represent the SNP and Plaid Cymru have shown that they can raise their voices in this House for Scotland and Wales. Those of my hon. Friends who represent Scottish and Welsh constituencies have never left us in doubt about the way in which they can speak on behalf of Scotland and Wales. Therefore, in addition to the answerability of the SDA and the WDA to their respective Cabinet Ministers, the NEB will be answerable through this House to 107 Scottish and Welsh Members.
      I take it that we shall now have a Division based upon conviction on the part of the Scottish and Welsh Opposition Members and upon sheer opportunism on the part of Tory Opposition Members.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I put the Question, I must tell the House that I shall allow the customary eight minutes for the first Division. Then we shall return to what Mr. Speaker said earlier. This is because some hon. Members in the Norman Shaw Building may not be
      aware of the shortened time for the Division.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 217, Noes 240.

      Division No. 250.]

      AYES

      [5.24 p.m.

      Adley, Robert

      Grylls, Michael

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Hall, Sir John

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Alison, Michael

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Awdry, Daniel

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Mudd, David

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Hannam, John

      Neave, Alrey

      Baker, Kenneth

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Nelson, Anthony

      Banks, Robert

      Hastings, Stephen

      Neubert, Michael

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Newton, Tony

      Benyon, W.

      Hawkins, Paul

      Normanton, Tom

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Heselline, Michael

      Nott, John

      Biffen, John

      Hicks, Hobert

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Holland, Philip

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Bottomley, Peter

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Hordern, Peter

      Percival, Ian

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Brittan, Leon

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Brotherton, Michael

      Hurd, Douglas

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Buck, Antony

      James, David

      Rees-Davles, W. R.

      Budgen, Nick

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

      Reid, George

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Jessel, Toby

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Jopling, Michael

      Ronton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Churchill, w. S.

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Kilfedder, James

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Kimball, Marcus

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushclifle)

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Clegg, Walter

      King, Torn (Bridgwater)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Cockcroft, John

      Kirk, Petor

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Cope,John

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Cordle, John H.

      Knox, David

      Scott, Nicholas

      Crawford, Douglas

      Lamont, Norman

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Crouch, David

      Lane, David

      Shelton, William (Stroatham)

      Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

      Langford Holt, Sir John

      Shepherd, Colin

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Shersby, Michael

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Sims, Roger

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Lawson, Nigel

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Durant, Tony

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Lloyd, Ian

      Speed, Keith

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Luce, Richard

      Spence, John

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      MacCormick, lain

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      McCrindle, Robert

      Sproat, Iain

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      McCusker, H.

      Stainton, Keith

      Farr, John

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      MacGregor, John

      Stanley, John

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Stewart, Donald (Western Islss)

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Made), David

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Marten, Neil

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Fox, Marcus

      Mates, Michael

      Tebbit, Norman

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      Mather, Carol

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Maudllng, Rt Hon Reginald

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Mawby, Ray

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Thompson, George

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Goodhart, Philip

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Trotter, Neville

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Gorst, John

      Mills, Peter

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Viggers, Peter

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Moate, Roger

      Wakeham, John

      Gray, Hamish

      Molyneaux, James

      Warren, Kenneth

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Monro, Hector

      Watt, Hamish

      Grist, Ian

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Mr. Douglas Henderson and

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Younger, Hon George

      Mr. Andrew Welsh.

      Winterton, Nicholas

      NOES

      Allaun, Frank

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Archer, Peter

      George, Bruce

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Newens, Stanley

      Ashton, Joe

      Ginsburg, David

      Noble, Mike

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston (J)

      Golding, John

      Oakes, Gordon

      Atkinson, Norman

      Gourlay, Harry

      Ogden, Eric

      Bagler, Gordon A. T.

      Graham, Ted

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Bates, Alf

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Ovenden, John

      Bean, R. E.

      Grocott, Bruce

      Palmer, Arthur

      Beith, A. J.

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Park, George

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Parker, John

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Hardy, Peter

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Boardman, H.

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Penhaligon, David

      Booth, Albert

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Phipps, Dr Colin

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Hatton, Frank

      Prescott, John

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Hooley, Frank

      Radice, Giles

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Horam, John

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Buchan, Norman

      Huckfield, Les

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Buchanan, Richard

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Rooker, J. W.

      Campbell, Ian

      Hunter, Adam

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Carmichael, Neil

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Cartwright, John

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Ryman, John

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Janner, Greville

      Sandelson, Neville

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

      Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

      Selby, Harry

      Cohen, Stanley

      John, Brynmor

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Coleman, Donald

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      Corbett, Robin

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Jones. Dan (Burnley)

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Sillars, James

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Kelley, Richard

      Silverman, Julius

      Cronin, John

      Kerr, Russell

      Skinner, Dennis

      Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

      Kilroy-Sllk, Robert

      Small, William

      Cryer, Bob

      Kinnock, Neil

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Lambie, David

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

      Lamborn, Harry

      Spearing, Nigel

      Dalyell, Tam

      Lamond, James

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Davidson, Arthur

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Stallard, A. W.

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelll)

      Lipton, Marcus

      Stoddart, David

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Litterick, Tom

      Stott, Roger

      Deakins, Eric

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Strang, Gavin

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds W)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

      de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Luard, Evan

      Taylor, Mrs Arm (Bolton W)

      Dempsey, James

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      Doig, Peter

      McCartney, Hugh

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Dormand, J. D.

      McElhone, Frank

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Dunn, James A.

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Tinn, James

      Dunnett, Jack

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Tomilnson, John

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Tomney, Frank

      Edelman, Maurice

      McNamara, Kevin

      Torney, Tom

      Edge, Geoff

      Madden, Max

      Tuck, Raphael

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Urwin, T. W.

      English, Michael

      Marks, Kenneth

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Marquand, David

      Wainwrlght, Edwin (Deame V)

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Wainwright, Richard (Coine V)

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

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

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Ward, Michael

      Flannery, Martin

      Meillsh, Rt Hon Robert

      Watkinson, John

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Weitzman, David

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Millan, Bruce

      Wellbeloved, James

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

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

      Molloy, William

      Whitlock, William

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      1236

      1237

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Woodall, Alec

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Woof, Robert

      Mr. John Ellis and

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Mr. Joseph Harper.

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Tom King: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 13, at end insert:
      '( ) The members of the Board shall be appointed from among persons who appear to the Secretary of State to have wide experience of, and to have shown capacity in, industry, technology, commercial or financial matters, administration, or the organisation of workers'.
      This amendment can be moved briefly. The Under-Secretary has studied the proceedings in Committee and will be aware that this amendment merely inserts in the Bill the provision that the Government intended to have in it. It would ensure that the members of the National Enterprise Board—and the Government never cease to tell us what an important job this board will do—have some qualifications. The amendment makes it clear that:
      "The members of the Board shall be appointed from among persons who appear to the Secretary of State to have wide experience of, and to have shown capacity in, industry, technology, commercial or financial matters, administration, or the organisation of workers'."
      The matter arose in Committee, when an amendment was proposed by the Under-Secretary's hon. Friends below the Gangway—if I can so describe their position in Committee—and at the first whiff of grapeshot the Government, in the shape of the former Minister of State, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller), collapsed. Without any explanation to the Committee as to why this provision had been thought necessary in the first place, he calmly said that he would accept the amendment. He took advantage of a situation in which we had made it clear that we were not happy about the clause because we would prefer to have seen it tightened. However, we did not wish to see all question of qualifications removed.
      If this were a consistent policy on the part of the Government, we could understand it. However, since then they have introduced the Welsh Development Agency Bill and the Scottish Develop-
      1238
      ment Agency Bill. We would assume that if it were Government policy to require no qualifications to be inserted, they would not appear in the Bill either. However, what do we find? In the Scottish Development Agency Bill we find that:
      "The members…shall be appointed from among persons who appear to the Secretary of State to have a wide experience of…".
      The Welsh Development Agency Bill states:
      "The members of the Agency shall include persons who appear to the Secretary of State to have wide experience of…".
      Then it gives a similar range of qualifications.
      I need not labour the point, because I trust that the Minister will accept it. This was the Government's original intention. They were in rather a difficult situation and were unsure of some of the Members on the Committee at that time. I hope that they are now more confident and recognise the need for this provision.
      At the time the Minister of State made passing references to the Gas Act and the Post Office Act. However, those are single-purpose institutions. In both the Scottish Development Agency and the Welsh Development Agency and in the NEB we deal with multi-disciplinary and multi-purpose activities, as we did in the former IRC. It is in that range that the qualifications peed to be spelt out.
      The House will knows that there was enough uncertainty over the Bill and the intentions of the then Secretary of State for Parliament to be far from happy to leave to any Secretary of State totally unfettered powers to appoint anyone he chooses. The powers of political patronage in this area—to appoint people without any qualifications—are obviously unacceptable. It is for that reason that we hope the Government will accept our support to reinstate their original intention in the Bill. The wording is identical to that which they had in their own Bill, and we believe that those qualifications should be included.
      Mr. Tim Renton: I rise to support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King).
      One of the strange things about this ill-conceived and misbegotten Bill to set up the National Enterprise Board is the way in which the qualifications clause disappeared in Committee—not with a bang and not even with a whimper from the Government. Therefore, we wondered why the provision was ever included in the first place if the Government considered that it was not necessary for members of this important board to have any qualifications whatever.
      From the proceedings of the second Sitting of the Committee one finds that the qualifications were dropped because of pressure from the Tribune Group. The Government were frightened that the amendment might be carried against their wishes, so they caved in. The main argument advanced by the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) in moving that the qualifications clause should disappear was that if the qualifications stayed in the Bill, behavioural scientists would be excluded. He laid great stress on that, but it is not an adequate reason for removing the qualifications clause. As the hon. Member for Norwich, South was so worried about behavioural scientists, I hesitate to ask whether he is a behavioural scientist. In any case, I should have thought that a behavioural scientist would be covered by the description "technology" as a person versed in technology.
      We are deeply opposed to the principle of the NEB but, if it is to come into being, it will act as a multifarious holding company, as has been said by many Ministers who have been concerned with the Bill. Our more substantial argument is that if the NEB is to be successful, surely the chairman of the board will need to have members of the board with many skills to support him. The Government should therefore have the courage to stand up against the omission of behavioural scientists, to risk the wrath of the hon. Member for Norwich, South, and to restore the original qualifications so that the chairman shall be able to call on fully-qualified people to help him to administer this conglomerate which the Government intend to create.
      Mr. Giles Shaw: In endorsing the remarks made by my hon. Friends I draw to the attention of the House that one of the major objectives of the National Enterprise Board, as the Secretary of State said several times in Committee, is to restore the confidence of industry. We have made clear our view that we hardly believe that industry will be confident in the operations of the NEB. To put the least value on it, it would be a vital ingredient of such confidence that the persons appointed to the board should be of proven worth and value in the professions listed in the amendment.
      We are here faced with the possibility that no qualification will be required to enable a person to become a member of the NEB. In Committee we saw farce upon farce attending the passage of the Bill. When one of the longer running Whitehall farces eventually closed after a run of forty sittings to cries of "Author, Author", we were treated to a fusillade of shots from Downing Street when we attempted to find out what had happened to the previous author. I hope that we shall get a slightly more complimentary reply on the question who should compose the NEB than a discreet rolling down of the safety curtain. According to the Government, it does not matter, but we on the Opposition benches think that it matters a great deal that the people who are meant to be in charge of the enterprise should at least have the background of knowing that they have the confidence of industry in their talents.
      Dr. Reginald Bennett: As one who has not had the privilege of serving on the Committee, I am interested to hear the controversy on this subject, particularly in relation to behavioural scientists. I have humble qualifications in psychiatry, but I must admit that I have never heard of behavioural scientists. Is a behavioural scientist someone who discusses the behaviour of scientists, because it is often political or eccentric, or is he a scientist who, not being psychiatrically trained or even psychologically trained, studies the behaviour of animals or the human species?
      If that is the issue, I should be grateful if the Minister would give us a definition

      1241
      and tell us why alarm on behalf of behavioural scientists should rule out from any qualifications all future members of the board and preclude them from having any form of technical knowledge which might increase the confidence of this country and other countries in the board at a time when, as today has shown, confidence in the country needs to be stimulated.
      5.45 p.m.
      Mr. Kaufman: During this Report stage it will fall to me to request the House to reject amendments which were made in Committee, and I have no doubt that there will be a display of artificial wrath from Opposition Members who will say that we are spurning decisions made in Committee. On this occasion we ask the House to abide by a decision taken in Committee. It is right that decisions made in Committee should be accepted, except when there are strong reasons for their being reversed on Report. The speeches we have heard do not amount to strong reasons.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) in one of a series of extremely compelling speeches in Committee, both as Minister of State and after he ceased to be Minister of State, gave good reasons why the Government should accept the amendment which was made in Committee. The arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) do not compare with those put forward by my hon. Friend. For example, the hon. Member for Bridgwater dismissed the precedents of the Civil Aviation Act 1971 and the Gas Act 1972—both Conservative Acts—which we are following as a result of the amendment which was accepted in Committee.
      The hon. Member for Bridgwater cited Clause 1(4) of the Scottish Development Agency Bill as a reason for showing that the Government were being inconsistent in not accepting his amendment, but he significantly failed to read the entire relevant extract from that subsection He quoted the first part of subsection (4):
      "The members of the Agency shall be appointed from among persons who appear to the Secretary of State to have a wide experience of, and to have shown capacity in, industry".
      1242
      Then his voice died away and he did not go on to read the following words which are:
      "banking, accounting or finance, environmental matters, local government or the representation of workers, or any other field of activity which the Secretary of State considers is relevant to the discharge of the functions of the Agency."
      That subsection gives to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland in respect of the Scottish Development Agency no greater and no less licence than that which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry is given by the Bill as amended in Committee. This is a distinction without a great difference.
      Mr. Tim Renton: Will not the hon. Gentleman accept that the function of the NEB is multipurpose? Therefore the analogy between the NEB and, for example, the Civil Aviation Act and the Post Office Act is totally irrelevant because the boards set up under those Acts were for a simple, straightforward monolithic purpose. Beyond that, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) advanced no reason for removing the qualifications from the Bill. He said that he would accept the amendment so as not to make the Bill too restrictive.
      Mr. Kaufman: From my relatively short experience in the House, I have learnt that the analogies one makes oneself are relevant and that the analogies of Opposition Members are irrelevant. That is what the hon. Member for mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) is saying.
      I have had the great advantage of having read the entire proceedings of the 40 Sittings in Committee, which is rather like reading "War and Peace" three times over. To have read the proceedings is slightly more advantageous than to have attended the Committee. Many hon. Members do not seem to have been there a great deal, as I note that the Committee lost its quorum from time to time. The hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley) had a strange capacity to empty the Committee whenever he rose to speak, as he had to admit from time to time. It was not the occasional organised absenteeism of my hon. Friends that accounted for the lack of a full attendance from time to time.

      1243
      As I recall from reading the Official Report of the Standing Committee proceedings, the suggestions of additional qualifications for members of the NEB were so numerous that to embody them all would have been to lengthen the Bill extravagantly. It was sensibly felt that in this almost unique case it was better to follow the admirable precedents of the Conservative Government in 1971 and 1972 and to remove the subsection.
      We seem to be having a great deal of huffing and puffing over very little, in view of the extremely irrelevant analogy quoted by the hon. Member for Bridgwater. I ask the House to reject the amendment.
      Mr. Tom King: We have now had another speech from a Minister very similar to that made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer), giving no explanation why that subsection was in the Bill in the first place. That point has never been answered. I shall gladly give way to the Minister if from the speech by his hon. Friend that he found so compelling he can give me one compelling sentence to show why it was included, and why it is now better to delete it.
      The hon. Gentleman said that the Government preferred to rest on the precedents of Conservative Acts. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) has already made the point, as I tried to do, that they concerned single-purpose activities—the Post Office, civil aviation, the gas corporation. The Government have not rested on those precedents. They have already gone beyond them with the Scottish Development Agency and the Welsh Development Agency. The Minister accused me of not reading the whole sentence in connection with the Scottish Development Agency. It is true that it goes on to include
      "any other field of activity which the Secretary of State considers is relevant".
      But the hon. Gentleman chose not to read the WDA sentence, because that does not have that wording. The WDA Bill merely refers to:
      "administration, local government and matters relating to the environment."
      1244
      I am not clear what the reasons are for precise qualifications. The SDA has a rather looser final subsection. At present the NEB requires no qualifications what-soever. The Government have given no explanation why they put the provision in originally.
      It is no good the Government standing on the argument that it was done in Committee, because the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton gave us no explanation in Committee. Presumably the Government thought the Bill out and thought it right for the qualifications to be included—sufficiently right to continue to include them in the SDA and WDA Bills. It will not do to go back to an Act of 1971 and to say that that is the explanation. That has already been superseded by the Government's actions in two subsequent Bills. The Government are convicted of total inconsistency.
      Worse than that, the Minister knows that there is concern in industry about the way in which the NEB may be operated—the standard of operation, the sort of people who may become involved in it. Not much more than two hours ago, we heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who faces a grave economic situation. One of the messages that came across loud and clear was that there must be confidence in industry if there is to be progress, if there is to be investment.
      Here is an easy opportunity for the Government to recognise the concern of industry on a matter which arouses only fairly minor opposition from the Left wing of the hon. Gentleman's party. The Minister gave it away by saying that he sees this as huffing and puffing about what is not a major point. But it gives the Government their first opportunity in the Bill to show that they intend to recognise the interests and concern of both sides of industry.
      The Government could make a gesture towards trying to re-establish confidence. Industry and the country will know that, on what the Minister admits is a minor matter, the Government decline to take that opportunity. For those reasons, we shall vote for the amendment.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 215, Noes 238.

      Division No. 251.]

      AYES

      [5.55 p.m.

      Adley, Robert

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Nott, John

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Alison, Michael

      Hannam, John

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Awdry, Daniel

      Hastings, Stephen

      Percival, Ian

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Baker, Kenneth

      Hawkins, Paul

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Banks, Robert

      Henderson, Douglas

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Heseltine, Michael

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Benyon, W.

      Hicks, Robert

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Holland, Philip

      Rathbone, Tim

      Biffen, John

      Hordern, Peter

      Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Bottomley, Peter

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Reid, George

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Hurd, Douglas

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Brittan, Leon

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Brotherton, Michael

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      James, David

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Bryan, Sir Paul

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

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Jessel, Toby

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Buck, Antony

      Jopling, Michael

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Budgen, Nick

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Scott, Nicholas

      Churchill, W. S.

      Kirk, Peter

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Knox, David

      Shepherd, Colin

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Lamont, Norman

      Shersby, Michael

      Clegg, Walter

      Lane, David

      Sims, Roger

      Cockcroft, John

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Cope, John

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

      Cordle, John H.

      Lawson, Nigel

      Speed, Keith

      Crawford, Douglas

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Spence, John

      Crouch, David

      Lloyd, Ian

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Crowder, F. P.

      MacCormick, Iain

      Sproat, Iain

      Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

      McCrindle, Robert

      Stainton, Keith

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      McCusker, H.

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Stanley, John

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      MacGregor, John

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

      Durant, Tony

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Madel, David

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Marten, Nell

      Tebbit, Norman

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Mates, Michael

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Mather, Carol

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Farr, John

      Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Mawby, Ray

      Thompson, George

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Trotter, Neville

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Miller, Hal (Bromtgrove)

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Mills, Peter

      Viggers, Peter

      Fox, Marcus

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Wakeham, John

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Moate, Roger

      Watt, Hamish

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Molyneaux, James

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      Monro, Hector

      Welsh, Andrew

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Goodhart, Philip

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Gorst, John

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Mudd, David

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Gray, Hamish

      Neave, Airey

      Younger, Hon George

      Grist, Ian

      Nelson, Anthony

      Grylls, Michael

      Neubert, Michael

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Hall, Sir John

      Newton, Tony

      Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Normanton, Tom

      Mr. Richard Luce.

      NOES

      Allaun, Frank

      Golding, John

      Palmer, Arthur

      Anderson, Donald

      Gourlay, Harry

      Park, George

      Archer, Peter

      Graham, Ted

      Parker, John

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Ashton, Joe

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Penhaligon, David

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Phipps, Dr Colin

      Atkinson, Norman

      Grocott, Bruce

      Prescott, John

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Hardy, Peter

      Radice, Giles

      Bates, Alf

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Bean, R. E.

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Beith, A. J.

      Hatton, Frank

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Hooley, Frank

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Boardman, H.

      Horam, John

      Rodgers. William (Stockton)

      Booth, Albert

      Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

      Rooker, J. W.

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Huckfield, Les

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Ryman, John

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Sandelson, Neville

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Hunter, Adam

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Buchan, Norman

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Selby, Harry

      Buchanan, Richard

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

      Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

      Campbell, Ian

      John, Brynmor

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Carmichael, Neil

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Cartwright, John

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Sillars, James

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Silverman, Julius

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Small, William

      Cohen, Stanley

      Kelley, Richard

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Coleman, Donald

      Kerr, Russell

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Spearing, Nigel

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Kinnock, Neil

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Corbett, Robin

      Lambie, David

      Stallard, A. W.

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Lamborn, Harry

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Craigen. J. M. (Maryhill)

      Lamond, James

      Stoddart, David

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Stott, Roger

      Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Strang, Gavin

      Cryer, Bob

      Lipton, Marcus

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Litterick, Tom

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Loyden, Eddie

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Davidson, Arthur

      Luard, Evan

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Tinn, James

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      McElhone, Frank

      Tomlinson, John

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Tomney, Frank

      Deakins, Eric

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Torney, Tom

      Dean Joseph (Leeds W)

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Tuck, Raphael

      de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Urwin, T. W.

      Dempsey, James

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Doig, Peter

      McNamara, Kevin

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Dormand, J. D.

      Madden, Max

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

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

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Marks, Kenneth

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Dunn, James A.

      Marquand, David

      Ward, Michael

      Dunnett, Jack

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Watkinson, John

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Weitzman, David

      Edge, Geoff

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Wellbeloved, James

      Ellis, John (Brlgg & Scun)

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Whitlock, William

      English, Michael

      Mikardo, Ian

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Evans, loan (Aberdare)

      Millan, Bruce

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Molloy, William

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Flannery, Martin

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Woodall, Alec

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Newens, Stanley

      Woof, Robert

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekln)

      Noble, Mike

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

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

      Oakes, Gordon

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Ogden, Eric

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      George, Bruce

      O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

      Mr. Colin Jackson and

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Mr. Joseph Harper.

      Ginsburg, David

      Ovenden, John

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Kaufman: I beg to move, Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 9, leave out
      'the servant or agent of the Crown'
      and insert
      'performing any function or exercising any powers (including powers under section 3 below), whether by direction of the Secretary of State or otherwise, as the servant or agent of the Crown or any government department,'.
      This amendment is intended to make it clear that in no respect is the NEB to be regarded as the servant or agent of the Crown.
      The provision ensures that when the board gives assistance under Clause 3 it will do so in its own name. Therefore, if any dispute arises it will be the responsibility of the NEB to deal with it itself and not the Secretary of State's. This ensures that the NEB will have every incentive to act efficiently when it acts as a channel of assistance.
      Mr. Tom King: In Committee we discused the rôle of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, and particularly in relation to directives from the Secretary of State under Clause 3 to exercise powers under Sections 7 and 8 of the Industry Act 1972. Will the Bill put the use of those powers outside the scope of the Parliamentary Commissioner, where at present it remains? Does the amendment in any way affect that position? It would appear that there is a subsequent Government amendment to make it clear that the Secretary of State will remain liable for any exercise of Section 7 and Section 8 powers—albeit by the NEB, but the liability still rests with him—and therefore, any submission to the Parliamentary Commissioner would still be within his scope.
      Mr. Kaufman: It is appropriate to clarify this matter, on which there was a good deal of confusion in Committee. The amendment clarifies the point that the board is not acting as the agent of the Secretary of State when providing financial assistance under Clause 3, and it is therefore not subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. The Secretary of State's responsibility in giving directions will, however, be fully subject to investigation and the NEB could be required to furnish any information or documents relevant to
      1250
      the PCA's investigation of the Department.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Cyril Smith: I beg to move, Amendment No. 173, in page 2, line 15, insert—
      '(9) The Board shall maintain a register of members' financial interests and shall ensure that all members of the Board enter statements of such of their financial interests as, were they Members of the House of Commons, they would be required to register in accordance with resolutions of that House'.
      While I have little sympathy with the Bill as a whole and believe that investment, about which we heard a great deal during Question Time this afternoon, would be improved by the Bill being jettisoned, nevertheless if we are to have the Bill we have to ensure that it is amended in a way that at least makes it credible, and certainly gives to the public as a whole the appearance—if I may use one of my own phrases—of everything being straight and above board. What we are talking about in this amendment is not unrelated to the question of investment in the sense that it raises the issue of public confidence.
      The Minister will be aware that when this subject was discussed in Committee there was a great deal of support from hon. Members for the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) which was closely similar to that which I am now moving. The aim that he then sought to achieve, namely, the public declaration of interest by members of the proposed National Enterprise Board, was supported in principle by the hon. Members for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo), for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle), for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) and others.
      The Minister dealing with the Bill at that time, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), gave an undertaking, as reported in c. 155 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee proceedings of 11th March, to which I would draw the Minister's attention, that the Government would return to this matter. The first thing I would like to know is what has happened to that promise? Why have not the Government put down an amendment to their own Bill in accordance with the promise given by the Minister, namely, that the Government

      1251
      would return to this matter—not that they would consider the matter and then decide whether to return to it.
      In the last couple of hours I have read the whole of the Committee proceedings of that day and the Minister quite clearly said the Government had a great deal of sympathy with the amendment and would return to the matter. They have not done so. I would like to know whether that promise is like so many of the promises of the present Government. Is it a promise that they will do something that they will then do nothing about? Last week hon. Members opposite were all trooping into the Lobby to vote against a prices and incomes policy. This week we are to have a prices and incomes policy although there may be a difference of opinion on the form that it will take. We are quite used to the Government saying one thing one week and another thing the next. We are entitled to know why the Government should have promised to return to this matter and have not done so.
      In thinking not only of this but of other events it appears that what the Liberals said yesterday the Government believe today and act upon tomorrow, but in this matter we shall be very happy to accommodate the Government in the hope that they will accept the amendment now before the House.
      There can be no doubt that members of the National Enterprise Board will be very much on a par with Members of this House. They will take decisions that vitally affect the future of British industry. In the course of taking those decisions they will be spending public money to implement them. We believe, therefore, that it is right that members of the National Enterprise Board should have public accountability for who they are, what they are, where their holdings are and what shares they hold in companies—and the emphasis is on public accountability. It will not be acceptable to my hon. Friends and myself for the Minister to start quoting various schedules and parts of an Act that say that the Minister has power to require members of the board to disclose their interests to him. It is not the disclosure to the Minister that bothers us but the disclosure to the public of their interests.
      1252
      6.15 p.m.
      In the Committee discussion, the question arose of company directors having to declare their interests in private and public companies. I am all in favour of that. I believe that it is right. I believe in open government and in open management of industry, and at the Committee stage of another Bill I supported the Government on disclosure of information. It is right that information that is available that will not damage the best interests of a company should be made publicly available. I cannot believe that it is right or proper that a member of the National Enterprise Board should not be required to declare for public examination the interests he holds, which may have some effect on his decisions or may not. Nobody is making him serve on the board. If he does not want to come forward with a declaration of his interests he does not need to accept a seat on the board. But it should be made clear to any men or women who serve on the board that they are spending public money and should be accountable to the public, who are entitled to know who they are, what they are and what will be their motivating forces in the actions they take.
      Mr. Max Madden: I am sure the House is very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his contribution this evening. We are very sorry that his hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright), who laboured very long and hard on that Committee, has not had an opportunity to speak on this amendment although he did so in committeee. Does the hon. Member agree with me that whilst it is imperative that the public should have the information for which he has so rightly called, and that such knowledge of interest would be useful, even more important would be the extent of that interest? Does he agree with me that the Register of Interests for this place, and, hopefully, that which we shall secure for the National Enterprise Board, should shown the extent of the interest in addition to the interest itself? Does he agree with me that that is a very important advance that we should have?
      Mr. Smith: I accept that. I entirely agree with what the hon. Member says and would go so far as to require that the spouse should declare her interest also!

      1253
      I cannot speak for the whole of my party in that respect, but my party would certainly support the idea that members of the board should declare where their interests lie and also the extent of that interest. That is very important because we need to know the extent of the interest to be able to make a judgment. If someone holds £10 in a company I cannot believe that he will corrupt himself for the sake of £10. Some may do so, of course, but they are few and far between. I agree with the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) that the amount of a Member's interest in a company is certainly relevant here, and my colleagues and I would support the requirement for such a declaration of interest.
      In passing, the reason I am moving this amendment instead of my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley is simply that he has asked me to do so because he is serving three days on the Bill in the House and we thought we would give him a little rest. It is one of the few amendments which I can be called to move, whereas we should retain our greater competence for the more detailed amendments that follow.
      I hope that I have said sufficient. If not, we shall certainly return to this issue at a later stage in the discussion. Basically, I am seeking from the Minister at this stage an explanation why the Government have not chosen to honour what was understood to be a promise given in Committee.
      Mr. Ian Mikardo: The arguments which have been used in support of the amendment by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), as might reasonably be expected from him, are weighty. The account which he has given of the transactions in Committee is precisely accurate. When a similar amendment was moved by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) it attracted support from the back benchers of both sides of the Committee. We all had the impression that the Government spokesman was very much influenced by the weight of the arguments that were put forward. I share the surprise expressed by the hon. Member for Rochdale that on Report we do not find a Government amendment on this subject. Like the hon. Gentleman. I shall await with bated breath the explanation
      1254
      from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State.
      As my hon. Friend wanted me to speak before him I shall have to do the unwelcome job of guessing what he will say. I find it difficult to think of the arguments that can be used against the amendment. In fact, I can think of only two. Very soon I shall discover whether I have been a reasonable tipster in forecasting what my hon. Friend will say.
      I suppose that my hon. Friend could say that the amendment would place an obligation upon members of the NEB that does not apply to the British Steel Corporation, the National Coal Board, the British Airports Authority or, for that matter, ICI and Unilever. The short answer to that is that we have to begin at some time and at some place. If my hon. Friend wanted to urge upon us that having given us this we should support him in extending the principle to all sorts of other organisations, and particularly those, as the hon. Member for Rochdale has said, in which people have the responsibility of spending public money, I am sure that he would find a measure of support from all of us which would be gratifying to him.
      In every new piece of legislation we aways find some change and some refinement compared with previous legislation. After all, we should learn from experience. For example, in this Bill we have learnt from the experience of the nationalisation measures of 1946 to 1950 that there is no point in giving a Minister power to make only general directions. Therefore, in this Bill and, I believe, in the Offshore Petroleum Development (Scotland) Act, there is power to make specific as well as general directions. That is how we evolve. We learn as we go along, and we learn from experience.
      The pressure for the open government of business, whether public or private, has increased rapidly. It is one of the results of that pressure that the House has done something that some of us have been urging for many years—namely, to establish a register of Members' interests. That is particularly sensible as regards the NEB. For example, the NEB may consider the purchase of part of the assets of the XYZ company. The XYZ company may be in competition with the

      1255
      ABC company. It is tremendously important that it should be known whether a member of the NEB has a beneficial interest in the ABC company whether by way of a remunerated directorship, remunerated employment or a substantial shareholding. That should be known, and it should be known at the point at which he is appointed or just before.
      Of course, the sort of person that the Secretary of State will appoint to the board will be an honourable man, who will declare that sort of interest. I have no doubt about that. However, we have recently come to the conclusion that the declaration of interest, whilst it is important and valuable, is not enough in itself. Quite rightly, we have gone beyond it. Perhaps, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) says, we have not gone quite as far as we might have done, but at least we have taken an important step forward. That should also be true as regards the NEB. I do not see why it should be out of the mainstream of the tide which has been flowing towards greater openness in public administration.
      I agree with the hon. Member for Rochdale that a declaration of interest to fellow members of the board is all very well but not enough if it is not made available to the general public. The public are entitled to know. The employees of the XYZ company are entitled to know that their destiny is being partially decided by the director of a company that competes with the XYZ company. Therefore, I cannot see why the argument that this is a first time should be used, if it is to be used, against the amendment.
      Secondly, my hon. Friend may say that we want to recruit the best people for the board and that some of the best people might not be willing to make their affairs so public. He might claim that this would put a limitation on the size of the pond from which we could trawl the talent to run the board.
      Mr. Michael Grylls: When the hon. Gentleman talks about directors of companies having interests and that sort of thing, the House will be aware that every director's other directorships are in a register at Companies House. The shareholdings of direc-
      1256
      tors have to be published in annual reports. All the information that the hon. Gentleman suggests is secret is already widely known to the public. What he is suggesting is nothing new. If the public want to find this sort of information it is available either in company reports, in Companies House or in public documents. This is not such a revelation as the hon. Gentleman suggests. It seems that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.
      Mr. Mikardo: I accept that that is an accurate statement. However, I think that we can take this matter a bit further. I would like to see that happen because the number of people who have access to the information about which we are talking is limited. The hon. Gentleman says that the information is available at Companies House, but I put it to the hon. Gentleman that that is no reason for not extending it in the way that the amendment provides.
      M. Cyril Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that whilst this information is registered in the manner described by the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) it can be discovered only by going through the records of every company that is registered, whereas under this amendment the information would be filed under the name of the person concerned rather than under the name of the company?
      Mr. Mikardo: That is precisely what I mean. Although I accept the situation as described by the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls), I want it to go a little further. Clever people who are making some political or business point can always undertake the necessary research. The hon. Gentleman could do it and I could do it. The information can always be dug out, but that should not be necessary. This sort of information should be much more freely available. I should like to see that principle applied in many spheres.
      If my hon. Friend says "We want to get all the talent we can, and there may be some chaps who will say 'I should like to serve on the NEB and I could make a good contribution but I am not willing to take the job because of this condition'", I would say "All right, that is fine, we shall do without you. You

      1257
      are not the sort of chap we want to have carrying the responsibility of spending public money."
      If I have not correctly anticipated whatever reasons my hon. Friend is to give for not accepting the amendment I could be put up the spout altogether. May be my hon. Friend will accept the amendment.
      I shall listen with bated breath to my hon. Friend's reply. It will have to be good to persuade me not to go into the Division Lobby with the hon. Member for Rochdale.
      6.30 p.m.
      Mr. Crawford: Since we must now accept that the National Enterprise Board will operate in Scotland, I wish to support Amendment No. 173 tabled by the Liberal Party.
      I agree with the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo). Too often in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom bodies such as that which is envisaged, both semi-public and public bodies, have been nothing but payrolls for giving jobs to the boys—not just jobs for the financial boys, but jobs for the political boys. I should like to have seen included in the Bill provision for register of members' political interests. I accept the Liberal amendment so far as it goes, and I hope that they will force it to a vote. I look forward to going into the Lobby with the Liberals and also with the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow.
      Mr. Mike Noble: Both my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) touched on the subject of confidence, which is at the heart of the thinking behind the NEB. I suggest that we in the Labour movement have a special responsibility to look at the question of confidence in terms of employees of the companies involved with the NEB.
      I believe that one of the reasons for the tarnished image of industries taken into public ownership by Labour Governments is that often the workers in those industries have no confidence in the boards that run them. I believe that we should pursue the philosophy which has been outlined by previous speakers in
      1258
      this debate and open up this whole area to public scrutiny.
      The amendment could afford a new opportunity to public enterprise. I believe that many people who were involved with the legislation in earlier stages felt that this would provide a new opportunity. The kind of thinking which led to a rejection of a promise which had been given earlier in Committee—namely, the proposal contained in this amendment—will turn people away from the concept pursued by the Labour movement. I look forward to supporting the amendment on a Division, unless my hon. Friend the Minister has a very good reason for saying that I should not do so.
      Mr. Hugh Fraser: Since the Minister apparently is being a little bashful in dealing with this question, may I add a word on the amendment.
      There are two points which have not been mentioned. It is important that the interests of NEB members should be shown. The board may have to undertake difficult negotiations and it will be easier all round if there is a straight declaration of interests. Nothing is more dangerous to those persons than innuendo—and innuendo could easily arise unless there is a proper declaration.
      The second point is also important—namely, that the public wants to know that people who are appointed to the NEB are fairly well qualified. It is important to see that money is well spent. One of the troubles of the RIC was that it was frightened of the employers, and some of its sub-committees were not up to the standard required for the decisions which they made. I am certain that if more of those who were later employed in the motor industry had assisted in earlier years in putting British Leyland together, the difficulties would never have happened.
      I hope that the matter will be fully considered by the Minister, particularly in regard to the protection of the individual who serves on the NEB and also in protecting the public who should know that the people employed on the board are well-qualified and will not waste Government money, as has so often happened in the past.
      Sir Raymond Gower: I wish to add my modest support to what has been said by

      1259
      earlier speakers on Amendment No. 173. Unfortunately, the Minister when replying to an earlier amendment, was not prepared to accept the proposal that qualifications should be written into the Bill. But the Minister could now make amends by agreeing to accept this valuable amendment. By the use of this device he could serve a double purpose. First, if the members have to declare an interest their qualifications will be apparent and, secondly, if there is any conflict board members can make clear that they are people of merit and ability and therefore not likely to be unduly biased.
      The Government will be unwise to reject the amendment. I implore the Minister to take this matter seriously. By refusing to accept the amendment, the Government will give the impression that they do not care what impression the board makes. It is important that membership should be of such a nature that it will instil confidence in the public about board members. I hope that the amendment will be accepted.
      Mr. Doug Hoyle: This is a very important amendment which we supported in Committee. The idea was that the register of interests should be declared by NEB members and also that the register should be open. I understand that in the discussion in Committee the Minister was not sure whether the register would be open to the public. On that basis he took the matter away to look at it again.
      If we are to talk about "open government", we must begin somewhere. Indeed, if such a policy had been followed in the past, the situation would have been a good deal better. We certainly might have avoided some unsavoury incidents. Some of the people might not have reached their positions on public bodies if their interests had been known at an early stage. It is a good thing for the public to be fully aware of the background to the board's membership and that information should be freely available. I hope in the light of all that has been said the amendment will be accepted by the Minister.
      Mr. Kaufman: I have listened with great interest to this debate, because I have always been a supporter of the disclosure of interests. I voted with the ut-
      1260
      most alacrity when this matter came before the House. I had the utmost ease in filling out the necessary forms, because I having nothing whatever to declare. I am highly sympathetic to the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) and by my hon. Friends.
      I considered this matter very carefully in anticipation of the debate and during the speeches that have been made today. When the matter was considered in Committee, my hon. Friend, the then Under-Secretary of State, undertook that the Government would look at this matter. I think that the hon. Member for Rochdale, quite unwittingly, slightly misquoted my hon. Friend when he indicated that my hon. Friend gave a specific assurance that an amendment would be produced. I do not seek to make much of this matter, but the hon. Gentleman is correct in so far as my hon. Friend certainly said that we would return to the matter. We should like to look at the matter further in the light of the arguments that have been put forward and in conjunction with Sir Don Ryder, between now and the stages in another place. We should like to look at the possibility of bringing forward a suitable amendment in another place which might cover the points that have been introduced during this debate.
      Mrs. Audrey Wise: I remind my hon. Friend that this matter was discussed at the Third Sitting of the Committee on Tuesday 11th March. I am at a loss to understand why, at this stage, the Government are suddenly impressed with arguments that were put forward on 11th March. Moreover, the undertaking that was given on that date included the words:
      "the Government are anxious to produce a formula which is completely acceptable and which will produce complete public confidence, and that we shall have a look at the exact wording and return to this matter".—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 11th March 1975; c. 155.]
      I find my hon. Friend's statement that the Government now want to consult a trifle unconvincing.
      Mr. Kaufman: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise) would be the last hon. Member to believe that decisions on matters of legislation should be made by civil servants.

      1261
      When I arrived in the Department of Industry a short while ago I did not find an amendment to deal with the matter that was raised in Standing Committee. Now that I have arrived in the Department, I wish, with my right hon. Friend, to look sympathetically at the arguments that have been put forward on this matter. I hope that my hon. Friend will take that point. I am not being unhelpful. I am seeking to be helpful in the light of the arguments that have been put forward and in the light of my reading of the reports of the Standing Committee, which I have been urgently doing since I was appointed to this job.
      Therefore, I ask both my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Rochdale—in the interests of being able to accede to the valid points that have been made, with which I am personally greatly sympathetic—to withdraw their amendment so that we can look at the matter with a view to being able, if possible, to table an amendment in another place.
      Sir Raymond Gower: The hon. Gentleman has made a remarkable statement. Is he really suggesting that after the undertaking that was given several months ago, the matter was left aside and nobody bothered to do anything about it, and that it was only his arrival in the Department that brought the matter to light again?
      Mr. Kaufman: I am certainly not saying that. Any hon. Member on either side of the House who has been involved in Standing Committee proceedings knows very well that when Ministers are involved in the kind of Standing Committee proceedings that took place on this Bill—100 hours or more, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) pointed out—it is not humanly possible to prepare amendments as we go which will cover every assurance made in a Standing Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) was involved in the Bill a great deal. The civil servants were also involved in servicing the Ministers as the Committee was sitting. We cannot operate in this way. All undertakings cannot be honoured on Report.
      6.45 p.m.
      Since I have been in the Government I have had the duty of dealing with five
      1262
      Bills which have gone through the House. Assurances have been given in Standing Committee, and in relation to a number of them it has been necessary to put down amendments in another place rather than on Report.
      Mr. Mikardo: I am quite prepared to accept my hon. Friend's difficulty if he is prepared to accept ours. Our difficulty is that the undertaking we were given was that what the Government would produce would be acceptable to us. If they had produced it for today's Report stage, we should have been able to judge whether it was acceptable to us. However, if they produce it in another place, and it is in a form which is not acceptable to us, we have no means of amending it or of dealing with it at all. We have to take it or leave it. As has been pointed out, there have been nearly four months during which nothing has been done. That does not give me great confidence that the next two or three weeks will produce something acceptable to us.
      Mr. Kaufman: I well understand and share the view of my hon. Friend, the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow, that once a Bill leaves this place and one has to rely on amendments in another place, the control of the House of Commons over the Bill is not as great as we should like. However, I have not spoken with ill-faith in what I have said. If my hon. Friend did not like the wording of any amendment that might be tabled in another place, as a parliamentarian of great experience, he knows that it would be perfectly possible for amendments to be moved in this place by back benchers as well as by the Government. I am not responding to my hon. Friend's argument in the sense of judging whether he is right or wrong, but if he believes that there is a majority in this place for an amendment of that kind he may wish to test it. If there is a majority for an amendment of that kind, there will be a majority for him to move an amendment to an amendment tabled and carried in another place.
      When amendments from another place are brought here it is open to all hon. Members to seek to amend those amendments in this House, with a Division if necessary.
      Mrs. Wise: I understand my hon. Friend's difficulties which are not his fault

      1263
      and which show the complete inadvisability of removing, during the course of an important Bill, three Ministers who are doing an excellent job in a Department. However, will my hon. Friend tell us what is wrong with the present wording? He has said that he does not like legislation by civil servants, but this amendment is not produced by civil servants and I do not understand what is wrong with it. Could he not reverse his argument and accept this amendment? Then, if some earth-shaking flaw were found, it could be amended in another place? If we can do all this in another place let us indicate the views of this House here and now.
      Mr. Kaufman: I accept what my hon. Friend said. I do not wish to go into what happens when Ministers change office. I accept my hon. Friend's sympathy. I have given valid reasons why the three Ministers who were doing an excellent job in this Department did not bring forward an amendment, and why we did not find an amendment in the Department when we arrived there—there was not one.
      Mr. Richard Wainwright Mr. Richard Wainwright (Colne Valley) rose—
      Mr. Kaufman: It is difficult to complete a sentence in this most interesting debate. Intermittently, I should like to complete one before giving way to another sympathetic intervention from one side or the other. I have indicated that we are sympathetic to the aims of the amendment. We would prefer the hon. Member for Rochdale to withdraw his amendment on the assurance that I have given, which I am sure he will accept in good faith.
      Mr. Wainwright: The Minister alleges that his predecessors in the ministerial team in Committee were working so hard that they could not give a signal for an amendment in the spirit of the one to which his hon. Friend promised to return. Is he saying that on a matter of comparatively simple administration of this kind his highly talented predecessors were not capable of giving a signal to their staff to devise a better form of wording than we have tabled?
      Mr. Kaufman: I am not saying that at all.
      Mr. Hugh Fraser: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Kaufman: The right hon. Gentleman is a quite exceptional Member. I am sure that he will be good enough to allow me to reply to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright). This is guillotine time. If the Opposition wish to intervene, it is not for me to argue with them.
      I have indicated my sympathy for the amendment. I have also indicated that it is our wish to table an amendment in another place to respond to the feeling of the House. If hon. Members on both sides prefer us to accept the amendment now and to consider whether to amend it suitably in another place, I should be ready to respond to that alternative. However, we wish to consider the matter between now and when the Bill goes to another place. The alternative lies between the hon. Member for Rochdale withdrawing the amendment now and our bringing forward an amendment later, or our accepting it now but reserving the right to bring forward an amendment in another place. If it is the will of the House that it should be the latter, then, in accordance with my own inclinations, I shall do that.
      Mr. Tom King: We have had a most extraordinary interlude in this Report stage. The Minister said that he had carefully read the Committee proceedings before deciding his attitude towards the amendment. My impression is that he has a brief which tell him to resist this amendment, but, having read the temperature of the House on this occasion he realised that he would not get away with
      it.
      Mr. Kaufman: When I read the Committee proceedings and saw this amendment, my inclination was to accept it. Unlike the Opposition, who have been against declaring interests, I have always been in favour of declaring interests. I wish to consider the matter further. I have been in the Department only a short time. However, I have responded to the feeling of the House. What is Parliament for if one does not do that?
      Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman has clearly not read the Committee proceedings. If he had, he would know that I

      1265
      said that we were in favour of the amendment in principle. I made that absolutely clear. Therefore, the Minister cannot accuse the Opposition of seeking to refuse disclosure in this area. The hon. Gentleman spoke as though he were somehow an independent Member who was not a member of the Government. Does he accept responsibility for undertakings given by his predecessor? If so, a clear undertaking was given by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) to return to this matter. There has now been a rapid change of view, because the Minister realised that the going was getting too tough. He was trying to repeat what his predecessor had told the Committee, in the belief that he could keep us quiet for another spell.
      The Minister has put the Opposition in a difficult situation. Hon. Members who were present in Committee will know what we said. We pointed out that we did not like the wording of the amendment, but that we accepted it in principle. The first objection was that we were not convinced that exactly the same qualifications which apply to Members of Parliament were necessarily ideal for members of the National Enterprise Board. I think that hon. Members of the Liberal Party will agree that they are seeking to establish the principle. For instance, they are concerned only with the financial interest. I suggest that more than the financial interest may be extremely relevant to the procedures of the NEB. For instance, if the Secretary of State decided to appoint a union leader who had no financial involvement but had a direct political or union interest, that fact should be made known. That is one fault that we find with the amendment. We do not consider that it covers the range of interests which might be extremely relevant and should be declared. As I understand the situation—
      Mrs. Wise Mrs. Wise rose—
      Mr. King: Perhaps I may complete this point. I understand that the Minister is willing to accept the amendment or to table an amendment in another place. The weakness about relying on a Lords amendment is that there is no guarantee that it will be carried. If the Lords amendment is not carried, there will be nothing for the House to amend, and that provision will not be inserted in the Bill.
      1266
      Therefore, we would be relying on the same assurance as was given in Committee, for which we have nothing to show.
      Our difficulty is that there is no amendment which we find wholly acceptable. The Government have reneged, or failed to honour the undertaking given in Committee to bring forward an acceptable amendment. I think that the Minister will be pressed again on this matter. We shall have to wait and see which option he takes.
      Mr. Kaufman: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's dilemma. When he thought that we might be defeated, he wanted to vote against us. Now that we are accepting the amendment, he wants to get out of it because he does not like it.
      Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman should not accuse hon. Members of lack of principle.
      Mrs. Wise Mrs. Wise rose—
      Mr. King: I should like to deal with the Minister's intervention. It is clear that the Government have no principles in this matter, save in so far as they count the votes behind them on all these issues and change their tune to suit them. It is not a question of our not having principles in this matter.
      Mrs. Wise: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. In Committee he said that he did not like this amendment
      "because it would lay obligations on members of the board without our knowing what those obligations were. We have not yet made the regulations relating to Members of Parliament."
      But we have now made those regulations and we are actually filling in our forms. Some of the hon. Gentleman's statements are therefore a little dated.
      In addition, since he knew that the Government had not brought forward an amendment, if the Opposition were genuinely in favour of this principle, why did they not table their own Amendment? I suggest that my hon. Friend was quite right when he said that somebody's bluff had been called. The Opposition's bluff has certainly been called on this matter. They are now faced with an amendment which has been accepted with good grace by the Government. The Opposition should show equal grace by acknowledging the Government's action.
      Mr. Cyril Smith: I agree with the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise) that the Opposition could have tabled their own amendment.
      I thank the Minister for the gracious way in which he dealt with the debate and assure him that we accept the spirit in which the Government have accepted the amendment.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 2

      GENERAL PURPOSES AND FUNCTIONS
      7.0 p.m.
      Mr. Richard Wainwright: I beg to move Amendment No. 175, in page 2, line 26, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
      '(2)The Board will have separate and distinctive responsibilities for—
      (a) Identification of enterprises in difficulty—

      (i) the early identification of those industrial enterprises which are vulnerable to overseas competition and/or where competitiveness is being undermined due to external factors;

      (ii) the early identification of individual enterprises which are likely to reduce employment drastically or cease trading altogether.

      (b) Provision of immediate assistance—
      The National Enterprise Board shall be responsible for co-ordination and assistance to companies which are liable at short notice to cease trading or reduce the numbers employed drastically in such ways that—

      (i) time is available to identify potentially viable parts of the enterprise and plans can be made and implemented for their continued existence;

      (ii) additional financial or other assistance can be provided for those whose jobs are endangered.

      (c) Assistance to improve international competitiveness—
      Within the overall strategy for the future of British industry, the National Enterprise Board shall be responsble for co-ordinating and providing assistance to selected enterprises in order that—

      (i) measures are taken that significantly improve the international competitiveness of existing or new sectors of British industry;

      (ii) British industry can develop closer links with its European counterparts.

      In order to discharge these responsibilities the Board will—

      (a) establish a close working relationship with other bodies and agencies concerned with British industry;

      1268

      (b) be empowered to provide assistance which shows an agreed rate of return for existing or proposed profitable enter prises;

      (c) provide the Minister with a written case explaining the reasons and basis for assistance in any case. This will be laid before Parliament within three months of financial assistance being provided;

      (d) ensuring, in consultation with the representatives of the Department of Employment, that all companies assisted develop adequate representation at both works and board level'.

      Mr. Speaker: With this, we are to discuss the following amendments:
      No. 3, in page 2, line 29, at end insert:
      'with the exception of bodies corporate engaged in either banking or insurance business'.
      No. 4, in page 2, leave out lines 32 and 33.
      No. 5, in page 2, line 38, at end insert:
      '(2A)(a) In any undertaking owned by the Board, the Board shall consult the employees as to the form of management they wish to see implemented;
      (b) at any time trade union representatives of a majority of the employees in such an undertaking may require the Board to hold a ballot of all employees as to whether they wish to have the undertaking constituted as a workers' co-operative, and if the ballot shows a majority of the employees in favour of such a constitution, then the Board shall co-operate with the employees in its preparation, and shall implement it if a further ballot shows a majority of employees in favour of its implementation;
      (c) the constitution of a workers' co-operative under this section shall provide for management by a worker representative body elected by all employees, for the payment of interest on capital employed to the Board, for payment of depreciation into a reserve fund, for an employees' income stabilisation fund, and for the division of the income of the undertaking between employees after payment of interest, depreciation, taxes and other provisions, in accordance with a Code of Practice approved by the Secretary of State which the Secretary of State shall by order direct the Board and any worker co-operatives constituted under this section to observe;
      (d) a duly constituted worker co-operative which fails to observe its obligations under the Code of Practice shall revert to the managerial control of the Board.'.
      Mr. Wainwright: The amendment represents a very substantial revision of the statutory aims of the National Enterprise Board and it is right that I should comment further on the Liberal Party's

      1269
      attitude to the board. We endorse heartily the purposes proclaimed for it by the Government. We should be odd creatures indeed, in this commercially beseiged land, if we did not support the objective of the regeneration of British industry. We believe there is a great need for new methods of co-operation and co-ordination between the Government and industry. There has to be an orderly framework set up, not necessarily for the preservation of "lame ducks", but at least for dealing with them.
      If anything is needed to show how urgently that is required it is the irresposible administration of the Industry Act 1972. The uses to which that Act has been put must horrify its authors, begetters and creators, and in recent months the House has been asked, almost in a panic way, to approve horrendously large sums of money in response to industrial emergencies. My party wants an orderly framework set up, after proper parliamentary deliberation, to handle the difficult situations which are bound to crop up from time to time.
      In the amendment, we have set out three purposes for the NEB. We believe that a statutory duty should be laid on the board to prepare an inventory of the likely major needs of those industries which are known to be especially vulnerable. If Governments of the past 10 years had been proper stewards, such an inventory would already be available. We cannot imagine what on earth the NEDO and other Government and industrial organisations have been doing in recent years that they have not already prepared some sort of checklist of industries which may suddenly find themselves tipped over the brink. If this obligation is laid on the board by statute, Parliament would be protected in future from the almost hysterical process by which hon. Members are told that unless they agree by midnight to vote enormous sums of money, they will throw hundreds of thousands of people out of work.
      We want the board to be given responsibility for administering the assistance provisions in the Industry Act 1972. I hope that this aspect of the amendment will commend itself to the Conservatives, who must have a very keen interest in the fate of the 1972 Act. We want the very powerful levers which that Act put into the hands of Ministers transferred to
      1270
      a body that is politically less sensitive, which has no need to seek the votes of the electorate, and which has a proper degree of commercial responsibility. We also want to see the board under a duty to safeguard the international competitiveness of important sectors of British industry.
      In trying to provide for all this, we are accepting that there is to be a board and that the only question is whether its objectives are to be framed vaguely, so that nobody can assess whether it has lived up to its objectives or fallen short—that would be most unsatisfactory—or whether it is to have fairly sharply focused aims which will enable its operations to be assessed by Parliament from time to time. The words in the Bill, which it is sensible to replace, are too vague and have a smell of the doctrinaire about them which is wholly inappropriate to Britain in its present commercial and financial distress. It is time for a sharper definition—for giving the Board more clearly allotted tasks and for getting rid of some of the woolly verbiage, the only practical purpose of which has been to paper over the cracks between the Government and its supporters.
      It is in the interests of Parliament to speak clearly and demand precisions from the Government. I believe this amendment should be accepted as a modest contribution to those aims.
      Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful for the opportunity to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, and to move Amendment No. 4—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot move that amendment now. He can discuss it with the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) and I am prepared to allow a separate Division on it later.
      Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Speaker.
      The amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) is extremely well drafted, and the general purposes he put forward provoke little quarrel from my hon. Friends and me, who spent many long sittings studying the Bill in Standing Committee. Although there are many arguments in favour of the amendment

      1271
      it misses the main point of the purposes of the board. There are no material matters on which his amendment would make available powers which are not available under the 1972 Act.
      We are, therefore, left with Amendment No. 4, which seeks to delete certain of the other provisions in the clause. It is when one moves from the essentially pragmatic approach of the hon. Member for Colne Valley to the essentially doctrinaire approach of the provisions in Clause 2, which extends public ownership into profitable areas of manufacturing industry, that one sees that the whole divide on this legislation stretches to an unbridgeable extent. There are areas which the hon. Member for Colne Valley is wrong to seek to embrace within the purposes of the board. He referred to the NEDC organisation, which must be dear to your own heart, Mr. Speaker, and it would be wrong to incorporate that organisation within an agency of this sort which is essentially made up of Government nominees. There is no dialogue or consultation. It is simply a group of people chosen by the Government to carry out any policies they may have at any particular time.
      The original concept of the NEDC organisation has never had the opportunity of fulfilling the aspirations originally held for it. It should be a partnership in industry and it needs to be widened to bring within its orbit the financial institutions which own so much of British industry and which would enable it to achieve the aims outlined by the hon. Member for Colne Valley without the need for legislative changes. There is no reason why the NEDC and the little NEDCs cannot now assume the functions envisaged for them at the time of their creation.
      One of the saddest reflections on industrial policy of the last decade is that the little NEDCs have not been given the proper opportunity, sufficient support, or a sense of purpose which could have given Britain's capitalist economy the chance of being comparable with some of the other capitalist economies which have used such devices far more effectively. It is wrong to have a statutory agency with only Government appointments as the framework within which the NEDC organisation should exist.
      1272
      Using the NEB to administer the 1972 Act has an underlying value. The question is whether functions of this sort should be administered by civil servants in a Government Department or whether we are better off using an independent agency as a tool of Government. The argument is finely balanced. We have had experience of both. It was done directly under the previous Conservative administration and now we are moving on to a system of agencies—the NEB and the development agencies in Scotland and Wales. There is no room for doctrinal differences on this matter, but that takes us no further than admitting that the substance of this group of amendments lies in Amendment No. 4.
      Our amendment seeks to remove from industrial policy political dogma which in the past has done so much harm to the credibility of successive Labour administrations. As long as we operate a mixed economy the rôle of profit must be fully understood. There has never been an occasion when, if profits increased, investment did not follow suit. When profits fall, investment falls, and unemployment rises. The cyclical changes of the last few decades have all followed this pattern. Therefore, we must seek to encourage profits, because that is the one sure way of increasing living standards.
      One cannot overestimate the harm done in the minds of those who make investment decisions if they are constantly expected to take those decisions in an environment which they believe to be hostile to the concept of profit, and where they feel that, if a profit is made, there is a danger that the State will take the company into public ownership.
      There is no clearer example of the harm which follows from doctrinaire intervention in industry than the damage done to the aircraft and shipbuilding industries. I dare say that the House will by now know that the Government have today, by means of a Written Answer, curiously to be lost in tomorrow's headlines, announced that they are not to proceed with the Bill to nationalise those industries.
      Mr. Kaufman: That is not so. We have said that we are not proceeding with the Bill this Session. We have certainly not said that we are not proceeding with it.
      Mr. Heseltine: What the Minister says is true. Last week the Government intended to proceed with the Bill as fast as possible and as a matter of utmost urgency. Today they intend to proceed, but not this Session, and it is perhaps for people outside this Government to decide whether that Bill will emerge on to the statute book with the urgency which is apparently intended for it.
      7.15 p.m.
      Mr. Kaufman Mr. Kaufman rose—
      Mr. Heseltine: I will not give way since I do not wish to stray beyond the narrow point about the effects on confidence which arise from this sort of provision.
      The decision to introduce that legislation clearly had its effect on those people who make the investment decisions and, therefore, affect job security. They could see in the compensation terms no possible incentive for them to put more money into these industries. No prudent person could have continued to invest in them. Nevertheless, we are today told that, far from the Government coming in to fill the vacuum which was created by the sense of insecurity, they are to allow it to continue for at least a year. That is the minimum time that can now elapse before that Bill is on the statute book.
      The consequence of the Government's actions is to have the most shattering effect on the industries concerned, which face very real but different international pressures. The consequences in terms of lost employment of the decision first to nationalise and now to proceed will be felt in real—
      Mr. Kaufman Mr. Kaufman rose—
      Mr. Heseltine: I know what the Minister is going to say. He must realise, however, that the harm done to the job prospects and to investment in these industries by this cavalier treatment stems from a total misunderstanding of these two massive employers of labour. If the Minister wants to see British industry competing and able to play a full rôle, it must know with certainty the background against which it must take investment decisions. The uncertainty will have a serious effect on our ability to compete in these activities, and since industry is an on-going process these effects will have a debilitating long-term influence.
      1274
      There is no doubt that these industries will suffer because of the Government's inability to make up their mind and to pursue their legislative programme through the House of Commons. There is no conceivable excuse for what has happened.
      The situation we are left with is totally obnoxious. I know of no body of opinion which wants a spread of nationalisation into profitable private industry. All the information available to me indicates that employees in both the private and public sectors are against it. I have just spent some time with the shop stewards of the Bristol Channel Ship Repair Company. The former Secretary of State for Industry was not even prepared to talk to them.
      Mrs. Wise: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the employees of Scottish Aviation, to name but one group, were very keen for their company to be included in the nationalisation proposals, and that the Government reluctantly gave way to pressure?
      Mr Heseltine: I know that the shop stewards in that company took that view. I suspect that the organised voice of the trade unions, as we discovered in the referendum, represents a far smaller number of people than the block votes at Labour Party conferences indicate. When people and employees, as opposed to members of trade unions, are asked for their views, the surveys show that they do not want nationalisation. Yet Parliament seeks to make a deliberate decision as a result of which many profitable companies, which offer opportunities to hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens, will be nationalised. Those companies do not want it. They will not be asked whether they want it. It will just happen.
      The Government will be able to buy up to 10 per cent. of any company without the public or the House knowing that the Government are buying shares, because they will be able to use a nominee holding. Anyone who suggests that that is the spirit of open government, worker participation, or democracy, misunderstands the meaning of those words.
      We are now confronted with a piece of doctrinal legislation under which the National Enterprise Board will serve one

      1275
      purpose, to transfer power from where it now lies in society, where it is broadly spread throughout large numbers of people, small and large companies and the self-employed, to the State. We shall be confronted by a small number of Ministers, who are overworked and under pressure, who are unable to apply a proper control over the companies with-in their domain, yet who claim to answer to the House for the vast accretion of power which year by year is added to by the bigots of the Left wing.
      The Government tell us that such measures will be profitable, will serve the public interest, and will create more sensitivity to the community, and that the taxpayer will obtain a fair deal for the money which he is being compelled to invest. What is the reality? There is no nationalised industry of any substance or scale, with one or two exceptions, which does not lose astronomical sums. There is incontrovertible evidence that the public regard the nationalised industries as providing a different service from that provided by the private sector. Every time a Bill proposing further nationalisation measures is introduced we are told that it will lead to the more profitable use of the nation's resources. I have sat through the consideration of measure after measure and I have listened to Labour Minister after Labour Minister promising profits as a result of nationalisation. I have never seen those profits materialise. There is one reason for that. The moment that Ministers have power over those industries they interfere with those industries and destroy the motivation of management and the economic structure upon which those industries could be profitable.
      I do not know how many hon. Members read the recent article by Graham Turner in which he interviewed managers of nationalised industries. How anyone can read that appalling record of confusion, uncertainty and lack of confidence in the morality of what is being done, and believe that it is right to subject an increasing number of British companies to that suffocating bureaucracy, passes the understanding of the Opposition.
      How shall we make industry more effective in answering the needs of the customers and providing the increasing
      1276
      standards of living which our people want? The inclusion of these dogmas will continue that destruction of confidence in this country which has led today to one of the most dramatic reversals of the cynical opportunism with which the Government come to power.
      Dr. Bray: I do not support the proposals which were discussed by the Opposition. I wish to discuss Amendment No. 5, and I should like to take up a number of points made by the Opposition.
      The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) emphasised the rôle of profit. He said that that must be fully under stood. I agree, as would most hon. Members on both sides of the House. The question is—what is the understanding? The purpose of the amendment is to recognise the rôle of profit and to say that it cannot be fully discharged unless profits are distributed to the workers who produce them.
      The hon. Gentleman also laid stress upon the necessity to consult the workers and to ask for the opinions of the workers. If he is prepared to allow that and to allow the workers to choose the form of management, Government supporters look forward to seeing the hon. Gentleman supporting this amendment if there is a Division.
      The hon. Gentleman complained that the Bill would transfer power to the State rather than to the people working in industry. If he means what he says, I hope that he will support Amendment No. 5, the purpose of which is to enable the workers in an undertaking which is under the control of the National Enterprise Board to choose the form of management.
      The amendment requires the National Enterprise Board to consult the employees of each enterprise it owns as to the form of management they wish to have, and, if the workers so choose, to allow the enterprise to be run by the workers as a workers' co-operative.
      The position which we face in industry today is that the trade unions have great power over a limited front. They have a dominant influence on wages and conditions but little influence on investment, production, pricing, or even employment. Their responsibility is specifically denied,

      1277
      and we hear a great deal of talk of management prerogatives. The result is that there is an acute imbalance, of which the most obvious symptom is the present roaring pace of inflation, and the subsidiary consequences of a lack of investment, stagnant production and rising unemployment.
      That position cannot be sustained. Governments of both parties have tried to restrict the powers of workers in their trade unions, and both have failed. We may have seen the beginning of another such attempt this afternoon.
      There is now general acceptance that the only possible course is to widen the range of issues over which workers are able to exercise their power to enlarge industrial democracy, but there is great confusion over what this means or how it should be achieved—confusion to which I fear the Government have added by the three unco-ordinated approaches in the Industry Bill, the Employment Protection Bill, and the foreshadowed Industrial Democracy Bill, the provisions of which have yet to be reconciled.
      In Committee my hon. Friends and I tabled amendments to clarify the issues and to offer a coherent way ahead. My hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) tabled an amendment on supervisory boards, which he is now pursuing by means of his Industrial Democracy Bill. I tabled an amendment to permit the further stage of development of enterprises into full workers' co-operatives, if that is the will of the workers involved. That amendment allowed the workers in any enterprise, whether or not owned by the National Enterprise Board, to opt for constitution as a workers' co-operative and thereupon to be taken over by the National Enterprise Board, under workers' control.
      This amendment is more restrictive. It is limited to enterprises already owned by the NEB. As such, the amendment will have the support of the Opposition. As recently as 9th June, in the debate on the Second Reading of the Statutory Corporations (Financial Provisions) Bill, the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) speaking from the Front Bench, said:
      "I would be perfectly happy to see some of the public sector run on the basis of competing workers' co-operatives. Why is it that the whole basis of co-operation amongst workers has to be kept in the private sector?
      1278
      The idea of setting up workers' co-operatives in the public sector is very interesting."—[Official Report, 9th June 1975; Vol. 893, c. 64.]
      The status of a workers' co-operative, with its responsibilities as well as privileges, cannot be thrust upon the workers. They must be free to claim it. At present they are free to do so by demonstration, by industrial action, by publicity in the mass media, and by public sympathy when faced with closure. But no Member of Parliament would regard that as a satisfactory form of industrial or political action. There should be a properly constituted procedure by which the workers would be enabled democratically to establish the form of management as responsible worker management under viable schemes of organisation.
      7.30 p.m.
      This procedure the amendment seeks to offer by means which I spelt out more fully in Committee and with which I would not venture to trouble the House on Report under the guillotine. But under this amendment the workers' co-operative must be viable in an economic sense. It must pay a satisfactory rate of interest on the public capital it employs. It must preserve its assets by paying depreciation on the assets it is using. It must be able to cushion the year-to-year variation of income of its workers with an income stabilisation fund, and if it fails in these requirements, long before it would go bankrupt, if it were a private enterprise, it must revert to the managerial control of the NEB.
      Mr. Anthony Nelson: Would the hon. Gentleman care to explain this to me a little more simply? I have a specific question. I did not quite understand from the wording of the amendment. When he talks of the interest paid on the capital which would be made available from the NEB, is he referring to interest on loan capital or a return on an equity investment which would be in the form of a dividend? I assume that he cannot be talking about the latter, because he is talking of dividing up the yearly profit between the employees in the company. If that is the case, would he care to take, for example, an extractive industry where the asset value of the company is run down, and the capital value of the company is naturally included in the yearly

      1279
      dividends and profits of that company? Would he care to explain how, in that specific example, where it has been accepted that there will be an ability, under the Bill, to take a governmental interest, there will be an adequate return to the taxpayer who is basically making capital funds available?
      Dr. Bray: I acknowledged in Committee that the range of enterprises which it was possible to operate as a full-blown workers' co-operative, in the sense in which it was defined in Committee, was limited. For example, if the capital intensity were so great that it could not reasonably be expected that the workers could stand the year to year variation in profits, even with the aid of the income stabilisation fund, it could not undertake the responsibility to operate as a workers' co-operative, and would have to maintain its status as a managerially-controlled public enterprise.
      I refer the hon. Member to the report of the debate in Committee, where the requirements were spelt out in more detail, but it is not a code for "lame ducks"; it is a licence for tough, efficient, workers' co-operatives—a constitutional response to the underlying forces in society, which the Government set out to make in the Bill. It is a practical mode of operation for the NEB enterprises, and even without this amendment the NEB will have powers under the Bill to operate in this way if it decides to do so. I hope it will do so, but it will need strong ministerial encouragement without the sanction of this amendment.
      The wider objective of allowing the workers in any enterprises to opt for constituting their enterprise—because the right is there—as a workers' co-operative is a policy which I hope the Labour Party will adopt as part of its next election platform, on which we shall return to the House in due course.
      Mr. Wigley: The three amendments debated so far are very different ones, and appear to be aimed at different objectives. I am not sure whether the debate is facilitated by that fact.
      To go through the three briefly—we have considerable sympathy with some of the objectives of the Liberal amendment, but it would appear from the wording that it precludes the NEB from being
      1280
      able to establish new manufacturing units, and I should have thought that, from a Liberal point of view particularly, this would be an important part of the board's activities. I should have thought that a National Enterprise Board ought to put the emphasis on the word "enterprise", in that, where the private sector has failed, one of the activities of the board should be to promote industry, itself setting up industry by its own initiative. As far as I can see, if the Liberal amendment were carried the ability of the board to do that would be taken away. It could be argued that it would be covered under Clause 2(1)(c), which relates to the provision of employment in any part of the United Kingdom, but the guts of it would be taken away from subsection (2), which provides for
      "establishing, maintaining or developing, or promoting or assisting the establishment".
      For that reason I find it difficult to support the Liberal amendment, although I have great sympathy with it.
      The Conservative amendment goes to the guts of the ideological battle between the two sides of the House. It is just as ideological for the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) to propose deleting this part as it is ideological for the Government to have it in. In fact, if this part were deleted completely, I would interpret it as meaning that the NEB would have no powers even to hold minority interests in companies in which it wants those minority interests, nor to influence decisions within those companies to achieve the other objectives which are included.
      Mr. Heseltine: That is in no way the case. The hon. Member will know that in the Industry Act 1972, which the Conservative Government put on the statute book, Clause 2(4) provided every opportunity for the Government to own shares if there should be a case for it. We are arguing that there needs to be a reason for owning those shares, and that reason is not good enough if it simply consists of a bland statement that the State should own for the sake of ownership.
      Mr. Wigley: I am grateful to the hon. Member for that intervention and clarification. I certainly agree that there ought to be reasons, and those may be based on a number of factors. I should have thought that as a consequence of carrying

      1281
      his amendment there would be consequential amendments that would inevitably have to be written into subsection (4). If the hon. Member is saying that that is not the case, I should have thought that carrying his amendment would not necessarily stop the Government from taking a line on extending public ownership by a different method. The facility would still be there in subsection (4) if there are no consequential amendments.
      Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Member is quite right. The ability would be there, but it would have to be used for one of the reasons indicated, such as the assistance of the economy, the promotion of industrial efficiency, or the safeguarding of employment. It would have to be done for reasons of that sort, and those are commendable reasons to people who have those views. What is not commendable—and we would not accept this in any way—is that the board should proceed to nationalise companies for no reason at all other than that those companies happen to exist.
      Mr. Wigley: Those comments will be of interest to many hon. Members, and I will take it from that statement that any other amendment that may water down subsequent sub-sections will not be pressed from that point of view. None the less, I believe that the argument for and against the Conservative amendment here tends to be an ideological one, and for that reason I find it rather difficult to commend the amendment.
      The amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Dr. Bray) is the most interesting and, in the long term, quite the most far-reaching of the amendments that we are discussing today. It goes to the very nub of what is to happen within the public sector in due course, and, I would hope, within parts of the private sector as well. The tragedy within the nationalised industries in the last 25 years is that for the employees within those industries there has been very little change indeed from the ownership by remote capitalist to the ownership by remote State holdings. In fact, the day-to-day activities have proceeded in very much the same way, and I believe that, if nationalisation and State participation in industry are to continue.
      1282
      there have to be very radical steps indeed in order to bring the employees into the area of decision-taking within such companies.
      I commend the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw in the wording he has chosen for this amendment, in that he has stated that, whereas it may be for a trade union representative to call for a ballot, the ballot would be for all employees, and it is most difficult to make sure that all employees would be involved in this function. This is a very important matter in the development of any such concept. It may be that this development is one that foreshadows the development of an industrial democracy bill, and it may well be that the Government's answer to this amendment would be in those terms. None the less, I believe that this is the guts of the argument that will take place over the next few years concerning the future of British industry, and I hope that as a prelude to that argument we shall carry this amendment.
      Mrs. Wise: I wish to support Amendment No. 5, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Dr. Bray). In doing so, I want to expose the falsity of the claim of the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) that there is a wide spread of power in British industry today. He must surely be aware that there are no fewer than 22 sectors of industry where control of more than 50 per cent. of the trade is in the hands of six or fewer companies. In food processing, for example, three companies control more than 50 per cent. of the industry. That cannot be described as a spread of power in the population.
      Mr. Heseltine: Is the hon. Lady aware that the companies which she is discussing are owned by the pension funds and life assurance companies of the people who work in those companies?
      Mrs. Wise: But the hon. Gentleman will not try to tell me that they are controlled by those pensioners. I would feel a good deal happier if that were the situation. The power of decision making in those companies is in a very limited number of hands, completely unelected and in many ways irresponsible in that they are responsible directly to no one.

      1283
      However, since the Opposition probably will concede that this Bill will be enacted and that therefore there will be a National Enterprise Board with undertakings controlled by the NEB, I have no doubt that, despit their rosy view of private industry, when they turn their attention to the NEB, they will find it in themselves to support Amendment No. 5 in view of their constant reiteration of their support for worker participation, for open government, for consulting workers and for having ballots. They must concede that the NEB will be correctly and properly required to consult its workers in these ways.
      I suggest also that the Government themselves must look with favour at this amendment in view of our manifesto commitment, which is to bring about not only a shift of wealth in favour of working people but also a shift of power in favour of working people. If we are to make a reality of this, we have to start now.
      As it stands at the moment, Clause 2(2)(d) refers to
      "promoting industrial democracy in undertakings which the Board control…".
      It lays upon the Board the duty to promote industrial democracy. But nowhere in the Bill are there any mechanisms for doing this. It is not realistic to impose on the NEB a duty and to give no guidance as to how that duty should be carried out.
      My hon. Friend's amendment is extremely cautious. It would lead to tremendous changes, because it is beset with a number of obstacles. I have no doubt, and I am sure that the Government can have no doubt, that any enterprise in which the workers have been through this obstacle course must be one in which those workers are determined and enthusiastic about self-management. It could not happen accidentally. It could not happen as a result of a whim. They must really be extremely committed to the idea of self-management, and I have no doubt that at every stage there would be many voices explaining to them the pitfalls.
      This is a very moderate exercise in introducing some desirable experimentation in industrial democracy. Government supporters, including Ministers, accept that nationalised industries as we have seen
      1284
      them in the past fall short of a democratic ideal. We acknowledged this in our manifesto. For that reason, I look forward with interest to hearing the Minister acknowledge those words, and I hope that he will accept the amendment. If he does not, I am afraid that I must again exercise that scepticism to which I referred earlier. That would be a great pity, because the Government would be losing a considerable opportunity to harness the desire of workers to have some say in their lives in the place where they spend so much of their lives—their place of work.
      I think the Government ought to be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw for giving them the opportunity to accept this cautious, moderate and carefully worded amendment.
      7.45 p.m.
      Mr. Tim Renton: In the course of 40 long sittings of the Committee on the Industry Bill, I do not think that I was ever privileged to listen to such a fatuous speech as that just made by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise). She referred to the food processing companies as being responsible to no one. Her main reason for making that extraordinary remark was apparently that they controlled a large share of the United Kingdom market. When will the hon. Lady and other Government supporters realise that even the large and successful companies are responsible? They are responsible to their employees and to their shareholders. It is only when Government supporters start to realise that that they will cease to put forward obtuse schemes of the kind that the hon. Lady outlined.
      However, it is not my purpose to speak for or against Amendment No. 5. I wish to speak to Amendment No. 3.
      Earlier today, the Under-Secretary of State said that he had toiled through the reports of our proceedings in Committee and that it had been like reading "War and Peace" three times over. I should have thought that Tolstoy would have been preferable to the words of the previous Under-Secretary, although often they were about as long as each other.
      When the Under-Secretary reached the minutes of our Sixth Sitting, I am sure that he will have read with amazement the

      1285
      various comments made by his predecessor in office, who tried to convince us that the White Paper, which the Prime Minister said so often would be the exact model for this Bill, did not refer just to manufacturing industry. The previous Under-Secretary got himself very much into the mood of Humpty Dumpty who said to Alice,
      "When I use a word, it means what I choose it to mean— neither more nor less".
      In that important debate, the Under-Secretary failed to adduce any evidence that when the White Paper had been brought forward, it was the Prime Minister's intention and that of the Government that it should embrace banking, insurance, retailing, services, distribution or whatever. Yet that is what the Under-Secretary told us was its intention. Certainly he said that it was within its ambit.
      Therefore, the Opposition tabled this amendment seeking specifically to exclude banking and insurance from the companies which the National Enterprise Board could take over or from the activities in which the board could become involved. There is a very good reason for being specific about these two activities.
      A Labour Party Conference resolution was passed in October 1971 in which it was urged that:
      "The Labour Party's General Election Manifesto should include proposals to nationalise all banking and insurance companies."
      Therefore, it is important that the Government's purpose in relation to insurance and banking companies—and I should like to declare an interest here as a director of a bank—should be made explicit tonight.
      There are three reasons why the NEB should not become involved in any of these areas. The first is that I accept that large sums of money are needed for capital investment in manufacturing industry and that certain industries in this country, such as the machine tool industry, the heavy engineering industry and the computer industry, have been short of investment funds. If the NEB, regretfully, is to come into being, it is into those areas that its funds should be directed.
      I accept, too, that there have been gaps in the areas into which funds have
      1286
      flown in this country over the past decade. For that reason I am delighted to see Finance for Industry in existence now and entering into a large number of loan commitments to help out manufacturing industry.
      However, these are all areas with heavy capital investment programmes where money is needed. This simply does not apply to banking or insurance. Their fixed assets are relatively small except in the case of their buildings, but I have never heard anyone say that banks or insurance companies have too few buildings. The opposite is the case.
      The second reason is that banking and insurance is essentially a people's business. For the sake of Labour Members I should explain that it is people with a small "p" to whom I am referring, not people with a large "P".
      Many people go into banking and insurance today because they believe that if they have intelligence, imagination and enterprise these are areas in which they can prosper. As my hon. Friend the Member for Henley said earlier, the article by Graham Turner points out how frustrated management in many nationalised industries feel today. I do not want the managements in our banks and insurance companies, which among other things are main providers of invisible earnings in this country, trammelled by the same sort of restrictions from which the managements of nationalised industries suffer.
      The third reason, and perhaps the most valid reason of all, is that the banks and insurance companies are primarily concerned with other people's money. Their business is to invest that money. The last thing I want to see is a direction from the Government to a bank or insurance company in which they have, perhaps, a 25 per cent. or a 30 per cent. stake, that the funds deposited with that bank are to be channelled into some enterprise which appeals to the National Enterprise Board. This sort of development has occurred in other countries.
      Some months ago the previous Secretary of State for Industry implied that he would like to see funds that were deposited with banks and insurance companies directed under his aegis or the aegis of the NEB into its pet projects. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Labour

      1287
      Members say, "Hear, hear". It is precisely because that would be most damaging for the funds invested with banks and insurance companies that I should like to see this amendment adopted.
      Mr. Madden: The hon. Gentleman is almost bringing tears to my eyes, and I am sure that those victims of the collapse of the Nation Life Insurance Company would reflect with some bitterness on his comments about the effective and successful nature of private enterprise in that sector. Would the hon. Gentleman comment on the failings of private enterprise, insurance and the propriety of those firms asking the Government to set in train rescue operations?
      Mr. Renton: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has raised the example of Nation Life because he is making my next point for me. If he has studied the affairs of Nation Life at all he will know that the number of people with policies in Nation Life—that is, not the regular endowment policies but the income policies—who suffered through that collapse which I deeply regret, as does the hon. Gentleman, is numbered in a few hundred only. I submit to him—
      Mr. Madden: No.
      Mr. Renton: Yes, that is absolutely true. I submit that because there are a few hundred unfortunate individuals involved who were probably tempted into buying these policies because they offered a good deal, that is not a reason for the Government to take over the insurance industry as such. This will, perhaps, happen through the Policyholders Protection Bill. I am glad to see that that Bill has already been emasculated in another place. I sincerely hope that the Government will have second thoughts about it and throw it out altogether. However, it exists, and the threat of Government interference and the reality of Government intervention through the statutory compensation fund that they are creating is very plain.
      The late Secretary of State for Industry injected new funds into Giro and wrote off a loss of £28 million at the same time as he said that he wished Giro to compete with the clearing banks for funds. Therefore, in both the banking and the insurance area there is already a clear
      1288
      potential determination by this interventionist Government to move in under the aegis of the NEB.
      It is interesting that Sir Don Ryder, at a Press conference yesterday, reported in the Financial Times, emphasised that he had no ambitions to take over a bank or any other City institution. I am delighted to hear it. I ask the Government tonight to make their intention crystal clear and to state that they nave no intention of taking over either a bank or an insurance company by accepting this amendment and thus removing the shadow that has hung over these important institutions for some months.
      Mr. J. W. Rooker: I apologise for not being present for the whole of the debate, but I have been in Committee.
      I should like to think that Amendment No. 5 would be a pressure point on my hon. Friend the Minister to make a statement on the issue of industrial democracy. As one who spends every Wednesday morning pushing the Industrial Democracy Bill through the House in addition to other commitments, I shall be pleased when the Government either take it over or bring forward their own measure.
      I do not think that the Industry Bill is the right place for this measure. In this House last night two meetings took place between hon. Members, shop stewards of NVT at Wolverhampton and Small Health, and shop stewards of the Meriden co-operative. I was present at the meeting with the NVT shop stewards. They told us of the accusation by consultants, who had been appointed by the Govenment to examine the industry, that the shop stewards were not toeing the line. They were asked whether they wanted to run a co-operative. The stewards did not answer in the affirmative. I may be doing them an injustice, but I had the impression, which was shared by others, that they were not prepared to pay the price that has to be paid in 1975 to run a cooperative—the price that the people at Meriden have paid.
      When it was stated that the Meriden people were on a five-day working week, were receiving £50 each, and had orders for two years, it appeared to be resented by the other half of the company. The situation would be even more complex under this amendment if the NEB were allowed

      1289
      to impose, put forward or push along this idea.
      If the Government do not introduce an industrial democracy measure there will be trouble on the Labour benches and there will be a complete blockage by the trade unions of any form of technical innovation or advance in manufacturing technology.
      The price will be so heavy that the Government will have to pay it by bringing forward legislation. Although the Employment Protection Bill will not cover this point in detail, it will cover much of the amendment. Bearing in mind what I heard last night from the shop stewards who had been threatened with a co-operative, I shall think twice before going into the Lobby to support the amendment.
      8.0 p.m.
      Mr. Nelson: I share the view of the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) that the amendments are incompatible. There is a basic point of contention in this House which is rather more than an ideological difference and which devolves on the question of risk and risk capital. It is particularly relevant to Amendment No. 3, which was so eloquently spoken to by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton). As a primary responsibility we should ensure that the utilisation and management of capital are directly related to the risk factor of those who make the capital available. I appreciate that this is a difficult argument for Government supporters to accept, and I also appreciate that in putting it forward one is often regarded as doing so with little regard to the rights of so-called democracy within industry or the movement towards more worker control in industry.
      When one is talking about a possible intervention by the State into areas like banking and insurance, and when ideas of worker co-operatives are being proposed, it is worth reiterating that it is the risk element which is the essential criterion for the success of an enterprise. To separate the management of capital and those who benefit from the utilisation of those resources entirely from those who make the money available is to do the latter group a disservice and lessen the chance of further moneys being made available.
      1290
      That is why I regret the possibility that the use of funds by the NEB may go into areas of banking and insurance. I must immediately declare an interest, as an employee of a bank. The rationale behind the intervention in profitable areas of industry, as set out in Committee by the previous Under-Secretary of State, is to fulfil two purposes—one to ensure greater possibilities of employment and the other to identify areas of spare capacity or under-utilisation of capital. Those two purposes hardly apply to the banking or insurance sectors of industry.
      The success of the banking and insurance industry has been mentioned, but it is worth saying that the extent to which a number of major companies tend to dominate the commercial banking field is a reflection of the high regard and trust that depositors put in those banks. The banks would not be large unless they had the support and the deposits of individuals, companies, pension funds and a wide variety of institutions. They are, therefore, essentially different from the example given of the food manufacturing industry. I also believe that other sections of industry will perform better if the financial sector—both insurance and banking—remains independent of them.
      I regret the woolliness of the Liberal amendment, but I support it because it is a restriction on the potential powers of the NEB. I regret it to the extent that it seems to leave open the explanation of its third objective of assistance to improve international competitiveness by empowering the board to provide assistance which shows an agreed rate of return for existing or proposed profitable enterprises. It is easy to make such a bland statement without indicating how such an agreed rate of return will be achieved. It is easy to say that one shall have an agreed rate, but how does one set about achieving it, what are the criteria of success, and what happens if one does not achieve them?
      Secondly, it has proved not possible to identify early enough those industries which will fall on hard times. That is exemplified by the number of major industries which have come to successive Governments asking for Government funds. The identification of enterprises in difficulty is far less easy than is suggested by the bland statements contained

      1291
      in the amendment. Nevertheless, as a further restriction of the wide, undefined and discretionary powers accorded to the NEB in the amended Bill, the Liberal amendment is one which I would wish to consider supporting.
      May I finally comment briefly on the proposal for worker participation? it again exemplifies the point about the responsibility for risk capital. The essential point about the worker co-operative, as I tried to bring out in Committee, is that one is separating the risk factor in capital employed from those who have the control of the resources and, indeed, the utilisation of profits and, as I suggested in my intervention earlier, there is the possibility of erosion of the capital value of the moneys being put forward where the company's asset has a fixed life. It is as important to maintain the relationship between risk and reward and it is one which worker co-operatives, certainly as they are set out in the amendment, go a little way to achieve.
      It is not adequately stated how a code of practice will ensure that workers in a particular industry will declare that they consider that they should not go on employing themselves any longer, unless it is envisaged that under such a code the NEB will have some form of supervision which will always operate. If that is so, the effective power of the worker co-operative would be fettered to a large extent.
      Dr. Bray: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that even at present the risk is by no means borne only by the provider of capital? Is not the real risk borne by the workers? In the drafting of this amendment and the other amendment in Committee I showed how, even in a risky business such as ICI, under the rules I put forward it would be perfectly possible for workers to bear the total risk that the company has borne over the past 10 years. As for the mining company, or the extractive industry, the depreciation methods I put forward in Committee would have fully refunded the capital invested in the initial sinking of a mine shaft and the initial development of a mine. The hon. Gentleman has not thought through clearly the respective rôles of capital, labour and risk bearing. Risk bearing is by no means identified with the provision of capital.
      Mr. Nelson: I hope to meet that intervention head on because I have given the matter careful consideration. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view, but he is wrong. The risk element is entirely missing from the sort of relationship included in the amendment. There are situations in which the employees must bear the full brunt of a company which is not profitable and cannot continue operating, just as the shareholders have to do. That is exactly the point raised in relation to the Nation Life situation.
      The Government have an important responsibility to ensure that when depositing their funds with an institution people retain an individual responsibility to do so with one which will utilise those funds responsibly. In investing those funds they balance the risk factor against the security factor. In seeking and maintaining employment a person does so with an industry that has a reasonable opportunity of maintaining that employment and he will hopefully work to generate that continued prospect.
      Once one takes away this opportunity from the individual—as an employee, investor or depositor in a bank—once one takes away the risk element, one reduces the responsible attitude that the individual has towards the utilisation of his funds and his employment. Whilst I do not accept that the philosophy should be entirely weighted towards shareholders' interests, I do not believe in going to the other extreme, as the amendment seeks to do.
      Mr. Ron Thomas: I support Amendment No. 5, but before speaking to it I wish to make some comments on the whole question of banking and finance. I should be happy if we were fighting a real battle over the National Enterprise Board, really becoming involved in the banking and insurance world, which I believe has completely failed the nation.
      We have only to look back over the past few years, to the property and land speculation boom, to see what is behind that belief. While British industry was starved of capital investment, the banks and insurance companies were falling over themselves to lend money for property and land speculation. On the basis of the appreciation of those capital assets, they were lending more and more money

      1293
      —even money to pay the interest on the money already lent. Then a number of those bubbles were pricked. When the property market went into a decline, the banks and insurance companies provided what can only be described as speculative funds in the commodity markets, leading to speculation in international commodity markets.
      In many of our industrial competitor countries, the banks serve a far more useful productive purpose in relation to industrial enterprises than they have ever done in the United Kingdom or are ever likely to do with the present set-up.
      Mr. Tim Renton: Before the hon. Gentleman continues with his wild catalogue of accusations, would he care to name one major investment project in industry that was brought to the banks in the years that he mentions, and that had a chance of a viable return on capital, that did not find funds from the banks? If he cannot, he should not make such wild allegations.
      Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman added a qualification with the reference to viable projects. What the banks consider a viable project and what industry and working people consider to be a viable project are poles apart.
      Can the hon. Gentleman tell me why German banks make a considerable contribution to the finance of German industry? Is he suggesting that British entrepreneurs in industry do no have viable projects that they can take to the banks? If so, there is only one answer, which is that we shall have to have a more rapid extension of public ownership. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that British banks, not just under a Labour Government but under a Tory Government, and indeed a Liberal Government, have failed to respond to the needs of British industry. They prefer to put their money into short-term speculation internally or internationally when they can.
      8.15 p.m.
      Mr. Tom King: The hon. Gentleman compared German and British banks and German and British companies. I do not know whether he was present when the Chancellor discussed in the House earlier the physical impossibility of a British company making a projection of the return on investment at the current rate
      1294
      of inflation. I had evidence this morning of competing British and German companies which both had an opportunity to invest in a new project. The British company cannot go ahead, because it is competing against a German company which is in a country with a 6 per cent. inflation rate, and which can make an accurate forecast of the potential profit from the project. Therefore, the British company has regretfully had to decline the investment because there is no way in which it can project what the return on the investment will be.
      8.15 p.m.
      Mr. Thomas: I remind the hon. Gentleman that immediately after the election of the Tory Government in 1970 companies were given massive funds by tax hand-outs. We did not then have the level of inflation that we have now, but still they refused to invest, using arguments similar to those that they are using now. But I do not see the connection between what the hon. Gentleman said and the rôle of the banks in the present situation. Plenty of companies are making judgments and are going forward with investments in the year to come. It is a great pity that there are not many more.
      It was suggested that banks are people's businesses. That is exactly what we should like them to be. We should like them to be owned by the people, because to some extent the banks and insurance companies are collecting the money from the ordinary people. Certainly that is true of the pension funds. I am rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not realise that the average worker who contributes to those funds has no control over them. Many trade unions, such as my own—ASTMS—are trying to bring about that situation, in which the workers who create the pension funds have some control, even if limited, over them. Private companies are adamantly refusing to allow that.
      Quickly to sum up on the banking and insurance question, there was talk of profitability. Many Members on the Labour benches are fed up with our taking into public ownership only non-profitable industries which have been raped and exploited by private interests over decades. When they can no longer make a profit but are still needed to keep

      1295
      private industry going, the community is expected to look after them. We are told time and time again that because an industry is profitable we must not touch it. Many of us want to see the philosophy changed, and changed quickly.
      Sir Raymond Gower: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are many Members on the Conservative benches who feel that nationalisation has been a one-way movement for far too long, that the public sector has become too big, and that it is time we stopped this kind of thing?
      Mr. Thomas: The bulk of the industries that have been taken into public ownership, if not all, were industries in which private enterprise had failed miserably. They were essential industries, in order to keep the private sector going. If they had collapsed, the private sector would have collapsed with them. Apart from that, private industry has teen receiving massive handouts from the Chancellor of the Exchequer over the past few years.
      I now turn to Amendment No. 5, which makes it clear that the workers will decide whether they want a co-operative. They will not be forced into this. It would be a contradiction in terms to force a co-operative on to a group of workers who did not want it. The first lines of the amendment are rather significant. They read:
      "In any undertaking owned by the Board, the Board shall consult the employees as to the form of management they wish to see implemented."
      That may take many different forms. It is an important matter that when the NEB takes over an undertaking, it will discuss the whole management structure and the kind of management structure that workers in that particular firm or part of an industry would like to see implemented. The amendment makes it quite clear, as my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise) pointed out, that there would be a ballot and that the workers would decide whether they wished to have a cooperative.
      The code of practice has been mentioned. When we are dealing with people's lives in industry, it is all right
      1296
      to have codes of practice and to get rid of the legislation and put codes of practice in its place, as was done recently in legislation relating to health and safety at work. Therefore, I see no difficulty about having a code of practice approved by the Secretary of State.
      But the essential point is that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West—that we should take this opportunity to have some experimentation in terms of worker control and worker democracy and industrial democracy. As has been rightly said, our manifesto made it quite clear that
      "we will introduce new legislation to help forward our plans for a radical extension of industrial democracy in both the private and public sectors."
      The workers in industry are calling out for radical changes of this kind. If we intend to harness the energies, skills and experience of working people, then this amendment can make a considerable contribution towards that end because we can have an experimentation in terms of what is required, and I believe that all concerned will learn a great deal from it.
      Mr. Fairbairn: As you will appreciate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, one of the differences between the law of Scotland and the law of England is that the law of England is essentially based upon fictions. One of the phenomena of Socialism is that it is also based, to an even greater extent than the law of England—for which Socialists have such disrespect—on fictions.
      There is no greater fiction than that which is sought to be placed in this Bill—the concept of extending public ownership. "Public ownership" sounds as if it means that what did not previously belong to the public becomes the property of the public. However, to extend public ownership means taking what belongs to the public and ensuring that it is never owned by any member of the public again.
      The second thing that "public ownership" means is that if there is one certainty it is that those who are employed in industry, be it in the public sector or the private sector will have increasingly little say in their own affairs if their industry is taken into what is called public ownership. It is based upon the absurd

      1297
      fiction that if one turns industrialists into bureaucrats they become better industrialists, or, alternatively, that if one turns bureaucrats into industrialists, they become efficient industrialists. I believe both of these to be further fictions.
      One of the difficulties in our society is that it is the policy of Labour Members that the number of drones in the hive should be increased and the number who are productive workers should be decreased. Those on the Opposition side of the House take the view that the drones—the workers normally do this in beehives—should be extinguished by the workers and by those who are productive and produce the honey.
      One of the next fictions of Socialism is that economic rules are suspended for the extension of public ownership. Unfortunately, however, as the Government are finding out, that is not so. They are finding that money is not something which private people have to make work when Governments can just get it out of a box and throw it about as they like. They are discovering that the same economic rules eventually apply to this, however much they may he committed to the concept that the State is preferable to, superior to and more efficient than individuals.
      I was very interested in the subject of Nation Life, which was mentioned a few minutes ago. It was said "What about the very unfortunate people who have invested their money in Nation Life and have lost it?" Let us take that analogy. If one extends public ownership without permission and consent, and without anything else, one has to be a compulsory tax investor in the company, this nationalised, publicly-owned thing. One has no say over it. One is not allowed to limit one's investment or to say when one should stop investing. One makes continuous losses without complaint.
      It has been shown again and again that the ordinary affairs of human beings in commerce, whether undertaken by Governments or not, are run infinitely worse or infinitely more painfully if they are taken into what is called public ownership which merely means the extension of bureaucracy into matters in which bureaucrats should have no concern. That has been the principal burden on the
      1298
      nation. I trust that the House and the country will for ever realise that the words "public ownership" do not mean public ownership at all. What they mean is State control, non-ownership and no possibility of any member of the public having anything to do with the enterprise which is so affected.
      Mrs. Wise: As the hon. and learned Gentleman is so concerned about the poor taxpayer, will he say why his party denationalised only profitable sections of nationalised industries and left the taxpayers to bear losses in other sectors?
      Mr. Fairbairn: That is a strange generalisation. However, although it is said that hitherto only non-profit-making sections of industry have been nationalised, it is not because the Socialists happened to say "Let us pick up all the nonprofit-making sections." They just said "Steel, electricity, coal, aircraft or shipbuilding"—as took their power interest.
      Towever, the point is that no industry that has been taken into public ownership has become more profitable and no industry would be more profitable if it were nationalised. If anyone can find an exception to that rule I would be most surprised. I do not believe that there is an exception I totally support the amendment to prevent any extension of bureaucracy and Government interference in commerce and industry, upon which even Labour Members who are so interested in jobs and employment may rely.
      Mr. Kaufman: Listening to Opposition Members makes me quite clear why I am a Socialist. When I hear what they have to say I reflect upon the fact that my constituents would not believe that they existed if they saw them. My constituents would believe that they were characters in a fictional television play, talking about banking being a people's business and various other strange remarks totally irrelevant to the lives of ordinary people.
      I am sorry that the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) has not seen fit to be present for this debate. He made a shoddy and tendentious speech introducing amendments, refused to give way when I sought to correct him and now is not present to hear my reply to him Nevertheless, I shall make my reply to him because it is necessary to put right

      1299
      among other things, his deliberately misleading statements about the Government's intention on the nationalisation of aircraft and shipbuilding.
      8.30 p.m.
      The hon. Member for Henley spoke at some length on this subject, which is why I find it necessary to reply to him on this amendment. He seems to take the view that if he makes a speech and does not give way, if will never be possible to correct him. The hon. Gentleman does not realise that other people have opportunities to speak even if he does not give way to interventions.
      He spoke of what he alleged to be the Government's intention not to proceed with that Bill. I wish to make it clear to this House, with the authority of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, that although it is not possible, for reasons which everybody in this House will accept, to get that Bill through in this Session, the Government have decided that they will proceed with the Bill at the very earliest opportunity in the next Session, with a view to Royal Assent and vesting the companies to be nationalised as early as possible in 1976.
      That is the position of the Government—that this is a firm commitment of the Government; and I cannot understand why, for the flimsiest of debating reasons, the hon. Member for Henley decided that it was necessary to mislead the House in this absurd and tendentious way.
      The hon. Member spoke about the aims of the National Enterprise Board as though he were speaking from a record of dazzling success of private enterprise and talked of the Industry Act as though it were the last word in Government assistance, a last word which would put totally and for ever to right the ills of British industry; and that that being so, nothing whatever needed further to be done. The hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) said that under the National Enterprise Board citizens would be compulsory investors in industry. My hon. Friends and constituents have been compulsory investors in British industry under the Industry Act of the Conservative Government of 1972 to the tune of very large sums of money.
      1300
      In this Bill we are seeking to ensure a return for our constituents for the money that is invested rather than that the money shall be handed over free, gratis and for nothing, with no return. It is one thing to be a compulsory investor. It is quite another to be a compulsory donor. When the hon. Member for Henley spoke of the Government having reversed their stance, I remind him that it was his Government who first brought out a lame duck policy, under the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies), and followed it with the Industry Act of 1972, which only the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) had the grace to oppose.
      Mr. Fairbairn Mr. Fairbairn rose—
      Mr. Kaufman: I usually give way to the hon. Gentleman. I am always extremely interested to listen to him or to read what he has to say, and I was particularly interested in his reflection on the law of Scotland. I recall a remark of his in a Scottish Committee, perhaps one of the most profound ever made, that in Scotland the penalty for bigamy is two mothers-in-law—something I have always recalled as a piece of eternal wisdom.
      In view of the remarks about the scope of the National Enterprise Board by hon. Members opposite and my hon. Friends, it would be useful if I were to say a little more about its scope so that there can be no doubt about that. The board will provide a new source of investment capital for industry. It was made clear in the White Paper, "The Regeneration of British Industry", that the board would also have the task of promoting industrial efficiency and profitability by promoting or assisting the organisation or development of an industry. It will be a channel through which the Government will assist sound companies which are in short-term difficulties. I am quoting almost verbatim from the White Paper. Hon. Gentlemen opposite attach a great deal of importance to the White Paper when they feel that we are departing from it. The board will assist much-needed industrial expansion in areas of high unemployment, thus creating jobs where they are most needed, and will have power to start new ventures and participate in joint ventures with companies in

      1301
      the private sector. These objectives are aimed at industry generally, not just manufacturing industry.
      The White Paper indicated that a great deal of the board's activities will be concentrated on manufacturing industry and I hope that no one would question the importance of that. But in exercising the former IRC-type rôle of promoting industrial efficiency by promoting or assisting the reorganisation, the board will be free to operate throughout industry, as the IRC did. The only function of the National Enterprise Board specifically limited in scope is that of expanding public ownership into
      "profitable areas of manufacturing industry"
      There is nothing in the Bill which would preclude the board from acquiring an interest in any company apart from the special exception which we are making in the case of companies involved in the media. That applies as long as a company operates within the purposes and functions set out in the Bill.
      I thought that it would be useful for the House to have that general statement of our view of the rôle of the NEB before I come to the different amendments which have been grouped together.
      First, I turn to the Amendment No. 175 tabled by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright). I take it from the remarks which the hon. Gentleman has made throughout the proceedings on the Bill that this is a well-intentioned attempt to veer the Bill around to the Liberal view of what it should contain, unlike the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), who seemed to want to sink the Bill completely. The hon. Member for Colne Valley sees a positive rôle for the NEB, but by attempting to define closely the functions of the board the hon. Gentleman's amendment runs grave dangers of preventing the board from acting when it needs to do so.
      There are examples of activities ruled out by the hon. Gentleman's amendment as drafted which I might mention. They include the promotion of action to remedy regional imbalance in employment opportunities—without going into functions in the Bill which were perhaps deliberately excluded, namely, public ownership. There is a danger of conflict between setting out clearly defined and delimited purposes and ensuring that the board has
      1302
      the necessary flexibility in its powers to enable it to cope with problems which may not have been foreseen when drafting took place. In the Government's view the Bill defines the board's purposes both comprehensively and succinctly. We believe that the more discursive style of the amendment will lead to difficulty. Within the comprehensive functions listed in the Bill, the Government have set out their view of the priorities in the White Paper. Therefore, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that we cannot accept the amendment as it will go very much counter to what we see as the rôle of the NEB.
      Mr. Wainwright: Is the hon. Gentleman under a misapprehension? There is nothing which I seek to delete as regards regional opportunities or anything of that kind.
      Mr. Kaufman: No, I was not under that misapprehension. I was advisedly saying what I said. When the hon Gentleman has the opportunity to study what I said he will find nothing inconsistent.
      I turn to Amendment No. 3, which was moved and supported with such passion. The amendment seeks to exclude those popular and democratic bodies of banking and insurance from the scope of the Bill.
      As I have said, it has always been made clear in the White Paper and in what my right hon. and hon. Friends have said in Committee that the main concern of the NEB will be with manufacturing industry. However, its activities should not be confined only to manufacturing. I repeat and endorse that view. I would not expect the NEB to be engaged in commercial banking or the insurance sector, but it might well find its rôle as acting as a source of investment capital to industry usefully discharged through a merchant banking subsidiary. A provision in the Bill such as that would cause difficulties if the NEB acquired basically manufacturing companies with interests in banking and insurance, since the effect of the amendment might mean that the NEB would not be able to continue those interests.
      Mr. Nelson Mr. Nelson rose—
      Mr. Kaufman: I would be grateful it the hon. Gentleman would allow me to

      1303
      proceed. We have 50 minutes left before the guillotine falls on this group of amendments. It is necessary that I am able to reply to what has been a full debate. Following this group of amendments there is another important amendment with which we have to deal. I would gladly give way, but if I did so I would cut short the time for debate on the next amendment.
      Mr. Nelson Mr. Nelson rose—
      Mr. Kaufman: Parliament voted for the guillotine and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is in favour of the sovereignty of Parliament.
      The IRC was not limited to manufacturing industry. It was performing useful work in non-manufacturing areas when it was wantonly and short-sightedly abolished by the Conservative Government. The NEB is intended to be a flexible instrument as regards industrial development, whose resources shall be readily available to assist in the promotion of a healthy industrial organisation wherever it may be appropriate to do so. The primary focus will be on manufacturing industry, but there is no reason to rule out such activity completely or other obligations, with the exception of the news media which would be acceptable as being a special case. We gave an assurance in Committee and assurances generally are taken seriously.
      I wish finally to reply to the argument advanced on Amendment No. 5 in respect of worker co-operatives under the National Enterprise Board. For the reasons which were put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Bar (Mr. Rooker), I do not think it is right to include that amendment in the Bill—not because we are not following the principle of commitment to workers' co-operatives but for reasons which I shall point out a little later.
      My hon. Friends will be aware of the provision set out in Labour's programme for 1973. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) had this document in his collection of Labour Party programmes at the Department. That programme indicated our commitment to set up a co-operative development agency. This is one of the Govern-
      1304
      ment's policies and I assure my hon. Friends that the Government are actively considering this proposal to establish such an agency as included in Labour's programme and our manifesto.
      Mr. Heffer: Does not the Minister agree that by accepting this amendment which establishes the co-operative development agency, the whole process can be integrated and that there is no contradiction between the two?
      Mr. Kaufman: I very much appreciate my hon. Friend's argument, but one of the most important activities in the encouragement of worker co-operatives—a process to which the Government are committed—is that these bodies should be given the best possible chance of success. We believe that it would be harmful to the whole project of these co-operatives if they are not given the best possible chance. We must make sure that those co-operatives have the best wind behind them. There is a considerable prospect that if the amendment were incorporated in the Bill, they would go forward more sporadically than would be helpful to the situation. I appreciate that this involves a difference of opinion.
      Mr. Ron Thomas: The Bill contains words to the effect that we should promote industrial democracy. Is it my hon. Friend's suggestion that we must stop short of the amendment?
      Mr. Kaufman: My hon. Friend places me in a dilemma. I am aware of what the Bill says about the promotion of industrial democracy. I am very much in favour of experiments in workers' co-operatives and I hope that they will prove successful and will expand, but I do not think the Bill, with its enormous potential for rejuvenating British industry, is an appropriate vehicle to carry out as an offshoot experiments on workers' co-operatives, for reasons which I shall attempt to give a little later.
      There is nothing in the Bill to prevent the NEB from providing finance to a potentially viable worker's co-operative or from organising part of its operations on a co-operative basis. But there would be considerable risks in putting on the board an obligation to promote specific experimental forms of industrial organisation.

      1305
      8.45 p.m.
      To encourage all of the NEB's holdings to turn themselves into workers' co-operatives would, apart from anything else, reduce the NEB's ability to carry out its other functions. It is one of the objects of the NEB to ensure that the power it acquires from the ownership of important parts of industry is used for the good of the economy as a whole, for example as a means through which it can create jobs in areas where they are most needed.
      If the NEB's undertakings are turned into co-operatives the NEB will lack the base from which to carry out its employment promoting functions. As I have told my hon. Friends, the promotion of cooperatives is a matter to which the Government are giving serious thought, but I do not believe that it should be added to the NEB's rôle in a way which would divert the NEB's attention and impede it in carrying out its other vital rôles. The board has already been given the function of promoting industrial democracy in undertaking its control, and this function will be exercised in the context of the Government's proposals for far-reaching extension of industrial democracy throughout industry.
      Dr. Bray: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that workers' co-operatives have been the most effective body for maintaining and protecting employment, and that this is by no means incompatible with the other objectives of the NEB? Can he say whether the Co-operative Development Agency, as envisaged in the manifesto, would have a rôle in producer cooperatives, because that is not clear in the manifesto? Will it have any power over NEB undertakings?
      Mr. Kaufman: It would be wrong to go into too much detail at this stage about the Co-operative Development Agency, because it is a matter that we are considering. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to pages 35 and 36 of Labour's Programme 1973 where he will see the very wide scope that is proposed for the Co-operative Development Agency.
      I am sorry not to be as forthcoming as my hon. Friend would wish, but I totally accept what has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the unsatisfactory nature of industrial democracy in the present nationalised in-
      1306
      dustries. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in one of his public speeches when he was in Opposition, spoke about the need to socialise the nationalised industries. I believe that that is a major task of both the Government, through the nationalised boards, and the NEB when it comes into being and starts carrying out its functions.
      Nevertheless, I do not believe that this amendment in its present form is the right way of pursuing the objectives that we all share. Therefore, I fear that I cannot accept it.
      However, I must tell the Opposition—if I have not made it clear already—that I certainly cannot accept the amendment which they have put forward. If any group of hon. Members in the House has cause to hide its head in shame for the way in which it has failed British industry, it is the Conservative Party. For the Conservatives to come forward now and try to hobble the most hopeful, potential development in British industry is totally destructive.
      Mr. Tom King: I find myself in some difficulty in rising to my feet after the last sentences of the Minister's speech, which really takes one's breath away, especially in view of the comments which he made earlier, about the Government's handling of two vital industries, namely the aircraft and shipbuilding industries. If the Minister shares any collective responsibility for the present situation he is the one whose head should be more than hidden at present.
      Instead of sneering at other people's views, as the Minister chose to do at the beginning of his speech, I should like to start by agreeing with the hon. Gentleman that the Opposition think that it would be wrong to accept the amendment of the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Dr. Bray) concerning industrial co-operatives.
      We fully understand the frustrations that exist on both sides of the House about the mess that the House is in over what is happening in terms of industrial democracy. Hon. Members have gone through the charade in Committee every Wednesday and they will have to continue to do so until 11th July, which I believe is the crucial date after which the Bill will be unable to proceed. Those

      1307
      hon. Members are understandably equally frustrated.
      The Employment Protection Bill and this Bill refer to industrial democracy without giving any definition. The Welsh Development Agency Bill and the Scottish Development Agency Bill also refer to promoting industrial democracy, and nobody yet knows what that is.
      In our discussions the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw made a number of points which merit consideration. The amendment would have wide implications. The principle could be extended to private industry. Rights in industry are not solely confined to employees. An increasing number of hon. Members on both sides of the House are anxious that the rights of employees should be recognised, but they are not the sole rights about which we should be concerned. Shareholders also have rights. Many people, by the convoluted system of pensions funds and other activities, may be affected. For example, trade union pension funds could represent part of the ownership of a company. It would be wrong for these to be expropriated by a move towards workers' co-operatives. There might be implications for inward investment into this country if there were some facility for expropriation by workers' co-operatives.
      The Minister, with some feeling, said that worker's co-operatives should be given the best possible chance. Having inherited the problems of the Scottish Daily News and Meriden, we can understand why the hon. Gentleman said that.
      The Opposition are not opposed to workers' co-operatives. They represent an experiment and development which is well worth encouraging. But we are not in favour of workers' co-operatives, born out of illegality or out of expropriation of other people's assets or funds. Therefore, we cannot support Amendment No. 5.
      The Minister said that it was possible that the NEB might inherit a merchant bank or other activity. One problem under the guillotine procedure is that we shall not reach an important amendment on fair competition between the public and private sectors and the need for an appeal or arbitration procedure. I hope that this point will be seriously considered
      1308
      by the Government. The guillotine will kill discussion on that matter. The disaster that we face with this important Bill is that we shall not have adequate time to discuss that crucial matter. I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to this matter in another place. It is particularly important that there should be fair competition between banks operating on public money and banks operating on depositors' funds.
      Our main amendment relates to the extension of public ownership. I do not think that the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) understood that our objection was not that some share of profitable companies might be acquired in furtherance of certain other aims, but that a specific function of the NEB is the extension of public ownership for its own sake. There is a clear difference of view between both sides of the House on that matter.
      The evidence is clear that the nationalised industries have not tended to be efficient, profitable or valuable to the community. Many hon. Members have asked why the public should not have a stake or involvement in profitable businesses. The clear evidence is that the Government, the public and the Treasury have done far better out of companies net directly controlled by the Government in terms of tax revenue than out of any Government-controlled industry.
      We are opposed to monopoly. The non Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise) said that the food industry was in too few hands. That seems utterly farcical, because her suggestion is that it should be put into even fewer hands and go into a monopoly situation. That is what we resent. The board threatens to extend the monopoly powers existing in so many nationalised industries.
      The Prime Minister has said that he wishes to establish a clear frontier between the public and private sectors. How will he maintain that frontier if the board is to be allowed, with very little restraint, to buy into profitable manufacturing industry? Any pretence that there is to be a frontier is palpably false.
      The Under-Secretary talked about the Bill to nationalise the aircraft and shipbuilding industries as if it were a minor detail. The fact that it is not going

      1309
      through in this Session of Parliament and will have to be held over to the next means that uncertainty will be further prolonged, and that is utterly outrageous. Perhaps the Under-Secretary has been too busy reading the reports of the Standing Committee, or perhaps this matter is not his direct responsibility, but at the moment the situation in these industries is quite clear. If the Secretary of State has spoken to the aircraft companies he will know the problems they are facing in maintaining the confidence of export customers and their problems over performance guarantees for export contracts. The delay is causing damage to this industry and to the shipbuilding industry, which faces an extremely difficult worldwide situation. Are we to understand that the terms of compensation have been altered? Are the safeguard provisions still in force?
      The blanket of indecision, delay and uncertainty will seriously affect these industries. The Bill is being delayed until the next Session of Parliament and, with our present economic problems, God knows what the Government programme will he by then.
      Are we to have further delay and indecisions? The Government should have announced today that they would proceed and get the Bill through in this Session, or they should have removed uncertainty by announcing they would drop the proposals altogether. The damage done to these industries and to the employment of the people who work in them will be the sole responsibility of the Government, because of the mess they have made. It is a further example of the damage they have done to confidence in industry. Amendment No. 4 is an attempt to rebuild that confidence, and we shall certainly press it to a Division.
      9.0 p.m.
      Mr. Richard Wainwright: This kaleidoscopic debate demonstrates again how ill-adapted are the procedures of this House in the situation in which we have all had to live for the last 15 months—with many parties on the Opposition side and several groups on the Government side of the House.
      The worst evil of a procedure which fails to take account of a great variety
      1310
      of views on a massive Bill like this is that it makes it so easy for Ministers to appear to get away with it. The Under-Secretary was able to pass over the most serious contributions to the debate in the most superficial way because he was in the difficult position of replying to such a variety of contributions, ranging to and fro between the Liberal proposals, the amendment of the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Dr. Bray) and the Conservative proposals.
      I shall be very brief, because these proceedings are under a guillotine. I shall recommend my hon. Friends to vote for the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Dr. Bray) if, as I hope, we are given the opportunity to do so. I shall also recommend them to vote for the Conservative amendment, not because I particularly support its concentration on these lines but because I would like to see the whole of subsection (2) removed.
      On the Liberal amendment, I want to make clear what was manifestly not clear to the Under-Secretary. No part of it even hints at seeking to remove subsection (1), which deals splendidly with the need to promote employment in certain parts of the kingdom. It seeks to lay on the board separate and quite distinct responsibilities, for which it will have to report separately. I am disappointed that the Under-Secretary, for all his ingenious and diverting asides, never confronted the central point of the argument, that it is not good enough for a massive corporation of this kind to have such woolly functions that it can never be brought to book, and that it should always be able to say that it has somehow furthered industrial democracy and promoted the reorganisation or development of certain industries. It is necessary that there should be very much clearer criteria by which to judge the NEB.
      In a sense, the Under-Secretary gave me my case when he read to the House great chunks of the White Paper in order to leave us in no doubt about the scope of the board. That, he said, was what the clause is supposed to achieve. By finding it necessary to treat the House to an entirely different version of the board's functions, he has admitted that the wording in the clause is ineffectual.

      1311
      I am tar from claiming that the wording in our amendment is perfect. However, can the Government not see that a group of hon. Members who have welcomed the purposes of the board and have gone a long way to overlook some of its lesser flaws, as we see them, feel entitled to a hearing for a point of view which seeks to show how the board could become more acceptable to a wider spectrum of British opinion?
      The amendment in no sense tries to wreck the board. We say that in view of the appalling failures of the past, under Governments of both parties, we need a fresh approach, borrowing the experience of other countries which have made a
      greater success of State enterprises. Let us, above all, be able to tell the public that this gigantic corporation can be judged by clear criteria, out of which it will not be able to wriggle. I am sorry that, contrary to his usual practice, the Under-Secretary did not try to meet our argument but slithered away, aided by the extraordinary procedure which afflicts this House. My hon. Friends and I will seek to divide the House on our amendment.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 208, Noes 223.

      Division No. 252.]

      AYES

      [9.04 p.m.

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Goodhart, Philip

      Madel, David

      Alison, Michael

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Gorst, John

      Marten, Neil

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Mates, Michael

      Baker, Kenneth

      Gray, Hamish

      Mather, Carol

      Banks, Robert

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Mawby, Ray

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham,)

      Grist, Ian

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Benyon, W.

      Grylls, Michael

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Hall, Sir John

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Biffen, John

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Mills, Peter

      Bottomley, Peter

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Hannam, John

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Moate, Roger

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Hastings, Stephen

      Molyneaux, James

      Brotherton, Michael

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Monro, Hector

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Hawkins, Paul

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Henderson, Douglas

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Buck, Antony

      Heseltine, Michael

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Budgen, Nick

      Hicks, Robert

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Holland, Philip

      Mudd, David

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Hordern, Peter

      Neave, Airey

      Carlisle, Mark

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Nelson, Anthony

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Neubert, Michael

      Churchill, W. S.

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Newton, Tony

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Nott, John

      Clegg, Walter

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Cockcroft, John

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      James, David

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Cope, John

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

      Penhaligon, David

      Crawford, Douglas

      Jessel, Toby

      Percival, Ian

      Crouch, David

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Crowder, F. P.

      Jopling, Michael

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Kilfedder, James

      Rathbone, Tim

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Drayson, Burnaby

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Durant, Tony

      Kirk, Peter

      Reid, George

      Dykes, Hugh

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Elliott, Sir William

      Knox, David

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Lamont, Norman

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Lane, David

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Farr, John

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Lawson, Nigel

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Luce, Richard

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      MacCormick, Iain

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      McCrindle, Robert

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Fox, Marcus

      McCusker, H.

      Scott, Nicholas

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      MacGregor, John

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Shepherd, Colin

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Viggers, Peter

      Shersby, Michael

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Silvester, Fred

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Wakeham, John

      Sims, Roger

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Walker, Rt Hon p. (Worcester)

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Tebbit, Norman

      Welsh, Andrew

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Speed, Keith

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Spence, John

      Thompson, George

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

      Younger, Hon George

      Sproat, Iain

      Trotter, Neville

      Stainton, Keith

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Mr. John Pardoe and

      Stanley, John

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Mr. A. J. Beith.

      NOES

      Allaun, Frank

      Evans, loan (Aberdare)

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Anderson, Donald

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Marquand, David

      Archer, Peter

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Ashton, Joe

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Flannery, Martin

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Atkinson, Norman

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Mikardo, Ian

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Millan, Bruce

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

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

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Bates, Alf

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      Bean, R. E.

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Molloy, William

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      George, Bruce

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Bishop, E. S.

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Golding, John

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Boardman, H.

      Gourlay, Harry

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Booth, Albert

      Graham, Ted

      Newens, Stanley

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Noble, Mike

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Oakes, Gordon

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Ogden, Eric

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Hardy, Peter

      O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Harper, Joseph

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Ovenden, John

      Buchan, Norman

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Owen, Dr David

      Buchanan, Richard

      Hatton, Frank

      Palmer, Arthur

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Park, George

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Parker, John

      Campbell, Ian

      Hooley, Frank

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Canavan, Dennis

      Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

      Phipps, Dr Colin

      Carmichael, Neil

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Prescott, John

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Huckfield, Les

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Cohen, Stanley

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Coleman, Donald

      Hunter, Adam

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Corbett, Robin

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

      Rooker, J. W.

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      John, Brynmor

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Cronin, John

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Ryman, John

      Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Sandelson, Neville

      Cryer, Bob

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Kerr, Russell

      Selby, Harry

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Kinnock, Neil

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Davidson, Arthur

      Lambie, David

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Lamborn, Harry

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Lamond, James

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Sillars, James

      Deakins, Eric

      Lee, John

      Silverman, Julius

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds W)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Skinner, Dennis

      da Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Lipton, Marcus

      Small, William

      Dempsey, James

      Litterick, Tom

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Doig, Peter

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Spearing, Nigel

      Dormand, J. D.

      Loyden, Eddie

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Stallard, A. W.

      Dunn, James A.

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Stoddart, David

      Dunnett, Jack

      McCartney, Hugh

      Stott, Roger

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      McElhone, Frank

      Strang, Gavin

      Edelman, Maurice

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

      Edge, Geoff

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      English, Michael

      Madden, Max

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      1314

      1315

      Thorns, Stan (Preston South)

      Watkinson, John

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Tinn, James

      Weitzman, David

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Tomlinson, John

      White, Frank B. (Bury)

      Woodall, Alec

      Torney, Tom

      Whitlock, William

      Woof, Robert

      Urwin, T. W.

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES

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

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Miss Margaret Jackson and

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Mr, James Hamilton.

      Ward, Michael

      Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendment proposed: No. 4 in page 2, leave out lines 32 and 33.—[Mr. Heseltine.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 199 Noes 223.

      Division No. 253.]

      AYES

      19.16 p.m.

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Hall, Sir John

      Mudd, David

      Alison, Michael

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Neave, Alrey

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Awdry, Daniel

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Neubert, Michael

      Baker, Kenneth

      Hannam, John

      Newton, Tony

      Banks Robert

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Nott, John

      Beith, A. J.

      Hastings, Stephen

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Pardoe, John

      Benyon, W.

      Hawkins, Paul

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Biffen, John

      Heseltine, Michael

      Penhaligon, David

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Hicks, Robert

      Percival, Ian

      Bottomley, Peter

      Holland, Philip

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Hordern, Peter

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Brotherton, Michael

      Howelis, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      James, David

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Buck, Antony

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

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Budgen, Nick

      Jessel, Toby

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Jopling, Michael

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Carlisle, Mark

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Churchill, W. S.

      Kilfedder, James

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Clegg, Walter

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Cockcroft, John

      Kirk, Peter

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Cope, John

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Scott, Nicholas

      Crouch, David

      Knox, David

      Snaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Crowder, F. P.

      Lamont, Norman

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

      Lane, David

      Shepherd, Colin

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Shersby, Michael

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Lawson, Nigel

      Silvester, Fred

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Sims, Roger

      Drayson, Burnaby

      McCrindle, Robert

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Durant, Tony

      McCusker, H.

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Dykes, Hugh

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      MacGregor, John

      Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

      Elliott, Sir William

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Speed, Keith

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Madel, David

      Spence, John

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Farr, John

      Marten, Neil

      Sproat, Iain

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Mates, Michael

      Stainton, Keith

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Mather, Carol

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      Mawby, Ray

      Stanley, John

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Fox, Marcus

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      Mills, Peter

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Tebbit, Norman

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Goodhart, Philip

      Moate, Roger

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Molyneaux, James

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      Gorst, John

      Monro, Hector

      Trotter, Neville

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Gray, Hamish

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Grist, Ian

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Viggers, Peter

      Grylls, Michael

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Wakeham, John

      Winterton, Nicholas

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Younger, Hon George

      Mr. Richard Luce.

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      NOES

      Allaun, Frank

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

      Anderson, Donald

      George, Bruce

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Archer, Peter

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Ovenden, John

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Golding, John

      Owen, Dr David

      Ashton, Joe

      Gourlay, Harry

      Palmer, Arthur

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston H)

      Graham, Ted

      Park, George

      Atkinson, Norman

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Parker, John

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Phipps, Dr Colin

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Prescott, John

      Bates, Alf

      Hardy, Peter

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Bean, R. E.

      Harper, Joseph

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Bishop, E. S.

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Hatton, Frank

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Boardman, H.

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Booth, Albert

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Hooley, Frank

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

      Rooker, J. W.

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Huckfield, Les

      Rowlands, Ted

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Ryman, John

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Sandelson, Neville

      Buchan, Norman

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Buchanan, Richard

      Hunter, Adam

      Selby, Harry

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Shaw, Arnold (Word South)

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Campbell, Ian

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Short, Mrs Renee (Wolv NE)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Carmichael, Neil

      John, Brynmor

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Sillars, James

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Silverman, Julius

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

      Jones Dan (Burnley)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Cohen, Stanley

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Small, William

      Coleman, Donald

      Kerr, Russell

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Spearing, Nigel

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Kinnock, Neil

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Corbett, Robin

      Lambie, David

      Stallard, A. W.

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Lamborn, Harry

      Stoddart, David

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Lamond, James

      Stott, Roger

      Cronin, John

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Strang, Gavin

      Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

      Lee, John

      Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

      Cryer, Bob

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Lipton, Marcus

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

      Litterick, Tom

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Davidson, Arthur

      Loyden, Eddie

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Tinn, James

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Tomlinson, John

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Torney, Tom

      Deakins, Eric

      McElhone, Frank

      Urwin, T. W.

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds W)

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Dempsey, James

      Mackenzie, Gregor

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

      Doig, Peter

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Dormand, J. D.

      Madden, Max

      Ward, Michael

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Watkinson, John

      Dunn, James A

      Marquand, David

      Weitzman, David

      Dunnett, Jack

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Whitlock, William

      Edelman, Maurice

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Edge, Geoff

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      English, Michael

      Millan, Bruce

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Molloy, William

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Woodall, Alec

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Woof, Robert

      Flannery, Martin

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Fletcher. Ted (Darlington)

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Newens, Stanley

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Noble, Mike

      Miss Margaret Jackson and

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

      Oakes, Gordon

      Mr. Thomas Cox.

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Ogden, Eric

      Amendment accordingly negatived.
      Amendment proposed:
      No. 5, in page 2, line 38, at end insert—
      '(2A)(a) In any undertaking owned by the Board, the Board shall consult the employees as to the form of management they wish to see implemented;
      (b) at any time trade union representatives of a majority of the employees in such an undertaking may require the Board to hold a ballot of all employees as to whether they wish to have the undertaking constituted as a workers' cooperative, and if the ballot shows a majority of the employees in favour of such a constitution, then the Board shall cooperate with the employees in its preparation, and shall implement it if a further ballot shows a majority of employees in favour of its implementation;
      (c) the constitution of a workers' cooperative under this section shall provide for management by a worker representative body elected by all employees, for the payment of
      interest on capital employed to the Board, for payment of depreciation into a reserve fund, for an employees' income stabilisation fund, and for the division of the income of the undertaking between employees after payment of interest, depreciation, taxes and other provisions, in accordance with a Code of Practice approved by the Secretary of State which the Secretary of State shall by order direct the Board and any worker cooperatives constituted under this section to observe;
      (d) a duly constituted worker cooperative which fails to observe its obligations under the Code of Practice it shall revert to the managerial control of the Board.'.—[Dr Bray.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 72, Noes 336.

      Division No. 254.]

      AYES

      [9.28 p.m.

      Allaun, Frank

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Ashton, Joe

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Atkinson, Norman

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Sandelson, Neville

      Bean, R. E.

      Kerr, Russell

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Beith, A. J.

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Selby, Harry

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Kinnock, Neil

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Buchan, Norman

      Lambie, David

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      Campbell, Ian

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Sillars, James

      Canavan, Dennis

      Lee, John

      Silverman, Julius

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Litterick, Tom

      Skinner, Dennis

      Corbett, Robin

      Loyden, Eddie

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Cryer, Bob

      Madden, Max

      Spearing, Nigel

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Stallard, A. W.

      Edge, Geoff

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      English, Michael

      Mikardo, Ian

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W,

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Newens, Stanley

      Torney, Tom

      Flannery, Martin

      Noble, Mike

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Ovenden, John

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Pardoe, John

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Penhaligon, David

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Prescott, John.

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Hatton, Frank

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Mr. Ron Thomas and

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Dr. Jeremy Bray.

      Howells. Geraint (Cardigan)

      NOES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Cockcroft, John

      Alison, Michael

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

      Archer, Peter

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Coleman, Donald

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Brotherton, Michael

      Conlan, Bernard

      Atkins. Ronald (Preston N)

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Awdry, Daniel

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Cope, John

      Bagier, Gordon A. T

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Baker, Kenneth

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Banks, Robert

      Buchanan, Richard

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Cronin, John

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Buck, Antony

      Crosland. Rt Hon Anthony

      Bates, Alf

      Budgen, Nick

      Crouch, David

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Crowder, F. P.

      Benyon, W.

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

      Biffen, John

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Bishop, E. S.

      Carlisle, Mark

      Davidson, Arthur

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Carmichael, Neil

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Boardman, H.

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

      Booth, Albert

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Churchill, W. S.

      Deakins, Eric

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds W)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Clegg, Walter

      de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Bottomley, Peter

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Dempsey, James

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Doig, Peter

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Kilfedder, James

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Dunn, James A.

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Dunnett, Jack

      Kirk, Peter

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Durant, Tony

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Edelman, Maurice

      Knox, David

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Lamborn, Harry

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Elliott, Sir William

      Lamond James

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Lamont, Norman

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Lane, David

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Rooker, J. W.

      Farr, John

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Lipton, Marcus

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Luce, Richard

      Rowlands, Ted

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Ryman, John

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      McCartney, Hugh

      Scott, Nicholas

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      McCrindle, Robert

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      McElhone, Frank

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton u-Lyne>

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Fox, Marcus

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Shepherd, Colin

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      MacGregor, John

      Shersby, Michael

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

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Silkful, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Silvester, Fred

      George, Bruce

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Sims, Roger

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Madel, David

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      Mallalieu, J. P. W

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Golding, John

      Marks, Kenneth

      Small, William

      Goodhart, Philip

      Marquand, David

      Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Gorst, John

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Speed, Keith

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Marten, Neil

      Spence, John

      Graham, Ted

      Mates, Michael

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Mather, Carol

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Sproat, Iain

      Gray, Hamish

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Stainton, Keith

      Grylls, Michael

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Hall, Sir John

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Stanley, John

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Millan, Bruce

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Mills, Peter

      Stoddart, David

      Hannam, John

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Stott, Roger

      Hardy, Peter

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Harper, Joseph

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      Strang, Gavin

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Moate, Roger

      Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Molloy, William

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Hastings, Stephen

      Monro, Hector

      Tebbit, Norman

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Hawkins, Paul

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Heseltine, Michael

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S'

      Hicks, Robert

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Tinn, James

      Holland, Philip

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Tomlinson, John

      Hooley, Frank

      Mudd, David

      Trotter, Neville

      Hordern, Peter

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Urwin, T. W.

      Howell. Denis (B ham, Sm H)

      Neave, Alrey

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Huckfield, Les

      Neubert, Michael

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Newton, Tony

      Viggers, Peter

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Oakes, Gordon

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Hunter, Adam

      Ogden, Eric

      Wakeham, John

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

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

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Owen, Dr David

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Page, Rt Hon R, Graham (Crosby)

      Ward, Michael

      James, David

      Palmer, Arthur

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Park, George

      Weitzman, David

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

      Parker, John

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Jessel, Toby

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Whitlock, William

      John, Brynmor

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Percival, Ian

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Phipps, Dr Colin

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Jopling, Michael

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      1322

      1323

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      woodall, Alec

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Miss Margaret Jackson and

      Woof, Robert

      Younger, Hon George

      Mr. J. D. Dormand.

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Question accordingly negatived.
      It being after half-past Nine o'clock Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded pursuant to Standing Order No. 43, (Business Committee) and the Orders [12th May and this day] to put forthwith the Questions on amendments moved by a Member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to that part of the Bill to be concluded at half-past Nine o'clock.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): It is now my duty to put the Question on all Government amendments up to the end of Schedule 2.
      To save the time of the House, it the House is willing, I propose to put the Questions in blocks of amendments, singling out only those individual amendments on which hon. Members wish to divide. Is that agreed?
      I had understood that some hon. Members wished to divide on Amendment No. 179 but no longer wish to do so.
      Does any hon. Member wish to divide on any earlier Government amendment? If not, I put formally the Question on Government amendments up to and including Amendment No. 34.
      Amendments made:
      No. 7, in page 3, line 10, at end insert 'and other property'.
      No. 8, in page 3, line 11, at end insert 'and other property'.—[Mr. Varley.]

    Clause 3

      EXERCISE BY BOARD OF POWERS TO GIVE SELECTIVE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE UNDER INDUSTRY ACT 1972
      Amendments made:
      No. 10, in page 3, line 20, leave out from beginning to 8 in line 21 and insert:
      'in any case where it appears to the Secretary of State that the powers conferred on him by the powers conferred on him by section 7 or'
      No. 11, in page 3, line 22, leave out 'may be exercised by the Board' and insert:
      'are exercisable and ought to be exercised, the Secretary of State, with the consent of the Treasury, may direct the Board to exercise them and the Board shall not require the
      1324
      consent of the Treasury to the exercise of any such powers in pursuance of such a direction'.
      No. 12, in page 3, line 24, leave out subsection (2).
      No. 13, in page 3, line 39, at end insert: 'but nothing in a subsequent direction shall relieve the Board of a contractual liability to which they are subject in consequence of an earlier direction'.
      No. 14, in page 3, line 39, at end insert:
      '(6A) as soon as practicable after the Secretary of State has given a direction under this section he shall lay before each House of Parliament a statement specifying—

      (a) the amount of assistance that the Board are to give in pursuance of the direction;

      (b) how and to whom they are to give it; and

      (c) where it is to be given under section 7 of the Industry Act 1972, the assisted area in which the undertaking for which it is provided is or will be situated.'.

      No. 16, in page 3, line 40, leave out 'set out any direction' and insert:
      'specify any direction that has been'.
      No. 17, in page 3, line 41, at end insert:
      'and give the information concerning it that is required to be specified in a statement under subsection (6A) above,'.
      No. 18, in page 3, line 41, at end insert:
      '(7A) In any case where the Board are exercising the Secretary of State's powers in pursuance of a direction under this section, sections 7(4) and 8(3)(a) of the Industry Act 1972 (each of which requires the consent of a company to the acquisition of its shares or stock) shall be construed, notwithstanding the fact that the direction has been given, as requiring the Secretary of State (and not the Board) to obtain the consent.'.
      No. 19, in page 4, line 34, at end add—
      '(15A) It is hereby declared that nothing in this section affects—

      (a) the power conferred on the Secretary of State by subsection (7) of section 8 of the Industry Act 1972 (power to increase the limit on financial assistance under that section), or

      (b) the duty imposed on him by subsection (8) of that section (duty to obtain a resolution of the House of Commons for assistance in excess of £5 million),

      or confers or imposes any corresponding power or duty on the Board.'.—[Mr. Varley.]

      Clause 4

        TRANSFER OF PUBLICLY OWNED PROPERTY TO BOARD
        Amendments made:
        No. 20, in page 4, line 35, at beginning insert:
        'Subject to subsection (2) below,'.
        No. 21, in page 4, line 38, after 'Board', insert 'or the Board's nominees'.
        No. 22, in page 4, line 39, at end insert:
        '(2) Publicly-owned securities and other publicly-owned property may only be transferred to the Board or the Board's nominees with the consent of the Secretary of State or in accordance with any general authority given by the Secretary of State.
        (3) The Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament a copy of any general authority given by him under subsection (2) above'.
        No. 23, in page 4, line 39, at end insert:
        '(3) When the Secretary of State has given a consent under subsection (2) above and the consideration for the transfer exceeds £1 million, he shall lay before each House of Parliament a statement specifying—

        (a) the securities or other property to be transferred;

        (b) the transferor;

        (c) the consideration; and

        (d) the date of his consent'.—[Mr. Varley.]

      Clause 6

        GENERAL POWER OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO GIVE BOARD DIRECTIONS
        Amendment made:
        No. 26, in page 5, line 20, at end insert:
        '(2A) Subject to paragraph 8(3) of Schedule 2 below, when the Secretary of State gives a direction under this section, he shall either—

        (a) lay a copy of the direction before each House of Parliament within 28 days of giving it; or

        (b) lay a copy later, but lay with it a statement of the reason why a copy was not laid within 28 days'.—[Mr. Varley.]

      Clause 8

        OTHER LIMITS ON BOARD'S POWERS
        Amendments made:
        No. 34, in page 6, line 20, leave out 'wholly owned'.
        No. 179, in page 6, line 22, leave out 'without the consent of' and insert:
        'except with the consent of the Secretary of State or in accordance with any general authority given by'.—[Mr. Varley.]

      New Clause 2

        THE BOARD AND THE MEDIA
        '(1) Subject to subsecton (2) below, neither the Board nor any of the Board's subsidiaries—

        (a) shall commence a business of publishing newspapers, magazines or other periodicals for sale to the public in the United Kingdom; or

        (b) enter into any contract with the Independent Broadcasting Authority for the provision of programmes.

        (2) Subsection (1) above does not apply to periodicals wholly or mainly concerned with the activities of the Board or any of the Board's subsidiaries.
        (3) Subject to subsection (4) below, neither the Board nor any of the Board's subsidiaries shall acquire any of the share capital of a body corporate if a substantial part of the under-taking—

        (a) of that body corporate, or

        (b) of a group of companies of which it is the holding company,

        consists of carrying on—

        (i) a business such as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) above, or

        (ii) the activities of a programme contractor.

        (4) Subsection (3) above shall not prevent the acquisition of share capital of a body corporate if the acquisition is made in pursuance of a direction under section 3 above.
        (5) Subject to subsections (7) and (8) below, if the Board or any of the Board's subsidiaries acquire any of the share capital of a body corporate which carries on any such business as is mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above, it shall be their duty to exercise their voting power with a view to securing that the body corporate disposes of the business as soon as practicable.
        (6) Subject to subsections (7) and (8) below, if the Board or any of the Board's subsidiaries acquire any of the share capital of a body corporate which has any interest, direct or indirect, in a body corporate which carries on such a business, it shall be their duty to exercise their voting power with a view to securing that the capital of the body corporate which carries on that business is disposed of as soon as practicable.
        (7) The Secretary of State, by direction under section 6 above, may release the Board—

        (a) from any duty imposed on them by subsection (5) or (b) above;

        (b) from any duty to ensure that one of their subsidiaries performs any duty imposed on that subsidiary by either of those subsections.

        (8) The Secretary of State may only give such a direction as is mentioned in subsection (7)

        1327
        above if he is of the opinion that without such a direction serious commercial injury would be caused to any newspaper, magazine or periodical concerned.
        (9) If the Board or any of the Board's subsidiaries acquire any of the share capital of a body corporate which is a programme contractor, they shall consult the Independent Broadcasting Authority as to the steps that they are to take with regard to that share capital and obey any direction given by that Authority.
        (10) Without prejudice to the foregoing provisions of this section, it shall be the duty of the Board and of any of the Board's subsidiaries to use any power to control or influence the carrying on of a business such as is
        mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) above or of activities such as are mentioned in paragraph (b) of that subsection only in relation to financial or commercial matters.
        (11) In this section "programme contractor" has the meaning assigned to it by section 2(3) of the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act 1973.—[Mr. Varley.]
        Brought up, and read.
        Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill:—
        The House divided: Ayes 332, Noes 66.

        Division No. 255.]

        AYES

        [9.42 p.m.

        Alison, Michael

        Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

        Hardy, Peter

        Archer, Peter

        Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)

        Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

        Armstrong, Ernest

        Dalyell, Tarn

        Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

        Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spalthorne)

        Davidson, Arthur

        Hastings, Stephen

        Awdry, Daniel

        Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

        Havers, Sir Michael

        Bagier, Gordon A. T.

        Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

        Hayhoe, Barney

        Bain, Mrs Margaret

        Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

        Hayman, Mrs Helene

        Baker, Kenneth

        Deakins, Eric

        Henderson, Douglas

        Banks, Robert

        Dean, Joseph (Leeds W)

        Heseltine, Michael

        Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

        Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

        Hicks, Robert

        Bates, All

        de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

        Holland, Philip

        Bean, R. E.

        Dempsey, James

        Hooley, Frank

        Beith, A. J.

        Dodsworth, Geoffrey

        Hordern, Peter

        Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

        Doig, Peter

        Howell, David (Guildford)

        Benyon, W.

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

        Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

        Biffen, John

        Drayson, Burnaby

        Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

        Bishop, E. S.

        Duffy, A. E. P.

        Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

        Blenkinsop, Arthur

        Dunn, James A.

        Huckfield, Les

        Boardman, H.

        Dunnett, Jack

        Hughes, Mark (Durham)

        Booth, Albert

        Durant, Tony

        Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

        Boothroyd, Miss Betty

        Dykes, Hugh

        Hunter, Adam

        Boscawen, Hon Robert

        Edelman, Maurice

        Hutchison, Michael Clark

        Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

        Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

        Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

        Bottomley, Peter

        Elliott, Sir William

        Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

        Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

        Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

        Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

        Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

        Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

        Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

        Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

        English, Michael

        James, David

        Braine, Sir Bernard

        Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

        Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

        Brotherton, Michael

        Fairbairn, Nicholas

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

        Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

        Fairgrieve, Russell

        Jessel, Toby

        Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

        Farr, John

        John, Brynmor

        Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

        Finsberg, Geoffrey

        Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

        Bryan, Sir Paul

        Fisher, Sir Nigel

        Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

        Buchanan, Richard

        Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

        Jones, Barry (East Flint)

        Buchanan-Smith, Alick

        Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

        Jones. Dan (Burnley)

        Budgen, Nick

        Fookes, Miss Janet

        Jopling, Michael

        Bulmer. Esmond

        Foot, Rt Hon Michael

        Kaufman, Gerald

        Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

        Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

        Kilfedder, James

        Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

        Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

        King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

        Campbell, Ian

        Fox, Marcus

        King, Tom (Bridgwater)

        Carlisle, Mark

        Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

        Kirk, Peter

        Carmichael, Neil

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

        Kitson, Sir Timothy

        Carter-Jones, Lewis

        Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

        Knight, Mrs Jill

        Chalker, Mrs Lynda

        George, Bruce

        Knox, David

        Churchill, W. S.

        Gilbert, Dr John

        Lamborn, Harry

        Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

        Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

        Lamont, Norman

        Clegg, Walter

        Golding, John

        Lane, David

        Clemitson, Ivor

        Goodhart, Philip

        Lawson, Nigel

        Cockcroft, John

        Goodlad, Alastair

        Lester, Jim (Beeston)

        Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

        Gourlay, Harry

        Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

        Cohen, Stanley

        Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

        Lipton, Marcus

        Coleman, Donald

        Graham, Ted

        Lomas, Kenneth

        Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

        Grant, George (Morpeth)

        Luce, Richard

        Cope, John

        Grant, John (Islington C)

        Lyon, Alexander (York)

        Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

        Gray, Hamish

        Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

        Craigen. J. M. (Maryhill)

        Grimond, Rt Hon J.

        MacCormick, Iain

        Crawford, Douglas

        Grylls, Michael

        McCrindle, Robert

        Crawshaw, Richard

        Hall, Sir John

        McElhone, Frank

        Cronin, John

        Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

        Macfarlane, Neil

        Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

        Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

        MacFarquhar, Roderick

        Crouch, David

        Hampson, Dr Keith

        MacGregor, John

        Crowder, F. P.

        Hannam, John

        McGuire, Michael (Ince)

        Mackenzie, Gregor

        Parkinson, Cecil

        Stanley, John

        McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

        Pattie, Geoffrey

        Steel, David (Roxburgh)

        McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

        Pavitt, Laurie

        Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

        Madel, David

        Penhaligon, David

        Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

        Mallalieu, J. P. W

        Percival, Ian

        Stoddart, David

        Marks, Kenneth

        Phipps, Dr Colin

        Stott, Roger

        Marquand, David

        Pink, R. Bonner

        Stradling Thomas, J.

        Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

        Price, William (Rugby)

        Strang, Gavin

        Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

        Pym, Rt Hon Francis

        Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

        Marten, Neil

        Rathbone, Tim

        Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

        Mason, Rt Hon Roy

        Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Tebbit, Norman

        Mates, Michael

        Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        Mawby, Ray

        Reid, George

        Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

        Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

        Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

        Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

        Mayhew, Patrick

        Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

        Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

        Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

        Ridley, Hon Nicholas

        Tinn, James

        Meyer, Sir Anthony

        Ridsdale, Jullan

        Tomlinson, John

        Millan, Bruce

        Rifkind, Malcolm

        Trotter, Neville

        Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

        Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

        Tugendhat, Christopher

        Mills, Peter

        Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

        Urwin, T. W.

        Miscampbell, Norman

        Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

        van Straubenzee, W. R.

        Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

        Rodgers, William (Stockton)

        Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

        Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

        Rooker, J. W.

        Vaughan, Dr Gerard

        Moate, Roger

        Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

        Viggers, Peter

        Monro, Hector

        Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

        Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

        Montgomery, Fergus

        Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

        Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

        Moore, John (Croydon C)

        Rowlands, Ted

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

        Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

        Ryman, John

        Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

        Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

        Sainsbury, Tim

        Ward, Michael

        Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

        Sandelson, Neville

        Weatherill, Bernard

        Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

        Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

        Weitzman, David

        Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

        Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

        White, Frank R. (Bury)

        Mudd, David

        Shelton, William (Streatham)

        Whiteiaw, Rt Hon William

        Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

        Shepherd, Colin

        Whitlock, William

        Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

        Shersby, Michael

        Wigley, Dafydd

        Neave, Airey

        Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

        Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

        Nelson, Anthony

        Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

        Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

        Neubert, Michael

        Silvester, Fred

        Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

        Newton, Tony

        Sims, Roger

        Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

        Nott, John

        Sinclair, Sir George

        Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

        Oakes, Gordon

        Skeet, T. H. H.

        Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

        Ogden, Eric

        Small, William

        Winterton, Nicholas

        O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

        Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

        Woodall, Alec

        Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

        Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

        Wrigglesworth, Ian

        Owen, Dr David

        Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

        Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

        Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

        Speed, Keith

        Younger, Hon George

        Palmer, Arthur

        Spence, John

        Pardoe, John

        Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

        TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

        Park, George

        Sproat, Iain

        Mr. Joseph Harper and

        Parker, John

        Stanbrook, Ivor

        Mr. J. D. Dormand.

        NOES

        Allaun, Frank

        Hatton, Frank

        Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

        Ashton, Joe

        Heffer, Eric S.

        Roderick, Caerwyn

        Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

        Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

        Rodgers, George (Choriey)

        Atkinson, Norman

        Hughes, Roy (Newport)

        Sedgemore, Brian

        Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

        Kilroy-Silk, Robert

        Selby, Harry

        Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

        Kinnock, Neil

        Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

        Bray, Dr Jeremy

        Lambie, David

        Sillars, James

        Buchan, Norman

        Lamond, James

        Skinner, Dennis

        Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

        Lee, John

        Spriggs, Leslie

        Canavan, Dennis

        Litterick, Tom

        Stallard, A. W.

        Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

        McCartney, Hugn

        Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

        Corbett, Robin

        Madden, Max

        Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

        Cryer, Bob

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

        Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

        Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

        Maynard, Miss Joan

        Torney, Tom

        Edge, Geoff

        Mikardo, Ian

        Watkinson, John

        Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

        Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

        Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

        Evans, John (Newton)

        Molloy, William

        Wise, Mrs Audrey

        Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

        Newens, Stanley

        Woof, Robert

        Flannery, Martin

        Noble, Mike

        Young, David (Bolton E)

        Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

        Ovenden, John

        Garrett, John (Norwich S)

        Prescott, John

        TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

        Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

        Price, C. (Lewisham W)

        Mr. Russell Kerr and

        Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

        Richardson, Miss Jo

        Mr. Eddie Loyden.

        Hart, Rt Hon Judith

        Question accordingly agreed to.
        Clause added to the Bill.

      Schedule 1

        THE NATIONAL ENTERPRISE BOARD
        Amendments made:
        No. 124, in page 29, line 13, at end insert:
        'Acquisition of holdings of minority shareholders
        18A. Section 209 of the Companies Act 1948 (power to acquire shares of shareholders dissenting from scheme or contract approved by majority) shall have effect in relation to the transfer of shares or any class of shares in a company to the Board; and references to a transferee company in that section shall be construed accordingly'.
        No. 125, in page 29, line 30, at end insert:
        '(3) If a report so laid sets out a direction under section 6 above a copy of which has not been laid in accordance with subsection (2A) of that section, a statement of the reason why the copy was not so laid shall be annexed to the Board's report by the Secretary of State, and the said subsection (2A) shall not apply to the direction'.—[Mr. Varley.]

      Clause 9

        GENERAL EXTENT OF POWERS IN RELATION TO CONTROL OF IMPORTANT MANUFACTURING UNDERTAKINGS
        Mr. Wigley: I beg to move Amendment No. 167, in page 7, line 2, after 'manufacturing' insert 'extraction or service'.
        I shall not detain the House for long. This is an amendment which presented itself in many forms in Committee. The basis of the amendment is that there are many spheres of activity, other than manufacturing activity, where powers may be necessary to safeguard the employment situation in certain areas. This provision should appeal to the Government in the context of regional development programmes.
        In the context of extractive industry one thinks of the development of such things as gravel pits and mineral resources, which certainly exist in areas such as mine where there has not been any coherent attempt at developing them in the private sector. Without a shadow of doubt these industries have an economic potential. In my constituency the Gwynedd County Council has shown positive interest in wanting to develop
        1332
        these industries in the public sector, but it has been precluded from doing so because of the rules under which it operates.
        If the NEB and, in the case of Scotland and Wales, the development agencies, are to play an active role in the context of the extractive industries, many of the powers in Clause 2 should also be effective for the extractive as well as the manufacturing concerns. The same is true to some extent in the service sector. There are instances in the service sector, particularly in the tourist trade, where there is a need for specific initiatives by public authorities, and in this case by the NEB, to develop the tourist trade and to bring the maximum possible benefit to areas such as mine—areas of high unemployment and low job opportunity. Such areas can benefit considerably economically from such development.
        Amendment No. 167 is put forward because it brings the matter home in the most relevant way in the context of the transfer of control of important concerns to non-residents. If this is true in the manufacturing sector, certainly it is equally true in the extractive and service sectors. Therefore, we have tabled an amendment which inserts after "manufacturing", in the heading the words "extraction or service". If this amendment is accepted consequent amendments might have to be made. In Committee the previous Under-Secretary indicated an interest in this matter, and he was certainly sympathetic. However, there have been no amendments from the Government.
        In proposing the amendment I draw the attention of the Secretary of State to the definition of "industry" in the Welsh Development Agency (No. 2) Bill,
        "industry' includes any description of commercial activity, and any section of an industry and 'industrial' has a corresponding meaning".
        If that is the meaning and spirit of the WDA and the SDA, and the NEB is their counterpart in England, there should be a broader definition of its rôle. It should certainly extend to some parts of the extractive and service sectors.
        Mr. CrawfordI agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) has said. He intended this to be a probing amendment. To a certain

        1333
        extent we have the same problems in Scotland as our friends have in Wales. I draw the Minister's attention to tourism and the services in connection with financial centres.
        In Scotland we rely to a certain extent upon tourism for our economy and we have, as the Minister will know, a large financial centre. On a per capita basis we do more dealings in financial affairs than even the City of London. Therefore, on behalf of the people of Scotland and the Scottish National Party, I should like to hear the Minister's comments on the amendment.
        Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) has acknowledged that this is a symbolic amendment because, if it were accepted without subsequent amendments to the clause, it would have the effect of making the heading inaccurate. That being so, he will not be surprised to hear that we cannot accept it. However, I understand that he and his hon. Friend the Member for
        Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) —if I may so call him—have intervened because they want to know the Government's attitude to this matter.
        What I have to say is in a sense consequential on what I said to my hon. Friends regarding their amendment about co-operatives. It is important in considering how we proceed with this legislation, when enacted, that we should not diffuse too far its objectives as laid down in—
        It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put,
That the Motion relating to the European Parliament (Membership) may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]
The House divided: Ayes 220, Noes 17.

Division No. 256.]

AYES

[10.0 p.m.

Allaun, Frank

Dalyell, Tarn

Hayman, Mrs Helene

Archer, Peter

Davidson, Arthur

Heffer, Eric S.

Armstrong, Ernest

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

Hooley, Frank

Ashton, Joe

Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

Atkinson, Norman

Deakins, Eric

Huckfield, Les

Bagler, Gordon A. 7.

Dean, Joseph (Leeds W)

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

Dempsey, James

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Bates, Alt

Doig, Peter

Hunter, Adam

Bean, R. E.

Dormand, J. D.

Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dart(ord)

Bishop, E. S.

Dunn, James A.

Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Dunnett, Jack

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Boardman, H.

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

Booth, Albert

Edelman, Maurice

John, Brynmor

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Edge, Geoff

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

English, Michael

Kaufman, Gerald

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Evans, loan (Aberdare)

Kerr, Russell

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Evans, John (Newton)

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Buchan, Norman

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

Kinnock, Neil

Buchanan, Richard

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Lambie, David

Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Lamborn, Harry

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Flannery, Martin

Lamond, James

Campbell, Ian

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Leadbitter, Ted

Canavan, Dennis

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Lee, John

Carmichael, Neil

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

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Lipton, Marcus

Clemitson, Ivor

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Litterick, Tom

Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

George, Bruce

Lomas, Kenneth

Cohen, Stanley

Gilbert, Dr John

Loyden, Eddie

Conlan, Bernard

Golding, John

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Gourlay, Harry

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Corbett, Robin

Graham, Ted

McCartney, Hugh

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Grant, George (Morpeth)

McElhone, Frank

Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

Grant, John (Islington C)

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Crawshaw, Richard

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

McGuire, Michael (Ince)

Cronin, John

Hardy, Peter

Mackenzie, Gregor

Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

Harper, Joseph

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

Cryer, Bob

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Madden, Max

Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

Hatton, Frank

Marks, Kenneth

Marquand, David

Richardson, Miss Jo

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Roderick, Caerwyn

Tinn, James

Maynard, Miss Joan

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Tomlinson, John

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

Torney, Tom

Mikardo, Ian

Rooker, J. W.

Urwin, T. W.

Millan, Bruce

Ross, Rt Hon W. (KllmarnocK)

Varley, Rt Hon Eric Q.

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Rowlands, Ted

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

Ryman, John

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Molloy, William

Sandelson, Neville

Ward, Michael

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Sedgemore, Brian

Watkinson, John

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Selby, Harry

Weitzman, David

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Shaw, Arnold (llford South)

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

Whitlock, William

Newens, Stanley

Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

Noble, Mike

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Oakes, Gordon

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford]

Ogden, Eric

Sillars, James

Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

Silverman, Julius

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Skinner, Dennis

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Ovenden, John

Small, William

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Owen, Dr David

Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

Woodall, Alec

Palmer, Arthur

Spearing, Nigel

Woof, Robert

Park, George

Spriggs, Leslie

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Parker, John

Stallard, A. W.

Young, David (Bolton E)

Pavitt, Laurie

Stoddart, David

Phipps, Dr Colin

Stott, Roger

TELLERS FOR THE AYE

Prescott, John

Strang, Gavin

Mr. James Hamilton and

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

Mr. Donald Coleman

Price, William (Rugby)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

NOES

Brotherton, Michael

Kilfedder, James

Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

Farr, John

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Wigley, Dafydd

Freud, Clement

Pardoe, John

Winterton, Nicholas

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Penhaligon, David

Hooson, Emlyn

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES

Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Mr. Cyril Smith and

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

Mr. A.J Beith

Question accordingly agreed to.

INDUSTRY BILL
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
Mr. Kaufman: As I was saying when I was so unnecessarily interrupted, it is necessary, if we are to get the full effect of this Act, that we do not diffuse the aims as laid down in the Bill. We are particularly concerned in it with manufacturing industry, which lies at the heart of our economic progress as a nation, and we made that clear in the White Paper when we explained that the powers under discussion might be used when there was loss to unacceptable foreign control of any key sector of manufacturing industry.
The hon. Member for Caernarvon drew attention to the statements made in Standing Committee by the then Under-Secretary. We have considered the matter in the light of what my hon. Friend said but we have decided, on balance, that it is unnecessary to extend the powers in the way that the hon. Member would like—even though his amendment would not achieve what he would like—partly because we are most concerned about manufacturing industry and partly because there exist for many sectors of non-manufacturing industry other powers to achieve our objectives, such as legislation to control insurance companies or civil aviation.
I therefore hope that the hon. Member will withdraw his amendment, especially since to make it would do very little good.
Mr. Wigley: I shall be withdrawing the amendment for the same reason that I did not put it forward in the detailed manner that would be necessary to make coherent sense of it, and that is that the Welsh Development Agency (No. 2) Bill is passing through the House, The powers in Clause 2 are built into that Bill to a large extent, and those powers would be applicable to commercial activities in Wales, which includes extractive and service activities.
Notwithstanding that, the Welsh Development Agency will have the powers to do anything in Wales and any other part of the United Kingdom calculated
1338
to secure its functions. Therefore, if there are things in Wales which are to be controlled from England, even though they are in the service sector, the Welsh Development Agency will be able to make attempts to take over if that is deemed to be in the public interest.
We therefore feel that we have the necessary powers in the Welsh Development Agency Bill and we sympathise with those people in the regions of England who do not have such powers but would obviously like them. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Kaufman: I beg to move Amendment No. 43, in page 7, line 6, at end insert 'or relevant bodies corporate'.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With it we may also take Government amendments Nos. 44 and 45.
We may take Amendment No. 165, in line 18, leave out 'not resident in' and insert:
'assuming control, whether or not they are resident in the countries of'.
We may also take Amendment No. 46, in page 7, line 19, at end insert:
'and, where one or more of the persons carrying on the undertaking is a body corporate, also includes the happening of any such event as is specified in subsection (3) below:
"relevant body corporate" means—

(a) a body corporate (whether or not incorporated under the law of the United Kingdom or of a part of the United Kingdom) carrying on as the whole or the major part of its business the whole or part of an important manufacturing undertaking, or

(b) a body corporate incorporated under the law of the United Kingdom or a part of the United Kingdom which is the holding company (as defined by section 154 of the Companies Act 1948 or section 148 of the Companies Act (Northern Ireland) 1960) of a group of companies carrying on as the whole or the major part of their business the whole or part of an important manufacturing undertaking.

(3) The events mentioned in subsection (2) above are all events whereby—

(a) a person not resident in the United Kingdom becomes entitled to exercise or control the exercise of the first, second or third qualifying percentage of votes; or

(b) a person resident in the United Kingdom and entitled to exercise or control the exercise of the first, second or third qualifying percentage of votes ceases to be resident in the United Kingdom; or

1339

(c) control of the exercise of the first, second or third qualifying percentage of votes passes from a person not resident in the United Kingdom to another person not so resident.

(4) For the purposes of this Act—

(a) the first qualifying percentage of votes is thirty per cent.;

(b) the second qualifying percentage of votes is forty per cent.; and

(c) the third qualifying percentage of votes is fifty per cent.,

of the votes that may be cast at any general meeting of a relevant body corporate.
(5) In determining whether there has been a change of control, one or more persons acting together in concert may be treated as a single person.'.
With this goes Amendment (a) to Amendment No. 46, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert:
'(3) An event mentioned in subsection (2) above occurs whenever an interest in shares comprised in relevant share capital of a relevant body corporate to an extent which carries an entitlement to cast or to control the casting of thirty per cent. or more of the votes that may be cast at any general meeting of the body corporate—

(a) is acquired by any person not resident in the United Kingdom, or

(b) passes from a person not resident in the United Kingdom to another person not so resident,

and occurs also whenever—
(c) a person resident in the United Kingdom who is entitled to such an interest ceases to be so resident'.
We may also take Amendment No. 168, in page 7, line 19, at end insert:
'or the relocation of a person or persons in control from within the United Kingdom to outside the United Kingdom'.
Mr. Kaufman: I thank the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) for the sympathy he expressed for the English regions. We in the North-West have for some time consistently suffered a higher level of unemployment than has existed in Wales and therefore we are grateful for his sympathy.
These amendments have been tabled in part in order to give effect to assurances given in Committee. We gave an assurance to the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) which he was kind enough to call a "semi beau geste". We gave an assurance to the hon Member for Caernarvon which I am glad on this occasion to be able to fulfil, and we gave a further assurance to the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West.
1340
10.15 p.m.
The amendments are in part designed to give effect to the assurance given in Committee and are in part designed to deal with the technical points of difficulty which arise from the fact that what we wish to preserve under national control are businesses, which are referred to in the Bill as "undertakings". But where-ever possible it is most convenient to protect the control of the business by preserving national control over the company which runs the business. The drafting of the Bill to cover both the undertaking and the body corporate which carries it on is somewhat complex. I hope that the House will be assisted and will bear with me while I attempt to explain our purpose.
I should first like to deal with the promises which the Government made in Committee to clarify certain points. First, it was pointed out that the definition of an important manufacturing undertaking in Clause 9(2) might cover an undertaking which had only some slight or marginal involvement in manufacturing. To meet that point we propose, in line 9 of page 7, to insert the words "wholly or mainly" to make it clear that we wish to have the power to make a prohibition or vesting order only in respect of an undertaking at least mainly engaged in manufacturing.
The second amendment, which results from an assurance given in Committee, is contained in Clause 9(3)(b) and is slightly more complicated. In Committee the hon. Member for Caernarvon put down an amendment dealing with the circumstances where the same person—natural or corporate—remained in control of a company but moved from the United Kingdom to become a resident abroad. Since the Bill as drafted referred to "a change of control" this was not covered since the control had not changed—only the place from which it was exercised. That loophole is now closed by subsection (3)(b).
The third assurance that we seek to honour is that we would define what is meant by "control". Here, in principle, our aim was simple, although in practice some further difficulties presented themselves. We see advantage, both to the companies concerned and to the Government, in there being certainty as to the position of control in any company. For

1341
that reason we believe that a numerical definition of control, reflecting the principles of the take-over code, is to be preferred to looser and more pragmatic definitions. We therefore thought that the powers could be usable when control over 30 per cent. of the shares is involved. The 30 per cent. figure is one accepted as conferring control in many situations: it is used in Clause 8(1)(a) as the percentage that is held to give the NEB a controlling interest in a company; it is the percentage which, under the city code on takeovers and mergers, requires a bid to be made for all other equity shares. I hope therefore that the 30 per cent. figure will be seen as fair and sensible.
But it has proved necessary to go beyond this. The disadvantage of defining "control" in numerical terms is that there are times when someone controls the numerical percentage but does not in practice control the company. For example, ownership of 30 per cent. of a company's shares does not give control in practice when the remaining 70 per cent. are all in the hands of another person. Because of this, the Government accept that there may be times when a foreigner acquires 30 per cent. in such a way that the "control" he thereby acquires is purely formal. In these circumstances the change of "control" would not be such as to satisfy the conditions set out in Clause 10(1)(b), and no order could be made.
But under Clause 10(8)(b), three months after the Secretary of State learnt of this change of "control", his powers would have lapsed, had control been defined as 30 per cent. only After that period, the foreign owner of the 30 per cent. might have bought the remaining 70 per cent. of the shares, without any possibility of his being restrained under this Bill.
To guard against this we propose in subsection (4) that there should be three levels of qualifying percentages-30 per cent., 40 per cent. and 50 per cent. A non-United Kingdom resident who was about to acquire or had acquired 30 per cent. of the shares of a vital British firrn could seek the Government's approval and would then be free to proceed. He could then buy further shares, if he so wished, but the Government would be able to take action if he were about to acquire, or had acquired, shares which
1342
would bring his holding to 40 per cent. or to 50 per cent.
These provisions are designed to give scope and freedom to the overseas purchaser, while retaining an element of control necessary if a numerical definition is not a result in a loophole in the powers. I regret that they are somewhat more complex than might be desirable, but I hope I have explained why that is so.
Lastly, I turn to technical amendments which we wish to make to deal with the United Kingdom business that is carried on not by one company but by a group of companies. As the Bill was drafted, the powers related to the company carrying on the undertaking, and this would not have permitted the Government to deal with a case where an important manufacturing undertaking was carried on by a group of companies, and no single company could be dealt with because no single company could be said to carry on the undertaking on its own.
We therefore wish to introduce the concept of "a relevant body corporate" to Clause 10 (1) (a), and to define this in Clause 10 (2) to cover United Kingdom holding companies whose subsidiaries carry on an important manufacturing undertaking, as well as companies which together or separately carry on such a business.
We recognise that the power to vest the shares of a company, and still more those of a holding company, should be exercised only if the important manufacturing undertaking accounts for a major part—that is, more than half—of the activities of the company or group. This is achieved by the phrase
"carrying on as the whole or the major part of its business the whole or part of an important manufacturing undertaking".
There is thus no question of the shares of the ultimate holding company being vested simply because it controls, as a small part of its business, an important manufacturing undertaking. We shall, of course, always be able to vest the assets of that undertaking itself.
The amendments that we propose are technical and sometimes complex, but they are designed with the overall purpose of enabling the Government to take action as effectively as possible in respect

1343
of key United Kingdom manufacturing businesses. If accepted, they will ensure that the powers are confined more directly to such businesses and to the companies or groups of companies in which they account for more than half of their commercial and industrial activities.
Mr. Grylls: The Minister was kind enough to say that I had said in Standing Committee that his assurances to move amendments at the Report stage were a "semi-beau geste". To be fair to the Government, they have come forward quite well with a number of the things for which we asked. Above all, we were concerned that Clause 9 should be clarified. I think the Minister will agree that these matters were rather vaguely worded. The amendments are an improvement, therefore we welcome them —particularly the changes proposed in the definition of "control".
What worried us was that there was no definition of control, so I think that what is now proposed is right. Having suggested in Committee that 30 per cent. would be a reasonable amount as the Minister said himself, in line with the City take-over code, I would not object to that at all. I think it is helpful and useful. We have put forward in Amendment (a) to Amendment No. 46 a simplification of Amendment No. 46, which I think anyone would accept is a highly complex amendment. We had asked for a clarification of the definition of "control". I accept that the Minister has tried to bring forward a clarification, and many right hon. and hon. Members, on reading Amendment No. 46, would say that it is a good attempt, but I am not sure that it has not fogged the issue a little more.
We were concerned about the qualifying percentages and why it was necessary to have the three-tier system. It seemed to us that there was a simpler way of doing it, such as in Amendment (a), simply by taking 30 per cent. and leaving it at that. However, in the light of what the Minister said, it is possible that someone could come in and have, as it were, a second bite at the cherry after the moment had passed. If that happened and it were a case of 15 per cent. on top of the 30 per cent. the Secretary of State then could do little about it.
1344
It would be wrong to look that gift horse in the mouth. Generally, it is an improvement. So Amendment (a) was a probing amendment. I do not think that we have any great objection, and we understand the explanation which the hon. Gentleman gave.
Amendment No. 44 is very important. In Committee, quite a lot was made of the point that, for example, there could be a Hong Kong company with most of its manufacturing in Hong Kong but with a small unit in Britain. I felt sure that the Secretary of State did not mean that kind of situation to come within the ambit of the clause. I think that the insertion of the words "wholly and mainly" in line 9 will improve that.
The addition at the beginning part of Amendment No. 46 again is an improvement. For that reason, we have no objection to it. What worried us and what worries me still, even with the definition of "control" being restricted to 30 per cent. and over, is the possible combined effect of these clauses on joint ventures in this country. I am sure that the Secretary of State, with his recent experience, will know that in North Sea oil there are many joint ventures whereby foreign technology is shared with our own firms and British firms are involved in North Sea oil technology. If joint ventures of this kind are to prosper, it is important that we do not frighten them off. The 30 per cent. will help. It may be that from now on foreign ventures will be less than 30 per cent. so that these clauses will not be triggered off. But there is still a danger.
In applying this part of the legislation in the future, I hope that the Government will think about the effect on overseas associates. With the present economic situation which everyone is so worried about, it is important that we have responsible foreign investment in this country which will bring us technology and jobs. It is important that there is transferability of this investment and that foreign companies do not feel locked in or that, if they wish to make a transfer of their shares, they will be snapped up by the Government.
Although we accept these amendments as an improvement, the fact remains that the way that the Secretary of State and his successors use these clauses will be

1345
more important than the actual drafting of the clauses. It is vitally important, as the Chancellor of Exchequer said a few months ago, to use the recycled Arab oil petrodollars and to ensure that this money comes here. If we are to get it, we must not frighten them off.
I ask the Minister to clarify one further matter. In Committee, in the course of our Seventeenth Sitting, the former Under-Secretary put to us what we thought was an ominous suggestion. He said:
"The Government have been approached by management and unions outside the manufacturing sector requesting that the scope of these clauses be extended to other sectors of industry not in manufacturing".—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 22nd April 1975, c. 950.]
I hope that the Government have abandoned that one. If that is part of the shuffling round of chairs in the recent Government reshuffle, we welcome it. But I hope that the Minister can confirm that that suggestion made by the former Under-Secretary has been abandoned. To be fair to the hon. Gentleman, he did not say that it was Government policy. He said merely that the Government were considering it.
I hope that the Minister will give an assurance—because it is important, if we have accepted amendments—that it should apply only to manufacturing industry or undertakings wholly and entirely in manufacturing industry and that they are not thinking of extending it outside. I hope that we can have that assurance tonight.
I hope that we can end in a friendly way and that peace can reign between us. I hope that the Minister will tell us that that has been dropped, in which case we shall not vote against his amendment.
10.30 p.m.
Mr. Wigley: I welcome the move made by the Government which makes Amendment No. 168 unnecessary because its provisions are contained in the complicated amendment tabled by the Government, which we welcome.
I should like to ask one or two questions which arise from Amendment No. 165. We have suggested that change of control is pertinent to the public interest, whether or not that change of control involves moving control from within the United Kingdom to outside. The
1346
Minister will have noticed from reading the report of the Committe that we went into this matter in fair detail. There may be changes in control that could be against the public interest. If control is put into the wrong hands of residents of the United Kingdom that could be as much against the public interest as if it were put into the wrong hands of people outside the United Kingdom.
Linked with that—and this was discussed in Committee—is the situation of companies within the EEC. A certain amount of doubt was expressed in Committee about the future before the referendum. We now know that our future is with our colleagues in the EEC. The question arises whether we are building in legislation that discriminates against other countries of the EEC acquiring control and whether that is contrary to the requirements of the Treaty of Rome that there should be freedom of movement of capital and that companies in other countries within the EEC should have the same freedom as companies within the United Kingdom.
It is for that reason that we put forward Amendment No. 165. This would permit an intervention in the change of control just within the United Kingdom so that there would be no degree of discrimination against companies from within the EEC. The same rules would apply to them as would apply to companies within the United Kingdom, but it would be necessary to adopt Amendment No. 165 to avoid cutting across the provisions of the Treaty of Rome. This is a probing amendment and I ask the Minister to reply to these points.
Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) was kind enough to say that peace can reign among us if I give him further assurances. I accept what he said in the spirit in which he said it, but may I say, in the friendliest possible way, that peace will reign between his Front Bench and mine and between us if he does not seek to drive some kind of wedge between my right hon. Friend, myself and the Ministers in the Department. We are carrying out the policies of the Department and the fact that Ministers have changed does not mean that those policies do not continue and that we do not keep to the assurances that we gave in Committee on this and

1347
other matters. I should be grateful if that could be borne in mind when dealing with further amendments.
The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) was good enough to accept the amendment we put forward following the assurances we gave him in Committee. However, he asked about the EEC. He gave us as one of the reasons for parity what one might call a kind of reverse punishment. He was speaking to Amendment No. 165. My right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State discussed this point at some length in Committee at a highly factual level in slightly fevered circumstances.
Our legal advice is that the acquisition of property of one member State by a national of another does not fall within the freedom of establishment when the acquisition is being attempted from outside the member State in which the property is situated. This was a matter which particularly concerned my hon. Friends, among others.
It would, therefore, be no infringement of the right of freedom of establishment for a prohibition or vesting order to be made to prevent or frustrate a bid for a United Kingdom company made by a company registered in another member State—that is, a takeover bid from abroad —but it would infringe our Community obligations if we prevented a United Kingdom subsidiary of a company registered in and controlled by residents of a member State from acquiring a British concern through these powers which could not by their nature be used to prevent acquisition of a British company which was not foreign-controlled.
If, therefore, an EEC company organised a bid for a key British manufacturing undertaking through a United Kingdom subsidiary, Clauses 9 to 13 could not be applied to prevent or frustrate the acquisition without the United Kingdom breaching its obligations. It would not be in breach of our EEC obligations to prevent the acquisition of key British manufacturing enterprises by companies which are themselves controlled by non-EEC residents provided that the prohibition applied equally, no matter whether the acquiring company was a United Kingdom company or a company of any other EEC member State.
1348
The explanation for this is that such action would not discriminate between British and other EEC companies but would rather be an action applying to companies in all EEC member States which were controlled by non-EEC residents. Thus, it would not be possible for a bid by a non-EEC acquirer to evade our legislation by being routed through a non-EEC subsidiary even if that non-EEC subsidiary were an established company.
I have gone into a little detail on this, but if it would suit the hon. Gentleman I will write to him in further detail so that he shall be enlightened. If he does not object, I will perhaps arrange for that information to be printed in the Official Report—if that is allowed—so that other hon. Members may be able to see the advice that I am able to pass on to the hon. Gentleman.
In view of what I have said I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman will be anxious for me to respond to his amendment. If he wishes it, I shall have to tell him in a little detail that we do not find it acceptable.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 44, in page 7, line 9, after 'undertaking', insert 'wholly or mainly'.
No. 45, in line 15, leave out
'or any body corporate which carries on such an undertaking'.
No. 46, in line 19, at end insert
'and, where one or more of the persons carrying on the undertaking is a body corporate, also includes the happening of any such event as is specified in subsection (3) below:
"relevant body corporate" means—

(a) a body corporate (whether or not incorporated under the law of the United Kingdom or of a part of the United Kingdom) carrying on as the whole or the major part of its business the whole or part of an important manufacturing undertaking, or

(b) a body corporate incorporated under the law of the United Kingdom or a part of the United Kingdom which is the holding company (as defined by section 154 of the Companies Act 1948 or section 148 of the Companies Act (Northern Ireland) 1960) of a group of companies carrying on as the whole or the major part of their business the whole or part of an important manufacturing undertaking.

1349
(3) The events mentioned in subsection (2) above are all events whereby—

(a) a person not resident in the United Kingdom becomes entitled to exercise or control the exercise of the first, second or third qualifying percentage of votes; or

(b) a person resident in the United Kingdom and entitled to exercise or control the exercise of the first, second or third qualifying percentage of votes ceases to be resident in the United Kingdom; or

(c) control of the exercise of the first, second or third qualifying percentage of votes passes from a person not resident in the United Kingdom to another person not so resident.

(4) For the purposes of this Act—

(a) the first qualifying percentage of votes is thirty per cent.;

(b) the second qualifying percentage of votes is forty per cent.; and

(c) the third qualifying percentage of votes is fifty per cent.,

of the votes that may be cast at any general meeting of a relevant body corporate.
(5) In determining whether there has been a change of control, one or more persons acting together in concert may be treated as a single person.'.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

Clause 10

  POWER TO MAKE ORDERS
  Mr. Kaufman: I beg to move Amendment No. 47, in page 7, line 23, leave out
  'any body corporate which carries on such an undertaking'
  and insert:
  'a relevant body corporate'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): With this we are taking Government Amendments Nos. 48 to 51.
  Mr. Kaufman: Perhaps I might go through the amendments briefly. Amendment No. 47 makes it possible for a prohibition order to be made not only in relation to a body corporate which carries on an important manufacturing undertaking but also in relation to a holding company of a group of companies which carry on such an undertaking and also in relation to the individual companies of such a group if that is necessary, for example, because the holding company is a foreign company.
  Amendment No. 48 will make it necessary for the Government when making a prohibition order to satisfy the undertaking which is threatened with a change of control. Previously the Govern-
  1350
  ment could simply have prohibited a change of control of a company without telling it which undertaking the Government wished to retain from unacceptable foreign ownership. The amendment will give greater certainty to the companies affected and give statutory effect to the procedure which the Government wish to adopt.
  Amendments 49 and 51 relate to discussion in Committee, when the question whether the powers to make a vesting order should be confined to the shares involved in the change of control was debated. The Government then made it clear that the power could not be confined to this, since that would make it impossible to act when ownership of all the company's shares was the only means of saving the company, but an undertaking was given to consider the matter further.
  We now propose that unless the national interest requires otherwise the vesting order will vest only those shares involved in the change of control. This will enable the Government to vest all the shares where necessary, but normally only the more restricted vesting will occur.
  Amendment No. 50 is a small amendment, designed to avoid a technical breach of the Companies Act 1948. Section 1 of that Act provides that a company should have a minimum number of members of seven or, if it is a private company, of two. The vesting of all the shares in a company in the Secretary of State or the National Enterprise Board, as was possible under the clause, would conflict with this, and to avoid any such conflict we wish to make it clear that the vesting order may vest shares in nominees for the Secretary of State or the Board, as well as in the Secretaary of State and the Board. It is a small point, designed to deal with a technical difficulty, and I hope that it will occasion no disagreement.
  Mr. Grylls: The Under-Secretary, probably by mistake did not reply to a question I put to him earlier about the comment made by his predecessor. Perhaps he could take the opportunity of replying to it later.
  We agree with Amendments Nos. 47 to 51, which are put before us in answer to questions asked in Committee. I take it that Amendment No. 48 is an attempt to

  1351
  tighten up the Bill. In layman's nontechnical terms, the Bill as originally drafted meant that nobody from, say, Iran could take over any British company. Obviously, that is not the Government's intention. Their intention is that nobody from Iran, for example, shall take over a certain British company if they do not think that that is suitable. That is fair enough. The amendment clarifies the situation.
  But perhaps the insertion of the words "relating to that undertaking" after "things" would further clarify it. If the Minister felt that that would be helpful, perhaps an amendment could be moved in another place.
  We are pleased about Amendment No. 51, because we said in Committee that we did not want any Government to use the powers to take over whole groups of companies just because one part was threatened by an overseas takeover bid. Under the amendment, only that part of a group or company threatened with a takeover shall be taken into public control. That is an improvement.
  Is there anything in the measure or the vesting order to prevent the Secretary of State disposing of capital assets vested in him or his nominees by virtue of such an order? It is important that the Government should be able to get rid of things. A rather mysterious Amendment No. 52 caught my eye on the Notice Paper on Friday. It seemed to fly out of the window over the weekend. I do not know what has happened to it. It has apparently disappeared.
  10.45 p.m.
  I hope that the Minister will consider this matter, even if he is not moving the amendment concerned—which apparently he is not, because it is not on the Notice Paper for today, although it was on the Notice Paper on Friday. It is the amendment that never was—or was but never is. Perhaps the Minister will clarify this matter.
  If the Minister is now satisfied, as a result of legal advice over the weekend, that there are clauses in the Bill which already cover this point and that the Secretary of State is able to dispose of shares he has taken for this particular purpose, it is not necessary to have the Amendment No. 52 which was on the Notice Paper.
  1352
  It is important that this point should be answered. I think that the Minister would want to satisfy the House about the matter, because the amendment appeared on the Notice Paper.
  Therefore, with that query and hopefully with an answer on the comment made by the former Under-Secretary in Committee, I think that we could probably make progress quite quickly.
  Mr. Kaufman: The suggested additional amendment which the hon. Gentleman has put forward is one that we shall look at. If the clarification that he suggests would be improved by the addition of those or other words, we shall seek to do so. I give no commitment on the matter, but obviously we shall look at it with care.
  As regards Amendment No. 52, we thought about the matter but we decided that it was not a necessary amendment. It was, in a sense, a declaratory amendment, but, on reflection, it appeared to us that it declared too much. To that extent, we decided not to proceed with it.
  As regards the question that the hon. Gentleman put to me earlier—I apologise to him for not having dealt with it, purely through omission—my hon. Friend the former Under-Secretary talked in Committee of representations that had been made, and he said that the matter would be looked a t. He gave no commitment. Indeed, the somewhat rueful reception given by the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) to my response to his defective amendment will show that we decided not to proceed down that road.
  Mr. Grylls: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. Therefore, we can take it now as absolutely cast-iron that these clauses will not apply to non-manufacturing industry. I take it that that is a very fair assurance from the Government.
  The Minister did not satisfy me that he was absolutely clear about Amendment No. 52. May I assume that he has removed that amendment from the Notice Paper, and therefore not moved it, because he is satisfied that the Secretary of State can dispose of capital or assets vested in him or his nominees by virtue of such an order? If the Minister can answer "Yes". I shall be satisfied. If he can answer with a categorical

  1353
  "Yes" to the question of non-manufacturing industry also, I think that we are set for a very auspicious evening.
  Mr. Wigley: On that very point, there is an amendment later on the Notice Paper, No. 166, which raises that question. The proposal was to add an additional clause to facilitate the transfer to some third party which was not in the public sector. I take it that the assurance given to the Opposition Front Bench on this point would also cover Amendment No. 166, which would therefore be unnecessary in this context.
  There was a lot of debate in Committee on this matter. The interpretation at that stage was that this point was not covered, but presumably it is now covered by the amendments and the interpretations that have subsequently come forward, and therefore the later amendment is unnecessary.
  Mr. Kaufman: I think that we had better leave consideration of that matter until we come to it. If by any chance we do not debate it, I shall take some opportunity of clarifying our attitude to it.
  In answer to the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Giylls), I say that we are satisfied that the Bill as it now stands will conform to what he requests. We would not have been satisfied with the amendment. The amendment is declaratory and we think that if it had

  '(3A) Where 30 per cent. or more of the share capital of the body corporate vests in the Secretary of State or the Board by virtue of a vesting order, the Secretary of State or, as the case may be, the Board shall serve on the holders of the share capital that does not so vest, within 28 days of the making of the order, a notice informing them of the making of the order and of the right of each of them to require the Secretary of State or the Board to acquire the share capital held by him.

  (3B) The recipient of a notice under subsection (3A) above may, within three months of the date of the notice, serve on the Secretary of State or, as the case may be, the Board, a counter-notice requiring him or them to acquire the share capital held by the recipient in the body corporate.

  (3C) A vesting order shall have effect, from the date of a counter-notice, as if the share capital specified in the notice had been specified in the vesting order.

  (3D) Subsections (3A) to (3C) above shall have the same effect in relation to share capital vesting in nominees for the Secretary of State or the Board as in relation to share capital vesting as mentioned in those subsections'.

  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): With this it will be convenient to take the following:
  Amendment (a), in line 3, after 'on', insert 'each of'.
  Amendment (b), in line 3, after 'of', insert 'any part of'.
  Amendment (c), in line 4, after 'informing', insert 'each of'.
  remained on the Order Paper it would have declared too much. That being so, we think it better that it should not be adopted.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 48, in page 7, line 28, at end insert 'specify the undertaking and'.
  No. 49, in page 8, line 4, leave out from beginning to 'or' in line 6 and insert:
  '(i) share capital and loan capital to which this subsection applies,'.
  No. 50, in page 8, line 8, at end add:
  'or in nominees for the Board or himself'
  No. 51, in page 8, line 8, at end add:
  '(2A) The share capital and loan capital to which subsection (2) above applies are—

  (a) in any case where the Secretary of State considers that the interests mentioned in subsection (2)(c) above cannot, or cannot appropriately be protected unless all the share capital of the relevant body corporate vests by virtue of the order, the share capital of that body corporate,

  (b) in any other case, the share capital which appears to the Secretary of State to be involved in the change of control,

  together with so much (if any) of the loan capital of the relevant body corporate as may be specified in the order.'.—[Mr. Kaufman.]
  The Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Eric Varley): I beg to move Amendment No. 53, in page 8, line 13, at end insert:
  Amendment (d), in line 6, after 'or' insert ', as the case may be,'.
  Amendment (e), in line 6, after second 'the', insert
  'whole of that person's such holding of'.
  Amendment (f), in line 6, leave out 'held by him'.
  Mr. Varley: I am very pleased that I have been able to have a go before the

  1355
  guillotine falls at 11 o'clock. I was set to go on what I thought was an important amendment in the first stage of our proceedings. I am glad that I have not missed my chance although this is a relatively insignificant amendment when we consider what has taken place so far. Perhaps my view is not shared by the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls).
  We have proposed in Amendments Nos. 49 and 51 that unless the national interest requires otherwise, a vesting order will vest only those shares involved in the change of control. This will enable the Government to vest all the shares where this is necessary but it will mean that otherwise, and normally, only the more restricted vesting will occur.
  We have also given thought to the position of the other shareholders, and this is dealt with in Amendment No. 53. We recognise that some shareholders might feel that they did not wish to hold shares in a company which had fallen under the control of the Government or the NEB, and that, if many felt like that, it might be difficult for shareholders to sell their shares.
  To deal with this, we have tabled an amendment in subsections (3B) to (3D) that will require the Secretary of State or the board, or its nominees, to make an offer to remaining shareholders if more than 30 per cent. of the share capital is vested under a vesting order. This offer will cover all outstanding shares. The remaining shareholders will then have three months to choose whether they wish to retain their shares, sell them on the market or have them vested.
  This gives the shareholders a free and fair choice and ensures that their interests are safeguarded. There is an obvious anology with the requirement in the City Code under which a bidder who acquires 30 per cent. of the shares in a company is required to make a bid for the remaining shares on the same terms.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I put the Question, perhaps the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) will inform the Chair whether it is desired to divide on any of the sub-amendments to Amendment No. 53?
  Mr. Heseltine: We should like to divide on Amendment (a) to Amendment No. 53.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Then in that case the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) should move Amendment (a).
  Mr. Michael Grylls: I beg to move, as an amendment to the proposed amendment (a), in line 3, after 'on' insert 'each of'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is—
  Mr. Grylls: May 1, on a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, seek your assistance in this moment of confusion, which I am sure is my fault. Do you want me to move each sub-amendment individually in regard to sub-amendment (a) to (f), or should I move only the first amendment, amendment (a)?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I doubt whether there would be time for that. I suggest that it would be convenient to deal with amendment (a).
  Mr. Grylls: I have already sought to move it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I could give the hon. Gentleman a little more guidance. He must sit down before 11 o'clock.
  Mr. Grylls: Thank you very much for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I should inform the Secretary of State for Industry that we regard Amendment No. 53 as important. It is important that the remaining shareholders in a company vested in the Government should have the opportunity to pass on their shares to the Government. The Secretary of State may have done something important in taking this step—namely, he will have had an effect on industry and on the investing public. He will have satisfied the public that he means to use the clause fairly sensibly. I welcome that attitude. Our amendments (a) to (f) are tabled for clarification. The provision will make the situation cast-iron and crystal-clear. It may not be possible to work through this case tonight because of the guillotine, but I hope the Secretary of State will look at the matter in the same spirit as that in which he moved Amendment No. 53. If he thinks

  1357
  it is useful and wishes to make his purpose crystal-clear, he may consider moving these amendments in another place. I therefore ask my hon. Friends to support Amendment (a).
  Question put, That the amendment to the proposed amendment be made:—
  The House divied: Ayes 209, Noes 222.

  Division No. 257.]

  AYES

  [11.0 p.m.

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Hawkins, Paul

  Percival, Ian

  Alison, Michael

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Henderson, Douglas

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  Awdry, Daniel

  Heseltine, Michael

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

  Hicks, Robert

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Baker, Kenneth

  Holland, Philip

  Rathbone, Tim

  Banks, Robert

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Beith, A. J.

  Hordern, Peter

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Reid, George

  Benyon, W.

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Biffen, John

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Bottomley, Peter

  James, David

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

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

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Jesse!, Toby

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Brotherton, Michael

  Jopling, Michael

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Kilfedder, James

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Buck, Antony

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Budgen, Nick

  Kirk, Peter

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Shepherd, Colin

  Carlisle, Mark

  Knox, David

  Shersby, Michael

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Lamont, Norman

  Sims, Roger

  Churchill, W. S.

  Lane, David

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Clegg, Walter

  Lawson, Nigel

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Cockcroft, John

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Luce, Richard

  Speed, Keith

  Cope, John

  MacCormick, Iain

  Spence, John

  Crawford, Douglas

  McCrindle, Robert

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Crouch, David

  McCusker, H.

  Sproat, Iain

  Crowder, F. P.

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Stainton, Keith

  Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

  MacGregor, John

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Stanley, John

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Madel, David

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Steen, Anthony (Wavortree)

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Marten, Neil

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Durant, Tony

  Mates, Michael

  Stewart, Ian (Hltchin)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Mather, Carol

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Mawby, Ray

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Elliott, Sir William

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Tebbit, Norman

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Farr, John

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Mills, Peter

  Thompson, George

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Trotter, Neville

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Moate, Roger

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  Molyneaux, James

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Fox, Marcus

  Monro, Hector

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Viggers, Peter

  Freud, Clement

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Wainwright, Richard (Come V)

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Wakeham, John

  Goodhart, Philip

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Watt, Hamish

  Gray, Hamish

  Mudd, David

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Neave, Airey

  Welsh, Andrew

  Grist, Ian

  Nelson, Anthony

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Grylls, Michael

  Neubert, Michael

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Hall, Sir John

  Newton, Tony

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Normanton, Tom

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Nott, John

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Younger, Hon George

  Hannam, John

  Pardoe, John

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Parkinson, Cecil

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hastings, Stephen

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Penhaligon, David

  Mr. Fred Silvester.

  NOES

  Allaun, Frank

  Ashton, Joe

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Archer, Peter

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Atkinson, Norman

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Bates, Alf

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Ovenden, John

  Bean, R. E.

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Owen, Dr David

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Hardy, Peter

  Palmer, Arthur

  Bishop, E. S.

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Park, George

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Parker, John

  Boardman, H.

  Hatton, Frank

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Booth, Albert

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Prescott, John

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Hooley, Frank

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Huckfield, Les

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Buchan, Norman

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Buchanan, Richard

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Hunter, Adam

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Campbell, Ian

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Carmichael, Neil

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Ryman, John

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

  Sandelson, Neville

  Clemitson, Ivor

  John, Brynmor

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Selby, Harry

  Cohen, Stanley

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Coleman, Donald

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Kerr, Russell

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Corbett, Robin

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Sillars, James

  Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

  Lambie, David

  Silverman, Julius

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Lamborn, Harry

  Skinner, Dennis

  Cronin, John

  Lamond, James

  Small, William

  Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Cryer, Bob

  Lee, John

  Spearing, Nigel

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Stallard, A. W.

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Litterick, Tom

  Stoddart, David

  Davidson, Arthur

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Stott, Roger

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Strang, Gavin

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Deakins, Eric

  McCartney, Hugh

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds W)

  McElhone, Frank

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Dempsey, James

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Doig, Peter

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Tinn, James

  Dormand, J. D.

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Tomlinson, John

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  McNamara, Kevin

  Torney, Tom

  Dunn, James A.

  Madden, Max

  Urwin, T. W.

  Dunnett, Jack

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Marks, Kenneth

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Edelman, Maurice

  Marquand, David

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Edge, Geoff

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Ward, Michael

  Ellis. Tom (Wrexham)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Watkinson, John

  English, Michael

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Weitzman, David

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Whitlock, William

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Millan, Bruce

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Flannery, Martin

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Molloy, William

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

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

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Woodall, Alec

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Woof, Robert

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Newens, Stanley

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  George, Bruce

  Noble, Mike

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Oakes, Gordon

  Golding, John

  Ogden, Eric

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Gourlay, Harry

  O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Graham, Ted

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Mr. John Ellis.

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  It being after Eleven o'clock, Mr. Speaker proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) and the Orders [12th May and this day] to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
  Amendment proposed, No. 53, in page 8, line 13, at end insert:
  '(3A) Where 30 per cent or more of the share capital of the body corporate vests in the Secretary of State or the Board by virtue of a vesting order, the Secretary of State or, as the case may be, the Board shall serve on the holders of the share capital that does not so vest, within 28 days of the making of the order, a notice informing them of the making of the

  1361
  order and of the right of each of them to require the Secretary of State or the Board to acquire the share capital held by him.
  (3B) The recipient of a notice under subsection (3A) above may, within three months of the date of the notice, serve on the Secretary of State or, as the case may be, the Board, a counter-notice requiring him or them to acquire the share capital held by the recipient in the body corporate.
  (3C) A vesting order shall have effect, from the date of a counter-notice, as if the share
  capital specified in the notice had been specified in the vesting order.
  (3D) Subsections (3A) to (3C) above shall have the same effect in relation to share capital vesting in nominees for the Secretary of State or the Board as in relation to share capital vesting as mentioned in those subsections'.— [Mr. Varley.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 222, Noes 13.

  Division No. 258.]

  AYES

  [11.12 p.m.

  Allaun, Frank

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Archer, Peter

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Ashton, Joe

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

  Mikardo, Ian

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Millan, Bruce

  Atkinson, Norman

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Bagler, Gordon A. T.

  George, Bruce

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Molloy, William

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Golding, John

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Bates, All

  Gourlay, Harry

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Bean, R. E.

  Graham, Ted

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Bishop, E, S.

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Newens, Stanley

  Blenklnsop, Arthur

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Noble, Mike

  Booth, Albert

  Hardy, Peter

  Oakes, Gordon

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Ogden, Eric

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Hatton, Frank

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Ovenden, John

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Owen, Dr David

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Henderson, Douglas

  Palmer, Arthur

  Buchan, Norman

  Hooley, Frank

  Park, George

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

  Parker, John

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Campbell, Ian

  Huckfield, Les

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Prescott, John

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Hunter, Adam

  Reid, George

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Cohen, Stanley

  Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Coleman, Donald

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Corbett, Robin

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  John, Brynmor

  Rooker, J. W.

  Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Crawford, Douglas

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Ryman, John

  Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Sandelson, Neville

  Cryer, Bob

  Kerr, Russell

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Selby, Harry

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Lambie, David

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Lamborn, Harry

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Lamond, James

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Sillars, James

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Silverman, Julius

  Deakins, Eric

  Lipton, Marcus

  Skinner, Dennis

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds w)

  Litterick, Tom

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Spearing, Nigel

  Dempsey, James

  Loyden, Eddie

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Dunn, James A.

  McCartney, Hugh

  Stoddart, David

  Dunnett, Jack

  MacCormick, lain

  Stott, Roger

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  McElhone, Frank

  Strang, Gavin

  Edelman, Maurice

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

  Edge, Geoff

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  English, Michael

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Evans, loan (Aberdare)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Thompson, George

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Madden, Max

  Thome, Stan (Preston South)

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Tinn, James

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Marquand, David

  Tomlinson, John

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Torney, Tom

  Flannery, Martin

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Woodall, Alec

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Woof, Robert

  Ward, Michael

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Watkinson, John

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Watt, Hamish

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Weitzman, David

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES

  Welsh, Andrew

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Mr. John Ellis and

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Mr. Joseph Harper

  Whitlock, William

  NOES

  Beith, A. J.

  Kilfedder, James

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Freud, Clement

  Pardoe, John

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Penhaligon, David

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Mr. Cyril Smith and

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Mr. David Steel.

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. SPEAKER then proceeded to put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at Eleven o'clock.
  Mr. Speaker: To save time I propose to put the Question on blocks of amendments. I shall single out any amendments on which any hon. Member wishes to have a Division.
  Mr. Cyril Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I request a Division on each amendment.
  Mr. Speaker: This is a situation in which we must try to govern ourselves with good temper and common sense. I have about 20 amendments to put. I am willing to allow Divisions on certain of them, if that is wished. I am not prepared to allow Divisions on all 20 amendments.
  Mr. Emlyn Hooson: Further to that point of order. Is not a precise precedent for this provided by the Industrial Relations Bill which came to this House three years ago, when there was a vote on every amendment?
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: I think you will recall, Mr. Speaker, that in 1971 there was a precedent which was to some extent similar to the situation which has developed today. Following the announcement of the clear intention of the Liberals to call Divisions on every amendment, I would point out that Mr. Speaker has it in his power under Standing Order 36 to rule on unnecessarily claimed Divisions, to take appropriate action and to call votes in the Chamber.
  Mr. Speaker: I am always grateful to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr.
  1364
  Skinner) when he recalls my powers, which I shall use as appropriate.
  Seriously—I was not referring to the points of order which have been raised—the House surely wants to get on to the debate on what is a serious matter. There may come a time when the Chair must consider the question of a Closure on that matter. The more time we spend on this, the sooner the Closure may be given. That, of course, is not a threat. That is an observation thrown out.
  Mr. Cyril Smith Mr. Cyril Smith rose—
  Mr. Speaker: We shall take Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 together.
  Mr. Cyril Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I request that Divisions take place on the following amendments: Nos. 55, 57, 58, 72, 74 and 75—a total of six out of the 20.
  Mr. Speaker: I think that we might begin and see how we get on. That is my hope.

Clause 11

  CONTENTS OF VESTING ORDERS
  Amendment made: No. 54, in page 9, line 12, leave out 'specified in' and insert 'which will vest by virtue of'.—[Mr. Varley.]
  Amendment proposed, No. 55, in page 9, line 21, leave out from beginning to 'to' in line 29, and insert:

  '(a) any capital or assets which will vest by virtue of the order; and

  (b) any assets—

  (i) of a body corporate whose capital will so vest, or

  (ii) of any subsidiary of such a body corporate;

  1365
  and may in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of this subsection, prohibit or set aside the transfer of any such capital or assets or any right in respect of such capital or assets.
  (3) A vesting order setting aside a transfer of capital or assets such as are mentioned in subsection (2)(a) above shall entitle the Secretary of State or the Board to recover the capital or assets transferred.
  (3A) A vesting order setting aside a transfer of assets such as are mentioned in subsection
  (2)(b) above shall entitle the body corporate or subsidiary to recover the assets transferred.
  (3B) Any vesting order setting aside a transfer shall give the person entitled to recover the capital or assets a right, if he fails to recover them,'.—[Mr. Varley.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 222, Noes 15.

  Division No. 259]

  AYES

  [11.25 p.m.

  Allaun, Frank

  Flannery, Martin

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Archer, Peter

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Mikardo, Ian

  Ashton, Joe

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Millan, Bruce

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

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

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Molloy, William

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

  George, Bruce

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Golding, John

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Bates, Alf

  Gourlay, Harry

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Bean, R. E.

  Graham, Ted

  Newens, Stanley

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Noble, Mike

  Bishop, E. S.

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

  Booth, Albert

  Hardy, Peter

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Harper, Joseph

  Ovenden, John

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Owen, Dr David

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Palmer, Arthur

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hatton, Frank

  Park, George

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Parker, John

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Buchan, Norman

  Henderson, Douglas

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Hooley, Frank

  Prescott, John

  Callaghan Jim (Middleton & P)

  Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Campbell, Ian

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Huckfield, Les

  Reid, George

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Roberts, Gwllym (Cannock)

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Hunter, Adam

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Cohen, Stanley

  Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Coleman, Donald

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Corbett, Robin

  John, Brynmor

  Rowlands, Ted

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Ryman, John

  Craigen, J. M. (Maryhlll)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Sandelson, Neville

  Crawford, Douglas

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Selby, Harry

  Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

  Kerr, Russell

  Shaw, Arnold (llford South)

  Cryer, Bob

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Lambie, David

  Sillars, James

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Lamborn, Harry

  Silverman, Julius

  Davidson, Arthur

  Lamond, James

  Skinner, Dennis

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Small, William

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Spearing, Nigel

  Deakins, Eric

  Litterick, Tom

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds W)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Stallard, A. W.

  de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Loyden, Eddie

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Dempsey, James

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Stott, Roger

  Doig, Peter

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Strang, Gavin

  Dormand, J. D.

  McCartney, Hugh

  Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  MacCormick, lain

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Dunn, James A.

  McElhone, Frank

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Dunnett, Jack

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Thompson, George

  Edelman, Maurice

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Edge, Geoff

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Tinn, James

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Tomlinson, John

  English, Michael

  Madden, Max

  Torney, Tom

  Evans, loan (Aberdare)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Urwin, T. W.

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Marquand, David

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Ward, Michael

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Watkinson, John

  Watt, Hamish

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Wool, Robert

  Weitzman, David

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Welsh, Andrew

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Whitlock, William

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Mr. John Ellis and

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Woodall, Alec

  Mr. David Stoddart.

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  NOES

  Brotherton, Michael

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  Freud, Clement

  Pardoe, John

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Penhaligon, David

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Mr. Cyril Smith and

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Mr. A. J. Beith.

  Kilfedder, James

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 56, in page 9, line 33, leave out 'notified' and insert 'given notice to'.—[Mr. Varley.]
  Amendment proposed, No. 57, in page 9, line 34, at end insert
  'and the Secretary of State shall publish a copy of any such notice in the London Gazette, the Edinburgh Gazette and the Belfast Gazette as soon as practicable after he has given it'.—[Mr. Varley.]
  Mr. Speaker: I would point out that under the terms of Standing Order No. 36 Mr. Speaker may,
  "if in his opinion the division is unnecessarily claimed, take the vote of the House, or committee, by calling upon the Members who support, and who challenge his decision, successively to rise in their places; and he shall thereupon, as he thinks fit, either declare the determination of the House or committee, or name tellers for a division."
  I hope we can get on.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House proceeded to a Division, and Mr. SPEAKER stated that he thought the "Ayes" had it, and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and who challenged his decision successively to rise in their, places; and he declared the "Ayes" had it, eight Members only who challenged his decision having stood up.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, No. 58 in, page 9, line 35, leave out subsection (5).—(Mr. Varley.)
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House proceeded to a Division, and Mr. SPEAKER stated that he thought
  1368
  the "Ayes" had it, and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and who challenged his decision successively to rise in their places; and he declared the "Ayes" had it, 13 Members only who challenged his decision having stood up.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments proposed: No. 59, in page 9, line 41, leave out subsection (6).
  No. 60, in page 10, line 23, in clause 13, leave out 'the extinguishment or transfer of the rights' and insert 'any extinguishment or transfer of rights'.
  No. 61, in page 10, line 33, in Clause 13, leave out paragraph (c).—[Mr. Kaufman.]
  Mr. Cyril Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If you are prepared to adopt this procedure we propose to challenge every amendment.
  Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you assist the House by giving a little further elucidation of your most recent ruling? I understand that you are relying upon Standing Order No. 36, which provides that if in your opinion a Division is unnecessarily claimed, you may disallow it. Are we to take it, Sir, that that is a qualitative or a quantitative criterion? While accepting the ruling which you have just given, may I ask you whether it is not a fact that if your discretion in the future is merely to be determined by numbers, it would be a criterion which would spell the doom of every minority in the House, including the official Opposition.
  Mr. Speaker: Of course the right hon. Gentleman is right. I would never dream of making my decision on those grounds. What I have to decide is whether a Division is purposeless, and if we are to continue with claims for a Division, whether we are wasting time. Where there is an important debate to follow—on which I am not allowed to express my personal views—I cannot understand the tactics.
  11.45 p.m.
  Mr. Hooson: Further to your ruling on that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If I heard you aright, you laid down as a test whether or not a Division was purposeless. With great respect, how can you judge, save on a quantitative basis? That is what you are purporting to do. With the greatest respect, it does not tie up with the answer you gave in response to the request of my right hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), because the purposelessness of the vote as you defined it seems to be based on quantity and nothing else.
  Mr. Speaker: One of the troubles of my position is that I am invested with great discretions, which I must administer as best I can, I think seldom to the satisfaction of everybody. This is a case in which I am exercising my discretion. I feel that we must get on.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Mellish): On a point of order. I should like to be in a very conciliatory mood. I understand the point of view of the Liberal Party. Individual Members have certain rights, and if they are in any way reduced I can understand their indignation. I understand that Liberal Members want to vote twice more, physically to show their point of view in the Division Lobbies. Speaking as Government Chief Whip, may I respectfully put to the Chair that it would save a great deal of ill-feeling if those two votes were allowed in the proper form, and then we could all end up on a happy note.
  Mr. Speaker: I am delighted to have this interpretation of the Liberal position. May we now get on with Amendment No. 59?
  Mr. Cyril Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If it will help you in giving a ruling, I can confirm that if you were
  1370
  able to accede to the Government Chief Whip's suggestion that would be acceptable to me and my colleagues.
  Mr. Speaker: I am delighted to accept any accommodation of this sort.
  Amendment made: No. 59, in page 9, line 41, leave out subsection (6).—[Mr. Kaufman.]

  Clause 13

    COMPENSATION ORDERS
    Amendments made: No. 60, in page 10, line 23, leave out "the extinguishment or transfer of the rights" and insert:
    "any extinguishing or transfer of rights".
    No. 61 in page 10, line 33 leave out paragraph (c).
    No. 62, in page 10, line 36, leave out from "compensation" to end of line 39 and insert:
    "in respect of the relevant period".
    No. 63, in page 10, line 41, leave out 'liabilities' and insert:
    'rights, liabilities or incumbrances'.
    No. 64, in page 10, line 43, at end insert:
    'and in paragraph (d) above "the relevant period" means—

    "(i) in relation to capital or assets, the period commencing with the date on which the capital or assets vest in the Board or the Secretary of State or their or his nominees and ending with the date of payment of compensation; and

    (ii) in relation to rights, liabilities and incumbrances, the period commencing with the date on which they are extinguished and ending on the date of payment'—[Mr. Kaufman.]

  Clause 14

    FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE UNDER INDUSTRY ACT 1972 FOR BODIES CORPORATE WHICH MAKE PLANNING AGREEMENTS
    Amendments made: No. 65, in page 11, line 17, leave out from beginning to second 'a' in line 18 and insert 'When'.
    No. 66, in page 11, line 25, leave out from 'than' to 'and' in line 26 and insert:

    '(i) the percentage which is the prescribed percentage at the date of the planning agreement, or

    (ii) in the case of a project which was also identified in a previous planning agreement,

    1371
    the percentage which was the prescribed percentage at the date of that agreement,'.

    No. 67, in page 11, line 43, at end insert:
    '(2A) When a body corporate makes a planning agreement, the Secretary of State shall lay a statement that the body corporate has made such an agreement before each House of Parliament'.
    No. 68, in page 11, line 44, leave out subsection (3).—[Mr. Kaufman.]

  Clause 16

    INCREASE IN LIMIT ON CREDITS
    Amendment proposed: No. 72, in page 13, line 13, leave out from 'installations)' to 'for' in line 15.—[Mr. Kaufman.]
    Question put forthwith, That the amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 199, Noes 14.

    Division No. 260.]

    AYES

    [11.50 p.m.

    Allaun, Frank

    Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

    Molloy, William

    Archer, Peter

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

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Garrett, John (Norwich S)

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Ashton, Joe

    Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

    Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

    Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

    George, Bruce

    Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Gilbert, Dr John

    Newens, Stanley

    Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

    Golding, John

    Noble, Mike

    Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

    Gourlay, Harry

    O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

    Bates, Alf

    Graham, Ted

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Bean, R. E.

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Ovenden, John

    Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

    Grant, John (Islington C)

    Owen, Dr David

    Bishop, E. S.

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Palmer, Arthur

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Hardy, Peter

    Park, George

    Booth, Albert

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Parker, John

    Boothroyd, Miss Betty

    Hart, Rt Hon Judith

    Phipps, Dr Colin

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

    Hatton, Frank

    Prescott, John

    Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

    Hayman, Mrs Helene

    Price, C. (Lewisham W)

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Hooley, Frank

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

    Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

    Richardson, Miss Jo

    Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

    Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Buchan, Norman

    Huckfield, Les

    Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

    Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Rodgers, George (Chorley)

    Campbell, Ian

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Rodgers, William (Stockton)

    Canavan, Dennis

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Rooker, J. W.

    Carmichael, Neil

    Hunter, Adam

    Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Clemitson, Ivor

    Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

    Ryman, John

    Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

    Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

    Sandelson, Neville

    Cohen, Stanley

    John, Brynmor

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Coleman, Donald

    Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

    Selby, Harry

    Conlan, Bernard

    Jones, Barry (East Flint)

    Shaw, Arnold (llford South)

    Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

    Corbett, Robin

    Kaufman, Gerald

    Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

    Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

    Kerr, Russell

    Sillars, James

    Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

    Kilroy-Silk, Robert

    Silverman, Julius

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Kinnock, Neil

    Skinner, Dennis

    Cryer, Bob

    Lambie, David

    Small, William

    Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

    Lamborn, Harry

    Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Lamond, James

    Spearing, Nigel

    Davidson, Arthur

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Stallard, A. W.

    Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

    Lipton, Marcus

    Stoddart, David

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

    Litterick, Tom

    Stott, Roger

    Deakins, Eric

    Lomas, Kenneth

    Strang, Gavin

    Dean, Joseph (Leeds W)

    Loyden, Eddie

    Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

    de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

    Dempsey, James

    McCartney, Hugh

    Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

    Dormand, J. D.

    MacCormick, lain

    Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    McElhone, Frank

    Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

    Dunn, James A.

    MacFarquhar, Roderick

    Tinn, James

    Dunnett, Jack

    McGuire, Michael (Ince)

    Tomlinson, John

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Mackenzie, Gregor

    Torney, Tom

    Edelman, Maurice

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

    Urwin, T. W.

    Edge, Geoff

    McNamara, Kevin

    Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

    Ellis John (Brigg & Scun)

    Madden, Max

    Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

    Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

    Marks, Kenneth

    Ward, Michael

    English, Michael

    Marquand, David

    Watkinson, John

    Evans, loan (Aberdare)

    Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

    Weitzman, David

    Evans, John (Newton)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    White, Frank R. (Bury)

    Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

    Maynard, Miss Joan

    Whitlock, William

    Fernyhough, Rt Hon E

    Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Mikardo, Ian

    Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

    Flannery, Martin

    Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

    Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

    Wool, Robert

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

    Wrigglesworth, Ian

    Mr. Joseph Harper and

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Young, David (Bolton E)

    Mr. Laurie Pavitt.

    Woodall, Alec

    NOES

    Brotherton, Michael

    Kilfedder, James

    Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

    Freud, Clement

    Pardoe, John

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

    Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

    Steel, David (Roxburgh)

    Mr. A. J. Beith and

    Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

    Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

    Mr. David Penhaligon.

    Question accordingly agreed to.

  Clause 17

    RENEWAL OF GUARANTEES
    Amendment made: No. 73, in page 13, line 17, at beginning insert:
    '( ) In subsections (2) and (6) of that section, after the words "subsection (1)" there shall be inserted the words "or (7A)"'.—[Mr. Varley.]
    Mr. Michael English: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Liberal Party is committed by its own word in this House never to remain after 12 o'clock at night. Surely we should not allow Liberal Members to breach their own word.
    Mr. Cyril Smith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I suggest that you apprise the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) in your ruling that Liberal Members are quite capable of looking after themselves and that if we wanted anyone to help us it would not be the hon. Gentleman to whom we would turn.
    Mr. Speaker: Fortunately this is not a matter for the Chair.
    Amendment proposed, No. 74 in page 13, line 17, leave out "of that section".—[Mr. Kaufman.]
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 208, Noes 13.

    Division No. 261

    AYES

    11.59 p.m.

    Allaun, Frank

    Davidson, Arthur

    Henderson, Douglas

    Archer, Peter

    Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

    Hooley, Frank

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

    Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

    Ashton, Joe

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

    Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

    Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

    Deakins, Eric

    Huckfield, Les

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Dean, Joseph (Leeds W)

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Bain, Mrs Margaret

    de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

    Dempsey, James

    Hunter, Adam

    Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

    Bates, Alf

    Dunn, James A.

    Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

    Bean, R. E.

    Dunnett, Jack

    Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

    Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    John, Brynmor

    Bishop, E. S.

    Edelman, Maurice

    Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Edge, Geoff

    Jones, Barry (East Flint)

    Booth, Albert

    Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Boothroyd, Miss Betty

    English, Michael

    Kaufman, Gerald

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

    Evans, loan (Aberdare)

    Kerr, Russell

    Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

    Evans, John (Newton)

    Kilroy-Silk, Robert

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

    Kinnock, Neil

    Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

    Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

    Lambie, David

    Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Lamborn, Harry

    Buchan, Norman

    Flannery, Martin

    Lamond, James

    Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Campbell, Ian

    Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Canavan, Dennis

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

    Lipton, Marcus

    Carmichael, Neil

    Garrett, John (Norwich S)

    Litterick, Tom

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

    Loyden, Eddie

    Clemitson, Ivor

    George, Bruce

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

    Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

    Gilbert, Dr John

    McCartney, Hugh

    Cohen, Stanley

    Golding, John

    MacCormick, lain

    Coleman, Donald

    Gourlay, Harry

    McElhone, Frank

    Conlan, Bernard

    Graham, Ted

    MacFarquhar, Roderick

    Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    McGuire, Michael (Ince)

    Corbett, Robin

    Grant, John (Islington C)

    Mackenzie, Gregor

    Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

    Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

    Hardy, Peter

    McNamara, Kevin

    Crawford, Douglas

    Harper, Joseph

    Madden, Max

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Marks, Kenneth

    Cryer, Bob

    Hart, Rt Hon Judith

    Marquand, David

    Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

    Hatton, Frank

    Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

    Dalyell, Tarn

    Hayman, Mrs Helene

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Maynard, Miss Joan

    Rodgers, George (Chorley)

    Tinn, James

    Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

    Rodgers, William (Stockton)

    Tomlinson, John

    Mikardo, Ian

    Rooker, J. W.

    Torney, Tom

    Millan, Bruce

    Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

    Urwin, T. W.

    Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

    Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, Itchen)

    Ryman, John

    Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

    Molloy, William

    Sandelson, Neville

    Ward, Michael

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Watkinson, John

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Selby, Harry

    Watt, Hamish

    Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

    Shaw, Arnold (llford South)

    Weitzman, David

    Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

    Silkin, Rt Hon John (Depttord)

    Welsh, Andrew

    Newens, Stanley

    Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

    White, Frank R. (Bury)

    Noble, Mike

    Sillars, James

    Whitlock, William

    Oakes, Gordon

    Silverman, Julius

    Wigley, Dafydd

    O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

    Skinner, Dennis

    Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Small, William

    Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

    Ovenden, John

    Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Owen, Dr David

    Spearing, Nigel

    Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

    Palmer, Arthur

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

    Park, George

    Stallard, A. W.

    Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

    Parker, John

    Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Stoddart, David

    Woodall, Alec

    Phipps, Dr Colin

    Stott, Roger

    Woof, Robert

    Prescott, John

    Strang, Gavin

    Wrigglesworth, Ian

    Price, C. (Lewisham W)

    Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

    Young, David (Bolton E)

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

    Reid, George

    Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Richardson, Miss Jo

    Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

    Mr. J. D. Dormand and

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Thompson, George

    Mr. John Ellis

    Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

    Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

    NOES

    Beith, A. J.

    Penhaligon, David

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Brotherton, Michael

    Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

    Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

    Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Steel, David (Roxburgh)

    Mr. Clement Freud and.

    Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

    Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

    Mr. Geraint Howells.

    Pardoe, John

    Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

    Question accordingly agreed to.

  Clause 19

    RELAXATION OF REQUIREMENTS AS TO APPROVAL OF ACTIVITIES OF THE NATURAL RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
    Amendment proposed, No. 75, in page 14, line 14, at end add:
    'and after that paragraph there shall be added (but not as part of it) the words "and any statutory instrument made by virtue of this subsection shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament"'.—[Mr. Kaufman.]
    Question put forthwith, That the amendment be made:—
    The House proceeded to a Division, and Mr. SPEAKER stated that he thought the "Ayes" had it, and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and who challenged his decision successively to rise in their places; and he declared the "Ayes" had it, three Members only who challenged his decision having stood up.
    Amendment agreed to.

  New Clause 1

    ARBITRATION OF DISPUTES RELATING TO VESTING AND COMPENSATION ORDERS
    '(1) Any dispute to which this section applies shall be determined under Schedule [arbitration] to this Act.
    (2) Where any such dispute has been submitted to a tribunal constituted under that Schedule, any other dispute to which this section applies shall be determined by the same tribunal.
    (3) This section applies to any dispute which arises in connection with a vesting order or a compensation order and to which one of the parties is the Secretary of State, the Board or a body corporate whose share capital has vested by virtue of the order in either of them or in nominees for either of them; and where this section applies to a dispute which arises in connection with an order, it also applies to any dispute which arises in connection with a related order.
    (4) A vesting order and a compensation order are related for the purposes of this section if they relate to the same capital or assets'.—[Mr. Kaufman.]
    Brought up and added to the Bill.

  New Schedule
    ARBITRATION
      PART I

        GENERAL
        Establishment of Tribunal
        1. If a party to a dispute such as is mentioned in subsection (1) of section [Arbitration of disputes relating to vesting and compensation orders] above serves on the other party or parties to the dispute a notice that he wishes the dispute to be determined by arbitration, the Secretary of State shall by order establish a tribunal to determine the dispute and any other dispute such as is mentioned in subsection (2) of that section.
        2. An order under paragraph 1 above shall be laid before each House of Parliament.
        3. A tribunal shall be a court of record and shall have an official seal which shall be judicially noticed.
        4. A tribunal shall, as the Lord Chancellor may direct, either sit as a single tribunal or sit in two or more divisions and, subject to paragraph 5 below, shall, for the hearing of any proceedings, consist of—

        (a) a president who shall be a barrister or solicitor appointed by the Lord Chancellor, and

        (b) two other members appointed by the Secretary of State, one being a person of experience in business and the other being a person of experience in finance.

        5. In its application to proceedings which, by virtue of paragraph 18 below, are to be treated as Scottish proceedings, paragraph 4 above shall have effect with the substitution, for sub-paragraph (a) thereof, of the following sub-paragraph:—
        "(a) a president who shall be an advocate or solicitor who has practised in Scotland and who shall be appointed by the Lord President of the Court of Session".
        6. The members of a tribunal shall hold office for such period as may be determined at the time of their respective appointments and shall be eligible for reappointment but, notwithstanding that the period for which a member was appointed has not expired,—

        (a) a member may, at any time by not less than one month's notice in writing to his appointor, resign his office

        (b) the appointor of a member may declare the office of that member vacant on the ground that he is unfit to continue in his office; and

        (c) if any member becomes bankrupt or makes a composition with his creditors or, in Scotland, if sequestration of a member's estate is awarded or a member makes a trust deed for behoof of his creditors or a composition contract, his office shall thereupon become vacant.

        7. If any member of a tribunal becomes, by reason of illness or other infirmity, temporarily incapable of performing the duties of his office,
        1378
        his appointor shall appoint some other fit person to discharge his duties for any period not exceeding 6 months at any one time, and the person so appointed shall during that period have the same powers as the person in whose place he was appointed.
        8. In this Part of this Schedule, "appointor", in relation to a member of a tribunal means—

        (a) in the case of a member appointed under sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 4 above, the Lord Chancellor or, if paragraph 5 above applies, the Lord President of the Court of Session; and

        (b) in the case of any other member, the Secretary of State.

        9. In Part II of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 and in Part II of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 (bodies of which all members are disqualified), there shall be inserted, at the appropriate place in alphabetical order:—
        "An Arbitration Tribunal established under Schedule (Arbitration) to the Industry Act 1975".
        10. In Part I of Schedule 1 to the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971 (Tribunals under direct supervision of Council on Tribunals) after the entry the first column of which reads "Indemnification of justices and clerks" there shall be inserted the following entry:
        "Industry. 9A. An Arbitration tribunal established under Schedule (Arbitration) to the Industry Act 1975.".
        Staff and expenses
        11. A tribunal may appoint such officers as they consider necessary for assisting them in the proper execution of their duties.
        12.—(1) There shall be paid to members of a tribunal such remuneration (whether by way of salaries or fees) and such allowances as the Secretary of State may, with the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service, determine.
        (2) There shall be paid to any officer appointed under paragraph 11 above and any person to whom proceedings are referred by the tribunal under paragraph 25 below for inquiry and report such remuneration (whether by way of salary or fees) and such allowances as the tribunal may determine.
        (3) The Secretary of State shall pay any such remuneration and allowances and any other expenses of a tribunal shall be defrayed by the Secretary of State out of money provided by Parliament.

      PART II

        PROCEEDINGS
        Proceedings other than Scottish proceedings
        13. Paragraphs 14 to 17 below shall have effect with respect to proceedings of a tribunal other than those which, by virtue of paragraph 18 below, are to be treated as Scottish proceedings.
        14. The provisions of the Arbitration Act 1950 or, in Northern Ireland, the Arbitration Act (Northern Ireland) 1937 with respect to—

        1379

        (a) the administration of oaths and the taking of affirmations,

        (b) the correction in awards of mistakes and errors,

        (c) the summoning, attendance and examination of witnesses and the production of documents, and

        (d) the costs of the reference and award,

        shall with any necessary modifications, apply in respect of such proceedings but, except as provided by this paragraph, the provisions of that Act shall not apply to any such proceedings.
        15. A tribunal may, and if so ordered by the Court of Appeal shall, state in the form of a special case for determination by the Court of Appeal any question of law which may arise in such proceedings.
        16. An appeal shall lie to the Court of Appeal on any question of law or fact from any determination or order of the tribunal with respect to compensation under section 11(3B) above.
        17.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Schedule, the procedure in or in connection with any such proceedings shall be such as may be determined by rules made by the Lord Chancellor by statutory instrument.
        (2) A statutory instrument containing rules made under this paragraph shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
        Scottish proceedings
        18. Where a dispute submitted to a tribunal relates to capital of a body corporate whose principal place of business is situated in Scotland, or assets which are situated in Scotland, then, subject to paragraph 20 below, the proceedings before the tribunal in respect of the dispute shall be treated as Scottish proceedings.
        19. If, at any stage in any proceedings before a tribunal which would not otherwise fall to be treated as Scottish proceedings, the tribunal are satisfied that, by reason of the fact that questions of Scottish law arise or for any other reason, the proceedings ought thereafter to be treated as Scottish proceedings, the tribunal may order that they shall thereafter be so treated and the provisions of this Schedule shall have effect accordingly.
        20. If, at any stage in any proceedings before a tribunal which would otherwise be treated as Scottish proceedings, the tribunal are satisfied that, by reason of the fact that questions of English law arise or for any other reason, the proceedings ought not to be treated as Scottish proceedings, they may make an order that the proceedings shall thereafter not be treated as Scottish proceedings and the proceedings of this Schedule shall have effect accordingly.
        21. In Scottish proceedings a tribunal shall have the like powers for securing the atten-
        1380
        dance of witnesses and the production of documents and with regard to the examination of witnesses on oath and the awarding of expenses as if the tribunal were an arbiter under a submission.
        22. At tribunal may and if so directed by the Court of Session shall state a case for the opinion of that Court on any question of law arising in Scottish proceedings
        23.—(1) An appeal shall lie to the Court of Session on any question of law or fact from any determination or order of the tribunal with respect to compensation under section 11(3)(b) above.
        (2) An appeal shall lie, with the leave of the Court of Session or of the House of Lords, from any decision of the Court of Session under this paragraph, and such leave may be given on such terms as to costs or otherwise as the Court of Session or the House of Lords may determine.
        24.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Schedule, the procedure in or in connection with Scottish preceedings shall be such as may be determined by rules made by the Lord Advicate by statutory instrument.
        (2) A statutory instrument containing rules made under this paragraph shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
        25. Unless the tribunal consider that there are special reasons for not doing so, they shall sit in Scotland for the hearing and determination of any Scottish proceedings
        All proceedings
        26. Every order of a tribunal—

        (a) shall be enforceable in England and Wales and Northern Ireland as if it were and order of the High Court; and

        (b) may be recorded for execution in the books of Council and Session and may be enforced accordingly.

        27. A tribunal may, at any stage in any proceedings before them, refer to a person or persons appointed by them for the purpose any question arising in the proceedings, other than a question which in their opinion is primarily one of law, for inquiry and report, and the report of any such person or persons may be adopted wholly or partly by the tribunal and, if so adopted, may be incorporated in an order of the tribunal'.
        Brought up and added to the Bill.
        It being after Eleven o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.
        Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered Tomorrow.

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT (MEMBERSHIP)
12.12 a.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Mellish): I beg to move,
That Mr. Guy, Barnett, Miss Betty Boothroyd, Mr. Tam Dalyell, Sir Geoffrey de Freitas, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. Tom Ellis, Mr. John Evans, Mr. William Hamilton, Mr. Mark Hughes, Mr. R. C. Mitchell, Mr John Prescott and Mr. Michael Stewart be designated members of the European Parliament:
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.
I move the motion briefly in order that hon. Members, the Liberal Party in particular, may express certain views upon it. I am sure that it will meet the convenience of the House if I listen to what hon. Members have to say and seek to reply towards the end of the debate.
12.13 a.m.
Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I beg leave to oppose the motion.
I hope that the events which have just transpired will leave no one in any doubt that my right hon. and hon. Friends feel intense anger and wish to protest strongly at the way in which this matter has been handled, particularly in another place. I hope to refer to the events which have transpired in the expectation that the Chief Whip, who I understand will reply to the debate, will make some comments on them.
This is one of what is apparently to be several stages by which the two Houses of Parliament appoint the full delegation of 36 Parliamentarians who will represent this country at the European Parliament.
Tonight we are being asked to approve 12 hon. Members of this House from the Government side. Therefore, we are being asked to approve a third of the delegation without any indication of the two-thirds, yet unresolved.
We have had certain indications about the other two-thirds of the delegation which I find profoundly disquieting. For this country to decide its delegation to the European Parliament in instalments while the rest of the delegation is shrouded in mystery is a profoundly unsatisfactory way for either House to operate. For the Government to act in this way is contrary to the spirit and
1382
intentions operated to date by at least seven of our partners in the Community.
During the Committee stage of the European Communities Bill on 14th June, 1972, the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) moved an amendment to the effect that the list of names of proposed representatives of the Houses of Parliament to the European Parliament should be laid in draft form before Parliament and be subject to the approval of the Commons. The then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) made every effort to meet the wishes of the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale and said in the debate:
"If it is the wish of the Committee, the Government are perfectly willing to propose the setting up of a Select Committee to consider the ways in which members could be nominated for the European Assembly. That would provide a full opportunity for views to be expressed and examined. The Select Committee could report to the House, and the report could be debated if the House so wished."—[Official Report, 14th June 1972; Vol. 838, c. 1515].
That undertaking was not sufficient for the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale and when, on 19th December 1972, this House came to appoint the first delegation to the European Assembly, he said:
"Not only should we be discussing the actual selection of Members with which this motion is supposed to deal; we should also be discussing the whole nature of the assembly and the way in which any delegation to such a body should be formed and composed. These matters of general principle should have been discussed by the House."—[Official Report, 19th December 1972; Vol. 848, c. 1258]
I respectfully agree with everything said by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale.
The only Parliament out of step in this matter in the past was the Conservative Government under the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and no one was more critical of them than the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale. I am anxious that the present Government should not fall into the same traps.
The object of the European Assembly is to represent the peoples of Europe. I cannot speak for other minority parties in this House, but I do speak for a party which, whether the House likes it or not, represents 5⅓ million people in this country and, apart from the meetings we have requested, there has been no indication

1383
from the Government about what they have in mind in relation to Liberal representation on the British delegation. It is extraordinary that we should be asked to vote for one-third of the delegation tonight without having any idea of who is to fill the rest of the places.
Because the delegation has to be drawn from both Houses, it is relevant to look at what we are doing here and what is happening in another place. My strictures are almost exclusively for those in another place. I acquit the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr, Mellish) of any discourtesy or unhelpfulness. He is in the position which Lord Greenwood once hypothecated for Lord Butler of promising every form of assistance short of actual help. We hope to remedy that unhappy situation by the end of this debate. But I make no bones about it that the behaviour of the Government in another place has been a plan of deviousness and discourtesy which it would be very difficult to equal.
What is the object of, and what are the purposes which have to be fulfilled in, the European Parliament? We know that there have been many hon. and right hon. Members who have been highly critical of that Parliament. Bearing in mind the number of Labour Members who were anxious at least to be considered for membership of that Parliament we may take it that much of that opposition has evaporated. There are a few—the last of the Mohicans—who still oppose it, and I pay tribute to them for at least not having put their names forward for inclusion.
The position of the European Parliament is as follows, and it is the view of the secretariat of the European Parliament and is based on the experience of those countries which have been represented in that Parliament. The entitlement to representatives is broadly related to populations of the member countries. The number of representatives per delegation is in no case fewer than six. and entitlement is related to the populations.
Mr. Michael English: Broadly related.
Mr. Thorpe: I would settle for the word "broadly".
Mr. English: Not forgetting Luxembourg.
Mr. Thorpe: The hon. Member should not be too critical of Luxembourg. It has a great contribution to make to the Assembly.
The European Movement published its report on the recommendations to which even that leading Gaullist the right hon. Member for Sidcup has now become converted and in which the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) played a leading rôle. In paragraph 16 it said, interpreting the basis upon which that European Parliament, should be elected:
"The allocation of seats between parties should correspond not to the balance of parties in Westminster but to votes at the previous General Election. This would amount to a 'halfway house' between nomination and a genuine system of direct elections with Proportional Representation."
I merely mention that this has been the basis upon which seven of the other eight have filled their allocations. The French have not made efforts so to do and the British cannot be judged, because one of the major parties has not until now taken up its seats. But there is no question that the basis upon which the membership of that European Parliament is made up is reflective of the votes of the people of those countries.
Mr. English: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point, but he is surely not saying that this was always so.
Mr. Thorpe: I am not, and it was because the Italian Government sought to fill all the places with government representatives that there was what was known as the Hondt Convention which indicated that the Parliament should be representative not only of Governments but, broadly, of opposition parties too. I am therefore in entire agreement with the hon. Member and I am grateful to him for reinforcing my case.
Before I proceed further about the delegation to Europe may I remind the House that at the last General Election the Labour Party polled 11,400,000 votes, the Tory Party polled 10,400,000, the Liberal Party 5,300,000, the SNP 890,000, Plaid Cymru 166,000 and the United Ulster Unionist Coalition 605,000. If the membership of the European Parliament were representative of those votes—and

1385
I am not making that claim since we do not have an electoral system which reflects votes accurately—the position would be 15 Labour, 13 Conservative and seven Liberal representatives, and one SNP and, possibly, one UUUC representative in the European Parliament.
Mrs. Margaret Bain (Dumbartonshire, East): Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that in this situation we must look at the national communities within the United Kingdom? If the Scottish National Party polled that number of votes, which indicates 30 per cent, support within Scotland, surely Scotland is entitled to more representatives within Europe than the Liberal Party, which polled only 8 per cent. of the votes in Scotland.
Mr. Thorpe: I have always taken the view, following the last election, that the Scottish National Party should be represented in the European Parliament. I have also taken the view that there should be direct elections to the European Parliament, so that there is an opportunity for the people of Wales, of the north-east, of Yorkshire or of the west country to be represented on a territorial basis. If the Labour Party is becoming converted to the idea of consulting the people, I welcome that.
The Liberal Party, which, if I am not being indelicate, polled nearly six times the number of votes polled by the Scottish National Party, is a United Kingdom party, yet it is proposed that the Liberal seats should be cut from two to one. [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] There is plenty of time. Government supporters should have patience. We have waited long enough for the Labour Party to become converted to Europe.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: The right hon. Gentleman has quoted figures. Does he take cognizance of the fact that although he said that seven of the participating countries are sending their delegations in the manner which he has described—on the ratio of their popular vote in the country—the situation in this country is different? Although the right hon. Gentleman favours proportional representation, Members of Parliament are elected on the basis of single member constituencies. If there is any substance in the argument of having representation
1386
according to the popular vote, why does not the right hon. Gentleman demand, on behalf of the Liberal Party the same number of Members on all the Committees of this House—or do the Members of the Liberal Party not wish to man the Committees?
Mr. Thorpe: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He never loses the common touch. [HON. MEMBERS: "You gave way to him."] It is true that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman. The courtesy shown by the hon. Gentleman overcame me.
I reply in two ways. In this House the number of Members of Parliament has not always been the determining factor. The most recent example was what I might loosely call the "Short money", which was determined on the basis not only of membership in this House but of votes in the country. But Mr. Speaker has a difficult task to perform. Mr. Speaker takes account not merely of the numbers of Members of Parliament but the fact that the Liberal Party is a United Kingdom party. In debates on Scotland the interests of the Scottish National Party are considered. To say that we are merely determining matters upon the outcome of a General Election, in which votes are distorted in terms of seats, is a travesty of the fact.
The hon. Gentleman asked why the Liberals were not represented on every Committee. The Liberal Party represents 5⅓ million people but, with only 13 Members of Parliament, it is fully stretched.
I do not believe that the present electoral system is exclusively the determinant of manning Committees, of being called in the House, of representation at the European Parliament, or of representation in another place. I could give a host of examples. That is one of the few ways in which the official channels seek to redress something of the imbalance of our electoral system in this country.
When in 1973 the initial delegations were appointed, there were 18 Conservative Members, there were 15 Labour places offered—that was thought to be the appropriate number by the Prime Minister of the day—there were two Liberals, and one Independent. The suggestion now put forward is that the

1387
Liberal delegation should be cut from two to one. I use the word "suggestion" advisedly, because at no stage has there been any indication from the Government as to what figure they have in mind.
There have been occasions when I have asked the Government if we could have the matter discussed. One has been received with great courtesy, but there has never been any indication as to the numbers they have in mind. But there have been rumours that the Liberal delegation should be cut from two to one, to celebrate the fact that the party which had six MPs in 1973, and two million votes, now has 13 MPs and five million votes. I do not think this is right. There have been a series of rumours. There has been nothing firm. I am placed in this difficulty and it has been accentuated by the behaviour in another place. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) is one of the two Liberal delegates in the Assembly. He has served on the Regional Committee and has to date been the sole representative from Scotland. He is also the foreign affairs spokesman of the Liberal Party.
Mr. Peter Kirk: Mr. John Brewis served from this House as a representative from Scotland until the last election, and by hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Mr. Corrie) has been a representative for Scotland since then.
Mr. Thorpe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I accept that point. There have been two representatives from Scotland. I am sorry if I failed to mention his two hon. Friends.
The other delegate has been my noble Friend Lord Gladwyn. Whether the House agrees or disagrees with his views, one can at least claim that he has some considerable distinction. He was the first President of the Security Council of the United Nations. He is a former Ambassador to Paris. He is Vice-President of the first Political Committee, he is the rapporteur of the Defence Resolution which is to be discussed in October, and he is the foreign affairs spokesman of the Liberal group.
Having read reports that it is the Government's intention so to devise the delegation that the Liberals will be cut to
1388
one, with 16 Tories, 18 Labour Members and one from the SNP, I asked whether I might discuss the matter with the Prime Minister. It was obviously confidential. The Prime Minister was courteous and helpful, and sought, I think, to put forward a proposal which, had it been successful, might have resolved this particular problem, but it was not feasible. Since then there has been no word whatsoever from the Government.
On Thursday afternoon my noble Friend the Leader of the Liberal peers, Lord Byers, went to see the Lord Privy Seal, the noble Lord Shepherd, to say that there were rumours that the Government were going to resolve this matter simply by putting down a motion on the Order Paper, and asked whether it would be possible at least to speak to the noble Lord before anything happened. The noble Lord found it impossible to make contact with my noble Friend until nine o'clock the next morning, by which time my noble Friend Lord Gladwyn, and everybody else, had been told on the radio that a delegation of ten was to be appointed—six noble Lords from the Labour benches, and four noble Lords from the Conservative benches. What transpired, therefore, was that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn and the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, were automatically dropped, and the first they heard about it was on the radio.
If we can believe what is in the newspapers—because no one has said anything else about it—there are to be 12 hon. Members from the Labour side, 12 from the Conservative side, one Liberal and one from the SNP, making a total of 26. The fact that there are ten peers means that there will be no vacancies for anybody else.
I find it staggering, first, that we should never have been consulted. The Government simply put down a motion the effect of which was to discharge an existing member of the delegation, without any consultation. I assume that the Government must have consulted the Tory Party, because two Tory Peers were dropped. Unless the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, carried out his axe on the Tory delegation as he did on our own delegation from another place, I assume that the Tory Party was consulted. If it were not, it makes it even worse.

1389
Even on the basis that the Liberal delegation was cut to one, the Government might, as a matter of courtesy, have asked which of our two delegates we wished to retain.
Therefore, I think that this matter has been handled appallingly. The Government have decided simply on numbers. They have been close. They have not told anyone what they have decided. They have simply used the Order Paper in another place to announce which delegate they will drop.
I say to the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) may not like it, but there is a queue of Labour Members who are crawling to get into the European Parliament. There is a queue of 50 Labour Members seeking to get in. The hon. Gentleman may not be on the list. But there are 50 who, having said that it is the most appalling disease, are trying to get inoculated with it as soon as possible.
There would be no British delegation in the European Parliament if it had not been for the Liberal vote in this House on the European Communities Bill when the Tories were in power, and this Government would not have got a majority in the House approving the renegotiated terms if it had not been for the Tory and Liberal votes, and they know it.
We Liberals happen to mind about Europe. Unlike some in this House, we happen to have been totally consistent from the beginning. I think that I am the only Member of this House to have been attacked physically on the issue of Europe. One of my hon. Friends was spat at by one hon. Lady in the Labour Party for whom one might find a charitable explanation.
All that I say is that it is an outrage that, when the European Parliament seeks to represent the peoples of Europe, this is the moment when the Government, without consultation, take the representation of one of the minority parties in this country and cut it in half and, what is more, decide which one to jettison.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman would mind repeating what he said just now? Am I right in thinking that he said that there was a queue of 50 Labour
1390
Members wishing "to crawl into Europe"?
Mr. Thorpe: The hon. Lady is wholly correct in that, following the referendum in which a majority of the Parliamentary Labour Party expressed themselves against the concept of Britain's continued membership of the European Community because they opposed all that it stood for, they opposed the European Assembly as being parasites, as being a talking shop and as being an expensive luxury, the Government had no difficulty in finding 50 hon. Ladies and hon. Gentlemen overnight who were queueing up to be part of the Labour delegation. If the hon. Lady asks whether I believe that the word "crawling" is the proper verb, may I say that it was the verb which I chose to use, and that I do not seek to retract it.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Would the right hon. Gentleman not accept that it is not for his party to take upon themselves the honour of deciding who shall represent the British people in an assembly that is not an elected assembly? He must accept that those who have different views still represent a good many people in this Island and will continue to speak their minds without needing to crawl anywhere.
Mr. Thorpe: I would prefer that no one in this House decided who represented us in Europe. I should prefer the British people to decide it by direct elections. I hope that by 1978 we shall have direct elections, as the hon. Lady will discover.
The hon. Lady is saying that there will be people on that delegation who are opposed to the concept of Europe, that they are entitled to be there and that they will make their views heard. I entirely agree. There are 5⅓ million people who voted Liberal and they, equally, are entitled to be heard and represented in that Parliament. I am not even asking that they should be represented in proportion to the vote which we got, which would entitle us to seven seats. I am merely saying that having polled 2 million votes, having six Members of Parliament and having been represented by two Members—one from this House and one from another place—I believe that it would be manifestly unfair for that allocation to be cut. With 13 MPs and 5⅓

1391
million votes behind us, I believe that I can carry the hon. Lady with me in saying that that is a reasonable assertion.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Is it in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the right hon. Member for some obscure constituency in Devon to describe Labour Members as crawling into Europe and to imply that some of us actually applied to go to the European Parliament although we made no such application? Nor have we made any application to London and Counties Securities Ltd.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): The right hon. Gentleman takes responsibility for his own speech, but I have heard many worse expressions than "crawling".
Mr. Thorpe: If I have in any way offended the well-known sensibilities of the hon. Gentleman, of course I express my condolences. If his contempt for my constituency is such as he has indicated, it may explain why the Labour Party so often loses its deposit.
In case the hon. Gentleman did not hear, I expressly excluded him from the list of those who queued up to go to Europe because I know that there is no keener or more forthright supporter of the manifesto than the hon. Gentleman and I know that he is not among those who wish to go to Europe. Indeed, I should have been profoundly surprised if he were.
I hope that the Government will realise that in this House there are not two parties but six. Apart from the two major parties, the other four parties represent 7 million people in this country. They are entitled to be consulted. The irony of this situation is that the way in which the Liberal Party is being treated comes at the precise moment when this country, having joyfully welcomed the somersault of 1962 from this side, has welcomed the somersault of 1974 from that side. At last the Labour Party has confirmed its membership of the Community, which I welcome.
I want our delegation to be representative of the people of this country and I do not believe that the way in which the Government are carving it up—no doubt with talks with the Opposition—is the way to go about it.
1392
There is much to look at in the figures which the right hon. Member for Sidcup thought to be the correct apportionment between the Government, the Opposition and the minorities, and that might well be a starter for the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Whip. I agree with the Secretary of State for Employment that this is a matter on which we should appoint a Select Committee.
To have one-third of the delegation appointed from this House, for the Labour peers to put in a list of Members who they think might get in and then to see what is left over and sweep up the bits is not the way in which the Government and Parliament should appoint their representatives to the European Assembly. It must be representative of the people.
For that reason I hope that the Government will consider taking the advice of the Secretary of State for Employment and set up a Select Committee. If they do that at least they will approach the problem as good Europeans—which I hope they are now intending to be—and prevent a grave injustice not only to the Liberal Party but to the principles upon which the members of the European Assembly are empanelled. For these reasons I protest at the way the Government have behaved, particularly in another place, and I look to the right hon. Gentleman to see that justice is done.
12.46 a.m.
Mr. Maurice Edelman: The theme of the debate is parliamentary democracy, and I do not apologise for detaining my hon. Friends for a few minutes in pursuing that subject. The importance of the theme is illustrated by the presence in large numbers of my hon. Friends and, indeed, of the Liberal Party, but I find it contemptible that so few Tories have turned up to discuss a matter which should be of as much importance to them as it is to the rest of us.
I declare a negative interest in this subject. I am not one of those who submitted his name for inclusion in the list of delegates to Strasbourg, and I can therefore take a clinical interest in the subject. At the same time, I have a great deal of sympathy for the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) in his

1393
indignation at having had his delegation cut by 50 per cent. After all, the cut was made as a result of a process of consultative patronage.
The essence of the nomination of delegates to Strasbourg is laid down in Article 138(1) of the Treaty of Rome, which states:
"delegates who shall be designated by the respective Parliaments from among their members in accordance with the procedure laid down by each Member State."
The significance of that Article of the Treaty of Rome is that the nomination of delegates should be a matter for Parliaments and not for Governments. In other words, the less the patronage involved in the nomination of members the greater the degree of democracy that is achieved.
Mr. Cyril Smith: The hon. Gentleman spoke of the procedure to be followed by the nominating country. Will he explain the procedure to a simpleminded person like myself? Some of us know our limitations and are prepared to admit them. Others pretend to have qualities that they do not have. We are talking not about how many Members shall go to Strasbourg but the procedure to be followed to determine that number. One of our major concerns is that no procedure is laid down.
Mr. Edelman: It is for the Chief Whip to reply to that question. I found a formula for it when I referred to a system of consultative patronage, which is the way in which this delegation has emerged.
In reply to what the right hon. Gentleman said about the nature of the delegation, I say at once that the delegation which has emerged and which is named on the Order Paper is an admirable one. It covers a broad spectrum of attitudes and ideas about Europe. I find it in no sense a disadvantage that among those listed there are men and women who have been opposed to the European idea. The remarkable thing is that the air and hospitality of Strasbourg have a rapidly Europeanising effect. It is extraordinary how many delegates who arrive at the Council of Europe, for example, as bitter anti-Europeans return enthusiastically European.
Mr. Thorpe: I have not sought to criticise the individual members of the delegation. That is not for me to do. I
1394
have said how extraordinary it was that there was a very long queue—[HON. MEMBERS: "Crawlers."]—Yes, crawling indeed. Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is very odd to appoint a delegation of 36 by instalments? That is all that I am saying.
Mr. Edelman: Let us deal first with the nature of the delegation. Whilst presumably a considerable number of the 47 applicants for membership of the delegation were anti-Marketeers, I see no reason why they should not seek to present their views and attitudes at Strasbourg, especially in a post-referendum climate. I see nothing dishonourable in such hon. Members proposing themselves for inclusion in the delegation. I am sure that out of the general discussion there will emerge a synthesis of opinion which can only redound to the honour and wisdom of the British delegation.
I have been for many years a pro-Marketeer, but I hope that after tonight no more base motives will be imputed to those who took an anti-Market point of view.
Mr. William Molloy: Does my hon. Friend agree that what the Liberals have been arguing tonight is that it is quite all right for them to use a political system of which they strongly disapprove in order to enter this Parliament but they do not allow such liberalism to other people to join an organisation approved by the people but which some were not in favour of? Hence we have had from the Leader of the Liberal Party views reaching almost the pinnacle of hypocrisy.
Mr. Edelman: It is not my purpose to accuse the Leader of the Liberal Party of hypocrisy. On the contrary, if the composition of the delegation to Strasbourg were determined by honourable consistency in support of the European idea, in the face of much opposition, the Liberal Party and its leader would be entitled to a much larger representation than they have. I am obliged to concede that, in fairness.
But I was astonished that the right hon. Gentleman deployed an argument ad hominem. One of his major arguments was in favour of Lord Gladwyn, a most distinguished European, whose honours were listed by the right hon. Gentleman.

1395
Lord Gladwyn has consistently fought for the Common Market. His ideas on Europe have become the common currency of discussion throughout Europe. Yet the argument that any individual may be indispensable was long ago refuted by M. Clemenceau, when he said that the cemeteries were full of indispensable men. That argument could well be applied to any individual whose case was argued in the House. The matter cannot be resolved by arguing the merit of any individual, however distinguished.
The fact is that the real matter which we should consider is not so much what the merits or even the demerits of individuals may be, but what is the method of selection. That is ultimately the matter that must be decided.
If I could attract the attention of my right hon. Friend the Government Chief Whip, I should like to turn to one aspect of that matter. In these matters of selection and patronage, we ought to consider the democratic or anti-democratic nature, for example, of some of those delegates who are drawn from their Lordships' House. It is extraordinary to note how many of them have been failed candidates at the hustings in the country generally. Having failed at the hustings they were then sent to the House of Lords. Having arrived there, they are given a further degree, so to speak, in anti-democratic practice, by being directed to Strasbourg, where they then become Members of Parliament for Europe.
I ask the Patronage Secretary whether that is his conception of democracy or whether it is what was meant when we fought for a referendum in order to establish the democratic right of the people to assert their case.
I say that because it is time that we woke up to some of the realities of patronage and the way in which it is exercised and distributed like confetti over a broad range of those who come to the altar in order to enjoy the benefits of political matrimony. They are there now possessed of this gradual elevation. This is the continuing process of antidemocracy—first to the House of Lords, then the Council of Europe, and finally ending up as Members of Parliament for
1396
Europe. What a rise and what an accession! We should look at this matter very carefully.
That is why, when I said that this was an important debate for parliamentary democracy, I meant not only the fact that the Liberals may feel perhaps justly and deeply aggrieved but, much more profoundly, that more and more the system of patronage has been reaching out fingers into public life. Systems of governmental intervention have had their camp followers, who followed in order to pick up the available pickings.
In looking at the motion we must concern ourselves with the essence of what parliamentary democracy is, how it is applied and whether the bad old days which Walpole knew in such abundance are not returning. I believe very firmly that if we are to have any kind of European Parliament, that Parliament should be elected by direct vote and involve direct representation. That is the only way in which we can have a popular vote.
Those of us on the Government side of the House who supported through our manifesto the idea of the referendum should say to ourselves that even if this particular list of people is accepted on this occasion, it should encourage us to urge more strongly for the future that there should be a system of direct representation and direct elections. Only then shall we be able to have a real European Parliament.
12.59 a.m.
Mr. Douglas Henderson: I wish to say how concerned and surprised I am with the way in which the selection of hon. Members on the list has been dealt with by the Government.
Listening to the recital given by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party, I appreciated how much easier the original selection must have been, because then the Labour Party was in Opposition and took the view, quite properly, that it felt that it could not participate in this European Assembly until there had been a fair vote on the subject by the people—a view with which my hon. Friends and I entirely agree. At that time it was also relatively simple in that there were basically three

1397
parties in the House whereas now there are several more.
I can appreciate the difficulties which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and his colleagues have had in dealing with this situation. However, the point has been reached when there has been just too much rumour and confusion and too much newspaper speculation, which I had hoped that the Parliamentary Secretary would clarify when he moved the motion tonight.
Let me make my position clear. I did not wish to apply to go to the European Parliament. In fact, my party has had great problems trying to persuade one of its Members to go. However, we have decided that with the referendum decision behind us it is right that we should be entitled to a voice in Europe. Therefore, we have made a nomination. As an independent country Scotland would be entitled to 10 representatives in the EEC Assembly. On that basis I think that our request for one representative is modest and in keeping with the way in which we conduct ourselves in this House and in the country.
Mr. David Steel: The hon. Gentleman has said that his party has made a nomination. Was the hon. Gentleman's party invited to submit a nomination? The Liberal Party did not receive such an invitation.
Mr. Henderson: I do not intend to contradict myself when I say that we behave in a modest way, but I was totally immodest in that I wrote to the Government Chief Whip and submitted a nomination to him. I hope that clears up that point.
Mr. Steel: Was an assurance given?
Mr. Henderson: In response to the hon. Gentleman's remark from a sedentary position, no assurance has been given to us by anyone.
Tonight we expect the Government Chief Whip to clear up the confusion and to make the basis of representation quite clear. We expect him to make it clear whether my hon. Friends are to be represented.
Mr. Russell Johnston: There were Press reports that the Leader
1398
of the House had offered the hon. Gentleman's party a place. Is that true?
Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman should know that Press reports are a poor basis on which to base decisions of that kind. The question can be answered categorically, unlike the answers that we tend to get at Question Time. The answer is "No".
We are in the unfortunate situation that part of this matter has to be dealt with in another place. There is the difficulty of understanding the implications of what is being done or not being done in another place. I would have thought that the Government could introduce one motion with a list of names representing those Members who were to be nominated. That would have made the position clear from the start.
I confidently expect that when the Government Chief Whip sums up he will put all this speculation to rest. I hope that in his usual blunt and forthright manner he will explain the position in exact terms.
1.3 a.m.
Mr. Russell Johnston: I make no bones about this matter. I think that what has happened has been utterly shameful. What the Government have said, as has been described by the leader of my party, is a disgrace in itself. But much more important than that is the complete failure to adjust to the fact that we are in a new situation and about to send a full delegation to a Parliament which will be a permanent feature of the representative democracy of this country.
The hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Edelman) has pointed out that the nub of the question is how the delegation is selected. The Conservative Opposition have connived with the Government in the attitude that they have adopted. The Conservative Opposition's posture in all this has been utterly extraordinary. I am amazed that the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk) should sit on the Conservative Front Bench and not raise his voice once on the matter despite the fact that we have served with him in the European Parliament these past two-and-a-half years. Furthermore, the Conservative Party has not raised its voice in this matter.
How is the delegation selected? The Government's original commitment was

1399
that they were entitled to have a majority of 19 out of 36. But the European Parliament is not a place for governments; it is a place for representatives of the people of Europe.
The Governments of the Community have their places and vetoes in the Council of Ministers. That is where the national interest is safeguarded—not in the European Parliament. [An HON. MEMBER: "What has the European Parliament done?"] Let me tell the House what it has done by quoting the spokesman of the Social Democratic Group at the European Parliament when we debated direct elections at the beginning of the year. This is what was said in the European Parliament debate by the spokesman of the Social Democratic Group, Mr. Schmidt:
"There are politicians in Europe who feel that the European Parliament will probably never have sufficient powers for effective supervision of the enormous organisation which has arisen here. There are some who say that it would be better to let parliamentary sovereignty remain with the national parliaments. I should like to point out that whoever says this has failed to recognise the slow undermining of democracy, the quiet sapping of the powers of the national parliaments and their replacement by unsupervised actions, by an impenetrable jungle. Decisions involving sums of thousands of millions are taken without any democratic supervision. Anyone who pleads for the retention of the sovereignty of the national parliaments, even in a European context, is essentially attacking parliamentary supervision. This is something which we Socialists cannot accept. What we need is adequate democratic supervision, since the only Europe which has a future is a Europe with democratic structures. This is what we want …".
That speech was greeted by what is called "Loud applause". But on the subject of what would be achieved, the view was that the situation was different because clearly the Community is composed of countries of different sizes. There is an obvious difficulty in regard to meetings in Luxembourg and Mr. Schmidt recognised that problem by saying:
"… if we look at the case of Luxembourg, the proposal does not fully reflect this principle. Wherever a principle is breached, there is a danger spot, and we must ask ourselves how we are to escape from this dilemma. I think there are two things we need: representation which is as fair and balanced as possible on the one hand, and a Parliament which is capable of working on the other."
The call went out for that Parliament to be genuinely representative and for it
1400
not to be made so clumsy that it would not work properly. I ask Labour Members whether they think it right for 5,250,000 Liberal voters to be represented at the European Parliament by only one person. I do not think they can say that it is right.
Mr. Molloy: Does the hon. Gentleman want peers to represent him?
Mr. Johnston: If the hon. Gentleman wants my view on peers, I could dilate for a considerable period of time. I am not particularly in favour of a second Chamber which in part depends on the privilege of luck and in part on the privilege of patronage. However, we must operate within the situation in which we are and that is that we have 13 Members here and we should have, on a proportionate basis, 115. We have to do the work of 115.
Sir Geoffrey de Freitas: Dear, dear.
Mr. Johnston: It is all very well for the right hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas), a nice European with a long record, to say "Dear, dear", but that is the fact of the matter. The trouble with the Liberal Party over many years is that we have been so decent, reasonable, and fair that nobody has taken a blind bit of notice of the fact that we have suffered from a gross injustice. If this is to be carried into the European Parliament, it is time to stop.
Mr. Norman Buchan: I was interested on the point about peers. Will the hon. Gentleman agree—knowing that I have given up quite a lot to oppose the Common Market and that I did not apply to go to the European Parliament—that it would be wrong for any of us in the House to describe others as "crawling" into that place. Will the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) repudiate that term?
Mr. Johnston: It is a phrase which people choose for themselves. They speak for themselves and I am not going to adjudicate on adjectives.—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is a verb."] My grammar is faulty.
The point I had been making was that the situation is grossly unfair. Let me give a further instance of the way in

1401
which this works in practice. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) said, if the British delegation were chosen on the same basis as those from Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Luxembourg, Ireland and Denmark, the breakdown would be 15 Labour, 13 Conservative, seven Liberal and one SNP Member. If the Patronage Secretary and the Government propose that our figure should be one, we shall be six fewer than we would otherwise be. That not only has an effect on Liberal voters in the United Kingdom but a direct effect on the political position of the European Parliament, the views it expresses, the composition of committees, and the composition of groups within it.
The consequence of what the Government do is not only to deprive Liberals and possibly the SNP of votes to which they are entitled but also to reduce the votes of the Liberals in the Community as a whole and to increase unreasonably the votes of both Conservative and Labour. The Conservative Party has been so mute and miserable throughout today. I read in the newspapers that it is Freedom Day, and Freedom Day has been the occasion for a speech at a great rally by the Leader of the Opposition who said that freedom is indivisible. But when it comes to a gross injustice of this sort, we hear nothing from the Conservative Party. It is despicable.
I should like to make a number of individual points on the statement which we all recall the Prime Minister making on 9th June. That statement was rightly intended, to take the country a stage further out of the argument in which we had been bitterly locked into a new situation. The right hon. Gentleman said:
"I hope that… the country as a whole will follow the lead which the Government intend to give in placing past divisions behind us, and in working together to play a full and constructive part in all Community policies and activities."—[Official Report, 9th June 1975; Vol. 893, cc. 29–30.]
Is the way that the delegation has been chosen an example of that?
It has been pointed out that the Labour delegation will consist of some who were for and some who were against entry into the Common Market. I agree that it is reasonable, fair and right to have a balance of different points of view within the Labour Party. But if it is right that the
1402
Labour Party be balanced in that way, how can it possibly be right that such a large section—18.3 per cent.—of the population of the United Kingdom be not represented?
The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) shakes his head, but that is the fact. He may like it or not, but that is the fact. That is the way that our Community partners judge their democracy. In the end this Mother of Parliaments will have much more to learn than to give on questions of democracy within the Community, which is different from what was originally expected. Indeed, the emphasis that was laid on enthusiasm for entry by, for example, the Dutch and the Germans was because of the democratic impetus that we could give to the European Community. It did not work out that way at all. At this rate, it does not look like working out that way either.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: In my own defence, I should point out that I was shaking my head at some wise words of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson), and I missed what the hon. Gentleman was saying.
Mr. Johnston: I should be delighted to repeat what I said for the hon. Gentleman's benefit. But I will rely upon the fact that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson), being wise, will have kept one ear open and will relay it to him.
The Prime Minister, as reported at col. 36, said that the delegation should be representative. I think that is evidence from the Prime Minister that that was the intention of the Government.
There it is. I hope that when the Government discuss and consider this matter between now and Thursday, when I understand the motion comes up in the House of Lords, they will have some second thoughts.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North said that he was not at this instant seeking to effect so revolutionary a change as to have the Liberal Party proportionally represented. All he was seeking to do at this stage was to ensure that we were not so badly treated as, quite astonishingly, it seem we would be.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Does my hon. Friend agree that the situation would be greatly assisted if the Government were to withdraw the motion, pending the decision in another place on Thursday, so that we could know more clearly what is the position? If they were to do that, the kind of discussion that he has mentioned could then take place.
Mr. Johnston: I entirely agree, but it is not a proposal that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury is likely to accept and I do not believe in asking for something which is out of the question.
I trust that the points that I have made will be borne in mind by hon. Members on the other side of the House who are concerned about democracy and fair play. I know there are a great many of them.
1.21 a.m.
Mr. Michael English: The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) has just illustrated to perfection how much better he speaks on European issues than does the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe).
I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Devon, North was aware of it, but during his speech, I could hear mutterings, not necessarily adverse, from my hon. Friends behind me. What they said could be approximately translated as meaning that the right hon. Gentleman spoiled what might have been a good case. At one point, he sounded like little Jerry whose rattle had been taken away and at another he made what seemed a perfectly fair point that he was leader of his party and had not been consulted about which of two people should be dropped from the delegation. No doubt my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury will answer that point if it is valid.
I think the right hon. Member for Devon, North offended the House when he equated acceptance of the majority verdict of the people with crawling. He spoke about democracy and about this Parliament in relation to European Parliaments. I do not understand how he can equate them because ours is the only Parliament of which half is not elected. This Parliament is rather odd, and it sounded extremely odd for the right hon. Member for Devon, North
1404
to be defending democracy on the basis that Lord Gladwyn should be at the European Parliament. He said that Lord Gladwyn was once President of the Security Council, but that was for Mr. Attlee's Government, not for the Liberal Party.
Mr. Thorpe: I do not see what the hon. Gentleman's remarks have to do with the matter. The noble Lord was also a High Commissioner under a Macmillan Government. What has that to do with it?
Mr. English: If the right hon. Gentleman looks back at his speech he will see he was trying to take the past history of Lord Gladwyn and fit it in with his Liberal present. It comes peculiarly from those who make this point about a Member of another place to preach democracy. The other place is not democratic.
I would prefer us to send 36 delegates, all of whom were from the House of Commons, and not have Lord Gladwyn, or any other Labour, Conservative or independent peer on the delegation.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: Not even Lord George-Brown.
Mr. English: The hon. Member for Inverness made an extremely good speech and it would have been better for his party if it had been the only speech from those benches.
The idea that the Liberal Party should be represented in proportion to its votes is another odd idea because, again, it is not votes but Parliaments which are supposed to be represented in the European Assembly.
We have a Parliament which is elected in a particular way. I know what is worrying the Liberals. They have been going around for a week protesting that if there is only one Liberal and one Member of the SNP, this might reveal to the European Assembly that there are actually more Nationalists in this House than Liberals.
What is the Liberal European Assembly proposals in the present draft convention on direct elections for 1978? The right hon. Member for Devon, North may not realise it, but a lot of my hon. Friends believe in direct elections to the European Assembly as well and they are by no means necessarily those who believed that

1405
Britain should remain in the EEC. They might be former anti-Marketeers whose objection to the Community was that it was undemocratic and that we should like it to be democratic. Hon. Members of all convictions on the Government side, supported by hon. Members of all convictions on the Government side, supported by hon. Members of all convictions on the Opposition side, might believe in that, but the draft convention says that in 1978 elections for the European Assembly sould be determined by each member State as it wishes. The implication is that in each member State an electoral law should be passed by the State Parliament to provide for an Assembly directly elected according to the normal electoral laws of those States.
Mr. Russell Johnston: The hon. Member is right. Mr. Patijn, the Dutch Socialist, dodged the question of a system of direct elections, according to a common electoral system to the Euorpean Paliament by 1978. The hon. Member has been talking about democracy. Does he concede that if there were a system of direct elections Britain's allocation would would be 67 and that if that allocation took place under our system it is possible that the Liberty Party would win the same number of votes as now but get no seats? Is that democratic?
Mr. English: It is as democratic as is the system under which the whole of the East Midlands would be entitled to five seats, one per county, whereas Luxembourg, with only perhaps one third the population of the East Midlands, would be entitled to six.
I have no doubt that the day after the first Assembly elections, if we have them in 1978, the Liberal Party will be saying, "We did not get elected". That party had its chance when it was in a majority in this House. It was in favour of our present system then. The moment it ceased to hold a majority here it ceased to favour the system.
The extraordinary assumption that the right hon. Member for Devon, North made was that we should automatically take what is usual in Europe as our guide. He should say that to his own party first, because it advocates not the normal sort of PR system which is used in the Netherlands. Denmark or Scandinavia, but the system which is used only in
1406
Northern Ireland and which has produced the opposite result to that desired by the people there in the last three elections. In each of those elections the Government who were elected suffered a decline in their share of the vote.
Mr. Stephen Ross: Does the hon. Member accept that the Irish Republic had a referendum on the subject of changing its voting system and that the people chose to keep it?
Mr. English: I was referring to the electoral system advocated by the Liberal Party. The result of that referendum was much the same as ours. However, I shall not weary the House with that small point.
I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman was sincere. If he believed in democracy he would not have referred to Lord Gladwyn, nor would he have spoken so much about the composition of this delegation. He would have made greater reference to the future.
1.30 a.m.
Sir Raymond Gower: I agree with those hon. Members who said that many troubles had arisen as a result of the manner in which the European Parliament delegation was formed. We should look forward to the day when there is some system of election.
I do not agree with those who have suggested that it is objectionable for us to make use of the resources of Parliament in forming delegations. Many demands are made by Committees on the manpower in the House. It is sensible in those circumstances to make up the representation from this Parliament using some of the manpower available in the other place, which is part of the constitutional Parliament. The procedure is sensible and we find no objection to it. A large number of Members of the other place are persons of great experience in our political life who have given long service to the House. Many of those people can be used with great advantage in this situation.
I hope that the Government will explain why this matter has been managed in such a hamfisted way. Whatever the merits of the argument about the size of the Liberal component, it is apparent that the matter has been badly managed. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will

1407
reassure us on that point. From the evidence which I have acquired as a result of reading about this, a good deal of discourtesy is involved. I am sure that is not desirable in matters of this kind.
I accept that the Government deem it desirable to have a majority of members of the delegation. Surely, this is not vital in this context. This is a new venture. The previous Liberal representation of two members was small. Was it necessary to reduce it to one member? That seems a footling step to take. I hope that the Government will look again at this matter. I cannot applaud the fact that the small Liberal representation has been reduced.
1.34 a.m.
Mr. Emlyn Hooson: The method and the result of the appointment of the delegation to the European Parliament does no credit to our democracy. I am certain that no Government supporter will be proud of the manner in which this is being done, or of the result.
The Government thought it necessary to consult the people in a referendum to decide whether to stay in Europe. Thereafter to deny a large segment of that population its proper voice in Europe takes some answering in a democracy.
As the Opposition have stated the case clearly, I wish to devote myself to one small point. I address the question to the Patronage Secretary. There must have been considerable negotiations between the Government and Opposition Front Bench Members through the usual channels on the question of the delegation. In 1972 the then Prime Minister, now the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), offered 15 seats to the Labour Party. Eighteen seats were retained for the Conservative Party, two seats were allocated to the Liberal Party and one seat was allocated to an independent peer. Why has the Conservative Party retained 18 seats? That is wrong. It is impossible to justify the contention on any rational or democratic basis, that a party which gained over 5 million votes should have its representation cut from two seats to one seat.
Not one Member opposite has given any justification for this, and I think that the Patronage Secretary should disclose
1408
what negotiations have taken place between the two Front Benches. If one thing stands out a mile in this debate it is that the Conservative Party officially—except for the helpful contribution of the hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower)—has remained silent. The Conservatives are in a conspiracy of silence to ensure that the Liberal delegation is cut to one. They are not prepared to make any gesture at all. I think that the country has a right to know what negotiations have taken place, because the net result of all this reflects no glory on this Government or on democracy in this country nor does the fact that it should ensue in this kind of way.
1.36 a.m.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: I want briefly to comment on one or two points arising more out of the motion than out of the complaints of the Liberal Party. This is an example of some of the difficulties in which we find ourselves on a number of occasions concerning the European Assembly.
As to the matter of delegation numbers, that is for the Patronage Secretary, but I think that some of the things said by Liberal Members can be questioned. I understand their feelings about their 5 million votes and the number of seats they have in the House, but I remind the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) that he represents the people of his constituency just as every other hon. Member represents all the people in his constituency, whichever way they may have voted, or even if they did not vote at all.
That is the fundamental basis of parliamentary democracy in the United Kingdom. We come here as hon. Members first, whatever our party allegiance.
In so far as I have been able to understand it, the organisation of the European Assembly does not operate entirely on that basis. There is a greater emphasis on the party and on the party group. I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman nods his head.
This different form of operation will cause difficulties. One of the reasons that I opposed our joining the Common Market was that I could not see how some of the institutional arrangements that exist on the mainland of Europe and those that we have in the United Kingdom

1409
could be joined together without severe difficulties. I think that we are seeing one or two of them tonight.
Another example is the word "delegation" that has been inaccurately bandied around the House. We have used it in a sense in which everybody has accepted it, but I venture to suggest that the Members comprising the delegation are not delegates at all. We are not able to mandate them, and so far as I know they do not report back to this House by laying a report on the Table with the Clerk, in the manner of a Standing Committee or Select Committee. There is no machinery whereby they may do this. Yet nobody has raised this in the discussions we have had about the EEC.
I understand that on Monday next there is to be a debate in the European Assembly on the Political Affairs Committee Draft Interim Report on European Union. Some of the hon. Members who may be appointed tonight will have to decide whether they should support certain motions. The rapporteur of the Political Affairs Committee is Mr. A. Bertrand, and the date of the draft report is 6th September 1974, though no doubt it has been updated since. In the motion for a resolution it is considered
"that the European Union must be administered by: a decision-making Centre which will gradually take the form of a genuine European government; a Parliament elected by direct universal suffrage whose agreement must be obtained before any European government decisions can enter into force; a Chamber of States;"
and so on.
If they were delegates, we should have an opportunity to discuss this and to suggest to them the way in which they might represent our views. But no such debate will take place, and I suspect that we shall not hear a report from them. I suggest that they are not delegates in the normal sense of the word.
The matter of direct elections has been espoused by many Opposition Members and, for that matter, by some of my hon. Friends. I suggest that if we ever reach that stage, we are in for some considerable difficulties. Every hon. Member knows the difficulty that the public have—and which we have sometimes—in distinguishing between the correct roles of county councillors, dis-
1410
trict councillors and Members of Parliament. We know how a district council or county council will blame the Government, and how the Government will blame the local authority. Very often it is the result of a misunderstanding, deliberate or accidental, between the officials concerned. If we have direct elections of Members to the European Assembly, whatever its powers may be, and if a constituent comes to see his Member of Parliament about something, he will be told to see his European Parliament Member, but the European Parliament Member will say, "This is a matter for the Council of Ministers. You must see your representative at Westminster," The difficulties that I envisage are considerable.
I do not oppose this motion, but I warn the House of certain difficulties to come, and I commend the thought to the right hon. Member for Devon, North that, when it comes to the practicalities of politics, these are difficulties which someone will have to iron out. If we had not joined the European Community, we should not have been troubled by these matters.
1.42 a.m.
Mr. Peter Kirk: The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) accused me of being mute and miserable. Mute I may have been. I thought it only courteous to listen to what hon. Members had to say. Miserable I never am, especially when discussing my favourite subject, which is the European Parliament and the members of it.
We are discussing a motion which, on the surface, appears straightforward. It is to appoint 12 hon. Members from the Labour Party to join those of us who are already there in the European Parliament. If it were just that, I could confine my remarks to three words—"About time, too." But it has been clear from the debate that various other sentiments are surfacing.
One or two remarks have been made, based, I suspect on an article in The Times on Monday, which may of itself have been based on information given to that newspaper by some of those who have spoken in this debate. I cannot be sure about that, but the inaccuracies match each other so neatly that it would seem that they have something to do with each other. I dealt with one of

1411
them in an intervention during the speech by the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) when I pointed out that The Times was inaccurate in suggesting that the hon. Member for Inverness was the sole voice of Scotland in the European Parliament. Despite the powerful oratory of the hon. Gentleman in the European Parliament the Conservative Party had ensured that he had sufficient back-up both from the House of Lords and from the House of Commons. There were other inaccuracies concerned with the numbers game which we have been playing tonight and about which I want to say a few words later.
Perhaps I may begin, though I do not suppose that it will be much consolation, by saying that I have considerable sympathy with the views put forward by the Liberal Party tonight. Those of us who together have borne the heat and burden of the day in the European Parliament may feel that we are entitled on an occasion like this to stand together. Most of the time we were fighting the Labour Party, which tried to prevent us carrying out our European duties. But we had a number of fights to carry on against the Council of Ministers and the Commission, as any Parliament has. I do not think that the Liberal and Conservative Members or the independent Member of the European Parliament coming from this Parliament really disagreed very much about the necessities that we saw.
I certainly pay tribute, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, to the effort of both the hon. Member for Inverness and to Lord Gladwyn. In passing, perhaps I might be allowed to pay a modest tribute to the Conservative Members who have also contributed a great deal to the development of the European Parliament over the two and a half years we have been waiting for the Labour Party to make up its collective mind. Now that it has done so, we are faced with the question of what we do about the representation of this House and, indeed, another place within the European Parliament.
I have considerable sympathy with the case that the right hon. Member for Devon, North, the hon. Member for Inverness and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) have
1412
developed. I have perhaps slightly less sympathy for the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson). I recall a visit paid by his hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) to the European Parliament last December, at the end of which she came back and said that she was convinced of its translucent virtues and would recommend that her party should participate from then on. Whether the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East voted against it or not I would not know, but certainly the Scottish National Party refused at that time to take up any representation.
That party has joined the band wagon subsequent to the referendum. I put it in the same category as the Labour Party. They are both late-comers—converts naturally. We all know that there is much joy in heaven over any sinner who repenteth, and when we have a mass repentence of this kind the joy is enormous. Nevertheless my sympathy for the Scottish National Party is small compared with the sympathy I have for the right hon. Member for Devon, North.
Mr. Gordon Wilson: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's wish to make political points in the referendum, and the Scottish National Party accepted the decision of the Scottish people in relation to the referendum. Is not the hon. Gentleman prepared to accept fully, however, the fact that the Scottish National Party, being a party with 11 Members of Parliament and having polled 30 per cent. of the vote in Scotland—which is far more than the Conservative Party polled in Scotland—is fully entitled to representation? Would he not, therefore, accept that the SNP, which represents nearly 900,000 people in Scotland, is entitled to representation in the new circumstances in the European Parliament?
Mr. Kirk: The hon. Gentleman, like so many Scotsmen, has intervened too early. I did not say anything about denying his party representation. I said that I had less sympathy for his party than for the Liberals because his party has shown less enthusiasm for the idea and came round to it only when defeated in the referendum. The Scottish National Party was recommended by one of its most distinguished and—it sounds ungallant to say this—one of its oldest

1413
Members in this House in terms of service to join the European Parliament seven months ago and it declined to do so. Now it is jumping on the band wagon. I do not blame it; it has a perfect right to do so and I would not stop it. However, that is a matter not for me but for the Government.
This is a Government motion. The motion in another place is a Government motion. Taking into account hon. Members who are already members of the European Parliament and whose names do not feature on the Order Paper tonight, we have a total of 35 members and there are 36 places. Conservative Members have made their position quite plain. We believe that we are entitled to 16 seats out of those 36. What happens to the other 20 seats is a matter for the Government in negotiation with other parties.
In answer to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, there have been no negotiations between the Government and the Conservative Party. We made that assumption because it was the assumption we made in 1972 when we were in government. Perhaps I can caution the right hon. Member for Devon, North not to believe everything he reads on the front page of The Times, because the figures published there were not accurate. In 1972 we had in mind a representation based, as this representation should be based, on the representation of this House in the Assembly of the Council of Europe, which is the only comparable body. No one takes seriously the idea that the Committee of Selection should be involved. At that time there were 18 Members from the Government party, 16 from the main Opposition party—not 15 as has been said twice from the Liberal benches—and two Members from other parties, which at that time meant the Liberal Party. That is what we had in mind then, and that is what we assume that the Government accept now.
Mr. Thorpe: I accept, as the hon. Gentleman says, that there was no consultation at all, but will he confirm that previously there were six noble lords on the Conservative delegation and only four are suggested on the Order Paper? Who took the decision about the two who should be dropped?
Mr. Kirk: I did. I recommended to my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) the two who should be dropped. We notified the Government Chief Whip in the House of Lords that we would drop those two. There was no pressure on us from the Government to drop two. The decision I took was a painful one because both noble Lords had worked extremely hard. The decision was merely communicated to the Government because it was their motion and the matter was entirely in their hands. It was not for us to do more than indicate, as we did, that we accepted that as we were now in opposition we lost two seats and to tell the Government the two we would give up. The Government framed their motion in another place taking account of that. That is all that happened.
Mr. Hooson: The hon. Gentleman has detailed how the delegation was appointed in 1972. Will he explain how the independent Lord O'Hagan came into it?
Mr. Kirk: Hon. Members are so impatient. I clearly was not either as mute or as miserable as the hon. Member for Inverness suggested. Once it became plain that the Labour Party would not take up the 16 seats allocated to it, the independent peers went to the then Leader of the House of Lords, Lord Jellicoe, and said that they would like to nominate a Member. The then Leader of the House of Lords said to Lord Strang, who had approached him, that in those circumstances he could not object but that if the Labour Party subsequently wished to nominate Members the nomination of the independent peer would lapse. That position was made plain to the independent peers in 1972. No offer was made by the Government at that time. I was responsible for forming that delegation in company with the Government Chief Whip and the Prime Minister of the day. I know precisely what happened, and what has been printed in the newspapers and said here tonight is not wholly accurate.
Mr. David Penhaligon: On what basis does the hon. Gentleman say that the Conservative Party deserves 16 of the 36 Members? Sixteen out of 36 is 44 per cent., which is more than the

1415
Conservative Party polled at the last election.
Mr. Kirk: We based this in 1972—and we assume that the Government are basing it tonight—on the Council of Europe delegations, which are 18, 16 and two. That has always been the case unless the Government have had an overwhelming majority, as in 1965 and 1956, in which case the Government party has had 19 Members and the leading Opposition party has had 15. That has always been the position with the Council of Europe. We based our calculations in 1972 on the Council of Europe calculations, and I assume that the Government are doing the same tonight. This seems to me to be wholly reasonable.
Mr. Russell Johnston: I dispute the phrase "wholly reasonable". The hon. Gentleman has been operating for two and a half years in the European Parliament, and he has seen for himself that that is not the way in which other countries—with which we shall have to harmonise—operate. Surely he should take that into account.
Mr. Kirk: The hon. Gentleman must not take what has been a factual description as being necessarily what I want to see in the future. In view of the various misstatements about the position, both in 1972 and now, I have described what actually happened and what I assume has happened on this occasion.
My party and I do not accept that it will happen for all time. For one thing we have the prospect of direct elections. For another, now that the Labour Party has agreed to come into full membership of the European Parliament, there is the possibility of consultation, which I would welcome, as I think my party would, about whether there is a better way of doing these things.
But the basis on which they have been done up to now, whether it was right or wrong, at least has been consistent. As a party we have taken the view from the start—and we assume that it was the view of the Labour Party—that the Council of Europe was the only guide we had and that it was the one that we should accept as reasonable and sensible. It is true that in 1972 there were
1416
basically only three parties represented in the House. There are now six—
The Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household (Mr. Walter Harrison): Eight.
Mr. Kirk: I defer to the Deputy Chief Whip. He obviously knows more than I do about the splits in his party. Anyway, there are many more parties in the House now than there were then.
Therefore, we think it not unreasonable that there should be consultations in the near future between the parties about whether we can find a better way of doing this. I hope that the Patronage Secretary will accept this as a reasonable offer. We would like to join in such discussions, and I hope that other parties will do so. For the time being we believe that this is the right way of doing it.
Although there have been many shots across our bows, most of the flak has been directed at the Government benches. I recall when the delegation was first made up. I apologise to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) for using the word "delegation" but I cannot think of a better word. When we first asked Members to go to the European Parliament we had a majority of, I think 40, and we accepted 18 seats. The Government now have an overall majority of one. They have taken 18 seats, and we have accepted 16 as the leading minority party. I do not think that one can be much fairer in regard to party balance within the House.
Throughout the whole two and a half years, although from time to time there have been rude noises about the Members of the European Parliament, we have conducted these affairs with a considerable amount of give and take on all sides. I hope that tonight we shall pass the motion, even though it does not affect any Member of my party, in the confident belief that, although the appearance of Labour Members at the European Parliament will undoubtedly give a considerable shock to the Socialist Group there, it will nevertheless lead to the furtherance of European unity.
1.59 a.m.
Mr. Mellish: I apologise for the absence of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who normally deals with this and all other matters concerning

1417
House business. I was asked by him and others to deal with it because I have been very much involved in what has become the famous selection system of the Labour Party. In arriving at the names which appear on the Order Paper I was very much involved in selecting those individuals. It was felt right that having that experience of the delegation—I am almost frightened to use the word "delegation"—that we are sending to Europe, and knowing also something of the background of how these numbers were made up, I should reply to the debate.
I understand the feeling of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party about this matter, for which I genuinely have a lot of sympathy. However, I do not have much of an answer or solution to offer him. All of us ought to understand the situation in which this problem has arisen.
The hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk) used a phrase which I found offensive—I hope that he will not mind me saying that—about jumping on band wagons. That is something I have never done. Nor have this Labour Government jumped on any European band wagons. What we did was to undertake a democratic process of asking the people of this country whether they thought that Britain should stay in the Common Market. I speak as a good pro-Marketeer. If the British people had decided that we should not stay in the Common Market, my Labour Government would not have sent any delegation to Europe. Therefore, there is no question of jumping on band wagons. The fact is that it was a natural outcome of the decision of the people that we then decided to take our full responsibility in the European Parliament.
Here was a situation in which the Labour Party had not yet become involved in any of the affairs of Europe as such, and therefore the whole of the 36 seats were at the disposal of the then Government, the Conservative Government. It is perfectly fair to say that they offered the Labour Party of that day 16 seats, which they did not accept. The then Government were in a position in which, apart from sending their own delegation, they could be very generous with anyone and everyone. That is how we come to get the independent peer who has been mentioned—which has been
1418
confirmed—and how it was that immediately, without hesitation, the Conservative Government offered the Liberal Party two seats. I understand that those individuals both the noble lord, Lord Gladwyn and the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston), have done a first-class job in Europe.
But that position changed when we as a Government, after the referendum, decided to take up our own seats.
Where does the formula come from? The hon. Member for Saffron Walden was quite right to refer to this question. This is not something about which the Liberals have not heard. They know about the formulas of this House on representation. The Committee of Selection, for example, in deciding how a Standing Committee shall be selected, has a formula which is very well known in the House. The figures are that the Government of the day get 19, the main Opposition party gets 15 and the others—I do not use that term offensively—two. That is the procedure in the Standing Orders of the House. I did not decide suddenly to invent those. They have always been with us.
Perhaps I may explain the attitude we took when we decided to take our full share of the responsibility in Europe. I immediately said "We shall not apply the Committee of Selection formula of taking 19 seats for the Government party and giving only 15 to the Conservatives and two to the others". I could have done that. There was nothing to prevent my doing it under the rules of the House, because we are the Government party. But I decided to apply what I thought was a much more honourable principle, the principle of how we arrived at the Council of Europe delegation. I therefore turned at once to the main Opposition party and said that we were taking not 19 seats but 18. I offered the Conservative Party 16 seats, which were accepted. That left the two seats for the others.
I understand the immediate difficulties created. However, with respect to the hon. Member for Saffron Walden, who spoke about having sympathy for the Liberal Party, if he is really sympathetic all that he has to do is to give the Liberals one of the Tory seats. He is not that sympathetic. Therefore, let us have no

1419
crocodile tears about that matter. I am not complaining about that. I do not know whether I would do that if I were in opposition.
I am stating the case that the Government party has not been dishonourable in this matter. We could have taken 19 seats. We said that we would not do that but would take 18. If the Conservative Opposition had decided to say "No, we will take the principle of the 15, which is the normal formula for the other precedure, and we will give the extra seat to what are called the 'others'," all would have been well.
Mr. Hooson: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is saying that the Government took a generous view in not taking the 19 seats. However, as I understand the right hon. Gentleman's description of the selection procedure, the Conservative Party was entitled to 15 seats yet he offered it 16 seats. It seems that he was generous to the Conservatives but not to the minority parties.
Mr. Mellish: That is for the simple reason that I was not unaware that the Conservative Party, as a result of the Labour Party taking its share of the European Parliament membership, would have to make great sacrifices from its point of view. Indeed the Conservative Party has taken two off its delegation as a consequence. We have not heard who it has taken off, and that is none of our business. We are not concerned with that.
We must be straightforward and honest in our approach. Although I understand what the Liberal Party describes as an injustice, I must put it to Liberal Members that if one of them ever had my job, which I do not think likely, that Member would have to approach the matter in much the same way. If I could get agreement from those involved I should be delighted to agree to the representation of two Liberals. That is why we have been waiting on consultation.
Of course, since we took our original stance there has been a change of membership within the House. The Scottish National Party is now a party represented in the House with numbers that give it a right to be considered in parity with the Liberals. The SNP has the right to claim one of the two seats. That was the case
1420
as I saw it, and that was one of the difficulties. Should it be the Government party, the Labour Party or the Conservative Party that gives up one seat to provide it to the Liberals? I do not see any immediate compromise.
Mr. Thorpe: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that in letters to me the Prime Minister has attached great importance to the fact that under the selection procedure the Government would have been entitled to 19 seats yet they have taken only 18. But is it not the situation that under that procedure the Government have given up one seat to which they would have been entitled and have promptly given it to the Tory Party?
Mr. Mellish: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's complaint about that. I appreciate that being a Liberal he does not like the Tory Party or the Labour Party. That is fair enough. I was not unmindful of the fact that the Conservative Party, as a result of the Labour Party going into Europe, would lose at least two seats. The Conservative Party would have lost three seats had we insisted on its having only 15 seats. Of course, there is nothing to stop the Conservative Chief Whip stopping the debate going any further by saying that the extra seat that has been given to his party will be given to the Liberals.
Mr. Kirk: We do not accept that the right hon. Gentleman has given us a seat. We have never accepted that the principle of the Committee of Selection is one properly applied to this sort of issue. We have proceeded from the start on the basis of the Council of Europe procedure. That was why in 1972 we offered the Labour Party 16 seats although at that time we had a majority of 40. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman's party virtually has no majority.
Mr. Mellish: We may not have a majority, but every time we go into the Division Lobbies we seem to come out all right. Last week we had majorities of 62 and 71, so we cannot complain.
I understand that the procedures of the House have resulted in the Liberal Party feeling especially aggrieved. Some of my hon. Friends have joined in the expressions of grief. This situation, over which I have no control, is one which I should like to solve. I am not making

1421
any promises tonight because I do not know of an immediate solution.
Mr. McCusker: As the right hon. Gentleman is referring to majorities, perhaps this is an opportune time for me to interject. It seems that on the basis of what the right hon. Gentleman is saying this will not be a United Kingdom delegation but a Great Britain delegation. When he refers to the representation of the Liberal Party and the Scottish National Party entitling them to representation at Strasbourg, does not the same argument apply to my party?
Mr. Mellish: The more I stay here, the more complicated the matter becomes. The normal lines of communication are open to Irish Members as they are to the Scots and to the Liberals. The Liberals and the SNP Members seem to write to me regularly telling me what they want, but the Irish Members never seem to write to me. I thought that they had enough problems of their own in Ireland without wanting to go to Europe and muck about over there.
If those Members decide to write to me officially demanding to be considered for the delegation, I do not know the answer. How does one divide two into two, other than throwing two in the air and saying "The best man catches either one"? That is not the right way to go about the matter. I concede that there will have to be further discussions and consultations on how we can resolve the position.
Let me deal with the House of Lords and how its membership was selected. It is not for me to question the procedure in another place. There are some Liberal peers there and I have no doubt that they will be very critical. If they are as noisy as the Liberals in this House, it will be a lively debate. I shall not suggest to the other place how it should select its delegation, but it is doing the honourable thing—namely, tabling a motion which will be properly debated.
Let me deal with my own delegation because I was involved in the selection process. At the end of the day we take a decision democratically. My party meeting decided whether the members of the delegation should be elected of selected. Our Members decided, by an overwhelming majority, that delegation Members should be selected by the Chair-
1422
man of the Labour Party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) and myself. That was my party's decision. Having done that, they were invited to write asking to be considered.
I found the remarks of the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) somewhat offensive when he talked of some of my hon. Friends as if they were crawling into Europe. It happens to be a fact that the 48 people who wrote asking to be considered are among the finest people in my party. They are genuine people with no desire other than to serve the European Parliament to the best of their ability and to change it or alter it where they think it is right and proper to do so. Therefore, on behalf of those people I resent what was said by the right hon. Gentleman.
By the use of the method which we have adopted, we now have every region in the country represented. We have also ensured the appointment of two Scotsmen, two Londoners and, indeed, representation for the whole country.
Mr. Penhaligon: The nearest representative to Truro in this respect is 200 miles distant. Will not this arrangement mean that my area is the worst represented in the whole country?
Mr. Mellish: That is another nationalist argument, is it? I thought that Cornwall was in England. I was under the impression that within its area or region Cornwall was part of the rest of the country. Forgive me if I am wrong about that.
I understand the concern which has been expressed by the Liberals in this debate. I ask them to believe that there was nothing malicious about this arrangement. I am still prepared to discuss with the Liberal Party and the SNP how this difficulty can be overcome. This is not the end of the story but is the beginning for those interests since further motions will have to be tabled if the SNP Members are to be included. It will be understood, I hope, that Conservative nominees have already been approved by the House.
The alterations that have been made have been made in the other House where two of their Lordships are being deleted from their list, but the House has approved the Conservative list and the proper way to do this would be to put it down after further discussion and agreement. There is no reason why

1423
another motion cannot be put down when it is decided how the remaining two places are to be dealt with.
The Liberal Member has already had his name approved and we are really talking only of the one Scottish National. This will have to be done by a further motion, and in the light of the information I have given—that this has been done without any malice to any other party in the House—I hope that the House will approve.
Mr. Gordon Wilson: I am grateful for what the Patronage Secretary has told us, but the question still arises that if one postulates that the House of Lords, in considering its motion, approves of a Liberal representative there, according to my information that would effectively fill the delegation to the European Assembly and thereby disfranchise the Scottish National Party. Would it be possible in those circumstances for the matter to be brought back to this House, and would we have powers to override what the other House had done?
Mr. Mellish: If the other place did what the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) has said, it would fill up the other seats and would deprive me of the chance to offer the SNP one seat; but I do not think that that is likely to happen. It is not a supposition I am prepared to accept. It is not going to happen. It is up to the House of Lords to decide, but I can tell the hon. Member what it has done and what I have done has been honourable.
Mr. Russell Johnston: While the Patronage Secretary may be totally lacking in malice, which, as a right hon. Gentleman he is well known for being, it really is the most disgraceful of all solutions that he should be saying that the allocation of the one remaining place should be up to negotiation between the Liberals and the SNP, which is essentially what he said, particularly as he has already indicated to the House that the rules or traditions upon which he based his original proposals are not inviolable and can be changed. Surely there is a requirement for major parties to make a concession to democracy.
Mr. Mellish: The Conservative Chief Whip has heard every word that has been
1424
said. If his heart has been touched by the pleas that have been made, I shall be willing to agree that through the usual channels.
I say again that I did not invent the formula but inherited it and applied it honourably and fairly without vindictiveness against the Liberals or any other party.
If I had been so arrogant as to say "It will be given to the Liberals", there would have been criticism and I should have been accused of arrogance. There will have to be further discussion, not only on this but about other delegations. That is my case and on that I stand.
2.19 a.m.
Mr. David Steel: I shall be very brief. In all the time I have known the Government Chief Whip and had pleasant dealings with him when I held that same responsibility for my party, I never knew anyone who could wield a sledge-hammer with greater charm. He has done it again tonight. He was pleasant and gracious and gave nothing away. He did not concede any of our arguments about the manner in which the whole question has been handled and the way in which we were led to believe that we would be reduced from two Members to one in the European Parliament.
The greatest single criticism is that in no other organisation, whether in Committees of this House or in deputations or delegations of any kind to other bodies such as the Council of Europe, would we set about it in this piecemeal manner. There would and should surely have been some opportunity to discuss the names in the motion. That opportunity has not been afforded to us. Having accepted the referendum result, we have had no opportunity of discussing the composition of the delegation that we should send to Strasbourg.
The Labour Party has had its own internal debate. Democracy has worked there. But what is good for the Labour Party internally is too good for the House of Commons as a whole. We cannot accept that situation. It is a little late to offer consultation after names have been included in motions on the Order Papers of both Houses.
In effect, the Government have said "We would have been entitled to 19. We

1425
have decided to take 18. Therefore we are satisfied, and that is the end of the story." The Opposition have said "We wanted 16. We have 16, and that is the end of the matter as far as we are concerned."
I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) was unfair in describing the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk) as mute and miserable. The hon. Gentleman was not mute, but he made it clear that he was being miserable by not giving anything away having got what he wanted. Concepts of fairness of representation are not of the slightest concern to the Opposition. They have what they wanted, and that is the end of the story.
It is not good enough to quote the Council of Europe delegation. That was drawn up years before there was a United Ulster Unionist Party, a Scottish National Party or a Liberal Party with such strength in the country represented in this House. Therefore, it is no use dredging up the composition of a delegation formed 20 years ago to justify the composition of the delegation for the European Parliament.
Both the Government and the Opposition have failed to observe the assurances which were given to the House during the passage of the European Communities Bill. At that time the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in an intervention in my speech, specifically said that it was right that, when the time came to send our delegation to the European Parliament, a Select Committee of this House should consider the method of selecting representatives from both Houses of Parlia-
ment. The Opposition have not said that today. The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), now a member of the Government, went well beyond that and said that that was the minimum which would be required in terms of discussion before we got down to passing motions of this kind.
Obviously, if the Government insist on going ahead tonight by moving the closure and rallying their troops to get their majority, the minority parties are entitled to say that they are not satisfied with the answers they have had. There is no reason why the delegation should not consist of 17 Labour Members, 15 Conservative Members, two Liberal Members and one Member from each of the other parties. Indeed, the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) made the fair point that his party represents the whole of one section of the United Kingdom and is therefore entitled to a representative. I see no reason why a delegation of that sort of composition, which would more accurately reflect the views of the people of this country, is not the right one to go forward into Europe.
If we lose the debate tonight, it will be carried on in another place whenever the motion is moved there.
Mr. Cyril Smith Mr. Cyril Smith rose—
Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household)Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put:—
The House divided: Ayes 119, Noes, 11.

Division No. 262.]

AYES

[2.45 a.m.

Allaun, Frank

Coleman, Donald

Flannery, Martin

Archer, Peter

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Armstrong, Ernest

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Ashton, Joe

Crawford, Douglas

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Cryer, Bob

George, Bruce

Bain, Mrs Margaret

Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

Golding, John

Barnett. Guy (Greenwich)

Dalyell, Tam

Graham, Ted

Bates, Alf

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Bean, R. E.

Deakins, Eric

Hardy, Peter

Bishop, E. S.

de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Harper, Joseph

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

Dempsey, James

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Dormand, J. D.

Henderson, Douglas

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Dunnett, Jack

Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

Buchan, Norman

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Huckfield, Les

Campbell, Ian

Edge, Geoff

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Canavan, Dennis

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Carmichael, Neil

Ellis Tom (Wrexham)

Hunter, Adam

Clemitson, Ivor

English, Michael

Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

Cohen, Stanley

Evans, John (Newton)

Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Ovenden,John

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Owen, Dr David

Thompson, George

Lamborn, Harry

Palmer, Arthur

Tinn, James

Lamond, James

Prescott, John

Tomlinson, John

Litterick, Tom

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

MacCormick, Iain

Richardson, Miss Jo

Ward, Michael

McElhone, Frank

Roderick, Caerwyn

Watt, Hamish

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Welsh, Andrew

McGuire, Michael (Ince)

Rooker, J. w.

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

McNamara, Kevin

Rowlands, Ted

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Marks, Kenneth

Ryman, John

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Sandelson, Neville

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Winterton, Nicholas

Mikardo, Ian

Silverman, Julius

Woodall, Alec

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Skinner, Dennis

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

Small, William

Young, David (Bolton E)

Molloy, William

Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Spearing, Nigel

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Stoddart, David

Mr. James A. Dunn and

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Stott, Roger

Mrs. Betty Boothroyd.

Noble, Mike

Strang, Gavin

NOES

Brotherton, Michael

Penhaligon, David

Freud, Clement

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Hooson, Emlyn

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Mr. A. J. Beith and

Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

Mr. Cyril Smith.

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

Pardoe, John

Question accordingly agreed to.
Main Question put accordingly:—
The House divided: Ayes 119, Noes 11.

Division No. 263.]

AYES

[2.34 a.m.

Allaun, Frank

Evans, John (Newton)

Noble, Mike

Archer, Peter

Flannery, Martin

Ovenden, John

Armstrong, Ernest

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Owen, Dr David

Ashton, Joe

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Palmer, Arthur

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Prescott, John

Bain, Mrs Margaret

George, Bruce

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Golding, John

Reid, George

Bates, Alf

Graham, Ted

Richardson, Miss Jo

Bean, Ft. E.

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Roderick, Caerwyn

Bishop, E. S.

Hardy, Peter

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

Harper, Joseph

Rooker, J. W.

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Rowlands, Ted

Brotherton, Michael

Henderson, Douglas

Ryman, John

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

Sandelson, Neville

Buchan, Norman

Huckfield, Les

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Campbell, Ian

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Silverman, Julius

Canavan, Dennis

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Small, William

Carmichael, Neil

Hunter, Adam

Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

Clemitson, Ivor

Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

Spearing, Nigel

Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

Stott, Roger

Cohen, Stanley

Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

Strang, Gavin

Coleman, Donald

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Thompson, George

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Lamborn, Harry

Tinn, James

Crawford, Douglas

Lamond, James

Tomlinson, John

Cryer, Bob

Litterick, Tom

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

MacCormick, Iain

Ward, Michael

Dalyell, Tam

McElhone, Frank

Watt, Hamish

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Welsh, Andrew

Deakins, Eric

McGuire, Michael (Ince)

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

McNamara, Kevin

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Dempsey, James

Marks, Kenneth

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

Dormand, J. D.

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Dunn, James A.

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Winterton, Nicholas

Dunnett, Jack

Mikardo, Ian

Woodall, Alec

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Edge, Geoff

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

Young, David (Bolton E)

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

Molloy, William

Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

English, Michael

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Miss Betty Boothroyd and

Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Mr. David Stoddart.

1428

1429

NOES

Beith, A. J.

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

Freud, Clement

Skinner, Dennis

Hooson, Emlyn

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Pardoe, John

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Mr. Russell Johnson and

Penhaligon, David

Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

Mr. Geraint Howells.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mr. Guy Barnett, Miss Betty Boothroyd, Mr. Tam Dalyell, Sir Geoffrey de Freitas, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. Tom Ellis. Mr. John Evans, Mr. William Hamilton, Mr. Mark Hughes, Mr. R. C. Mitchell, Mr. John Prescott and Mr. Michael Stewart be designated members of the European Parliament:
Ordered,
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT (MEMBERSHIP)
  ADJOURNMENT
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

WATERLOO HOSPITAL, CROSBY
2.43 a.m.
Mr. Graham Page: The House has been debating an important matter concerning Europe, a continental matter, and it is characteristic that we can move so quickly from a continental matter to a constituency matter.
I want to raise tonight the question of the future of a hospital in my constituency, the Waterloo General Hospital. For many years Waterloo Hospital has provided the in-patient and out-patient facilities for the district and a 24-hour casualty service for the population of Waterloo, Crosby, Seaforth, Litherland, Hightown, Thornton, Formby and many parishes of West Lancashire. That population looked on this hospital with affection, with admiration, and, indeed, with some possessive pride.
Until 1962 the hospital consisted of a not very modern building but it was certainly adequate. Even before the Second World War there were plans for extending the hospital and for having a fairly substantial hospital on the site. The grounds of the hospital are extensive enough to be able to cope with a building of that sort, large enough for a 150-bed modern community hospital with all the ancillary buildings.
In 1961–62 new out-patient and casualty departments were added, together
1430
with a spacious day room for patients, and this was looked upon in the locality as a first instalment of the development into a larger hospital. Then, however, in February 1966, the regional hospital board, out of the blue, announced that the new, modern and very well-equipped out-patient department at Waterloo Hospital would be closed. The local council—indeed, the local citizens—protested, and then it emerged that the board intended to do even more than that and close Waterloo casualty department and also eventually all the inpatient services.
This was the start of what appeared to be a deliberate running down of Waterloo Hospital and the transfer of its services to Walton Hospital, which is some distance away. The journey from Crosby to Walton, without a car, is a nightmare. The stupidity in taking all casualties on that journey was crass. The lack of consideration and the readiness to accept a danger in making all out-patients travel that distance was quite unbelievable. The hardship to relatives who had to visit patients was cruel.
I need not detail the whole history of the efforts to destroy the hospital—the closure of the operating theatre, the insistence that casualties and outpatients should travel all that way to Walton, the fact that the hospital would become entirely geriatric and the undermining of nursing morale by these proposals for the future of the hospital.
That was at a time when in the district around the hospital there were very great developments—the development of Royal Seaforth Dock, the container terminal built at the expense of £40 million, the biggest grain terminal in the world, massive road developments, a marina, and very substantial housing development at Formby and Hightown. In fact, the whole area was developing very rapidly, and at that very time there were proposals to close its local hospital.
By 1971 it seemed possible that the hospital would eventually become not a general hospital, as it had been, but a

1431
pre-convalescent and long-stay hospital. However, I was not satisfied with those proposals. We needed a general hospital in this area. I had from the Minister of State at the time, Lord Aberdare, something of an assurance that this hospital might be developed into a community hospital. This was in 1972, when the policy was starting to change from the concentration of hospital services within the big hospitals towards the setting up of community hospitals.
I received the assurance in a letter dated 1st June 1972 from Lord Aberdare. He said:
"We mentioned to you"—
referring to the discussion which we had had—
"another prospective development in policy. Keith Joseph expects to announce in the near future a new policy for the establishment of smaller community hospitals providing a service complementary to that of district general hospitals. Such hospitals, where required, will be sited in close proximity to the communities they serve."
That gave me some hope that we might have the Waterloo Hospital developed as the population of the area required because the population had outgrown the hospital, and to meet that by closing the hospital seemed an entirely ridiculous policy.
I had some assurance about that in a letter from the then Minister of State in September. He pointed out that the general rôle of community hospitals was
"defined as providing medical and nursing care including out-patient and day-patient and in-patient care for people who do not need the specialised facilities of a district general hospital, who cannot be properly cared for at home or in residential accommodation. In general the proposed future rôle for the Waterloo Hospital, as you will note, fits within these broad outlines."
That was what I had hoped. I wished to press for the formation of a community hospital by building on to the existing Waterloo Hospital.
Shortly after that, in March 1965, the hospital was closed for fire-precaution work to be carried out. After all the history of this hospital, one could not help but be suspicious about the closure.
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris): I take it that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to March 1975.
Mr. Page: I meant that. If I said the wrong year, I am grateful to the Minister for correcting me. In March 1975 the hospital was closed for this precautionary work to be carried out. I was suspicious that there was some possibility that the hospital might not be reopened, especially because at about the same time the regional health authority came up with several different propositions for the future of the hospital, none of which included the proposal for the hospital to develop into a community hospital.
Five alternatives were put forward in February 1975. These were put before, first, the community health council for the district. That council showed the alternative which would restore the hospital to its previous bed capacity and would merely carry out the fire precaution work that was necessary.
The Sefton Area Health Authority went a little further than that and proposed that there should be an extension to the existing buildings to provide for 30 geriatric in-patients with the addition of a day hospital for 50 geriatric day patients.
I received that information at the beginning of last month by a letter dated 4th June from the Sefton Area Health Authority. This seemed a possibility as a first instalment, perhaps, towards a community hospital. The Sefton Area Health Authority informed me that in addition the authority would be pursuing the question of the expansion of consultant out-patient sessions for ophthalmology and dermatology and that further consideration would also be given to the involvement that general practitioners might wish to have in operating a minor injuries and redressing centre. That certainly would revive the hospital in a specialised form for geriatric patients. I ask the Minister for an assurance that that can be an instalment towards the eventual development of Waterloo Hospital into a community hospital.
Perhaps I should put on record what I mean by a community hospital. I refer to the document issued by the Department of Health and Social Security and the Welsh Office entitled
"Community Hospitals: Their Rôle and Development in the National Health Service".

1433
From that one can see that Waterloo Hospital fits neatly into the criteria for community hospitals. It particularly fits into the one which I quoted from a letter:
"In general community hospitals are needed to provide medical and nursing care, including out-patient, day-patient and in-patient care for people who do not need the specialised facilities of the district general hospital and cannot be properly cared for at home or in residential accommodation."
The document states specifically that community hospitals may develop on the following lines:
"1. They may provide up to half the geriatric beds and most of the beds for elderly persons with dementia needed for the population they serve, up to about 10 beds per 10,000 population served."
In my constituency in the area of this hospital there is a fairly large number of elderly people's homes, and the elderly are a large proportion of the general population. Therefore, a geriatric service is appropriate here. Also, we need the general hospital service.
The document continues:
"2. They may provide up to one-fifth of the medical and surgical beds for their population. This will consist almost entirely of general medical and pre-convalescent beds and beds used for short-term admissions to relieve families, up to about five beds per 10,000 population served.
3. They may thus contain up to about one-quarter of the future bed requirement of their population, between 50 and 150 beds for a population between 30,000 and 100,000.
4. They may provide up to half of the geriatric day places need for their population and of the day places for elderly persons with dementia amounting together to some 3·5 to 4 places per thousand of the elderly population in the locality as well as some day places for other mentally ill patients.
5. They may provide a considerable number of out-patient clinics."
That is the kind of hospital that is necessary in this developing area in the neighbourhood of Crosby. If the hospital closes as a general hospital, there is in the whole area of Sefton metropolitan borough, as it is now, only one hospital, and that is right at the north end of the borough in Southport.
Sefton borough consists of a long stretch along the Mersey coast. It will be extremely inconvenient if that strip is left with only one hospital right at the north of the area, whereas Waterloo Hospital is well placed and comes very
1434
much within another criterion mentioned in the document, which says:
"In all types of area, accessibility and convenience to patients and their relatives are important factors in determining where the community hospital should be located. Thus a study of communications is an essential prerequisite in choosing a site. The availability of staff is also a critical factor, including the willingness of general practitioners who live near the hospital to devote time to working in it."
It seems that Waterloo Hospital in Crosby is an admirable hospital to develop into a community hospital. Therefore, I ask the Minister to give me an assurance that if we proceed with the development that the Sefton Area Health Authority desires—at present, the building for 30 geriatric beds and the accommodation for 50 geriatric day patients—this will be an instalment of the proposed community hospital.
I know that if one sets out plans for the building of a hospital by instalments, whether over five years or 10 years, an economic crisis may arise during that period which will mean that we must roll it on. But I want to see this hospital become by instalments a community hospital, and I urge the Minister to give me the assurance that he would like to see that happen. If we are to have the policy of developing community hospitals throughout the country to supplement the bigger district hospitals, here is an admirable place to build one.
Right next door to this hospital is a private convalescent home, the Park House Convalescent Home, which can call on all the finest consultants in the area. They come across the road to Waterloo Hospital and are only too pleased to serve that hospital.
So we have all the facilities there. The hospital is in the right place in the district and it can call on the right services. I hope that I can have from the Minister tonight the assurance that it will eventually become a community hospital.
3.2 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris)First, I express my appreciation to the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) for raising this subject for debate. I am grateful to him also for the informed interest he has taken over the years in health services in his constituency.

1435
The right hon. Gentleman opened the debate with a full account of the problems which the health authorities have been tackling in relation to the Waterloo Hospital in Crosby, in which he clearly takes a great deal of genuine pride. He has shown a continuing concern for the future of this hospital. I shall do my best in the time available to deal with the points he has raised.
With the reorganisation of the health services, the prime responsibility for managing the health services in its area is vested in the area health authority. It is responsible for providing, or arranging for the provision of, comprehensive health services to the people of its area. In each district, the area health authority works through the officers of the district management team. These officers are responsible for managing and co-ordinating the operational services of the health service within the district. They are responsible also for formulating policies and plans for the services they manage and co-ordinate.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows from his correspondence with us, my Department has followed with interest all recent developments in connection with Waterloo Hospital. We are satisfied that the proposals now being formulated for the future of the hospital have been fully discussed between the district management team, the area and regional health authorities and the community health council. These proposals, in taking full account of the opinions of all three parties, represent the considered views of those who are best able to assess the health of the local population in the light of the constraints imposed by limited resources of finance, skilled manpower in the area and other relevant factors.
There are certain aspects of the developments which are taking place at Waterloo Hospital, which have already been outlined by the right hon. Gentleman, on which I should like to lay particular stress. A change in the rôle to be played by the hospital, in the provision of health services in what is now the southern district of the Sefton area, was first considered by the former regional hospital board in 1969. In that year the board considered the future of overall hospital services in the district after the
1436
new 652-bed district general hospital at Fazakerley, then under construction, was completed.
That hospital, which was commissioned in 1973 to 1974, was planned to provide, in conjunction with the nearby Walton Hospital, a full range of acute and accident and emergency services for residents of the district. The plan was to replace a number of small hospitals, many of which were built in the last century. At the time when the hospital board undertook its review the provision at Waterloo Hospital included a small accident department with 50 back-up beds for patients requiring minor surgical procedures. On a number of occasions, however, because of shortage of staff, it has in the past few years been necessary to close the department.
As right hon. and hon. Members will perhaps be aware, following the report, published in 1962, of the sub-committee of the standing medical advisory committee on accident and emergency services at district general hospitals—which was chaired by Lord Platt—my Department has placed special emphasis on the importance of centralising accident and emergency services at departments in district general hospitals. At these hospitals scarce resources of skilled manpower can be concentrated and full back-up services and consultant cover are available to deal with the full range of emergencies which might present themselves at any time of the day and night.
The optimum size of population to be covered by accident and emergency departments has been recommended as 150,000. It is felt that there are very few areas where distances are so great and transport so difficult that a single unit could not provide for such a population. In keeping with this policy, the former Liverpool Regional Hospital Board considered the future of the accident and emergency department at Waterloo. The board also took into account the absence of hospital accommodation for the elderly in the Crosby area. I do not think I need stress the value of providing accommodation for old people requiring longterm hospital care in their home area, where they may be visited more frequently by friends and relatives and so keep better in touch with their local community.

1437
In its proposals for the rationalisation of hospital services in the North Merseyside area, the former hospital board included the closure of three existing hospitals and the conversion of Waterloo to a long-stay elderly and pre-convalescent hospital. There were consultations on these proposals with interested parties during 1971 and 1972. I understand that in January 1972 the right hon. Member himself met the then Under-Secretary of State for Health.
Generally speaking those consulted agreed to the proposals, and in May 1973 the former Secretary of State gave approval to the board's scheme including the change of use at Waterloo. As a direct result, the accident department at Waterloo Hospital was closed on 29th June 1974, and patients requiring accident and emergency services are now being referred to Walton Hospital, about four miles away.
Meanwhile the Sefton Area Health Authority, which took over responsibility for the management of the hospital in April 1974, had been developing proposals for an upgrading of the facilities of the hospital to make them suitable for geriatric patients. For this purpose it consulted the architectural staff at the Mersey Regional Health Authority, which expressed particular concern about potential fire hazards. A meeting was therefore arranged with representatives of the Merseyside Fire Brigade, which concluded that there would be serious fire risks if the authority's plans were put into effect without modification of buildings. This was not the first time fire officers had examined Waterloo Hospital and already a number of improvements had been carried out to meet their earlier requirements. I understand that their advice now, however, was that some substantial alterations would be required to make the premises safe for geriatric patients.
In view of recent tragedies resulting from fires at institutions for the elderly, I do not think anyone would wish to censure either the fire brigade or the health authorities for their caution. The House will not need reminding of the tragedy at the Fairfield Home in Nottinghamshire last December when 18 old people lost their lives in a fire.
1438
Until the building alterations could be carried through at Waterloo, the number of patients who could remain in the hospital had to be reduced to a level that was felt to be impracticably low. It was, therefore, decided that the remaining patients should be transferred to other hospitals.
The regional health authority's architects then arranged for a full structural survey to be carried out. In the light of this survey the regional authority submitted to the area health authority a choice of five schemes both to achieve the upgrading and overcome the fire hazard. The area health authority considered the schemes at a meeting on 30th May and decided in favour of one which would provide 30 beds for geriatric patients and a 50-place geriatric day hospital. The estimated cost is £350,000 of which £150,000 will be required for the day hospital.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute, as I know the right hon. Gentleman does, to the valuable work done over the years by the League of Friends of Waterloo Hospital. Its work is well epitomised in the magnificent day room built by the league as a result of voluntary subscriptions. I understand that the room is being used for the provision of rehabilitation facilities for patients attending the hospital. This may, in the period when there are no in-patients in the hospital, mean that the room is under-utilised, but once upgrading has been completed it will provide a most essential element in the service being provided by the hospital.
I also wish to mention the interest shown by the Waterloo Hospital Action Committee in the future of the hospital. Though members of the committee may feel that the health authorities locally have taken insufficient note of their representations, I can assure them that the views they have expressed have been fully taken into account in arriving at decisions on the future of the hospital.
Moreover, I understand that the secretary of the action committee is herself a member of the community health council for the South Sefton district, which enables her to bring the views of her committee to the attention of both the council and the authority. The authority has throughout its consideration of

1439
the future of the hospital given particular attention to the need to keep the community health council in touch with developments. I understand that the chairman of the council was informed of the problems that had arisen over the implementation of plans for the upgrading of the hospital before the meeting with fire officers took place. Afterwards the chairman of the health authority wrote to the council explaining why it was necessary to withdraw in-patient facilities, and also enclosed a note of the meeting.
Inevitably, in a situation where important decisions have to be taken within a limited time, feelings may be aroused
1440
that consultation has been inadequate. I am satisfied that the health authorities are fully seized of the importance of giving the community health council the fullest possible opportunity to consider proposals and to contribute ideas from its knowledge of local conditions.
The council is being consulted on—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at thirteen minutes past Three o'clock a.m.

  PRIME MINISTER (VISITS)
  PRIME MINISTER (VISITS)
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS
  DEVOLUTION
  DEVOLUTION
  TUC AND CBI (MEETING)
  TUC AND CBI (MEETING)
  GOVERNMENT MINISTERS
  GOVERNMENT MINISTERS
  INFLATION
  INFLATION
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (BROADCAST)
  CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (BROADCAST)
  OPEN GOVERNMENT
  OPEN GOVERNMENT
  CONCORDE
  CONCORDE
  NATIONAL UNION OF RAILWAYMEN (TALKS)
  NATIONAL UNION OF RAILWAYMEN (TALKS)
  PRIME MINISTER (SPEECH)
  PRIME MINISTER (SPEECH)
  EMPLOYMENT (YOUNG PERSONS)
  EMPLOYMENT (YOUNG PERSONS)
  HARE COURSING BILL (DIVISION)
  HARE COURSING BILL (DIVISION)
  CABINET PROCEEDINGS
  CABINET PROCEEDINGS
  PRE-BUDGET DISCUSSIONS
  PRE-BUDGET DISCUSSIONS
  WAGES SETTLEMENTS (DEPUTATIONS)
  WAGES SETTLEMENTS (DEPUTATIONS)
  POVERTY (INQUIRY)
  POVERTY (INQUIRY)
  £ STERLING
  £ STERLING
INDUSTRY
  Aircraft and Shipbuilding
  Aircraft and Shipbuilding
  Footwear Manufacturing Industry
  Footwear Manufacturing Industry
  Overmanning
  Overmanning
  HS748 Aircraft
  HS748 Aircraft
  Telephone Calls (Charges)
  Telephone Calls (Charges)
  Alfred Herbert Limited
  Alfred Herbert Limited
  Lucas Company (Redundancies)
  Lucas Company (Redundancies)
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Retail Price Index
  Retail Price Index
  Prices (OECD Countries)
  Prices (OECD Countries)
  National Consumer Council
  National Consumer Council
  Prices (European Community)
  Prices (European Community)
TRADE
  Civil Airports (South-East)
  Civil Airports (South-East)
  British Films Quota
  British Films Quota
ENVIRONMENT
  Council Houses (Starts)
  Council Houses (Starts)
  Planning Statistics
  Planning Statistics
  Alkali Inspectorate
  Alkali Inspectorate
  Water Rates
  Water Rates
  Waste Disposal Sites
  Waste Disposal Sites
  Bus Design (Disabled Passengers)
  Bus Design (Disabled Passengers)
  Derelict Land
  Derelict Land
  North West Region (European Community Aid)
  North West Region (European Community Aid)
  Toxic Wastes (Disposal)
  Toxic Wastes (Disposal)
  Mortgages
  Mortgages
  Waste Paper
  Waste Paper
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Science Research Council (Observatory)
  Science Research Council (Observatory)
  Research Institutions (Rate Relief)
  Research Institutions (Rate Relief)
  Public Appointments
  Public Appointments
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Guatemala
  Guatemala
  Belize
  Belize
  Public Appointments
  Public Appointments
  Hong Kong (Vietnamese Refugees)
  Hong Kong (Vietnamese Refugees)
  Rhine Navigation
  Rhine Navigation
  Passports
  Passports
  JUDGES AND RECORDERS
  JUDGES AND RECORDERS
  Remands in Custody
  Remands in Custody
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Northumbria Police Officers (Burglary Charge)
  Northumbria Police Officers (Burglary Charge)
  Legal Aid (Manchester)
  Legal Aid (Manchester)
  Ethnic Minorities (Equal Opportunities)
  Ethnic Minorities (Equal Opportunities)
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
  Au Pair Girls
  Au Pair Girls
  PUBLIC APPOINTMENTS (NORTH- WEST ENGLAND)
  PUBLIC APPOINTMENTS (NORTH- WEST ENGLAND)
DEFENCE
  Nimrod Aircraft
  Nimrod Aircraft
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Cadet Forces (TAVR Enrolment)
  Cadet Forces (TAVR Enrolment)
  RAF Reserve
  RAF Reserve
  NATO Aircraft
  NATO Aircraft
  BAOR (Costs)
  BAOR (Costs)
  Hercules Aircraft
  Hercules Aircraft
  Torpedoes
  Torpedoes
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Mapperley Hospital, Nottingham (Drug Addiction Unit)
  Mapperley Hospital, Nottingham (Drug Addiction Unit)
  Incomes and Benefits
  Incomes and Benefits
  Occupational Deafness Scheme
  Occupational Deafness Scheme
  Fuel Debts and Disconnections
  Fuel Debts and Disconnections
  Sterilisation
  Sterilisation
  Invalid Vehicles (Accidents)
  Invalid Vehicles (Accidents)
  Disregards
  Disregards
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Christmas Bonus
  Christmas Bonus
  Rents
  Rents
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Incomes
  Family Incomes
  Handicapped Children (Voluntary Council)
  Handicapped Children (Voluntary Council)
  School Leavers (Scotland)
  School Leavers (Scotland)
  National Health Service Staff
  National Health Service Staff
  Regional Health Authorities (Chairmen)
  Regional Health Authorities (Chairmen)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Public Appointments
  Public Appointments
  £1 Note and 50p Piece
  £1 Note and 50p Piece
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Inflation
  Inflation
  National Insurance
  National Insurance
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
SCOTLAND
  Schools (Dental Health)
  Schools (Dental Health)
  Western Isles
  Western Isles
  Clackmannan and Bowhouse
  Clackmannan and Bowhouse
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
EMPLOYMENT
  Trade Unionists
  Trade Unionists
  Motor Industry
  Motor Industry
  South Wales
  South Wales
  Trade Union Elections
  Trade Union Elections
  Factory Inspections (Scotland)
  Factory Inspections (Scotland)
  Laporte Industries, Ilford (Explosion)
  Laporte Industries, Ilford (Explosion)
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Unemployed Persons (European Community Assistance Schemes)
  Unemployed Persons (European Community Assistance Schemes)
  Statistics
  Statistics
  Pay Settlements
  Pay Settlements
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Fife (Young Persons)
  Fife (Young Persons)
  Technical Training
  Technical Training
  Redundancies (Cannock)
  Redundancies (Cannock)
  Social Contract
  Social Contract
  Low-Paid Workers
  Low-Paid Workers
  Scotland
  Scotland
  Training Facilities (Rural Areas)
  Training Facilities (Rural Areas)
  European Community Membership Effects
  European Community Membership Effects
  Press (Trade Union Membership)
  Press (Trade Union Membership)
  Vacancies (Notification)
  Vacancies (Notification)
  Fishing Industry Employees
  Fishing Industry Employees
  Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service
  Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service
  Employment Subsidy Scheme
  Employment Subsidy Scheme
  Construction Industry
  Construction Industry
  Automation (Employment Effects)
  Automation (Employment Effects)
  National Economic Development Council and Manpower Services Commission
  National Economic Development Council and Manpower Services Commission
  General Electric Company (Dispute)
  General Electric Company (Dispute)
  London
  London
  Weymouth and Portland
  Weymouth and Portland
  Gainsborough
  Gainsborough
  Casualties at Work
  Casualties at Work
  Training (Equipment Purchasing)
  Training (Equipment Purchasing)
  North-West England
  North-West England
  Public Appointments
  Public Appointments
  Cost of Living and Prices
  Cost of Living and Prices
  Collective Bargaining
  Collective Bargaining
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Somerset House (Industrial Dispute)
  Somerset House (Industrial Dispute)
  Working Population
  Working Population
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  French Egg Imports
  French Egg Imports
  Foodstuffs (Additives)
  Foodstuffs (Additives)
  Butter and Milk (Imports)
  Butter and Milk (Imports)
  Horticulture
  Horticulture
  Foodstuffs (Import Duties)
  Foodstuffs (Import Duties)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  House Building
  House Building
  Divorced Families (Child Maintenance)
  Divorced Families (Child Maintenance)
  Welrex Ltd., Bangor
  Welrex Ltd., Bangor
  Donaghadee (Health Centre)
  Donaghadee (Health Centre)
WALES
  Rented Housing
  Rented Housing
  Housing Associations
  Housing Associations
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Farms (Electricity Supplies)
  Farms (Electricity Supplies)
  Mortgage Lending
  Mortgage Lending
  Port Dinorwic Bypass
  Port Dinorwic Bypass
  Lending
  Lending
  Council House Building
  Council House Building
  Council House Rents
  Council House Rents
  Advance Factories
  Advance Factories
  Aberystwyth Traffic Scheme
  Aberystwyth Traffic Scheme
  Milk Producers
  Milk Producers

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ely.

FAMILY PASSPORTS AND THE EEC
Baroness FISHER of REDNAL: 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 practice and policy of member countries of the European Economic Community regarding the use of family passports.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, there is no uniform policy or practice and only three of the nine EEC countries issue family passports.
Baroness FISHER of REDNAL: My Lords, will my noble friend tell me whether the internationally agreed practices which are operated by the EEC were laid down in 1926 and, if that is correct, would he consider asking Her Majesty's Government to bring a much more up-to-date practice into operation in the immediate future?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. These practices were first formalised—some had been in use before—in 1926 under the aegis of the League of Nations. We are constantly consulting with other countries as to ways and means by agreement to improve passport policy. More often than not this country has probably taken the lead in this matter.

LEGAL AID AND ADVICE
2.38 p.m.
Lord GARDINER: 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 which member of the new Ministerial Committee on the Social Services will represent that form of social service which is known as Civil Legal Aid and Advice.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, the function of the Committee is to consider broad issues of social policy. It is not the practice to disclose the membership of Ministerial Committees, but I can assure your Lordships that I, as Lord Chancellor, look after legal aid whenever Ministers have occasion to discuss problems relating to it.
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, while thanking my noble and learned friend for that reply, may I ask whether it is likely that, if there is a Committee to divide up money available for social welfare, and social welfare in the form of civil legal aid and advice is not represented on the Committee, it may remain what it has always been, the Cinderella of the Social Services?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I shall be astute to ensure legal aid gets its proper share. The ordinary procedures of PESC and annual estimates will continue, and these arrangements will have no effect whatsoever on the financial allocation of funds for legal aid.

FIREARMS REGULATIONS
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they propose to take any action in regard to revising the regulations controlling the possession of firearms, and if so when this may be expected.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): Yes, my Lords, we agree that the existing controls need to be improved and intend to introduce appropriate legislation when a Parliamentary opportunity occurs.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I have been pursuing this matter for four years in this House, and have constantly had assurances of that kind, that the regulations would be both revised and better informed? Despite the fact that a Working Party of chief constables made recommendations on those points three years ago, nothing whatever of a practical nature has been done. Is my noble friend further aware that from figures given to me by successive Ministers on different sides of the House during these four years over 60 people in this Island have been shot by shotguns let alone other firearms, excluding cases of suicide or accident?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Yes, my Lords, the Government are well aware of the importance of this matter. That is why we have proposed to introduce legislation whenever a Parliamentary opportunity occurs to do so.
Lord HALE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we have been discussing Government Bills of no obvious urgency for a considerable space of time this Session? Does my noble friend regard the Lotteries Bill, for example, as of more vital and immediate urgency than the question of the safety of Her Majesty's subjects?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, this will be a far more substantial piece of legislation than the Lotteries Bill. As the previous Government discovered when they published their Green Paper, this is a highly complicated question. The Government are well aware of the importance of this matter, and certainly we will introduce legislation when we possibly can.

PUBLIC BOARDS: CHAIRMEN'S SALARIES
2.43 p.m.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is a fact that the salary of the chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission is to be £10,700, and if so how do the Government explain the contrast with the salary of approximately £16,500 paid to the chairman of the Royal Commission on the Distribution of Income and Wealth.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the salary of the chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission is £10,600. Other Home Office Boards which are considered to be of broadly comparable status are the Race Relations Board and the Community Relations Commission, both of whose chairmen are also paid a salary of £10,600. In determining the salary of the chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission it was not especially relevant to draw a comparison with the salary payable to the chairman of the Royal Commission on the Distribution of Income and Wealth whose role and responsibilities are somewhat different.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that very unsatisfactory Answer, may I ask him whether or not the Royal Commission on the Distribution of Income and Wealth is a body of an advisory character, and whether or not the Equal Opportunities Commission has widespread executive powers affecting the great majority of the population of this country, and therefore has far wider responsibilities than either of the two Commissions he has mentioned? Will he explain the discrepancy in view of that fact? Can he also tell me what size of staff services the Royal Commission on Distribution of Income and Wealth and what size of staff is proposed for the Equal Opportunities Commission?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, in determining the salaries of the chairmen of public boards, regard is had to

93
salaries paid to chairmen of boards that are thought to be most nearly comparable in terms of responsibility and which are most apposite. For example, the chairman of the Royal Commission on the Distribution of Income and Wealth is paid a salary of £16,350 a year, and this is also the salary paid to the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission, the Director General of Free Trading and the chairman of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and the chairman of the Price Commission. I am unable to answer the question as to the number of staff which will be at the disposal of either of the chairmen mentioned in the Question.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, does not my noble friend think that these disparities between the Commissions he has mentioned and the Equal Opportunities Commission will be a very unfavourable initiation for a body which is responsible for equal opportunities for women, when equal pay is already on the Statute Book.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I would hope not; but I would point out that the payment that is made to a chairman of a public board is determined by the Secretary of State of the Department which appoints the board, in consultation with the Minister responsible for the Civil Service. Great efforts are made to see that the salaries are comparable, but in the course of time certain inconsistencies creep in. My noble friend the Lord Privy Seal is at present considering the advisability of appointing an interdepartmental committee to consider the question of possible inconsistencies in these salaries.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, does not the Minister recognise that the chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission will have to set up an organisation throughout the country and will, according to the documents we have, be responsible for some 400 staff? Although the noble Lord has told us that a comparison is being made with the salary of the chairman of the Community Relations Commission, is he aware that he has no responsibility for such an organisation throughout the country because the Community Relations organisation up and down the country is locally appointed and is locally controlled?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, if these are the facts, then this is just the kind of situation which will be looked at by the proposed Committee.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, may I just say that it is unfortunate that this has not been looked at in advance?
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the figures mentioned in the Question constitute an act of gross indecency, in the light of the fact that the Press, the media, the Tories and our Front Benches are arguing that the rate of increase for men working in production to maintain the economy of this country is too high? Here we are talking about fabulous salaries.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with my noble friend.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that with the current terribly high rate of income tax, it does not really matter what anyone is paid as the Treasury takes most of it back anyway?
Lord HALE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it matters rather a lot in the terms of the feelings of those who are being appealed to to make no application for an increase in small incomes? In view of the fact that a Written Answer to a Question of my noble friend disclosed that the chairman is drawing threshold payments, may I ask the noble Lord how threshold payments accrued at an unprecedented rate to a new appointment, one which was made just about 12 months ago?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I have not mentioned threshold payments.
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the first three Questions this afternoon took two minutes each and that this one has been going on for nearly six?
Lord MAELOR: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that there is a great disparity between the amounts paid to these people and the amount paid to Members of the House of Lords? Is it not high time that that discrepancy was rectified?

ECONOMIC STATEMENT
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a Statement at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m.
Several Noble Lords: Order, order! What about?
Lord BYERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness to indicate the subject of this Statement?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I think it will be in the nature of a general economic Statement as it is being made in another place by the Chancellor.

FRASERBURGH HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Report received.
SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES BILL [H.L.]
Report received.

SEX DISCRIMINATION BILL
2.48 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. The subject before the House today is one in which your Lordships have throughout taken a major interest, and I see from the list of those who are to speak today that with a nice sense of balance there are eight noble Lords and eight noble Baronesses who wish to address the House.
It was, indeed, in your Lordships' House on 14th March 1972 that the Anti-Discrimination Bill introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, received its Second Reading. The House then took the unusual course of committing the Bill to a Select Committee under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Royle. The Committee came to the view—and I will quote their conclusion if I may—that the:
"… overwhelming weight of the evidence they received establishes beyond doubt that unfair and unnecessary discrimination on the
96
ground of sex exists in this country at the present time; that this state of affairs is both unjust to individuals and damaging to the economy; and that legislation would make a significant improvement and ought to be passed by Parliament as soon as possible."
I should like at this stage to pay tribute to the hard work done by the members of the Select Comittee which made, as I think we would all now acknowledge, a major contribution towards convincing the country that there was widespread inequality between the sexes and that legislation had an essential part to play in dealing with it.
The Government's Bill now before the House goes a long way beyond the original Bill introduced by the noble Baroness, and even beyond the Bill as it emerged from the Select Committee. It gives effect to the principle set out in the White Paper, Equality for Women (Cmnd. 5724), published last September. It is, I believe, the most comprehensive and far-reaching legislation of its kind in the world. The Bill is designed to combat unfair discrimination and to promote equality of opportunity. Its scope is far wider than the proposals of the previous Administration. Briefly, the Bill before us, as the Conservative proposals did, makes sex discrimination unlawful in employment and training and related areas. Unlike the previous Governments proposals, however, the present Bill applies to the educational field; it also applies to the provisions of the generality of goods, facilities and services to the public. It covers discriminatory advertising, victimisation and pressure to discriminate. The Bill reflects the importance which the Government attach to effective enforcement by combining the right of individual access to remedies with the establishment of a powerful Equal Opportunities Commission charged with enforcing the law in the public interest.
There are at least two major respects in which the principles on which the Bill is based go beyond the White Paper's proposals. First, it goes beyond direct and intentional discrimination to cover a practice which, regardless of motive, is discriminatory in its effect on persons of one sex and which cannot be shown to be justifiable. Suppose, for example, that an employer requires that would-be employees should satisfy a requirement, such as a minimum height requirement or a requirement for a number of years

97
of continuous service, with which considerably fewer women are able to comply than are men. If such a requirement is not justifiable in terms of the requirements for a particular job it will be unlawful, regardless of whether or not it was in fact intended to exclude women.
The second extension of principle is that we have made provision to allow certain kinds of "positive" or "affirmative" action designed to help women compete for employment opportunities on genuinely equal terms with men. Thus, the Bill permits in Clause 46 single sex training and encouragement for women, or where relevant for men, to take advantage of opportunities for doing work which members of that sex have not previously done. This does not amount to "reverse discrimination"; rather, it represents a real and necessary attempt to enable members of one sex to apply, or to become trained, for jobs which have traditionally been the preserve of the other sex.
I should like to add that the Government propose to introduce further Amendments of the same kind to the Bill in Committee. The first of these will permit the Manpower Services Commission and its agencies, industrial training boards or other bodies designated by the Secretary of State, to arrange special training courses for women who, because of family or domestic responsibilities, have been out of the labour market. The second Amendment will permit trade unions and other bodies covered by Clause 12 to retain or introduce special arrangements to ensure that at least some seats on elected committees and other bodies are filled by persons of the sex which is not normally represented on them.
The third Amendment affects education rather than employment and is designed to make it easier for the trustees of educational trusts, whose benefits are now restricted to members of one sex, to open them up to both sexes. The Government are fully aware of the principle in charity law that the law should respect, so far as is practicable, the donor's wishes. But there are precedents for a rather greater degree of flexibility with regard to educational trusts to meet major social changes. My right honourable friend believes that there is a case for implementing the principle of the Bill in relation to educational
98
charities by enabling, but not requiring, trustees to obtain leave to alter the original purpose of a trust so as to delete a condition or requirement based on sex. If no such change were to be made in the Bill, trustees of a single sex educational trust might have difficulty in moving to co-education. However, the Government recognise that there are problems about permitting trustees to have an unfettered and arbitrary right to modify their trusts if they feel so disposed. The Amendment which will be put before the House will therefore provide, subject to appropriate safeguards, for the modification of the trust instrument by an order by the appropriate Education Minister on the application of the trustees.
I should like now to draw attention to some of the more significant aspects of the Bill as it stands. Part I is concerned with the definition of "discrimination" for the purposes of the Bill. Nothing in Part I of itself makes discrimination unlawful. It is only where a person discriminates in a situation dealt with subsequently in the Bill that discrimination is unlawful. In the interests of clarity, the Bill as a whole is drafted in terms of discrimination against women. This drafting device, which was adopted also in the Equal Pay Act 1970, reflects the realities of the present situation. But the Bill applies equally to discrimination against men. This is achieved by Clause 2(1).
The Select Committee in your Lordships' House recommended that the Bill should make unlawful discrimination on the ground of marital status as well as on the ground of sex. The intention was primarily to cope with the problem of the marriage bar in employment. Marital status is, of course, particularly important for the very many arrangements relating to family support in the social security and taxation fields. The White Paper made it clear that this Bill could not deal with social security, pensions or taxation. These are complex matters which must be governed by their own legislation. But those aspects of marital status which are proper to the Bill have been dealt with in it. For example, Clause 3 deals with discrimination in the employment field on the ground that a person is married, thus making a marriage bar unlawful.
I come now to Part II of the Bill. Clauses 6 to 21 and Schedule 1 to the Bill deal with employment. The Bill

99
makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate, either on the ground of sex or against married persons, as regards the recruitment of new employees or his treatment of existing employees. It complements the Equal Pay Act 1970 by dealing with non-contractual aspects of employment and certain contractual aspects not covered by the 1970 Act, which is amended by Clause 8 of the Bill so that the two pieces of legislation do not overlap.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, will my noble friend give way for one moment? A point has struck me, after reading John Knox last night, about the trumpet against this monstrous regiment of women. What does my noble friend say if I am the manager of a colliery and a woman applies to me for a job at the coalface cutting coal? Would I still suffer punishment for refusing her the job?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, that point is dealt with in a subsequent Part of the Bill. The noble Lord will be gratified to learn that there will be no such requirement so far as women working at the coalface are concerned. But the Bill provides that women will be permited to work in certain situations. such as disused coalmines and places of this kind, which I am assured have a particular degree of importance and relevance, which had escaped me until I asked about it yesterday.
Lord TAYLOR of MANSFIELD: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the question of women working underground in the pits of Britain is covered by the Mines and Quarries Act 1954?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend, but, as I say, I think there is no immediate prospect of the problem arising under the terms of this Bill.
The Bill also covers discrimination against contract workers; by partnership; by trade unions; professional bodies and employers' associations; and in the granting of licences or other qualifications which facilitate the carrying on of a particular trade or occupation. The Bill provides that there shall be no discrimination in the provision of training
100
by the Manpower Services Commission, the Training Services Agency and by industrial training boards, or in the provision of services by the Employment Services Agency, the local education authority career services and employment agencies generally. On the other hand, the Bill contains two kinds of employment exceptions: specific exceptions, such as Clauses 6(3), 19 and 80(2), and provisions in Clause 7 for exceptions where it may be considered that sex is a genuine occupational qualification in relation to a particular job. The debate in your Lordships' House on 12th June indicated support for reasonable exceptions in legislation of this kind.
I should make it clear, however, that we have not sought to exclude Home Office services from the scope of this legislation. In particular, both the police and the prison service are covered. As regards the police, there is complete integration in the Metropolitan Police. Outside London there are separate establishments for men and women police officers. But the days when policewomen had only a limited range of specialist duties have gone. In every force, women are serving in at least some of the specialist departments such as the Criminal Investigation Department. We have encouraged police authorities to ensure that the separate establishments for women make provision for an adequate career structure. Under the terms of the Bill, the police will have to consider applicants for posts solely on the qualifications required for the service or for the particular post, and select the best one, man or woman. A number of jobs in the police and the other Home Office services may fall within the scope of Clause 7 of the Bill, but the point is that we are subjecting these services to exactly the same tests as any other employer.
I should like to mention briefly another Home Office service which has always employed a substantial proportion of women and provides an example of a different aspect of the effect of the Bill. The Probation and After-Care Service has for many years recruited a substantial number of women. Indeed, currently the proportion of entrants to the service is in the region of half and half. The proportion of women in the basic grade is one out of every three. But this proportion is not at present reflected in the higher ranks. Among the rank

101
of assistant chief probation officer the proportion of women is not one in three but one out of six, and among the 55 chief probation officers there is only one who is a woman. I regard this as an entirely unsatisfactory situation. Reinforced by the Bill, we are determined to do our best to ensure that we get far more women into senior posts in the Probation Service.
Finally, in relation to Part II I should mention the protective legislation relating to the employment of women, mainly in the Factories Act 1961. The previous Government proposed to repeal this, but there was much criticism from the trade unions and some other organisations. The Bill, as introduced, retained this by means of the saving for existing legislation in what is now Clause 48, although it contained provision for review by the Equal Opportunities Commission in conjunction with the Health and Safety at Work Commission.
We have been giving further thought to this in the light of developments in another place, and are considering the possibility of putting before the House Amendments to that part of the protective legislation which concerns restrictions on women working with moving machinery.
As regards the remaining restrictions, which mainly concern the hours of work of women, we have strengthened the requirement in Clause 52, which now provides that the Secretary of State may not only ask the Commission to report on the restrictions but require it to do so by a certain date. The Government are determined to see that at least a first review of all the provisions involved will be completed by the end of 1978.
I now turn to Clauses 22 to 28 and Schedule 2 to the Bill which relate to discrimination in education. It is made unlawful for the body responsible for a school, university or other educational establishment specified in, or designated under, the relevant clauses to discriminate as regards admissions or the treatment of pupils. In these respects, the Bill now treats educational institutions, whether in the public or private sector, in the same way as other persons covered by the Bill. Clause 25 goes further, however. It carries out the White Paper proposal in relation to the public sector that a positive duty should be laid on educational authorities. Local education authorities
102
and other responsible bodies will be required not only to ensure that their present policies are not discriminatory but also to consider their future policies. This forward approach is of particular importance in education where planning is necessarily long term.
However, the Bill makes an exception for single sex educational establishments—both those which exist now and ones which may be set up in the future. The Government think that it is right that parents who prefer single sex schools should retain their freedom of choice, although we expect, and hope, that the trend towards co-education will continue. The Bill will not, therefore, require an essentially single sex establishment to go co-educational. However, the Bill enables such institutions to go co-educational, if they so wish, over a period of time which takes account of the accommodation, facilities and resources of the responsible body.
Clauses 29 and 30 make discrimination in the provision to the public, or a section of the public, of goods, services and facilities and of housing accommodation unlawful. Examples of services and facilities covered by Clause 29 include loans, finance, mortgages and facilities for recreation and entertainment. The list of exceptions is set out in Clauses 31 to 34. In the main, they cover various facilities or services organised on a single sex basis.
In Part IV of the Bill, Clause 37 makes it unlawful to publish an advertisement which could reasonably be understood to indicate an intention to do an act which is unlawful under the provisions of Part II or Part III of the Bill, unless the act in question is in fact not unlawful. The publisher will not be liable if he reasonably relies upon a statement made by the advertiser that one of the exceptions applies; but the advertiser who knowingly makes a false statement commits a summary offence. Other clauses deal with discriminatory instructions and practices, with pressure to discriminate and with cases of vicarious liability.
Part V of the Bill specifies a number of exceptions to the scope of Parts II to IV. I come now to Parts VI and VII of the Bill. These provide for the setting up of an Equal Opportunities Commission to work towards the elimination of discrimination and to promote equality of

103
opportunity between men and women. The Commission will be able, on its own initiative, to investigate discriminatory practices. It will have powers to require the production of relevant information and it will be empowered to deal with unlawful discriminatory practices by issuing "non-discrimination notices". These will require the cessation of those practices and will be enforceable in the courts by way of injunction. There will be power to require recipients to inform the Commission of steps taken to comply with a non-discrimination notice. The Commission will have power to assist individual complainants to pursue their cases when these raise questions of principle, or special considerations apply. The Commission will also have a general responsibility to oversee and advise on the working of the Bill and the Equal Pay Act and to point the way to increasing equality of opportunity between the sexes in areas not covered by the Bill.
The general approach in enforcement is to combine the right of direct individual access to county courts or industrial tribunals, with the strategic role of a powerful Equal Opportunities Commission which has the responsibility and the powers to enforce the law in the public interest.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, do not these powers far exceed any of those possessed by the Manpower Commission or the Race Relations Board?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am sure that my right honourable friends—I am using the plural on the basis of the Question which was asked by my noble friend at Question Time—will be aware of the point that the noble Baroness has made and will take account of this in their future action. Complaints about unlawful discrimination in employment and related areas—which may well be closely linked with complaints under the Equal Pay Act or in respect of unfair dismissals—will be dealt with by industrial tribunals. Conciliation will be available as it is at present in the case of unfair dismissals.
Other complaints will go to the courts, except that complaints related to the public sector of education are to be made
104
in the first instance to the Education Ministers so that they may consider using their powers of direction under the Education Acts. In four areas where the public interest role predominates—advertising, discriminatory practices, discriminatory instructions and pressure to discriminate—enforcement in cases of this kind will be solely in the hands of the Equal Opportunities Commission which can, if need be, obtain a court order.
The remedies available from the courts in individual cases will be damages (including damages for injured feelings) a declaration of rights and injunctions. Industrial tribunals will be able to award compensation on the same basis as the courts can award damages (subject in their case to the limit in unfair dismissals legislation which is currently £5,200) a declaration of rights and a recommendation as to a particular course of action. Damages and compensation will not be available in respect of "unintentional" indirect discrimination. Part VIII of the Bill—
Viscount DAVENTRY: My Lords, if I may be so bold as to interrupt the noble Lord, are we expected to follow this long and gabbled reading out of something which has been written not by him but by somebody else?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am sure that was graciously meant, as it sounded. I am going through what is a long and complicated Bill for the interest of those Members of the House who wish to follow me.
Part VIII of the Bill deals with supplemental matters. Clause 75 gives the Secretary of State, after consulting the Equal Opportunities Commission, power to amend certain provisions of the Bill. The power is proposed because of the difficulty of defining the exceptions to the principle of non-discrimination in this new field. Clause 78 gives the power to bring different parts of the Bill into operation at different times. It is my right honourable friend's intention to bring the Bill generally into operation on 29th December 1975, the same day as the Equal Pay Act. The implementation of these two important pieces of legislation will be both a fitting contribution and a suitable end to International Women's Year.

105
My Lords, this Bill is an essential condition for an effective equal opportunities policy. But it would be foolish to pretend that the passage of this Bill will end discrimination overnight. The prejudices not so much of decades, but of centuries, will not be swept away as easily as that. But the passage of this Bill will at least mark the intention of Parliament to begin a determined campaign against sex discrimination, It will indicate that even at a time of grave national economic difficulty, Parliament thought it right to give priority to a measure designed to rid this country of the blight of irrational prejudice against the majority of our fellow-citizens who happen to be women. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
3.14 p.m.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, I am very glad indeed to have the opportunity from these Benches of congratulating the Government wholeheartedly on the piece of legislation which is before the House this afternoon. There is no doubt at all that it is a very great improvement on the many previous attempts that have been made to introduce legislation against discrimination on grounds of sex. Those of us who have been concerned with previous efforts must particularly appreciate the amount of work and thought that has gone into the measure which is before your Lordships' House today. I would particularly welcome certain of the changes which the Government have introduced, and, although I have not yet had the opportunity of seeing the Amendments which the Government propose to introduce later, I believe, from what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has said, that some of them will be a further advance in the policy embodied in this Bill.
In particular, I am glad that there is an enlargement of the scope of the legislation. Previous proposed Bills have said that discrimination should be banned in the fields of education, training and employment. All of us who have discussed this subject have felt that this left out a number of matters of very great importance to women, and I hope that with the extension of the scope of the legislation we have now done for ever
106
with the disadvantages and idiocies that have affected women in the areas of finance, mortgages, housing and the many other ridiculous examples of discrimination which have on previous occasions been brought to the attention of your Lordships. I am also very glad about the realism in this legislation. We are dealing here with a very complicated and subtle matter, and merely to legislate against discrimination without taking account of the real facts of the present scene would not get us very far.
The two changes which particularly demonstrate this realism are, first, the indirect discrimination clause. Clause 1(1) (b) will mean that a great many cases which could have been maintained legally without this clause will now fall. It is true that there could have been the appearance of non-discrimination, but no reality of it unless it was required of employers—as this new clause now requires—that any differences in the conditions laid down must be justifiable and not merely applied equally to both men and women. For example, this will raise issues of seniority where women are often at a considerable disadvantage. A woman who has had a break in her period of employment and returns either to the same employer or, as frequently happens, to some other employer, would always be at a disadvantage where rigid seniority was always applied. In certain cases, it may be shown that seniority requirements are justifiable, but where this cannot be shown women will stand on all fours with men in competition for jobs which previously, by this provision alone, would have been barred to them.
Secondly, great realism is shown in the training provisions, particularly the permission for what amounts to a degree of reverse discrimination in relation to training. The fact of the matter is that without very great emphasis on training this Bill would be frustrated in its intention. If you look at the figures for men and women in both skilled employment and in the professional and semi-professional occupations, and leave out what are loosely called traditional women's professions—nursing, teaching, and social work—less than 10 per cent. of the women have qualifications, with the exception of medicine and dentistry. It seems rather odd that the profession in which women have achieved most is medicine, though in

107
any discussions on this subject the finger has frequently been pointed to the medical profession as being an arch-discriminator. It is nonsense to talk about equal opportunity when we find, for example, that under 3 per cent. of qualified accountants are women, and that in many other areas qualified women are not there to fill the jobs. I want to emphasise as strongly as I can that to put the weight of effort behind improving training and to take full advantage of this clause—which is, of course, only permissive—to discriminate in favour of women in the area of training, is the sine qua non of turning the intention behind this legislation into a reality.
I would also congratulate the Government on what I believe to be the very successful balance which they have struck between a degree of reverse discrimination in regard to training, and resisting the pressures for a more widespread application of the policy of reverse discrimination. Of course it is attractive to many women, and there are a number of groups of women at the present time who would like to see widespread reverse discrimination, with the opportunity for women to be given jobs simply by virtue of the fact that they are women, and so that they can, as it were, claim a certain percentage of jobs. In the discussion on the Select Committee two years ago we were quite clear that this would be a wrong policy and I think it has to be spelt out again just why it is a wrong policy. In the first place it is a wrong policy because women have claimed all along that, if there is no discrimination, then on their merits they can get the job as persons; they do not need preferential treatment in order to get the jobs that have to be filled, provided discrimination is removed.
More fundamentally than that, society after all has a right to demand that the person best qualified for a job should be the person who gets that job, and it should not be given out on any principle other than that of the person best qualified to do the job. We should not accept any other principle. I know, of course, that the principle is abused again and again and is not applied; but that it needs to be upheld is beyond all doubt, because once it is accepted that jobs are given to people not because they are best suited to have them but for any other reason, the door is open to appoint-
108
ments for all manner of irrelevant and indeed harmful reasons.
I would also congratulate the Government on the way in which they have established the Equal Opportunities Commission and have left enforcement in individual cases to the industrial tribunals. I believe it would have greatly weakened the work of the Equal Opportunities Commission if they had been lumbered with a very large number of individual cases. They would not have been able to direct their attention to the kind of activities which it is most necessary that they should undertake, if they were expected to deal with individual cases.
Of course, in saying this I do not say that I have no criticisms at all of this Bill. That would be very surprising indeed. Most of the criticisms I have to make are Committee points rather than matters to be raised at Second Reading. As many other people will be, I am sorry—although I entirely expected it—that the Government are absolutely adamant that they will make no change with regard to pension age. They regard it as an immutable fact of nature that women retire at one age and men at another. A great many people have pressed this point on a number of occasions. It is obvious that there are difficulties in making the alteration and one could not expect it to be made straight away, but it is disappointing that there is no sign coming from the Government that they have any intention of looking again at this matter. Certainly, it was a great surprise to our EEC partners to find that we took this attitude towards the retirement age and made this extraordinary exception in non-discrimination practice in legislation that we were proposing.
I am also anxious about the enforcement procedure with regard to education. There is no doubt that education and training are the key to ridding ourselves of sex discrimination. Where appointments are concerned, there is the machinery of the industrial tribunal but there is no real corresponding machinery inside the educational field. It is true that the Secretary of State for Education can order an inquiry through the local authority, but as I read the provisions for enforcement in the education field it seems to me that they are to work very

109
slowly, and in educational matters it is not very much help if the procedure works slowly.
If a girl wishes to go into a class for mechanical drawing and she is told at the age of 14 that that class is only for boys—and girls have been told that in the past—and this is taken up through the procedure laid down in the Bill, it seems likely that her protest may benefit subsequent generations of girls but she will have passed into another class, or indeed passed out of the school altogether, before an inquiry can be ordered and undertaken. In the enforcement procedure with regard to education there is an element of the Ministry being judge in its own case. This raises some doubts in my mind as to whether in this Bill for ensuring that equal opportunity comes about it will, in fact, come about in the education service and come about with the speed which is so important.
With the passing of this Bill—and I think there is no question but that this Bill will pass—we have come to the end of the first phase of ridding the country of sex discrimination. We have not got rid of it. In my view it is absolutely vital that there should be legislation: legislation puts the seal of approval of society on a very important social change; legislation provides sanctions to use against those people who try to resist the elimination of discrimination. That seal of approval and those sanctions are a vital part of the progress towards a society in which discrimination becomes a thing of the past.
But as has been said again and again, legislation by itself will not get rid of discrimination. At the stage we have now reached, I believe that the lawyers should go to the back of the stage and the social scientists should come to the front, because we are now dealing with a change in the attitudes of people and how that change is best brought about; not, I think, by wielding the big stick, although it has to be there in the background. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, in referring to the functions of the Equal Opportunities Commission, drew attention to its power to take cases to the courts, to its power to undertake investigations and to serve non-discrimination notices. This is right and this power has to be there, but this is not the
110
way in which real changes of attitude take place. Changes, be they in an individual or in a social group, really succeed only if the individual or the group takes inside itself the need for change. This is far more difficult to do than merely to serve a non-discrimination notice.
Change is not brought about by authoritarian methods, although having them there may help. It seems to me that the prime work of the Equal Opportunities Commission will be to find words with which the people who need to be changed are themselves to be convinced that it is both right and worth their while to work for change. May I illustrate what I mean by something which has been going on in the field of race relations. On the one hand we have had the Race Relations Board attempting to enforce equal opportunities policies, and they admit disappointment in the results. I am bound to say—and I said it to them before they embarked on this policy—that I am not in the least surprised that they are disappointed because, in fact, the organisation which has the prime responsibility for law enforcement is not the organisation which is perceived to be, or can be, the most effective persuader, the most effective educator, the most effective researcher.
I do not believe that the function of the policeman and the function of the educator really combine very well. On the other hand, the Community Relations Commission, with the help of the Department of Employment working through the business schools and the technical colleges, is getting a considerable amount of collaboration in undertaking case studies inside organisations, in order to study their problems of race relations and the integration of immigrant labour. What it is doing here is not coming and ordering, but working alongside the people who have, in fact, to bring about these changes.
As I see it, the primary role of the Equal Opportunities Commission will be to work alongside the trade unions, employers and education authorities to explore the problems, examine the difficulties, put forward research, and in any other way they can bring about the changes which are accepted internally by those who have to bring those changes

111
about. This is a far harder task, but far more likely in the long run to get the results for which we have all been seeking for so long, and which it is the intention of this legislation to achieve.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, who introduced the Bill, for the clarity with which he did it, and for the sympathetic way in which he seemed prepared to accept Amendments in Committee. I should like also to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for the tremendous work she has done for this cause over many years. I have been out of it for some time, because I lost my seat, but I have read most of what has been produced by the noble Baroness, and thank her very much for what she has done. May I also thank the Secretary of State for Social Services. In her previous Ministry, she helped with the Equal Pay Bill and is now supporting this Bill.
My Lords, before we go into detail on the Bill, I should like to suggest that the career of a housewife is a very real one. Housewives are the backbone of our society. In times of war, they have come out in their thousands to help their country. This Bill will help those who want to work either for economic or professional reasons, or who have the time and need to use their many abilities in a job of work. I wish to follow what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said with regard to pensionable age. I regret that we have to follow the Communist countries in this; they have differences in pensionable ages. Also, I am sorry that we have not yet disposed of the Factory Acts.
With regard to the educational points raised by the noble Baroness, may I suggest to her that more people are now employing girls, for example, in engineering. If the Royal Navy can have girls in the dockyards—and the Royal Navy is one of the most staid organisations—this is a great step forward. I am delighted that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, is leading from this side, because I know that previously he has been successful in helping us. He has also been very sympathetic.
My Lords, I suggest to your Lordships that this is a complicated Bill with, I
112
regret to say, many loopholes. Clause 1(1)(b)(ii) states:
"… which he cannot show to be justifiable irrespective of the sex of the person to whom it is applied",
and (iii) states:
"… which is to her detriment because she cannot comply with it."
The word "justifiable" is open to abuse. The Equal Opportunities Commission, as does the Race Relations Board, will not investigate all complaints, nor will there be a conciliation committee. The individual will have a right to go direct to the Industrial Tribunal or the county court, and because the latter may be quite expensive, I should like to know whether there is to be any free legal aid.
Freed from involvement with every complaint, I gather that the role of the Equal Opportunities Commission will be mainly strategic. The Commission can conduct investigations into situations where major sources of inequality will be found; in other words, they will have a certain amount of independence. This change in the thinking of the Government owes much to the experience in the United States, which has shown that discrimination must be seen as the product of practices and systems which may be extremely complex, and which may not be the intentional act of anyone. I should like to know whether the Government are considering issuing guidelines for the Equal Opportunities Commission.
My Lords, I have just received a document called Management Attitudes and Practices towards Women at Work written by Audrey Hunt on behalf of the Department of Employment. She says:
"It is hoped that this will bring light on possible ways of reducing or eliminating differences in the field where they are not justifiable or reasonable."
She goes on to say:
"Sampling difficulties led to the exclusion "—
this is what worries me—
"of agriculture, mining and quarrying, gas, electricity, water, professional services and public administration."
So it seems to me that even this document does not give a full survey. I hope this point will be looked at in Committee.
With regard to Clause 3, I should like to know under what section the widow

113
comes. In Clause 7(d) I note that hospitals are exempt. I realise that this may be in order to protect the one-sex hospitals. I gather that in the nursing profession, particularly among the women, the question is raised of whether this could be used to support a decision to offer a charge nurse post on male wards only to men. Women are very worried about this point. It is considered at present that, in proportion to their numbers, men hold too many of the higher posts in nursing; in some hospitals I know that the matrons are men, or there would be no matrons at all! This is a point which I think could be looked at again.
Also in Clause 7, I think it is unfortunate that subsection (f) states:
"… the job needs to be held by a man because of restrictions imposed by the laws regulating the employment of women,".
This comes back again to the Factory Acts. With regard to subsection (g), women cannot hold jobs in overseas countries, in Muslim countries, for example, where it might be difficult for them. I have held jobs in Africa, Indonesia and Malaysia. I cannot see that there are any particular difficulties for women who hold jobs here, so perhaps we could have detailed reasons later on.
Many of your Lordships will have received letters from the Association of Assistant Mistresses with regard to the future of their employment. This refers to Clause 12(1). It seems unfortunate that Clause 19 should be included in the Bill. This deals with religion. The General Synod of the Church of England were debating on Thursday, I gather. I realise that the argument regarding the traditions of the Church of England is a matter of pure doctrine, with resistance on theological grounds, but 30 out of 43 dioceses have decided there would be no fundamental objection to the ordination of women. I suggest that the Church of England at present is undermanned. In the area in the country where I live, the vicar has three parishes. Most noble Lords will agree, I think, that most congregations are made up of women. Women hold a women's Day of Prayer, which is entirely run by women. The Congregationalists have more than 49 women ministers; that is the latest figure I have been able to obtain and includes
114
a well-known one, the Rev. Elsie Chamberlain, who happens to be married to a Church of England clergyman. The Methodists have deaconesses with the same duties. Recently in Hong Kong, in the Church of England a woman was ordained.
My Lords, the leading article in The Times today reads:
"The most obvious practical effect would be to make it more difficult to achieve inter-communion with the Roman Catholic Church."
I do not think this ought to stop us making any changes. Perhaps we might consider Henry VIII, and what he did in previous generations. I wish to refer to Clause 29, in particular, because I find it extremely difficult to understand a great many of the clauses. This is what worries me about the Bill. Clause 29(3) states:
"For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that where a particular skill is commonly exercised in a different way for men and for women it does not contravene subsection (l) for a person who does not normally exercise it for women to insist on exercising it for a woman only in accordance with his normal practice or,"—
and this is one I really object to—
"if he reasonably considers it impractible to do that in her case, to refuse or deliberately omit to exercise it."
It would be very interesting to know what this really means.
It is, I suggest, extremely complicated. If the laws are to apply equally to men and women, action should be taken to amend the Street Offences Act 1959. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, tried in this House, I think, on three occasions, certainly two, to get some action. I do not want to see women soliciting in the streets, but in all fairness they would not be there if it was not for men. The number of prosecutions since this Act, regrettably, is going up; it was 3,466 in 1972. The Josephine Butler Society urged that the law must apply equally to all citizens, men and women. Surely, if this Bill is trying to get equality for men and women, this should be included, and no person should be convicted of annoyance without proper evidence from the person aggrieved. The Street Offences Act 1959, which I fought in the other House, is a major discrimination against women. I am bringing it up because a number of women earn their living this way, keep their families this way. It is unfortunate.

115
But their action is not considered under the law to be criminal, and, therefore, I suggest that, as it is not a criminal offence, they should not be penalised. This might be brought into this Bill to get the situation rectified.
Finally, may I ask the Minister where the office of the EOC is to be established. It has been rumoured that it will be established in Manchester. I hope he will say that this is not the fact, because all the women's organisations are centred in London and I think it is essential that one should keep in contact with them. I shall hope, perhaps, to put down several Amendments on Committee stage, but I should like to thank the Minister for the fact that the Bill has now at last reached this House.

THE ECONOMIC SITUATION
3.42 p.m.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord SHEPHERD): My Lords, with the permission of the House, I will now repeat a Statement which has just been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. His words are as follows:
"The Government have been engaged in discussions with the TUC and CBI about measures to achieve a drastic reduction in the rate of domestic inflation. For millions of our fellow citizens, particularly housewives and pensioners, this is the overriding priority. It is a pre-condition for reducing unemployment and increasing investment. Although these discussions are not yet concluded, I believe it is necessary for the Government to state their intentions now.
"We are determined to bring the rate of domestic inflation down to 10 per cent, by the end of the next pay round and to single figures by the end of 1976. This means the increase in wages and salaries during the next pay round cannot exceed 10 per cent. The same limit is being set for dividends.
"The Government have already reached an advanced stage in preparing measures which are fair and just. These measures will ensure that all sections of the community share the burden fairly.
116
They will set out how the 10 per cent. limit for settlements should be expressed, for example, as a percentage or flat rate or some mixture of the two. They will describe how the Government can satisfy the public that the limits are being observed. They will also cover action to check the rate of price increases as the rate of pay inflation slows. In addition they will deal with the central problem of compliance, since it is no good having an agreed limit for pay increases unless we can be certain it will not be exceeded. In particular we must be able to satisfy those who settle early in the round that they will not be left behind by later settlements at an excessive level. I know the TUC attaches special importance to this.
"The Government will use a battery of weapons for this purpose. For example, we propose to fix cash limits for wage bills in the public sector so that all concerned may understand that the Government are not prepared to foot the bill for excessive settlements through subsidies or borrowing or by loading excess costs on the public through increases in prices and charges. We will take action through the Price Code to encourage compliance by private employers.
"I propose to employ the system of cash limits more generally as a means of controlling public expenditure in the short term.
"The Government are already consulting the CBI and TUC about the proposals. They welcome the efforts the TUC have already made to arrive at a plan for lower pay increases in the next round. We would much prefer to proceed on the basis of a voluntary policy agreed with the CBI and TUC. But a voluntary policy will not be acceptable to the Government unless it satisfies the targets they have set for reducing inflation and includes convincing arrangements for ensuring compliance. If, however no agreement can be reached which meets these conditions, the Government will be obliged to legislate to impose a legal requirement on both public and private sector employers to comply with the 10 per cent. limit. The Government will announce their decisions in a White

117
Paper to be published before the end of next week."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.46 p.m.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating this Statement. I think it must be obvious to all of us why the Government have made this Statement this afternoon. Therefore, it would not be my intention to make any particular comment on it, or to make things more difficult at the present time. I would say only this, that it is in any event very difficult to make a comment on a Statement which is a Statement of intent rather than a Statement which sets out what is going to be done. Of course, the test of it is whether it is adequate. I do not think we have the facts yet to know whether it is adequate; neither have we the Government's proposals to know whether they are adequate. In any event, the whole depends on whether the Government have the capacity and the will to carry out their intentions. But it is no business of any Opposition at this stage to make the life of the Government more difficult, and certainly nobody on this side would wish to do so.
I should like to ask the noble Lord one question. The last phrase of the Statement says that a legal requirement will be put on private and public sector employers to comply with the 10 per cent. Does that mean a statutory incomes policy? We should like to know whether that phrase bears that interpretation. But, as I say, it is not the duty or the role of an Opposition to make things more difficult in circumstances such as these. Equally, it is the duty of the Government to act in the national interest, and in so far as this is a step towards action it is welcome. We shall await the next stage before making any substantive comment.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, I should like to follow the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, by saying that we, too, would wish to be helpful. We welcome the fact that at last a Statement of intent has been made, and we welcome the determination of the Government, expressed in the Statement, to try to control this monster of inflation with which we are all battling
118
at present. What is important is to make sure that the proposals are implemented with the greatest possible urgency. From these Benches we naturally welcome the fact that the Government are prepared to consider a statutory incomes policy, if indeed that proves necessary, because ever since the February Election we have been warning the Government that, in our view, if the voluntary system did not work, something of the sort would be necessary. We know all the difficulties we have had confronting us. I think the Government have had courage in including that phrase in the Statement they have made today. I want to ask only one question. When does the next pay round begin, when does it end, and what is to be done in the meantime to prevent a rush of excessive pay claims in the immediate future?
3.50 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I can only thank the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Byers, for the way in which they have received this important Statement. There can be no denying that inflation is today not only the greatest curse of this country but also of Europe, and unfortunately we, for our special reasons, are suffering from this disease with greater severity than others. It is a disease that only we can cure. There is no doubt that, although pay and wages play a part, other factors also have their influence on inflation, but pay and wages today play a very significant part. Therefore, it is necessary to deal with them.
It has been the Government's hope—and I believe this is a hope that has been shared by the Opposition, the Conservative Party—that we should seek, by consent, to have a voluntary policy. It is still our wish that, through consent and the co-operation of the CBI, the TUC, and all the workpeople throughout this country, we should be able to achieve a policy that will restrain wages and incomes to this 10 per cent., or some flat rate equivalent, and that we can break inflation in the coming year. If this is not possible, then the Government have a responsibility well beyond their own members; they have a responsibility to the people as a whole, and therefore they may have to take legal requirements to enforce—I hope there will be an agreed view—measures both for the public and for the private sector. Do not let us play

119
with words, whether it is a statutory policy or otherwise. At this moment of time what we must seek to do is to get the widest measure of consent. If I may refer to Mr. Jack Jones, it seems that today at Blackpool he has had a major triumph within his union. There are leaders of unions who are seeking by consent to achieve a new policy that can break inflation.
In answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Byers, as to when a new pay round starts or the old pay round ends, my understanding is that it was when Stage 3 came to an end, which was the month of July, 1974. Therefore, we are now at the end of the old pay round and any of the major claims—I do not think that there are any exceptions—then become part of the new pay claims. This is a matter on which the Government must hope that we can still at this late hour, after long debate with our friends of the CBI and the TUC, reach a measure of consent and have a voluntary policy. We have a few days in which efforts ought to be made by all of us. If we fail then we shall have the White Paper, Parliament will have its opportunity to discuss it, and the legislation obviously would flow from it.
Lord REDMAYNE: My Lords, I obviously would not quarrel with what the noble Lord has said or what my noble friend has said about not inquiring too closely into the detailed Statement which the Government have made. Nevertheless, since I speak as a retailer for a low paid industry, I should like to put it on the record with the Minister that he must not too easily accept that a flat rate equivalent to a percentage limit is necessarily the right answer, in the sense that it will bear very heavily on the profits of traders who are already oppressed by price control to a quite unwarrantable degree. We do not take part in these direct discussions between the CBI and the TUC. I would therefore ask with all the more emphasis that this point should be borne in mind.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, clearly all matters need to be given thought, but I should not at this stage have thought that special pleading for any particular section of our community, however warranted and however difficult their circumstances may be, is particularly
120
opportune. We need now to carry the nation as a whole with us during this very difficult period. Sacrifices are bound to have to be made. I hope, however, that what sacrifices are made will be borne by those who can best bear them, and that we shall seek to mitigate the difficulties for those who are less strong.
Lord MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that millions of people living on fixed incomes, and millions of people who do not have the power of powerful trade unions to compensate themselves for rises due to inflation, are the people who suffer most from inflation and will welcome anything that the Government do to check inflation? Some of us are very glad that the noble Lord has mentioned Jack Jones who, in his various speeches, has stated the case of the pensioners on fixed incomes, and the need for a rational policy on the part of the trade unions.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. We have not only to consider at this moment those who are pensioners and who are on fixed incomes. What I think few appreciate is that one also needs to consider those who have saved their money, and to ensure that the sacrifices they made to achieve that are not lost. These are all factors which I believe are part of the national interest, and if we can get co-operation, through the media and through political co-operation which I hope we shall receive, then I have no doubt at all that the British people will respond.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is a great deal of good sense in the announcement that he has made, and that we are reasonably sure that the vast majority of the nation will welcome the Statement? Would my noble friend agree that such a policy can only be of a temporary nature; that flat rate increases and so on, vital as they are now, cannot remain long? Would he therefore ensure that the Government now discuss with the TUC and the CBI a more permanent structure; that is, permanently to replace the absurdities of collective bargaining with a more sensible structure which can serve us well in the years to come?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have no doubt that my noble friend is right,

121
but I am sure he would agree that the first sense of energy and resolve for the Government must be to see that we get through the next 12 months with the policy that I have just outlined being accepted and implemented by all of us.
Viscount WATKINSON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the 10 per cent. figure is the figure that the CBI feels, after much discussion and research, is the maximum that will enable us to stay competitive in world markets, on which our whole livelihood depends? Is he further aware that if the Government now can give a lead to the nation and propose fair and reasonable terms, he will not lack co-operation from the business community?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I hope that we shall receive co-operation and support from all quarters of this country. Competitiveness is not only a question of what is paid but of what is earned, what is done, and what is performed. Therefore, one needs now not only to look at the immediate question of pay but to a high degree of co-operation between management and workpeople to see that we produce goods competitively, and seize the opportunities which I hope will be available in 1975, when we hope there will be an upturn in trade. Having achieved that, I hope we can look to a much wider and a greatly intensified of investment in our industries.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, it is sometimes difficult to ask all the questions one should when one has seen a Statement for only a very short time. There is one question which I think I should have asked the noble Lord. There is no mention in the Statement of Government expenditure. Is this by accident or design?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I refer the noble Lord to the words in the Statement,
"I propose to employ the system of cash limits more generally as a means of controlling public expenditure in the short term."
One can cut public expenditure in figures, but it has little immediate effect. What we need to do is to curb the availability of cash in the short term.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that on both sides of the House a majority of noble
122
Lords welcome the Statement? I believe that it would be appropriate to pay a tribute to wise leadership in the TUC and to the co-operation o the CBI. Through their joint efforts they have arrived at this rough formula. Finally, is my noble friend aware that some of us like the militaristic language used in the Statement—in particular, the expression "the Government have a battery of weapons"? Out of that battery of weapons, will my noble friend fire one? Will he look carefully at price controls, because the price of elementary foodstuffs in the shops hits hardest at the old age pensioners and those in low income groups?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, of course one could and should look at this; but one must be fair and must recognise that, in relation to food, we are very much subject to world influences. I do not believe that this Government could have done more than they have in the field of subsidy and, in particular, in the raising of old age pensions and the many other social measures which they have carried out. I hope that a Paper will very shortly be issued in which the country will see what is called the "social wage" and the extent to which that social wage has been increased in the last eighteen months.
May I suggest, since we have now been discussing this Statement for 20 minutes, whereas we were previously discussing the Sex Discrimination Bill, and since we may need to consider this matter further next week when we may have greater knowledge and more information, it may be well to bring this discussion to a conclusion and to move back to the Bill.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, I should like to make one last point, which I feel ought to be cleared up. At a time when we are asking for voluntary control by so many people and for self-sacrifice by so many others, can we say, from Parliament, that we will not see the Boyle recommendations brought forward either in this House or in another place, because to do so would be out of sympathy with the whole tone—which is courageous in its intent—of the Statement which the Government have made today?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I had hoped that the noble Lord might have taken the sense of the House that we

123
should move on. I have no idea what view the Government will take on Boyle. Boyle has produced one Report and he has a number of others yet to submit to the Government. I do not think that this is a suitable occasion for us to consider that particular aspect of the matter.

SEX DISCRIMINATION BILL
4.5 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, it might be tempting to me to make some observations on the very important statements which your Lordships have just heard, but I should be out of order in doing so and it is my duty to return your Lordships' minds to the Bill which is before the House. I rise simply to congratulate the Government and, in particular, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, Mr. Jenkins, and Dr. Shirley Summerskill, who dealt with the Bill in the other place. I think this is a splendid Bill. It is, of course, a vast improvement on the Bill foreshadowed by the last Conservative Administration, and on the Private Member's Bill to which your Lordships gave a Second Reading and sent to a Select Committee on which I had the honour of serving.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has said, this is not a field in which the law can do everything. However, we need the law as a basis. In this country, I believe that for too long every decision that matters has been made by a minority of the population who are men. This applies in Government, the Civil Service, industry and practically every walk of life. Whether they have made a perfect success of the way they run things is open to question. I have nothing against men, but they are competitive and have a great love of power. Women are not so interested in competition; they prefer collaboration. Few women want power; they are interested in service—in serving the community as well as their families. Men are aggressive. More than 90 per cent. of all crime is committed by men; and if men behaved as well as women, the whole crime problem would be solved overnight. Their qualifications have never been evident to me. I should not like to see a world run by women, but I have
124
always thought that there is no rational argument against the claim that there should be equality of opportunity for women.
I shall not speak to any question of detail. My original criticism when I first read the Bill—I have not told anybody of this—was very much in line with that raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers. Some of it seemed absolutely incomprehensible—pure gobbledygook. However, as a result of the constant demands made in another place for the Minister to put into English what the legislation was trying to say, there has already been a great improvement, though I still see phrases like "by reason that" when what is meant is "because".
As I have said, I do not propose to deal with any questions of detail. If there are supporters of the Bill who are minded to improve and enlarge it, may I, with great diffidence and humility, as one who has a long experience of getting reforms through, say that I hope that what the supporters of the Bill will do is to get it back to the other House as soon as possible. I do not anticipate the Government falling, though it has a majority of only one. If that were to happen before the Royal Assent, it would probably be ten years before we saw the same kind of Bill again. But it is possible, from the Statement which we have just heard, that other urgent legislation is coming along and we are at a difficult time of the year. Therefore, I hope—and I am expressing a very personal view—that all the supporters of the Bill will do their best to get it back to the other place as soon as possible.
My Lords, this is a happy day for me. It was just after the First World War—now over half a century ago—when I began to make speeches about votes for women, as I am afraid I did about capital punishment and many other things, including divorce law reform and so forth. It is one of the advantages of age and it is rather unfair—and in this connection, I have always assumed that anybody whose opinion differs from mine is equally sincere and probably more intelligent—that, other things being equal, those on the Left lead happier lives than those on the Right because, if one is on the Left and if one lives long enough, one lives to see one's dreams come true, whereas, if one is on the

125
Right, one only lives to see one's worst fears confounded.
There is one point on which I have changed my mind. Once, I strongly held the view that nobody of 75 or over ought to be allowed to say anything. Now that I am 75, I have rather changed my mind about that. It is a nice day for me: there is a beautiful sun outside; today—1st July 1975—is the day when the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 comes into force, and here is this splendid Bill. I wish it every success.
4.9 p.m.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, on listening to my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, I thought that if only we had more men of his generation we should not today be trying to pass this simple little Bill. We should have had equality; we should have seen many women on both sides. I agree that we may not have seen this in the Church, but nevertheless this House would have been more equally distributed so far as the sexes are concerned, and the same would apply in the other place. As it is, my Lords, we have struggled on, year after year, trying to get through piecemeal legislation in order to establish equality. As one who has been concerned for almost an entire lifetime with trying to establish a just society for women, I welcome this Bill as another short step towards our goal. To expect more is to ignore the deep-rooted pre-indices which have already been mentioned, which stem from custom and tradition, and which are the product of centuries of injustice.
I remind the House of the 1919 Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act which, by its very name, promised equal status, but which over 55 years has in practice been treated with mere contempt by, for example, the Church, the medical and legal professions and the higher grades of the Civil Service. Of course, I recognise that these professions are not representative of the vast masses. Nevertheless, if the men privileged to enter a learned profession often, by the way, at the expense of their sister's education—can conspire together to outwit women, what can we expect of the many men denied these advantages?
I am hoping that this little Bill will help to create a climate of public opinion
126
which will reinforce our demand for the next step. Meanwhile, women must be vigilant, for I expect every manœuvre and trick to be deployed to evade the provisions of this Bill, for there are those who are determined to cheat women, just as we have been cheated since the 1919 Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act. If there are those who think that I am being unduly suspicious of men's motives, I refer them to the outstanding book just published, entitled, Management Attitudes and Practices towards Women at Work. This is an employment policy survey carried out for the Department of Employment by Audrey Hunt. I ask noble Baronesses to read today's Times in order to brief themselves. Mrs. Hunt's survey covered establishments from steelworks to symphony orchestras, and it discovered that only a quarter of the formulators of personnel policy are in favour of equal pay, more women in senior positions, and more access to training; and this Bill is concerned with these aspects of equality for women.
I remind the House, in case your Lordships think I am tempted to exaggerate, that despite the great shortage of doctors since the war medical schools limit the intake of women to a small quota. They prefer to encourage foreign doctors, even with an imperfect grasp of English, rather than provide places for brilliant British girls, and when the pressure for admission increased the medical schools raised the entrance of "A" level standards for girls only, without giving publicity to it. This was revealed when the Select. Committee was sitting. We had the opportunity of having the Deans of the medical schools come to us, and we asked whether this was true. I use the word "conspiracy", my Lords; here it was throughout the country. Headmistresses were writing to us saying that they had girls with brilliant brains and longing to do medicine, but they could not get into medical schools because it was said there was no room.
I am pleased to say that foreign doctors will now be expected to speak the language and to reach an academic standard equivalent to the British, and in consequence I hope that there will now be more room for brilliant British girls to enter our medical schools. In law—the noble Lord must not look at me, because it might embarrass me—there are only

127
two women High Court judges, and I suspect that the "old boy" network operates so successfully that women find it very difficult to get chambers.
My Lords, I am very pleased to see three Bishops on the Bishops' Bench, because I have been asked why the Church was omitted from this Bill. For my part, I think it wise to avoid futile discussions which, let us admit, are today of only academic interest; and I also have to admit that not one woman has ever written to me stating that she wanted to go into the Church. However, as an example of the ingrained prejudice with which women have to contend, which condemns them to subordinate positions in all kinds of fields—generally without pay—the treatment of the Established Church should go on record. I ask noble Lords to go to the Library and look at The Times of 23rd June last and read what the Provost of Canterbury wrote. It is a long letter and I shall not weary your Lordships with the whole of it. He stated:
"With many others in dioceses which voted by substantial majorities in favour of the principle and practice of the ordination of women, I have read with dismay the report that the standing committee of the General Synod has decided to recommend to the Synod that the majority opinion of the diocesan Synods be rejected.
"There seems to be a deep hypocrisy about a decision which, while recognising that there are ' no fundamental objections ', should nevertheless refuse to make the honest decision to proceed to give effect to that recognition."
The Lord Bishop of SALISBURY: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Baroness for a moment to say that we are not aware of the existence of a Provost of Canterbury?
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: I can only say, my Lords, that The Times must be aware of his existence, because it tells us that this letter has come from him. Knowing Time Times, I consider that it is very accurate and that this would not have been put in the paper if it had not been—I am sorry, my Lords, I should have said "Coventry".
The Lord Bishop of SALISBURY: There is a slight difference between Coventry and Canterbury, my Lords.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: The right reverend Prelate was sitting near the
128
place where the Archbishop of Canterbury sits. I hope he will agree that there is a Provost of Coventry.
The Lord Bishop of SALISBURY: There was this morning.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: Good. I am sorry that the right reverend Prelate should quibble over this. The Provost of Coventry does exist, he did say this and it has been reported in The Times.
The Lord Bishop of SALISBURY: I happen to be married to a woman doctor, my Lords, so I am very keen on accuracy.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: I hope that the right reverend Prelate is keen on women doctors as well.
My Lords, I believe that it is wise to limit the Bill in its application. I agree with what the noble Baroness opposite said about the number of things which could be put into the Bill. But I have learned from personal experience that, in promoting legislation which involves a sex issue, one can succeed only with piecemeal measures; and I regard this Bill as a piecemeal measure. In another place in 1952, I endeavoured to pilot through the Women's Legal Disabilities Bill. I had the help of some of my noble friends here, and may I say that when one has three or four men, such as we have here today, who are dedicated to the woman's cause, then as a politician one never forgets their support. But I tried with their help to pilot through the Women's (Legal Disabilities) Bill, believing that the time had come in 1952, after the Second World War, to remedy the injustice suffered by the married woman who does not work outside the home but who is denied a legal share of the family income. That "blanket" Bill was decisively rejected by the husbands and potential husbands in another place.
Since then a number of limited Bills have been passed improving the lot of the wife and mother, but she is still financially deprived as the only unpaid member of the family circle who, nevertheless, works unlimited hours. I hope that this Bill will serve to prompt those wedded to social justice to remember that equality should begin in the home, and that marital problems, starting from the first quarrel, can often be traced to the financial dependence of the wife who

129
is usually ignorant of even what her husband earns; and what I say about the results of quarrels in the home is supported by marriage counsellors.
It is possible to refer only to certain aspects of this Bill, but I gather from the debates in another place that strong feeling was aroused on the question of protective legislation—this was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich—and on whether, in the name of equality, a woman worker has the right to benefit from legislation which does not apply to men. It would seem to me that the protective legislation, which has the full support of the TUC, was designed in the first place for the protection of the pregnant woman and mother, and the potential mother. I find it difficult to understand how this discriminates in her favour when no man can be included in any of these categories; one cannot possibly argue discrimination. This matter was raised in an Unstarred Question by the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, who drew the attention of the House to the Twenty-first Report of the European Communities Committee on Equal Treatment for Men and Women Workers, and to the Draft Directive which provides for no exceptions, including the Factories Act 1961.
As a doctor and a mother, I feel strongly that this is a retrograde step and I must emphasise what I said recently—I said this despite the assurances of my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich. There is one function—that of child bearing—which women alone can perform and which the State recognises as an important service to the nation and to posterity. Therefore, the factories legislation had the support of the medical profession and the workers' organisations.
Women manual workers, it must be remembered, comprise about one-quarter of the women in employment in the country, and the restrictions in those Acts include a limit of 48 hours work per week which must not start before 7 a.m. or end after 8 p.m., or 1 p.m. on Sundays. I beg the right reverend Prelate's pardon; I should of course have said Saturday rather than Sunday; there is no work on Sunday. There is a rest interval of at least half an hour after four and a half hours' continuous manual work, and overtime is limited to 25 weeks
130
in any year. Surely nobody can regard these regulations as being over-generous to a married woman, a potential mother or a woman who is already pregnant. These are the regulations which, for example, the Community suggested we should scrap. There are two Labour Conventions prohibiting the employment of women at night, but for various reasons they have not been ratified by the United Kingdom.
It will, of course, be argued—I have heard this argument so often—that women are not compelled to undertake certain work and that the majority can look after themselves. There has been the argument advanced against introducing social services in many fields; undoubtedly, most social legislation is introduced to protect or help a minority, and this is no exception. A woman married to a drunkard or a bully or a spendthrift is not a free agent. My noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner has already rightly said that, with the exception of me, women are not aggressive. They are not so aggressive as men; they are passive. Women want to serve, especially their families, and if a woman is married to a bully, a drunkard or a spendthrift she will do things for the sake of her children which are harmful to her health and therefore against the interests of the State, and that is my case for continuing this protective legislation.
We can insist absolutely on equal obligations only as long as the conditions of work are equally just and women are not handicapped because of their sex. A woman should not be punished for being pregnant, for which she is not solely responsible, by being expected to undertake certain manual work for which she is totally unsuited. I assure noble Lords, who have listened to me so patiently, that if child-bearing were transferred to the male I would be quite prepared after such an event to defend the male worker with equal enthusiasm.
4.28 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of LEICESTER: My Lords, my task in any case is not particularly easy today because, on the one hand, I wish to express my warmest welcome for this Bill, but at the same time to express gratitude for the excepting clause, Clause 19, which allows ministers

131
of religion to be appointed without reference to the provisions of this Bill. It is a rather contradictory view to have to express, and I am reminded of the prayer of St. Augustine—of Hippo not Canterbury—during his licentious days, when he prayed, "Oh God, make me pure, but not yet." I am fortunate, on the other hand, in being allowed to speak following the noble Baroness, Lady Summer-skill, who I knew would have some plain words for the Church today; but I am comforted by the fact that on my left I have my right reverend brother, the Bishop of Ely, whom she may be interested to know is President of the Anglican Group for the Ordination of Women to the Priesthood, and I hope that perhaps he may be promoted to that noble army of men and boys who stand for the privileges of the matron and the maid.
One cannot avoid, if one has Bishops about the place, having a certain amount of very broad philosophy or theology thrown into the debate, and I begin by reminding your Lordships, if I may do so without impertinence, that the Creator did not create a unisex world and that at the back of all our thinking on this subject we have to bear that in mind. In this country we take it for granted that in marriages the husband is a man and the bride is a woman, although I have heard that in one of the Scandinavian countries Ministers have been asked to conduct marriages between persons of both sexes. It is as well to remember that, because it just shows that there are certain dangers if the whole approach to these questions ignores and forgets the basic differences and functions of the sexes. As women and girls have suffered so much from the denial of opportunities that men and boys have had, it is perfectly natural and almost inevitable that the first step that can be taken is to give them the privileges which men and boys have had, perhaps as a monopoly, for many years or centuries. These practices, rules and customs are a most curious blend of practical knowledge as to the physical possibilities of men and women, and also curious tribal customs which we have in this country, as everywhere else, which govern the pattern of society in such matters.
132
But customs change and laws can express those changes and can encourage further changes in what we believe to be the right direction. I would make this point: our ultimate aim should not necessarily be that women should be given the exact equivalent of possibilities which have been open to men, although they must start by having them, but that we should accept the fact that if there was a much more equal blending of the sexes in many different callings and professions, the task would undergo a change. We cannot ignore the fact that law and medicine—and the noble Baroness was very frank about the difficulties in removing prejudice in her own profession—which have been for so many centuries male preserves, have taken on a male colouring, and we ought to be prepared to see a variety of development in many walks of life as women begin to have opportunities to take their part within them. I see some limitations in this Bill, although I doubt whether they are the kind of limitations which we should wish to remove in Committee or at later stages.
As has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, there is nothing practical in the matters of retirement and pension. Those matters are accepted; although contrary to what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, I had been given to understand that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Services was contemplating doing a good deal in a pensions Bill to cover these points. That would be very helpful, although it would still leave a good deal in the matters of promotion and retirement in the private sector that would not necessarily be covered.
Another necessary limitation is the fact that the fulfilment of the purposes of this Bill will depend very largely upon much more adequate provision for training and education of every kind if these plans are to be put into effect. We have heard many times in the past and again today from the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, of the shortage of places in medical schools. It is difficult to imagine the men being turned out and women being put in and therefore one would begin to think about more and more medical schools. But one knows how tremendously hard it is, particularly nowadays, to get a new medical school

133
started. I have seen one growing up in the University of Leicester where I live, and I know this to be a very long battle and something that takes a very long time to bring to fruition.
I am not sure about the position of the ancient universities. I have studied the clause which governs them, or the age group which comes closest to their age group, and in theory it would seem that the Secretary of State could list the universities of Oxford and Cambridge as places where these conditions of equality should prevail. But how long would it take before all the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge could, in fact, be so remodelled as to receive an equal number of women and men?
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I interrupt the right reverend Prelate? He has misunderstood. The whole purpose of the Bill and throughout the Bill, as has been said in debate, is that the individual man or woman should be accepted on merit. The right reverend Prelate has suggested that, if we have women, colleges would have to be doubled in size. But it is a question of merit. In Oxford and Cambridge if a girl is better than a boy, the girl will get the place, the same as in a medical school.
The Lord Bishop of LEICESTER: My Lords, I do not think I misunderstood it; I think I understood it very well. I do not think there is a clause which definitely compels single sex colleges to become, as it were, co-educational; but the purposes of the Bill could not be fulfilled unless they did. At least, that was my humble reading of this. I agree with those noble Lords who have commented on the extreme complexity of the Bill. By the time I finished it I thought that if I could understand that, I could understand anything. But at the same time as I was critical of its extreme complexity, I was not sure whether I wanted to see the word "job" promoted to the level of Parliamentary language. I should have said "post"; but I notice the word "job" is now an accepted Parliamentary word in a Bill. Perhaps that does no harm.
There are possibilities of going too far in a Bill of this kind. I have tried to follow without much success—and there again perhaps the noble Baroness will
134
helpfully correct me—the position about midwives. I had understood that the Government were to introduce a clause at one stage in which the acceptance of men as midwives would be provided for. But the version of the Bill which I received today from our own Printed Paper Office seems to leave the clause in exactly the same form as it was when I saw it last in the House of Commons version. I am not one who holds particularly strong views about this, but I think it is an illuminating instance because it reveals something of the mixture of common sense and prejudice which governs our approach to these matters. No one thinks that there is anything strange about a male doctor—at least in our country—dealing with gynaecological cases, but we are not yet accustomed to male midwives doing the same thing. That is because, although we would not hold for a moment that a so-called midwife would be less capable of professional self-control than a doctor, we have not had experience of it, and so the idea is repugnant to many people. If we read in the evening paper that a policeman, fireman or ambulance man has delivered a woman in childbirth we think: "How clever! What a good thing he was able to do it." But we do not expect it in the ordinary way as part of normal life. I suggest that that matter is finally decided by a balance between fairness and the rejection of prejudice on the one hand, and a respect for susceptibilities and sensitivities on the other.
Perhaps I might now say a word on the difficult subject of ministers of religion. I have to say—and I say this more or less officially on behalf of the Church of England—that we are content with Clause 19, which exempts organised Churches from the rigours of this Bill if their application would offend either the doctrines of a Church or the religious susceptibilities of its members. As a matter of fact, as your Lordships will know, this matter is being very vigorously debated in the General Synod of the Church of England on Thursday of this week. Quite frankly, it is anybody's guess as to what the result of that debate will be. But no matter what may happen there, we know quite well that the Roman Catholic Church will not hastily change its practice. It may change it in due course, but is not likely to change it immediately; and certainly the Orthodox Churches of the East, with

135
which we have many relations, will not change for a very long time.
All I would ask is that this clause should be allowed to stand. Various suggestions have been made in another place as to how it might be amended. One proposal was that it should be necessary for a Church to explain to the Equal Opportunities Commission the doctrinal grounds on which a decision was made, if the decision was apparently contrary to the provisions of this Bill. I do not think that would be very attractive to the Church, and I hardly think that after they had heard it once or twice it would be very attractive to members of the Equal Pay Commission. I do not think these matters are particularly susceptible to the pressures of political discussion in that sense. There was also a proposal that only the doctrinal part of the clause should stand, and that the susceptibilities of members should be omitted. We are glad that both proposals have been rejected by the other place, and that we have received the Bill in your Lordships' House in its original form, which is acceptable and welcome to us.
Ever since the Restoration in the seventeenth century, we have had to face the fact in this country that there are different religious views. The whole process of toleration began shortly after the Restoration and it has continued almost ever since. I hope your Lordships will think it suitable that toleration should be given to the corporate conscience and instincts of religious communities, as well as to individuals in their religious convictions which we all agree to be right. Therefore, we hope that this clause will stand and remain acceptable, although it is extremely probable that some Members of your Lordships' House may live to see a change in practice in this matter.
We wish the Bill every success and a speedy passage through this House. We hope that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, made clear, the process of education—entrusted in part to the Equal Opportunities Commission—will go forward successfully. I have not too much faith—and I believe the noble Baroness shares my view—in industrial tribunals. Indeed, I have some reason to believe that Her Majesty's Government have a poor view of courts in relation to indus-
136
trial matters. However, I am glad to see there is still a small part which they might play. We hope that they will be used as little as possible, and that this Bill will help our country to give far more opportunity than ever before to people of both sexes.
4.47 p.m.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, I cannot match the expert knowledge and experience of the three noble Baronesses who have preceded me. I shall make only some brief, random and general remarks, rather like my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, except that he has beaten me to it on this occasion. I thought I was the shortest speaker in this House, but today he has beaten any short speech which I have made.
Perhaps the value of International Women's Year is that it concentrates the mind on the position of women today; how far their lot has improved and how great a contribution they can make towards a better world. However, when we look at the changes and progress made over the years, and when we examine the statistics, it is a very sobering exercise. We find, as my noble friend Lady Summerskill said, that centuries of prejudice, taboos and superstitions about women have not yet faded away, and that too many discriminatory laws and practices still exist. It is true that wars and the industrial and technological society in which we live have produced employment outside the home for women who previously had always worked in the home or in the fields. I am always surprised by the number of women in employment. They represent one-third of the country's workforce, and their number is still growing fast.
The Home Secretary is to be congratulated on this Sex Discrimination Bill, which has been introduced not a moment too soon. It is a remarkable Bill, and a credit to International Women's Year. It is a Bill which goes as far as possible in combating discrimination by law alone, where sex is relevant. It is perhaps the most comprehensive Bill of its kind ever to be drafted—though to be effective, of course, it needs to be implemented by employers and trade unions. This Bill should stimulate voluntary initiatives on the part of the trade unions and the employers.

137
There is, however, a wide gap between law and practice in education, employment and training, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, so adequately pointed out. I suppose we should not be surprised that discrimination still persists after centuries of discrimination against women from the cradle to the grave. But it is always an affront to discover how much discrimination still exists in Britain today. Noble Baronesses have all done their homework and read the review of the two social surveys by two women experts which appeared in yesterday's Times newspaper, and which exposed a disturbing attitude by managers generally and by the Confederation of British Industry towards employment and promotion of women, except in humble capacities. This is hard to believe when we remind ourselves that equal pay is soon to become law. There is no cause for congratulation when very few policy-makers and implementers are in favour of equality at work, and equal pay and more access to training. Most people now accept that differences in capacity are as wide between individuals as between sexes. Yet prejudice against women is still rife among managers.
My Lords, this Bill is most opportune. Under it, the establishment of an Equal Opportunities Commission, supplementing the Equal Pay Act 1970, extends and deals with discrimination against both men and women. Here I should like to add a few general remarks about equal opportunity for women. Ways to achieve this are different in certain respects as between single women and married women with young children. For married women with young children, birth control and planning their families is essential, as well as a complaisant husband—and this is a really great help. The Government can help with the provision of play groups and all such things that we know about—créches and maternity pay. The trade unions can help with maternity leave. I hear that in Sweden a new law grants maternity leave to fathers as well about eight months after the birth of a child. This is apparently to educate the father in shared parenthood. Personally, I do not go along with this, because shared parenthood involves continuing attention to the children. Up till now, also, middle-class women, professional women, have relegated some of their
138
domestic chores on to other women. When women break into that male stronghold and preserve and become active in the trade unions in policy-making they may begin to fight to be more equal with professional women. But the question of equal opportunity between women themselves will require some thought.
Finally, I should like once again to congratulate the Home Secretary upon introducing this very important Bill. As it gives the Equal Opportunities Commission wider powers than ever before, allowing the individual to go straight to the courts from the tribunals, we shall know that if the spirit of this Bill is properly interpreted it is bound to become a great, progressive instrument for human rights, and an education for judges as well as the public.
4.55 p.m.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, first of all I should like to congratulate the Government on having introduced this progressive Bill, although at the same time I ought also to say that I am not necessarily a "women's libber". One point I would make which may amuse your Lordships is that many years ago I twice fought a Parliamentary seat before I was even allowed to vote. I always thought that that was very amusing. It indicates how in the past little attention was paid to the part that women could and should play in our national life. In the course of my, I hope, relatively short speech, I want to make a specific point which does not seem to be dealt with in the Bill at all. But first I should like to say that in the main the Bill covers many things which women of all Parties, and many men, too, have fought for ever since the days when I entered the House of Commons about 38 years ago.
May I put on record two points which show how in those days equality for women seemed very far away. I remember that on one occasion an advertisement appeared in the Press for a librarian in the Library of the House of Commons. It said: "Opening for librarian—only males need apply." The Civil Service, which, I am glad to say, was progressive in its views concerning the position of women, came to me and said that this was quite intolerable. Therefore, I started a battle

139
in the House of Commons for the employment of a woman librarian, which was hotly opposed by the Chief Librarian in the House at that time. I became so annoyed that, as a protest, I contemplated trying to carry the bust of Oliver Cromwell into the Chamber; but coming to the conclusion that I was only a woman, I knew that it would be too heavy. However, in the long run I triumphed and, as your Lordships know, we now have many women librarians. We have been very successful, I think, because the first was a competent and attractive young woman who made a first-class librarian. If women are competent they can do a great deal against men who do not want an extension of women in various services. Anybody who now goes into the Library in the House of Commons will see that there are almost as many women librarians as men.
During the war a widow of a naval officer was appointed a Hansard writer. I immediately applied for equal pay for her. That battle went on for months and months, but I am delighted to say that in due course, after a very hard-fought battle, we achieved equal pay for women Hansard writers. I hope that today women Hansard writers will remember that we had to fight for that right in the House of Commons. I try to be reasonably fair and I want to put it on the Record that sometimes I have been very grateful to men—to Secretaries of State and Ministers—who have supported some of the battles that I have won. I remember that when I won the battle over equal pay for the only woman Hansard reporter at that time, I had to give an undertaking that I would never use that victory in the battle that all women Members of Parliament were fighting at that time for equal pay for women in general. My noble friend who is sitting near to me says that she remembers that roost extraordinary occasion.
If I can, I try always to approach these matters from the point of view of common sense and to find out the facts. Therefore, I listened with great interest to what the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, said about medical schools. The noble Baroness and I have agreed on many occasions, even though we have different views on politics, and I know her views. Also, I have heard the views of very
140
many women who have been unable to get into medical schools and I should like to say that my object in intervening in this debate today is to get one or two things on the Record.
In general, the Bill is very complicated and it will take quite a great deal of effort to get it into shape. There are certain points which some noble Lords may not remember. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, who talked about the cost of establishing medical schools. May I digress for a moment to say that we have always been short of doctors, and I remember that when the war broke out those women doctors who joined the Services were immediately granted equal pay. I have always noticed that all Governments—whether they have been Governments of my own Party or of the Opposition—when pressed hard enough and long enough and with sound reason, very often concede the point, so I was interested to find that immediately it became known that the need for women doctors in the Services was acute and that there were many women doctors who wanted to join the Services, they were immediately granted equal pay.
However, to return to the question of medical schools, the object of medical schools is to train competent doctors who can serve not only our own country but also very often countries abroad. We have far too few medical schools. I understand the problem because, whatever we may feel about equality, men and women are, thank goodness! different. Think how boring life would be if men and women were all alike! I am glad that we have both women and men in our national life. Very often one found in medical schools that a very competent woman medical student would train for two years and then fall in love. When love takes over, it is no good trying to explain to most women that they ought to finish their training and then leave the medical schools as qualified doctors. Very often this did not happen in the medical schools and, having trained for two years, a young student would leave her medical school to get married—I hope happily. But then one must say to oneself that from the point of view of common sense the medical schools have been established and are being paid to create doctors. It has been this great difficulty which in the long run has led the medical

141
schools to provide less places for women than for men. It may be that one of these days we may find the answer to the problem but I do not think we have found it yet. It is important to ask ourselves whether, if we accept that on the grounds of competency more women than men should go to medical schools, we may increase the shortage of doctors. It is not for me to assess this, but the facts ought to be known. That is all I can say about this problem which the noble Baroness was right to raise.
May I say one other thing about my days in the House of Commons during the war. In his greatness, Winston Churchill did not like women Members of Parliament. So far as he and his Government were concerned, it was very difficult to make progress towards the things that most women in the House of Commons really wanted. Therefore, I was very interested when, with great clarity and foresight, he decided to establish the Special Operations Executive. In his Cabinet Minute—I have seen this document and have put it in my book on the FANY—Winston Churchill said that when the Special Operations Executive was being set up it must be open to both men and women. All of us remember the bravery and the competence of the women who served our country in the action that we took with the Allies during the war to win victory for freedom. It interests me greatly, too, that the old theory of my young days that women could not keep a secret has now been exploded. We now know that those very brave women accepted torture and finally death and never gave a thing away. From time to time, therefore, we begin to build up our case for equality for women, as outlined in this very complicated Bill.
The point I wish to make about the Bill relates to Clause 50 on page 30 of the Bill—the establishment and duties of the Equal Opportunities Commission. I want to know from the Government whether they will bear in mind in the guidance, which I am sure they will circulate, how very few women are asked to serve on boards of directors. I am not talking about such things as nationalisation Commissions, but about ordinary boards of directors. I should like to compliment some of our banks who have made women bank managers on competence. I am sure they are giv-
142
ing good service to the banks of which they are managers. At a time when men and women contribute so much to public life I think it is a pity that so few boards of directors ask a woman to serve as one of their members.
I have met many men whom I like and admire very much indeed. In considering the contribution which men make to this country in diplomacy, in defence, or in general export trade one sees that their experience far outweighs that of most women. Therefore, in that sphere it is true that men have more to offer. But in matters of detail I think that women are always very much better than men. In the House of Commons I remember so well the occasions when my friends would come up and say "Irene, here is something that we know will interest you. Will you help us?" Being a co-operative person, except when I am really cross, I would say at once, "Certainly, I would be delighted to help "—and off the man would go, very pleased indeed, but I would never hear from him again.
Perhaps due to their experience and knowledge of life women notice the details and they note the injustices. It worries me that there exist so many small injustices which we can never put right by legislation. I was delighted when the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, succeeded in getting on to the Statute Book a Bill remedying a small injustice. It is regrettable that men do not ask some women to be members of their boards of directors. It might improve their efficiency, their knowledge and their service to the country. Men are sometimes rather extravagant in expenditure whereas women, perhaps born out of their experience, are more inclined to be careful about spending. So I would ask the Minister who is to reply, through whatever channel he may use, to suggest that occasionally suitable women might be invited to serve on boards of directors. I am sure that the country would benefit as a result.
I shall follow this Bill with great interest. I am delighted to think that over the years a great many men and women have helped its progress. I hope this co-operation will continue. Might I stress once again that women should be invited to serve on boards of directors. I know that lunchtime is sometimes rather trying, because men love to lunch

143
together and to tell their own bawdy stories without embarrassing women. But that is something that should be overcome. I hope that this subject will be raised in the Equal Opportunities Commission, and that as a result of the introduction of this Bill we shall have better co-operation in the use of all the qualities that both men and women have to offer.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, like many noble Lords today, I welcome the Bill and would like to express my appreciation to my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich for the way in which he presented it. There is one aspect about which I have some strong reservations. The White Paper Equality for Women, which was issued last September, and which has been presented to your Lordships this afternoon, outlined the Government's proposal for legislation. Although the Armed Forces and the Fleet were mentioned, that White Paper made no specific reference to the Fire Service. It seems apparent therefore that at that time the protection proposed for women should apply to the operational side, as well as to the control room and administrative staff of the Fire Service.
The Association of County Councils met officials at the Home Office to press that exceptions might be made for fire-fighting personnel, but so far as I can see no such exception has been included in the Bill. The employment of women on fire-fighting operational duties presents severe difficulties within the Fire Service. No doubt there are some Amazons who would reach the required standard of physical toughness, but there is considerable doubt among those personally involved with the Fire Service as to whether the acute distress of dealing with a fire would be good for the woman herself and whether the tests required by regulation on a recruit's emotional capacity for this specialised, and quite often harrowing, experience could be anything but subjective. I accept that this argument involves matters of opinion, but there arc other arguments which have the true basis of fact.
An operational fireman is required to remain on a fire station premises during the night when on the appropriate watch duty, and sleeping accommodation is
144
therefore provided on those premises. If the fire authorities are required to recruit women as well as men for operational duties, women will also have to be provided with separate sleeping accommodation and sanitary facilities. Clearly one cannot predict how many women are likely to opt for operational fire-fighting duties and what additional facilities would have to be provided, but they would need to be of a size to accommodate the number who might want to take up this job.
I have no estimate of what would be required nationally to carry out the necessary building work, but, as your Lordships will know, local government is now under continual pressure from central Government to restrict both revenue and capital expenditure, and the funds for this work are therefore not available at present. The Home Secretary has not up to now incorporated in the Bill any provisions to remove this problem from fire authorities; neither has he given any indication that if women are to be accepted as operational members of a fire crew the necessary funds will be made available to local authorities.
When the Association of County Councils first examined the Bill they thought that Clause 7, which sets out the exceptions to the general provisions where sex is a genuine occupational qualification, contained a provision which would resolve the Fire Service difficulties. Subsection (2)(c) speaks of establishments where—
"the nature or location … makes it impracticable for the holder of the job to live elsewhere than in premises provided by the employer …".
The Association of County Councils thought that they had found a loophole there, but in fact they are advised by the Home Office that it is not intended to apply to the operational fireman who, they advise, does not live on his station but only works there. No doubt that is the view which the courts would take and the interpretation that they would give to legislation as it stands at the moment.
During the war years I was a senior officer in the Fire Service and I was responsible for the training, the operational efficiency and the welfare of some 1,000 firewomen, whole-time and part-time. Even in those days of the war

145
firewomen were trained only to use the stirrup pump and the standpipes and hoses for the protection of their own station when the operational firemen were out on the job. Even in wartime women did not man the pumps or the special fire-fighting appliances.
We have also to remember that a fire crew works as a team. Their job is fraught with hazards and dangers, and every member of that team must have utter and complete confidence in the ability of others to do any and every part of the job and to be able to meet, unhesitatingly and unflinchingly, any demand that is made. I believe that a woman member of a fire crew would always be suspect in extreme circumstances and would thus cause the confidence of a crew to be undermined; and it is their lives and the lives of others that are at risk. This we should not do. I have written to my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich, and I hope that he may be able to give me some assurances that he will consider the points that I have raised. I hope that I shall not need to table an Amendment and test, the feeling of your Lordships when we come to the Committee stage of the Bill. I look forward in due course to such assurances from my noble friend.
5.22 p.m.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, it seems clear from the speeches so far today that I am very much in a minority in your Lordships' House. I believe that a public opinion poll would demonstrate that many of the British people as a whole, both men and women, would support many of my views. But even if that were not the case, I should still feel it my duty to oppose with all the vigour at my command this profoundly anti-libertarian Bill which I believe to be ridiculous in many of its provisions, unfair in some of them and unnecessary in others. As to the social engineering objectives of the Bill—and, by this, I mean the efforts to mould public opinion over a period of time—to the extent that they are successful they will, in my view, on balance ultimately diminish rather than increase the sum of human happiness. I shall explain later on why I believe this.
I know that I am not completely alone in these views. Apart from private conversations that I have had—and I have never yet met anybody who supported
146
this Bill in private—a very widely read woman journalist wrote the other day:
"Most women would tell them"—
the legislators—
"that a sex discrimination Bill is a crashing waste of time and will lose for women far more than it gains. … Along comes this damn silly Bill to bring discord and jealousy and snooping and another army of prying Government employees. … Will our lawmakers never learn that you cannot reverse the natural role of a man and a woman simply by making rules about it?"
When I read that the Home Secretary had gone over to America to study their anti-discrimination laws before this Bill was drafted my heart sank, and it was right to sink because the finished product has all the hallmarks—and I can say this being half American myself—of the earnest, well-meaning, humourless and puritanical side of the American character. But let us switch to a more relatively lighthearted note by examining some of the more preposterous features of the Bill. Even as recently as 10 years ago it is as certain as can be that the introduction of a Bill with some of these provisions would have been greeted with roars of laughter. Even in our brainwashed and equality-obsessed mid-1970s I defy anybody with a sense of humour to read out loud Clauses 34, 43 and 45 in all their solemnity and still keep a straight face. Indeed at first glance I thought these clauses might have been lifted straight from the pages of Private Eye. The same applies to Clause 7(2)(a) which says that,
"…the essential nature of the job calls for authentic male characteristics, so that it would be wholly different if carried out by a woman."
Various Rabelaisian visions come to mind on reading that subsection. But the gem of them all, not so much in its wording as in its content, is Clause 37, which deals with advertisements. Again it is impossible to conceive that a few years ago this clause would have gone through Parliament almost unremarked and hardly remarked by the Press and public at large—a clause which compels British Rail, the Post Office and local authorities respectively to advertise for "signal-persons, post-persons and dust-persons"; which compels the landlords of public houses to advertise, perhaps, for "buxom bar-persons"; and as one astute journalist pointed out, in the event of the reintroduction of capital punishment in this country

147
the Home Office would have to advertise for "hang-persons"!
Clause 77 elaborates somewhat on the question of advertising and I notice that it extends to discriminatory pictures and films. It would therefore appear that, in the sort of advertising film which shows scores of attractive young ladies queueing up outside an employment agency to be given highly-paid temporary secretarial jobs, it will be necessary in future that some of those depicted in the film shall be men. Similarly in the sort of advertisement put out by a construction firm which has a line drawing of a man in a safety helmet operating a bulldozer or a crane it will presumably be necessary for half the advertisements to show a woman in a safety helmet operating a bulldozer or a crane.
Is the Bill as a whole really necessary? If there had been no steady evolution of public opinion over the past 25 years, if public attitudes had remained static, if there had not been what one national newspaper called the "spontaneous modification of social conventions" one might regretfully conclude that some legislation might be necessary. But again quoting the lady journalist, so far as the present day goes,
"We were doing all right without any heavy-handed State intervention. Those of us who wanted to, and could, were pushing ahead, winning the respect, achieving the equal status and equal salaries, and doing it on merit—which is the only way we can hold on to what we have won. We were changing our lives—and doing it our way."
Merely looking round your Lordships' House today, or, indeed, on any Sitting day, is proof enough of that, as is the result of the Conservative leadership election—and for what it is worth had I been a member of the Conservative Party and sitting in another place I would unhesitatingly have voted for the present leader of the Party. I think nearly all men welcome the admission of women to the Stock Exchange, as newscasters on television, as jockeys, and so on; but perhaps things are not moving as fast as some people would like. It may be some time yet before some trade unionists willingly relax their rather pigheaded opposition to women bus drivers—but it will come eventually and of its own accord. I fear that a Bill of this kind will tend to stiffen male
148
opposition rather than having the effect intended.
I concede that there are still pinpricks, so far as things like credit facilities are concerned. It is quite wrong that a woman should have to get her husband's signature before opening a credit account, or taking out a hire purchase agreement, but rather than having a heavy-handed, bureaucratic and expensive operation to deal with these things—after all, we are talking about a figure of £2½ million per annum—we should try a little more to use public opinion. A sharply-worded letter to the chairman or managing director of the firm concerned, a few pointed words at the annual general meeting, the bringing-in of consumer organisations, if need be—these things should be enough to do the trick, and, failing that, we could spontaneously boycott such establishments. This would be the answer. I would myself join in such a boycott, and I daresay most men would; just as I refused to patronise hotels and restaurants which banned women wearing trouser suits in the days when certain establishments had this silly rule.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether it is his contention that as regards the position of the sexes in society, the law has no part to play? Would he argue that the position of women would be as relatively good as it is today if it had not been for the Married Women's Property Act for instance?
Lord MONSON: My Lords the answer is yes, the Married Women's Property Act is worth while, and so is most legislation dealing with purely family matters, matrimonial matters, and things of that sort.
To continue, there are certain occupations which men feel, and I think a great many women, perhaps rationally or irrationally, are unfeminine and unsuited for women. I was interested to see that last week, when talking about the ordination of women priests, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Truro said: "There are lots of theological objections. Besides, I know in my bones, and other people know in their bones, that it is wrong." I believe, with D. H. Lawrence, that one ought to trust one's instincts. What one feels in one's bones is often right. There is no logical reason why women should not dig ditches—
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is going to trust what he feels in his bones, how about what I feel in mine?
Lord MONSON: My Lords, there is no logical reason why women should not dig ditches or mend roads, as they do in Eastern Europe, or slave away in the fields using early 19th century agricultural implements, but in this country we feel that it just is not right. If we are to have an armed police force, as they have throughout most of Europe, and to some extent in this country, there is no logical reason why we should not have armed policewomen. There are armed policewomen in Sweden and in the United States of America, among other countries, but again we feel somehow that this is not right.
Turning from the employment of women to their general treatment and the regard in which they are held, there is no logical reason why women's prisons should be more comfortable and humane than men's prisons. However, most people feel that because of their character and nature, women should be more kindly looked after when in prison. In the days when capital punishment prevailed in this country, one felt that however wicked a woman had been, it was somehow not right to hang her; that it was in some way in far worse taste to hang a woman than a man. There is no logical reason for this, but it is something most people instinctively feel.
My Lords, coming to something less gruesome, there is no logical reason for abolishing ladies' waiting rooms in stations. In so far as I interpret the Bill, it will be discriminatory in this regard. The noble Lord shakes his head. I am glad to hear this. We cannot ignore the innate biological differences between men and women. It was not I, but a woman journalist who put the question to supporters of legislation of this kind, "Would you like to be in a Jumbo Jet in a thunderstorm when the pilot was suffering from pre-menstrual tension?"
Then there is the question of unfairness, and again this is a question of instinct. For a man to be unemployed is a threat to his masculinity, but for a woman to be unemployed is not a threat to her femininity. It will hit her purse but not
150
her sex life. This is a fact that cannot be denied. Perhaps in a Utopian society things might be otherwise, but not in the real society in which we live. As to the question of equal pay, in theory nearly all of us, whether we support or oppose the Bill, support the principle of equal pay for equal work, or, as I like to define it, equal pay for equal productivity over the course of the year. The Bill makes it impossible for an employer to establish from his own experience that either male or female employees are more productive so that he can therefore concentrate on employing either one sex or the other. The same thing goes for married or single people. It is often the case that employers find women are better timekeepers and more conscientious. It seems not unreasonable that an employer should be allowed to select women in that case. Conversely, in jobs which require much foreign travel, it may be that women are less capable of standing up to the arduousness of this, and it would be not unreasonable for the employer to wish to employ men for these jobs.
With regard to equal pay, I thoroughly approve of any idea of paying maternity benefits to women before and after childbirth, but it seems to me wrong that the burden should fall on the employer. It should be borne by the State, the taxpayer, otherwise we get a situation where an employer who fortuitously employs only women, because all the men in the district are employed in milling or steel-making, will be at a disadvantage: because his competitor, making exactly the same product, may, fortuitously again, employ mainly men.
My Lords, so far as the specific provisions of this Bill are concerned, the single-sex school provision seems a little too finely drawn. It seems only to allow either almost totally single-sex schools, because only a small number of the other sex will be permitted, or totally mixed. There seems to be no logical reason why schools should not be allowed to have, say, 10 per cent. girls or 10 per cent. boys if they so wish. I do not see the logic behind Clause 26. Clause 13(2) dictates to professional authorities or bodies the grounds on which they are to attribute good character to an applicant. That seems to me to be interference with the decisions of professional bodies, and I am not happy about it.

151
Finally, my Lords, what about the social engineering or opinion-moulding objectives of the Bill? We are beginning to see the first fruits of this in the attempts of some busybodies to ban "sexist" books from public libraries. Equally, we see attempts to emulate the Americans by encouraging small boys to play with dolls and small girls to play with toy soldiers or carpentry sets. More serious is the pressure which will almost certainly be exerted on women to join the rat race and to fight their way to the top of the ladder, whether they feel so inclined or not.
In this connection Professor Ivor Mills, who is Professor of Medicine at Cambridge, writes that stress suffered by modern women is affecting their chemical make-up to such an extent that some of them are producing male hormones; women are becoming less fertile as a result of this. He believes that stress affects the relationship of women who are married and who also work. Increased irritability is one of the reasons for the rise in divorce.
The other worrying aspect is that schoolgirls are bound to be inculcated with the idea that to be domestically inclined, to seek motherhood and marriage, is essentially second-rate. Of course, this is not the object of the Bill at all, but this is, I feel, what is likely to happen in practice after a period of years. Then we read that, in the United States, bearded young radical lawyers—"radical" being the American euphemism for extreme Left Wing—are suing American corporations for millions of dollars unless they agree immediately to give 50 per cent. of all the senior executive posts to women and give women 50 per cent. representation in the boardroom. Again this is the kind of thing that, after a long period of years, one fears might gradually happen here.
My Lords, I conclude as I began on a relatively light-hearted, or at any rate ironic, note. The anti-discrimination fervour has at last reached what one used to think of as the sensible shores of the Antipodes. A Bill has been introduced in the Australian Parliament to make unlawful such insults as "dago", "chink" and so on. When the Commit-
152
tee came to deliberate the question of that well-known phrase used by Australians to describe Englishmen, the Committee was thrown into a turmoil. After a great deal of solemn and intense deliberation the recommendation was that for a man to call another man a "Pommie bastard" should be a criminal offence if it was said with a scowl on his face but not if it was said with a smile. Such are the ludicrous extremes to which such legislation eventually leads.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question before he concludes? He made a remarkable statement; he mentioned pilots, who earn, I believe, a colossal salary, £20,000 or something like that, and he objected to women becoming pilots because he said they suffer from premenstrual tension. Does he also object to millions of women throughout the country working with machines at very poor wages? Does he say that they should not work because they have premenstrual tension?
Lord MONSON: Certainly not, my Lords. Actually, the quotation about women pilots was not my own. It came from someone else. But a pilot is, after all, in charge of a plane carrying between 100 and 450 people, and if anything goes wrong all their lives are at stake. I think the answer is self-evident.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I just want to know whether the noble Lord objects equally to women earning very low wages when they are working on machines, because they are the same biological beings as women pilots?
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I am certainly not in favour of women earning low wages as such; far from it. If they are working on machines and have an "off" day presumably they can take the day off without too much trouble. For an airline pilot to do so would probably throw the schedules into great confusion. I do not know all the pros and cons of this, but I think it is a perfectly valid point to make.
5.44 p.m.
Baroness FISHER of REDNAL: My Lords, I do not know whether or not the noble Lord, Lord Monson, expected us

153
to take him seriously. I wondered whether he was acting as the Devil's Advocate or a typical male chauvinist animal. I feel sure that the lady journalist he was talking about was not employed on either Cosmopolitan or Nova; that was quite obvious. On the question of nomenclature, he talked about "dust persons". There is no such thing. These are refuse collectors, as our working trade union members would have told him. We have rodent pest control officers. The nomenclature designates not whether it is a man or woman, but the job of work they do.
I was quite surprised when the noble Lord talked about the natural role of men and women. If he had kept to that line, we might have taken him a little more seriously. I can tell him a better story than the aircraft one. He could use the story about when the boat is going down. The call is now, "Women and children first", but advocates like the noble Lord are telling us that when the boat goes down in future the call will be, "Every man for himself and God help the women."
I should particularly like to say a word to the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, whose advocacy of the role of women is very well-known. We share her pride in the fact that her daughter has conducted this Bill through the other place. I feel she must feel proud of that fact, and we in this House share her pride.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I just say that I am very proud, because it was always said that if a woman worked outside the home she neglected her children and the children would inevitably be delinquent.
Baroness FISHER of REDNAL: My Lords, I should like to touch upon two points in the Bill. I think that all women's organisations welcome it. The women's organisation with which I am concerned is the National Joint Council of Working Women's Associations, so my remarks will not be to do with airline pilots or doctors, but with capstan operators, women shop assistants, and the roles which a majority of working class women play in this country. While the Committee of the National Joint Council of Working Women's Associations welcome the proposals in the Bill, when the White Paper came out they underlined the
154
importance that it attached to the burden of proof being on the respondent.
May I draw the attention of noble Lords to paragraph 86 in the White Paper, Equality for Women, which says that the complainant will have to show at the outset that the respondent has acted to the complainant's detriment in circumstances suggesting that such a detrimental action has been taken on the grounds of sex or marriage. It will then be for the respondent to prove that the complainant has not been treated less favourably than other persons on those grounds. The burden of proof which was proposed in the White Paper has not been followed in the Bill. As I read the Bill, it is now for the complainant to establish that discrimination was the reason for the act complained of; so the burden will be upon the woman to prove that there is a case to answer. I should like to ask my noble friend what made the Government change their attitude between the publication of the White Paper and the Bill now before us.
In my view, the result of this change is to introduce an inconsistency between the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Bill, on the one hand, and the provisions of the Equal Pay Act 1970 and the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 on the other. In the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974, Schedule 1, dealing with dismissals, provides that it is for the employer to show that a dismissal was not unfair. No doubt in that case the Government had men mainly in mind, but the Equal Pay Act 1970 echoes that wording in Section 2(6), dealing with material differences between a woman's case and that of a man, when it says, "then it shall be for the woman's employer to show". So I ask my noble friend why the Sex Discrimination Bill is being discriminated against in this way.
It will be very difficult to ensure consistency between these various pieces of legislation, because confusion will arise when the woman decides to take her case to the industrial tribunal. She will have difficulty, because there is a different burden of proof in two cases from that in the Sex Discrimination Bill. Her case might be heard by the one tribunal which could cover the three Acts of Parliament, and she would have to show one kind of proof in two cases and a different burden

155
of proof under the Sex Discrimination Bill.
I should like to see the Government revert to the promise that they made in the White Paper, that it was for the respondent to show what were the reasons for the act of which the woman was complaining, and that the respondent would have to give a sufficient explanation in justification of it. I want to emphasise this point this afternoon, because a lot of the debate has been about those women who are fortunate (perhaps like ourselves in this House today) because they have had the benefits of better opportunities, better education, and a wider knowledge of things that go on outside the four walls of their own homes or the factory floor on which they operate.
For any woman to bring a case before a tribunal—especially a working class woman—will be a major personal achievement for her, anyway. I think that we shall be victimising the woman if she has to bear the old onus of proof. She will have not only the big battalions to contend with—that will be the State and the Act, as it will be, as it is now written—but the employer, or the distributor of goods and/or services, or—the educational establishment being what it is—those people who, in the main, will be able to afford the necessary research and to employ the right kind of people to put a case against her. I urge the Government to have another look at this part of the Bill, and to think about the difficulties that they may be putting in the way of what I would have called the working class woman, although it can be any woman who tries to get justice under this Bill.
I accept the good intentions of the Government, as other noble Lords have done in the debate this afternoon. The intentions of the Bill are good. Like other noble Lords who have spoken, I accept that attitudes have to be changed. Other noble Baronesses have already quoted the survey. Management Attitudes and Practices towards Women at Work, but what I do not think has been said this afternoon is that the people who were interviewed and who were giving their opinions were mainly shown to be men, and they were usually older than the average working man and of a higher
156
educational level. So it bodes ill for us that the more one educates the men the more discriminatory they will be against us. They showed certain preferences as to whom they would give jobs to. The only job category where preference would be given to a woman was that of catering and domestic work. So be it. Those were the opinions of older than average working men of a higher educational level.
This Report says in conclusion—and it is a Government investigation organised by the Department of Employment—
"Overall, the survey finds that the principle of equal opportunity is likely to meet with considerable opposition in practice."
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, has shown us sonic of the ways in which he felt that this would operate. There is evidence of a fairly widespread traditionalist attitude which covers not only senior jobs but also extends to apprenticeships. So that, as far as possible, we have to overcome, with an Act of Parliament, some of the prejudices and attitudes which have been with us for a very long time. In my view, these attitudes will become more enlightened if we have a strong Equal Opportunities Commission. I feel sure that noble Baronesses and noble Lords on this side of the House will warmly welcome the strong personality of Miss Vicky Lockwood, who has been given the position of first chairman of the Commission. I have complete confidence that her strength of character will prevail in the judgments that she brings forward.
I should like to feel that her Commission would be strengthened in certain ways. My reading of the Bill might not be correct, and, if not, perhaps my noble friend will correct me in his reply. But my reading of it does not clearly establish the strategic role which I think the Commission ought to have. One of the strategic roles which the Commission will have is in bringing forth reports showing discrimination. It is also important that the Commission should be able to issue guidelines and a code of practice. Members speaking in the debate this afternoon have said how complicated the Bill is to understand. Can you picture any woman working a capstan lathe in Birmingham or Manchester, or wherever they do it, or a cotton textile operator, trying to understand this Bill

157
and seeing whether she is being discriminated against? I should have said that it was an impossibility.
I do not know whether this is the fault of the draftsman, the legislators, or whose fault it is, but persons like ourselves should be able to put on the Statute Book legislation that people outside this building are able to understand. But no, my Lords, we create a profession that interprets legislation in the way they want it interpreted, and very often it is not the interpretation which the Government intended in the first place. Therefore, it is essential for people who are going to be concerned with the Bill—and, in the main, that will be women employees, employers, people providing goods or services, or persons responsible for educational establishments—to know what are the legal rights and wrongs. They should be guided on what might be considered an unlawful act. I feel that they will need help and guidance. I should like to feel that the Commission will be able to bring forth its own guidelines, its own code of practice. I should be grateful if my noble friend, when he answers the debate, can expand on this point, and consider whether the Bill should allow the Commission to bring forth its own guidelines and codes of practice, and allow the latter to be admissible in evidence.
My Lords, I shall soon be concluding because I know that the debate has been going on for a long time. I believe that attitudes are changing. Perhaps they are not changing in the older educated men who are in responsible positions in this country, but they are changing—and this is very apparent—among young married people. Anywhere one goes, one sees men going to the launderette and shoving the washing into the washing machines. They know full well—perhaps even better than some of the women there—how to operate them. One sees them pushing trolleys round supermarkets and doing a multiplicity of different things together with their wives. Also, of course, one sees young married women taking over the role of paperer and decorator, and I understand that the majority of lawns in this country are now mown by women. All these attitudes are changing.
What will not be changed by the Bill is the attitude of the old school tie. We had a discussion on education, but we must still remember that, though it is
158
perhaps not as powerful as it was in the past, there is still the old school tie attitude and the old boy network which goes with our great public schools (those institutions which we all know are the most exclusive private schools) still exists. Nothing in the Bill will overcome that male attitude. In conclusion, I support the Government's measures not only because they will be of direct benefit to women but because they are another step towards social justice.
6.4 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, we have had a very interesting debate. Many people have spoken and I have agreed with almost every speech. However, I must say that I did not agree with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Monson. I sat there and I heard him say that he felt in his bones that he was saying something vital. I feel in my bones very strongly indeed—and they are much the same sort of bones as those of the noble Lord—that it is very important to have now this piece of legislation. It has been a long time in coming since it was supported by the Conservative Party in the past and by the Liberals. There was the admirable Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, which was brought in last year and, far from being an inappropriate moment, I think that this is the right moment for this measure. Indeed, it is later than I should have liked, but better late than never. I cannot believe that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, really wanted us to take him seriously, though he had taken a great deal of trouble with his speech and quoted from a number of articles written by women journalists, none of which I had read, though I very often read articles by women journalists. Perhaps they were in papers which I do not have the opportunity to read. In any case it is clear that my bones and his are quite different, and I think it very important that we should have the Bill.
I should like to welcome—as has the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal—the establishment of the Equal Opportunities Commission and especially the inclusion of Clause 50, subsection (1)( c) of which makes it necessary to review the working of the Act. Clearly, it will be important to watch developments very carefully. Clause 53 calls for an annual I report to be issued. I very much hope

159
that the Government will understand that this review is of the greatest importance and will ensure that the reports are made known not only in this country but abroad, because I believe that this kind of information will be of great help to women in other parts of the world who have even harder battles to fight than have women here. I therefore very much hope that information will be spread as to how the new legislation is working out.
The powers of the Commission are very wide. I hope that they are not to be both judge and jury. I trust that there will be other methods by which we shall be able to test any cases or matters which are brought to the Commission; I do not feel that that is quite clear in the Bill. It has been said—I think, quite rightly—that the Bill is complicated and difficult to understand. Reading the clauses which apply to the Commission, I was not quite sure what would be the powers of the Commission. Perhaps that could be discussed and I hope that something clearer will come out of it.
I so much agree with all those noble Baronesses who have talked about education and training for the professions, and so on. Clearly, there is much to be done, and I am sure the Bill will help a great deal to increase the opportunities for girls and boys. I am not the least opposed to mixed schools. That is a natural and excellent development, I believe, but I am also glad that those parents who want to send their children to single-sex schools will still be allowed to do so under the Bill. I know that some people may feel that that is a retrograde provision, but I feel that education is a very special subject. The adolescent period is very important and, though some boys and girls will benefit tremendously from going to mixed schools, there are others who will not. I believe that single-sex schools have their place in the education system.
Equally, I feel that the unions of headmasters and headmistresses and those of assistant masters and assistant mistresses should be allowed to continue. These organisations are not, I believe, affiliated to the TUC, but they have a long history and I feel that it is right for them to continue if they wish to do so. On the subject of the trade unions, the noble
160
Baroness, Lady Fisher, knows far more than I do, but I agree with her point about the onus of proof not being entirely upon the person who is appealing. I agree that it should be for the employer to prove the case against that person. I believe that that was changed from the original provision and I feel that the noble Baroness is right to ask for it to be put back into the Bill.
I so agree with those people who have talked about the many tribunals, commissions and committees which are being set up all over the country. I believe that they should have at least a fifty-fifty representation of men and women. Those of my generation—and there are several here today—will hope that gone forever is the "statutory woman"—that terrible role which was forced on many of us when we found ourselves the only woman on an important commission or committee. Today, that has gone and I hope that it will never come back.
I agree, too, with Questions which the noble Baronesses, Lady Birk and Lady Ward, have asked in the past about the representation of women on the air and railway boards. Many of those established organisations which have now been going for some years should be brought up to date in the sense of having fifty-fifty representation of women and I hope that that will emerge from the Bill. My experience when I was Chairman of the first Consumer Council when addressing chambers of commerce, large meetings of commercial firms or industrial undertakings was exactly like that which many speakers have described today. I even remember on one occasion addressing an enormous trade union gathering—I think, in Blackpool. I found myself the only woman making speeches on such occasions and, when I asked—as I often did—in the chambers of commerce and the industrial groups whether there were any women on the boards, there always came the answer, No. I do so agree that it is high time that the great boards of our industries should have women at the top level. They can make just as great a contribution to the running of business in the modern world. Indeed, I feel that they can make a better contribution than men, so I hope that the Bill will urge enlightened employers to enlarge their boards to allow scope for women.

161
I am, curiously enough, I think, the only woman in the world who is chairman of an agricultural auction market and the only woman on the board of that market. Someone said that you could not have women having lunch with the men with whom they served on a board because of certain activities or thoughts which might come with those men. All I can say is that I lunch every month of my life with a board and nobody says anything or tells bawdy stories which would in any way embarrass anybody. Therefore, I do not think that this particular point holds any water at all.
My Lords, I welcome those clauses which make it illegal to discriminate in regard to leasing or owning of houses or land by women, or the giving of credit to women. I have known of local authorities which would not lease houses to women. In cases where, for instance, a family had broken up and the husband had left the wife, it was very difficult—often impossible—to get a local authority to allow the woman with the children to remain in the house when the man had gone off with another woman. That is most unfair, and I very much hope that this legislation will prevent such situations arising.
We are all united in support of the principles of the Bill. I agree with those who say that it is a complicated Bill; but most Government legislation, when put into the form of an Act of Parliament, is complicated. I greatly hope that the Government will issue a simpler account of the powers of the Bill, and one which can be understood by everybody. This could be useful in the future. Clearly, nobody will read the whole of the Bill. Perhaps information on the Bill could be given in a small pamphlet which people could understand. This is an important occasion and it is an important Bill. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Monson, I feel in my bones that it will be a great success, and it has my wholehearted support.
6.12 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, first, I must apologise for being absent during the early part of the debate. I was giving evidence before an inter-Departmental Committee and was not able to be here before four o'clock. The speeches on this Bill have given such a
162
chorus of welcome to its proposals that the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, struck a very discordant note. It does not surprise me that he made good his escape at the earliest possible moment after sitting down. Of course any Bill about women can be made fun of. I had a lot of fun with Clause 7 at the annual dinner of the National Association of Schoolmasters. When one is trying to define conditions in a Bill, clearly some of its language can be met with a little ridicule. But I think all your Lordships will congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Monson, on the trouble to which he went to prepare himself for the role of King Canute. We must not write him off completely. He is nearest in your Lordships' House to Mr. Ronald Bell in the House of Commons, who blocked the antecedents of this Bill on at least two occasions there.
One of the remarkable aspects of the debate is that more than half the contributions to it have come from women. This is not only appropriate but unusual. I shall strike a different note, which in some respects and to some extent may be contentious. But I begin by saying that today, 1st July 1975, 10 million young women in Britain will, if they wish, be able to register with family doctors for free birth control. In my opinion that represents the most significant act of liberation for women in Britain for a very long time. Unless women can control their own fertility, this Bill will make little difference for those young wives and mothers who want satisfying opportunities for public service or employment outside the home. I firmly believe that non-discrimination and birth control go together. They cannot be separated; and within the term "birth control" I include abortion.
This is the new and central aspect of the approach to equality. The demand for the woman's right to choose is part of the demand for equality. I make no apology for the fact that I was the only Member of your Lordships' House who marched in procession from Charing Cross to Hyde Park the other Saturday afternoon behind the slogan of the woman's right to choose. Without this, the Equal Opportunities Commission will be a paper tiger body; it will not be able to provide equality of opportunity for women.

163
My Lords, all of this I stress because today equality of opportunity for women is equality of opportunity for married women. It used not to be so. We all know that the history of women's progress towards equality was that of a spinsters' movement. In pre-1914 Britain, although the women's suffrage campaign was not wholly a spinsters' movement, the demand for equal pay, equal opportunity, and non-discrimination in employment certainly was. The grievous casualties of the 1914–18 War increased the number of single women, and they were in search of careers in a world of careers for men only. Moreover, it was a middle-class movement at the time. It was no accident that equal pay for women first came in clerical, executive and administrative occupations in the Civil Service. It was followed by other branches of the public services, but industry and commerce lagged far behind. In my personal experience the Trades Union Congress for years paid only lip-service to the principle of equal pay and non-discrimination. While women in the public services were fighting the advance guard actions, working-class men and women were the most conservative elements in the struggle.
We must acknowledge this. But today the women's liberation movement and the drive for equality has no separate inspiration from single, as distinct from married, women; nor has it any class basis. There is no longer a surplus of women. The proportion of married women is higher than ever before, and the pattern of life for women is no longer one of choice between work or career and marriage, but a combination of the two. So married women are prominent in this debate. More women are marrying, and are marrying younger; and most married women today are completing their families not later than the age of 30. One-third of the total workforce are women; one-half of the women at work are married, and many are mothers of young children. This is the new pattern of life, and this Bill must be related to it.
It would be a mistake to expect too much of the Bill, welcome though it is. To be candid, it can make little or no difference to large numbers of women in
164
industry, in the distributive trades, in the catering services, in public and private enterprise, and in the domestic side of hospitals, hotels and the like. Equal pay will mean much more to them than theoretical equality of opportunity. Some of the preserves of men in the past will be opened up by this Bill—not all of them, of course, attractive to women. Although Clause 21 limits the right of a woman to become a mineworker below ground, it appears not to do so for a woman who would become a worker in London's sewers. So far as I can see, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent a woman becoming a slaughter person, but I do not suppose that this will be a field in which women will aggressively demand equality of opportunity, and I would not blame them.
I think we have yet to see the first woman train driver on British Rail and I understand that we have on London Transport three women bus drivers, but no more. I am not sure whether there is a woman taxi driver in London, and I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Briginshaw is not in his place because should like to ask him whether there is yet a woman compositor on any national newspaper in Britain. I should also like to know whether British Airways have any women pilots. I am not unduly disturbed by these rather provocative challenges, because we must pay regard to the differences in strength and ability between the sexes or as between men and men and women and women, and not all are physically capable of doing the same sort of job.
This Bill breaks new ground, and very important ground indeed, in that it opens up opportunities for appointment and promotion to positions of responsibility, and this is where most of the difficulty lies at present. It is not entirely a matter of prejudice, in my view, that women are not selected for some of these positions as freely as we would wish. Some of them require skills which take time to acquire; some positions require continuous practical training over a considerable period; others require continuous experience in a job to qualify, and some women are at an obvious disadvantage in fulfilling the requirements of some of these positions. Some women doctors in the National Health Service had their frustrations publicised in the Observer last Sunday. They

165
say that their path to consultancy appointments is blocked by the manner in which part-time service is counted for what is called "accreditation" for a higher post, and it is obvious that some adjustment of conditions, hours of work and training opportunities will be necessary to establish the full realisation of equality. I read in the Guardian last Thursday about the problems of a woman plumber. They were not without interest and were rather amusing, but one can see that women in unusual occupations will not have an easy run; they will have to fight quite hard against the conservatism of the men with whom they work.
Under this Bill marital status as well as sex has to be disregarded and this, to be frank, will be a heavy strain on the sense of equality of many employers. Where specialist training is involved and a reasonable period of continuity of service is a strong consideration, it is almost unrealistic to expect an appointing body to equate a married woman or even a single woman with a man. There is no doubt that this aspect of the employment of women has troubled a great many fair-minded employers. This brings me back to the point I made at the outset, that they want to be sure that a woman is sufficiently in control of her own fertility to be able to give reasonable assurance of continuity of service, and whether a woman chooses to remain in a job or leave it will be her choice. It is in the institution of marriage where a woman loses her equality, security and independence and it is difficult to know how women can emerge from a subservient position in the home into a world of equality in employment and public life for only a few hours of the day. This is the point which my noble friend Lady Summerskill mentioned when she said that equality must begin in the home.
Equality should in my view be seen in politics, too. Will your Lordships kindly show me any wife of a Member of Parliament who has stood politically in the opposite camp from her husband? We all know that women are expected to have the same political views as their husbands. This should be resented more deeply than it appears to be by the wives of MPs. Indeed, I understand that in the Conservative Party the selection committee wants to see the wife as well as the candidate and wants to grill her on her
166
political views before it will select the husband. I heard some time ago of a Labour MP who contemplated marrying, if he were allowed to do so, a Conservative MP, and he was very quickly told by his local Party that that was something up with which they would not put! Where are the liberated wives of politicians? When is their voice going to be heard? When are political wives going to cease to be sort of semi-detached MPs?
I come to industry, where all conditions of work have been designed for men by men, and in neither the hours nor conditions of work, nor in provision for the care of children of working mothers, has any attempt been made to meet the needs of the millions of wives and mothers in employment. There is a sad neglect in this sphere, and I believe that to achieve more than theoretical equality and nondiscrimination it will be necessary to lift the sights of women's ambitions in the economic life of the country and give the support necessary to enable women to fulfil them; otherwise women will continue to be employed in the less skilled work and as short-term employees. In both commercial and public employment a great deal more provision for day nurseries and approved child minders is needed. We have to alter our mode of working life to accommodate the position of women and enable them to play their full part in industry and higher appointments.
Up to now little more has been done than provide paid maternity leave and facilities of that kind and possible reinstatement after leaving to take care of a young family. But in my experience if a woman leaves a job to take care of her family for a few years she is readmitted only at the point in the salary scale at which she went out; no credit is given for the intervening period and she finds herself behind lots of younger and even less experienced people. Therefore I feel that much of our approach to equality and non-discrimination is based on the conventional role of women in the home and in society which is incompatible with the attainment of either freedom or real opportunity.
On a somewhat different matter, women and especially young women have never before in this country been under such pressure to express their sexuality as they are today. While the Bill is

167
aiming at regarding women in employment as persons on equal terms with other persons, the beauty and glamour industry is busy weaving romantic love into every situation, including smoking cigarettes and painting the toenails.
A criticism of this Bill which has been made outside this House, and probably inside as well, is that it is not fully comprehensive. The tax position of married women remains untouched. When will this be dealt with? How much longer will a husband be required by law to make a declaration of his wife's income and suffer penalties if he fails to do so, and suffer penalties if it happens to be wrong? We know that the incidence of taxation weighs heavily on the family where the mother stays at home to look after the children. There can be two families on the same gross income with very different levels of taxation according to whether husband and wife are working, or whether the husband is the sole breadwinner.
Social security will be better; that is proposed in the Social Security Pensions Bill. But it has not come yet. I recall that it is 10 years since I briefed the officials of the then Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance on what should be contained in the major review of the social security scheme. I said that the position of women must come first. That is coming in 1975, 10 years later, as a postscript to the major Bill. It is true that under this new Bill married women will shortly become insured persons in their own right; but when will the obvious hazards of a woman's life be provided for in our social security scheme? How many times do I have to go on saying that social security is mostly about women? How much longer do I have to say that we have not yet provided—nor are we in sight of providing—adequately for the unmarried mother, and the deserted, separated or divorced wife?
Equality does not come from treating women literally as if they were men. A woman needs full support throughout the social, fiscal and family law of the country. The fact that women bear the children makes the difference which must be provided for, and this is the point my noble friend Lady Summerskill made. I am sure my noble friend must feel proud that she is able to speak today on a Bill
168
introduced by her daughter, as a Minister of the Crown in another place. This is a great family triumph which must give my noble friend great satisfaction.
This is a good Bill. I call it a victory without results. It is a Bill of women's rights. It paves the way, I hope, firmly and smoothly. But as one who advocated equal pay and equal opportunity, and the removal of the marriage bar in the public service, in evidence to the Tomlin Commission on the Civil Service in 1930, I can modestly claim the role of pioneer. I say also—and it applies to many of my noble friends who have spoken today—that you have to start young to see reforms accomplished when the attitudes of centuries stand like mountains in the way.
6.34 p.m.
Lord MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, may I as a lifelong feminist welcome this Bill? I regret that I cannot take up the points made by my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby and talk about erotic toenails, but I express my admiration for all he has done through the years for marriage, for decency for women, for social insurance and the like. This is the end of a long battle and it might be worth remembering for one minute that it was a battle, and that there was a woman 200 years ago called Mary Wollstonecraft whose name, if it had been mentioned in your Lordships' House when she was alive, would have been greeted with derision. There was a woman called Caroline Norton, who fought for the right of a married woman to have any property at all; and, as a result of her fight, came the Married Women's Property Acts which established with difficulty the right of a married woman to own what she had and what she lost when she married.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend to remind him that that movement was also fathered by no less a person that John Stuart Mill, whose On the Subjection of Women is surely one of the classic documents of this cause.
Lord MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, I am so glad that my noble friend has mentioned John Stuart Mills, who fought the same battle and perhaps was the first man to fight the battle for women having the vote. His essay On the Subjection of Women is one of the great contributions

169
to the literature about which we are speaking. The first fight was for the vote. When I was Speaker in another place, I had the privilege of unveiling a statue outside Caxton Hall to honour the Suffragettes of Britain who fought when they had no vote, with whatever weapons they could find to obtain what we now take for granted. On the one hand Emmeline Pankhurst, fighting militantly; on the other hand, Dame Millicent Fawcett, fighting constitutionally for something which we now take for granted. I remember the Pethick Lawrences, perhaps the noblest couple in the whole story, and Keir Hardie, an early Labour man who won part of the Labour Party to the conception that women and men are equal. Although I have admiration this side of idolatory for the great Winston Churchill, he was not in the fight for the equality of the sexes.
The second battle was for equal opportunity. I think tonight of a dear woman friend of mine who took a degree at Cambridge University in 1919, but was not allowed to have it because women could not have degrees at Cambridge. She came to London to college where my noble friend Lady Summerskill went and took her degree there, because London University had respected the equality of women and men as early as 1879, and women and men passing the same examination could take their degrees. It is ironic to think that if my noble friend Lady Summerskill had gone to Oxford or Cambridge, she would not have had the doctor's degree which she obtained at King's College, London. The friend of whom I spoke became a teacher, and the moment she married she had to give up her career. Until 1944, it was illegal for a woman to be a teacher if she was married.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to intervene, I must put on record the fact that I voted against my Party in 1926 or 1927 on the LCC, because they would not employ married women teachers.
Lord MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. The battle was for equal opportunity and equal pay. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, is right to remind us that it was won first by the medical
170
profession. Then there was equal opportunity in the nursing profession, because the pay of the nurses was so low that nobody wanted to be one. There was also equal pay for teachers. I can remember the noble Lords, Lord Houghton of Sowerby and the Lord Pannell, with the late Ted Redhead, MP, fighting as men the battle for equal pay for women, and the celebration that was held when we achieved not equal pay, but equal pay by stages over the next seven years. Incidentally, it is a matter of historical record that we might have won equal pay for teachers in the Education Act of 1944. It was carried in Committee upstairs and was then destroyed by Winston Churchill on the Floor of the House later.
I am pleased to have been associated in so many campaigns with my noble friend Lady Summerskill. I can remember her battling in the Labour Party Conferences, battling with the trade unions—not with the women of the Labour Party, though, because the Cooperative Women's Movement and the Labour Women's Movement were great campaigners for equal pay for women. I can remember the noble Baroness fighting in another place, as she now sometimes fights in the House of Lords, but I hope we shall not have to fight any more except about the details of this Bill. The theoretical battle for equality between the sexes was won long ago, apart from an odd misogynist or two in another place and, judging by certain things one has heard this afternoon, one or two in your Lordships' House.
But if, in so many ways, the theoretical battle has been won the practical battle has not been won, especially for the housewife who is not a wage-earner, and who often does not share the wages that her husband earns. My late friend, Jean Mann, MP, who was a great woman campaigner, once told the story of the widow of a company director whose husband allowed her £5 a week for 20 years, and on that she kept two children and paid the rent and household bills, and so on. When her husband died, she learned that he had earned £2,000 a year all his life. I believe that this Bill is a landmark. It consolidates what has already been done, and marks so many detailed areas where discrimination can and does exist, and where it must be removed.
6.43 p.m.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, I must apologise because, due to a long-standing engagement, I could not be here for the whole of the debate; but I have been able to listen to seven of your Lordships' speeches on the subject. I am not quite sure, under the qualification put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, whether I qualify as "a semidetached political spinster", but at any rate I am sure that this Bill is going to mark an enormous advance for women, not only in the professions but throughout all forms of employment. However, it has been clear from many of the speeches made today that a good many speakers seem to be treating the Bill as if it affected only women. This is not a "Female Discrimination Bill" but a Sex Discrimination Bill, and we must not be surprised sometimes if men complain that they are being discriminated against. Indeed, under this Bill they can claim the same rights and privileges as women, because this Bill brings rights and equality to both sexes.
Our part of the Bill will come into operation very speedily. I particularly welcome Clause 29 and that part of it which deals with the credit-worthiness and the right of a woman, whether married or single, to receive the same treatment as men and not necessarily to need the overriding signature and agreement of her husband. It has always seemed to me absolutely ludicrous that contemporaries of mine, as long as they were single, could be regarded as credit worthy, but the moment they signed the marriage register they immediately had to acquire their husband's signature for certain things.
The depths of lunacy in this regard were reached in the case of a highly successful young dentist friend of mine. She married, and after a few years with a very satisfactory income, she and her husband decided that he should take the opportunity of going back to university to get his doctorate in a particularly specialised profession. At the same time, she was offered by a retiring dentist exactly what she wanted in consulting rooms. Her own income was fully adequate to pay the mortgage, but nothing would persuade the building society that it was possible, despite all the evidence they had
172
of her earnings in the Health Service, for her to sign for the mortgage without a countersignature by her husband. He at that moment was receiving a subsistence grant of £1,000 to do his university course and flatly refused to sign the documents on the ground that he would be perpetuating a fraud because he would be quite incapable of keeping up the mortgage payments on that income. It was with great relish that I fought out that battle with the building society on behalf of my young friend.
I think there is a little euphoria around today—perhaps not unnaturally, since this is International Women's Year—that this will come about overnight. I hope we shall take a practical and realistic view about it, because my view of the art of politics is doing the practically possible when we might wish to be doing the idealistically desirable. All through the Bill there is a firm "must", or "the mployer shall". There is hardly a mention in the Bill of the trade unions. It is the hard-faced employer all the time who apparently has restricted the employment of women. I believe this Bill is to call on the statesmanship and co-operation of the great trade unions, who for generations have maintained a closed shop in hundreds of specialities within their unions. I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that there are many spheres where women would not wish to apply for certain jobs, but there are many other spheres which, by deliberate trade union action, have been kept as all male preserves. I well remember my utter amazement when I was told, 10 years ago, at a hosiery factory, that to match socks was exclusively done by one male union and that women were not employed to do it.
Obviously, such examples are being rapidly eliminated, but it will require a lot of give and take, not just by employers but by many of the unions who throughout the years have never had or thought to allow women as apprentices into training in electrical or engineering processes, or in draughtsmanship, and so on. I have another friend who was good enough to be a draughtsman during the war in an aircraft factory making planes for the Battle of Britain; but after the War when she applied for a job, the union said, "No, men only",

173
and she could not be employed as a draughtsman in that type of company.
I think we have to look to the longer term for some parts of this Bill, because you cannot just legislate for people's feelings. If a spinster applies for a job, and beats for promotion a married man with a wife and three children, nothing is going to stop the aggrieved wife saying, "My man has a wife and family to look after. Who's she got to look after but herself?" I think we must look at the Bill practically, and in one aspect only I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Monson. I think that some of the implications of this Bill regarding advertising are really unnecessary irritants. I hope we shall be able to be truly practical about some of the items when we reach the final stage of the Bill. I welcome the Bill, my Lords. There are one or two items I hope we shall be able to improve in what I believe are practical ways, which will, perhaps, make it a little speedier and more realistic. But, my Lords, let us get the legislation through and, with tact and patience, see how quickly we can implement it.
6.51 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, the first thing I must do is to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for having missed his speech, and indeed to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for having missed part of hers. I am afraid that your Lordships did not take so long over Starred Questions today as has sometimes been your wont and therefore I misjudged the occasion. I wish I had heard the noble Lord opposite. It might well have been I myself moving a similar Bill, and it would have been delightful for me to hear how much better he dealt with the situation than I should have, perhaps, in similar circumstances. It only shows—does it not?—that this is the end of a fairly long Parliamentary process.
For some time a tide has been flowing in favour of legislation on this subject. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, can probably justifiably say that she started this with her Private Member's Bill. Then, of course, we as a Conservative Party took it up when we were in Government. Indeed, we did much the same as this Government are doing, because we tried to attack the matter on the basis
174
that there was a general area for legislation of this kind and also room for other individual pieces of legislation of a different kind and coming under the aegis of different Departments. That is precisely the same approach as this Government are using, for instance, in relation to pensions and questions of that kind. So I think our approach to this issue is the same. Just as the Party opposite have their triumphs to record, so we when we were in Government had a large number of individual reforms we put through about which I remember telling this House when I was speaking from the Dispatch Box opposite. But of course the culmination of the legislative impetus has, I suppose, come with the recent Directive from the European Community which we had discussed the other day, which would I think in any case have required us to introduce this kind of legislation. Therefore, we are in the forefront and I hope we have as enlightened a response to that call from Europe as any other country.
All the same, all these attempts have been experiments. I think I heard the noble Baroness saying that she recognised improvements in this Bill over what she herself drafted, and I know she said that the Bill had been improved since it was introduced into the other place. I expect we shall continue the process here. I fear I do not entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, when he says that this is the end of a battle. I believe it is only the beginning of another one—but one where we are now equipping women with a rather better armoury of weapons with which to undertake the battle which now lies ahead. I believe that was the message of my noble friend Lady Hornsby-Smith who spoke just now.
There has been such a degree of acceptance of so many of these subjects that on Second Reading I need hardly mention a number of them so far as principle is concerned. I do not want to say anything about the definition of "discrimination". It has been much mulled over and greatly improved, with a lot of thought put into it. The exceptions and the employment provisions are, with respect to the noble Lord, probably very similar to those we should have brought forward had it been our Bill, particularly as I suspect the noble Lord will give us credit for the response to our consultative

175
Green Paper which I feel certain produced a number of constructive suggestions; indeed, it was beginning to do so while we were still in Government. I imagine he will have found it very useful to have had response from that, as well as, of course, to the Labour Party's own White Paper on this subject. I do not think we shall have many quarrels as to the principle of that.
We have had forewarning of a few points. The noble Baroness's Fire Service will I think raise its head again at Committee stage. I wonder whether we shall perhaps have to turn for a moment to the question of the protective provisions of the Factories Act. For myself, I thought that the reasoning which was displayed, particularly on two occasions, in the Standing Committee in another place—where the Government's present attitude was explained in some detail—had a good deal of force in it. I hope that in due course we may be told that the Equal Opportunities Commission will give some priority to looking at these protective provisions to see whether they all need to be retained. I believe it is the point of Clause 52 of this Bill that they should do so.
If I understood this point aright, it is not quite the way that the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, put it. It is not a matter only of protecting women when they are pregnant or because they have to run their families as well. These factors may be part of the matters concerned. Nobody wishes to take away protection, for instance, relating to pregnancy. But the protections relating to moving machinery and to hours of work are admitted by the Government to be likely causes of positive discrimination against women in applying for jobs. It is for that reason that I should like to sec them examined again. If they are going to be used, as they are entitled to be used under the drafting of the Bill, as a reason for not employing women, then that is a good reason why they should be examined, and examined urgently, by the Equal Opportunities Commission, to find out whether there is still justification for them.
Apart from some problems of this kind, it seems to me that the lack of controversy in the debate today for the most part shows that we have now solved, or
176
at any rate have gone a long way towards solving, a great number of problems. I wished to speak at the end of this debate rather than at the beginning because I wanted to hear what all your Lordships had to say—and particularly the exactly equal number of noble Baronesses who have spoken to that of noble Lords—to see whether a great area of dispute remained. I do not believe there is now anything very much between any of us, with the possible exception of the noble "caveman" upon the Cross Benches.
One thing that has happened in the course of this process is that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and his Department have gone a good deal further (they take pride in it and I understand the reason why they do so) than we originally intended when we were in Government. They have taken on a large number of new spheres of activity which now fall within the Bill, and have decided to give the Equal Opportunities Commission a dual function, not only of investigation, which is what we proposed, but also of enforcement as well. The result of this, alas! has been a great degree of complication in the legislation. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said in her speech that the lawyers should now take a back seat. I am afraid that I do not think there is very much prospect of that because, while I fully admire the draftsmanship of this Bill, I entirely agree with others who have pointed out that it is far from easy to follow.
There are, for instance, the various different remedies. And one will have to get the right one if one is going to complain about a particular piece of discrimination. If it is about your job, you go under Clause 60 to the Industrial Tribunal, and before that you have a chance to have the conciliation machinery applied to your case to see whether the matter can be solved in that way. If it is another form of discrimination under a later Part of the Bill, one goes to the county court or, in Scotland, to the sheriff court. There is no formal conciliation machinery there, but as I understand it from reading the proceedings in another place, the lawyers are supposed to tell you what are the chances of success, and in that way try to get rid of the really bad cases before they are ever heard.
That does not apply to everything in that Part of the Bill, because there are

177
special provisions for the matters in Clauses 22 and 23 which deal with education; you cannot go straight to the county court because first you must do something which is dealt with under Clause 63(5). And even if you thought that that was the end of the trouble in the realm of education it is not, because the general provisions in Clause 25 about education cannot be enforced in any court but only by going to one or other of the Secretaries of State. So there are four different methods of dealing with it. That is not the finish of it, either, because if you receive a discrimination notice from the Equal Opportunities Commission there is a separate method of appeal against that notice under Clauses 64 and 65. Finally, Clauses 37 to 39, which include the advertisements, are only enforceable by the Equal Opportunities Commission itself.
The result of this extension of the scope of the Bill has therefore led to an immense range of different types of enforcement machinery, all of which, except for the last one, will apply to individuals. There is even a case where you may have to go to two different tribunals about one single complaint. Supposing that there is a discriminatory condition in your contract of employment, first you have to complain to the Industrial Tribunal and get them to establish that it is indeed discriminatory. If you want the contract to be re-written, afterwards you have to go to the county court—or to the sheriff court in Scotland —to get them to modify it.
At the end of all that, I am greatly in agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, that there will be a large number of people who are perhaps not so sophisticated as I am, being a lawyer, in reading the Bill who may have a certain amount of difficulty in working out where it is that they are to go and what it is that they are to do when they get there, let alone how to appeal from it if they do not like the result. I am not sure that I have seen—perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, will tell us about this, although I am sure he will want to talk a great deal about education and he will be forgiven for doing so—the guidance that is to be given to the public that a number of noble Lords have raised in the course of this debate.
178
There is one other trouble. With this range of different tribunals to which to go to resolve your difficulties, sometimes you get legal aid but I understand that in the case of the Industrial Tribunals you cannot. In that case, all you can do is to go to the Equal Opportunities Commission and try to persuade them that your case is either one which involves principle or else is so complex and difficult that they can use their powers under one of the clauses of the Bill—I think it is Clause 72—to help you in the conduct of your case. So there is going to be a whole range of ordinary employment problems where there will be no legal aid for the individual woman who wants to test the discrimination. They will have to do it either through some body which will help them if they cannot afford it themselves or by persuading the Equal Opportunities Commission that theirs is a special case. That is quite apart from the difficulties of the onus of proof to which I am sure we shall return at Committee stage, because here there is a fruitful area of discussion in which I shall be very interested to join. Therefore, when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, mentioned the complexity of the Bill, as did my noble friend Lady Vickers, I had some sympathy with them—and that, too, was a point upon which I could agree with the noble Lord, Lord Monson.
I should like somebody to write in English Clause 66 so that one has some faint idea of what it means, but I suppose that the prize in the whole of the drafting of this Bill must go to the provision in Clause 73(6) which tells one when a deliberate omission shall be treated as having occurred:
"… in the absence of evidence establishing the contrary a person shall be taken for the purposes of this section to decide upon an omission when he does an act inconsistent with doing the omitted act or, if he has done no such inconsistent act, when the period expires within which he might reasonably have been expected to do the omitted act if it was to be done".
That, my Lords, is a matter which occurs, and it is not just a matter of complete obscurity because it occurs in relation, I believe, to people like hairdressers and those who make clothes who have special protection under Clause 29(3). There is, therefore, still a good deal of trouble

179
about the wording of the Bill even if it has been clarified to some extent in another place.
I should like to draw one other point to the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt; namely, the novel provision in Clause 71 about the questions that can be asked of a person who thinks that he has cause for complaint under the Bill. It is a legal point because the results of these questions will be admissible in evidence. What worries me a little is not the novelty of this idea, which I welcome—I see no reason why one should not have novel ideas if they help to speed up and simplify the procedure—but that the Bill specifically provides that although there shall be Rules of Court laying down what shall be the form of the question and the answer, you do not have to pay the blindest bit of attention to them, and the Statute so provides. If so, I can see no point in Rules of Court.
We are getting to the next area I should like to touch on briefly, where people may be rather suspicious about how the Bill will work and whether their rights will be infringed if they have anything whatever to do with it. This is the last main criticism that I have to make. When we have the new role of the Equal Opportunities Commission, whereby they are also going to enforce these laws as well as investigate them, if we are not careful we shall have the opportunity for intrusions into privacy which are not warranted. No doubt a number of intrusions into privacy will be warranted, but there are going to be areas where suspicion can be aroused.
I hope that the Commission will indeed use the strength of character for which its chairwoman is so well known. I hope that it will use persuasion, initiative and persistence, but above all I hope that it will use tact. We on this side of the House have been worried since we started to consider the matter about the possibility of an alienation of opinion if the Commission goes too far and too fast. It will have to act with a very fine degree of judgment if all the good we have been talking about—the chance to educate and to bring up to date people's ideas and eradicate prejudice—is not to be undone by some hasty and ill-advised act.
180
I believe that if the Government have decided and think that it is an improvement that the Commission should have these extra powers and what have been described as its teeth, they should also be extremely careful. It depends to some extent on personalities but also on the general guidance that they are able to give through the three Departments which are involved in how it acts, because one only has to look at some of the provisions of the Bill and the things that the Commission can do. One looks at Clause 36—the investigation of hidden discriminatory practices. We have already had the advertisements mentioned. Then I find that the "instructions to discriminate" and "pressure to discriminate" which are dealt with in Clauses 38 and 39 get very close to the heart almost of some people's subconscious approach, and intrusions into this area could undo a great deal of good which might otherwise come out of this Bill. It would vitiate a great many of the hopes of those who are in charge of it and who support it, as I do.
This legislation has been impending for a long time. It is the good fortune of the present Government to be able to introduce it, and I hasten to join in congratulating them and the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary for doing so. It looks, however, as though it was necessary. We thought so when we were in Government. We thought that without legislation we should not get the progress in this field that was required because the necessary changes were not occurring without some stimulus from the centre that this sort of Act will be able to give.
We, too, of course were in favour of an Equal Opportunities Commission. When I came to study this subject I was astonished at the real waste of talent that was occurring, the real failure of women to get to the positions they deserved. I was equally astonished, if not more so, at finding out the underlying attitude of discrimination which was so widely felt. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, that this equality of opportunity should start in the home, and in a very large number of homes it does not. This goes all through the country.
I am delighted to hear that the ladies now mow the lawn and the gentlemen

181
feed the babies; but in a large number of homes nothing of that sort occurs, and it is from those homes that discrimination goes through the whole of society. We need a Bill of this sort to try to give us a shove in the direction of getting rid of that, although it will take a long time. In the process we have produced a large Bill. I wonder whether, if we are not careful, it may not be a slightly alarming legislative juggernaut. I hope that it will be propelled along by those in charge of it with gentleness and discernment, and—if I may turn the phrase the other way round—with a good deal of discrimination.
7.12 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Crowther-Hunt): My Lords, I am glad to see that there has been such a general welcome for the Government's Sex Discrimination Bill. I was particularly grateful for the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who rightly spoke with such authority in giving her welcome to what the Government are doing. I was grateful, too, to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, for emphasising all-Party support for this measure. It is the culmination of a great deal of work which has gone on for a number of years on both sides of this House. The sole exception to the praise that has been given to the Bill came from the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and, if I may, I will return to him later.
In considering this legislation, the need for it and its likely effect, we of course accept that there have been many improvements in recent years in the status of women in this country, and that many archaic laws and procedures putting women at a disadvantage have been done away with. But although it is now fifty-seven years since the first British women won the right to vote, and despite the major changes that have taken place, the position of women still remains unequal in many respects and in important aspects of our daily lives. I welcome the remark of the noble Viscount Lord Colville of Culross, in this respect regarding the enormous waste of talent in this community that flows from discrimination of the kind we are talking about. The combination of
182
longer lives, younger marriages and smaller families has resulted in revolutionary changes in the lives of many women, whether as wives, mothers or workers.
Today, nearly half of all British women are in paid employment; they not only make a major contribution to our wellbeing as a nation, but they contribute substantially to the standard of living of their own families. But the hard facts are that many women do lower grade jobs, generally for lower rates of pay than men, are less likely to be promoted than men, and are rarely found in charge of business or industry. Our educational system, our preparation for working life and our practices in recruitment, have not caught up with what has been happening elsewhere in the social advancement of women. We, as a Government, are convinced that legislation is essential if an effective policy of equal opportunity is to be achieved, and if sex discrimination based on mere prejudice is to become a thing of the past.
We do not pretend that legislation in itself is a complete remedy. One cannot remove deep-rooted prejudices and changed attitudes entrenched in custom and practice simply by bringing in a new law—a point well emphasised by my noble friend Lady Summerskill. But our experience with the Race Relations Act has shown that the law helps to change people's attitudes as well as to regulate their behaviour. It creates the right sort of climate for progress and change, the climate which we need to achieve our aims.
The Bill before your Lordships' House represents a most comprehensive and determined attack on the evil of discrimination. It covers a very wide range of activities, and not only employment but education and the broad range of goods, services and facilities provided to the public. It brings in specifically, for the first time in anti-discrimination legislation, the professions and partnerships—two areas which have proved a fruitful source of grievance in the past. The Bill covers not only direct but indirect discrimination and we have made provision, through various kinds of positive action designed to help women train themselves, for opportunities which they have not hitherto enjoyed. Altogether it is a most ambitious and

183
imaginative attempt. We have also made appropriate exceptions in the Bill for situations and activities where these are justified; for instance, where considerations of propriety and privacy apply. But the exceptions are carefully limited to what is necessary and they will not detract from the main impetus of the legislation.
But it is no use making a new law unless there are means to enforce it. We have adopted a new approach which will combine a right of an individual's access to legal remedies, either in courts or tribunals, with the setting up of a powerful Equal Opportunities Commission responsible for enforcing the law in the public interest on behalf of the community as a whole. All this explains why the Bill is long and complicated, as noble Lords and noble Baronesses—or should it be noble Baronesses and Lords, though it is difficult to put everything in the right order—have pointed out. In this connection, we are giving serious consideration to the publication of a document which will explain the rights that go with the Bill, because it is complicated and not always easy to understand, particularly when it is expressed in legal terms.
I turn now to some of the individual points that have been made in the debate and I will do my best to answer them. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, mentioned, as a small note of complaint in her speech, the enforcement procedure on education questions. She thought they were unduly lengthy and complicated and would not produce the right sort of answer in the lifetime of an aggrieved person. The noble Baroness chose an example which illustrates the desirability of complaints going first to the Education Ministers. If a girl refused entry to a course had to approach a tribunal or a county court, the criticism she made might well be justified. But in the example she illustrated the Secretary of State can direct the local education authority to admit the girl if he is satisfied that there has been discrimination. He can do so in time for the girl to be admitted during the term; hence the reason for the complaints procedure in that respect. I think that is a justifiable one. The noble Baroness also raised a point, as did others of your Lordships on both sides of the House, about there not being equality so
184
far as pensions and social security are concerned. As we have indicated, the status of women in relation to taxation, social security, pensions, nationality and matrimonial and family law is governed and will continue to be dealt with, by separate legislation.
These matters are far too large and complex to be dealt with within the compass of the Sex Discrimination Bill, which has already been criticised for being too ambitious and going too far. But my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has introduced a Social Security Pensions Bill which provides, among other things, for men and women to have equal access to membership of occupational schemes in respect of age of entry, qualifying service and a basis of option or obligation. She has also asked the Occupational Pensions Board to consider what further steps are necessary to implement the principle of equality for men and women in pensions schemes. Perhaps we ought to leave it at that point so far as the pensions and social security side of this matter is concerned.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, if my noble friend will permit me to interrupt him, I am very grateful to him, but he has left social security there for the time being: where has he left taxation?
Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: I have left taxation, my Lords, in the same place. Surely the noble Lord is not really suggesting that it should be introduced into the already complex nature and length of this Bill. I was about to come to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, in regard to free legal aid. Here I have to say that the recent report of the Legal Aid Advisory Committee recommended that legal aid should be extended to all statutory tribunals at present within the supervision of the Council on Tribunals. As my right honourable friend the Attorney-General has indicated, while my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has considerable sympathy with the Advisory Committee's recommendation and supports in principle the extension of legal aid to these tribunals, priority cannot be given to this in view of the urgent need to improve legal services generally. My noble and learned friend commissioned an urgent study last

185
autumn into the problem of the unmet need for legal services; this is making good progress and he will review the position when the report is available to him.
The noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, also raised the question of the possibility of a code of practice being produced. The suggestion, in effect, was that the Bill should include specific power for the Commission to issue codes of practice or guidelines carrying statutory backing. Let me make it quite clear that we think there will be a useful role for the Commission to play in publicising good practices and, in certain instances, in drawing up codes of guidance for people concerned with various aspects of the Bill. For instance, in paragraph 73 of the White Paper we envisaged that there might well be a case for the Commission to draw up guidelines for the use of advertisers.
The Commission can draw up and publish such guidance and encouragement to operate on a voluntary basis under the Bill as it stands. It does not need special powers to do so and I suggest that we should leave the Commission to decide, in the light of experience in the field, what might be the most relevant areas in this connection. We see difficulty in providing that any such guidance or code should have the force of law. The noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, also asked about the headquarters of the Equal Opportunities Commission. The Home Secretary has said that he expects the headquarters to be in Manchester. That is the plan and it is in line with the Government's dispersal policies, but I have taken note of the point made by the noble Baroness in this connection.
I come now to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester, and I was glad to note that he welcomed both the principles of the Bill and the possible exception of the Church in Clause 19. I noted that he welcomed the fact that that clause covered both the adoption of the religious doctrine and the susceptibilities of their followers, and I was glad that he welcomed it in that context. I also agreed very much with the emphasis he placed on the need for more education and training of all kinds, if what is proposed here is to come fully to fruition. The right reverend Prelate also asked about the ancient universities and their position so far as single sex
186
colleges are concerned. Single sex colleges are protected under the Bill, but there are moves towards co-education and these are moves which will be facilitated by the Bill in the transitional procedures which can take place under Clause 27 of the Bill.
I was grateful for the remarks made by my noble friend Lady Gaitskell, and I am sure my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will be delighted that she congratulated him on the Bill, which she called a remarkable Bill, a credit to International Women's Year and introduced not a moment too soon. I was delighted to hear her say that; I am sure we all take immense heart from it. I come now to the point made by the the noble Baroness, Lady Ward, when she expressed the hope that the Equal Opportunities Commission would bear in mind that very few women had been invited to serve on boards of directors. No doubt the Equal Opportunities Commission will take note of that point, as indeed do we all.
I turn now to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, in regard to the fire service. She was good enough to indicate to my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich that she intended to raise this matter today, and I am grateful to her for doing so because it is an important issue. I should like to preface my reply by explaining that there is nothing in the employment provisions of the Bill which prevents an employer from stipulating certain conditions or requirements which applicants for particular jobs must satisfy, provided that if those conditions are discriminatory in effect—as they would be if they were, for example, height, strength and stamina requirements—then they have to be justifiable in all the circumstances.
In this context, let us look at the fire service. There are some very tough physical tests which applicants naturally have to satisfy, and I am in no doubt that it is absolutely essential for a fireman—or perhaps we ought to say a firefighter—to be able to pass these tests if he or she is up to the job. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, I doubt whether the fire service will receive a flood of applications from aspiring women fire fighters, or whether there would be any but a handful of women

187
who could pass the stringent physical tests. However, as the noble Baroness has pointed out, practical problems arise for a woman so qualified as an operational fire fighter, because an essential part of the work consists of being on call to attend an incident, and being in such a state of preparedness as to reduce to the minimum the period between the alarm being given and the arrival at the incident. This means that the accommodation for use while on duty must be designed with a view to keeping that period to the minimum, and this means that there must be shared sleeping accommodation. This raises questions of propriety and privacy which need to be considered in the context of Clause 7.
As my noble friend Lord Harris indicated in his opening speech, the Government have not sought to exclude the Home Office services from this legislation. They will be subjected to the same tests as any other employer. Therefore, we should see how the criteria in Clause 7 are likely to apply to the fire service. I believe that the legitimate needs of the fire service in this regard should be covered. It would seem to me from the Bill, and from the way it is likely to work and operate, that this will in fact be so. I hope that what I have said will reassure the noble Baroness that the position of the fire service under the Bill has been safeguarded to the extent to which it is justifiable so to do. In drafting Clause 7 we have sought to identify those criteria which distinguish jobs to which the principle of non-discrimination ought to apply and those to which it ought not. I am not saying that we have Clause 7 100 per cent. right—hence, of course, Clause 75 which gives the power to amend—but I believe that it will produce the right result, certainly in the case of the fire service to which my noble friend referred.
I come now—perhaps appropriately after fire—to the noble Lord, Lord Monson. He called the Bill anti-libertarian, ridiculous and unfair, and he said that one cannot reverse human nature. I am sorry that the noble Lord thought it necessary to ridicule various clauses of the Bill. What he said was clearly contrary to the spirit of this House and to the climate of opinion in this country, and certainly to the view of
188
Her Majesty's Government. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, in his intervention indicated the fundamental weakness in the case presented by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and when the noble Lord, Lord Monson, got it down to bones—and his bones against everybody else's bones—I think the bones on the other side clearly had it!
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I think it might be helpful to the House if I were to put the record straight, as to exactly what I do feel in my bones. There were four specific points. I said that I felt in my bones that it was wrong for women to be hanged; that it was wrong for women to dig ditches or mend roads, as they do behind the Iron Curtain; that it was on the whole wrong, or at any rate distasteful, for a policewoman to be armed, but that it was right that women's prisons should be more comfortable than men's. I do not think any of these four points are particularly controversial.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: What about the pilots?
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I was quoting someone else.
Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: My Lords, it is a little late in the evening to start disinterring the noble Lord's bones! I should like to come to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, about the burden of proof, which was also made by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. Of course, the point that has been made is that it should be for the complainant to show that the respondent committed the alleged act of unlawful discrimination, but for the respondent to prove the contrary; in other words, the complainant should make a complaint, and the complaint should be upheld unless the respondent can show it to be without foundation.
I am afraid that the Government find that unacceptable as a general proposition. The House will appreciate that it cuts right across the principle of our law, both civil and criminal, that a person is innocent until he is proven guilty. To prove the negative is a very onerous burden, and it would not be reasonable, as a general proposition, to require the respondent to do so. The noble Baroness,

189
Lady Fisher of Rednal, drew the attention of the House to the evidential burden placed on the respondent by the unfair dismissals provision of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974. The noble Baroness pointed out that under that Act the complainant has only to show that he was dismissed, and it then falls to the respondent to show that the reason for dismissal was a legitimate one.
I should point out that to begin with, with few exceptions, where a woman is unfairly dismissed because of her sex, she will have a case both under the Sex Discrimination Bill and under unfair dismissals legislation, and so will be able to benefit from the somewhat easier evidential burden provided by the latter. I should make it clear that there is no question of double compensation in such cases. It is perfectly fair and defensible that, when an employer dismisses an employee, he should be obliged to see that he had proper reason for doing so. That is why in dismissal cases the main evidential burden is on the respondent. In this situation, it should be noted that the respondent is not asked to prove a negative. He has to show that dismissal was for a reason which the Act says is a legitimate one. But no doubt this is something which will be argued about and discussed further when we get to the Committee stage.
My Lords, I now come to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, who spoke about the role of the Equal Opportunities Commission, and stressed its crucial importance. I should like to say more about this Commission in a moment or two. The noble Baroness also raised the question of a simple account of what the Bill contains and what it is about. I have already referred to that. It is the intention of the Government to do something along those lines. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, stressed that the Bill by itself will not achieve all that women would hope. This is very true. This is a point that has been raised by other speakers. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, spoke many wise words, as he frequently does. I have had the privilege of serving with him on at least one committee, and I have heard his wise words almost every week. I always find myself
190
in agreement with so much of what he says.
If I may turn to the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, who does not seem to be here to turn to, I am grateful to him for putting into proper historical perspective what the Bill now before your Lordships is seeking to achieve. The noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith, said that the Bill imposes requirements on employers, but that trade unions also will need to cease any discriminatory practices. I accept the point made by the noble Baroness. Clause 12 of the Bill makes unlawful discrimination by trade unions against members or potential members. Clause 39 also makes it unlawful to exert pressure on someone so as to make him discriminate. This applies to trade unions as to anyone else.
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, pointed out that this is not the end of the battle, but very much a beginning. He pointed out a number of different methods available under the Bill for dealing with discrimination. The noble Viscount was putting, that in a sense of criticism, partly because of the extended powers of the Equal Opportunities Commission. The Government believe it right that the Commission should have the extended powers we have put there. I have no doubt that a number of the points the noble Viscount made with regard to the different methods of dealing with discrimination will come up during Committee stage.
My Lords, the extended role of the Equal Opportunities Commission has been mentioned on a number of occasions. I should like to go into this in a little more detail. In all our deliberations on the Bill, we have been conscious of the vital importance of the Equal Opportunities Commission, both in its role of enforcing the legislation and in its role as pathfinder and educator. As my right honourable friend announced, Miss Betty Lockwood has agreed to serve as chairman designate and Lady Howe as deputy chairman designate of the Commission. I am sure that the House welcomes both these appointments and will wish to join with me in offering Miss Lockwood and Lady Howe our good wishes for the task ahead of them. I am glad there has been association with that from all sides of the House.

191
The Bill has imposed a very wide range of tasks on the Commission. It will keep under review the working of the Bill and of the Equal Pay Act and has duties of enforcement relating to both. It will have the vital function of identifying, and of seeking to eliminate, unlawful discriminatory practices. To this end it will carry out formal investigations for which it will have powers to require the production of information, which may be followed either by recommendations for changes in practices or, if there has been unlawful discrimination, by the issue of non-discrimination notices and, if necessary, legal proceedings. It has powers to require information about the action taken after a notice has been issued, and to deal with persistent discrimination. It will be able to assist individuals in the preparation and presentation of their cases where special circumstances justify this. In addition, the Commission will have the sole right to institute proceedings in respect of those contraventions of the Bill which do not directly produce victims. Here I am referring to the new clause on discriminatory practices, and to the provisions dealing with pressure to discriminate, instructions to discriminate and discriminatory advertising.
The Commission will be an important source of information about the legislation and the remedies available to individuals who have suffered discrimination. It will be able to conduct and support research into any field relating to discrimination. The Commission will be able to conduct wide-ranging inquiries into the positions and opportunities of men and women, and not only in those areas covered by the Bill. It will normally publish its findings and it will be able to recommend such action, whether legislative or otherwise, as it considers necessary. The Commission will be able to publish guidelines or codes of good practice in the light of its investigations and research, and we hope that it will consider doing this in appropriate places.
The role of the Commission in the enforcement of the legislation is very important. We have always pressed the need for strong and effective powers, and the Commission is essential to the strategic approach which has been put forward in the Bill. But in the longer
192
term I think that the Commission's role in education and persuading public opinion may be at least as important. There are inevitable restraints on what can be achieved by legislation, and if the Bill is to achieve its maximum effect it must be supported and complemented by effective equal opportunity policies, not only by Government but by those concerned with education and training, by employers and trade unions, in the professions, in the media and elsewhere.
There is a need to encourage girls and women not to undervalue themselves and their potential and to make the fullest use of the opportunities which the Bill will open to them. There is need to question outmoded assumptions about the roles which are appropriate to girls and women in our society now and as we expect it to develop in the future. But this is a task which has to be handled with some sensitivity, as the noble Viscount recognised, since it needs to be recognised, too, that the creation of a happy home and family life is itself a contribution to society, and that many women now and in the future will find their greatest satisfaction in their homes and in their families. There is need for sensitivity and balance, but the Government are confident that the Commission will play a leading part in this necessary work of education and persuasion which will ensure that the aims of justice and equality which underlie the Bill will become part of our accepted way of life and of thinking. My Lords, I hope I have answered most of the points that have been raised. I commend this Bill to your Lordships for a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committe of the Whole House.

LOCAL LAND CHARGES BILL [H.L.]
7.42 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Earl Cathcart in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Registering authorities, local land charges registers, and indexes]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move Amendment No. 1. This Amendment provides that the area of the Common Council of the City of London as a registering authority under the Bill is to include the Temples. The Amendment reproduces in terms appropriate to the Bill the provisions of Article 5(6) of the Temples Order 1971, whereby the proper officer to act as registrar of local land charges affecting the Temples is the town clerk of the City. Under Clause 3, responsibility for the registration of local land charges is imposed upon registering authorities. The effect of the Amendment is simply to transfer the existing responsibility from the town clerk to the Common Council itself. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 36, at end insert—
("(4) For the purposes of this Act the area of the Common Council of the City of London includes the Inner Temple and the Middle Temple.").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Repeals and transitional provisions]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Amendment No. 2 is consequential on Amendment No. 1 which the Committee has recently passed, and introduces the repeal of Article 5(6) of the Temples Order effected by the Amendment to Schedule 2. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 33, after ("provisions)") insert ("and the instrument there specified").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Consequential amendments]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR: It may be convenient to take Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 together. These Amendments, which repair an omission in the Schedule of Amendments, provide that the designation of a conservation area is to be a local land charge. Under Section 277 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, as substituted by Section 1 of the Town and Country Amenities Act 1974, the designation of a conservation area is to be registered in the register of local land charges in the manner prescribed by rules et cetera. The new régime of the Bill makes this lengthy formula unnecessary, and the Amendment fits designations into the scheme of the Bill by simply providing that they are to be local land charges. I beg to move Amendment No. 3.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 44, leave out ("and").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move Amendment No. 4.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 5, at end add ("and
(c) in section 277(9), for the words from 'registered' onwards substitute 'a local land charge'").—(The Lord Chancellor.).
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I should like to say one word on this Amendment. Since the designation of an area as a conservation area can be done by a local authority without going anywhere near Government, and this now, particularly since the Town and Country Amenities Act, results in one not even being able to pull down one's own house without planning permission, it is extremely important that this omission should be put right, and that people will know and be able to find out whether there is a conservation area affecting a house that they propose to buy.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I respectfully agree.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1. as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Repeals]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move Amendment No. 5. This Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 1 and repeals the provision in the Temples Order whereby the town clerk of the City is responsible for the local land charges affecting the Temples. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 53, at end insert:

("Instrument

Number

Title

Extent of Repeal

1971 No. 1732.

The Temples Order 1971.

Articles 5(6).")

—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

LITIGANTS IN PERSON (COSTS AND EXPENSES) BILL
Report received.
GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
Examiners' Certificate that no further Standing Order is applicable: Ordered, to lie on the Table.
  MEAT REFRIGERATION PLANT
  MEAT REFRIGERATION PLANT