Sitting of 2 July 1975

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESSS
  SCOTTISH TRANSPORT GROUP (PORT ELLEN HARBOUR) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Considered; to be read the Third time tomorrow.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ENVIRONMENT

    Local Authority Mortgage Interest Rates
    Mr. Newtonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has yet completed the urgent review of the high mortgage rates of some local authorities to which he referred on 27th January 1975; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Reginald Freeson): The inquiries my Department has been making are not yet complete, and I have nothing to add to the points that my right hon. Friend made arising from the question by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) on 11th June.—[Vol. 893, c. 405–6.]
    Mr. Newton: As many hon. Memers will, I am sure, find that a very disappointing answer, will the Minister at least undertake that in any further proposals for mortgage stabilisation he will make sure that local authority mortgage holders are fairly treated? Will he confirm or deny whether he has any intention of adding to their burdens by removing tax relief on mortgage interest?
    Mr. Freeson: On the first point, the Government have no intention of extending public expenditure by a further subsidy in this connection. There are other aspects of this matter which we are still examining, with the hope that we may produce some helpful suggestions. On the second point, I have already dealt with that publicly elsewhere. There is no truth whatsoever in the rumour or the report that we intend to abolish tax relief on mortgages. There is truth in the suggestion that we are looking at the way in which it operates.
    Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister indicate whether there is a limit on the mortgage funds available for local authorities? If there is, and there is no limit on the funds available for building new houses, does he not consider this inconsistent, particularly in areas where there is a high level of owner-occupation, when there is a need for mortgage funds to make money available for the buyers of those houses?
    Mr. Freeson: Certainly there is a limit, which was announced recently by my right hon. Friend, on local authorities' mortgage facilities. Broadly speaking it will amount to 50 per cent. of the rate of lending up till now on home loans. There is no inconsistency in this. We are talking about two different aspects of housing finance. New house building requires a different amount of investment from home loans, which go into the demand side of the market.

    Local Authorities (Expenditure)
    Mr. Kilroy-Silkasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will issue a circular to local authorities to encourage them to curb excessive or ostentatious expenditure.
    Mr. Rookerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will issue a circular to local authorities advising them to reduce expenditure on hospitality.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gordon Oakes): My Department issued a very clear circular on 24th December last year and has just reinforced this by a further circular on 27th June. These have underlined the need for local authorities to adhere rigorously to the limits set by the rate support grant settlement.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Will not the Minister accept that at a time when local authorities are making savage cuts in education and personal social services, it is intolerable that they should spend such large sums of money on mayoral cars, on hospitality and on junketing at conferences? Does he realise that the Sefton Metropolitan Council in my area, which is savagely cutting the number of teachers in its schools, is at the same time spending £10,000 on sending its "It's a Knockout" team to the Continent? Will he take more positive action to stop this insensitive display of ostentatious spending and to ensure that local authorities are more responsible in their attitude?
    Mr. Oakes: Local authorities are elected bodies, but I agree with my hon. Friend in regard to any display of ostentation at a time such as this. It is not the amount of money involved but the principle behind it. May I reinforce what my right hon. Friend has said very forcibly, that central Government financial support to local government will not be increased to meet the cost incurred by authorities acting outside the guidelines.
    Mr. Fry: Following the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement yesterday, will the Minister send an instruction to local authorities that the rate demands next year should not exceed those for this year by more than 10 per cent.? Does he agree that if the ratepayers find that the rate demands are higher, they will be fully justified in making trouble and refusing to pay any more?
    Mr. Oakes: I think that on reflection the hon. Gentleman will regret his last remarks. It does no good to the authority or to the individual to take that course of action. It would not be appropriate to issue such a circular to local authorities, but I reinforce what the Government have been saying repeatedly as to the need to keep expenditure down to inescapable demands.
    Mr. Rooker: Does the Minister agree that in the light of the fact that since 27th June, when the local authorities were last contacted, we now have the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement of yesterday, my original Question was too temperate, that there are no grounds whatsoever for any amounts to be spent on hos-
    1444
    pitality by local authorities in the next two years or so, and that there should be a complete block on any such expenditure?
    Mr. Oakes: We are meeting the local authorities, as my hon. Friend knows, and I am sure that we shall keep his remarks in mind, as I hope they will.
    Mr. Evelyn King: Will the Minister say whether he has observed the evidence given recently by the Layfield Committee to the effect that deficit spending on leisure centres and swimming pools provided by local authorities will rise from £13 million to £40 million a year in the next five years? Bearing in mind the position of the homeless, the hospitals and the education services, will the Minister express a view that this sort of expenditure can have no justification?
    Mr. Oakes: It is difficult to say "no justification", but the leisure services activities, where there has been a high growth in expenditure, sometimes deservedly so, were specifically mentioned in the circular in December.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend aware that I had a telephone call yesterday from a Tory lady in Edinburgh complaining about the extravagant expenditure on a Royal visit to Edinburgh in a few days' time, and that Edinburgh is tearing up many dozens of parking meters at public expense? Will he make sure that the Scottish Office sends out a more violent circular than he has sent to the English local authorities?
    Mr. Oakes: In this vexed question of rates and local government expenditure, I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend that I have no responsibility whatsoever for Scotland.
    Mr. Speed: Following the Chancellor's statement yesterday, does the Minister intend to use cash limits as a means of controlling local government expenditure?
    Mr. Oakes: We are discussing with local authorities the levels of expenditure for next year. I should be anticipating if I were to decide on any specific course of action at present.

    Long Vehicles
    Mr. Walter Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what

    1445
    representations he has received concerning the length of articulated lorries and other long vehicles in respect of safety aspects.
    The Minister for Transport (Dr. John Gilbert): None during the last two years.
    Mr. Johnson: Is my hon. Friend aware that articulated lorries and other long vehicles often mount the pavements when they are going round corners and that there has been a marked increase in the number of accidents, particularly to children and cyclists? Will he investigate the situation and, it' necessary, introduce legislation to control the length of such vehicles?
    Dr. Gilbert: If my hon. Friend has particular geographical circumstances in mind, I shall be happy to look into them. He will be aware of existing controls on the length of vehicles. While the number of articulated lorries has been steadily rising over the past few years, the number of accidents in which they have been involved has been falling.
    Mr. Marten: What is the position about the EEC draft regulation to increase the weight and length of heavy lorries? Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the House instructed the former Minister to oppose the regulation in the Community? Do the Government feel bound by that resolution, which I think was passed in 1973?
    Dr. Gilbert.: We certainly take notice of the resolution of the House. The difference in length between the EEC limits and ours is only about 20 inches. Clearly there must be a limit to the length of lorries, but I do not think that 20 inches is necessarily a critical difference.
    Mr. Raphael Tuck: Does my hon. Friend realise that these monsters are sweeping across the country in a way which would make stories of Dr. Who look like child's play? Does he also realise that they are polluting the air, ruining our roads and making it very difficult for other drivers to drive? Cannot something be done about it before it is too late?
    Dr. Gilbert: I am aware of public concern, which has been so well voiced by my hon. Friend. The question of pollution is another matter which I hope to
    1446
    look into very shortly. On the involvement of articulated lorries in accidents, which was the subject of the original Question, I can say that per vehicle mile they are involved in far fewer accidents than rigid lorries of the same length.

    Water Authorities (Appointments)
    Mr. Cryerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to allow representatives to area water boards to be directly elected.
    The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Mr. Denis Howell): As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in the House on 27th June 1974, he proposes to review the progress of the water industry next year. The way in which members of the water authorities are selected will certainly be included.
    Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that many water boards, often without representatives even from local authorities within their area, have wide powers to raise charges with it is incumbent upon the local authorities to charge'? Many boards have huge areas of land, some leased to business men for grouse shooting, and large areas of water, some of which are used in a very exclusive manner? Does my hon. Friend agree that a democratic opening-up would be an important prelude to changing some of those policies?
    Mr. Howell: The majority of the members of every regional water authority are elected representatives of local authorities, from top-tier authorities. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the water authorities have a prime duty to open up the resources at their disposal for the recreation of the whole community and not for any exclusive section of the community. The Government will be pressing to ensure that they adopt such policies.
    Sir W. Elliott: Despite what his hon. Friend has just said, will the Minister ensure that people with sufficient knowledge of the water industry are given the opportunity to give the benefit of their immense fund of advice?
    Mr. Howell: Professional and technical advice can be hired, and in my view should be hired. I very much support

    1447
    my hon. Friend's main contention that public services of this sort should be under the control of elected representatives, although I prefer them to be people elected to local authorities and then appointed in that way. However, I take the essential point. I think that at present anyway in regional water authorities there is a majority of such people, and the minority come from the more professionally interested, technical services and other outside interests, which I regret to say were not very well balanced politically when they were appointed by the previous Government.
    Mr. Roderick: Will my hon. Friend bring forward his review because of the deep dissatisfaction in Wales over the disparity in charging mechanisms between the authorities? We urgently need a review, because action must be taken within the next 12 months.
    Mr. Howell: Charging policy in Wales is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. Since, however, the whole of my constituency gets its water from Wales, I have a peculiar interest to declare.

    Cavity Wall Insulation
    Mr. Rostasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to speed up the approval of cavity wall insulation in the interests of energy conservation.
    Mr. Stephen Rossasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will amend his recent circular relating to cavity wall insulation which states that the use of urea formaldehyde foam can constitute a breach of Building Regulation C9.2.
    Mr. Freeson: We have recommended cavity wall insulation in the right circumstances, in advisory pamphlets issued earlier this year, and in April we issued a circular letter of advice to local authorities outlining the circumstances in which it would be proper to relax the building regulation which forbids "bridging" of the outer and inner leaf of a wall. I am considering the use of powers under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to issue a type relaxation for cavity wall insulation.
    Mr. Rost: Has nobody told the Minister that as a direct result of that circular to local authorities the cavity wall insulation industry has slumped to 25 per cent. of its capacity? What is the point of the Department of Energy trying to encourage cavity wall insulation while the Department of the Environment is deliberately putting obstacles in its way? Why does not the hon. Gentleman get together with the Department of Energy and sort out this mess?
    Mr. Freeson: It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman would check his facts and be more accurate. We are in close contact with the Department of Energy. The circular which the hon. Gentleman says created obstacles and caused a reduction in business did the opposite. It pointed out to local authorities that in the vast majority of cases relaxation would be the proper thing to do.
    Mr. Ross: Is the Minister aware that potential savings of heat loss through cavity wall insulation have been estimated to be worth as much as £250 million and that there have been statements from the producers of the materials that they have lost considerable business? Are not further Press advertising and a further direction to local authorities necessary?
    Mr. Freeson: We have issued considerable publicity material encouraging cavity wall insulation and other forms of insulation as a contribution towards energy conservation and improved environmental conditions in the home. There are, however, situations in which certain kinds of treatment of walls will produce damp penetration, and it would be wrong for us to take no action to avoid that and it would be wrong for local authorities to take no action to deal with it. What we are trying to do through our circulars of advice is to encourage the right approach, to encourage insulation without those risks. When the time is proper, after due consultation, we shall probably issue a type relaxation under the Act to which I referred.
    Miss Fookes: I should like to point out to the Minister that meanwhile the firms are suffering a loss. They have approached me on this very point. May we have fairly swift action?
    Mr. Freeson: I do not know what swifter action there could have been than

    1449
    the considerable publicity which we, together with the Department of Energy, have issued to encourage this kind of insulation. We also issued a circular in April—soon after the cases about which anxiety has been expressed were reported to the Secretary of State—which gives careful advice to local authorities on this matter.

    Local Government Staff (Pay)
    Dr. Hampsonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussion he has had with NALGO about its pay negotiations.
    Mr. Oakes: None, Sir. Representatives of the local government employers and of the staffs' sides are responsible for the negotiation of local government pay and conditions of service.
    Dr. Hampson: Will the Minister say whether there has been a dramatic increase in staff costs since reorganisation? Does he not accept that it is critical to impress on the unions that restraint should be exercised if we are to stop a ratepayers' rebellion in the coming year?
    Mr. Oakes: We warned at the time that there certainly would be an increase in staff costs after reorganisation. We cannot get over that fact. This settlement was within the guidelines laid down by the Government.
    Mr. George Cunningham: Will the Minister accept that the rates of pay that many local government officials are receiving are excessive for the nature of the work they do and that the national Government, who bear a great part of the burden, cannot remain indifferent to this?
    Mr. Oakes: I note what my hon. Friend has said, but the national Government do not lay down these pay scales.
    Mr. Crawford: Will the Minister ensure that NALGO members involved in local government reorganisation in Scotland receive the same financial remuneration as their colleagues received when reorganisation took place in England last year? In doing so, will he take inflation into account?
    Mr. Oakes: That is a question for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
    Mr. Raison: Can the Minister tell us the cost of the recent NALGO settlement and say how it will be borne? Can he also say when cash limits for public sector wages will start to apply?
    Mr. Oakes: I am advised that the NALGO settlement will cost about £280 million a year. The award was just under 24 per cent. Some restructuring of the pay of certain staff added a further 0·8 per cent. On the second part of his question, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Chancellor made his statement only yesterday, and I have no doubt that we shall be discussing this matter with the local authority associations.

    Housing Development Planning
    Mr. Peter Millsasked the Secretary of State for the Environment, in view of the problems brought about by new housing developments in the South-West of England due to lack of co-ordination by some local authorities, in particular with regard to the funds available for schools, health facilities and other essential requirements, if he will issue general guidance to local authorities on the overall planning requirements for such developments.
    Mr. Freeson: I certainly favour more corporate planning. But if there are specific problems no doubt they will be put to me during the course of my visit to the South-West Region during the next two days.
    Mr. Mills: Will the Minister bear in mind when he visits the South-West that this is a very real and growing problem, especially as some authorities are allowing large numbers of houses to be built without the equivalent number of places for education, health and other facilities? Will he look at this carefully, because many of my constituents are angry and annoyed at what is happening in certain areas?
    Mr. Freeson: I shall certainly make it my business to seek further information on this matter during my visit. I would stress that housing development takes place not overnight but over a period of time. There is plenty of time for consultation between all the authorities concerned with the provision of different services to enable the right kind of corporate approach to be adopted. However, there are bound to be cases around the country

    1451
    where we need to make inquiries to be of assistance. I shall be glad to do this in the South-West.
    Mr. Ronald Atkins: When my hon. Friend gives guidance, will he include in the essential requirements the need in housing developments to take into consideration access to public transport particularly in the South-West where public transport is not viable? Does he not agree that a major part of the problem involved in making public transport viable arises from the dispersal of estates in country areas without consideration of access to public transport?
    Mr. Freeson: My hon. Friend has raised a matter which goes much deeper than matters of the rural areas of the South-West or elsewhere. Much of the character of all urban development over a good many years both in this country and elsewhere, has been influenced by what I might call the motorised society. This has made for greater difficulties in the relationship between housing and other developments and the public transport services. In so far as I can be of assistance to get a change of emphasis towards a more integrated approach in the layout and provisions of estates, I shall be only too glad to do so.

    New Towns
    Mr. Moonmanasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is now in a position to make a statement on the White Paper relating to new towns.
    Mr. Oakes: No, Sir. I am not convinced that a White Paper will be necessary.
    Mr. Moonman: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that as the 30 new towns have many of the characteristics of large business organisations, the inevitable White Paper and legislation must take into account discussions with the new towns concerned so that any change in the transfer of ownership to housing authorities is adequately and realistically timetabled?
    Mr. Oakes: I take my hon. Friend's point. Ministers are considering the comments which are being made on the new towns consultation document. An announcement about new towns policy
    1452
    should be made in the autumn, although it will not necessarily be in the form of a White Paper.
    Mr. Michael Morris: Is the Minister aware that although the ratepayers of new towns have to accept that they will subsidise those new towns this year, they are certainly not prepared to subsidise the creation and extension of new towns in the coming year? Will he give an assurance, in the form either of a White Paper or a statement, that the ratepayers in new towns will receive some special help to ensure that no burden whatever is placed on existing ratepayers?
    Mr. Oakes: I know of the hon. Gentleman's concern on this matter and I have heard it expressed by a number of hon. Gentlemen who represent the Northamptonshire area. We are examining the rate grant settlement for next year, but I cannot make any promises on this.
    Mr. Steen: Although the Minister has understandably been concerned about new towns, will he consider looking at old towns, because a White Paper is needed on them also?
    Mr. Oakes: I entirely agree that some of the most urgent problems that we face concerning the environment today are in the old urban areas of social deprivation. I would remind some Conservative Members who are critical of public expenditure that we cannot do anything about these matters without public expenditure.

    Construction
    Mr. Michael Lathamasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will now give a specific persentage figure for the anticipated decline in output on new construction in 1975 compared with 1974.
    Mr. Freeson: No, Sir; but I expect there to be a decline in new work in 1975 compared with 1974, followed by some recovery in 1976.
    Mr. Latham: As further catastrophic decline is taking place in construction this year, will the Minister direct his attention to stimulating rehabilitation work, which in particular soaks up unemployment, rather than wasting scarce resources on municipalisation?
    Mr. Freeson: That question is quite illogical and I shall explain why. The only way to expand rehabilitation work by local authorities—they carry the biggest burden of expenditure in this area—is primarily in relation to the social ownership of the old property concerned. The same is true of work by housing associations. The improvement grant system, which the Labour Party introduced in 1969 for the private sector, is still operating and has been expanded under the 1974 Act.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Why did council house starts in the quarter ending in April decline by 15 per cent. compared with the previous quarter? Have not the Government pegged total housing expenditure at its present level for the next four years despite a planned increase in the total gross national product? Will the Minister try to retain at least housing's present share of our total GNP?
    Mr. Freeson: My hon. Friend should beware of taking one quarter's figures and judging the results for the whole year by them. I have had occasion to say the same thing to Conservative Members. The plain fact is that we are running at a much higher rate of public sector housing starts and, indeed, private sector housing starts than was the case in 1974. I expect this increase in the public sector of about 6 per cent. and overall of about 9 per cent. to be maintained. It is true that we are maintaining expenditure at the massively increased level that we achieved in the last financial year, but, contrary to what has been said in the Press in the past two days, there is no truth in the suggestion that a ceiling has been imposed on new council house building, let alone the suggestion that it will be reduced by 50 per cent. next year, to which my hon. Friends seem to have given credence recently.

    Grace and Favour Residence
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how much has been spent on the grace and favour residences for which he is responsible; and if he will give the details of the sums to be spent on the separate residences in each of the next two years.
    Mr. Oakes: Total expenditure over the last two financial years was approximately £100,000. In 1975–76 the expenditure on
    1454
    these services is likely to be about £80,000 on 16 properties. The programme for the following year has not yet been determined but will probably be lower.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend aware, and does he agree, that £500,000 is to be spent on Kensington Palace alone? Is it not time to tell both the landlord and the tenants that the party is over and that in future they must finance the maintenance of these places themselves?
    Mr. Oakes: I know of my hon. Friend's well-known concern for all tenants of tied cottages. Perhaps I could tell him that the expenditure on these houses is in fact expenditure by officials of the Palace. These are not the grace and favour houses that go to public servants. These are officials of the Palace, and in this field as in all others, we are aware of the need to curtail expenditure, which is at present reducing.
    Mr. Costain: To put this matter in perspective, does not the Minister agree that a number of these grace and favour houses are national monuments, many of them occupied by—
    Mr. Hamilton: Like you.
    Mr. Costain: I would be very proud to be a national monument. However, many of them are occupied by women whose husbands have given great service to the nation. The country would be a much poorer place if we were not able to give them decent housing.
    Mr. Oakes: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is a national monument. I think that he is a national institution. However, the amount of money spent to which I have referred does not relate to those grace and favour houses which go to public servants or their widows. This money is spent on apartments, and so on, for officials of the Palace.

    Bricks
    Mr. Goldingasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has of the number of bricks now stockpiled.
    Mr. Freeson: The Department's provisional figure for stocks of bricks at the end of May 1975 is 841 million.
    Mr. Golding: Is my hon. Friend aware that very long waiting lists for housing and redundancy among brick workers and building workers are completely incompatible? Is he aware that many of us on the Government side of the House are totally dissatisfied with the present efforts of the Department regarding housing?
    Mr. Freeson: I am sorry if my hon. Friend is totally dissatisfied, though I would join with him in agreeing that we are far from satisfied in general with the efforts so far on housing. I hope he will note the fact that there has been a considerable increase in housing activity during the 16 months that the present Government have been in office. When we came into office we were at risk of about 200,000 or slightly more housing starts. We are now running at a level of over 300,000. That is no mean achievement, even if it is inadequate, in such a short period. We shall continue our efforts.
    Mr. Eyre: Is not the Minister aware that nearly 160,000 men in the construction industry are unemployed? Is not this desperately worrying when at the same time there is an unsatisfied demand particularly in large towns and cities, by people who wish to buy small, new, low-priced houses? Will he urge local authorities to release more land to small builders so that they can help to use up the stock of bricks and provide for the needs of these people?
    Mr. Freeson: On the first point, I would agree that we have a very serious situation in the construction industry as a whole. A very large part of the unemployment that has been growing in the industry relates not only to the slump in house building, which we inherited and which continues, although at a somewhat lower rate than previously. It relates to a cut-back in other activities, to restore which would require a major increase in public expenditure running into many hundreds of millions of pounds a year.
    On the second point, about the attempt to get a better provision of small dwellings, we have taken a number of initiatives. We have issued a major policy circular which covers this ground. On the regional visits which I shall be starting tomorrow, this point will be pursued
    1456
    with a number of local authorities and with the building industry.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: I welcome the Minister's last remarks, which are very relevant at present. However, cannot his Department do rather more to encourage local authorities to enter into schemes with private developers to produce the low-cost, one-bedroom and two-bedroom units which are so anxiously needed at present?
    Mr. Freeson: We shall do more and more, but the hon. Gentleman will realise that our system of government provides for autonomous action by local authorities. We can create the resources, the policies and the legislation, and we can use our influence, but at the end of the day the decisions are taken by the planning authorities and the housing authorities concerned. I shall be continuing to use my best endeavours to get these policies adopted. They are of vital importance. A very high proportion—nearly 50 per cent.—of the households in this country are small, and we are not providing sufficiently for their needs.
    Mr. Loyden: Is my hon. Friend aware that some time ago I wrote to our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry on the very question of unemployment among building workers and the growing need for housing. I asked for a meeting between him and my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Employment. Will my hon. Friend give an indication that these three Departments will get together to look at what is now becoming a major problem in the housing sector?
    Mr. Freeson: We are in constant touch between Departments. However, I must stress that as regards housing we shall push as vigorously as we can to get more housing starts of the right kind. We have had some success in the last 16 months. As regards the construction industry as a whole, however, it depends just as much on an increase in public expenditure, which at present is not available not only to my Department but to other Departments, in order to get under way the kind of contracts which would take up that unemployment. It is not merely a question of getting housing construction

    1457
    expanded, which we are certainly pursuing as vigorously as possible.

    Speed Limits
    Mr. Alan Clarkasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is satisfied with the working of the three-tier speed limit.
    Dr. Gilbert: The effect of the present speed limits is being closely studied and I shall make a statement before the order imposing them expires on 30th November.
    Mr. Clark: Does not the Minister agree that the lower two of these limits are now almost universally ignored, that the effect on fuel saving, which at the time of their introduction was admitted to be very small, is now virtually non-existent and that the only effect of these restrictions is to exacerbate the relations of the motorist with the police and to increase the work load of the police?
    Dr. Gilbert: Certainly the various points which the hon. Gentleman makes fall to be considered when the question of renewing the order arises. I would not accept the hon. Gentleman's contention that the limits are totally ignored. There are cases of police prosecution, certainly, but I think that the generality of motorists accept the need for energy conservation. If these limits have had the effect of reducing average speeds by only, say, 5 mph, we shall expect to have got an annual saving of about 50 million gallons of petrol.
    Mr. MacCormick: Is the Minister aware that when I recently questioned his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on this subject I elicited the information that throughout the seven crofting counties of Scotland there is less than one mile of dual carriageway road? It seems a little restrictive on the people of these sparsely populated areas, where the roads are not busy, to be restricted to a speed of 50 mph all the time.
    Dr. Gilbert: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that it would be difficult to impose speed limits for Scotland which were different from those for other parts of the country.
    Mr. Fox: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position—an inspired move, at this time, from the Treasury. Does he accept that the improvement in
    1458
    the road casualty figures for 1974 is attributable mainly to the reduction in the volume of traffic rather than the imposition of these limits?
    Dr. Gilbert: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I certainly draw inspiration in my present position. However, among the factors affecting accident rates must be the level of vehicle speed, and that in turn must be affected by the price of petrol as well as by speed limits.

    Rubbish Tips
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to prohibit the siting of rubbish tips in close proximity to areas of housing.
    Mr. Denis Howell: The Working Party on Refuse Disposal which reported in 1971 recommended that, in general, sites within 200 yards of the curtilage of any existing residential community should not be used for refuse tipping. The report has been circulated to planning authorities but circumstances vary widely and I would not think it right to prescribe a minimum limit by law.
    Mr. Marten: Is it not wrong, for obvious reasons, that local authorities should site major rubbish sites near housing and villages such as Ardley and Charlbury in my constituency? Will the Minister examine the proposition that where villages and people living around the villages object to this, there should be a right of appeal or inquiry against decisions of the local authorities, which in these matters of rubbish tips are judge and jury in their own cause?
    Mr. Howell: I could not comment on either of those cases as I have no personal knowledge of them. These are matters for the local authority. I think that local democracy should play a part. I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point of view. I accept what he says. I assume that it is major tipping and not a minor in-filling arrangement. When the Control of Pollution Act is fully implemented, a new licensing system will be introduced. There may be some measure of relief in sight for the hon. Gentleman and his constituents as a result.
    Mr. Ronald Atkins: May I support the request made by the hon. Member for

    1459
    Banbury (Mr. Marten)? Local authorities are often insensitive to the needs of the environment and I have had a great deal of trouble over many years about the matter. Will my hon. Friend consider discouraging local authorities from placing large rubbish skips within a few feet of houses, usually on council estates? These rubbish tips are filled by people coming in their cars from better-off areas, causing untidy areas to become more untidy and causing much distress in the neighbourhood.
    Mr. Howell: Circumstances vary from place to place. In my constituency the provision of such skips is widely welcomed as an encouragement to folk to dump their rubbish, which they must do in our modern society, in acceptable and controlled ways. I know that this varies from place to place.
    I have sympathy with hon. Members on the basic question. Local authorities would be well advised to take account of local feelings when they make their arrangements. But this is a matter for the local authorities. Parliament could not possibly countenance a system under which Ministers determined every local dumping ground.
    Mr. Graham Page: Cannot the Secretary of State, by means of calling in planning applications for rubbish tips, establish the rule that planning permission should be granted only if there is reclamation of land and if the tips are sited at a distance from residences?
    Is the Minister aware that the Secretary of State has made matters worse in my constituency by overriding a planning condition that a tip should not be used for radioactive substances, which causes great fear among the residents living alongside the tip?
    Mr. Howell: Without notice, I have no knowledge of the last question raised by the right hon. Gentleman. Generally speaking the House applied its mind to these matters, as did the present Government and the previous Government. That consideration found expression in the Control of Pollution Act 1974. We are now actively considering how soon we can implement that Act. The question will he decided on matters of economics and financial availability. That Pct will give us much more power over these matters than we now have.

    Housing Programme
    Mr. Arthur Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what effect he estimates there will be on the housing programme from the reduction of expenditure on supporting services involving the provision of roads, water and sewerage facilities due to public expenditure cuts.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Anthony Crosland)——
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Crosland: I deplore the absence of so many Opposition Members who have put down Questions to me but who have not appeared this afternoon.
    The latest house building figures do not suggest that the provision of supporting services is causing major difficulties. The Government attach high priority to new house building, both public and private, and we look to the authorities responsible for supporting services to give high priority to investment designed to support new housing development.
    Mr. Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that schemes providing infrastructure services are being curtailed? There is a great deal of evidence to that effect, especially, from my own experience, in new and expanding towns. There is concern among those responsible for the maintenance of the programmes. What comment has the right hon. Gentleman to make on that point?
    Mr. Crosland: The new and expanding towns represent the most difficult aspect of the problems. I do not take the view that generally the lack of supporting services—we are talking mainly about water, sewerage and roads—is holding up the house building programme. But if there should be a difficulty at a particular place I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would write to me about it.
    Mr. Pardoe: Does the Secretary of State recognise that with the likelihood of falling standards of living generally as a result of the economic situation, we may have to accept lower pollution standards to a certain extent and no higher pollution standards in the short term? Will he therefore issue a general direction to local authorities that where builders are

    1461
    available to build and want to build, where land is available for low-cost houses, and where they are prepared to put in temporary sewerage facilities to deal with the crisis, they should be allowed to go ahead with the development?
    Mr. Crosland: I accept what the hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his remarks. For that reason we have made it clear to the water authorities that their first priority must be developments to help new housing. The second priority must be industrial development. A continued improvement in the quality of our rivers must come as a third priority.
    Mr. Raison: Does the Secretary of State accept that junior Ministers' remarks about there being no ceiling to public sector housing are increasingly fraudulent? Does he accept that while no limits may be imposed by the Department, local authorities will be less and less able to provide public sector housing? Will the Minister say what he expects to happen in the public sector over the next two years?
    Mr. Crosland: No, Sir. Like all my predecessors, of both parties, for many years, I do not set or give advance housing targets for two years ahead. However, I remind the hon. Gentleman, as I remind my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun), that private and public house building are running at a significantly higher level this year than last year. We expect the total for 1975 to be much higher than it was for 1974.

    Desalination
    Sir David Rentonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether any further progress has been made with regard to the large-scale desalination of sea water and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Denis Howell: There have been no developments in technology which give me any reason to think that desalination will make a major contribution to augmenting water resources in the United Kingdom in the foreseeable future.
    Sir D. Renton: Will the hon. Gentleman say what further research is taking place on this matter?
    Mr. Howell: There have been a number of research programmes. The
    1462
    former Department of Trade and Industry withdrew after 1973–74. My departmental support in 1974–75 totalled about £60,000-odd and the ODMs came to about £30,000.
    I should like to mention some of the difficulties. It was found that desalination produces water at between—it is a variable figure—two and a half and 15 times the ordinary traditional costs of producing water. The plant concerned is ugly and noisy and there is a serious effluent problem. For those reasons, I should not want to encourage too much hope of early progress.

    Local Transport Expenditure
    Mr. Fryasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps are being taken to limit the amount of money available to local authorities for the support of local transport expenditure.
    Dr. Gilbert: Local authorities are being urged to restrict their expenditure on local transport during 1975–76 within the estimates accepted by the Government for the Rate Support Grant and the Transport Supplementary Grant. The further restrictions on public expenditure announced by the Chancellor in his budget speech will be taken into account in this Department's allocation of resources for local transport in 1976–77.
    Mr. Fry: Does the Minister agree that there is a danger that road transport grants tend to be used to subsidise public transport to the detriment of necessary road works—for example the building of bypasses—which are essential to the economy of the country and the improvement of the environment? Have local authorities tended to subsidise public transport rather than get on with the job of co-ordinating public transport as a whole in their areas, which could result in better services at less cost to the community?
    Dr. Gilbert: From the discussions I have had I am most impressed with the progress that is being made by local authorities towards integrating public transport, road and rail. The more important question is the balance of the public subsidy that goes to current operating costs and into investment in public transport, whether road or rail.
    Mr. Leslie Huckfield: While accepting the present restraints and constraints of public expenditure, may I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind that, having been encouraged for the past two years to do all they can to make progressive transport plans for the metropolitan counties, many local authorities have already had to make significant cut-backs? Is my hon. Friend aware that if there is any significant reduction, particularly in capital spending, it will mean a severe emasculation of the transport plans of many metropolitan county councils?
    Dr. Gilbert: I have much sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. I can only repeat what I said in reply to the previous supplementary question—that the balance between subsidies on current operating matters and keeping investment going needs to be examined critically.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: Is the Minister aware that many of us who represent rural constituencies, contrary to what the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) has said, feel that far too much money is spent on road improvements and that the transport drive should go much more towards assisting rural travellers by public bus and train services?
    Dr. Gilbert: The Government have long been seized of the problems of public transport in rural areas.
    Mr. Tomlinson: Will my hon. Friend accept that many of his hon. Friends would suggest to him that in time of public expenditure stringency the Government's priority should be to support public transport and to stop the present extravagance on the motorway programme?
    Dr. Gilbert: I cannot accept that motorway expenditure is necessarily an extravagance. It frequently represents an extremely high-return economic investment, and it also produces considerable environmental benefit if the motorway is in the right place and is built to proper standards. I take my hon. Friend's other suggestion very seriously. There is a prime need for us to do everything in our power to support public transport, whether by road or by rail.

    Railways (Finance)
    Mr. Michael Robertsasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what
    1464
    proportion of the subsidies provided under the Railways Act 1974 will be devoted to wages and to investment, respectively.
    Mr. Crosland: Grant under Section 3 of the Act is paid in respect of the total net losses on revenue account of the passenger system and is thus not specifically related or devoted either to investment or to wages.
    Mr. Roberts: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that wage increases will be met by increased fares and improved efficiency and not at the expense of investment?
    Mr. Crosland: Wage increases this year will have to be met, first, by increased fares, which we shall probably have in September. Secondly, we have made clear to the Railways Board that the increases will have to be met by increased efficiency, whether in terms of manpower or services. Thirdly, it is the Government's intention, as I said on Monday, to set a ceiling for railway expenditure as a whole which British Rail will be asked not to exceed. We shall set a ceiling for next year in terms of the passenger grant and subsequently for the whole of railway expenditure.
    Mr. Bagier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there has been a high degree of co-operation by British Railways staff in bringing about productivity deals and so on? Does he also agree that when considering the funds which are made available for railway services it is important to ensure that the railway staff are not underpaid in comparison with other sections of the work force of the country?
    Mr. Crosland: I certainly accept that, but the unalterable fact is that the Government subsidy to the railways is running at a much higher level than it was previously when the House passed the Railways Act 1974 and at a level which in current circumstances the Government cannot afford to continue.
    Mr. Raison: While the Opposition believe that his statement on Monday was more or less on the right lines, has not the right hon. Gentleman been appallingly complacent about this problem to which we drew attention in a debate in April? Will he tell the House how he

    1465
    expects to get manpower costs down to a reasonable level and what he expects the board to do about the enormous freight deficit?
    Mr. Crosland: If the hon. Gentleman has read my statement on Monday he will have seen that I made perfectly clear to the board that a deficit on freight was not envisaged under the Railways Act 1974 and that the Government were not prepared to subsidise a continuing deficit.
    Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the reply he gave to questions on Monday has far-reaching repercussions? Is it not desirable that future statements on railway policy should be made only within the framework of a transport policy for all kinds of transport?
    Mr. Crosland: Yes, Sir, I agree with my hon. Friend. As I have said in a Written Answer to a previous Question—which was not asked orally because the questioner was not here—I propose before the end of the year, whether by way of a White Paper or otherwise, to make a comprehensive statement on transport policy as a whole.

    Small Landlords Association
    Mr. McCrindleasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has recently received from the Small Landlords Association.
    Mr. Freeson: My right hon. Friend has received copies of a petition from the association to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and a letter sent to some hon. Members.
    Mr. McCrindle: Does the Minister share the anxiety of the smaller landlords about the work of the Rent Act 1974? Is he satisfied that an adequate amount of privately-rented accommodation is coming on to the market as a result of that Act? Does he agree that the increasingly worrying problem of squatting is considered by many to flow diirectly from the Rent Act 1974?
    Mr. Freeson: There is an argument of disbenefit or benefit in legislation of this kind. It would help if hon. Members did not make exaggerated statements. To suggest that the squatting problem has arisen since August last year when the
    1466
    Act went on to the statute book is a little nonsensical. Squatting has been a major and growing problem for a long time in various parts of our towns and cities. The purpose of the Act was not to increase the flow on to the market of additional privately-rented accommodation. Its purpose was to establish security of tenure. It is true that there is a small amount of indicative evidence that some people, largely because of the scare-mongering which occurred last autumn as a result of the Opposition's tactics, withdrew some of their accommodation from the market. It is also true that a considerable amount of rented accommodation has been held on the market because tenants have security and cannot be removed so that those properties may be sold off the market.
    Mr. Snape: Is my hon. Friend aware that there has been so little evidence of withdrawal of properties from the market that the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) has resorted to writing begging letters to a newspaper asking poor, hard-up, deprived landlords to contact him so that he may have some evidence to produce to the House?
    Mr. Freeson: My attention has been drawn to a letter. It is several months since I asked the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), who is Opposition spokesman on housing, to give me the file in which he alleged he had evidence that a great deal of rented accommodation had left the market as a result of the Act. If all his allegations in the Press and elsewhere are as sound as he suggests, it is strange that he did not vote against the Rent Bill when it was going through the House.
    Mr. Rossi: Does the Minister recall that when I called to see him at his Department recently he refused to accept from me a number of letters from people who were complaining of the effects of the Rent Act? Has he not refused to conduct an independent inquiry into the operation of the Rent Act, as a result of which I have been forced to conduct my own inquiry by inviting both landlords and tenants to write to say what are the effects of the Act? I assure the hon. Gentleman that he will receive the full benefit of that inquiry in due course. In the meantime there is overwhelming evidence that the effect of the Rent Act has

    1467
    been to drive small landlords to bed-and-breakfast accommodation letting, and towards a preference for foreign visitors rather than British subjects, so that our people are suffering from the Minister's legislation, and he refuses to have the courage to admit that he was wrong.
    Mr. Freeson: The hon. Gentleman has said that he has collected evidence which he will let me have. I have been asking for that evidence for some months. The hon. Gentleman ends up by saying, when I am still waiting for the evidence, that there is overwhelming evidence to support what he has said. I shall be glad to receive that overwhelming evidence. I should like to correct a terminological inexactitude which the hon. Gentleman has put before the House. The hon. Gentleman called at the Department in accompanying a number of Members from certain South-West constituencies to deal with specific problems relating to their constituencies. He attempted to turn that constituency representation into a general harangue about the Act. I stated that it was not the occasion for that but that he was welcome to give me the file separately and we would examine it on another occasion as soon as it was received. I am still waiting for it.
    Mr. Cyril Smith: Since we understand that a Labour Government will allow a substantial rise in council house rents next year, can we assume that the same percentage rise will be allowed to private landlords?
    Mr. Freeson: Private landlords operate under the Rent Acts of 1965, 1968 and 1974.
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Evelyn King: As one of the Members to whom the Minister referred a few moments ago who went to see him at his Department, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he now contemplates any action as regards the short-period tenant at a seaside resort who stays on beyond the limit of his tenancy, thereby spoiling the holidays of those who should succeed him and often ruining landladies who have put their life savings into the provision of holiday accommodation? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the number of cases in which this is happening is now put on reliable information at
    1468
    a seaside resort, at 10 per cent. and that it is growing at a rapid rate? Will he consider this isolated question in the context of the considerable hardship that is experienced by my constituents and the constituents of many other Members representing seaside constituencies?
    Mr. Freeson: As he has said, the hon. Gentleman raised with me the particular kinds of case to which he has referred. He did not bring evidence to support the allegation of this kind of case having a 10 per cent. impact in the constituencies concerned. If he has that evidence, I shall be glad to receive it. As regards the question of taking legal action against tenants who are in breach of their contract in the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman has described, I undertook to consider the legal aspects in consultation with the Lord Chancellor's office and I shall be doing that. We have already taken a certain measure to improve the position of landlords in similar situations in the very Act that is now being attacked.

PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS
Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on the question of the ability of back bench Members to question decisions which have been made in relation to the interview floor of this building, where large amounts of expensive machinery have been installed for what are rumoured to be blacklegging operations in the event of a printing strike. Having examined the Order Paper, I see that the next opportunity to question the Chairman of the Services Committee will be 3.20 p.m. on 7th July. As at least 11 Questions have been tabled already, it clearly will be impossible to question the Lord President about the matter on that occasion. Is there any provision that you can draw to the attention of the Leader of the House, Mr. Speaker, whereby such decisions can be questioned before they are made, so that hon. Members have some power over the control of the facilities which we are supposed to enjoy?
Mr. Madden: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I gather that the six large and expensive machines to which my hon. Friend has referred have been rented by HMSO. That indicates that at

1469
some future date, should HMSO be in industrial dispute, the machines could be used for strike-breaking purposes. Further, I am advised that when the machines are in use some 10 rooms on the interview floor will be closed to Members and their constituents. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to arrange for an early statement to be made by the Chairman of the Services Committee so that he can advise the House when this matter was approved and about the inconvenience to which Members and their constituents will be put when the machines are in operation.
Mr. George Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether you recall Mr. Speaker, as do many hon. Members the situation that existed last July when, without there being any question of strike breaking, the House was having to use documents which made it completely impossible for us to discharge our functions? Is it not right, without there being any question of strike breaking, that we should adopt such measures as make the inadequate devices that we have to use on such occasions just a little less inadequate than they were last July?
Mr. Speaker: I was not given notice that this matter was to be raised today. I should like to consider the matter. If necessary I shall say something about it tomorrow.

SOUTHERN AFRICA
The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. David Ennals): I will with your permission and that of the House, Mr. Speaker, make a statement on my recent visit to Southern Africa.
My right hon. Friend explained the purpose of my visit to the House on 11th June. It was to consult all the parties concerned in Rhodesia about the modalities and the timing of the next steps towards securing a peaceful solution to Rhodesia's problems by negotiation.
I was able to talk to a number of African leaders, the Vice-President of Frelimo, and a number of African Commonwealth Ministers, at the Mozambique independence celebrations in Lourenco Marques on 25th and 26th June. In Pretoria on 27th and 28th June I had
1470
a useful exchange of views with the South African Prime Minister, Mr. Vorster, and his Foreign Minister, Dr. Muller.
I spent 29th and 30th June in Salisbury, where I had meetings with representatives of all communities. My principal discussions were, of course, with Mr. Smith and his advisers and with the leaders of the ANC. We talked very frankly and constructively, and I think we established a better understanding of our respective points of view.
The details of my talks are, of course, confidential. But it was clear to me that the main problem now faced by the parties concerned is how to begin the process of negotiation leading up to a final conference at a time when some of the leading figures of the ANC are outside Rhodesia. Mr. Smith made it clear to me that he would be willing at the final stage to take part in a constitutional conference outside Rhodesia. But real difficulties remain. I was nevertheless encouraged by the sense of urgency to find a peaceful way forward in Rhodesia which was shared by all the principal parties concerned with the problem. I am also satisfied that both Mr. Smith and the African National Council want seriously to find ways of entering into negotiations to seek a constitutional settlement. In turn I made clear to them that, in exercising our responsibilities, Her Majesty's Government's main concern is to help, in any constructive way we can, to bring such negotiations about.
I have reported on my talks in Rhodesia to my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, and he will now be considering the next steps.
I believe that Mr. Smith and the ANC leaders are also giving further consideration to the way forward in the light of the discussions which I had with them in Salisbury. I am sure the House will appreciate that in these circumstances it would not be right for me to go into further details at this stage.
Mr. Maudling: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making this statement. I am sure he will appreciate that we share his desire to see a just settlement of the problem. We understand the need for reticence at this stage. Will he undertake to keep the House as

1471
fully informed as possible on further progress that is made on this matter?
Mr. Ennals: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I give the assurance that my right hon. Friend or myself will take the opportunity of keeping the House informed as there is progress.
Mr. Thorpe: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he was able to have talks with the Rev. Sithole either in Mozambique or elsewhere? If so, did he gather from his talks with Mr. Smith that the Rev. Sithole would be welcomed to or excluded from talks? Secondly, what is the immediate position? Does there exist any form of working party between the ANC and the régime so that contact can be continued? Thirdly, with regard to the place to be used for the conference, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it was my experience on meeting both Mr. Smith and the African nationalists that there is great difference on the issue? What consideration has been given to the suggestion that the conference should be at the Victoria Falls, where both delegations could respectively be housed in Zambia and Rhodesia, from where they could probably meet on alternate days in different countries?
Finally, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that if there is a feeling of intense urgency that the talks should take place that is one of the most hopeful signs? Does he agree that the most hopeful thing would be for the talks to start at once? The more we can get people talking together the greater the understanding and the greater the chance of success for all communities in Rhodesia.
Mr. Ennals: On the first question, I did not have the opportunity of discussions with Mr. Sithole, who was not in Rhodesia, and I did not visit Lusaka or any other place where he might have been. There was no indication from Mr. Smith that he was prepared to change the attitude which he has adopted—namely, that if Mr. Sithole were to return to Rhodesia the law, as he has said, would take its course. This produces problems for the ANC as to the location of the conference.
1472
The second question related to whether there was any working party between the two sides. That is not so. It would be helpful if there were such a working party, but, since the main problem is how to begin serious discussions, it would be almost impossible that there could be any working party between the groups until the fundamental decision had been taken. But there was a willingness on both sides for such a working party to be established when there is agreement about the shape of the conference.
The place for what some might call a final conference is not a matter which should provide great difficulties. The problem is to agree on the place for preliminary consultations which would lead to the basis of a final solution. A sense of urgency was shown on both sides, and we want to see talks established at the earliest possible moment. The difficulty is how to get those talks started.
Mr. Dalyell: What did my right hon. Friend learn from the Frelimo leadership as to the kind of relationship it wanted with us?
Mr. Ennals: I found during my visit to Mozambique a sense of friendship with this country. We were delighted that Her Majesty's Government were invited to send a representative to the independence celebrations. Many other countries did not have that opportunity. The discussions which I had with Dr. Dos Santos indicated that Frelimo was anxious to have close and friendly relationships with Britain. I hope that our ambassador will soon be accepted, and we look forward to establishing a firm basis of relationship.
Mr. Luce: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the obstacles to settlement is the understandable fear of the whites about their future? Does he feel that it might be helpful if Her Majesty's Government were to tell them that if rapid progress is made in the constitutional talks the British Government will take a positive initiative, perhaps with the help of other Commonwealth countries, to secure orderly transition to majority rule?
Mr. Ennals: We want to see orderly transition and are concerned with the welfare of all sections of the community in Rhodesia, be they white or black. But

1473
the uncertainties faced by the white population over their future are the result of the policies of the illegal régime. If it emerges in the course of negotiations between Mr. Smith and the ANC that there is something Britain can do on the lines suggested by the hon. Gentleman or in any other way to help bring about a settlement we shall be most ready to consider them.
Mr. Ogden: Will my right hon. Friend be careful not to promise what we have not the power to achieve? Does he now propose to follow through that visit by a visit to the Government of South Africa, whose influence in this matter, whether one likes it or not, may even be vital?
Mr. Ennals: If I may deal with the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I made clear in all our discussions, especially those in Salisbury, that nobody should underestimate the extent of British power nor the extent of British influence or the sense of responsibility in Britain to ensure a constitutional settlement.
On the second part of the question, I agree that South Africa is a very important element in the situation. This was why I took the opportunity to discuss the situation with Mr. Vorster and Dr. Muller. They left me in no doubt that the South African Government are sincere in their desire to see a solution in Rhodesia and that they will do their best to bring it about. My right hon. Friend intends to keep the South African Prime Minister and Foreign Minister informed about the discussions that we have had in Salisbury, and there may be other opportunities for consultation.
Sir Anthony Royle: Is the Minister aware that, regretably, it appears that his visit to Rhodesia has achieved nothing at all? Will he confirm that he has not come back with any significant results from his stay in Salisbury?
Mr. Ennals: I find the hon. Gentleman's question and its tone extraordinary. I do not know what sources of information he has that are not available to me or to his right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling). I have no reason to believe from the discussions which I have had that those discussions were thought in any way not to be valuable, and the hon. Gentleman and any of his hon. Friends
1474
can draw their conclusions. The hon. Gentleman's comment does not help the situation one little bit.
Mr. Kinnock: While the Minister was in Lourenço Marques, did he undertake to have further discussions with the Government of Mozambique with a view to implementing further sanctions against the Smith régime? Secondly, will he give an assurance about what meetings he had dealing with further unity and the development of unity within the ANC?
Mr. Ennals: During the independence celebrations in Mozambique I had the opportunity to meet the Vice-President of Frelimo and I told him the purpose of my visit to Rhodesia and promised to keep his Government informed of any settlement in Rhodesia.
The matter of sanctions must be decided by the Government of Mozambique. I have no doubt they will make a clear statement now that their Government have been informed. They also know of the willingness of the British Government to give assistance to Mozambique in the early days of independence. We are ready to have further discussions with them when the Government of Mozambique are ready.
The problems of disunity within the ANC are very great. We all know the difficulties of choosing a leader even in a situation of freedom and democracy. To choose a leader in circumstances where there is no such freedom in Rhodesia is very different. These are decisions which they have to take for themselves, and I do not think any of them will welcome interference from us.
Mr. Maudling: Will the Minister make it clear that there is a distinction between general aid to Mozambique in the early days of independence and specific aid connected with sanctions, which I understood the Government intended to handle in a United Nations context?
Mr. Ennals: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary referred to this matter in answer to a question when he made his statement to the House on 11th June. He said that the new Government of Mozambique must reach some of the conclusions themselves and that we were ready and willing to discuss with incoming leaders the best form of approach.

1475
I wish to add that aid to Mozambique will be based on need, and it is relevant to decisions they take on sanctions. In consultation with the Government of Mozambique, we shall have to see what the situation will be. We shall also have to wait to see whether decisions are taken in the United Nations on a special fund.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, but we are operating under a guillotine motion today. These matters must be pursued on other occasions.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
Ordered,
That the Customs Duties and Drawbacks (Revenue Duties) (Israel) Order 1975 (S.I. 1975, No. 1004) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.—[Miss Margaret Jackson.]

COMMON OWNERSHIP
3.48 p.m.
Mr. George Rodgers: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for changing companies into self-governing democratic enterprises.
The purpose of the common ownership movement is to ensure that there is democratic control of industry by people work-in industry and that, instead of capital employing labour, labour should employ labour. For over 50 years the Labour Party has been pledged to replace capitalism by common ownership. There has been some little progress in this direction. Several of our basic industries are held in public ownership, partly as a consequence of enlightened legislation by Labour administrations, but largely because the tide of events has made it clear that the old economic structure is obsolete and unworkable.
It is interesting to note that there has been a distinct reluctance by successive Conservative administrations to return nationalised industries to private ownership. Indeed, the formula provided by the previous Government to rescue Rolls. Royce is currently being utilised by the present Government to transfer ailing private enterprises to public control.
I have never felt satisfied that the process of nationalisation is the only way,
1476
or even the best way, of introducing democratic control of industry. Too often to work for a nationalised industry is much like working for a large private company—the sense of involvement and community of purpose is usually conspicuous by its absence.
Government statements of intent on worker participation are welcome, but at present they lack substance. Common ownership means more than putting lone workers on company boards or issuing them with a few company shares; it means more than profit-sharing or capital-sharing. Genuine common ownership means worker control based on ownership.
Of course there may be variation in detail but the essential ingredient is that the enterprise should be run by, and in the interest of, the workers and the community and not for the profit of outside shareholders.
It is frequently suggested by those who oppose industrial democracy, or at best pay lip service to it, that the workers are apathetic about industrial democracy, and have little or no interest in the problem of management, being principally concerned with the material rewards of their employment. It is claimed that workers lack managerial ability and that they do not have the capacity to understand the complex nature of modern industrial organisation.
I refute these criticisms. All people have a natural interest about decisions affecting their lives, whether in work or outside it, and most want to share in that decision-making, given the opportunity so to do.
If interest seems lacking, it is because occasion to exercise interest is absent in present circumstances. Most workers have a far greater capacity to take on the functions of management than the current inadequate methods of education and training make apparent.
Given proper preparation and opportunity, workers could assume many of the so called "managerial" functions without undue difficulty. It is, in my view, scandalous that so much of the nation's talent has been casually squandered for so many years. In many fields of activity from mining and building to the service industries, teams of workers

1477
already undertake much of their day-to-day work with little or no interference from established management.
We have the evidence that working people created the trade union movement, and have serviced local and national Government. It is arrogant nonsense to pretend that there is some mysterious "know-how", some strange mystique, attached to management that is available only to a select few, possibly because of background and breeding.
Industrial common ownership is necessary and is inevitable. In fact, it already flourishes, albeit, as yet, on a small scale. To obstruct its progress would be folly, as formidable industrial problems lay ahead and the old order cannot provide the remedies.
New equipment and new technologies in manufacturing will mean fewer man hours. It should mean a shorter working week, perhaps earlier retirement and maybe a sabbatical year for those engaged in industry so that workers may enjoy leisure and pleasure before old age takes away the flavour of the experience. Whatever the pattern to emerge, those who are directly involved, should, and must, be involved in the decision-making. One of the ways of achieving this is by the extension of industrial common ownership.
This is no fanciful theory. The system of common ownership is thriving now in various parts of the country. At present some dozen firms are members of the industrial common ownership movement and several more are moving in this direction. They range from Fakenham Enterprises, a leather goods manufacturer, which was incorporated in 1972 following a 17-week work-in by 10 redundant women shoe workers, to the Scott Bador Company, which was converted in 1951 and has 400 worker-co-owners. This organisation has experienced a 20-fold growth since entering into common ownership. It has a turnover of £10 million and is highly profitable in a very competitive field.
In 1973 the worker-co-owners shared a bonus of £73,000, each one benefiting equally; £36.000 was provided to charities and a further £36.000 diverted to promote new common ownership companies.
1478
Worker control is no vague idealistic notion; it is practical and it is already happening.
I must pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Edwards), who has undertaken much pioneering work in establishing common ownership, though many others have played leading rôles. There have been people of wealth and substance who had no stomach for the old selfish and inefficient system. There have been redundant workers who have rejected being the victims of that system.
One enterprise was assisted by financial support from the South Wales National Union of Mineworkers and the Society of Friends. Another, Sundolandia, which was established in 1973, deals mainly in improvements and modernisations to terraced properties in and around Sunderland. From a total of 45 workers, it employs 23 apprentices and 17 skilled tradesmen—remarkably encouraging proportions to those who are anxious about employment opportunities for young people. The company's articles reflect a concern for social justice as well as democracy at work. Twenty per cent. of any profit must go to other similar common ownership enterprises, to the Third World, or to charity. In a situation of open hostility from the main building employers' organisation, it has received fraternal support from local building industry unions. That support has been crucial.
The merit and the success of the common ownership movement is beyond dispute. My Bill would make it simpler for companies, controlled by outside shareholders, to change to a common ownership structure by modifications to company law and taxation—thus enabling them to purchase their own shares. It would allow common ownership companies to qualify for the same concessions as already apply to co-operatives registered under the Industrial and Provident Society Act 1965. It would allow such enterprises to qualify for grants and loans under the proposed co-operative development agency.
I ask the House for leave to introduce this modest measure. It would serve to advance the cause of democracy in industry, which, I understand from a perusal of manifestos issued at the time

1479
of the last election, is the earnest desire of all parties represented in this Chamber.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. George Rodgers, Mr. Robert Edwards, Mr. Ivor Clemitson, Mr. John Evans, Mr. James Callaghan, Mr. Terry Walker, Mr. John Ovenden, and Mr. David Watkins.

COMMON OWNERSHIP
Mr. George Rodgers accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for changing companies into self-governing democratic enterprises: 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 191].
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  INDUSTRY BILL
  [2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  3.58 p.m.
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call the first amendment I should like to mention the time to be taken for Divisions. I tried to save some time yesterday by cutting down the period. I understand that that led to some difficulties. Therefore, I propose to revert to the current interval of six minutes between the appointment of the Tellers and the order to lock the doors. In other words, there will be a period of eight minutes altogether.
  It would be for the convenience of the House, in a situation where one Division takes place immediately after another, that I should, at discretion, cut down the period of the Division. My only desire is to save the time of the House, and I shall do the best I can.

  INDUSTRY BILL
    Clause 20

      PERSONS TO WHOM DUTY TO DISCLOSE INFORMATION APPLIES
      The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Gerald Kaufman): I beg to move Amendment No. 76, in page 14, leave out line 16 and insert:
      'For the purpose of obtaining information which in the opinion of either of the Ministers is needed to form or to further national economic policies, or needed for consultations between Government, employers or workers on the outlook for a particular sector of manufacturing industry, including the outlook for the major companies in that sector, that Minister, if it appears to him that one of the following conditions is satisfied, namely—
      (a) that a company'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this amendment we may also discuss the following amendments to Amendment No. 76:
      Amendment (a) after "information" insert:
      'from a company or companies which have made or which have signified in writing to the Secretary of State their intention to make a planning agreement and'.
      Amendment (b) leave out from first "to" to second "sector" and insert
      assist in the making of a planning agreement (such expression having the meaning assigned to it by section 14(2) above'.
      Amendment (c) to delete "the company or companies concerned" in the first paragraph of Government Amendment No. 79, and insert
      'a company or companies which have made or which have signified in writing to the Secretary of State their intention to make a planning agreement'.
      Mr. Kaufman: During the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Rodgers), I noted the packed ranks of the Liberal Party which has said so much about co-ownership.
      I am moving the first of the series of amendments standing in the name of my right hon. Friend. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, it might be helpful to the House, if, in introducing this amendment, which is the first of the Government amendments on information powers, I outlined the Government's revised information proposals as a whole, indicating the main changes from the Government's original proposals. A considerable number of these changes stem directly from the debate in Standing Committee and from assurances given both to my hon. Friends and to Opposition Members.
      In Clause 20 we have provided a fuller definition of the purpose for which the powers may be used. The powers are to apply
      "For the purpose of obtaining information which in the opinion of … Ministers is needed to form or to further national economic policies, or needed for consultations between Government, employers or workers on the outlook for a particular sector of manufacturing industry, including the outlook for the major companies in that sector."
      We also provide a new preliminary procedure before an order to require the provision of information can be made. Under this the Minister serves on the company a preliminary notice which says that, if he is not satisfied that the company will provide the necessary information to Government and unions voluntarily, he will consider making an order, and requires the company in 14 days to notify the relevant unions that it has received a notice and to inform the Minister which union representatives it has notified.
      The Minister is required to lay a statement before Parliament saying on which
      1482
      company or companies he has served a notice, and when. The Minister is not empowered to make an order for at least three months after serving the preliminary notice, and he may not serve a notice unless he is satisfied at the end of this period that the information will not be provided voluntarily to the Government and union representatives. The order is, of course, subject, as we previously proposed, to negative resolution.
      We have provided a definition of the purposes for which the powers may be used to bring out the distinctive role of the information provisions of this Bill from those of the Employment Protection Bill. The information powers in the Industry Bill relate to policy and planning, in which both the Government and the workers need to be properly informed if they are to take an effective and constructive part with management. The analogous provisions in the Employment Protection Bill are, of course, concerned with collective bargaining.
      We attach particular importance to the preliminary procedure, which is the other main new proposal in this clause. In introducing this procedure the Government are underlining the point made many times by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and other Ministers in the House, in Standing Committee and in correspondence, that the information powers are reserve powers and to give every opportunity for the company and its unions to negotiate voluntary arrangements. I entirely share the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) when, in winding up the Second Reading debate on the Bill, he said:
      "Where a company has good arrangements for informing and consulting its workers through their trade unions on the formation of its plans, the use of compulsory powers would be irrelevant. Arrangments entered into on a voluntary basis are much more satisfactory than the use of a statute."—[Official Report, 18th February 1975; Vol. 886, c. 1426.]
      This preliminary procedure is to allow time for negotiation of voluntary arrangements.
      The Bill proceeds in Clause 21 to set out the information that the Minister can require to be provided to him. In the amendments the Government have proposed, we make clear that the Minister's

      1483
      right to require the provision of information is restricted to the subjects listed in the clause. This, as I shall make clear, is in fulfilment of the undertaking given in Committee. But we have added to the list expenditure on research and development. We accept that the details of research and development and know-how may be commercially very sensitive. We have, therefore, excluded them from the scope of the information powers.
      It remains, as before, for the Minister to decide whether to require provision of information on some or all of the subject matters listed.
      In Clauses 22 and 23 we propose changes to the procedures for the provision of information to trade unions.
      While the Bill previously left to the discretion of the Government whether to seek to apply the powers to a particular company and to decide the extent to which information should be required on any of the subject headings listed in the Bill, it was mandatory on Ministers—except in narrowly defined circumstances—to require the disclosure of all the information they obtained to representatives of the trade unions that the company recognised for the purpose of collective bargaining. It gave the company the right to seek a ruling against such disclosure, notably on the ground that it would be seriously prejudicial to the interests of the business.
      The debate in Standing Committee and the consultations that the Government have had with the CBI and the TUC have led us to conclude that the Bill would be improved if, in the final stages of the procedures, we provided the same scope for the exercise of Ministerial discretion as in the decision whether to invoke the powers and on the extent to use them.
      We do this in recognition of the fact that the information requirements of workers and the Government need not be the same and that a mandatory requirement on a Minister to pass on all the information obtained to trade unions could lead to large-scale references to the independent committee which, in the original Bill, had a binding power over the Minister, with long consequent delays in the effective operation of the information powers. We have, therefore, introduced amendments which place on the
      1484
      Minister the responsibility for deciding what information obtained tinder the compulsory powers should be disclosed to unions. But in vesting this discretionary power in the Minister we have enlarged the list of considerations that he has to take into account and that preclude him from requiring disclosure. In this way it will be possible to avoid the need for repeated reference to the independent committee on points that have been settled in analogous cases many times before. There is no doubt that that would have been a method of frustrating the information procedure, particularly as the independent committee's decision would have been binding on the Minister. It will also avoid the inescapable need for appeals to the committee on points on which the Government may require information for their own purposes, but which is of little interest to workers.
      Under the terms of our new proposals the Minister comes to a provisional view on the information to be disclosed and informs the company and the unions. Either may then require the Minister to refer his "proposals" to the advisory committee on the grounds that the information was communicated to the company in confidence or that disclosure would cause substantial injury to the undertaking or to a substantial number of its workers. That is a new provision. The Minister may also, at his own initiative, refer matters to the committee.
      The committee's rôle is to consider any such references and to advise the Minister on them, and, as before, the committee has to give the company and the unions the opportunity to make representations to it. But it is not now for the committee to take final decisions on these matters. This decision is reserved for the Minister. I think that is absolutely right. It is not a satisfactory situation for a Minister of the Crown to make a decision and then be powerless to set aside a decision of an independent committee on him.
      However, if the Minister wishes to set aside the committee's advice and to require the disclosure of information which it has advised should be withheld, he is required to make an order, subject to the negative resolution procedure, which may not take effect until 28 days from

      1485
      the date on which it was laid before Parliament.
      In these ways we have provided for the more flexible operation of the decision process, without clogging up the system with wholly unnecessary appeals to the independent committee, and also provided for proper parliamentary oversight of Ministerial decisions.
      I am aware that our earlier proposals for the independent committee were the subject of much comment—indeed, prolonged debates—in Standing Committee, and, having reviewed the arguments, we have decided to establish a special advisory committee for the Bill. This is something for which hon. Members asked in Committee, though it seems that the Opposition are not satisfied with the solution that we have reached. Our proposals are set out in a new Schedule to the Bill.
      The advisory committee will be constituted from three panels of persons: panels whose members have experience in industry as employers or managers, panels whose members have experience as representatives of workers, and panels whose members are barristers or solicitors. The chairmen will be drawn from the panel of lawyers, and all members of this panel will be appointed with the consent of the Lord Chancellor or, in the case of advocates or solicitors who have practised in Scotland, the consent of the Lord-President of the Court of Session. I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) is not present. I should have expected at least a thin cheer from him for that. The membership of a committee, apart from the chairman, is to be one member drawn from the employers' panel and one member drawn from the workers' panel.
      These changes affect all the main provisions in the information clauses in the Bill. But I want to make quite clear that in making these changes the Government have not in any way revised their view of the legitimate need of workers to obtain the information they need, through their trade unions, to take part in decision-making with Government and the management of the companies in which they work. We have, in fact, provided more effective powers than before, and, by having considered carefully all the
      1486
      arguments put to us, including those which went on for several days in Committee, we have concluded that our purposes can be better achieved, first, by providing formally in the Bill for a breathing space to negotiate satisfactory voluntary arrangements tailored to the circumstances of the company, and the respective needs of Government and workers; secondly, by providing greater scope for Ministerial discretion in decisions on disclosure; and thirdly by several changes which, while individually perhaps of less importance, collectively clarify and facilitate the working of the Government's proposals.
      In making these changes we have also been anxious to provide for parliamentary review so that this House can guide the Government in what we recognise to be a very major policy initiative by the provision of a statement when the preliminary procedures are put in hand, by the laying of an order subject to negative Resolution if the Government propose to proceed with compulsory powers, and finally by requiring the laying of another order subject to negative Resolution if the Government propose to set aside the advice of the independent committee and to require the disclosure of information.
      I well recognise that on this side of the House some of my hon. Friends have reservations about these changes, and I am also aware, from its public comment, that the CBI does not consider that these changes go anything like far enough to meet the views that it has advanced to the Government. I am no less aware of the views of Members opposite to these proposals. But I can assure the House that the Government have listened very carefully to the arguments that have been put to them, and hon. Members will see that we have responded to a number of points made during the long debates in Standing Committee both by my hon. Friends and by hon. Members of the various Opposition parties. In tabling these amendments the Government have shown that they are responsive to reasoned argument, and I believe that, with the amendments made, the Government have enabled this part of the Bill to make an effective contribution to the creation of the new relationships in industry between workers, managers and Government that are needed if we are to overcome our economic problems.
      Question proposed, That the amendment be made.
      Mr. Speaker: I understand that the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Mr. Stanley) wishes to move the Opposition's amendment to the proposed Government amendment.
      4.15 p.m.
      Mr. John Stanley: I beg to move, as an amendment to Government Amendment No. 76, after "information" insert:
      'from a company or companies which have made or which have signified in writing to the Secretary of State their intention to make a planning agreement and'.
      Although I recognise that the Government have made a number of alterations in the detail of the disclosure provisions, it is the view of the Opposition that the substantial case which we advanced in Committee on points of major principle has not been met. In the course of the next two days, we shall wish to return to those points of principle.
      I deal first with this Opposition amendment, the effect of which is to limit the operation of the disclosure clauses to those companies which voluntarily have entered into planning agreements or which have indicated that they wish to do so.
      We have tabled this amendment for a number of reasons, one of which is the fact that this was clearly the role for the disclosure provisions originally envisaged by the Government in their White Paper and was subsequently the subject of an unequivocal assurance from the Prime Minister that the policy in the White Paper would be put exactly into effect in the Bill.
      Our interpretation of the White Paper has never been contested. Paragraph 11 says clearly under a large heading "Planned Agreements":
      "The Act which gives effect to the new system"
      —that is, the new system of planning agreements—
      "will also provide reserve powers to require the relevant companies to provide the Government and the workers in the firm with the information needed to formulate and monitor a Planning Agreement".
      That was followed subsequently by a very clear assurance, which admitted of no ambiguity, given in this House by the
      1488
      Prime Minister on 25th February in answer to the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield). The Prime Minister said:
      "What I did in that speech was to repeat what I have said many times; that the Bill, and its operation when it becomes an Act, will follow exactly the White Paper which was published before the election …"—[Official Report, 25th February 1975; Vol. 887, c. 286]
      We do not in any way dispute the right of any Government to change their mind during the passage of legislation and certainly subsequent upon the publication of a White Paper. But we believe that there is a substantial and fundamental difference between, on the one hand, giving an assurance in this House and then coming back to the House saying candidly, "The Government can no longer honour that assurance", and giving reasons for that change of mind, and, on the other, what the Government have been doing in the past six months, which is to maintain that the assurance is being honoured when it is clear to everyone in the House and outside it that the assurance is not being honoured at all. I hope that the Under-Secretary will address himself to this point. It is clear that the Prime Minister's assurance is not being carried into effect, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take this opportunity at long last to admit that that is the case.
      I turn to other reasons why the Opposition have returned to the amendment which we tabled in Committee. First, we wish to stress that there is no difference between the two sides of the House about the desirability of the maximum degree of disclosure to all employees, whether or not they are members of trade unions. There is no dispute between the two sides of the House about the principle at issue here. The difference between us relates to how this disclosure is brought about and to whom the information is given. That latter point is covered by amendments with which we shall be dealing later.
      I address myself, therefore, to how the disclosure is brought about, especially in the light of the way in which the Government have now amended Clause 20 and subsequent clauses.
      We suggest that the best way of having effective and clear disclosure is to have a two-tier basis for disclosure: first, through a statutory basis in which there are grounded in legislation certain basic

      1489
      rights to information for employees—basic rights to information for collective bargaining purposes, basic rights to information where a company is proposing to jeopardise the future of certain manufacturing operations, and basic rights to information about the historical performance of a company set out in the obligations of the Companies Acts.
      We see a succession of legislation in the Companies Acts, in our Industrial Relations Act, in the Government's Employment Protection Bill and in the amendment to the Companies Act which is expected next Session. All these have been grounded on providing a statutory right to basic information, and in each and every case the rights to disclosure go to all employees in all companies. We believe that that must be the essential and correct principle.
      We say that the only additional need is to make sure that, on top of the statutory ground work, there is the maximum degree of voluntary disclosure carried out without Government interference or coercion.
      The major problem that we find with this group of disclosure clauses is that the Government are interposing a third layer of disclosure grounded on a selection rather than a voluntary basis which starts as voluntary and ends up being compulsory. The result is that companies will be put through the most formidable bureaucratic obstacle course. That was brought out graphically in the Under-Secretary's description of the new disclosure clauses.
      Perhaps I might remind the House that, if a company starts going round this bureaucratic obstacle course, it will face first a Section 20 preliminary notice. That will be followed by a Section 20 order. That in turn will be followed by a Section 21 notice, then by the right to make Section 22 representations, and in turn by a Section 22 preliminary notice. Then there will be a Section 23 reference to the advisory committee. Finally, the company will come over the finishing line clutching a Section 23 ministerial notice. It is an enormous bureaucratic tangle which is the direct result of the Government interposing this third layer which comes between the genuinely voluntary and the purely statutory.
      1490
      One of the major objections we see to the imposition of this additional layer of disclosure is that the very existence of these powers, however sparingly they are exercised, will almost certainly have a deterrent effect on investment in this country. In our view, the mere existence of these powers is likely to deter from investing here some companies who might be doubtful about doing so, and is likely to increase the reluctance of companies already here to expand and extend their manufacturing base.
      On that point I am tempted to draw attention to an advertisement I saw for a particular publication a little while ago. It had as its heading,
      "Goodbye Britain. Plan your escape now with the 1975 Guide to Emigration".
      Under that heading we were invited to learn about living and working abroad. Perhaps I might tell the Under-Secretary the source of that advertisement. It is in the Government's own Trade and Industry Journal of 6th June, 1975. That is possibly a prophetic sign of the times, that Government space is being given over to the advertising of a publication inviting us to withdraw from Great Britain. The sales of that book are likely to be stimulated by the very existence of these disclosure powers.
      The disadvantages are in terms of its acting as a deterrent to investment, undermining business confidence and tending to accentuate uncertainty. We look, therefore, for what might be the offsetting gains and benefits of these disclosure clauses. It is very difficult to adduce clear and tangible gains and benefits from them. The Under-Secretary says that one of the Government amendments rewrites the preface to the disclosure clause by giving us a new subsection (1) in Clause 20 of the Bill. The Government have rewritten their whole rationale for these clauses in Amendment 76.
      One of the reasons they have rewritten the rationale for the disclosure clause is that we on this side exposed vividly during the Committee stage of the Bill how little rationale there was, and how little substance there was, in the arguments put forward by the Government for the disclosure clause in the way they were advancing them. Although the Under-Secretary referred to the new definition of

      1491
      the disclosure clause, we have stressed that the definition is purely of an advisory nature. It has no legal status at all because the definition is purely descriptive prefaced by the words "in the opinion of the Ministers" and is in no way restricting or constraining on the use of these powers.
      During the Committee stage we were told by the Under-Secretary that the disclosure clauses were needed
      "as part of the revoluntary change, by proper social and economic means and by proper constitutional means, in Briitsh industry that now desperately needs to be brought about."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E. 17th April 1975, c. 1571.]
      Talk of revolution has disappeared with the former Ministers in the Department of Industry. We now have a completely new definition of the rationale for these clauses. We are told that this provision is needed by the Government to further national economic policies. We are told, in addition, that this is needed to help in consultations between the Government, employers and workers on the outlook for a particular sector of manufacturing industry. The basic case for these clauses advanced by the Government is that the Government need them for their own economic purposes, for the planning of a particular sector of industry.
      That in no way answers the question which we posed again and again during the Committee stage and to which we failed to get an answer. We asked again and again what evidence there was that companies in the private sector were in any way reluctant to provide the Government, on an entirely voluntary basis, with the information they needed for either national economic planning purposes or for the planning of a particular sector of manufacturing industry.
      The Government Ministers were then, and I believe are now, unable to provide us with any evidence at all that industry is in any way reluctant or backward in coming forward with information that the Government need for their own purposes. I suggest, therefore, that the new rationale which has been put forward by the Government for these clauses is no more grounded in necessity than the previous arguments advanced at the Committee stage.
      Mr. Kaufman: So that there can be absolutely no doubt about the situation, nothing of what I have said today in any way replaces or supplants what my hon. Friend the then Under-Secretary of State said, as reported in column 1571 of the Official Report. The meaning of the words that the hon. Gentleman has quoted from my hon. Friend—that these powers are necessary
      "as part of the revoluntary change, by proper social and economic means and by proper constitutional means, in British industry that now desperately needs to be brought about"
      —is self-evident and totally accepted by everybody on this side of the House.
      Mr. Stanley: I am glad to have confirmation from the Under-Secretary that the Government stand by what was said in Committee, which brings us to the second stated justification advanced by the Government for these clauses, which incidentally is not referred to in the Bill. I expect that the Minister will want to refer to this in winding up the debate. During the Committee stage we had a great deal of talk about one of the major objects of the Bill being to further worker participation, or industrial democracy, or whatever phrase one wishes to use.
      We make the point that if the true objective of these disclosure clauses is to further the interests of worker participation or industrial democracy, we fail now, as we failed in Committee, to understand how that can possibly be achieved by giving rights on a purely selective and discretionary basis. If the rights asked for are so important—and it is crystal-clear that they are not a policy of producing greater worker participation—surely there can be no justification for confining them solely to companies on which Section 20 orders are served. Surely there can be no justification for confining them solely to companies in the manufacturing sector of industry as opposed to the service sector. The only basis on which it is sensible to expand such rights is a comprehensive basis.
      It is our view, therefore, that if the Government wished to go further on a statutory basis in disclosure, they would have done much better to leave the clause out of the Bill and to wait until they are legislating on a general basis, and until we understand what they intend to do in the next Session. In our view, the Government amendments to Clause 20 and

      1493
      subsequent clauses bear all the signs of a botched compromise.
      No real case has been made out for the disclosure clauses as now drafted, either in Committee or on the Report stage of the Bill. The compromise clause has been designed to try to placate industry without causing too much ire among back bench Members of the Labour Party.
      By the mere existence of the statutory powers the Government are taking a discretionary power of huge scope which in our view will serve only to undermine investment confidence and business confidence generally. This will not serve to bring about a general widespread improvement in the amount of information employees can get, or to bring about an input of information into the Government that the Government have been able to demonstrate does not already exist.
      I commend our amendment as an alternative on the ground that on this one occasion the advice of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister—that the Bill should follow exactly the wording of the White Paper is correct.
      4.30 p.m.
      Mr. Richard Wainwright: The Chair has selected Liberal amendment (b) to Government Amendment No. 76 for discussion, together with the Conservative amendment (a) and also Conservative amendment (c) to Government Amendment No. 79.
      Our amendment is intended to carry out the identical purpose of the Conservative amendment which has been argued and, therefore, I shall not move our amendment and shall certainly not seek a vote upon it, and, since we are operating under very strict guillotine procedure, I do not wish to weary the House by repeating in my own phraseology the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malting (Mr. Stanley), with whom I very largely agree.
      All I have to add is from a strictly practical point of view. In our view, the Government's search for information, which they have now conceded is to be carried on in a voluntary atmosphere with statutory powers held only in reserve, is not likely to be fruitful. It is certainly not likely to be worth all the effort
      1494
      required to obtain the information and test it. It is not likely to be got unless it is related to a specific operation with planning agreement in mind.
      My own professional experience, now somewhat out of date, which did not relate to any organisation with statutory powers, was that the manufacturer would test my professional integrity by tempting me to talk about the operations of a competitor in some area. If he was satisfied that I knew how to keep my mouth shut, his next question—in my experience in the North of England—was likely to be "What is the purpose of this inquiry? Is it relevant, or have you simply persuaded someone that it is worth a fee to ask me these questions, and will it all end up in some pigeon-hole?"
      It is worth making the point because my experience is not that the manufacturer is panic-stricken that his secrets are to be scattered to the competitive world. His main fear is quite the opposite, that, after he has gone to a lot of trouble to produce statistics in a form to which he is not accustomed, those statistics will simply be filed away after being processed and the whole operation will have been a waste of his time and of someone else's money.
      If the operation is focused on a specific project, and the planning agreement is obviously the relevant one in the context of the Bill, the operation stands a reasonable chance of being conducted successfully and expeditiously. The House is entitled to be cynical about the likely results of a search for information in a general way, especially when, to follow the wording of the Government's amendment, the object is
      "to form or to further national economic policies".
      We have to accept that when people are voting with their feet in the case of those who emigrate from a country whose regime they more and more distrust, others will also vote by withholding cooperation from the agents of the Government.
      This is a long-standing and respectable British radical tradition. The Department must expect it to operate when it attempts to carry out a section which is expressly designed to help the Minister
      "to form or to further national economic policies".

      1495
      The Department must face the fact that if this amendment is accepted as it stands it will meet serious resistance, not necessarily organised but individual resistance, from manufacturers who will receive the agent of the Government by announcing that they have no time for the Government's economic policies, they do not want help "to form or to further" them, and they regard them with distrust or dismay, or both.
      The only antidote that appears to exist is for the civil servant to be able to say "I have not come for some political purpose. I have come to help construct a planning agreement between your sector of the industry and the Government. The Government for their part are under a duty to reveal certain information to your sector."—I hope that that will remain in the Bill—"On the other hand, if you will co-operate by coming clean with your information promptly and without a great inquisition on the part of the Government, there is the prospect of a constructive planning agreement." In that context, although there will be difficulties about disclosure, I can imagine the operation, with luck, being successfully conducted in a reasonable period. Unless the issue is focused upon a planning agreement in this way, the Government's new version is doomed to cause almost as much frustration as their earlier version.
      Mr. Joseph Ashton: We have heard two typical speeches from representatives of the Conservative and Liberal Parties which illustrate their basic philosophy towards the workers in this country, whom they believe to be merely part of the assets, were chattels which go with the business and, as such need not be informed about what is happening to their works or about their future prospects. It is felt that they need not be told anything about the industry in which they work until they are suddenly faced with a closure, and then that is just bad luck.
      In 1975. with the present trade union set-up, that attitude is nowhere near good enough. I want to tell the House about what happened to some of my constituents last week in a factory in the town of Gainsborough, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball). Many of the people who work
      1496
      at that factory live on my side of the River Trent and are my constituents. They cross the bridge daily to work at Marshall-Fowler Ltd. Last week 880 of these employees were suddenly told in a works handout that the factory was closing down. The factory makes tractors and road rollers. The management said in the handout that the firm had sustained some very heavy losses over the past three financial years and that in the circumstances the directors of Thomas Ward Ltd. the main firm of which Marshall-Fowler is a subsidiary, had decided to phase out production as from 25th July 1975, with the result that the 880 workers would have to be fired.
      What was the reason for this? The firm obviously did not give any answers. The unions wanted to know. It was not a question of high wages. This firm pays some of the lowest wages in the East Midlands. It certainly pays well below the average. There have been excellent labour relations there. The plant has lost less than one week in strike action in the past seven to eight years. It was supposed to have plenty of orders.
      Marshall-Fowler News, issued every month to the employees, said in December 1974:
      "It is widely known that our order books are at record levels mainly for export … which lends even greater urgency to our efforts."
      In January 1975 the News reported:
      "our order books were perhaps the largest in the company's history and clearly illustrated a world-wide demand for our equipment in its present specification."
      This was the sort of "bumf" being given out by the management—management which Liberal and Conservative Members support. This is what managements talk about as participation or disclosure, or taking workers into their confidence—shiny publications once a month and a big piece of "kidology" to keep them quiet. There were naturally some restive murmurings among the workers. They still do not know why their jobs have been taken away.
      Is it due to boardroom manipulation or to lousy management? Have the directors of this firm kept quiet to keep up the share value until the last possible moment because they are more interested in the people who invest money in the firm than in those who invest their lives

      1497
      in it, who have bought houses on the understanding that the firm would continue in business?
      Sir Raymond Gower: Without commenting in detail on the individual case which the hon. Member has raised, may I ask him whether he is aware that a large number of companies are currently in great difficulty? Would it not be the last thing for them to do to give a hint of their problems, since this might exacerbate the problems and delay recovery?
      Mr. Ashton: I am sure that it brings great consolation to those who are to lose their jobs to know that others will also lose their jobs. It will make their redundancy pay so much more acceptable.
      I do not accept that argument for one minute. If the workers were taken into the confidence of management they might have been able to help. Perhaps there was an urgent problem of investment. They could have forgone some wage increase. The workers have co-operated all the way with the productivity and reorganisation of the plant. This is a firm with an excellent record of co-operation with management. The reward of the workers has been to be treated like cattle, to be thrown out at the whim of the management without any reason being given.
      In a situation like this, people are naturally angry, not only because of the way the matter has been handled and the decision announced only at the last minute, but because of the suggestion that it was in their interests that nothing was done. Is it in the interests of workers to take on a works study engineer five weeks before the closure? Six days before the closure he bought a house in Gainsborough. His wife moved into the town, lived in the house for six days and then found that her husband had been made redundant.
      The Opposition are saying that people do not have the right to know what is happening in their own firms. The people of this country will not stand for this sort of attitude any longer. They will not stand for the Arnold Weinstocks, the take-over bids and what happened at Imperial Typewriters——
      Mr. Stanley Mr. Stanley rose——
      Mr. Ashton: No, I will not give way. The hon. Member can reply later.
      Thirty apprentices were told by the firm that they could start work on 11th August, but now they will have to look for other jobs. Gainsborough is an isolated town, and there are no other engineering firms in the area. It is not like London, where one can just go down the street for another job. These people might have to sell their houses and move to another part of the country where house prices are higher. Those who have worked in the firm for less than two years will get no redundancy pay. Many people moved into the town to invest their lives in this firm, but the Opposition care more about the people who invest their money in it. That is the basic difference between our two parties and between unions and management.
      Sir Raymond Gower: No, no.
      Mr. Ashton: The hon. Member can say "No" as much as he likes, but while closures like this continue they give more power to the elbows of trade unions, which will not see this sort of thing happen, and to my party, which is determined to pass legislation to stop it happening. Until the Opposition tell managements who belong to their party that this sort of behaviour can no longer be tolerated, there will be the utmost resistance by workers, who will refuse to co-operate. When workers see the amount of work thinning out, they will go slow, implement restrictive practises and refuse productivity agreements. They will decide that if there is only a small amount of work they will make it last.
      Until a couple of months ago we had a Bill with some teeth which would have helped workers and unions. I am not blaming my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, but it appears to some of us that many of these teeth have now been removed. It is all very well saying that voluntary arrangements are better than statutory powers, but if we expect managements like this to volunteer, we shall wait a long time. Firms will now be given up to three months before being forced to disclose information. A firm could park up and go into liquidation in that time. Three months is a hell of a long time in a crisis period when there are liquidity problems or the possibility of bringing in a receiver.

      1499
      There are fears that loopholes in the Bill will be exploited by highly-paid lawyers—the guinea-a-word men—who have never had to face redundancy in their lives. They will be employed to prove why unions should not be able to obtain information from a firm in which there may have been no strikes, low wages and full co-operation with management, but which may be closed down suddenly by a decision from a head office 50 or 60 miles away.
      There are also doubts about the position of subsidiaries of major firms. The duty imposed on the Minister to give information to unions has been removed and this is causing grave concern.
      The situation at Marshall-Fowler is not unique. It is happening all over the country. But that does not make the situation better; it makes it worse. Ordinary, decent people are not prepared to accept this sort of treatment from managements. These are not militants or people who march through the streets. They are owner-occupiers, white-collar workers and high-level executives, many of whom probably vote Conservative or Liberal.
      What has happened has been a downright disgrace, and while the Opposition continue to vote against this clause they are supporting the sort of behaviour of Marshall-Fowler at Gainsborough.
      4.45 p.m.
      Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am obliged to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me. I have another engagement to attend, and I apologise to my hon. Friends for intervening at this stage.
      I have to declare an interest because, before the Bill reached its Committee stage, I had some responsibility for industrial matters on the Conservative Front Bench. Although I have now been removed to a different sphere, I have taken a close interest in the Bill and I am a director of a number of companies which have been concerned about it.
      The pleas of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) are well understood, but I think he was wrong and discourteous to attack a particular firm which has no opportunity to put its point of view in this House——
      Mr. Ashton: I told it in advance.
      Mr. Griffiths: I hope the hon. Gentleman will be fair and bring to the attention of the House the views of the firm if it disagrees with what he has said in his privileged position.
      Mr. Ashton: I telephoned the firm and spoke to the unions and told the manager what I intended to do. He accepted the position. I warned that I would be very critical and asked if he wanted to make any comments.
      Mr. Griffiths: It is wrong that an hon. Member should attack, from a privileged position, a particular firm in the constituency of another hon. Member. I hope he will take the opportunity to bring to the attention of the House any views the firm may wish to express in contradiction to what he has said.
      Mr. Marcus Kimball: The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) might have had the courtesy to advise me that he was going to raise this matter. The factory is in my constituency and I am in the closest touch with the management, which I am meeting on Friday. The Department of Industry and the Department of Employment are fully aware of the problem. We have received the greatest possible help from them, but not from the hon. Member for Bassetlaw.
      Mr. Griffiths: I think I may now safely leave this matter to my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Bassetlaw.
      I have discussed the issue of disclosure with the boards of a number of British companies whose managements are neither Left nor Right, neither Conserservative nor Labour. They are practical people concerned with getting their goods out of the factory door. I must tell the Under-Secretary, who has come relatively new to this legislation, that many firms, without reference to party political considerations, feel great disquiet at having to use a vast amount of scarce secretarial and managerial time to meet the requirements laid upon them in the Bill. He should accept, whether or not he agrees with them, that many managements are desperately up againt it at the moment in trying to deal with all the red tape and form-filling imposed on them by Governments of all complexions and by local government as well. Adding another round of paperwork to the problems of

      1501
      managements is asking them to do something which many believe they will be hard put to manage. It will be expensive in secretarial time, which has become one of the most expensive commodities in industry, and it will clog up the works of much of middle management in industry. I ask the Government to accept that managements, without any political considerations, feel very seriously about this.
      I have also discussed this matter with a number of overseas companies, particularly American firms, which invest in Britain. There are many reasons why American firms ought to invest in this country, and I would encourage them to continue to do so despite all our economic difficulties. When an American board conies to decide whether to invest in a British plant or in a Dutch, German or French plant it is influenced by a wide range of considerations, including profit, availability of labour, markets and so on. It is marginally influenced, too, by the amount of red tape that Governments impose upon it. Britain is not alone in this respect. I would yield top position to the French in putting red tape on industry, but Britain is becoming very close to the top of the league in Europe in entangling managements in paper work which is often unnecessary for the real conduct of their business.
      There are a number of American firms well known to me which have been deterred—I will not say put off altogether—by the disclosure provisions of the Bill from investing in Britain and providing new jobs. I ask the Government to take that matter very seriously. Disclosure needs to be a two-way street, and of course we are all hoping, as the Government have suggested, that, if we are to have this Bill at all, the information extracted from companies will genuinely be used for the purposes of planning agreements and nothing else. If that is the purpose of disclosure, I do not think anyone on either side of the House would object.
      There is a case for disclosure, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ton-bridge and Malling (Mr. Stanley) fairly made, but a lot of people in business are worried about the discrepancy between the kind of information that industry will be expected to give the Government and the rather poor and inadequate
      1502
      information that the Government in return will give industry. For the most part, industry will be expected to give fairly precise estimates of the future of investment, marketability, and all the rest. In return it will get from the Government some very broad-brush ideas about where they think they are going in the national economy.
      I have two examples of what industry can expect from the Government in return for the information which it provides. The other day the Chancellor announced, as a responsible Minister, and no doubt a lot of industry will take note of that, that the expected rate of inflation would be 8 per cent. I presume it is on the basis of that kind of information that industry is supposed to take its investment decisions. We know that the current rate of inflation is nearer 30 per cent., and the Chancellor has been proved, and has now himself admitted, to be grotesquely wrong. I use that illustration because, having been in a Government, I know how wildly wrong Government prognoses can go under all Governments. It is difficult to make macro-scale economic predictions, and Governments get them wrong on such things as population and investment and on the price of such commodities as oil which effect the national economy.
      Business is genuinely anxious about the discrepancy between the quality of information it will be required to give to the Government and the very poor and inaccurate information, and, frequently, the reverse of information, that will be provided by the Government in return.
      The Chancellor's statement yesterday gives me my second example. Only a week ago the Chancellor said that he had absolutely no intention of legislative interference with wage bargaining. I think those were almost his precise words. That is the quality of the information that the Government would have to be able to give to industry only a week ago. Yesterday the Chancellor, in my view rightly, announced that there would be a 10 per cent. wage freeze, imposed if necessary by legislation. I use that illustration only to reinforce the point that the information extracted by the Government will be precise and will consume a great deal of time in compilation and will have a deterrent effect on industry's decisions

      1503
      to invest. In return, industry will get—I say this having experienced Government predictions from the inside of a great Department of State—a ragbag of political projections underwritten by some of the Civil Service statistics, which, honourable though they may be, all too often are wildly wrong.
      It is the discrepancy, the dichotomy between what industry is expected to give and what it will get in return, which makes this whole procedure one-sided and unfair on British firms.
      Mr. Michael Marshall: I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) in underlining the reservations which many of us feel about the Bill. I rise principally, however, to support amendment (a), because we believe that if we try to revert to the provisions of the White Paper and bring together the applicability of planning agreements and the disclosure of information we might at least pick some bones out of what looks to many of us to be a very thin carcase.
      The Government's arguments which I believe we have now begun to consider is one in which we are willing to test their good faith. They clearly have decided to try to meet some of the objections advanced in Standing Committee and by industry. By that test I am willing to proceed with this argument. However, it is hard to imagine that argument being accepted without some firm evidence of planning agreements and the disclosure of information being brought together under the same umbrella. I do not feel passionately that we should regard this as a Prime Ministerial commitment of such value as will save the nation. We are all too familiar with the incredible saga of the Bill, the White Paper which was to have green edges, the revision of the Bill and a further White Paper yet to come——
      Mr. Kaufman: If the hon. Gentleman is giving an account of the facts he should stick to the facts. There was no commitment to a further White Paper. He should look back at the Question put by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) to my right hon. Friend who is now the Secretary of State for Energy and the discussion that went on about this matter in Standing Committee. The
      1504
      hon. Member should withdraw the word "commitment". Let us have an accurate debate even if it is to be contentious.
      Mr. Marshall: It is fascinating to see the Under-Secretary leaping into action in his barrack-room lawyer style when he was unable to attend the Committee—for reasons we all understand. If he is saying that a White Paper has been ruled out, we are greatly obliged to him for that information. I cannot recall the precise words as reported in Hansard, but it was said that among the options which the Government were considering was a White Paper on the operation of the Act. If the Under-Secretary is saying that a White Paper is totally ruled out, the House will hear that with great interest. Many of us have certainly been pressing for a clear indication on that score. I hope that the Under-Secretary accepts that this is a matter of legitimate concern. The Question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) was answered in terms which gave great encouragement for the House to assume that a White Paper was possible.
      5.0 p.m.
      Perhaps I should explain why I believe the bringing together of planning agreements and the disclosure of information should be encouraged in the interests of industry as a whole. We have to look at this in the negative sense, as it were, and consider the objections and representation put by companies and industry as a whole to the Government and to individual Members of Parliament. They fall into three broad areas. There is still the argument about coercion. Whatever the Minister might say, the preamble is vague and worded so as to give ministerial discretion. It cannot be disguised that there is a strong element of coercion here in seeking to bring companies into the ambit of disclosure of information. We believe that if that disclosure of information were tied in with planning agreements, at least we should see some kind of logic and initial movement in some direction, resulting, we hope, in some kind of logical progress.
      Companies' fears in this matter are that the Government's intentions concerning planning agreements are clearly of a voluntary kind, whereas, on the other hand, on disclosure of information they are, in effect, compulsory, whether

      1505
      it is in regard to the appeals mechanism or the whole series of horse-trading activities behind the scenes. Companies will be faced with the need to provide against their will information which they may believe is commercially sensitive.
      If the Government took the view that they were prepared to treat planning agreements as stage one and disclosure of information as stage two, we should see some kind of positive view emerging. Much work which would otherwise be repetitive would be at least made a constructive and on-going exercise. It would not involve the obvious duplication of effort.
      A moment's consideration will show that in any attempt to have a planning agreement with a company, followed by a further disclosure of information, if the second part becomes a kind of afterthought—when it is recognised that the planning agreement has perhaps not covered all the ground that the Government might think useful within its overall strategic framework—this will inevitably mean a time lag. It will mean locking up management time, energy resources and profitability, in order to provide the Government with information, when, frankly, we have heard so little from the Government as to the use to which this information might be put. There is very little indication from Labour Members that they feel there is a real, positive benefit to be gained at the end of the day.
      As to the arguments which companies are advancing at this stage, I put this in a positive sense. If the Government can show that the planning agreement approach is based on something containing positive features, there will be an opportunity then to build up some form of advantageous, mutual confidence between this Government and industry.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds is quite right, I believe, when we speak of the planning agreements and the positive input which is claimed from the Government—which would include information about price inflation and wage inflation—when he points out that it is very hard for us to put much credence on that, the Chancellor of the Exchequer having made a projection of 8 per cent. inflation and been proved to be totally out of touch within a matter of weeks. Even if we take at face value
      1506
      the Government's wish to play their part and make some positive contribution towards companies' own planning, surely the planning agreement system as such is one that ought to be built upon and regarded as a stage which would involve disclosure of information as part of the same package and not some totally separate exercise.
      I cite as an example the nationalised industries, and in particular the British Steel Corporation. Here is an example of concern to all hon. Members. We have debated it a number of times recently. One of the outstanding features of the corporation and its relations with the Government is that it has, as is well known, a number of agreements, on a quarterly, an annual, and a five-year basis, which in many respects model the planning agreements that the Government seek to bring about in the Bill.
      Despite those planning agreements, the fact remains that the British Steel Corporation is still unable, on a day-to-day basis, to regard those plans as being worth the paper on which they are written. This is because the overall disclosure of information is on a day-to-day basis. Members on all sides will know what I mean. The closure review is a classic example of the way in which disclosure of information is required on a piecemeal. ad hoc, day-to-day basis.
      I will cite only the example at Redcar, with the implications for Teesside, for Hartlepool and for Consett. Here is an exercise which is locking up—as anyone with any contact with the British Steel Corporation knows—large amounts of management time in very difficult and sensitive political arguments which are basically ruining any attempt to maintain a long-term strategy such as is covered by the planning agreements.
      I shall not pursue this argument further today—it is one for another debate—but it clearly illustrates the way in which these two streams of thought ought, in my view, to be brought together so that companies could at least be made to feel that the presentation of information is worth some sort of candle. But unless the Government can show willingness in this respect, we shall once more experience that sinking feeling known by anyone with any knowledge of industry, when there is a purely academic approach and it is felt that the

      1507
      Civil Service is once more trying to interfere in the day-to-day direction of the industry, whether in relation to trade union influence or management influence. On either count we have cause for concern. We know that the Government are trying to overcome some part of this concern. Let them now set an example by accepting this amendment.
      Mr. Douglas Crawford: I suppose that I should cease to be amazed at the polarisation which seems to take place whenever industrial and financial matters are discussed in the House. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) said, I think, that he was worried about the two-way flow of information between the Government and industry and between industry and the Government. I put it to him that if the input is increased the output will increase in quantity and, one hopes, in quality as well.
      I do not think I can agree with the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley), who said, I think, that he thought that sufficient disclosure was taking place already. The Conservative and Liberal amendments effectively emasculate the prerequisite of disclosure in principle.
      Mr. Stanley: So that we may be clear on this, I said that the Government's case for the disclosure clauses was based on a Government requirement for information, and that the Government, during the Committee stage, had never been able to demonstrate that any single company was reluctant to provide it with information.
      Mr. Crawford: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if I failed to understand what he said. The amendments effectively emasculate the prerequisite of disclosure in principle. Neither my party nor I are entirely happy with all the disclosure provisions which appear later on the Bill. We feel that the next group of amendments contains the important ones.
      The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) asked what was to be the purpose of the information and how it was to be used. I should have thought that the words in the Government amendment in lines 2, 3 and 4 perhaps indicated sufficiently what is the purpose of the information, especially in regard to the
      1508
      furthering of national economic policies. The Minister will realise that my ideas of national economic policies are different from his.
      Mr. Kaufman: Exactly.
      Mr. Crawford: But companies could conceivably—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—use the concept of a planning agreement, if that were passed, as a blocking device, blocking the need for disclosure. I do not go all the way here with the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton). It is not simply Bassetlaw and Gainsborough which suffer from closures. We in Scotland suffer from them as well. There have been closures by companies in Scotland which have been taken over by companies based in England. After the take-over the plant has been removed to the South, so that we lose out in that way. But the hon. Member's remarks made a lot of sound sense in a partisan way.
      It is because the National Enterprise Board will be working in Scotland that we favour disclosure of information per se. We hope that when the Scottish Development Agency Bill is in Committee we can make sure that it has a similar kind of disclosure provision in principle.
      We differ on the points of information that should be disclosed. Some parts of Clause 21(2) and new Clause 3 are ludicrous. We shall not support the Government on the next group of amendments, but it is essential in principle not to hedge the matter around with restrictions. Although we can differ on the details, we do not differ from the Government on the principle, especially as the arrangements are voluntary in the first instance. Therefore, we support the Government on this group of amendments but not the others.
      Dr. Jeremy Bray: I hesitate to intervene at this stage in the debate because I am sure that there will be points with which Conservative Members will enrage my hon. Friends, as they would enrage me, but I shall leave it to my hon. Friends to take them up.
      I feel some concern about the changed shape of the Bill as it will emerge with the Government amendments. During the Committee stage I had a number of discussions with people on both sides of

      1509
      industry who were concerned about the Bill and were thinking how it would operate in practice. I am sure that every other member of the Committee did the same. I tried to describe how I thought the Bill would work. I understand that the Government hope to initiate between 12 and 20 planning agreements in the first year of the Bill's operation, which is not an enormous number.
      I would have expected the process of development of such planning agreements to be initiated by a wholly informal letter from the Minister to the chief executive of the company, inviting him to have a chat about the provisions of the Bill. There would then be a discussion of the general position of the company and the ways in which it planned its operations, not with any wish to impose a different pattern, but just to see the basis for further discussion.
      That would create the framework for officials to take up in further discussions between the Department and the company the definition of the scope of possible planning agreements and the information which might be required in support of it or for altogether separate purposes not related to a planning agreement. The background throughout those informal discussions would be the statutory powers of the Bill. That would be clear to all parties involved, but the powers would not have been invoked.
      Now we see this stage of the preliminary notice introduced, which seems to me to confuse that initial process of informal discussion which can create the right conditions for a fruitful relationship between the firm and the Government. Legal requirements are imported into a very early stage in the relationship. If the informal discussion is to go on, as I hope it will, the Bill is needlessly elaborating the legal processes which would follow if the informal discussions were getting nowhere.
      I am sure that the attitude in industry will be "Let's keep it informal, but if we have to go formal, let's get the thing over quickly. Let us not have a whole barrage of stages of preliminary notices, and questions about to whom it has been circulated." I entirely agree that the licence given to lawyers by these further statutory requirements seems wholly undesirable, bearing in mind the wise advice given by the hon. and learned
      1510
      Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) about the effects of introducing the law into this matter.
      We then go on, in the definition of the matters on which disclosure can be required, to enumerate a number of matters which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary described as needed for policy and planning, which he distinguished from the requirements in the Employment Protection Bill, which were for collective bargaining. That is unrealistic from the point of view of both the company and the trade union movement. For the company, collective bargaining is an important part of policy and planning.
      5.15 p.m.
      I give one example. If a firm is establishing a new factory in a development area, an important part of the preliminary planning is the contact with the trade unions in the area. Trade unions give invaluable services to companies in establishing constructive relationships. I have known them go so far as draft procedure arrangements which they undertake to secure for their members who will be employed by the firm, with the agreed wage structures to be filled in in the process of negotiation when the firm begins work.
      In the process of policy and planning which should underlie the planning agreements there is a large content of collective bargaining and matters relevant to collective bargaining, which are properly covered by the provisions of the Bill. The same applies in the normal day-to-day business of collective bargaining in a fully-established enterprise.
      There was a reference earlier to an engineering firm in Gainsborough, where there were major issues in the policy and planning which should have been raised through the processes of collective bargaining much earlier. Therefore, I do not see the distinction that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary tried to make between those two types of information.
      I refer my hon. Friend to the precedent set in the Statistics of Trade Act 1947, when the matters on which statistical returns could be required were left to a schedule which could be amended by order. A Bill was not required to change the content of the information. I have been reading the Second Reading debate on that measure. Sir Stafford Cripps was

      1511
      the Minister speaking for the Government, and Mr. David Eccles, later Lord Eccles, spoke for the Opposition. It was almost a pre-play of the debate on this Bill. Many of the points made about the disclosure and uses of information, confidentiality and so on were made in that debate. We were merely repeating them in what I fear, despite the jazz words of "information" and so on, is a rather more primitive, polarised climate.
      I commend to my hon. Friend particularly the wisdom of including a schedule to detail the information. The need is shown by another Government amendment, which is to include expenditure on research and development as a further item on which disclosure can be called for. In Committee I suggested research and development expenditure as the kind of topic which we would have included if we had been passing the Bill 10 years ago in view of what was fashionable in the climate of that time. Now I find that after consultations with the TUC, where I understand the matter was raised by Mr. David Basnett, an admirable trade union general secretary, it has been included. But it has been included simply on the casual say-so of a trade union general secretary who said that it would be an interesting item to have in the Bill.
      Among other matters not in the schedule are imports. These are included in the new clause which my hon. Friends hope to put to the House. There are also purchases, which are not included in the Bill.
      As the detailing of the provisions now stands it is not possible to calculate the contribution of a firm to the balance of payments or to the net output of its industry from the information being established. We are bound to get gaps in information from time to time as interest shifts. It is improvident of the Government not to have allowed themselves the freedom of merely amending a schedule by order.
      The provisions to which the Under-Secretary referred—these will be dealt with later in the debate—by which it is at the Minister's discretion whether information should be passed on to trade unions or whether there is a mandatory requirement on the Minister to pass on the information seriously weaken the position of trade unions.
      1512
      The general impression, not only in the Labour Party and among trade unionists, but also among Members of Parliament and members of the Cabinet, was that the Bill should enable trade unionists to obtain the information they seek about the firm in which they are working. Virtually not a shred of that is left in the Bill as a result of the Government's amendment. Requirements for disclosure will be introduced at the rate of 12 to 20 in the first year, but this will affect only a tiny proportion of the workers in industry.
      In these circumstances I should certainly vote with my hon. Friends who seek to maintain such remnants of trade union power as were in the Bill when it emerged from Committee.
      A point that was stressed over and over again in the Statistics of Trade Act 1947 and a current theme in our debates in Committee is that it is useless calling for information unless we know what we want the information for.
      There is no definition of the purpose of planning agreements in the Bill. We tabled an amendment yesterday which, under the guillotine, was not reached. This sought to define at least a purpose of planning agreements and to provide a rationale by which the dialogue among the firm, the trade unions and the Government could take place; namely, to secure the full employment of people and assets of the enterprise. In the absence of such a rationale, the greatest single requirement on my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and his right hon. Friend will be to define just what a planning agreement is and just how it can best be served by the information which will be sought and shared with not only the Government but the trade unions as freely as possible.
      Sir Raymond Gower: Most Conservative Members accept that Government Amendment No. 6 constitutes a great improvement. To that extent we are not in conflict with the Under-Secretary's opening remarks about it. However, it would be an improvement if he could look more sympathetically at the amendment tabled by the Conservative Front Bench. This would reassure many hon. Members who are a little concerned about the nature oar the information which will be required.

      1513
      I hope that no Labour Member shares the view expressed by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) that there are some Conservative Members who regard employees as chattels. That was quite a disgraceful suggestion.
      Mr. Russell Kerr: We knew what he meant.
      Sir Raymond Gower: The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) may say that he and his hon. Friends knew what was meant. However, I certainly hope that it is utterly rejected by all Conservative Members. Indeed, it would be a very foolish undertaking these days which had the inhumanity to regard employees in that light, especially in view of the fact that such undertakings are faced with serious obligations under legislation passed by Governments of different colours and complexions in recent years.
      Mr. Russell Kerr: Such as the Industrial Relations Act 1971.
      Sir Raymond Gower: Far more like the obligations which have been imposed upon industrial undertakings and companies in general—obligations such as giving adequate notice of redundancy benefits, which constitutes a heavy obligation for which companies have to budget many years in advance. We agree that these obligations are perfectly proper.
      The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston has put a different interpretation on my remarks. I was suggesting that it would be injudicious, to say the least, for any company to regard employees in the way suggested by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw.
      As we have asserted on many occasions—particularly my hon. Friends who took part in the Committee proceedings—we are in favour of the utmost sharing of the most clear and accurate information between industry and the Government. This is not a political issue. On the other hand, we want to balance that requirement sensibly with the very real burden under which many companies are working today, which has been mentioned by one or two hon. Members.
      The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston knows that there is a plethora of legislation which requires detailed work
      1514
      by companies, their advisers, and those who work for them. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) was accurate when he suggested that today secretarial assistance is one of the most expensive commodities for which any company has to pay. Anything that can be done to relieve corn-panics of unnecessary work should be accepted by all parties as desirable. This should apply to State-owned industry as well as to private industry.
      Therefore, we need a balance between the provision of essential information—information that will be helpful to the Government in assessing their economic policy or in assessing the prospects, as it says in the Bill, of a sector of the industry. That is perfectly right and proper. It is only between the sharing of that information and the consideration of the enormous burden of work that not only will be imposed by the Bill but has already been imposed by other legislation that we seek to achieve a fair and reasonable balance, that is the problem.
      There is another consideration. The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Dr. Bray) mentioned the aspect of sharing with the trade unions. This is desirable. I do not know whether he regards the term "trade unionists" in the same light as employees of a firm. I draw some distinction because I believe that those who actually work in an enterprise have more interest in the future of that enterprise than the whole broad membership of a union. I hope that the Under-Secretary follows that distinction because I believe it is a real one. People in one union may work for a number of firms which are in competition. The sharing of information throughout the union could be injurious if shared among them all. I hope that the hon. Gentleman follows this.
      Therefore, it is extremely desirable that the employees of particular undertakings should be entitled to the largest and most accurate diffusion of information. What is less desirable, perhaps, is that this should be interpreted as a sharing of information to all and sundry who happen to be in the same industry, because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there can be rivalry as long as there is—and we hope that this will long remain—some private enterprise in this country.
      Mr. Tom Litterick: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the diffusion of information in the manner which he describes—and I am quite prepared for that information to be diffused if disclosed in the way which was originally intended—would operate to the advantage of workers in the industry? I am prepared to concede at the outset that it is possible to take the view that the advantage of the workers in the industry is the disadvantage of the employers in the industry. I think that the hon. Gentleman will understand this point when I explain it. The two parties to a collective bargain are not necessarily equal. If one party holds the key to all the information which is germane to the subject of their bargain, that makes them unequal. A disclosure of information is by itself an equaliser, and, beyond that, if the information then becomes diffused from the confines of a single firm it is to the advantage of the workers, in so far as they are then able to make comparisons which hitherto they were unable to do, and, therefore, they will be advantaged.
      5.30 p.m.
      Sir Raymond Gower: The hon. Gentleman raises a large amount of material which would require a rather long answer. However, if there has been some degree of shortcoming—I do not want to attribute blame particularly—it has been partially shared by members of some of our unions, who have not imitated the examples of some of the great American unions which have gone out of their way to accumulate expertise and employ people to study a particular industry and give advice about the performance of companies. Indeed, as they have told me, they have been concerned to increase the profits so that they can have a larger share. This is largely due to a difference in attitude.
      I adhere to my original statement that the Opposition want to see the greatest possible sharing of information, especially in these particular sectors. This is a legitimate objective of Government economic policy. A legitimate description was given of a sector of a particular industry. We accept and applaud this. But we want to balance it by not imposing on our companies too many serious burdens.
      1516
      I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw is not in the Chamber at present. During his speech I made an interjection relating to the problems of several companies, which I had discussed with them. These companies were in terrible trouble a few months ago. By very careful and skilful management, some of them have managed to survive the difficulties which threatened in some cases to destroy them. But had the information that they were in dire danger a few months ago been widely dispersed, it might well have proved fatal. That is the point I wanted to make previously. This matter is not quite as clear-cut as some would have us believe. There are sometimes considerations which are better not made widely known or published.
      However, on the whole we have no objection. In fact, we share completely the enthusiasm of those who want this generous interchange. We hope that the measure of the information which will be given by the Government in return will be of a higher order of accuracy than that with which companies have had to put up in the recent past. Certainly it would not be a fair exchange of information if companies had to give accurate detailed information about their prospects and plans and the Government were allowed to get away with half-baked estimates of what they might do—often completely inaccurate and shown to be so in a very short time.
      I hope that the Minister will look with greater sympathy towards the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley), which could carry the improvement a little further.
      Mr. Hal Miller: I begin, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by apologising to you and to the House for the fact that a derailment prevented me from hearing the opening speeches of the debate. I apologise further if I repeat some of the remarks which have already been made.
      I wish to emphasise one point that has not been sufficiently brought out while I have been able to be present. That is the commitment of the Conservative Party to disclosure of information. It is against that background that I wish the rest of my remarks to be considered.

      1517
      The commitment of the Opposition to greater disclosure of information was made very plain in Command 5391, the White Paper on Company Law Reform, of July 1973, prepared by the Department of Trade and Industry, which said,
      "Disclosure of information is an essential part of the working of a free and fair economic system."
      The White Paper went on to mention limits for commercial confidentiality, and also said,
      "But the bias must always be towards disclosure, with the burden of proof thrown on those who defend secrecy. The more people can see what is actually happening, the less likely they are to harbour general suspicions."
      That is the principle we put out. It was enshrined in Schedule 1 of the Companies Act—I shall return to that point a little later—as being the proper place of disclosure requirements of that nature.
      I turn now to the Bill and the disclosure provisions and the amendment that we are discussing, having stated the context in which I should like my remarks to be considered. We have here to turn to the remarks of the Prime Minister, who said, on 25th February,
      "What I did in that speech was to repeat what I have said many times: that Bill, and its operation when it becomes an Act, will follow exactly the White Paper."—[Official Report, 25th February 1975; Vol. 887, c. 286.]
      That White Paper, Command 5710, I have in my hand. It makes it absolutely plain that the Act—that is, the Bill we are discussing—which gives effect to the new system of planning agreements
      "will provide reserve powers to require relevant companies to provide the Government and the workers in the firm with the information needed to formulate and monitor a Planning Agreement."
      That is the original purpose of the disclosure provisions. There is no other reason, in an Industry Bill, to have disclosure provisions. They should more properly be placed, if they are considered to be an aid to industrial relations, in perhaps the Employment Protection Bill, in the Industrial Democracy Bill which the hon. Member for Chesterle-Street (Mr. Radice) is being successful in promoting at present, or in the Companies Act, where the Opposition thought that the disclosure provisions would naturally and properly fall. Indeed, we have had some guidance from the Department of Trade that disclosure provisions
      1518
      were to be included in the new Companies Bill which that Department is preparing.
      But we are concerned here with this Bill and the White Paper "The Regeneration of British Industry", which talked quite clearly of
      "a closer, clearer and more positive relationship between Government and industry."
      In pursuit of that general objective, it talked of the creation of two new instruments—planning agreements and the National Enterprise Board. There was no mention of any other leg to this stool. The White Paper also said,
      "A fuller exchange of information will be an essential ingredient in Planning Agreements; the information which companies provide in this context will be used for this purpose only."
      The matter is absolutely plain, and yet here we have been subjected to compulsory disclosure provisions for a variety of purposes. In Committee the Minister's predecessor was trying to explain to us that these provisions were put in that way as a result of the concession to the Opposition that planning agreements were no longer to be compulsory. He made virtue of the fact that he had separated the planning agreements from the disclosure provisions, which were still to remain compulsory. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) had a few sensible comments to make about that, and I very much agree with them. There is no point in the information being provided except in the context of planning agreements, although I do not agree with the hon. Member for Walton that planning agreements should be compulsory.
      I hope that the Under-Secretary will not repeat the remarks of his predecessor on the assurance given by the Prime Minister. He purported to set aside that clear undertaking given by the Prime Minister, which I have already quoted, in words which surprised all those present in Committee. The then Under-Secretary said
      "If the hon. Gentleman thinks that he can overturn very serious and profound discussion now going on on the basis of words uttered albeit by the Prime Minister and albeit in good faith, he is very seriously understating the importance of this discussion."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 6th May 1975; c. 1441.]
      That discussion was concerned with industrial relations, which have no place

      1519
      in the Bill, or in the White Paper which gave birth to it. That is more properly the province of another Department.
      According to the Government amendment, the justification has now shifted to the national interest and to sector planning. We were told in Committee that at no stage had companies withheld from the Government information needed for such purposes. The Government could produce no record showing that any hindrance had been placed in the way of the Government's obtaining the information which was necessary for that purpose.
      I strongly support the Opposition amendment, which was designed to tie in the disclosure of information with planning agreements. The Opposition support the full disclosure of information. The first point is that this is the wrong place. The second point is that it is the wrong information. That point was made constantly in Committee, but was never satisfactorily answered. I hope that the Under-Secretary will turn his mind to that point this evening.
      The information which the Government require for the national interest or sector planning is not necessarily the same as the information which employees of the company—never mind the unions, for the moment—require for a better understanding of their work, or their job security, of their prospects, and all the other aims and protections which they feel they need. This is the wrong place to include the information required for the second category.
      It is plain that the Government have been shifted and blown about in the wind, the wind blowing first from one side and then from the other, backing and filling, so that it is impossible to find a constant ground and a constant purpose in what they are seeking to do in the Bill.
      I support the amendment, which is designed to put the Bill on its original tack and to carry out the clear, detailed and unusually precise undertaking given to the House by the Prime Minister.
      5.45 p.m.
      Mr. Giles Shaw: The Opposition made it clear that one of the reasons why we sought to move this amendment, and no doubt to press it firmly to a vote, was to bring the proposals into line with
      1520
      the White Paper. That argument has been fully deployed. However, there are other arguments of almost equal importance.
      The first argument concerns the general design and objectives of the Bill and its relevance to "The Regeneration of British Industry". However much we may disagree with the Government's definition of what is required, I do not think that any hon. Member would disagree with the obvious evidence that British industry is at present in a grave state. Indeed, to attribute the reason for that would not be an appropriate subject for this debate. I mention it merely to recognise that it is so.
      Any legislation which comes before the House—this is legislation par excellence—in which industry is involved must be scrutinised to see whether it will help or hinder British industry to recover its economic strength and viability. Much of the discussion in Committee tried to put the Bill and the amendments to its clauses into the context of the question whether it would help or hinder a solution of our existing industrial problem.
      Turning to the question of information and disclosure, will the Under-Secretary comment on the extent to which he sees the disclosure of information under this clause as providing new information which the Government do not possess? This point has been referred to by previous speakers. We must recognise that this information will concern practices within companies or industries which the Government already hold. It is the intention of the Goverment within the planning agreement context to seek agreements with major companies in major sectors of the economy. That is clear. These are sectors of the economy which are already closely involved with the Government and NEDC. The Government no doubt wish to seek planning agreements with the major companies in these sectors. It therefore follows that much of the information for the major sectors of the economy in which the Government are interested is already known. Industry may question why it must provide further information to fulfil much the same purpose. What relationship does the Minister see between NEDC and the information required under this clause?
      The second point concerns the attitude of a company to the information which

      1521
      it holds. Clause 21(2) gives the list of headings under which the Minister may require information to be given. It deals with employment, although we were happy to see, as a result of pressure in Committee, the exclusion of information about individuals. It deals with capital expenditure, capital assets used in the undertaking, the disposal or intended disposal of such assets, the acquisition or intended acquisition of fixed capital assets for use in the undertaking, the productive capacity, the undertaking's output and productivity, the sales of the undertaking's products, exports of those products, and the sales of industrial property owned or used in connection with the undertaking. Any company supplying information under those headings would regard such information as critical.
      Companies can, perhaps, give few indications of what their future plans, other than those related to the acquisition or disposal of assets. They can offer estimates of sales and of products, but those achievements are to a major degree outside their control. A decision to sell or to acquire assets is information of a different kind. Industry is sensitive about the information to be given under Clause 21 and the question of disclosure, and therefore expresses its grave concern.
      The Minister will recognise that an intention to dispose of or acquire an asset is a matter which is acutely sensitive to disclosure. He will recognise that this is information which all companies keep close to themselves. I understand that if the Minister seeks to have information of this kind for the benefit of employees, in so far as relevant trade unions should have access to information of this kind, it is legitimate that the information should be properly assessed before being passed on. We welcome the fact that there is now a power within the Minister to determine whether part or all of such information shall be disclosed. But, without precise knowledge of what are the assets, we must be concerned how such a discussion can take place with representatives of relevant trade unions either in the Ministry or subsequently in the committee that the Minister proposes to set up. That is the difficulty which industry sees in trying to interpret what the Government are about in the clause.
      I return to the question of the scale of information and the degree of involve-
      1522
      ment which the Government see in it. This very day I have attended a meeting of the all-party Wool Textile Group with a delegation representing a complete cross-section of the wool textile industry. We discussed many matters, of which the Under-Secretary of State will be aware, concerning the future of that industry and its problems. It became abundantly clear that one of the big problems of the industry is that the Department of Trade takes one view of the industry's problems and the Department of Industry very likely takes another view, and it is far from easy to get agreement on the part of the Government as a whole on the solution to the industry's problems.
      When we find evidence of practices which indicate that it is difficult to get a uniformity of view from the Government in their interface with a single industry, we understand how doubtful industry must feel in relation to these disclosure powers about the part which it is meant to play and the response made by the Government in dealing with the information.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) said that there were important features of disclosure in which relevant trade unions and employees as a whole should be involved. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) said that we, as an Opposition, wished to be as fully constructive as we could towards a solution. I recognise that industry is a complete partnership between those who manage, those who own, and those who work within it. It is impossible to talk about the two, three, or five sides of industry. Industry has one coherent and collective objective which is the profitable employment of all who work within it.
      When we consider the disclosure clauses, the aspect above all others that we rate as important is that a solution should be found which is based upon consent—that is a phrase which has a familiar ring. It is undesirable to endeavour to set industry against the Government, industry and the Government against relevant trade unions, or the Government and relevant trade unions against industrial management. That way lies total industrial suicide. What we have to do is to get an identity of objective, and to do that we have to approach confidential company information, the disclosure of it to relevant trade

      1523
      unions, the procedure by which it is handled and its relationship to Government planning, as matters which must be seen to be operating together towards the advantage of British industry.
      The theme of consent suggests to us that we cannot enter into the disclosure provisions as presently set out without relating them to planning agreements. Within the context of the Bill and planning agreements, there is at least a clear objective and a clear coming together of company and Government to know the parameters of the information and for what it is to be used. But under Clause 20 that aspect is not related specifically to planning agreements. There is a major gap and it is that gap which Amendment (a), so well moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley), is designed to fill. It is of vital importance to the confidence of British industry that we are seen here to fill it.
      I conclude by reminding the House that the list of aspects of industry covered by Government, ranging from the Price Code to the Employment Protection Bill and the Industry Bill, is massive. If the Government believe that these additional provisions for disclosure are important, they must see that they ask for information that is not duplicated by information they already hold and is not at variance with the information they seek for another aspect of their policy. The Government will have to do their homework to ensure that information required under the Employment Protection Bill, for example, is not deliberately set out in a different way so that it has to be answered by different men in British industry. They must understand that the most costly factor of British industry is not secretarial time but management time. Management time is not being devoted to the productive development of sales for the benefit of all employees if it is being devoted to the compilation of information and its provision to various Government Departments.
      Amendment (a) has the important effect that by relating Amendment No. 76 to planning agreements we relate it to large companies which require to have information from the Government and with which the Government require to enter into planning agreements. The large com-
      1524
      panies, by being so involved, can play a sensible economic rôle in the planning of industrial sectors. To take that rôle away from them would be to leave them in the limbo of what any Minister of State might decide should or should not be disclosed and bring them into the cockpit of petty departmental politics and inter-relations between the relevant unions, politicians and industry. In that direction lies hopeless effort and helpless confusion and we therefore wish to press the amendment firmly.
      Mr. Peter Viggers: Having spent a great deal of time in Committee on another Bill I feel rather like an American at the Court of King Arthur when I come into the Chamber and hear the level of skill and expertise which my hon. Friends have developed in working in Committee on the Bill, and I congratulate them for it.
      I have read the Committee proceedings with great interest. Much work has gone into the subject of planning agreements and disclosure. When that subject was first brought before the House in the Second Reading debate it was a new con-concept and was put before us as such by Government representatives. Since then a great deal has been learnt from discussion with both sides of industry—although I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) that there are more than two sides—and with all people involved in industry, and there is now a body of skill upon which we can draw in deciding how planning agreements should be tackled. Amendment (a) incorporates the best of that body of knowledge.
      Planning agreements are an attempt to bring the time scale of industry in line with the time scale of the Ministry. The time scale of industrial concerns is already long, and it needs to be. Above the desk of the Secretary of State for industry there should be a sign saying "Don't just do something, sit there". The Government are less good at taking a long-term view than is industry because the Government are controlled in the last resort by Ministers who, as we have seen, come and go.
      The Government have come under pressure as the Bill has progressed. They have taken heed of the fact that there is a deep well of suspicion in industry. They

      1525
      have taken note of the fact that industry suspects that trade unions may require planning agreements to be changed so as to take account of trade union demands. It is not necessary at this stage to consider whether or not industry's suspicions are justified, but the fact is that suspicion exists and note should be taken of it.
      6.0 p.m.
      The Government have rightly come under ruthless and searching analysis by my hon. Friends in Committee. The Government have taken note of their requirements and of the pressure that has been exerted, but they have yielded in a manner which fails to achieve the original purpose. There is still retained in the hands of a Socialist Government the worst features of the original plan. There is a great danger that when it is not possible to meet two conflicting views the Government will broaden the discretion that lies in the hands of the Secretary of State and then give assurances to both sides of industry that all will be well. In so doing the Secretary of State is left with wide powers which increases the suspicion that is felt within industry that the legislation will be used against industry's best interests.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), in a wide-reaching measure proposed a year or so ago, very wisely decided that a group of Conservative Members should link themselves with specific industries. Over the last year I have been linked with the electronics industry. The companies in that industry are united in their desire to see a Government of either party achieve a more stable long-term approach to industry. As one travels around the country meeting people in the industry one is criticised not as a Conservative or, heaven forbid, as a Socialist, but as a politician—namely, for not having a longer-term approach to industry.
      The giving of the most sweeping discretion to the Secretary of State increases the scope within which Government policy may vary and does not meet the need. The old complaints about planning agreements remain. There is to be compulsory disclosure, but no real advantage is to be given by the Government to companies. The concession embodied in Amendment No. 76 is flabby and, on balance, not
      1526
      particularly helpful. The Government must come off the fence on this issue.
      The amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley) completes the logical measure of linking the information of planning agreements to the disclosure of information. I hope that if necessary we shall pursue the amendment to a Division.
      Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: Unlike what most Labour Members seem to imagine are the characteristics of lawyers, I am a very simple man and I like simple law. One of the things which dismays me about modern legislation, of which the Bill is an outstandingly typical example, is its complexity on the one hand and its meaninglessness on the other. Nothing which has been added on Report does anything to detract from those two features.
      For example, in Amendment No. 79, 13 simple words have been replaced by no fewer than 35 lines, none of which, in my opinion, means anything, unless it is an attempt to extend the work of the lawyers. Of course, many hon. Members spend much of their time attempting to allege that they wish to see lawyers out of work.
      The principle behind the proposal to which I object is that it involves a new burden on productive industry and on private industry. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will tell the House how many requirements in terms of the supplying of information have been put upon ordinary firms in the past year. Of course, the requirement will vary because much depends on whether the firm makes thread, jam or shoes, for example, but there is a plethora of required information such as the census of industrial this and manpower that.
      I return to the theme that was set yesterday, namely, that so long as we have a continuing division in industry large or small, whether it be productive industry, private industry or public industry, an increasing burden is placed upon it by Government and a smaller and smaller number of people are actually producing. It is only by producing that we shall be able to solve our problems.
      One major fallacy is the assumption that if we can find a scapegoat we shall do better in future. At present there is the feeling that if only we knew the

      1527
      secret of how Jack made those beans grow taller we would be able to grow tall beans. That is fallacious. It is a scapegoat, an excuse and a paranoic fantasy. There is the idea that if a mass of additional information is provided by British industry, thereby enlarging Government Departments, we shall all of a sudden see the regeneration of British industry. That is a major fantasy in British public life. If, tomorrow, no firm had to fill out another form I think that the regeneration would be likely to start. Members such as the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) display a paranoic fantasy when they suggest that people are keeping things from them and that if they had the information we would all live happily ever after.
      One of the particular lunacies of the Bill—the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) pointed this out very clearly in Committee—is to imagine that the information which is considered necessary to further national economic policies, whatever they may be—they change a good deal and they do not have much substance even when they have been changed—should also be passed on to the ordinary working man so as to make him feel, as the hon. Member for Basset-law said, that he will not lose his job tomorrow. That is just so much humbug or hypocrisy.
      Dr. Jeremy Bray: If someone thinks that there is a lion under his bed it is quite a good idea for him to look under the bed to see whether a lion is there. The requirement to disclose information can, in the same way, clear up many fears and anxieties.
      Mr. Fairbairn: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman, but the number of lions proportional to the number of beds on which we lie is, as I understand it, very small. To require everyone who ever lies on a bed to fill up a form describing the number of lions or other beasts which may or may not be there is typical of Government thinking. There may be a lion under the hon. Gentleman's bed. Indeed, there are many things in Motherwell that you do not find in other parts of the country. That is particularly so when there are Englishmen such as
      1528
      the hon. Gentleman representing constituencies in Scotland. It may well be that we should put a unicorn under his bed and not a lion.
      I do not believe that the regeneration of British industry is likely to be achieved by imagining that one of the beasts of the Royal Coat of Arms is lying under every bed and that we should spend our time looking underneath every bed in case a beast is present. That is a concept that leads to a greatly enlarged bureaucracy and a lot of useless information, although it is thought by some that such information will lead us to live happily ever after.
      The feeling that additional information will solve all our problems stems from the phenomenon of secrecy. I would not have thought that any sector of industry would be unwilling to supply an intelligent answer to any Minister who asks for it. If a Minister wants to put together a national economic policy I cannot imagine one company which would not be willing to give him short and intelligent information in a talk or in a letter when there is an overall legislative requirement.
      It is wrong to make it a legislative requirement. Everything is becoming increasingly compulsory; legislation is extending, as is the bureaucracy. If we want to see the regeneration of British industry, let us not for ever take the view "We shall get on with it only when we have the information, and when we have more people working on more facts, if we can get them". It is a completely fallacious concept and one which the House would do well to overthrow.
      In the words of the White Paper, we want to see a closer, clearer and more positive relationship. If there is one thing which would serve to ensure a better relationship, it would be to abolish paper. It will be most unfortunate if these provisions—which are even more complicated than were the previous ones, although there are some concessions—go through.
      Will the Minister please reduce the compulsion on industry and also cut down the number of people who are undertaking utterly useless work in asking industries for unnecessary information? That information is dealt with by equally useless people who are paid by the State

      1529
      vast amounts of money to make false calculations. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot get his sums right from week to week in the management of the economy, and if the Post Office cannot get its estimates right from week to week, is it not facile to pretend that the requirement that industry should produce innumerable facts and figures and pass them on to the Department of Industry will have any useful deductive influence on the future pattern of our trade success? I believe that it will not have any effect on the situation. I believe that this requirement is fallacious, fictitious and wrong.
      Mr. J. W. Rooker: I should like to take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers). He said that the motto on desks in industry should be "Don't just do something—sit there." The hon. Gentleman put that across as a policy which would be beneficial to industry. We have only to remember the era when the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) was in the Department of Trade and Industry in the early 1970s. The hon. Gentleman considered that contact between industry and Government should consist of the Government supplying all the money and dishing out propaganda and exhortations, but that the Government should have no truck with industry itself and that any form of involvement amounts to gross interference and should not happen.
      Mr. Viggers: The point I was seeking to make was quite different. Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that successive Secretaries of State and Chancellors of the Exchequer have so changed the rates of tax, investment allowances, VAT, hire purchase and credit arrangements that they have destroyed the firmer framework within which industry seeks to operate, and indeed have distorted it in relation to the capacity of industry to make its own plans?
      6.15 p.m.
      Mr. Rooker: We are today discussing the disclosure of information. What is crucial is the use to which that information is put. I was only leading off about the so-called voluntary laissez-faire attitude of the Department of Industry which, so it is argued, should not be
      1530
      expected to take too great an interest in the way industry works, but should merely dole out the cash and approach matters via propaganda and exhortation. Surely that attitude is utterly wrong. The whole point of the requirement for the disclosure of information is the necessity to make the very best use of the facts disclosed. Proper use of information will enable us to pick up the failures which industry suffered in the period 1966–70 and to examine the rôle of Government involvement.
      I would be the first to admit that in earlier periods of Labour government the system had its flaws. We all remember the famous phrase the "white heat of the technological revolution". That was a much-abused phrase and soon fell into complete disuse before Labour left office in 1970. The reason for much of the failure lay in the fact that in seeking to make effective use of our policies the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation was not a very effective instrument. We are now putting that situation right, by this Bill which provides for planning agreements, disclosure of information and the National Enterprise Board. Therefore, we are building the instruments for the implementation of policy.
      The other reason why we failed was that we did not select the right subjects for Government involvement. We selected some good subjects but also some bad ones. This situation arose only because of insufficient advice the Government received—or information which they did not receive—because industry was not known for its alacrity to come forward with information. The previous Labour Government pumped millions of pounds into highly sophisticated products on which the return was low, but there are examples where little money was spent with a much greater return. I refer, for example, to the evolution of the technology of tribology. The public expenditure involved in that technique was only £2 million, but the return over the years has amounted to £200 million a year. The British Steel Corporation has made use of the new technology and has achieved encouraging results. That was only a part of the activity in earlier years and it succeeded, but the rest of the plan failed because we did not build the instruments and did not have recourse to the information which firms had within their control.

      1531
      The Government agencies require information on which to base future policy decisions and put forward initiatives. If the information is not used for that purpose I do not know what we are all doing here this afternoon. These provisions are not a sop to any side of industry or to anybody in the House. We shall make use of them. We must try to pull industry screaming into the twentieth century. A good part of industry is still not involved in the twentieth century and does not even make use of known techniques and technologies. The cost of putting these matters into practice is small. We do not know how far these industries have gone along the road because we do not have access to the information.
      We are paying the price for not taking action in earlier years. We have to pick up the reins, but we have not much time. It is not just another load of form filling. I do not think that industry will run away from these requirements. Most firms will see it as a great benefit. Industry should be knocking at the door of the Department of Trade in Victoria Street and saying "Why do you not ask for the information so that you will then know our requirements? You will know what we need." That is what we are talking about. It is fatuous to say that VAT and other matters are on all fours with this requirement. The main thing to remember is that we must make the very best use of all the information that comes to hand.
      Mr. David Crouch: I wish to make a brief speech. During the last two days, as we have entered on the Report stage, I have asked myself, what is the good of having a Report stage at all for a Bill which we have considered so closely for 100 hours in Committee? Of course, it is of value to the new Secretary of State, the new Minister of State and the new Under-Secretary of State. Indeed, it is valuable to those hon. Members who did not take part in the Committee proceedings. That has been illustrated by a number of speakers this afternoon and not least by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who has brought a breath of fresh air into our debate. He has expressed the view from the shop floor, and I think I am right in saying that he has done so on
      1532
      more than one occasion when we have discussed industrial matters.
      We are apt, when on Report, to go to sleep. It is all words, words, words. I cannot think why we are having this Report stage. I know that during the last two sittings of the Committee the Secretary of State promised that he would read through the report of the whole of the proceedings, and I know that he has done so. I have great respect for him because he has been so diligent in his study of the observations made on both sides of the Committee. He has considered points of view expressed from behind him, from in front of him, from his supporters, from those who criticise him, from the back benches behind him, from the Opposition back benches and from the Opposition Front Bench. He has heard the view of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr who has asked what we are going to do with all this information. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) has pointed out, are we not asking for too much information?
      In my view the Secretary of State has dressed the Bill up. He has read it, but he has added a great deal that is not really of great moment. With the greatest respect to him, in my view he has dressed up Clause 20 and the following clauses that deal with the disclosure of information, so that they look, perhaps, more respectable. For example, instead of being a vigorous young girl in a tee shirt and jeans it has become a prim and proper young girl wearing a long dress at Ascot.
      Is the Bill now supposed to be that much more presentable to all sides of industry because it has been dressed up and because it has been given a grand presence? Amendment No. 76 does have a rather grand sounding introduction. The amendment to the amendment, which my colleagues have proposed does try to bring some reality to the situation and to limit the amount of information that will have to be generated and received by the Department of Industry in future.
      I know that the Secretary of State and his Ministers are capable of understanding what we are talking about now and what we shall be talking about later. However, what is the position of the officers in the Department? Are we not

      1533
      putting too great a burden on men who are not really equipped to accept this information? I am not saying that all civil servants are incapable of accepting and interpreting, in micro-economic terms or less, what will come to them in future, but we are inviting industry now to deliver a great deal of information which has got to be taken on board by the Department.
      We know that the Fulton Committee Report on the Civil Service has not been implemented. There is far too little movement of civil servants into industry for attachment or secondment for two or three years. It does happen, because I have met such people. I have met assistant secretaries working in industry and I have also met men from industry who are attached to the Civil Service Departments, but I have met far too few on far too few occasions. It has not happened on enough levels. The Government are inviting and encouraging a much greater work load for the civil servants who are to advise and to interpret this information for them.
      The intention has now been made quite clear by the Secretary of State that it is for the further study of national economic policies—for sectoral planning. I do not disagree with any of this, if we can do it. However, I agree with my own colleagues who propose the amendment to the amendment that we must limit it, we must make it possible, and we must confine it to those companies that enter into planning agreements.
      What is the point of having a Report stage if we do not make any progress towards accepting some of the sensible and good ideas that are being put forward? We are trying to make the Government's burden lighter. There is nothing devious about what we are suggesting. We are all concerned about the regeneration of British industry. As has been said by so many hon. Members on both sides of the House this afternoon and in Committee, we are concerned that there should be disclosure of information to all employees. We are concerned that the trade unions should be taken into confidence and assist in the study of all problems of industrial management and their solution. We are concerned that the Government should be brought in and that there should be confident, proper sectoral planning and
      1534
      the use of our resources. We know that our resources, whether they are financial, labour or mechanical, are limited. All hon. Members are concerned for British industry to make progress.
      However, I suggest to the Government that in these last few days when we have a chance of considering the Bill they should not overload the Government machine so that it cannot cope. I do not think that the Department will be able to cope with the amount of paper and information that will come its way. I ask the Secretary of State to listen to some of the sensible—I hope he agrees that they are sensible—suggestions for trying to lighten the Government's burden and to make the task of the nation easier.
      The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Dr. Bray) has made many valuable contributions during the months we have considered the Bill. As a former distinguished Minister and a technical man he put forward in Committee some very constructive amendments which have gone through and which are in the Bill, requiring the Government to give information back to industry. Industry can cope. Industry has the people who can take on board all the information that would be given to it by the Government. I shall seek to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, later, when we come to some other amendments which would delete those very things which the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw has sought to put into the Bill.
      Mr. Rooker: The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) made the interesting point that industry has got the people to take on board the information that the Government would give it. Will not the same people be used to give the Government information from industry?
      Mr. Crouch: We can express the point of view that industry has enough people to produce information. Indeed, I was not making the point that industry does not have the people to produce the information, because industry today does have people who produce a great deal of paper, as well as many studies, reports and so on. It has been suggested by some of my hon. Friends that, perhaps, it would be better if we did not employ so many people on the clerical side to do this sort of work. I agree. There are

      1535
      not enough people trained in understanding industrial problems in the Department of Industry who can take on board the full significance of the information they will receive.
      I am sorry that the Government at this stage will seek to remove those valuable additions which, at the instance of the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw, were put into the Bill in Committee.
      6.30 p.m.
      Mr. Kaufmann: We have listened to nine speeches from the Conservative Opposition today, in addition to the more relevant speeches from the Liberal Party and the Scottish National Party. We are still totally unacquainted with what the Conservative attitude is toward the information disclosure provisions in the Bill, and whether Conservatives are in favour of there being information disclosure provisions, as distinct from whether they favour these specific provisions. As on practically every subject that the House debates at present, there is no clear policy on this matter from the Conservative Party—which as the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) has described it, is "the party of the southern shires".
      We have had carping criticism of detail which, these days, passes for the rôle of the official Opposition. For example, we have had complaints about the cumbersome procedure in which companies, the Government and unions would be involved if either the original provisions of the Bill had gone through unamended or the provisions of the Bill, as we are seeking to amend them, were enacted.
      We have had complaints from the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), who has courteously apologised to me for his inability to be present for my reply, about the burdens that may be placed on industry if the information disclosure provisions remain in the Bill.
      I hope that companies looking at what is undoubtedly a cumbersome procedure now, just as it was a cumbersome procedure in the Bill as originally framed, will find that, rather than go through that cumbersome procedure, it will be more satisfactory for them to provide the information voluntarily.
      1536
      In any case, there seems to be some dichotomy on the Opposition benches. We have complaints from the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds and the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) about the fearsome burdens which will be imposed on hard-pressed industry, with extra paper and other kinds of work, if these information disclosure provisions are enacted and implemented. At the same time, the hon. Member for Ton-bridge and Malling (Mr. Stanley) intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) and said that companies were not reluctant to disclose the information. One argument throughout the proceedings on the Bill has been that companies are ready to provide the information. If they provide it voluntarily, the amount of paperwork involved in getting together the information and communicating it to the Government and trade unions will be less than if the information requirements in the Bill are fulfilled.
      We are told again and again by some idealists opposite, who demonstrate their idealism by declaring their interests as they rise to speak, that industry is altruistic and wishes to co-operate with the Government and workers. That is well and good, and very satisfactory. That completely conforms with the ardent hope of my right hon. and hon. Friends who preceded my right hon. Friend and myself in the Department that the information disclosure provisions will never have to be used, because all companies will flock to provide voluntarily the information which the Government and trade unions so justifiably require.
      Incidentally, the hon. Member for Ton-bridge and Malling is misinformed in contending that the Bill, while aimed at industrial democracy, does not mention it. Clause 2(2)(e) mentions it. The hon. Gentleman seemed to imply that the Bill did not contain any reference to industrial democracy.
      Mr. Stanley: The Minister obviously did not clearly hear what I was saying. I said that there was no reference to industrial democracy in the disclosure provisions of the Bill.
      Mr. Kaufman: I apologise if that is what the hon. Gentleman said rather than what I thought I heard him say. It is not

      1537
      a great point. It may have been a slip of his tongue rather than a slip of my ear. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) ought not to mutter away like that. He should come out and say in the open whatever irrelevancies he has to make.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) brought before the House a vivid example of the brutal effect upon workers of a sudden closure, particularly in a part of the country where there is not overmuch industrial employment. I think that the House was indebted to him for bringing the plight of those workers to its attention. My hon. Friend has explained why it is not possible for him to be here for my reply. At the same time, he appeared to feel that the disclosure provisions of a Bill of this kind would have helped the workers in the factory in Gains-borough about whom he was so rightly concerned.
      Neither the Bill as it will stand, if amended, nor the Bill as originally drafted would have been of use to those workers. It would not have provided them with the information that they wanted in the timescale that my hon. Friend thought was necessary. But there is another Bill going through this House now which would provide those workers with the kind of information that they required—namely, the Employment Protection Bill. Under Clauses 88 and 89 of that Bill, every employer has a statutory duty to consult trade unions and to notify the Secretary of State if he proposes to dismiss as redundant 100 employees at one establishment within 90 days or 10 employees at one establishment within 30 days. If he fails to carry out that duty to consult the unions, he can be required to pay compensation to those who are dismissed and, within 90 days, the Secretary of State can require such further information as he considers necessary.
      I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw will be relieved to know that the Government are providing for the kind of situation about which he was so rightly concerned. However, this Bill as drafted would not and was not intended to provide for such a situation.
      My hon. Friend decried what he described as voluntary arrangements. My
      1538
      hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Dr. Bray) also was not as contented as he might have been with voluntary arrangements. Both my hon. Friends implied that voluntary arrangements, as we now seek to have them, are different from what was intended by my right hon. Friend, the present Secretary of State for Energy, when he introduced the Bill earlier this year. But my right hon. Friend and his then colleagues repeatedly made clear that they have always sought to have voluntary arrangements. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw is Parliamentary Secretary to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. Therefore, he will be aware of the letters sent out to many companies and Members of Parliament by my right hon. Friend in which he said that the disclosure powers contained in Clauses 20 to 23 of the Bill were reserve powers which need not be used if the consultative arrangements which exist within a company already provide for the satisfactory provisions of this information.
      My hon. Friend would also have been present on Second Reading when my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), then Minister of State, winding up for the Government, said:
      "I emphasise that it is not the Government's wish to base relationships between workers and management in industry upon the use of compulsory information powers. Where a company has good arrangements for informing and consulting its workers through their trade unions on the formation of its plans, the use of compulsory powers would be irrelevant. Arrangements entered into on a voluntary basis are much more satisfactory than the use of a statute."—[Official Report, 18th February 1975; Vol. 886, c. 1246.]
      Again, my hon. Friends the Members for Bassetlaw, and Motherwell and Wishaw, were members of the Committee. Therefore, they would have heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy repeatedly say,
      "It has been made clear that these are intended to be reserve powers. … It will, of course, be a reserve power … this is only a reserve power."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 6th May 1975; c. 1403, 1431, 1503.]
      My right hon. Friend was there talking about the information disclosure powers in the Bill.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), then

      1539
      Under-Secretary of State, again in Standing Committee, repeated,
      "We are concerned only with a reserve power. … The compulsory disclosure provisions are a reserve power and if we are able to obtain the information voluntarily, which is far preferable from the Government's point of view, these powers will never be used. They will never be operated so long as there is complete willingness voluntarily to provide the information the Government need for their economic planning purposes."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 6th May 1975; c. 1472, 1444.]
      It has never been the intention that the Government should simply seize this information. It has always been the wish of the Government that the atmosphere in industry should be such that the information would be provided voluntarily. What we provided in the Bill as originally drafted was a back-up power. What we continue to have is a back-up power, even though we have varied the nature of that power.
      The hon. Member for Colne Valley and the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Mr. Stanley) both spoke to the Opposition amendment to the Government amendment, which would link the disclosure provisions to planning agreements. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch seemed to imply that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton, as Minister of State or otherwise, had insisted upon a link between planning agreements and the disclosure powers. If the hon. Gentleman had seen my hon. Friend on television in "Midweek" last week he would have heard him insist, when Mr. Vincent Hanna allowed him to say anything, that as far as he was concerned the disclosure powers and planning agreements had never been linked.
      Mr. Hal Miller: I based my remarks on an article in the Guardian newspaper, written by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) in which his attitude was made quite plain. It was also quoted in Committee, and I gather that the Under-Secretary has familiarised himself with the proceedings in Committee.
      Mr. Kaufman: The Conservative Party lives in the past. It goes back to records and quotations of months ago rather than to what has been said on recent dates—unlike the hon. Member
      1540
      for Arundel (Mr. Marshall), who misleads the House in every possible way by saying that the Government have entered into commitments and then wriggling out of it when corrected.
      Mr. Fairbairn: Will the hon. Gentleman, with all the authority of a member of the Government, advise us how long we should rely upon their word before regarding it as out of date?
      Mr. Kaufman: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for conferring upon me some authority. I have always regarded any weight that I carried as so exiguous as not to be worth mentioning.
      I come now to the Opposition amendments, and I say flatly that they are not acceptable to the Government. They seek to link the information disclosure provisions to planning agreements. However, they do so in a way which is quite unacceptable. It would enable the powers to require information disclosure to be used only when a company has said that it is willing to conclude such an agreement. But an essential part of a planning agreement is that information should be disclosed to Government and to workers. It is therefore futile if the powers may only be used in relation to companies which are already prepared to do voluntarily what the powers would require by statute. It would confine the powers to companies where they are not needed.
      Even in connection with planning agreements, the powers need to be wider than provided by this amendment. If a company refuses to enter a planning agreement—as it is free to do—the Government reserve the right to obtain information for the Government and for the company's workers. This is as we set out in the White Paper, to which Opposition Members appear peculiarly addicted. The Government said that the Bill would
      "provide reserve powers to require the relevant companies to provide the Government and the workers in the firms with the information needed to formulate and monitor a planning agreement."
      We made it clear that the provision of information to workers would be through trade union representatives. It is therefore necessary, as the Bill provides, for information to be disclosed not only with

      1541
      the consent of companies, but also if necessary without their consent.
      I have discussed this amendment in the context of planning agreements. It is of course possible that the information disclosure provisions might be used in a context other than that of planning agreements: to discover, for example, how the plans of a particular company interact with others in a sector; so that the Government can introduce a Section 8 scheme; or perhaps to learn more about a key company about which anxieties are felt. This is marginally relevant to what my hon. Friend the Member for Basset-law was discussing. Then it would be totally inappropriate to make the use of the powers dependent on the willingness of a company to enter into a planning agreement.
      It is for these reasons that we have separated them. It is for these reasons that we cannot accept these amendments. It is for these reasons that we ask the House to accept the Government's amendment, unamended.
      6.45 p.m.
      Mr. Tom King: We have had a wide-ranging debate on disclosure, and in this stage of our proceedings we move to consider a whole series of clauses dealing with disclosure. The Under-Secretary was good enough at the beginning of the debate to take the opportunity to state the Government's attitude to the new arrangements for disclosure.
      The more that I listen to this whole complex of disclosure arrangements, the more difficult I find it to decide whether we are discussing the biggest non-event ever to come before Parliament or a major disaster. It is difficult to decide whether all these clauses really add up to anything at all or whether they will produce all the problems which many of us fear.
      What is significant when one looks at the provisions is that there are five clauses. In one Government amendment, 15 words have been left out. In a new amendment, they have been replaced by 35 lines. The scale of the Government's amendment adds yet more complexity, and the amendments are all in relation to one sentence in paragraph 11 of the White Paper.
      1542
      Planning agreements themselves are covered by 11 paragraphs in the White Paper. They are dismissed in one clause in the Bill. This small sentence, slipped into the White Paper without very many people noticing it, has been the subject of all this contention and the subject of five of the most complex clauses to have come before Parliament for a very long time.
      I have great respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley), who is one of the few Members to understand how these disclosure provisions will work. I am tempted to challenge any Government supporters who can claim to understand how they will work to rise in their places and be counted. I wonder how many of them could answer questions about the way in which notices will be served under Clause 21, and the rest of it. Indeed, I would admire the Secretary of State if he could say honestly that he understood the complexity of what is happening.
      I have to declare an interest, past and present, in that I worked for years in manufacturing industry. I do not find it difficult to imagine how I would feel if I were back in industry and received a copy of this legislation with the message that this was now the procedure which had to be followed.
      It is interesting to debate this matter today, bearing in mind that it was only yesterday that Government supporters below the Gangway rose in horror at the suggestion of a statutory approach to the control of wages and said how voluntary arrangements were so much more satisfactory. They fail to understand the obverse of the argument which is now being advanced. Our objection is that the Government are insisting on statutory enforcement without giving a voluntary system a real chance to work. Yesterday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he would allow a week for a voluntary system to work and that, if it did not, it would have to be statutory.
      Today, those same Government supporters say that the only way these procedures can possibly work is with statutory reserve powers. They appear to be oblivious to any suggestion that in

      1543
      another provision, the statutory method may not be the best way.
      I agree with the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Dr. Bray), who said that this was a real disincentive to the voluntary approach. If the Minister has read all the Official Reports and the Committee reports, as he claims to have done, he will know that I have frequently challenged the Government in Committee to give evidence of one occasion on which the Department has asked a company for information which would have been helpful within the context set out in this new clause, and in the Government amendment, and where the company has been unwilling to give it. It would be very helpful if the Minister would intervene at this point if he is able to do that. It may be unfair to put that question to him, but he will know that it was put to his predecessors in Committee and they were unable to give one example of information having been declined which could justify the taking of reserve powers, which the Government insist on doing.
      It is generally known—I have admitted it—that when in office the Conservative Government were having informal planning discussions with major industrial companies, and it is no secret that companies were not unwilling to have these discussions, because there are many matters of common interest on which companies may seek information from the Government, and wish to discuss with the Government their plans for the future. In this situation there is an onus, which the Government have totally failed to discharge, to prove the need for such reserve statutory powers—because we all know that Governments have real powers of patronage order placement, and other procurement powers. In the present situation—some of us may regret the extent of it—Governments already have considerable powers without going for this statutory power. A point well made by the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw was that it will damage the voluntary relationship between Government and industry. He said if there is a voluntary situation Government and industry may agree but if, after that, they have to get into a formal situation, companies will say "If we have to get to the crunch, let us get to the formal
      1544
      situation" so that opportunities to develop a voluntary basis of confidence and trust, which is much the best way, are lost.
      Sometimes the Government will want more information than they can get under the statutory obligation, and any company that is subject to statutory notice will make sure that it gives just that information and no more, which will damage the useful interchange which could take place to the benefit of the company and the Government.
      Dr. Bray: If I gave the hon. Gentleman the impression he has quoted, plainly I misled the House. I said the voluntary notice introduced an unnecessary legal complication to the preliminary soundings and that when initiating disclosure into company or planning agreement discussions, as I put it, the Secretary of State might like to consider whether that preliminary context was not best kept entirely formal, so that when the statutory procedure was embarked upon it would be embarked upon as a stage, as the provision came from the Standing Committee on the Bill.
      Mr. King: I am not sure whether that is an intervention in my speech or an attempt to rebuild a bridge with the Secretary of State, but he said in my hearing that the voluntary nature of the preliminary discussions would be damaging and that companies would be inclined to come to the crunch and get the formal notice. If I am incorrect in my understanding, I withdraw that.
      I do not know how great is the Under-Secretary's understanding of industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) suggested there were hordes of people able to provide this information. He knows that it will be a load on industry. The Bolton Committee on Small Businesses, set up under a Labour Government, reported that the amount of form-filling required was a major problem for small businesses. This is a problem for large businesses as well. The Under-Secretary must know that one of the big grievances of people working on the shop floor is the growth of office staff and unproductive overheads. By this disclosure provision hon. Members opposite will add to that unproductive overhead. The staff who will be involved in completing these forms will be an addition to the load. It is not an individual

      1545
      item. It may not be significant in itself but it is part of a cumulative load. Many workers on the shop floor complain that the number of office workers seems to grow. They may not realise that Government legislation is contributing to that.
      We believe that this Government amendment is cosmetic. It does not make must difference, for the power remains at the total discretion of the Secretary of State, whether he does anything with it, whether he decides to act or not to act. We believe our amendment would have some small benefit. It would mean that what was said in the White Paper was actually carried out by the Government. It would actually mean that we had enabled the Prime Minister to keep his word to the House of Commons. That may not be thought important. It may be thought of as something we should not regard too highly. It may seem odd that we on the Opposition side of the
      House should be left as the trustees of the Prime Minister's good word, but if one reads the White Paper and the Official Report, and the Prime Minister's clear pledge in the House of Commons, one sees that there might be an argument that standing by the Prime Minister's word had some justification and that there was some small case for supporting our amendment.
      We happen to believe that the White Paper was right in the first place and that the present clauses are wrong. We happen to believe that the Prime Minister was right to say the White Paper should be followed, which is why we shall support our amendment in the Lobby.
      Question put, That the amendment to the proposed amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 169, Noes 214.

      Division No. 264.]

      AYES

      [6.55 p.m.

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Mather, Carol

      Arnold, Tom

      Goodhart, Philip

      Mawby, Ray

      Boker, Kenneth

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Beith, A. J.

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Benyon, W.

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Biffen, John

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Mills, Peter

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Grist, Ian

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Hall, Sir John

      Molyneaux, James

      Bottomley, Peter

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Monro, Hector

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Brittan, Leon

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Brotherton, Michael

      Hannam, John

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Neubert, Michael

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Hawkins, Paul

      Newton, Tony

      Burden, F. A.

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Normanton, Tom

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Heseltine, Michael

      Nott, John

      Carlisle, Mark

      Holland, Philip

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Hordern, Peter

      Penhaligon, David

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      percival, Ian

      Clegg, Walter

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Cope, John

      Hurd, Douglas

      Raison, Timothy

      Cordle, John H.

      Jessel, Toby

      Rathbone, Tim

      Cormack, Patrick

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Crouch, David

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Crowder, F. P.

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Kimball, Marcus

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Durant, Tony

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Rocs, William (Londonderry)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Knox, David

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Elliott, Sir William

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Emery, Peter

      Lawson, Nigel

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Eyre, Reginald

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Shepherd, Colin

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Lloyd, Ian

      Shersby, Michael

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Loveridge, John

      Silvester, Fred

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Sims, Roger

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      McCusker, H.

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Speed, Keith

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Spence, John

      Fry, Peter

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

      Marten, Neil

      Sproat, lain

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      Mates, Michael

      Stainton, Keith

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      Wlnterton, Nicholas

      Stanley, John

      Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Younger, Hon George

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Stokes, John

      Viggers, Peter

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

      Mr. Richard Luce.

      Tebbit, Norman

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      NOES

      Allaun, Frank

      Golding, John

      Park, George

      Anderson, Donald

      Gould, Bryan

      Parker, John

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Gourlay, Harry

      Parry, Robert

      Ashton, Joe

      Graham, Ted

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Prescott, John

      Atkinson, Norman

      Grocott, Bruce

      Radice, Giles

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Reid, George

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Harper, Joseph

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Bates, Alf

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Hatton, Frank

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Bishop, E. S.

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Rooker, J. W.

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Henderson, Douglas

      Roper, John

      Boardman, H.

      Hooley, Frank

      Rose, Paul B.

      Booth, Albert

      Horam, John

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Sandelson, Neville

      Bradley, Tom

      Hughes. Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Selby, Harry

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Buchan, Norman

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Buchanan, Richard

      Hunter, Adam

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Campbell, Ian

      Janner, Greville

      Sitlars, James

      Canavan, Dennis

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Silverman, Julius

      Cant, R. B.

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Skinner, Dennis

      Carmichael, Neil

      Johnson. James (Hull West)

      Small, William

      Carter, Ray

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Snape, Peter

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Cartwright, John

      Judd, Frank

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

      Kelley, Richard

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Kerr, Russell

      Stoddart, David

      Coleman, Donald

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Stott, Roger

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Lamble, David

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Corbett, Robin

      Lamond, James

      Swain, Thomas

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Crawford. Douglas

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Thompson, George

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Thome, Stan (Preston South)

      Cryer, Bob

      Litterick, Tom

      Tierney, Sydney

      Dalyell, Tam

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Tinn, James

      Davidson, Arthur

      Loyden, Eddie

      Tomlinson, John

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Luard, Evan

      Tuck, Raphael

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Varley, Rt Hon Erie G.

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Walnwright, Edwin (Deame V)

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds W)

      MacCormick, Iain

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Delargy, Hugh

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Ward, Michael

      Dempsey, James

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Watkins, David

      Doig, Peter

      Maclennan, Robert

      Watt, Hamish

      Dormand, J. D.

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Weetch, Ken

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      McNamara, Kevin

      Wellbeloved, James

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Madden, Max

      Welsh, Andrew

      Eadie, Alex

      Magee, Bryan

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Edge, Geoff

      Mahon, Simon

      White, James (Pollok)

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Whitlock, William

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Marquand, David

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Evans,Ioan (Aberdare)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

      Millan, Bruce

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Flannery, Martin

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Woodall, Alec

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Woof, Robert

      Ford, Ben

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Forrester, John

      Noble, Mike

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Oakes, Gordon

      Freeson, Reginald

      Ogden, Eric

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Orbach, Maurice

      Mr. James A. Dunn and

      George, Bruce

      Padley, Walter

      Miss Margaret Jackson.

      Ginsburg, David

      Palmer, Arthur

      Question accordingly negatived
      Amendment agreed to.
      The Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Eric Varley): I beg to move Amendment No. 77, in page 14, line 17 after 'undertaking', insert 'wholly or mainly'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this we can also discuss Government Amendments Nos. 78 and 79 with Amendment (a) to subsection (ii) to leave out 'a representative of each relevant trade union' and insert 'employee representatives', and Amendments (b) and (d) to (i) similarly worded; Government Amendments Nos. 80 to 82, with Amendment (a) to subsection (1E) to leave out 'a representative of each relevant trade union' and insert 'all employees' and a similarly worded Amendment (b); Government Amendments Nos. 85 to 88; Government Amendment No. 97, with Amendment (a) to subsection (2A) to leave out 'a representative of each relevant trade union' and insert 'employee representatives' and a similarly worded Amendment (b); Government Amendment No. 100; Government Amendment No. 177; Amendment No. 184, in Clause 22, page 15, line 36, leave out 'a representative of each relevant trade union' and insert 'employee representatives'; Amendment No. 185, in page 15, line 36, leave out 'a representative of each relevant trade union' and insert 'all employees and shareholders';
      Amendment No. 170, in page 15, line 36, at end insert:
      'or the senior elected representative of each category of employees in an undertaking where trade unions represent only a minority, or none, of the workforce';
      and Government Amendment No. 104, in page 15, line 44, leave out 'person required to furnish it' and insert 'company or companies concerned'.
      Mr. Varley: I will deal briefly with Amendments No. 77 and 78 and then turn to what may be regarded as the more controversial amendments. The effect of these first two amendments is as follows. The Government have stated that the information powers are intended to apply to manufacturing industries alone. In Committee it was pointed out that the phrase "engaged in manufacturing industry" might allow some marginal movement into manufacturing to lead to the use of the disclosure powers. The Government have, therefore, brought forward these amendments to restrict the information powers
      1550
      to undertakings which are "wholly or mainly" engaged in manufacturing industry.
      We are conscious that this might, if narrowly interpreted, lead to some businesses which, on a commonsense basis, are undoubtedly manufacturing businesses being excluded from the powers. To guard against this, we are proposing elsewhere to amend the definition of "manufacturing" so that it includes activities which are a necessary part of the manufacturing business—for example, research and development on the products made within the business. I am confident that these provisions will do what we want; namely, confine the powers to manufacturing businesses.
      We also wish to amend the Bill by referring to "a group of companies" rather than, as the Bill originally specified, a company and a subsidiary. This will cover the business which is carried on not by one company or one subsidiary but by a group of subsidiaries—perhaps co-subsidiaries of a foreign parent.
      I will reserve my comments on the amendments to Government Amendments Nos. 79 to 83 until I have heard what hon. Members have to say in moving them. The effect of the Government amendments is not easy to grasp, and it would probably be most helpful for me to explain the procedure that will follow if these amendments are accepted. In part, they are technical, but they also represent changes to Clause 20 and are intended to make its provisions more flexible, worth while and certainly more effective.
      The procedure will be that the Minister will act only in relation to an undertaking which makes a significant contribution to an important sector of manufacturing industry when he considers that information should be provided both to the Minister and to representatives of relevant trade unions. I know there are amendments to change this procedure, but it is the Government's intention that, if it appears to him that these conditions are satisfied, the Minister may issue a preliminary notice on the company or companies concerned. He will be able to consider making an order to use the disclosure powers unless he is satisfied that disclosure will be made voluntarily. The notice must be passed on to trade

      1551
      union representatives within the undertaking, and the company must provide the Minister with a list of those representatives. The Minister must make a statement to Parliament on what he has done.
      After the preliminary notice, the Minister may make an order to bring a company or group of companies within the scope of Clauses 21 to 23 and to require the company to furnish him with information. He can do this only after at least three months have elapsed from the date of issue of the preliminary notice and after considering any representations made to him by the company and the trade union representatives. He may make an order only if he believes that voluntary arrangements will not provide information to the unions and the Government. The order would be subject to parliamentary control through a negative resolution.
      I should like to concentrate on the changes we are proposing to Clause 20. We wish to emphasise—and this has always been the Government's intention—the need to encourage voluntary disclosure of information by making it clear that, if voluntary means fail, statutory powers may be applied. There will be a gap of at least three months between the service of the preliminary notice and the Minister being able to serve a notice requiring disclosure. The Government, companies and unions will be able to negotiate on how the disclosure of information might be developed by voluntary means. I believe the service of preliminary notices will stimulate discussions and that many companies which stress their willingness to provide information will use that period to translate their willingness into real action.
      7.15 p.m.
      We also propose to write into the Bill the provision that an order requiring statutory disclosure should not be made unless the Minister believes voluntary means would not succeed. The Government have always stressed their desire to encourage voluntary disclosure of information. This is not just the desire of the new Ministers of the Department of Industry; it was shared by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy when he was Secretary of State
      1552
      for Industry, his former Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and the former Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who is now an Under-Secretary at the Department of Health and Social Security.
      Where a company has made arrangements to consult and inform its workers through their unions on the formation of its plans, the use of compulsory powers will be irrelevant. Arrangements entered into on a voluntary basis are much more satisfactory than the use of a statute.
      We are also proposing tighter means of parliamentary control. Previously, Parliament could negative the lists of companies deemed to be eligible for information disclosure, but subsequently had no control over the exercise of the powers. We now propose that Parliament should be informed of any proposed use of the powers when a preliminary notice is served and subsequently to be able to control by negative resolution the exercise of those powers in the issuing of an order requiring information to be disclosed to the Minister. This matter was discussed at some length when I met the CBI and the TUC, and, although I cannot speak for the TUC, I believe they were favourably impressed by our discussions about some control at that end of the procedure.
      There are provisions proposed in Clause 23 for further parliamentary control over the information to be disclosed in certain circumstances to trade union representatives. The Government believe this will enable Parliament to control the exercise of these powers much more effectively.
      Previously the Bill referred to a person, a company or a subsidiary of a company. We wish to amend this to refer to a company or companies. This will make clear that information may be required from a company whose undertaking is carried on by a group of companies, from a holding company if this is a United Kingdom company or from subsidiaries of a group if the holding company is not a United Kingdom company and would, therefore, be outside the scope of United Kingdom legislation. I understand that this matter caused considerable debate during the Committee stage, and I hope our amendments will clarify the matter.

      1553
      I want to stress that information may be sought only for the purposes set out in Clause 20(1) and only about a manufacturing undertaking.
      I have concentrated on the amendments in respect of their effect and purpose. It would be wrong to suggest that the proposed changes are such as to negate or drastically change the provisions of Clause 20 as originally drafted. We propose to emphasise the Government's wish to encourage voluntary arrangements when possible and to strengthen parliamentary control and overcome technical difficulties. But our policy of being able, where necessary, to disclose information is still in the Bill. It is absolutely important that it should remain there. In certain circumstances it is much better to have voluntary disclosure, and I think that discussions will take place with companies and trade unions about voluntary disclosure. However, where I am not satisfied that voluntary disclosure can be brought about I shall have no hestitation in using the mandatory powers in the Bill.
      Mr. Michael Heseltine: The Minister was making an important point about disclosure in connection with overseas investments. Will he clarify the point? Is he saying that it will not be necessary for disclosure to be made by a company which is manufacturing within the United Kingdom but has plans to undertake investment overseas?
      Mr. Varley: Where the parent company is an overseas company we shall still require information from it about its subsidiary in this country in the normal way.
      Mr. Heseltine: I was referring to the reverse position where the parent company is a United Kingdom company which operates mainly in the United Kingdom in manufacturing industry and has intentions, probably through one of its subsidiaries overseas, to invest overseas. Would it be necessary for the parent company to disclose its intentions, which might involve a transfer of capital across the exchanges from this country?
      Mr. Varley: We might require that information, and that is not ruled out by the amendments. Such developments could have a considerable impact on the
      1554
      sectoral planning approach and for the trade unions.
      Mr. Stanley: I first must declare an interest in an industrial company. I have declared that interest before in Standing Committee.
      We recognised that Amendments Nos. 77 and 78 have been tabled essentially to meet an undertaking in Committee that the disclosure provisions would apply basically to manufacturing companies. We have no quarrel with them. They go as far as the Government are able, to achieve their point. However, the whole of this part of the Bill is qualified by line 5 of Amendment No. 76 which says
      "if it appears to him".
      In other words, it is wholly a matter for ministerial discretion as to whether or not the preliminary notice procedure and the subsequent procedures are applied to companies which are wholly or mainly involved in manufacturing industry.
      If that discretionary power is exercised in a way which may appear strange to the companies concerned there is no right of appeal. We recognise, therefore, that the Bill now rests solely on the assumption that Ministers will operate these provisions in the way that the Bill says they will, but it puts no legal obligation on Ministers to do so.
      The main amendments that we have tabled concern one of the most critical issues of principle on this part of the Bill, whether the rights to information extend to all employees generally or not. The Government have regularly justified these clauses in the name of industrial democracy, but their amendments and the Bill seem to take a very narrow view of democracy. Legal rights to information extend not to employees generally and not even to trade union members generally. They belong solely to representatives of relevant trade unions. Those representatives do not have to be employees, and no statutory obligation is placed upon them to pass on the information.
      We regard this as wholly unsatisfactory and unacceptable and we have therefore tabled a series of amendments to achieve two basic objectives. The first is to make sure that the legal rights of information extend to all employees, regardless of

      1555
      whether or not they are trade union members. In addition, we believe that for technical reasons that right should also belong to all shareholders. Secondly, we have tabled amendments to ensure that where it is necessary for employees to be represented, for example, in making their representations to the advisory committee under Clause 23, all employees should be represented and not simply the trade union members.
      We believe that we are talking about a basic right which is not peculiar in any way to membership of a trade union—a basic right that belongs to all employees—and we see no justification for putting a particular group—the trade union members—in a special position under the law.
      The question arises whether shareholders should have the same rights to information which emerge under the disclosure provisions. It is a basic principle that if there is to be a fair market in the Stock Exchange there must be equality of information between all those who hold shares or wish to deal in them. The equality of information principle is basic to the operation of the Stock Exchange and all companies which want their securities traded there have to accept it.
      The companies on the Stock Exchange enter into a listing agreement, and Chapter 2 of that agreement states categorically that
      "Directors shall not divulge price-sensitive information in such a way as to place in a privileged position any person or class or category of persons outside the company audits advisers."
      Do the Government think it is right for this part of the Bill to rely on the provisions of the listing agreement, or do they believe it is necessary to go further and write into the Bill the same legal rights to information as are to be obtained by those who receive the information under Clauses 22 and 23?
      We believe that it is insufficient to rely simply on the listing agreement. The very existence of these disclosure provisions will make it far more difficult than before for a company to decide what information should be released generally to shareholders and employees and what
      1556
      should not. There are fairly well-established ground rules for companies. They have a clear procedure for publicising their historic information in their report and accounts. If they wish to make an acquisition there is the clear framework for a prospectus, which must be made public, setting out what information is to accompany the acquisition proposal.
      If a company wishes to raise additional capital, either equity or loan, it is accompanied by clear rules about the sort of information which must be made generally available. The Bill presents a technical problem, which the Government appear not to have thought through. It will open up a substantial area of new information which will be semi-public and released under the Bill. Some of that information may be price-sensitive. We have to consider the position of a company which, under the disclosure provisions, is obliged to release details of its capital expenditure programme.
      7.30 p.m.
      The question is raised whether the information will be price-sensitive, and whether the directors should release it. This is a moot point, and there is no clear answer to it. Companies may be asked to release information about productivity which may come out in the form of productivity comparisons which can be made with other companies. It is a grey area, and it is arguable whether it is price-sensitive or not. Equally, a company will be obliged to produce forecasts of possible sales and exports over a period stretching into the future, and these, too, may or may not be considered price-sensitive. Real difficulties will be created here. It is not a politically contentious point, as we see it. It is essentially a technical matter. The problem is certainly solved by accepting our own amendments, where the rights of shareholders are put on the same basis as those of the other people who have a legal right to information under Clauses 22 and 23.
      There is one further major reason why we strongly recommend these amendments to the Government. Unless they are accepted, it seems to us well-nigh certain that those who receive information—particularly if they are representatives only of trade unions—will be placed in a prospective insider trading position. Some of the

      1557
      information will be in some ways commercially sensitive, to a greater or lesser extent. After all, a company can get the information withheld only if it can demonstrate that its release will produce substantial injury to it. In other words, if a certain type of information, a certain quantity of information, is simply going to cause injury, as opposed to substantial injury, to the company concerned, there will be no ground, under the Bill, for not having it released; therefore, some information which has a commercial value to a greater or lesser extent will be released. As the Bill is now drafted, that information will go out not publicly but to a limited number of people. Under the Government's proposal it will go to trade union representatives, who will have no obligation to pass it on, but one would normally expect them to do so. The very existence of those provisions, concerning the passing on of information of limited value to a small group of people, would place the trade union representatives concerned involuntarily—I am sure against their own will—in a potential insider trading position.
      The Government could deal with this problem, as it is familiarly dealt with in both the public and private sector, by writing into the Bill a clear prohibition on the trade union representatives receiving the information, or their families, in dealing in the securities of the company concerned until the information is made fully public. But we recommend strongly that the Government should adopt the other solution to that problem and choose instead to make the information immediately public as soon as it is released under Clause 22 or Clause 23.
      That Opposition view is shared by the Stock Exchange. I should like to refer to a letter which the Secretary of State received from the Chairman of the Stock Exchange on the 20th June. The Chairman says:
      "I am aware that an amendment (No. 792) to the Bill was put down at the Committee Stage which would have the effect of imposing a legal obligation upon companies to pass to their shareholders any information provided to trade union representatives under Clause 22. The purpose of this letter is to say that the Stock Exchange would urge the Government itself to bring in such an amendment. If all such information had to be passed on in that way the directors would be relieved of the burden of deciding which piece of information might be price-sensitive, and the trade unions
      1558
      from becoming involuntary insiders. An additional advantage would be that the shareholders of companies not listed on the Stock Exchange and therefore not subject to the council's requirements in this matter would be afforded protection."
      The interest of the Stock Exchange Chairman and his council is solely to ensure the preservation of a fair and orderly market, and I should have thought that his views would carry great weight with the Government in considering this amendment.
      I now come to the major point of principle proposed by our own amendments—whether the legal right to information under this Bill should belong to all employees or whether is should go, as the Government propose, simply to those who are representatives of relevant trade unions. It is our view that there is a clear cut case in principle for the information to go to all employees, and we argue this on the basis that the information with which we are concerned here is information which is the right of all employees, whether they belong to trade unions or not.
      We argue that the information provisions of this Bill are in no way germane solely to a trade union organisation or to trade union members. If it is right for a certain persons to have information about the affairs and activities of a company, it surely must be right that that person should have it regardless of whether he is a trade union member or not.
      During the Committee stage two arguments were advanced by Government Ministers against an amendment. We thought that both arguments advanced were flimsy, but it is worth repeating them. The former Under-Secretary of State for Industry said during our Committee proceedings:
      "The Government have made it clear in several debates that we believe that the trade union movement is the appropriate channel for the transmission of information. There are very good reasons for that. I shall spell them out, although I have indicated some of them previously. First, the trade unions are the appropriate organs for employees in terms of collective bargaining."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 20th May 1975; c. 1921.]
      I make just two comments on that line of argument. The first is that, though it may be thought by the party opposite that the trade unions are the appropriate organs for collective bargaining or the

      1559
      representation of employees, the fact remains—and it is indisputable—that there are a very large number of people at the present time who are not members of trade unions, and many who choose not to be members of trade unions. There are 12 million working men and women who at the present time are not members of trade unions, and they have as much right to be considered in this legislation as those who are.
      Secondly, the reference to collective bargaining is, I suggest, totally irrelevant, because the one thing that we are not discussing here is information in a collective bargaining context. That has been dealt with in considerable detail in the Employment Protection Bill. We are talking solely about information outside the collective bargaining context. Therefor the argument that it is right that non-trade union members should be denied information, simply because of the collective bargaining functions of trade unions, cannot be advanced with any credibility in relation to this Bill.
      The second argument that has been advanced is that there is nothing to stop a company giving information to employees who are not trade union members. What the Government are saying is that, just because it is open to a company to pass on information, if it so wishes, to those who are not members of trade unions, this is supposedly a legitimate argument for denying legal rights under the Bill to those who are not members of trade unions. If that argument is valid for those who are not trade union members, surely it has equal validity for those who are.
      It could well be argued—we would not wish to argue it but this must be the logic—that if there is nothing to stop a company giving information to those who are members of trade unions, this is a justification for getting rid of these clauses altogether and not giving any further statutory rights. That line of argument would not be acceptable to Labour Members in respect of members of trade unions, and the same line of argument is equally unacceptable to us concerning those who are not trade union members.
      I believe that the two major arguments advanced so far really do not begin to stand up. What is arguable, in rela-
      1560
      tion to the Bill as now drafted, is that it creates a thoroughly odious position of principle in which differential rights in law are being created between those who are members of trade unions and those who are not.
      The former Secretary of State for Industry, now the Secretary of State for Energy, said, in a letter of the 25th February:
      "I would point out that we have no intention in the Bill's disclosure provisions to establish any privileged group."
      I suggest that that is exactly what the Bill does. It does indeed establish a privileged group in law. It puts trade union representatives in a legally privileged position on a matter which is not particularly germane to trade unionists as opposed to those who are not trade unionists. So far the Government have shown no regard at all for the legal rights of those who are not members of trade unions. Under the Bill they are being relegated to the position of second-class workers in regard to rights to information.
      We consider that the Government's approach is basically non-democratic. We shall therefore be pressing this group of amendments at every opportunity remaining to us.
      Mr. David Penhaligon: I wish to speak to Amendment (a) to Government Amendment No. 79. It is on much the same lines as that of the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley), but I do not agree with everything that he said. The Liberals want compulsory disclosure to be to employee representatives instead of each relevant trade union. I put the emphasis on "employee representatives" as opposed to all employees, because a round robin once a fortnight with the tea is not likely to start the sort of debate that we want on the shop floor.
      We are talking about works councils, not exactly the sort of works councils that I knew when in industry, but works councils properly constituted and elected by all employees—I emphasise"all"—whether there were trade unions in the company, and whether there was a closed shop. They could develop into a useful alternative channel of information which would work in all situations.
      We do not rule out a trade union-management exchange of information.

      1561
      That is likely to happen, and can be freely negotiated where applicable. Indeed, in many places where the trade union is strong it is obvious that the bulk of the people on the works councils will be the same as those who are now freely elected by the workers as their trade union representatives.
      But some companies have many trade unions within them. Often a single trade union dominates. I am disturbed at the idea of sending information to the minor trade unions officially, because it might not receive the concentrated attention from them that I should like to see.
      Some people working in our industry are not members of trade unions. I have always recommended workers to join their trade union. If they object because it is not doing what they want, the way to do something about that is to join. In many of our industrial complexes the section where most people are not members is the so-called white-collar section. For all that, the workers should have an avenue to obtain the information and to be able to question the management on it.
      There are some areas in the country where there are virtually no trade unions. Half my constituency falls into that category. Outside the three big companies, active trade union membership is not to be seen. [Interruption.] An hon. Member says that the non-members claim the benefits. I assure him that the wage structure outside the trade union movement in Cornwall is very low compared with that inside. That is why I keep trying to persuade workers to join their trade union.
      7.45 p.m.
      The real point here is one of basic attitudes. As a Liberal, I have essentially believed that information affecting the livelihood of a man or woman should go as a priority to that individual and not the trade union officials in a district office. I represent an area which is a little dubious about district offices. The district headquarters for many of the rade unions in Cornwall is Bristol. I sometimes think that it would ease our problems if they transferred to London, because it is easier to get from my area to London than to Bristol.
      One of the great ironies of our democracy is that the individual has far more
      1562
      direct access to Government plans, many of which have little effect on his life, than to plans affecting the environment where he spends the vast proportion of his productive life, in his company or works. He has very few rights. The Government amendments will rectify that position, and we welcome that.
      But a substantial percentage of the population whether in a company where there is virtually no trade union structure or in a part of the country where there are no trade unions, will have no more information than they have had hitherto. The amendments to the Government amendment could do a great deal to overcome that.
      I am tempted to look to the European experience. In West Germany, Scandinavia and Holland there is experience going back over the years of a works council-type structure. It is interesting to see how those countries have gradually given those bodies more power and authority. They are now clearly recognised to be a useful part of democracy within Europe. To my knowledge, no political parties of any substance in those countries are now trying to remove such bodies from the scene. They are a useful part of democratic life, and are being developed as time goes on.
      One of the areas that worry me most is that of confidentiality. Some people fear that a great deal of information will pass into the hands of people who will want it only for destructive purposes. But that has not been a problem in Europe for a very long time. There may be an odd occasion when it happens, but I understand that in Europe it has not happened in the bulk of cases. That is not surprising, because the person who would be breaking confidentiality is the person who would have most to lose from it, through loss of security or through his pay packet.
      The real advantage of our amendment is that people will be directly responsible to their own electorate. They will be known to the electorate. They will be friends of the electorate. They will undoubtedly have tea with at least a section of that electorate each day. The proposal will encourage a far greater involvement than we see in industry today.
      We have had debates on the advantages of postal votes for trade union

      1563
      officials. Where there have been postal votes the poll has rarely exceeded 30 per cent. I have worked in industry. On the odd occasion on which there has been industrial democracy, albeit on a matter as unimportant as whether the holiday should be in August or June, the poll has been way above 30 per cent. The real advantage of the amendment is that it would set up a system of direct daily contact between the employees and their representatives. With that information being passed by word of mouth, there would be a daily chance to examine one's representatives on the body and to discuss individual problems with them and send them back to the next meeting with an angle that had been properly developed during conversations in the time between meetings.
      I may prefer some modifications to the provisions of this legislation. In theory, at least, we might have an opportunity to do that tonight. The legislation lays down the legal rights of employees to some information. Therefore, I welcome it.
      I sometimes think that my party would be better off if we could think of a different phrase than "works councils". That phrase describes all sorts of things. I have even heard the word "poodle" used, which would not be very unfair. We are talking about something different. The endless discussion of the car park, the loo and the canteen is not the raw meat of a democracy we want to set up in industry.
      This is an opportunity to bring democracy within a company's structure and to bring it within companies far nearer to those who are most affected by the decisions made. I look forward in the Division Lobby tonight to support from all corners of the House by the people who are interested in seeing a genuine development of democracy at the work place.
      Mr. Ian Mikardo: I share the passionate desire of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) to see the widest possible extension of genuine industrial democracy. Indeed, I have been working to that end for about 30 years. I first wrote and lectured on that subject before the end of the last world war, shortly after
      1564
      I was elected to the executive of my union, of which I am still a member. I have spent most of that period and that service working for genuine industrial democracy.
      However, I tell the hon. Gentleman in all kindness and friendship that the course he is advocating is not genuine industrial democracy and does not work in practice. What he said sounded very attractive theoretically, but I am afraid he was very wide of the mark.
      He held up as an example the West German mitbestimmungsrecht. If the Liberal Party is looking for a new word for "works council" perhaps I can offer it "mitbestimmungsrecht". It is a beautiful word. I invite the hon. Gentleman to go into any works' canteen in any engineering factory in Düsseldorf, Frankfurt-am-Main or Mainz and listen to what the men say about mitbestimmungsrecht and their representatives on the emasculated impotent bodies on which they are allowed representation. It is a great and absolute joke with them. The hon. Gentleman really does not know what goes on on shop floors if he says that we must have an inventive mitbestinunungsrecht—I shall refrain, in order to protect his feelings, from using the phrase "works council". We have to have an elected mitbestimmungsrecht to have daily contact and exchange of ideas between the representative and the worker.
      I do not know of a single place on the Continent—and I have worked in many factories in more than one industry on the Continent where they have a mitbestimmungsrecht or works council, call it what you will—that has anything like the proper facilities for reporting back by representatives to the workers, or that has anything like real accountability by the representatives to the workers.
      Mr. Emlyn Hooson: As a matter of interest, when did the hon. Gentleman last work in a factory on the Continent?
      Mr. Mikardo: Only a short time ago—about l½ years ago—when I was installing a line. I spent a lot of time talking to workers. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman is not trying to belittle the authority with which I speak. I can provide a lot of evidence, and I

      1565
      do not have to apologise to him. Moreover, I have been a life-long student of industrial democracy. I have spent a lot of time abroad and a lot of time talking to workers' representatives both in trade unions and outside trade unions. In all modesty I can claim that I know a little of what I am talking about—more than a lawyer does, anyway. The hon. Gentleman can do some research in his spare time from his legal practice to see if he can refute what I am saying.
      I do not know of a single institution that operates under the sort of arrangement that the hon. Member for Truro was talking about and in which there is anything like an adequate system of reporting back or adequate and constant accountability by the representative to those who have chosen him.
      Mr. Penhaligon: I also have worked in Germany as recently as 12 months ago. I had substantial difficulties with the language—there are times when I have substantial difficulties with the English language.
      I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said. I certainly do not want to see the system that exists in Germany exist here. The set-up in the factory I visited—I admit it was only one factory—when compared with the conditions that I have worked in for the past 10 years of my life and when I started as an apprentice, leads me to believe that the German experience is a lot nearer, in potential form, to what I should like developed. That is the situation in which I have worked for the past 10 years, so I am not painting the German experience as a "paradise-come". I simply say that it is further along the road along which I wish to go than the system in this country at present.
      Mr. Mikardo: I thank the hon. Gentleman for coming that far with me. Perhaps he will persuade his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) of the truth of what we are saying. Perhaps he can convince him not to rush in where angels fear to tread—not to rush into subjects he knows absolutely nothing about.
      I take the points made by the hon. Member for Truro. That system is fossilised. It is not a step in the right direction. It is not a stage; it is as far as that system can go. The hon.
      1566
      Gentleman wants to make a new beginning in this country, on a much better road. His system has reached the end of that road. It cannot break out on to a new road. We want a better road.
      The hon. Member is as keen as I am on accountability. I said that I did not know of a mitbestimmungsrecht where there is daily contact, but I know that any shop steward is constantly having his ears bitten by his members on the shop floor, and I am delighted that that is the case. This is the way real contact is established.
      Whether there should or should not be disclosure to all employees or the trade unions is not really part of our debate today, but as the hon. Member for Ton-bridge, Mailing and the Stock Exchange—Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley)—dwelt on it perhaps I can take it up.
      Mr. Stanley: I do not know if the hon. Member was suggesting that I had an interest in the Stock Exchange. If he was, he was incorrect. Perhaps he will withdraw his remark.
      Mr. Mikardo: I was making no such suggestion. The hon. Gentleman should not be so thin-skinned. Surely we are entitled to relieve these long proceedings from time to time with a little wit? I hope the hon. Gentleman will not be so serious in the future. I have respect for him and I listened with great attention to many of his speeches in Committee, which I thought were by far the best speeches made by the Opposition Front Bench. With respect to him, however, he adduced a false argument. He said that it was no good treating the provisions of the Bill as having to do with collective bargaining. In saying that, he was making an elementary mistake, which many Conservative Members have made in this House. He assumes that collective bargaining is only about pay. It is not only about pay. It is about all sorts of other things, including, preeminently, security of employment.
      8.0 p.m.
      Of course, a great deal of the information which will be disclosed under the provisions of the Bill is precisely about security of employment—disclosure of information on the question whether the company has plans to expand this department, to contract that department, to open

      1567
      a new factory here, or to close that factory there. That is very much collective bargaining.
      Indeed, I go further. If one is moving towards the more ideal stage, at which the hon. Member for Truro and I are both aiming, I would say that if anyone wants a real definition of industrial democracy, it is a situation in which every single decision made in the place is negotiable, the subject of collective bargaining, no matter what it is about. If one accepts either that definition or anything approaching it, the argument that was adduced when the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing quoted the former Under-Secretary is a highly valid argument indeed.
      Mr. Stanley: On a further point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think it would be for the convenience of a number of hon. Members on the Government side of the House, as my constituency has the strange quirk that nothing is pronounced in the way that it is spelt, if the hon. Member for Poplar and Bow, when thinking of "mauling" me, would get it right.
      Mr. Mikardo: I am happy to refer to the hon. Gentleman as the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing, as long as he will not refer to me as the hon. Member for Poplar and Bow, because Poplar is represented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore), the Secretary of State for Trade. My constituency is Bethnal Green and Bow. So we are about quits. We can call that one an honourable draw, with 55 overs played out.
      If the hon. Gentleman would allow me to be serious, in between his interruptions, I should like to say that we have heard too much from Opposition Members trying to weaken the position of trade unions by conferring the benefits of trade unionism on those who are quick to grab the benefits but will not accept the obligations, including the obligations of paying the dues. The hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing spoke of this, and so did the hon. Member for Truro. For one reason or another, they do not wish to be members of a trade union.
      That is fine, as far as I am concerned. They have every right to make their choice—as far as I am concerned. I have never been in favour of a closed shop
      1568
      imposed by the employer. I think that people should be free to join or not join, provided that those who choose not to join are not—as they always are—first in the queue to grab the wage increases and other benefits which are negotiated by the trade union to which they do not contribute at all.
      Let us not have fine talk about people's principles. We have a name in the trade union movement for those who grab the benefits without accepting the obligations. It is not a very pretty name but it is a very applicable name. They are called "blacklegs". That is what they are. I hope that Opposition Members will not continue to make themselves constantly defenders of blacklegs.
      The main point in this group of amendments is as between "voluntary" and "mandatory". It is that to which we should address ourselves, the main principle, rather than the etiolated details, as the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing described them, of the various amendments. It is the principle which is important.
      The first thing I want to say to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is that he will not convince us, up here on the top shelf, that what he is saying is right merely because it was also said by his predecessor and the two other Ministers who have now been unceremoniously chucked out of the Department. That does not make it right for us, because we knew all the time it was said that the voice was the voice of Esau but the words were the words of Jacob. We knew that the sound came out of an amplifier in No. 1 Victoria Street but that the words went into a microphone in 10 Downing Street. We are not kidding about that. We know it was true, and I am fairly sure it is still true. It does not matter whether it was the former or the present echo-sounding board. We want to look at the thing on the merits.
      The fact is that the principal argument which my right hon. Friend used is not an argument because the matter is not in dispute. I do not believe that any hon. Member in any quarter of the House would challenge the proposition that it is always better to get things done voluntarily than to have to compel them to be done. Of course that is so. People do things with better grace, more efficiently and more completely when they do them

      1569
      of their own volition than when they are compelled. That is not in dispute.
      If we were living in an ideal world we would never have to compel anyone. We would never have to have fall-back reserve powers or compulsion in anything at all. If we were living in an ideal world we would never have to have any Factories Acts because all owners of factories would voluntarily make sure that there were no safety hazards—no slippery or broken floors, no unguarded machinery, and no noxious fumes, and an adequate change of air. Of course, that is if it is done voluntarily. But as we do not leave it to be done voluntarily, the factory inspectors go around trying to persuade people, and their persuasion is the more effective because there are Factories Acts and reserve powers of compulsion.
      It is better if industry does not emit into the surrounding air noxious fumes for all the residents around to suffer from, or noise or acid particles. Of course it would be better if they voluntarily made sure that they did not do that. But we still have laws to compel them to prevent that if they do not do so voluntarily. There is more voluntary action because there are reserve powers.
      It would be much better if all right hon. and hon. Members, of their own free will, always drove their cars with due care and attention. That would be much better than being compelled to do so. But no one objects to powers residing in the Government to compel us to drive with due care and attention, and to punish us if we do not.
      That is life as it is, so it is silly to draw this quite false dichotomy between "voluntary" and "mandatory" as though they were absolutes. There are no absolutes in this argument. One must hold a point of balance.
      I believe that the Bill as it was originally intended, as its bones were set out in the Labour Party's programme, held the right balance between "voluntary" and "compulsory". That balance was manifestly shifted in the wrong direction in the terms of the Bill itself, it was shifted even further in the terms of the White Paper, and it has been shifted much too far in this group of amendments by my right hon. Friend.
      1570
      That is why I for one—I do not pretend to speak for anyone else in this respect—shall vote token-wise against one of the clearest amendments and, as I believe, the most noxious one, in order to record my conviction, so that the vote shall follow the voice, that the movement away from "mandatory" to "voluntary" to a different point of balance, as in this group of amendments, goes much too far.
      I suspect the motivation of those who have pressed the Government to make this move. In the final issue, as we all know, it is not what is said in the Bill when it becomes an Act that matters. It is the attitude of the Secretary of State, and what he does about it, which will determine whether this measure is a real measure or a charade. Looking at the Notice Paper as we have it this week on Report, I fear that there is great danger of the Bill becoming a charade.
      I do not need to say this to my right hon. Friend because he knows it. The Government half of the social contract is proposed in the Bill. It was outlined in the Labour Party programme. The Chancellor indicated yesterday that he would make tough demands on the other party to the social contract. However, the Government will not have the authority to do so if they renege on their own part of that contract.
      Mr. Fairbairn: I was fascinated by the speech made by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo), because he demonstrated once again the essential nature of committed Socialism—that a volunteer is someone who at best has a loaded gun at his back and acts willingly because it is not fired. At worst he is someone in chains with the gun at his back, dragged away, and compelled to go by means of what the hon. Gentleman would call "reserve powers"
      I am equally fascinated by the Chancellor's concept of a voluntary incomes policy, according to which the nation is told "You have the following alternatives. Either you do what I ask you to do, or I will compel you to do it." When I was in the Army that was called volunteering. I always understood that that was a special use of the word "volunteer".

      1571
      It is nice to know that in the great world of social democracy, in which everything is open and seen, those who are to enjoy this Elysium will have the pleasure of enjoying a life in which what is not compulsory is forbidden. That seems to me to be the direction in which Socialism looks.
      This is a political fact. In politics there is a circle between the tolerant and the intolerant. The more Left we proceed, the more we go to the Right, the greater the chance of a meeting.
      The essential frightfulness of the philosophy of the Government is intolerance and the belief that they can tell people what they are supposed to do, for their own benefit, and compel them to do it.
      The next hypocritical concept which arises in this selection of amendments is the idea of the great moment when all the people working in British industry will be given information. As a simple Scotsman I should have thought that if we wanted people to know something, we should tell them. I should have thought that that was reasonable. Under this Bill—for some remarkable reason which defies my simple nature—they will not be told. A member of a relevant trade union will be told. It does not matter that a member of a relevant, or any, trade union is not available. The information must go to one member of one trade union. Why? Does that demonstrate the desire of the ordinary man on the shop floor to be told about what is going on around him? It does not.
      Why does the Bill include these words? Why is one person to be told? Why are the employees not to be told? The answer is that those who were parties to the social contract, a voluntary contract, wanted the information for themselves, to build their own power. That has nothing to do with social democracy.
      8.15 p.m.
      The hon. Gentlemen opposite who sit below the Gangway do not care a two-penny piece whether any working person receives the information as long as those in the seats of power in the trade unions—who do not represent even a small proportion of our working people—have the information and the power. If
      1572
      the Government were interested in social democracy they would ensure that the information was made available to the employees.
      According to this provision, the information will go to a member of a relevant trade union. Is there any reserve power, which the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow would like, which specifies that the union member must hand on that information? No, there is not. Is there any requirement that he should not edit, halve, exaggerate, or falsify the information before he hands it on? No, there is not. Is there any requirement that he should hand the information on to anyone? No, there is not. Is that social democracy—or is that power building and dictatorship?
      The purpose of this provision is not to give power to the ordinary working man. It is designed to give power to people who are parties to a contract which they had no intention of keeping, which the Government now agree they did not and would not keep—people who could not be trusted without a statutory gun in their hands.
      The ordinary person—whatever his station, work or profession—may take the view that information is kept away from him. Let him have that information. Let the Bill be simple and open and specify that any working person shall receive the information. It is hypocrisy to say that the information will go to the representative of a body which does not represent the work force, and to pretend that that is the way to make it available to the workers.
      It is said that this provision is part of the social contract. However, the social contract had nothing to do with an agreement on wages. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow is keen on the reserve power of the unions to put a blunderbuss at the head of the Labour Party and say "Do this, and perhaps we shall do what you want." The Government did as they were asked, and this is part of the result. Unfortunately, those with the blunderbuss ratted. The poor old Chancellor is voluntarily taking out his pathetic pea-shooter to see whether he can put it at their temples in the meantime. That is not the way to run human relations. That has nothing to do with giving information to human beings. That has

      1573
      no connection with human psychology, guaranteeing employment, or regenerating industry. That is merely a piece of mechanised power blustering.
      There are those who believe that a "voluntary" system requires compulsion. But that is a false concept. However, if the Government are willing to say that the information should be given to all employees, not to the single person who has no duty to pass it on, I am sure that all hon. Members will be delighted.
      Mr. Eric S. Heffer: The hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) is a personable, attractive individual and outside the Chamber he is great fun to talk to——
      Mr. Fairbairn: He is great fun to listen to.
      Mr. Heller: The hon. Gentleman is an historical curiosity because he exemplifies the backward attitude which most Conservative Members have developed in their thinking over many years. The hon. Gentleman tries hard to understand the modern world of the trade union movement, but I am afraid that his efforts do not get him, the House, or the country very far. I shall not dwell on the arguments that he put forward.
      I wish to take up what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo), who has been in the House for many years and is a well-respected Member. I wish to take up what he said about the change that is involved in this series of amendments from the position in which it was mandatory for the Secretary of State to pass on information to representatives of the workers organised in the trade unions to a position in which the passing on of information is discretionary. Amendment No. 177 has arisen out of discussions between the CBI and my right hon. Friends in the Government. The change represents a retreat from the position taken up in the Bill before those discussions took place.
      I agree with the hon. Member for Ton-bridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley) that the White Paper was different from the Bill. I do not deny that. The method of disclosure of information provided for in
      1574
      the Bill was not included in the White Paper. Originally, the Green Paper provided that planning agreements were to be compulsory. That position of the Labour Party was developed to a minor extent in the programme. That position was changed. I do not deny that, and I was perhaps partly responsible for the discussions which took place about the change.
      It is often said in the House that it is better for planning agreements to be voluntary than compulsory. A voluntary agreement is always better than compulsion. The important thing is that there was a change which occurred during discussions which I cannot mention because of the Official Secrets Act. I do not intend to end up in the Tower—I am a coward from that point of view—and I do not intend to be a martyr, certainly not on that matter.
      As a result of that change, the compulsory disclosure of information was not attached to the planning agreements. In any case, one cannot get a planning agreement unless the company gives the information. If a company agrees to enter into a planning agreement the necessary information has to be available, so that the trade unions and the Government can involve themselves in the discussions leading up to the planning agreement.
      The requirement for the disclosure of information was agreed, not by my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Industry, not by myself, but by the Government as a whole. Those who have been in government know that Bills are examined by Cabinet committees and Cabinets, and are accepted by the Government of the day before being presented in the House. The Government accepted the principle of the mandatory disclosure of information to the trade unions. We have now retreated from that position because of pressure from the CBI and the City, not from the trade unions. The trade unions have not pressurised my right hon. Friends to change the disclosure provisions. On the contrary, they were perfectly satisfied with the Bill as it stood on the question of disclosure of information.
      Mr. Heseltine: This is the first totally honest description of the events of the past 12 months that we nave heard from anyone who is in a position to know

      1575
      what happened. Will the hon. Gentleman fill in the stage that he inadvertently missed out of his description? The Government moved from the Green Paper to the Bill via a White Paper in which it was clearly laid down that the compulsory elements of disclosure would be linked to the production of planning agreements. That was the point that was abandoned in the Bill.
      Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the element of the compulsory disclosure of information was originally connected with planning agreements. That proposal was dropped and it was agreed, rightly, that there should be compulsory disclosure of information but that it should not be related to planning agreements. That is right; I do not deny it. It is no good skating over the position.
      Clauses 21, 22, 23 and 24 stand on their own, separate from planning agreements. In that sense they have nothing to do with planning agreements, but they could have. That is the important point, and it is that which the employers' representatives and Opposition Members are concerned about. If the information which is called for is passed, on a mandatory basis, to the trade union movement, my view is that many trade unions and workers on the shop floor will say "Our company has not been involved in a planning agreement but we can see the advantage of it, and we wish to use the information we have to pressurise the Government and the employers to get a planning agreement".
      8.30 p.m.
      There is no doubt that it could he used in that way. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow has rightly pointed out, the more information that workers in industry get the better armed they are to talk not only in terms of wages but in terms of their employment in the industry in which they are employed.
      I have listened to some of the speeches of Conservative Members and they remind me of the chap in the Army who wrote to his mother "I am desperate, I want £5." His mother replied "I am all in favour of giving you a loan of £5, but not this week." The position is the same
      1576
      with Conservative Members. They say they want to give the maximum information to the workers in industry—but not this week, not next week, and not next year. The reality is that Conservatives, knowing that the workers could use the information to their own advantage, have no intention of coming up with the information that is required by the trade union movement and the workers.
      That is the essence of our argument tonight. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow has put his finger on the position. We are not arguing against the principles in the Bill. Indeed, we support the Bill and we want it strengthened. We are not running away from it. On the contrary, we want it to be the strongest possible Bill in the fight against inflation and for the extension of public ownership in manufacturing industry. We want the Bill to give workers the necessary information to advance their cause democratically within industry.
      The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) referred to the situation in Germany and to what he called the European experience. Of course, that experience is not the same in every country in Europe. For example, workers' councils do not exist in every European country, although they exist in Western Germany. The most advanced country in Europe, in terms of industrial democracy, is Yugoslavia, but unfortunately there is not the political democracy that should prevail. In Yugoslavia there is a system of workers' councils. They manage and control industries at factory and at national levels. I think that we could learn from that experience. I am all in favour of their system of self-management.
      Let us consider the German experience. It is a very different experience from that in Yugoslavia. I accept the argument that has been used many times in the House that we have not come to grips with the concept of workers' democracy. It is true that we have talked about it a great deal. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow did a magnificent job in chairing a committee in the Labour Party many years ago concerned with industrial democracy. Of course, industrial democracy is not the same thing as the management of industry. Industrial democracy can be

      1577
      an extension of collective bargaining, but that is not the same thing as self-management by the workers—whether they be blue-collar or white-collar workers—in the industry in which they work.
      I accept the view that public ownership in itself solves nothing. Sometimes it merely gets rid of one set of bosses for another bureaucratic set of bosses. That, in itself, does not lead to change. That is why we have to learn the lesson that in manufacturing industry public ownership—this is what the Bill says—must be coupled with industrial democracy. In my book that means an extension of self-management by the workers, be they blue-collar or white-collar workers, and by management. That is what we have to do, and that is well beyond what the Liberal Party has been advocating. I accept that the Liberal Party advocated workers' councils way back in 1935. Indeed, it published a book on the subject, which I have read.
      Incidentally, the Liberal Party was most enthusiastic about works councils in pre-Hitler Germany, which did not solve a thing in relation to the problem of fascism that was growing in Germany. That is not what we want. We want genuine democracy in industry. That is why we must have a form of self-management in industry.
      I have wandered a little in dealing with democracy in industry, but I regard this as a matter of great importance. My main concern in this discussion is Government Amendment No. 177. We regard it as a retreat in the face of pressure from the CBI and the City. Many of us on the Labour benches are not prepared to accept that retreat. We should like the Government to withdraw that amendment, even at this late hour. If they are not prepared to do so, we shall vote against it.
      Mr. Dafydd Wigley: It is a pleasure to be called to speak following the remarks of the former Minister of State, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). I have a considerable amount of sympathy with him. He had developed within the provisions of this Bill a medicine for industry. He feels passionately about the subject, and his passion came through in his speech. One can understand his disappointment
      1578
      that the medicine has been diluted to a form now barely acceptable.
      My party shares the concern expressed by the hon. Gentleman. I should like to refer him to a book written by D. J. Davies entitled "Towards an Economic Democracy". That book was published 30 years ago but put forward many of the ideas with which the hon. Gentleman dealt.
      I believe that hon. Members should follow up the hon. Gentleman's suggestions in regard to experience in Yugoslavia. That may not be relevant in the context of the Bill, but I am sure that we can continue our discussion of the subject when the industrial democracy legislation comes before the House at a later stage.
      Two concepts are before us in this debate—first, the concept of the planning agreement ensuring that the necessary information is available to the Government, and, secondly, the concept of disclosure of information to employees of a company. To be realistic, if planning agreements are to bite and are to be meaningful, there will have to be some compulsory element. Companies will hold back information which is necessary for any Government to make planning agreements effective. Therefore, any weakening of powers of planning agreements would be unfortunate and would dilute the objectives of any Government.
      The other element involves the disclosure of information to employees. I believe that in that respect the Government in this Bill have got the situation all wrong. I wish to see very much more disclosure than is provided for in these provisions. I tabled amendments in Committee on this subject and suggested further disclosure. Indeed, one of the amendments was carried and is part of the Bill now before us. We wish to see very much more disclosure of information, but we do not want to see centralisation of machinery involving a bureaucracy that is geared to the disclosure provisions.
      There may be need for compulsory laws which are necessary to ensure that companies disclose information, but it would be wrong to bring all the information to a centralised arena—namely, to the level of the Government. It

      1579
      should take place in a natural environment within units of manufacture and not become embroiled in the central Government.
      The disclosure of information is a good thing, and we would like to see more of it. It is of value not only to the companies themselves but to trade union organisations. There are companies in my constituency where the trade union organisation is much too weak. There are companies where the trade union organisation embraces less than 50 per cent. of the employees. From the management point of view, it might be better in such companies if there was a stronger trade union organisation, because the management would then know that it was discussing matters with people who represented a coherent voice. However, where this situation does not exist—sometimes through the fault of the trades unions themselves and sometimes through the fault of the employees who have not made sufficient advances—in all reality we must acknowledge that if the information provided by the disclosure clauses is of value elsewhere, surely it is also of value here.
      Members opposite may say that this is a carrot to get people to go into trades unions and to build up the trades unions. That may be so, and over a period of years that may well develop. But what of the interim? Are we to leave these people without information in the interim period? If we believe in democracy and in fair play for people, surely those who have been unable to build up this sort of trade union structure should at least have the information, and, given the information, they may then want to build a better trade union structure, because they would then be in a position to negotiate with the information that they had been given.
      From the point of view of fair play it is necessary to pass amendments to the Bill which provide for the dissemination of information not only to the trades unions and their representatives but, in cases where the trades unions are ineffective or in a minority or a nil situation, to representatives of the employees. That is the point of amendment No. 170, standing in my own name and the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Car-
      1580
      marthen (Mr. Evans) and my hon. Friend the Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas).
      We should welcome an extension of disclosure. I believe that many companies in this country have made a big bogy of the disclosure of information. They have made out that the passing of the minutest pieces of information can put them in mortal peril. That is a complete fallacy. There is not one of the larger companies, to which the Bill is perhaps largely geared, which does not have the facilities to interpret what its opponents are doing in terms of the cost structure of products, marginal costings, and so on. Any company with its head screwed on has a very shrewd idea of what its opponents are doing. It is a matter of keeping the information not away from competitors but from the employees who work within the concern. That is what the Bill should be overcoming.
      One of the fears that we expressed on Second Reading and in Committee was the danger that elements of the Bill tended towards a centralisation and creation of a corporate State. That fear still remains with us. If we are to build up a centralised machinery for the disclosure of information, we shall be moving in a direction which, as I have indicated, we do not like. We also believe that the principle of building in, perhaps for the best motives, benefits for organisations such as trades unions, to give them the edge over those employees who are not in trade unions, will, whether we like it or not, create second-class citizens.
      Hon. Members may say that those who, for lack of a better word, are "blacklegs" deserve to be second-class citizens. I see Labour Members nodding. I do not believe that that is what we should be enshrining in the laws of this country when passing a Bill of this sort. That is why we have tabled the amendment and why we shall support other amendments that seek to pass information not only to those who are members of trade unions but to all people who are employed in manufacturing industries because this information has a direct bearing on their livelihoods and future. They should have it as their right.
      8.45 p.m.
      Mr. Michael Marshall: I rise to support Amendment (b) to Government

      1581
      Amendment No. 79 in the names of my hon. Friends and myself. I am very pleased to follow the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) because tonight, we have again heard many of the arguments that were put forward in Committee, even from the Liberal benches. Therefore, it is not a purely partisan or indeed party line when it is argued that information should be made available to all employees. I welcome many of the comments which have come from the Labour benches, because they reflected at least the recognition that the Bill in so many ways has not got the position right. Indeed, one of our criticisms is that the whole apparatus is so inept that we are coming face to face with many of the gaps in the strategy underlining the Bill.
      I turn specifically to the question of the way in which information ought to be made available to all employees. It has been made abundantly clear, whether we like it or not, that the Bill, as drafted, enshrines within it discrimination of two kinds. The first relates to the argument between employees and non-employees. There is no guarantee that information given to trade union representatives will be given to employees, because, as the Bill stands, it does not follow that those trade union representatives need be employees. Secondly, there is another privileged recipient—the non-employee who is a trade union representative.
      That brings me to the second major form of discrimination which the Bill now enshrines in the whole argument between the trade union and the non-trade union employee. I do not wish to go over the arguments about the precise numbers involved. The Bill now concentrates more closely on manufacturing industry, and to that extent it could be said to have a more representative flavour in addressing its thrust, as it were, to trade union members. But we have been reminded that only about half the persons registered by the Department of Employment as qualifying for membership of trade unions are in fact members of such organisations.
      Even if we take that figure to be imprecise, we cannot overlook the fact that there are substantial omissions from this list. We have the estimate made in Committee that one-third of ICI's employees—about 60,000—are not members of
      1582
      trade unions. We know, for example, that IBM is not unionised. My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) in Committee said that he had received representations from people representing 15,000 staff at Hawker Siddeley of whom 8,000 were not members of any union.
      I agree with the hon. Member for Caernarvon that we cannot ignore these large numbers of people who, under the Bill as it is, are to become second-class citizens.
      It is reasonable, in a constructive sense, to pose to all hon. Members the question: if this kind of information is to be made available, what do we do in the problem areas which will arise about those who receive that information via trade unions and the many who do not? Hon. Gentlemen opposite may say that people should join trade unions. But that is not the simple answer to this problem.
      I should like to make my position clear. I urge people to join trade unions. I want to see a smaller number of large unions. I want rationalisation of the trade union movement, but that will take a great deal of time. We all recognise that there are many structural difficulties in our industrial society which will not be improved by the practical effects of this part of the Bill.
      I cannot cast aside the democratic argument. We should not dragoon employees into trade union membership to enable them to obtain access to particular information. In Committee, the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Dr. Bray), reflecting a fair point of view, said that this is a somewhat crude effort to bring this kind of information in a meaningful sense into the dialogue which he and his hon. Friends would like to foster. I think that "crude" is the word for it.
      I therefore move to my final argument about this matter. We must look at the four main difficulties in the Bill as it stands.
      First, as the Bill is before us now, it seems to me to reflect missed opportunities in many directions, but nowhere more than in this proposal. If we believe that the transfer of information has a positive part to play in "the regeneration" of British industry, surely we should be prepared to think in precise terms to whom that information should go and

      1583
      how it should be used. It has been said again and again in this House that that information will go to people on a most partial basis and on a most uncertain basis of selection. There is no guarantee that the people receiving it are necessarily representative. They may be in some cases. In other cases, they may be less so.
      Let us take, for example, the steel industry. The typical steel company deals with about 19 unions. Think of the problem that that company would have in selecting which trade union representatives to whom to feed information. As a matter of simple selection, it would be extremely difficult. I visualise great difficulties and possible industrial disputes on the strength of it. If we consider this kind of practical difficulty, we see the way in which the very narrow view taken by the Government has not been thought through.
      If we also take the argument that information should be available to all employees, we ought all to bend our minds to how that might be brought about. Although that the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) was able to make fun about works councils and his unpronouncable German experience, we all recognise that, given the state of our industry as it is today, we should bend our minds to ways in which information which is agreed to be of value could be made available across the spectrum. This is a matter to which we have not yet begun to address our minds.
      We cannot escape the feeling that there is bound to be a confusion of rôles as between the information made available to trade unions under the Bill and the rôle of the trade unions in wage negotiations. I know that Government supporters have argued this, but they cannot divorce the argument. If we take the view that information under the Bill, made available to specific trade unions, gives them access to privileged information, it would be less than human to expect that that information would not be used in the context of wage negotiations. Here again, there is confusion in the Government's mind between this Bill and other legislation which is going through Parliament—between this Bill
      1584
      and the Employment Protection Bill—and these are matters about which we must be clear in determining what we are doing when we talk about giving information to all employees.
      Mr. Eddie Loyden: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the normal method by which industry transmits information on general matters is through the trade union movement? My experience has taught me that most matters connected with industrial relations are dealt with in that fashion. Therefore, it would be logical to pursue the same line with regard to information. Will the hon. Gentleman go a little further and tell me what, in the Bill, would prevent an employer passing on information to other people?
      Mr. Marshall: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but that is a totally negative approach. On the basis of the argument that I have been advancing, let me take the case of any company having to operate the Bill. First, it has to decide to which trade union representative—perhaps one of many, at plant level, regional level or national level—it is to make information available. The hon. Gentleman then suggests that, having been through a very difficult process with a great deal of difficulty and danger implied in it, the company should seek to consider in what other ways it should make this information available to whom. It is asking a great deal of companies to go through this further stage. I cannot help feeling that it should be within our power as Members of Parliament to create a better system than that.
      Mr. Mikardo: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that he has not met the point put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden)? Earlier, the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) said that people ought not to need a gun at their backs. Is the hon. Gentleman now saying that because employers are not compelled by the Bill to disclose information to non-unionists they will not so disclose? If so, he had better make his peace with his hon. Friend.
      Mr. Marshall: I am not saying that at all. I am simply saying that in human nature, given the complexity of the Bill

      1585
      and the difficulty in deciding how to make it work, it is putting a great strain on human nature to assume that employers will bend their mind to giving to those outside the beneficial effects of information disclosure. My final point is that as the Bill now stands—if the Under-Secretary has something to say, if he will rise I shall be glad to give way to him. He has struck a slightly sour note in an otherwise constructive debate. I hope we are to have some constructive view from him, rather than his complex action of attacking the Opposition against pressure from behind.
      Mr. Kaufman: The most constructive thing the hon. Gentleman can say at the moment is that his hon. Friend has not come anywhere near answering the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) and will not proceed credibly unless he does so.
      Mr. Marshall: I shall not proceed on that point, as I am anxious about the guillotine and must make my final comment. In contrast to the Under-Secretary, the Secretary of State himself has been very fair in trying to brief members of the Standing Committee where the Government have sought to bring in changes at this late stage, I pay tribunte to his work in that respect. But he has made clear in another part of the Bill that we are concerned with estimates and not with precise areas of knowledge. We have therefore to recognise that this is not the kind of information which, in effect, can be handed over to trade unions or anybody else to be built on in a particularly powerful and effective way.
      That finally brings me to the question mark about the whole of what seems to be a charade in the way the subject of disclosure of information has come before us in the Bill. It is because I have these major question marks and reservations against the Bill that I still feel we should be seeking for a wider disclosure of information, on an agreed basis, to all employees—which is why I support the amendment.
      Mrs. Audrey Wise: I rise to echo the complaints by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) in relation to Government Amendment No. 177. I simply want to associate myself with his
      1586
      remarks. I was particularly struck by his grasp at the nettle of the quotation which has been repeatedly thrown back in his face about the desirability of voluntary rather than statutory arrangements. I wonder why we did not hear another quotation from the previous Under-Secretary at the Department of Industry which he made in Committee on this same point, which was particularly relevant not to planning agreements but actually to the disclosure of information.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), then Under-Secretary, talking of the right of workers and trade unionists to receive information, said:
      "We believe that that is a right and not something that should be dependent upon the discretion of the Minister."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 15th May, 1975, c. 1851.]
      In saying that, my hon. Friend received the support of all his back-bench Friends.
      9.0 p.m.
      It is strange that at this stage in the proceedings we are faced with this amendment, which is of considerable importance. The issue is not new. It was raised in Committee. It was raised by the Confederation of British Industry throughout the Committee proceedings from February to mid-June. My hon. Friends and I feel aggrieved that it is only on Report that this amendment has been brought before us and the assurances given by the then Under-Secretary about the Government's views have been tossed out of the window.
      Representatives of the CBI said a most interesting thing to me and three of my hon. Friends when we went to discuss this point. I wonder whether they made the same point to the Government. They said "Of course, employers have been slow to disclose information, but they have now reformed and up and down the country workers are receiving information from employers. If the Government seek to make this disclosure mandatory, the employers will be so upset that they will go back on their new practice and will cease voluntary disclosure."
      The CBI was telling us that the captains of industry, faced with this situation, would act out of pique. Although they had been persuaded that disclosure of information was a good thing, if the Government agreed with them and tried to

      1587
      bring all or many employers up to scratch the employers would say "Ah, no. It is all right if we do it voluntarily, but if you agree with us or encourage us or say that it must be disclosed, we will stop." I have always been a considerable critic of the way in which this country's industry is managed but I had never thought that management plumbed such depths.
      Since we have all been aware of the attitude of the CBI during these months, my hon. Friends and I believe that we are correct in saying that for the Government to bring forward an amendment now rather than in Committee can only be described as a capitulation.
      Yet the information for which we are asking makes up a cautious and unsatisfactory list. It is certainly not complete. I have no doubt that the new Ministers have had time to check the information which they will be seeking. I wonder whether they have noticed the significant omissions.
      It is an odd sort of list. For instance, information will be asked about sales but not about product development or production volume. Surely sales depend on producing the right products in the right quantities? Information will be asked for concerning exports but not concerning imports. How can we judge the sense of company policies in relation to exports if we do not have information about import policies?
      Workers are laboriously trying to collect information about imports. I do not want to scare the CBI too much, but workers are gradually waking up to the sort of manipulation of pricing policies and the other things that companies get up to. I know of highly skilled, knowledgeable workers who are collecting information about the imported components which are used by their companies—imported from overseas subsidiaries and probably not at the normal market price but at a price determined by whether the company wants to show a low or a high profit.
      The Government are being excessively kind to companies by restricting their list of required information. My hon. Friends and I thought that at least when this cautious list of information was disclosed it would be given to the trade unions and that, to that extent, there was
      1588
      good in the Bill. Now we find that even this right is being whittled away and there is discretion at every stage. I do not believe that the Government have made any case for this change.
      I had an interesting exchange yesterday with the Under-Secretary on the topic of amendments in another place. As the new clause which I and some hon. Friends have put down in relation to the disclosure of information may not be reached today, I suggest it would repay his scrutiny. Perhaps he will recognise the inadequacies in the Government's own list and consider an amendment on this topic in another place. Yesterday we saved him the trouble of moving an amendment in the other place on a register of financial interests for members of the National Enterprise Board. He could repay us by making their Lordships work on the list of items to be disclosed.
      If the list is so cautious, why are we concerned about the introduction of yet another discretionary stage? The great merit of the clause as it stood, with the duty to disclose information to trade unions, was that for the first time work-people's representatives were being given some statutory rights in relation to information about their companies and their products.
      Though the list is inadequate, we feel deep disquiet that these rights are being whittled away. The Government should be more concerned about the genuine disquiet on these benches rather than the disquiet expressed by the CBI. The Government are dependent on these benches and on the support of workers throughout the country. They do not, and never will, receive the support of the Confederation of British Industry.
      The Opposition have shown a touching concern about workers' rights, but I wish they had remembered it yesterday when my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Dr. Bray) moved a far-reaching amendment giving exciting rights to workers and allowing all employees the right to ballot about the kind of management structure they wanted. Where were the Opposition then? I am sorry to say they were in an unholy alliance with my own Front Bench to deny workers the right to be consulted.
      Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Lady is talking about a denial of workers' rights, but

      1589
      yesterday did not her Chancellor of the Exchequer announce that he was about to take away the rights of free collective bargaining from the workers of Britain?
      Mr. Mikardo: That is a good question addressed to the wrong person.
      Mrs. Wise: I am sure that I shall be ruled out of order if I seek to expound on what the Chancellor should have said to us yesterday. I am perfectly willing to send you a 15-page document on the alternatives which the Chancellor——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. The hon. Lady must not forward anything to the Chair.
      Mrs. Wise: I was provoked. I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      We are not concerned, therefore, about the crocodile tears that the Opposition have been shedding about workers' rights. The Opposition displayed their true feelings on that subject yesterday, as they have done on other occasions. Many of us are more concerned about the capitulation to the CBI and about the whittling away of one of the few firm features of the Bill. I support the declaration by my hon. Friend the Member for Walton that we should oppose Amendment No. 177.
      Mr. Richard Wainwright: I am glad to be able to take up the point raised by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise) in which she expressed astonishment and, if I understood her, a certain contempt for her Government's slavish obeisance to the CBI. It never ceases to astonish me that the great movement which now has the responsibility of government should go whoring after a body like the CBI under the delusion that it has any real title to represent the employer's side of industry just because it has hit upon the elegant device of bringing the nationalised industries into eligibility for membership.
      Mr. Mikardo: The hon. Member is wrong in suggesting that Government are whoring after the CBI, because whoring produces some return.
      Mr. Wainwright: Not always, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and certainly not in this case. It has not even been necessary to take precautions, because there is never any prospect of a productive return with a body whose claims to representative
      1590
      status are so hollow as those of the CBI.
      When the great history of the latter-day Labour Movement is written it will be recorded that just as Ramsay MacDonald found it necessary to know all the duchesses in London as soon as he got into Downing Street, so the present Government have such a complex that they have to go rushing to make the acquaintance of the CBI before they feel entitled to administer the Department of Industry. This is not only faintly laughable in the end, if it goes unchecked, it may prove disastrous. All those who represent industrial constituencies must be aware that the title of the CBI to represent industry is extremely slender and in some parts of the country is plainly bogus.
      One grows up in this place, so there is that to be said for it. I have grown up to the extent of not cherishing much hope that Labour Members below the Gangway are likely to support the Liberal amendment when it is called for a Division. As any amateur sociologist will discover on reading Hansard tomorrow, those Labour Members nearly all represent big towns, where it is reasonable to suppose—certainly in the case of the city of Leeds, where I have always lived—that the trade union movement is splendidly organised and does an excellent representative job.
      It so happens—I do not know whether it is a coincidence—that the Liberal Members, with perhaps one or two exceptions, but I doubt even that, represent areas in which, on the whole, the trade union movement is, unfortunately, poorly organised, and in some cases non-existent.
      9.15 p.m.
      In those circumstances, is it any wonder that we on the Liberal bench take the view that the trade union organisation in our areas is not adequate to bear the weight which will be placed on it if the Bill is passed with simply the Government's amendments in it. It is quite understandable to me that hon. Members representing the great cities and towns take a contrary view, based on their own long personal experience.
      Mr. Heller: I am sorry to interrupt. The hon. Member may or may not be

      1591
      aware of the fact that I was born in a very small town, with a population of about 13,000, with a very weak trade union movement. When I was an apprentice, the shop stewards in the jobs in which I worked were elected on a minority basis, because at that stage they were not the majority, but they worked hard to get the whole of the workers into the union. It is on the basis of precisely that sort of experience that I regard this Bill as very sensible in terms of giving the information to trade union representatives.
      Mr. Wainwright: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention. The town to which he refers as his birthplace was fortunate in having in its midst the future hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton as a zealous, hard-grafting trade union worker. All I am saying is that unfortunately, to my regret, a great many small towns in this country do not have people with the energy, drive and determination of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton to build up their trade union movement.
      I believe that I shall be forgiven for making a suggestion to Labour Members with whom I have sat in the Committee on those occasions when I was able to attend. It is that we might find common ground in the amendment—I hope it will be pressed to a Division—in the name of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis), because that amendment singles out for employee representative treatment only those concerns in which a majority of the workers are not in trade union membership. Surely that, at least, is fair to both of us from our respective experiences and background—that in cases where the trade union movement, unfortunately, is manifestly not in a position to accept the load to be imposed upon it by this amended statute, it should be proper for elected employee representatives to receive the information.
      The alternative—which I hesitate to attribute to Labour Members—having heard them speak in a most well-informed way in Committee—is that they should be using this information part of the Bill as a form of privilege with which to encourage trade union membership. I am very reluctant to believe that Labour Members—most of whom, I believe, have worked very hard indeed and in an
      1592
      honourable way to build up trade union membership by making the unions efficient and by engaging the enthusiasm of their fellow workers—would now fall back on the dismal expedient of privilege. which used to be the sole prerogative of the benches to my right, as an easy means of building up trade union membership in the less populated areas.
      I do not believe for a moment that the privilege of having the exclusive right to information will assist the healthy growth of trade unionism, which we on this bench want to see in the constituencies we represent. Therefore, I hope we shall succeed at least in accepting the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley).
      Mr. Doug Hoyle: I have listened with interest to the ideas of the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright). He is as aware as I am that things are changing, even in Colne Valley. I said in Committee that ICI, where many of the people of Colne Valley work, was not changing. But, thanks to a trade union organisation, the white-collar workers of ICI are at last joining trade unions. Things do change, if trade unions are there, and if their work goes on.
      We must strengthen the hand of trade unions. That is why I am sorry when I look at the amendments before us and see what the Government are now doing. With my hon. Friends, I believe in the mandatory policy. We believe in it for many reasons. We are talking largely about manufacturing industry, where we are dealing with large multinational companies. As trade unionists, we have often found it almost impossible, and always extremely difficult, to obtain information about the activities of a multinational company. Therefore, we hope to see a strengthening of the provisions regarding information.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise) was right when she said that what we have protested about it that the Bill does not go far enough in that direction. It does not ask enough questions. We want to know much more about transfer pricing. If we are to believe the Press, there was a suggestion last week that Chrysler United Kingdom, which has been reporting a loss of £17,700,000, may not have been making a real loss. As most of

      1593
      its sales overseas go to Chrysler subsidiaries, many of them going to Switzerland, the company may well have been deliberately selling those cars at a loss, which could place in jeopardy many of the jobs in this country.
      Conservative Members may well say that that suggestion could easily be checked by looking at the Swiss company's accounts to see at what price the cars are being sold. But it is not as easy as all that. The Swiss company has filed no accounts since 1969. Therefore, we can see the difficulty of the Chrysler workers in trying to establish not just whether the company is being run efficiently but whether it is selling its products overseas at the right price. It seems to be artificially low in relation to that of other motor manufacturers.
      We have been asked "Why do you need mandatory powers? These large companies will change their minds. They are only too prepared, if you will knock on the door and ask them for the information, to make it available to the employees and trade unions—indeed, to anyone who asks for it." I am sorry to say that they certainly have not yet changed their mind. My trade union, ASTMS, wrote to the multinational companies in the car industry on 21st April, because it was due to present information and evidence to the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee. It was said what it was doing and asked the companies to help with the provision of information.
      The information was very basic. The union asked for details of Government money, including development grants, received by the companies, and asked whether they had received orders from the Government over the past five years. It also asked for the total value of their exports in money terms and the number of vehicles they had exported in the past five years.
      The next question was a very important one in dealing with multinational companies, particularly when so often they are trading with subsidiaries in other countries. The union asked what were their imports over the past five years, including imports from subsidiaries overseas. Companies such as the Ford Motor Company are always boasting about their exports, but they rarely say what their imports are.
      1594
      The union also asked about research and development costs over the past five years. We may have a clause in the Bill requiring information en such costs. Such information is vital if we are to know a great deal about a company. All hon. Members would agree that the answers of the multinational companies provide the kind of information that the trade unions and employees of those companies should have, and one would believe—if we are to believe the new climate—that all of them would be forthcoming.
      The letter was sent on 21st April. Up to date I should say, in all fairness, that Vauxhall has replied. It was willing to help but has not furnished any evidence in relation to any of the headings I have mentioned. Ford has been completely non-committal. I am sorry to say that Chrysler, one of the companies. I have mentioned, and BMC have not replied at all.
      Sir Raymond Gower: For information only, was the information that was sought about research and development costs limited to the British company or was it for the research and development costs of the whole group of companies, which are in many countries?
      Mr. Hoyle: It was addressed to the British company and related to the research and development cost here. Very often it is vital to employees in this country to know what research and development is being carried out—in other words, to know that new models are being developed. This gives them a feeline security. Very often if the research and development of new vehicles is being carried out in other countries, employees may get the impression that their employment in this country could be in jeopardy. Certainly in this case we were asking for the research and development costs in this country.
      Sir Raymond Gower: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that information about research and development in this company alone might be unrealistic and might not give the full picture. In other words, the company in this country might well benefit from research and development carried out in other parts of the world.
      Mr. Hoyle: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says.
      Mrs. Wise: Since my hon. Friend wants to be absolutely fair to companies in this context, would he accept that after conversations with the CBI, to which I have referred, I was so struck by its claim that employers are now giving information to workers that I put out a call through my local newspaper asking either employers or workers to let me know the new structures, mechanisms or means being employed and the results of this information. I regret to say that no employer, worker or trade union communicated with me. Therefore, I could only conclude that somehow Coventry was being overlooked in this new climate.
      Mr. Hoyle: In the light of the lack of reply from Chrysler, I am not at all surprised that my hon. Friend did not receive any telephone call. From what was said earlier we might be a little luckier on insider dealings, but certainly in relation to the questions we asked there were no replies at all. This is why we attach so much importance to the clause being mandatory and why it should be freely available to the trade unions. I emphasise—because the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) is present—that often trade unions are very strong in manufacturing industry. They often represent the bulk of the work force in that industry and carry out its negotiations. It is the use that can be made of this information that is so vital to protect the interests of the employees in those companies.
      The hon. Member for Caernarvon was not present when my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Gaston (Mr. Loyden) said, when he interrupted an Opposition Member, that there was no reason at all why this information should not be given to employees. I hope that all the employers in Caernarvon, and in particular the small companies which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, set a lead for the country and give the information on a voluntary basis. If they do, they might bring their larger brothers into line. This could well be the case if people would volunteer the information.
      As far as we are concerned, in the fact that it is not to be mandatory but to be on a voluntary basis we see only a weakening of the Bill. Some of my hon. Friends and I were fortunate with the Under-Secretary yesterday, who had wisdom and bowed to the powerful argu-
      1596
      ments we were putting up. I join with my hon. Friends in asking the Secretary of State, even at this stage, to listen to our arguments and to look again at this matter. I ask him to agree with the way we were going in Committee, that this should not be on a voluntary basis but mandatory. That would help the trade unions and their members in this country to do a job of work in providing security of employment to all trade union members.
      9.30 p.m.
      Mr. Giles Shaw: The debate has turned in the main upon the interpretation which hon. Members below the Gangway on the Government side of the House place upon this clause and these provisions for industrial democracy. The Opposition take a cautious view, that the clause, as drafted, is insufficiently clear in relation to the position of all employees. This has to do, perhaps, with the problems of management in companies as they exist. What we cannot forecast are the Government's proposals on industrial democracy.
      One of the problems we had in Committee, for many hours, was that we were not aware of what the Government would be producing. Indeed, it was clear that in this Bill they were taking up certain thoughts which clearly stemmed from a certain policy on industrial democracy and weaving them into the Bill without a clear understanding—I think all members of the Committee understood that—of what their ultimate proposals for that policy would be.
      Therefore, we have this dichotomy. It it not surprising that Labour Members should be seeking to develop their arguments on industrial democracy. However, I want to remind them that in the White Paper, and subsequently in the functions of the National Enterprise Board, it was stated that the objective would be to create industrial democracy and to encourage it organically. It was not suggested that there was to be a grafting of a structure upon British industry, but that encouragement should be given to the development of democratic processes.
      It is for that reason, among many, that we feel so strongly about this amendment in relation to employees. We think it is right that all within a particular company

      1597
      should hear the information. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) had a point in saying that companies could, if they wished, pass on the information, and that there was nothing to prevent that in the Bill. But if that is generally so, there is no need for legislation. We must assume that the relevant trade unions need not be specified, because this is the normal channel through which management indicates matters to organised workers. Therefore, the provision of the specific phrase "relevant trade union" has a special meaning as far as the Government are concerned.
      It is because in management today the decisions that management must take in relation to relevant trade unions are decisions of the utmost importance that they find it so difficult to be nit-picking in this area. My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) drew attention to the difficulty managements will face in determining who are the representatives of the relevant trade unions. It is largely because at present the trade unions' structure is not organised in a way comparable with many management structures.
      If, as the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle) has said, Labour Members find difficulty in obtaining information on international companies or the inter-company dealings of an international group, they should set up an international trade union structure which would enable them to have this kind of information, and they should be able to have a structure which transcended the European boundaries. I trust that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne will believe that. I trust that he will be able to develop a real rapport with all employees within a group which a trade union structure is designed to serve.
      Mr. Hoyle: Of course we are working for an international trade union movement. That is part of the policy. We have got to have it. But is the hon. Gentleman advocating that in the meantime workers should lose their jobs because of lack of information here?
      Mr. Shaw: Certainly not. It is not a matter of having to rely upon a trade union structure to determine whether workers will lose their jobs. A company which decides or is encouraged to dis-
      1598
      close information to only a portion of its work force must recognise that there are problems of industrial relations which must be tackled. It is not a matter of trying to legislate to give information to one portion of the work force but not to another. We must encourage all sectors of the work force to come together, to believe that the life of the company depends on the search for joint objectives, and to work to that end.
      We recognise that the Government have made a number of changes. The Opposition do not share the anxiety expressed by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite that these changes are mischievous in their intention. Those changes are designed to make this Bill more practical and to ensure that this section of the Bill on the disclosure of information has a sensible structure as opposed to one which is not sensible. That is why we feel strongly that the amendment to make all employees the recipients of information would be both sensible and practical. That is why we propose to press this to a Division.
      Mr. Ivor Clemitson: We have heard a number of eloquent pleas made by Government supporters in favour of the compulsory disclosure of information to trade unions. We have heard a number of objections from the Opposition to the principle of compulsion and the principle of disclosure to trade unions rather than to all employees. I find that that comes oddly from the Opposition. Even in the Section 56 of the infamous Industrial Relations Act 1971 a duty was imposed on all employers to disclose information. There was compulsion. Secondly, there was compulsion to disclose information to trade unions. Disclosure of information is a necessary part and precondition of industrial democracy, although we should be careful not to confuse the disclosure of information and the possession of information with industrial democracy.
      Unfortunately there are cases in which employees and trade unions are in possession of a great deal of information but are impotent to do anything with it.
      We have had an interesting discussion of the meaning of industrial democracy. We heard the ideas of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon), who expressed concern for the establishment of

      1599
      works councils. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) made an interesting contribution. He developed the idea that industrial democracy is a matter of developing collective bargaining. Indeed, he developed it to the point where every question was negotiable—in other words that collective bargaining should cover the range of concerns, decisions and activities within a company. I agree with him to a large extent.
      I now refer to Clause 17 of the Employment Protection Bill, which imposes a general duty on employers to disclose such information as is required for collective bargaining. A compulsory duty is to be laid on employers to disclose information to trade unions. That provision refers to all information which may be required for collective bargaining. In the provisions of that clause there was not capitulation to the CBI or any other interested body. I hope that that principle will apply to this Bill.
      Clause 17 of the Employment Protection Bill is potentially very wide. For example, it applies to all employers not just to large employers or to those who occupy a significant place in an industry. It applies not only to information about a particular company but to information about associated companies—not just subsidiary companies. It contains not an incomplete list of pieces of information which the employer must give to trade unions, but a general duty to disclose all such information as is required for collective bargaining.
      I would not support any capitulation to the CBI. All I say is, let us not exaggerate the importance of this capitulation, if capitulation it be.
      Mr. Varley: I thank the hon. Members who have spoken from both sides of the House for putting their views so forcefully. There is a fundamental difference of view between the two sides of the House. The Government side wish to encourage the development of strong and independent trade unions and are opposed to giving statutory rights to non-union representatives. That is the real reason why I cannot accept Amendment (a). That is a fundamental difference between us, and I cannot give way on that. We believe
      1600
      that trade unions are the proper means through which workers have an effective say in management decisions. To that end, in this Bill and in the Employment Protection Bill we aim to strengthen the rights of trade unions in collective bargaining and in discussions with companies.
      The hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley) was very persuasive, and I am sorry that I cannot go along with what he said. General anxiety was expressed by the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) and other Opposition Members that if the Government accepted Amendment (a) we would not be giving much away. I put it another way. There is nothing in the Bill or in the amendments which we have put down to prevent information, whether acquired voluntarily or compulsorily, from being passed to employees or shareholders. If these arrangements are made, I expect that ways will be found to pass information to employees who are not yet members of trade unions, and to shareholders.
      The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) gave the game away by suggesting that more employees should belong to trade unions. He said that in his area those who did not belong to trade unions were the low-paid workers. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent the disclosure of information to employees and shareholders, and I should be alarmed if there were.
      The hon. Member for Truro suggested that works councils, where they existed, should have this information because they were the most effective vehicle for representing the views of employees. I have had some experience of workers' councils. For example, when the coal industry was nationalised a consultative committee was set up that was separate from the trade union organisation. The committee had a very elaborate constitution. Representatives were elected from the work force but not on the basis of whether they were members of a particular trade union. After a couple of years it was found to be such a farce that it was decided that the only way of introducing effective powers into the consultative procedures, would be by enshrining the system within the trade union organisation. If the hon. Gentleman were to examine that experience he would find that to be the case.

      1601
      9.45 p.m.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) was right to point out that collective bargaining is not only about pay. I entirely agree. One of my tasks a few years ago was to delve into the Sankey Commission, which sat in 1919 to consider the nationalisation of the coal industry. At that time the national leaders of the Miners Federation of Great Britain were members of the Sankey Commission. One of its members, a Mr. Straker from Northumberland, was able to say in 1919 that the nationalisation of coal mines did not involve only pounds, shillings and pence but men who wanted to be free and wanted to take decisions. At that time they wanted information and disclosure.
      It has been a source of deep regret to me that there has not been a greater movement towards industrial democracy or workers' control—call it what one will—within the mining industry. The fact that the coal industry has been nationalised for nearly 30 years and has one large dominant trade union—namely, the National Union of Mineworkers, which has 98 per cent. of the industry's work force within its membership—does not stop its members fighting among themselves like billyho. That ensures that they do not take more effective power and control inside the industry.
      I think that there is scope for developing planning agreements not only in nationalised industries but in other industries. I refer to the planning agreement that I had with the coal mining industry when I was Secretary of State for Energy. One of the first things that I did was to call in the members of the trade unions to say "Can we have a planning agreement now?" After six months we were able to have one. As a result of that agreement the coal mining industry is the only growth industry that I can see in Britain at the moment. There are now 7,000 more people working in the mining industry, and production has increased. I hope that that kind of concept can be developed not only in the nationalised industries but in private industries.
      I am convinced that the voluntary powers that we are proposing are better than the statutory powers that are proposed elsewhere.
      Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Surely the whole essence of the debate and the whole essence of the anxiety within the Labour movement is how to get information out of private industry. I agree that information from the nationalised industries is reasonably easy to obtain and that there is virtually an open book.
      Mr. Varley: I agree. I was going to say that there is nothing that we are proposing to prevent information being obtained if it becomes necessary. It is true that in nationalised industries there is much more access to information. I am saying that trade unions within nationalised industries need to grasp it more quickly and use it more effectively. It is a source of regret to me that they have not done that so far.
      Mr. Crawford: The right hon. Gentleman said that it is easy to get information from the nationalised industries. However, in Scotland we are finding it difficult to discover what the British Steel Corporation is planning for Scotland. I do not think it is true to say that it is easy to find out what the nationalised industries are doing.
      Mr. Varley: It is easier to do so than in private industry. The hon. Gentleman knows that the matter that he has raised is being discussed and that in due course information will be given about the corporation's plans in Scotland. We believe that voluntary powers are preferable.
      I come to the point made by a good many of my hon. Friends about the question whether mandatory powers are better than discretionary powers. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) gave the impression—I know that it was not his intention—that as the Bill stands without the amendments there is a degree of automaticity—in other words, that if nothing were done and no amendments were moved, there would be automatic disclosure. He knows that that is not true——
      Mr. Heffer: I hope that I did not convey that impression. I was dealing with the question of passing on the information to trade unions. It was the duty of the Secretary of State to pass it on. Now he may pass it on at his discretion. That is the issue, and that is the only issue.

      1603
      Surely the Secretary of State knows that very well indeed.
      Mr. Varley: I know that, and I want to make the situation absolutely clear. It would have been possible for me to leave the Bill entirely as it is and not to have tabled these amendments. I could have got into some kind of deal with the CBI or some other body.
      It was said that I could have made the statement to those concerned "I do not know what you are concerned about. Before disclosure powers can be exercised, it will be at my discretion." That would have been a cynical view, and I do not think many of my hon. Friends would have agreed to such an approach. When I appeared in the Standing Committee the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) was that we should not do anything about the situation—in the words that we should not change anything, and that it was as good as a wink or a nod to the CBI that those powers would not be exercised. That would not have been a proper or fair way of dealing with the matter. We regard the present proposals as a much better method—in other words, to have reserve powers. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton went some way to meet this matter on Second Reading and it is not necessary to quote his words. Right from the beginning of the Bill these powers in respect of disclosure were always regarded as reserve powers.
      The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) suggested that we need more disclosure and should have all these matters centralised in London. I thought that he missed the point to a great extent in respect of the disclosure provisions. These provisions do not mean that the information will all be collected in the Department of Industry. Where there is a voluntary arrangement, or even a compulsory one, the information may be required for sectoral planning purposes. There would be information between the company and its employees and it would not have to come to a central point as the hon. Gentleman suggests. Therefore, his fears are to a great extent unfounded.
      Mr. Wigley: The Minister said that information would pass between the com-
      1604
      pany and employees. The point is that the information may pass only between company and trade union representatives, who may or may not be employees or who may not live in the vicinity, and therefore that information may not reach all the employees.
      Mr. Varley: In the first instance, the information would be handed over to the appropriate trade union official. It would not involve the Government, but the company would hand over the information to shop stewards, regional officers or national officers. The company would decide to what trade union representative it handed the information. There is nothing at that stage to prevent the company giving that same information to employees who are not members of trade unions or shareholders. They can go ahead and take that step. I think that meets some of the hon. Gentleman's objections.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise) suggested that these provisions were a capitulation to the CBI. That is not how the CBI sees the matter. It pressed many amendments on the Government, and I have seen one report suggesting that the CBI still takes some exception to the disclosure power.
      I genuinely believe that the amendments meet the spirit of undertakings that were given by Ministers when the Bill was introduced and indeed throughout the Committee stage.
      I believe that our amendments will encourage voluntary arrangements. The full intention of the Government, since the Bill was introduced, has been that voluntary arrangements were preferable to mandatory and compulsory arrangements. In many respects the amendments that I have moved will strengthen parliamentary control.
      As the Bill stands at present—this matter was not mentioned by any of my hon. Friends—a Committee could prevent me, or any other Secretary of State, exercising these powers. It could prevent me from handing over information to trades unions. A Committee could overrule me, and it is therefore right that we should prevent that from happening. Certainly the amendments that we have moved overcome some of the considerable technical defects that would have had to be

      1605
      changed in any case, but in no way, where it becomes necessary, do they prevent disclosure. The disclosure provision remains enshrined in the Bill, and that is how it should be. I hope that my hon. Friends will support our amendments.
      Mr. Heseltine: The Secretary of State for Industry, in summing up what we have heard in the course of an interesting and long debate this afternoon, has quite understandably been unable to deal with the heart of the dialogue that occupied the Standing Committee for 40 sittings and two days on Report. The heart of the dialogue is explained by the fury which was felt by the Opposition at the way in which the Bill differed from the White Paper.
      Until today the whole argument has been that the Government had honoured faithfully the promises and pledges which the White Paper contained and that the Opposition were being hysterical or were deliberately distorting the position for narrow political ends.
      The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), as characteristically as one would expect, has explained factually and accurately that everything that has been said on the Opposition side of the House is 100 per cent. true. That is the problem that the Secretary of State for Industry faces. The reality is that the dialogue, quite frankly, is not between the two Front Benches on this matter. The Secretary of State is doing the best he can to put forward the arguments that have been presented to him. He did not have time to influence their formulation. Indeed in the few days that he has been here he has done a perfectly honourable job trying to make the best of a bad job. He is trying to patch the flat tyre and push the cranky car forward in the hope that it will somehow scrape home to the end of this parliamentary Session. I do not blame him for that, and I make no recriminations whatsoever.
      The reality is that the White Paper, upon which the Bill was supposed to be based, is in itself a deceit. It was never intended by the people who were the architects of the policy which is supposedly enshrined in the Bill that the reserve powers should be reserve in connection with planning agreements. It was always intended that the disclosure powers should be absolute in their own
      1606
      right and that the planning agreement association was a convenient electoral device put forward in order to quieten the electorate and give the Government an opportunity at least to pretend that there was some sort of respectability about what they had in mind. I praise the hon. Member for Walton because he has confirmed everything that we have always said.
      If the debate is permitted to continue along the lines it has done for some hours, I want to address myself to the real argument.
      10.0 p.m.
      Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman is turning my argument on its head. My point was that the original proposal in the Labour Party's programme, particularly in the Green Paper upon which the Bill was based, was that the compulsory disclosure of information would go with compulsory planning agreements. Therefore, if we had compulsory planning agreements, we had compulsory disclosure of information. We then decided that we should aim for voluntary planning agreements. It was not always the intention that the information should be compulsory. The information aspect was added at a later stage. There was no dubiety on the part of either the Government or the Labour Party to kid the public in any way. This happens with many White Papers and legislation. The hon. Gentleman knows that all Governments issue White Papers and that, between the issue of White Papers and the Bills coming forward, extra information becomes available, further discussions are initiated, and, on occasions, there are slight divergences between the White Papers and the legislation.
      Mr. Heseltine Mr. Heseltine rose——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. I remind hon. Members that the guillotine falls at 11 o'clock. I hope that interventions will not be used as opportunities for making speeches.
      Mr. Heseltine: I would not seek to challenge your interpretation, Mr. Deputy Speaker. But significantly the contribution made by the hon. Member for Walton was the most important that we had during the whole of this Report stage. I am grateful for the clarification that we have had. The hon. Gentleman has

      1607
      totally confirmed that from the beginning it was intended that there should be a compulsory system of disclosure of information. Whether that disclosure of information was in the package on planning agreements is irrelevant. There was always to be a compulsory system of disclosure of information.
      The White Paper gave the impression that there would be voluntary planning agreements and that the disclosure element would be totally dependent upon voluntary planning agreements. That was the point at which the Bill wholly departed from the White Paper. The voluntary planning agreements occupied Clause 14, which was of no significance to anybody, and the compulsory disclosure powers are no longer reserve, but are a fundamental and, indeed, the overwhelmingly most significant part of the Bill in their own right.
      That takes us back to the beginning of the dialogue that I want to have and from which I exclude the Secretary of State for Industry and the Under-Secretary, because they have not, and perhaps cannot be expected to have, understood the nature of the dialogue.
      The nature of the dialogue surrounding the Bill is about power. It concerns where power is to be exercised in industry and in the Government's political relationship with industry.
      The arguments of those who designed the Green Paper upon which these proposals were built—they are largely to be found sitting below the Gangway opposite—were always clear: that they sought to bring about a transfer of power in industry, first, from employees at large to the organisation of the trade union movement, and, secondly, from the wide disparate ownership power in the hands of the corporate society to a publicly-owned nationalised sector. That was the purpose of the exercise.
      If anyone has not understood that point, he has not begun to realise that this discussion is restricted to a relatively limited number of people. It has been interesting to follow Press coverage of this issue, which, if we listen to the speeches by hon. Gentlemen opposite, is of wide and massive interest to millions of our fellow citizens. Yet the papers which are
      1608
      most widely read by those millions of our fellow citizens have hardly given a column inch of coverage to the deliberations on the Industry Bill. The reason is simple. They know that the rather erudite arguments put forward in support of the Bill are of very little concern to the people who are supposedly so passionately eager to see this legislation enacted.
      If I may quote from a speech by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) at a Labour Party conference, I believe that the reality of this matter is clearly revealed. He said:
      "To say that Party Conference after Party Conference has accepted a policy doesn't mean that the majority who voted for it believed in it. You can't say that people believe in something they don't understand. It wasn't nationalisation that would attract voters into the Labour Party. They would rather be tempted by promises of improved social services. Then, once they were in, they would vote and argue for steel nationalisation, even though they didn't know the first thing about it. You may call it bribery, hut it's the way to get people into the party, and if you want to convince people about nationalisation, go ahead and try, but you won't get any members."
      That is the essence of this dialogue, albeit nearly 30 years later.
      This Government, with their promise of a social contract, with their promise of an 8½ per cent. inflation rate, with policies for Europe which suited any spectrum of opinion, offered to the British people a package of industrial policies which had no mirror in the genuine and legitimate aspirations of the overwhelming majority. Yet this Bill, which is the equivalent of the nationalisation which the Labour Party would not stomach in the 1940s, is now expressing the views of the Labour Party's Left wing about industry which are not accepted by the majority of people.
      It is the Government's dilemma that they need the support of the group who designed this legislation to the point where they have to compromise with their views. But they need the support also of the majority of people who have to elect the Government. Therefore, they know that they cannot pursue the views of those on the Left of their party. The result is a compromise. We have neither a successful free enterprise economy, nor the alternative neo-Marxist economy which at least provides an alternative to what we

      1609
      have today. The policies that this Government are pursuing will have the disadvantage of destroying the one without achieving the other. That is why the pressures behind this Government from the Left are so harmful without making a positive contribution of the sort that they would like.
      It is said that this group of amendments is a capitulation to the CBI. I quarrel with the idea that it has been a capitulation. There have been changes, but that they represent a capitulation is out of accord with reality. Far from the CBI, very large numbers of managers in British industry are restraining their articulation of what they believe in. What is missing is sufficient articulation from the managers of industry who understand why this legislation is likely to pose the threat that we have been saying that it will.
      The reality is that, if anyone wants to understand why it is that managers of industry have become increasingly despondent about the theories upon which this legislation is built, he has only to study what has been said by the managers of Hawker-Siddeley, who have argued passionately in favour of being allowed to manage their own very successful company and whose employees have never shown any interest in moving from private to the public sector.
      We now have a Secretary of State for Industry responsible for the nationalisation Bill which he has just dropped who, when asked on television last week what plans he had for that industry when he nationalised it, had to say that he had no plans and that that would be the purpose of the steering group when it was selected.
      How is any manager or employee—any qualified engineer or any trained shop floor operative—supposed to have confidence in a Government whose spokesmen say that they have no plans for the industry other than that it will be transferred from the private to the public sector regardless of the consequences that may follow?
      It would be understandable if people who had listened to this debate believed that the issue between the two sides of the House was that of disclosure. It is not. That was part of the platform of the Conservative Party at the last election. We said that there should be a standard of disclosure of information backed by
      1610
      the law in which, in the last resort, companies would be compelled to practise the best forms of disclosure of information. Therefore, that is in no way an issue in this debate. Everbody believes that the right kind of information disclosure in the right way is a necessary part of the functioning of an efficient economy today, but where the issue lies is not whether we should disclose because we agree on that, but to whom we should disclose and in what way.
      I was disappointed, in listening to the Secretary for Industry to hear him reply, when asked why they had chosen disclosure only to trade union representatives "That is our opinion; that is what we believe in". Not a single reason was given other than that was the policy of the party to which he belongs. The approach of the hon. Member for Walton seemed more reasonable because he was arguing for flexibility. In Yugoslavia there is a great deal of industrial disclosure but no political freedom, and that cannot be dissociated from the total industrial disclosure. There is a different system in Germany, which we all understand. In this country we have a range of different methods of disclosure of information.
      I believe there is as yet no proven method of knowing which is the best way of involving workers in the company for which they work. The great need, therefore, is for a period of flexibility and experimentation in which pressures are maintained to ensure that progress is made, but an arbitrary method might have the effect of actually reducing the flow of information and intensifying the bitterness that might follow if the situation were mishandled. Anyone who believes we are talking about a desire to give people more information has only to cast his mind back to a debate that we had in this House very recently in which the Ryder Report on British Leyland was published, for the benefit of the House, in a version of some 70 pages when the number of pages in the original report amounted to 200.
      If there is any occasion for the disclosure of information, surely it should be in circumstances where the public are expected to contribute about £2·8 million, and yet in area after area where this Bill mandates that unions should be entitled to information, the Ryder Report

      1611
      strikes out that very information because it is regarded as commercially sensitive, which proves beyond doubt that there is no possible consistency in the arguments being advocated on the strict disclosure of information. If that were the argument and it was possible for the Secretary for Industry and his colleagues in the Government to give today a general directive to nationalised industries to practise tomorrow the kind of disclosure procedures written into this legislation, we would then be able to see whether in reality that would achieve the kind of end-product or improvement in worker involvement that hon. Members opposite are promising. Why do not they do that? Why have they not done it over 20 or 30 years? It is because in reality they consider it has relatively little to do with the objectives which led to the production of these proposals.
      I want to make a further point on the decision to give information only to union representatives. I was asked by representatives of the staff at Hawker Siddeley and British Aircraft Corporation if I could explain to them—they numbered many thousands of people—why the Secretary for Industry would not talk to them and yet was prepared to spend a great deal of his time talking to unions representing thousands of other people. If I can be assured that there is any moral or political justification for singling out a man who happens to have a union ticket and turning him into a first-class citizen, when the rest of the people who do not join unions are turned in some way into second-class citizens simply to suit the political convenience of the interests of the Labour Party. I would be interested to hear those reasons.
      The reality of the situation is that the Government are giving unions privileges they would in no way ask the unions to measure with responsibilities to meet them. If one genuinely believes in worker participation or employee participation, why cannot we involve all employees or workers, as opposed to doing what the Government do in saying, "We will allow the law to affect only the union representatives"?
      Mr. Heffer: May I put a factual point? The hon. Gentleman must know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary
      1612
      of State for Energy did on at least one occasion meet representatives of the staff association to which he has referred.
      Mr. Mikardo: The blacklegs' QC.
      10.15 p.m.
      Mr. Heseltine: I would hesitate to lay charges that I could not substantiate. I was assured by the represenatives of the staff association that I saw—and there are many associations—that they had not been able to gain the audience which the hon. Member suggests they did. As I rose to answer that question the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow referred to me, in what I think was a significant sedentary intervention as "the blacklegs' QC." I had intended to take up that observation which the hon. Member made in his speech when he said that those who take advantages which have been earned by the unions without joining the unions are blacklegs.
      As I understand it, that is not the definition of "blackleg". As I understand it a blackleg is a man who does not strike when his union wants him to strike. But that is a question of semantics. What I absolutely contest is the concept that a man who joins a union is entitled to regard himself as being in some way morally superior to those of his colleagues in a firm who do not.
      Mr. Mikardo: Nobody said that.
      Mr. Heseltine: Anyone who can refer to a non-union member as a blackleg, which is what the hon. Member did, is revealing an attitude of mind, on intolerance, which is totally unacceptable to anyone who knows what freedom means.
      Mr. Mikardo: I am sure that I did the hon. Gentleman a service by interrupting him at this point since his blood pressure was getting a bit too high for the good of his health. No one said that everyone who did not join a trade union was a blackleg. I will tell the hon. Member what I said and he can read it in Hansard tomorrow. The hon. Member ought to get out of this persistent habit of his of putting words into people's mouths. What I said was that a man who does not bear the obligations of unionism and who is the first to hold out his hand for the benefits that the unions are negotiating is a blackleg—and so he is.
      Mr. Heseltine: I can well understand that the hon. Member did not approve of my putting into his mouth words which he had used at the Labour Party conference. It must have been extremely embarrassing for him to have them quoted in the House. He gave the clearest possible indication that he took the view that anyone who is not a member of a union should he regarded as a blackleg.
      Mr. Mikardo: Rubbish.
      Mr. Heseltine: When I was talking earlier the hon. Member described me as "the blacklegs' QC". That proves beyond doubt that he thought I was arguing the case of those people.
      The argument is clear. We are in favour of disclosure. None of the political parties, to my knowledge, is against it. All will act in favour of it—the Liberal Party, the National parties, and preeminently the Conservative Party. [Interruption.] I am prepared to give hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House a certain amount of publicity, but not for nothing. It is important that we should clearly understand that we are not debating whether there should be disclosure. That is beyond question. There should be. We all support that.
      What is at issue is whether that disclosure should be made to union representatives who may or may not be within the firm concerned, who may or may not have a loyalty to that firm, who may have superior loyalties to firms which have a larger union membership. Above all, the issue is whether that information should be
      1614
      given to people who in every conceivable case could be considered to be motivated by political reasons completely apart from the interests of union members in a given company.
      The arguments are overwhelming. By treating British industry in this way we are putting it at a disadvantage from which it will undoubtedly suffer. It will greatly reduce the prospects of people investing in jobs in this country when they have the choice of going to Europe where no Government would dream of treating industry in this way. By trying to create two classes of citizens, one union and one non-union, we are acting positively to divide the nation in a harmful and regrettable way. For all these reasons I would strongly recommend my hon. Friends to vote against the Government amendment and to support our amendment to the proposed amendment and the Liberal amendment to the proposed amendment.
      Mr. Wigley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that a separate Division will be permitted on Amendment No. 170?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes, we have agreed on that.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 78, in page 14, line 18, leave out 'which' and insert:
      '(b) that a group of companies is carrying on in the United Kingdom an undertaking wholly or mainly engaged in manufacturing industry,
      and if it also appears to him—
      (i) that the undertaking'.—[Mr. Varley.]

      Amendment proposed: No. 79, in page 14, line 21, leave out 'or that a subsidiary of any person is carrying on such an undertaking' and insert:

      'and

      5

      (ii) that it is desirable, for the purpose of obtaining information of that description, that the company or companies concerned should provide the Government and a representative of each relevant trade union with any such information relating to the undertaking, may serve a preliminary notice on the company or companies concerned.

      10

      (1A) In this Act—

      "company or companies concerned" means—

      15

      (a) where it appears to the Minister that the condition mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above is satisfied, the company carrying on the undertaking, and

      (b) where it appears to the Minister that the condition specified in subsection (i)(b) above is satisfied—

      (i) the group's holding company, if that company is registered in the United Kingdom, and

      (ii) all the companies in the group, if the holding company is not registered in the United Kingdom; and

      "preliminary notice" means a notice—

      20

      (a) stating which of the conditions specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) above appears to the Minister to be satisfied in relation to the undertaking;

      25

      (b) informing the company or companies concerned that if the Minister is not satisfied that such information relating to the undertaking as is specified in paragraph (ii) of that subsection will be given voluntarily both to him and to a representative of each relevant trade union he will consider making an order under this section; and

      (c) requiring them—

      30

      (i) to give a representative of each relevant trade union a notice of the service of the preliminary notice within 14 days of the date on which it is served; and

      (ii) to give the Minister, within such reasonable time as may be specified in the preliminary notice, a list of representatives of relevant trade unions to whom he has given the notice mentioned in paragraph (i) above.

      35

      (1B) When a Minister serves a preliminary notice, he shall lay before each House of Parliament a statement that he has served it, specifying the company or companies concerned and the date on which it was served.

      (1C) Subject to subsection (1D) to (1F) below, when a Minister has served a preliminary notice,'.—[Mr. Varley.]

      Amendment proposed to the proposed amendment (a), in line 6, leave out
      'a representative of each relevant trade union' and insert 'employee representatives'.—[Mr. Penhaligon.]
      Question put, That the amendment to the proposed amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 186, Noes 203.

      Division No. 265.]

      AYES

      [10.20 p.m.

      Arnold, Tom

      Carllsle, Mark

      Elliott, Sir William

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Emery, Peter

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Churchill, W. S.

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Baker, Kenneth

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

      Beith, A. J.

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Eyre, Reginald

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Benyon, W.

      Clegg, Walter

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Farr, John

      Biffen, John

      Cope, John

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Cordle, John H.

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Cormack, Patrick

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Bottomley, Peter

      Crawford, Douglas

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Crouch, David

      Fry, Peter

      Brittan, Leon

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

      Broughton, Sir Alfred

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Goodhart, Philip

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Durant, Tony

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Burden, F. A.

      Dykes, Hugh

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Sims, Roger

      Gray, Hamish

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Grist, Ian

      Marten, Neil

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Grylls, Michael

      Mates, Michael

      Speed, Keith

      Hall, Sir John

      Mather, Carol

      Spence, John

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Mawby, Ray

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Sproat, Iain

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Stainton, Keith

      Hannam, John

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Stanley, John

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Mills, Peter

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Hawkins, Paul

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Henderson, Douglas

      Monro, Hector

      Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

      Heseltine, Michael

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Holland, Philip

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Stokes, John

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Morgan, Geraint

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Hordern, Peter

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Mudd, David

      Tebbit, Norman

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Neubert, Michael

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Hurd, Douglas

      Newton, Tony

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Kendon S)

      Jessel, Toby

      Normanton, Tom

      Thompson, George

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Nott, John

      Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Pardoe, John

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Kimball, Marcus

      Parkinson, Cecil

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Percival, Ian

      Viggers, Peter

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Raison, Timothy

      Wakeham, John

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Rathbone, Tim

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Knox, David

      Reid, George

      Watt, Hamish

      Lamont, Norman

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Welsh, Andrew

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Lawson, Nigel

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      Lloyd, Ian

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Loveridge, John

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Younger, Hon George

      Luce, Richard

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      MacCormick, Iain

      Sheraby, Michael

      Mr. David Penhaligon and

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Silvester, Fred

      Mr. Richard Wainwright.

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      NOES

      Allaun, Frank

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Anderson, Donald

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Harper, Joseph

      Ashton, Joe

      Deakins, Eric

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Atkins, Ronald (Proston N)

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds W)

      Hatton, Frank

      Atkinson, Norman

      Delargy, Hugh

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Dempsey, James

      Hooley, Frank

      Bates, Alf

      Doig, Peter

      Horam, John

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Dormand, J. D.

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Bishop, E. S.

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Hughes. Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Dunn, James A.

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Boardman, H.

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Booth, Albert

      Eadie, Alex

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Bottomley, Peter

      Edge, Geoff

      Hunter, Adam

      Bradley, Tom

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Evans,Ioan (Aberdare)

      Janner, Greville

      Buchan, Norman

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Buchanan, Richard

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Campbell, Ian

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Flannery, Martin

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Cant, R. B.

      Ford, Ben

      Judd, Frank

      Carmichael, Neil

      Forrester, John

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Carter, Ray

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Kelley, Richard

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Freeson, Reginald

      Kerr, Russell

      Cartwright, John

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Clemitson, Ivor

      George, Bruce

      Lambie, David

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Lamborn, Harry

      Cohen, Stanley

      Ginsburg, David

      Lamond, James

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Golding, John

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Corbett, Robin

      Gould, Bryan

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Gourlay, Harry

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Graham, Ted

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Cryer, Bob

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Luard, Evan

      Davidson, Arthur

      Grocott, Bruce

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Prescott, John

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      McCusker, H.

      Radice, Giles

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Tierney, Sydney

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Tinn, James

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Tomlinson, John

      Maclennan, Robert

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Urwin, T. W.

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      McNamara, Kevin

      Rooker, J. W.

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Madden, Max

      Roper, John

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Magee, Bryan

      Rose, Paul B.

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Mahon, Simon

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Ward, Michael

      Marks, Kenneth

      Sandelson, Neville

      Watkins, David

      Marquand, David

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Watkinson, John

      Marshall, Or Edmund (Goole)

      Selby, Harry

      Weetch, Ken

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Wellbeloved, James

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Meacher, Michael

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      White, James (Pollok)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Sillars, James

      Whitlock, William

      Millan, Bruce

      Silverman, Julius

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      Small, William

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Molloy, William

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Snape, Peter

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Munay, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Spearing, Nigel

      Woodall, Alec

      Noble, Mike

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Woof, Robert

      Oakes, Gordon

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Ogden, Eric

      Stoddart, David

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

      Stott, Roger

      Padley, Walter

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Palmer, Arthur

      Swain, Thomas

      Mr. Donald Coleman and

      Park, George

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Mr. Laurie Pavitt.

      Parry, Robert

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendment proposed to the proposed amendment (b) in line 6, leave out
      'a representative of each relevant trade union' and insert 'all employees'.—[Mr.Stanley.]
      Question put, That the amendment to the proposed amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 187, Noes 200.

      Division No. 266.]

      AYES

      [10.35 p.m.

      Arnold, Tom

      Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Eyre, Reginald

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Baker, Kenneth

      Farr, John

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Beith, A. J.

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Knox, David

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Lamont, Norman

      Benyon, W.

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Lawrence,Ivan

      Bitten, John

      Fry, Peter

      Lawson, Nigel

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Bottomley, Peter

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Lloyd, Ian

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Goodhart, Philip

      Loveridge, John

      Brittan, Leon

      Goodlad, Alastair

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Brotherton, Michael

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      MacCormick, Iain

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Gray, Hamish

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Burden, F. A.

      Grist, Ian

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Grylls, Michael

      Marten, Neil

      Carlisle, Mark

      Hall, Sir John

      Mates, Michael

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Mather, Carol

      Churchill, W. S.

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Mawby, Ray

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Hannam, John

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Clegg, Walter

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Hawkins, Paul

      Mills, Peter

      Cope,John

      Henderson, Douglas

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Cordle, John H.

      Heseltine, Michael

      Monro, Hector

      Cormack, Patrick

      Holland, Philip

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Crawford, Douglas

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Crouch, David

      Hordern, Peter

      Morgan, Geraint

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Mudd, David

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Durant, Tony

      Hurd, Douglas

      Neubert, Michael

      Dykes, Hugh

      Jessel, Toby

      Newton, Tony

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Normanton, Tom

      Elliott, Sir William

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Nott, John

      Emery, Peter

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Kimball, Marcus

      Pardoe, John

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Penhaligon, David

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Percival, Ian

      Speed, Keith

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Raison, Timothy

      Spence, John

      Viggers, Peter

      Rathbone, Tim

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Sproat, Iain

      Wakeham, John

      Reid, George

      Stainton, Keith

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Warren, Kenneth

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Stanley, John

      Watt, Hamish

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Welsh, Andrew

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Tebbit, Norman

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Younger, Hon George

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Shersby, Michael

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Silvester, Fred

      Thompson, George

      Mr. Richard Luce and

      Sims, Roger

      Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

      Mr. Michael Roberts.

      NOES

      Allaun, Frank

      Forrester, John

      Marks, Kenneth

      Anderson, Donald

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Marquand, David

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Freeson, Reginald

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Ashton, Joe

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      George, Bruce

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Atkinson, Norman

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Meacher, Michael

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Ginsburg, David

      Mikardo, Ian

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Golding, John

      Millan, Bruce

      Bates, Alf

      Gould, Bryan

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Gourlay, Harry

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      Bishop, E. S.

      Graham, Ted

      Molloy, William

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Boardman, H.

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Booth, Albert

      Grocott, Bruce

      Noble, Mike

      Bradley, Tom

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Oakes, Gordon

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Ogden, Eric

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

      Buchan, Norman

      Hatton, Frank

      Padley, Walter

      Buchanan, Richard

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Palmer, Arthur

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Park, George

      Campbell, Ian

      Hooley, Frank

      Parry, Robert

      Canavan, Dennis

      Horam, John

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Cant, R. B.

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Prescott, John

      Carmichael, Neil

      Hughes, Rt Hon C (Anglesey)

      Radice, Giles

      Carter, Ray

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Cartwright, John

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Hunter, Adam

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Coleman, Donald

      Janner, Greville

      Rooker, J. W.

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Roper, John

      Corbett, Robin

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Rose, Paul B.

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Sandelson, Neville

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Cryer, Bob

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Selby, Harry

      Davidson, Arthur

      Judd, Frank

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Kelley, Richard

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Kerr, Russell

      Sillars, James

      Deakins, Eric

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Silverman, Julius

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Lambie, David

      Skinner, Dennis

      Delargy, Hugh

      Lamborn, Harry

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Lamond, James

      Snape, Peter

      Dempsey, James

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Spearing, Nigel

      Doig, Peter

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Dormand, J. D

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Stoddart, David

      Dunn, James A.

      Loyden, Eddie

      Stott, Roger

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Luard, Evan

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Eadie, Alex

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Swain, Thomas

      Edge, Geoff

      McCartney, Hugh

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Evans, loan (Aberdare)

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Tierney, Sydney

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Tinn, James

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Tomlinson, John

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      McNamara, Kevin

      Urwin, T. W.

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Madden, Max

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Flannery, Martin

      Magee, Bryan

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Ford, Ben

      Mahon, Simon

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      1622

      1623

      Ward, Michael

      Whitlock, William

      Woof, Robert

      Watkins, David

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Watkinson. John

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Weetch, Ken

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Wellbeloved, James

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Mr. Joseph Harper and

      White, James (Pollok)

      Woodall, Alec

      Mr. Thomas Cox.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 80, in page 14, line 22, leave out
      'that person is a person to whom'.
      No. 81, in page 14, line 23, at end add
      'to the company or companies concerned'.
      No. 82, in page 14, line 24, leave out from beginning to 'shall' in line 26 and insert—
      '(1D) A Minister shall not make an order under this section before the end of a period of 3 months from the service of the preliminary notice.
      (1E) A Minister shall not make such an order unless it appears to him that the company or companies concerned will not voluntarily furnish the information to him and to a representative of each relevant trade union.
      (1F) Before making an order a Minister shall give the company or companies concerned and a representative of each relevant trade union an opportunity to make representations to him concerning it.
      (1G) An order'.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]
      Amendment proposed: No. 83 in page 14, line 27, at end insert—
      '(1H) The question what is a sector of an industry for the purposes of this section shall be determined by the Minister serving the preliminary notice.'.—[Mr. Kaufman.]
      Mr. Wigley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At what point will you
      be taking the vote on Amendment No. 170?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: We shall take the Division when we reach that amendment, if the guillotine has not fallen before then.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment proposed: No. 84, in page 14, line 28, leave out subsection (4).—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]
      Mr. Mikardo: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have now moved on to a group of amendments beyond the group headed by Amendment No. 77. We had a firm undertaking that within that group there would be a separate vote on Amendment No. 177.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Member has been a Member of the House long enough to know that we do not jump all over the Notice Paper. Whenever we reach the appropriate number, we come to that amendment.
      With Amendment No. 84 we are also taking Amendment No. 126, page 29, line 31, leave out Schedule 3.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 149, Noes 220.

      Division No. 267.]

      AYES

      [10.50 p.m.

      Anderson, Donald

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Golding, John

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Gourlay, Harry

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Deakins, Eric

      Graham, Ted

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Delargy, Hugh

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Bates, Alf

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Grocott, Bruce

      Bishop, E. S.

      Dempsey, James

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Doig, Peter

      Harper, Joseph

      Boardman, H.

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Booth, Albert

      Dunn, James A.

      Hatton, Frank

      Bradley, Tom

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Eadie, Alex

      Hooley, Frank

      Buchanan, Richard

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Horam, John

      Cant, R. B.

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Hughes, Rt Hon C (Anglesey)

      Carmichael, Neil

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Cartwright, John

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Hunter, Adam

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Ford, Ben

      Janner, Greville

      Coleman, Donald

      Forrester, John

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Corbett, Robin

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Freeson, Reginald

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      George, Bruce

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Judd, Frank

      Davidson, Arthur

      Ginsburg, David

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Lambie, David

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Tinn, James

      Lamborn, Harry

      Oakes, Gordon

      Tomlinson, John

      Lamond, James

      Ogden, Eric

      Urwin, T. W.

      Leadbitter, Ted

      O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Padley, Walter

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Park, George

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Luard, Evan

      Parry, Robert

      Ward, Michael

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Watkinson, John

      McCartney, Hugh

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Weetch, Ken

      McCusker, H.

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Wellbeloved, James

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Roper, John

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      White, James (Pollok)

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Whitlock, William

      Maclennan, Robert

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Sillers, James

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Magee, Bryan

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Woodall, Alec

      Mahon, Simon

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Woof, Robert

      Marks, Kenneth

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulhnm)

      Wrigglecworth, Ian

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Stoddart, David

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Stott, Roger

      Meacher, Michael

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Mr. Laurie Pavitt and

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Tlerney, Sydney

      Mr. J. D. Dormand.

      NOES

      Allaun, Frank

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Luce, Richard

      Arnold, Tom

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Ashton, Joe

      Fry, Peter

      MacCormick, Iain

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Macfariane, Neil

      Atkinson, Norman

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Beith, A. J.

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Madden, Max

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Goodhart, Philip

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Marten, Neil

      Benyon,W.

      Gould, Bryan

      Mates, Michael

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Mather, Carol

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Sower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Mawby, Ray

      Bitten, John

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Gray, Hamish

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Grist, Ian

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Bottomley, Peter

      Grylls, Michael

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Hall, Sir John

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Bray, Or Jeremy

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Brittan, Leon

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Mills, Peter

      Brotherton, Michael

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Monro, Hector

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Hannam,John

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Burden, F. A.

      Hawkins, Paul

      Morgan, Geraint

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Henderson, Douglas

      Mudd, David

      Campbell, Ian

      Heseltine, Michael

      Nelson, Anthony

      Canavan,Dennis

      Holland, Philip

      Neubert, Michael

      Carlisle, Mark

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Newton, Tony

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Noble, Mike

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Normanton, Tom

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Nott, John

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Clegg, Walter

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Pardoe, John

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Hurd, Douglas

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Cope,John

      Jessel, Toby

      Penhaligon, David

      Cordle, John H.

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Percival, Ian

      Cormack, Patrick

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Prescott, John

      Crawford, Douglas

      Kelley, Richard

      Raison, Timothy

      Crouch, David

      Kerr, Russell

      Rathbone, Tim

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Kimball, Marcus

      Reid, George

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Drayson, Burnaby

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Durant, Tony

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Dykes, Hugh

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Edge, Geoff

      Knox, David

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Lamont, Norman

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Elliott, Sir William

      Latham, Michael (Mellon)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Emery, Peter

      Lawrence,Ivan

      Booker, J. W.

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Lawson, Nigel

      Rose, Paul B.

      Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Eyre, Reginald

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Litterick, Tom

      Royle,Sir Anthony

      Farr, John

      Lloyd, Ian

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Loveridge, John

      Sandelson, Neville

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Loyden, Eddie

      Sedgemore, Brian

      1626

      1627

      Selby, Harry

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

      Wakeham, John

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchln)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Shersby, Michael

      Stokes, John

      Watt, Hamish

      Silvester, Fred

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Sims, Roger

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Welsh, Andrew

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Tebbit, Norman

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Skinner, Dennis

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Snape, Peter

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Spearing, Nigel

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      Speed, Keith

      Thompson, George

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Spence, John

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Younger, Hon George

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

      Sproat, Iain

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Stainton, Keith

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Mr. Ian Mikardo and

      Stanley, John

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Mr. Giles Radice.

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Viggars, Peter

      Question accordingly negatived.
      It being Eleven o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded pursuant to Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) and the Orders [12th May, 18th June and yesterday] to put forthwith the Questions on the amendments moved by a Member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to that part of the Bill to be concluded at Eleven o'clock.
      Mr. Speaker: May I explain to the House precisely what I am going to try to do to save the time of the House? The first amendment on which I have been asked to allow a Division is No. 177. I shall now put the Question on the Government amendments up to Amendment No. 177.

    Clause 21

      DUTY TO GIVE INFORMATION TO MINISTER
      Amendments made: No. 85, in page 14, line 31, leave out from beginning to 'a' in line 34.
      No. 86, in page 14, line 34, after 'Minister', insert
      'who has made an order under section 20 above'.
      No. 87, in page 14, line 34, leave out 'that person' and insert
      'the company or companies concerned'.
      No. 88, in page 14, line 36, leave out 'with such information' and insert 'and'.
      No. 89, in page 14, line 37, leave out from 'specified' to end of line 39 and insert
      'with such information as may be so specified relating to the undertaking to which the order relates, but not as to any matter except those specified in subsection (2) below'.
      No. 90, in page 15, leave out lines 1 and 2 and insert—
      '(2) The matters mentioned in subsection (1) above are—'.
      No. 180, in page 15, line 11, leave out from 'capacity' to end of line 13 and insert
      'and capacity utilisation of the undertaking'.
      No. 92, in page 15, line 17, after 'industrial', insert 'or intellectual'.
      No. 93, in page 15, line 20, at end insert—
      '(k) expenditure on any research or development programme'.
      No. 94, in page 15, line 21, leave out 'circumstances on' and insert
      'any of those matters—
      (a) in relation to'.
      No. 95, in page 15, line 24, leave out 'or during' and insert—
      '(b) in relation to'.
      No. 96, in page 15, line 25, at end insert
      'or
      (c) in relation to a future specified date or a future specified period;
      but a requirement under paragraph (c) above is to be construed as a requirement only to give a forecast.'.
      No. 97, in page 15, line 25, at end insert—
      '(2A) The Minister shall send a copy of a notice under this section to a representative of each relevant trade union.'.
      No. 98, in page 15, line 25, at end insert—
      '(2B) Nothing in this section shall be construed as enabling a Minister to require information about the details of know-how or of any research or development programme.
      (2C) In this section—
      "industrial or intellectual property" includes, without prejudice to its generality, patents, designs, trade marks, know-how and copyrights, and
      "know-how" has the meaning assigned to it by section 386(7) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970.'.
      No. 99, in page 15, line 26, leave out subsection (4).—[Mr. Varley.]

    Clause 22

      INFORMATION FOR TRADE UNIONS
      Amendment made: No. 100, in page 15, line 30, leave out
      'Not later than the end of a reasonable period'
      and insert
      'Subject to subsections (2) to (8) below,'.—[Mr. Varley.]
      Amendment proposed: No. 177, in page 15, line 32, leave out from 'above' to end of line 39 and insert
      'the Minister may serve—

      (a) a further notice on the company or companies concerned provisionally requiring them to furnish to a representative of each relevant trade union within such reasonable time, which shall not be less than 28 days, as may be specified in the notice, the whole or part of the information furnished to him under section 21 above, and

      (b) a notice as to the furnishing of that information on the representative of each relevant trade union',—[Mr. Varley.]

      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided:Ayes 164, Noes 58.

      Division No. 268.]

      AYES

      [11.1 p.m.

      Anderson, Donald

      Graham, Ted

      Palmer, Arthur

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Pardoe, John

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Park, George

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (HeywoodJ

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Penhaligon, David

      Bates, All

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Radice, Giles

      Belth, A. J.

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Reid, George

      Bishop, E. S.

      Henderson, Douglas

      Roberts, Albert (Nurmanlon)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Hooley, Frank

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Boardman, H.

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Booth, Albert

      Horam, John

      Roper, John

      Bradley, Tom

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Ross, Stephen (Isle ot Wight)

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Hughes, Rt Hon C (Anglesey)

      Sandeison, Neville

      Buchanan, Richard

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Shaw, Arnold (llford South)

      Cant, R. B.

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Carmichael, Neil

      Hunter, Adam

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Carter, Ray

      Jackson, Colin (Brlghouse)

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Cartwright, John

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Janner, Greville

      Spearing, Nigel

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Cohen, Stanley

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Coleman, Donald

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Judd, Frank

      Stoddart, David

      Crawford, Douglas

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Stott, Roger

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Kelley, Richard

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Davidson, Arthur

      Lambie, David

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Davles, Denzll (Llanelli)

      Lamborn, Harry

      Thompson, George

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

      Deakins, Eric

      Leslor. Miss Joar (Eton & Slough)

      Tinn, James

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Tomlinson, John

      Delargy, Hugh

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Urwin, T. W.

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Luard, Evan

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Dempsey, James

      Lyons, Edward (Bradtord W)

      Walnwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Doig, Peter

      McCartney, Hugh

      Walnwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      MacCormick, Iain

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Dunn, James A.

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Ward, Michael

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Watklnson, John

      Eadie. Alex

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Watt, Hamish

      Edge, Geoff

      Maclennan, Robert

      Weetch, Ken

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Wellbeloved, James

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Welsh, Andrew

      Evans, loan (Aberdare)

      Magee, Bryan

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Mahon, Simon

      White, James (Pollok)

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Whitlock, William

      Ewing, Mrs Winitred (Moray)

      Marquand, David

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Ford, Ben

      Meacher, Michael

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Forrester, John

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      Woodall, Alec

      Freeson, Reginald

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Woot, Robert

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Wrigglesworth, lan

      Ginsburg, David

      Oakes, Gordon

      Golding, John

      Ogden, Eric

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES

      Gould, Bryan

      O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

      Mr. Thomas Cox and

      Gourliiy, Harry

      Padley, Walter

      Mr. Joseph Harper.

      NOES

      Allaun, Frank

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Ashton, Joe

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Selby, Harry

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Sillars, James

      Atkinson, Norman

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Silverman, Julius

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Skinner, Dennis

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Lamond, James

      Snaps, Peter

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Litterick, Tom

      Swain, Thomas

      Buchan, Norman

      Loyden, Eddie

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Madden, Max

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Campbell, lan

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Canavan,Dennis

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Tierney, Sydney

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Corbett, Robin

      Molloy, William

      Watkins, David

      Cryer, Bob

      Noble, Mike

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Parry, Robert

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Prescolt, John

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      George, Bruce

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Mr. Martin Flannery and

      Grocott, Bruce

      Rooker, J. W.

      Mr. Russell Kerr.

      Hatton, Frank

      Rose, Paul B.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 103, in page 15, line 41, leave out from beginning to 'would' in line 42 and insert
      'he considers that reasons of national policy or special reasons apply.
      (2A) For the purposes of this Act reasons of national policy apply if the Minister considers—
      (a) that to furnish the information'.
      No. 104, in page 15, line 44, leave out 'person required to furnish it' and insert 'company or companies concerned'.
      No. 105, in page 15, line 46, at end add—
      '(2B) For the purposes of this Act special reasons apply if the Minister considers—

      (a) that the information was communicated to the company or companies concerned in confidence, or was information which they otherwise obtained in consequence of the confidence reposed in them by another person; or

      (b) that the disclosure of the information would cause substantial injury to the undertaking; or

      (c) that its disclosure would cause substantial injury to a substantial number of employees of the undertaking.'.

      No. 106, in page 16, line 1, leave out subsections (3) and (4).
      No. 178, in page 16, line 12, leave out from first 'not' to end of line 13 and insert
      'serve a notice under subsection (1) above'.
      No. 107, in page 16, line 14, leave out
      'the person required to furnish the information and all such representatives'
      and insert—

      '(a) to the company or companies concerned, and

      (b) to a representative of each relevant trade union.'.

      No. 108, in page 16, line 16, at end add—
      (6) The notice to be given to the company on companies concerned under subsection (1) above is a notice stating what information (if any) the Minister proposes to require them to furnish.
      (7) The notice to be given to the representative of each relevant trade union under subsection (1) above is a notice stating whether or not the Minister proposes to require the company or companies concerend to furnish all the information furnished to him by 'company or companies concerned'.—[Mr. Varley.]

  Schedule 3

    DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION BY GOVERNMENT
    Amendent proposed: No. 126, in page 29, line 31, leave out Schedule 3.—[Mr. Varley.]
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 147, Noes 230.

    Division No. 269.]

    AYES

    [11.11 p.m.

    Anderson, Donald

    Bradley, Tom

    Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

    Cohen, Stanley

    Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

    Buchanan, Richard

    Coleman, Donald

    Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Hoywood)

    Cant, R. B.

    Corbett, Robin

    Bates, Alt

    Carmichael, Neil

    Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

    Bishop, E. S.

    Carter, Ray

    Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Boardman, H.

    Cartwright, John

    Davidson, Arthur

    Booth, Albert

    Clemitson, Ivor

    Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Deakins, Eric

    Janner, Greville

    Rodgers, George (Chorley)

    Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Rodgers, William (Stockton)

    Delargy, Hugh

    Johnson, James (Hull West)

    Roper, John

    Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

    Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

    Ross, William (Londonderry)

    Dempsey, James

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

    Doig, Peter

    Judd, Frank

    Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Kaufman, Gerald

    Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

    Dunn, James A.

    Lamborn, Harry

    Sillers, James

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Lamond, James

    Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

    Eadie, Alex

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

    Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

    Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

    Evans, John (Newton)

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Stoddart, David

    Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

    Lomas, Kenneth

    Stott, Roger

    Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

    Luard, Evan

    Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

    Ford, Ben

    McCartney, Hugh

    Tierney, Sydney

    Forrester, John

    McCusker, H.

    Tomlinson, John

    Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

    MacFarquhar, Roderick

    Urwin, T. W.

    Freeson, Reginald

    McGuire, Michael (Ince)

    Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

    George, Bruce

    Mackintosh, John P.

    Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

    Gilbert, Dr John

    Maclennan, Robert

    Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

    Ginsburg, David

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

    Ward, Michael

    Golding, John

    McNamara, Kevin

    Watkins, David

    Gourlay, Harry

    Magee, Bryan

    Weetch, Ken

    Graham, Ted

    Mahon, Simon

    Wellbeloved, James

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Marks, Kenneth

    White, Frank R. (Bury)

    Grant, John (Islington C)

    Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

    White, James (Pollok)

    Grocott, Bruce

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Whitlock, William

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Meacher, Michael

    Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

    Harper, Joseph

    Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

    Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Molloy, William

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Hatton, Frank

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

    Hayman, Mrs Helene

    Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

    Woodall, Alec

    Hooley, Frank

    Oakes, Gordon

    Woof, Robert

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Ogden, Eric

    Wrigglesworth, Ian

    Horam, John

    O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

    Young, David (Bolton E)

    Hughes, Rt Hon C (Anglesey)

    Padley, Walter

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Palmer, Arthur

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Park, George

    Mr. J. D. Dormand and

    Hunter, Adam

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Mr. John Ellis

    Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

    NOES

    Allaun, Frank

    Cormack, Patrick

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Arnold, Tom

    Crawford, Douglas

    Hannam, John

    Ashton, Joe

    Crouch, David

    Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

    Crowder, F. P.

    Havers, Sir Michael

    Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

    Cryer, Bob

    Hawkins, Paul

    Atkinson, Norman

    Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

    Heifer, Eric S.

    Bain, Mrs Margaret

    Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

    Henderson, Douglas

    Baker, Kenneth

    Dodsworth, Geoffrey

    Heseltine, Michael

    Beith, A. J.

    Drayson, Burnaby

    Holland, Philip

    Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

    Durant, Tony

    Hordern, Peter

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Benyon, W.

    Edge, Geoff

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Berry, Hon Anthony

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Elliott, Sir William

    Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

    Bitten, John

    Emery, Peter

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

    Hurd, Douglas

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Evans, loan (Aberdare)

    Jeger, Mrs Lena

    Bottomley, Peter

    Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

    Jessel, Toby

    Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

    Eyre, Reginald

    Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Fairbairn, Nicholas

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Brittan, Leon

    Fair, John

    Kelley, Richard

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Fisher, Sir Nigel

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Buchanan-Smith, Alick

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Kilroy-Silk, Robert

    Bulmer, Esmond

    Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

    Kimball, Marcus

    Burden, F. A.

    Fry, Peter

    King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

    Garrett, John (Norwich S)

    King, Tom (Bridgwater)

    Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

    Kitson, Sir Timothy

    Campbell, Ian

    Gilmour, Sir John (East File)

    Knox, David

    Canavan, Dennis

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Lamont, Norman

    Carlisle, Mark

    Goodhart, Philip

    Latham, Michael (Melton)

    Chalker, Mrs Lynda

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Churchill, W. S.

    Gould, Bryan

    Lawson, Nigel

    Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

    Le Marchant, Spencer

    Clark, William (Croydon S)

    Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

    Litterick, Tom

    Clegg, Walter

    Gray, Hamish

    Lloyd, Ian

    Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

    Grylls, Michael

    Loveridge, John

    Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

    Hall, Sir John

    Loyden, Eddie

    Cope, John

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Luce, Richard

    Cordle, John H.

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    1634

    1635

    MacCormick, Iain

    Prescott, John

    Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

    Macfarlane, Neil

    Raison, Timothy

    Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

    Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

    Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

    Stokes, John

    Madden, Max

    Reid, George

    Stradling Thomas, J.

    Marquand, David

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Swain, Thomas

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Richardson, Miss Jo

    Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

    Marten, Neil

    Ridley, Hon Nicholas

    Tebbit, Norman

    Mates, Michael

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Mather, Carol

    Rifkind, Malcolm

    Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

    Mawby, Ray

    Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

    Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

    Maxwell Hyslop, Robin

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

    Mayhew, Patrick

    Rooker, J. W.

    Thompson, George

    Maynard, Miss Joan

    Rose, Paul B.

    Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

    Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

    Mikardo, Ian

    Royle,Sir Anthony

    Tinn, James

    Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

    Sainsbury, Tim

    Townsend, Cyril D.

    Miller, Or M. S. (E Kilbride)

    Sandelson, Neville

    Tugendhat, Christopher

    Mills, Peter

    Sedgemore, Brian

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Selby, Harry

    Viggers, Peter

    Monro, Hector

    Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

    Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    Wakeham, John

    Moore, John (Croydon C)

    Shersby, Michael

    Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

    Morgan, Geraint

    Silvester, Fred

    Warren, Kenneth

    Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

    Sims, Roger

    Watt, Hamish

    Mudd, David

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Nelson, Anthony

    Skinner, Dennis

    Welsh, Andrew

    Neubert, Michael

    Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Newton, Tony

    Snape, Peter

    Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

    Noble, Mike

    Spearing, Nigel

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Normanton, Tom

    Speed, Keith

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Nott, John

    Spence, John

    Wood, Rt Hon Richard

    Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

    Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

    Pardoe, John

    Sproat, Iain

    Younger, Hon George

    Parkinson, Cecil

    Stainton, Keith

    Parry, Robert

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Penhaligon, David

    Stanley, John

    Mr. Russell Kerr and

    Percival, Ian

    Steel, David (Roxburgh)

    Mr. Giles Radice.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    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.

  PETITION

    One-Parent Families
    Mr. Bryan Gould: I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of the Women's Regional Advisory Committee of the Southern Region of the Labour Party.
    The petitioners are concerned at the financial hardship which they believe many single-parent families have to endure, and they wish to urge the Government to take some action to relieve the plight in which many of these single parents find themselves.
    "Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House urge Her Majesty's Government to introduce the Guaranteed Maintenance Allowance as recommended in the Finer Report, to be paid to the mother or father with day-to-day responsibility for the child or children solely on the grounds of being a lone parent."
    To lie upon the Table.

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

HOSPITAL SERVICES (GATESHEAD)
11.24 p.m.
Mr. Bernard Conlon: sought leave to introduce this Adjournment debate on a matter which is of great concern to the 260,000 population of the Gateshead metropolitan area. It concerns the proposals that have been lying on the table for 10 or 11 years in connection with the development of the Queen Elizabeth Hospital. It was originally intended that the development of a new district hospital to serve the whole of Gateshead would be developed in three separate stages. Phase 1, which consisted of a new out-patients' department and an operating theatre was completed in 1967. Phase 2, providing for an accident and emergency department, was completed in 1973. That left phase 3 outstanding—the most crucial part of the development.
Phase 3 was originally scheduled to commence in 1976 and to provide 380

1637
acute beds and 90 psychiatric beds, together with a psychiatric day hospital. In addition, it was proposed that there would be six further operating theatres. Because of financial stringency the regional health authority has been informed that phase 3 cannot be started. On learning of this my colleagues from the area and I were extremely alarmed because we believe that the area is already under-supplied with hospital services. We believe that the area has been neglected in this sense for far too long.
It has only been because of the promise that phase 3 would be started in 1976 and completed two or three years later that the staff have maintained morale, and have been able to service the area and care for the patients in a commendable way with a high degree of efficiency. Now that we are informed that phase 3 is likely to be deferred indefinitely we can easily imagine that the staff is seriously alarmed. Morale is weakening. All are concerned at the prospect ahead.
We recognise that the Government are in difficulty. My hon. Friends the Members for Blaydon (Mr. Woof), Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) and Gateshead, West (Mr. Horam) and I met the Under-Secretary of State some months ago to impress upon him the urgency of the problem. Following that meeting it was decided that the officers of the area health authority and the regional health authority would get together and devise plans for a reduced scheme. In other words, instead of going ahead with the full scheme for phase 3, it would be scaled down to give the bare essentials.
I impress upon my hon. Friend that the scaled-down scheme is the minimum that we could possibly accept. However, even now the scaled-down scheme is in jeopardy. A circular has been sent to regional health authorities instructing them that schemes that cannot be commenced by 1978–79 must be deferred. Because of the uncertainty and delay it is likely that we shall not be able to get our scheme off the ground by that date. We could, therefore, have to stop at the planning stage.
I tell the Minister in the strongest possible terms that we need these new hospital facilities in Gateshead because we have been deprived of adequate ser-
1638
vices. We have been reluctant to complain as vigorously as we should have done because the prospect of the new district hospital was always there. We are seriously alarmed at the latest news about phase 3.
Mr. Albert Roberts: Is there any likelihood of staff leaving the hospital and depleting essential services?
Mr. Conlan: That is a serious problem. Within two miles of this hospital, there is a new hospital in Newcastle. Staff will not stay in a Gateshead hospital where working conditions are bad and facilities are poor. This is an additional reason for pressing ahead with phase 3. We recognise that the Government faces financial problems and that public services have been, and will be, cut back. The limited funds that are available for hospital building should be directed to areas like Gateshead which have been deprived in the past. I hope the Government will ensure that the phase 3 work can start in 1976–77.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): I understand the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Mr. Conlan) and the Under-Secretary have agreed that other hon. Members should participate in the debate.
11.32 p.m.
Mr. John Horam: I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Mr. Con. Ian) has raised this matter in the Adjournment debate. The hospital is in his constituency and naturally he has the foremost concern, but my constituency adjoins his and my constituents use the hospital. I am as concerned as is my hon. Friend about this matter.
By any criteria, Gateshead is a deprived area—despite the efforts of a local authority which has often been short of cash. It does not have the facilities that money has bought for other, more affluent areas of the country. It needs positive discrimination by the Government in its favour—particularly by a Labour Government, given the strong Labour traditions in the area. It is getting some assistance through the urban aid programme, but it is not as systematic as many of us would like. Knowing the Under-Secretary's reputation, I imagine

1639
he will be concerned about positive discrimination towards less affluent areas—especially as he represents a North-West constituency himself.
Medical services in Gateshead have been the Cinderella of the town's social services and there is no sign yet of a happy ending. Hospitals have been starved of cash for years because we have been waiting for the phase 3 development. Delaying the work would be a double blow—money has already been foregone and there would be no possibility of the scheme on which we have been depending.
There has been concern about the standard of local services. There has been a 50 per cent. increase in the waiting time for surgical cases at Gateshead district hospitals in the past year. This is not a reflection on the staff, who have done a magnificent job in very difficult circumstances. It stems from the shortage of cash and the poor selection of priorities by the regional authorties and the Government. I do not think Gateshead should be let down again. We must have priority for the phase 3 development.
The Gateshead area hospital authorities have been reasonableness itself in their approach to this matter. They have already cut down the size of the scheme and reduced its quality. This indicates their willingness to consider the national situation and national priorities. They are not grabbing for more, regardless of the consequences for national spending and national programmes. In return for this extremely reasonable attitude, in a very difficult and trying situation, the Government should display equal willingness to meet the very reasonable and long-standing commitment which exists. I do not feel that in this respect Gateshead can be let down again.
11.36 p.m.
Mr. Giles Radice: I want to speak in support of what my hon. Friends have said. My constituents are as anxious as are those of my hon. Friends that the reduced scheme—and I emphasise the word "reduced" because it has been reduced to 200 beds—should go forward. Gateshead has special health needs. The low level of geriatric and psychiatric services has been specifically commented upon by the Hospital Ad-
1640
visory Service, and without the completion of the redevelopment of the Gateshead hospital services, even on the reduced basis, there is likely to be a serious breakdown in services and an unacceptable lowering of staff morale. By all the tests, we constitute a priority area in health terms.
The Government are in a severe economic crisis and we accept that they face problems in respect of public spending. Nevertheless, we urge the Minister to consider sympathetically the special case that we have put forward, because we think there is a great deal of force behind it, and we urge him to agree that the reduced scheme should go forward.
11.38 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Meacher): I wish first to congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Gateshead, East (Mr. Conlan), Gateshead, West (Mr. Horam) and Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) for the forceful way in which they have presented their case. I too, pay tribute to the excellent work of the Gateshead hospitals. I fully appreciate the effect on staff morale of any uncertainty about the timing of the start on the next phase for development of the Queen Elizabeth Hospital and the difficulties of recruiting good junior staff.
My Department is very much aware of the need to bring together the existing acute illness beds into one hospital so that a more efficient service shall be provided. My hon. Friends did not mention the question of the deficiency in psychiatric services in the Gateshead area, but we are conscious of it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, West mentioned the waiting lists in the area, which, as in many other parts of the country, are causing a great deal of concern locally. Large numbers of people are at present on surgical waiting lists and many of those with non-urgent conditions are having to wait a long time for treatment.
I cannot deny that bringing the surgical facilities in Gateshead together by the early completion of the next phase of the Queen Elizabeth hospital would go a long way to reducing waiting lists and waiting times.
In general, as a national policy we have made a start by asking health authorities to identify specific capital schemes which

1641
will help to reduce bottlenecks which are preventing the reduction of in-patient waiting times and need not cost a great deal in the current economic circumstances. We are making a capital allocation of £5 million in the present financial year for this purpose. Whether anything can be done in Gateshead in the interim—until the next phase of the Queen Elizabeth Hospital is completed—will be a matter for the area health authority to consider.
The present hospitals in Gateshead, as my hon. Friends have rightly said, are, in the main, old and inconvenient. I understand that, over the years, a great deal has been done to improve the conditions, with the completion in 1967 of the first phase of the redevelopment of the Queen Elizabeth Hospital. This comprised the outpatients' department, out-patients' day wards, one operating theatre and part of the X-ray department.
The second phase of the redevelopment was completed early in 1973, and comprised an accident and emergency department, and supporting services. Other minor work has also taken place over the years, and continues—for instance, the area health authority has recently provided new isolation facilities at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital. In the field of primary care—which is just as important, if not even more so—the first health centre in the area was opened at Felling in 1968. A second was opened at Worcester Road in October 1974 and a third is planned, also for Felling.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, West also paid particular attention to the argument of positive discrimination, and I should like to make clear to him that we are not satisfied that the present means of allocating capital to regions is satisfactory. Since we have taken office we have given urgent priority to restructuring the criteria for allocating resources to make them more responsive to the needs of different parts of the country, particularly areas like Gateshead, in the Northern Region, of significant health deprivation.
For this purpose my Department has set up a working party which is giving urgent study to ways of objectively measuring existing local variations in the distribution of resources. I have to admit that it may be some time before we are
1642
able substantially to improve the present system, but I hope that we shall soon have the means to provide a fair and more rational allocation of resources throughout the country.
As I have mentioned at some length, we are aware of the particular problems of Gateshead. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East said, only last December my hon. Friend the Minister of State received a delegation of members, including my hon. Friend as well as representatives of the Gateshead Area Health Authority. Just as my hon. Friends have done today, the deputation expressed its very grave concern about the prospects of any deferment of the planned phase 3 to the hospital. In the course of an exchange of views, which was very useful, the members of the deputation considerably impressed my hon. Friend the Minister with their willingness to accept the need to reduce the content of the phase 3 scheme, as originally planned, in order to reduce costs, and with the argument that the realistic objective of attempting to provide the most urgently needed facilities is a first step in the further development of the District General Hospital. On that occasion the members of the delegation showed their willingness to adopt the realistic view that a more modest scheme would, in our economic circumstances, have more chance of finding a place in the region's capital programme over the next three years. The area health authority had gone ahead with its planning of a smaller phase 3 on this basis.
The new proposals would involve extending the present maternity department and providing new buildings consisting of a central operating department, an anaesthetic department and about 180 beds. I recognise that that is only about a third of the number planned in the original phase 3.
I understand from the regional health authority that an appreciable period is required to complete the design and planning work, and in its estimation it is unlikely that the scheme could be ready for a building start before 1979. That may seem a considerable delay, but I am advised that, taking into account the new feasibility work, planning work and design work, the total period involved prevents a building start before, perhaps, the middle of 1979.

1643
That brings me to the central point of the debate. My hon. Friend has asked me to give a categorical assurance that approval will be given for a start to be made on the next phase of the redevelopment of the Queen Elizabeth Hospital no later than the year 1978–79. I think that he referred to an earlier date, in fact. Unfortunately, it is not possible to do it before. The issue is whether there can be any certainty of its being started in 1978–79. Even on that limited question it is impossible to provide my hon. Friend with the certainty that he would like.
Mr. Conlan: Will my hon. Friend please clarify the point that I made in connection with the circular sent to regional health authorities about the suspension of all planning work on any scheme that cannot be commenced before 1978–79? If what we hear is true, this will rule out further planning work on this phase.
Mr. Meacher: My understanding is that, whatever may have been said in the circular, there is provision for feasibility work and for planning and design work to go ahead in regard to this more modest phase 3, and that there can be no question of that being ruled out in the present circumstances. This is very much a sub-optimal proposal. However, there can be no question but that the necessary works for the completion of that by 1978–79, given the considerations to which I may come, will proceed. I give my hon. Friend that absolute assurance.
Ever since December 1973, when the Conservative Government found themselves forced to impose severe cuts on health service expenditure—or, in their treatment of the economic problems of that time, chose that option—successive Governments have had to plan on lower levels of future expenditure than they would have wished, because of our general economic situation. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services said on Budget day, we had faced the prospect when we took office that unless we restored some of the cuts we would be faced with a complete moratorium on all major scheme starts. By making additional funds available we have been able to remove this possibility and have been able to
1644
approve starts on about 30 major schemes in 1975–76.
I must say frankly that the prospects for the future are not very encouraging. A consequence of the reduction in public expenditure announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Statement is that expenditure on the health capital programme in 1976–77 is likely to be about a fifth lower than in the period 1975–76. It is inevitable that the number of new major starts in the next few years will be much lower than we would wish. We hope shortly to be able to advise regional health authorities about the planning assumptions which they should adopt in forming their capital programme for 1976–77.
Given this overall restraint on our resources, we need a mechanism for deciding on priorities at both national and regional level, and to ensure, as far as planning and resources allow, that the most pressing needs are met earliest. For the future, we shall have the NHS planning system, which will be introduced formally from April 1977. Already we have asked regional health authorities to review existing plans in conjunction with area health authorities, and produce outline strategic proposals for the development and redeployment of services and resources for the next decade. This review will apply both to the obvious need for new capital expenditure in hospitals such as the Queen Elizabeth, and for what are in many ways the more important elements of the health service—good primary care facilities.
How does this relate to the Gateshead situation or, for that matter, to the situation in other parts of the Northern Region? It means that the Northern Regional Health Authority will be able to consider the needs of Gateshead against, say, the needs of North Tyne and Barrow, which I am sure my hon. Friends will also recognise as having a high degree of priority, and will prepare a priority list of projects. The aim will then be, as far as resources and the actual planning of the schemes allow, to undertake the schemes with the highest priority as early as possible.
Thus, the very real need, which we recognise, to improve the hospital services in Gateshead, which my hon. Friends have highlighted so forcefully tonight,

1645
must be viewed alongside the other no less real needs in the region.
I am afraid that there is no getting away from this. It is the Northern Regional Health Authority which has the responsibility for assessing the relative priorities of the necessary schemes being planned by different areas in the region. This is as it should be, and my hon. Friends, I am sure, will agree with this, because the regional health authority is in a much better position to know the relative priorities in the region than we are at the Elephant and Castle.
I appreciate that my hon. Friends and their constituents will be disappointed that I am not able—partly because of the overall situation in regard to resources and partly because of the relative ordering of priorities within that constrained overall set of resources—to give them the full and absolute assurance they seek tonight. I have to make it clear that no decisions have yet been taken about major hospital building starts for 1976–77, let alone for later years. Decisions cannot be taken until the health authorities have completed the strategic reviews to which I referred earlier. We are hopeful that we shall have the results of the 10-year plan by the end of 1976.
Mr. Albert Roberts: Is it safe to say that the modified scheme of phase 3 could be completed by 1980?
Mr. Meacher: If the level of overall resources is sufficient, and given that the Northern Regional Health Authority gives the go-ahead to this project, as opposed to others, such as North Tyne and Barrow, there is no reason why a building start should not begin in the middle of 1979.
Decisions have to await the completion of the strategic reviews by the health authorities and then can be taken only on a priority basis, which is set against the limited capital likely to be available.
Having said all that, I do not wish to give the impression that we are not impressed by the way in which the Gateshead Area Health Authority has set about reviewing its plans to produce a much more modest scheme, thereby ensuring that its aims and objectives are not thwarted by bidding for too large a share of regional resources——
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock 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 six minutes to Twelve midnight.

  SENTENCING
  SENTENCING
SCOTLAND
  Fish Prices
  Fish Prices
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Tied Cottages
  Tied Cottages
  Water Safety
  Water Safety
  Council Rents
  Council Rents
  Salmon and Sea Trout
  Salmon and Sea Trout
DEFENCE
  Nimrod Aircraft
  Nimrod Aircraft
  Beira Patrol
  Beira Patrol
  Protection Vessels
  Protection Vessels
ENERGY
  Oil Production Platforms
  Oil Production Platforms
  Atomic Energy Agencies (Co-operation)
  Atomic Energy Agencies (Co-operation)
  Fuel Consumers (Pay-as-you-go Schemes)
  Fuel Consumers (Pay-as-you-go Schemes)
  Uranium
  Uranium
  Nuclear Power Stations
  Nuclear Power Stations
  Electricity Generating Capacity
  Electricity Generating Capacity
  Coal Mining (Selby)
  Coal Mining (Selby)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Chief Constables
  Chief Constables
  Angling
  Angling
  Risley Remand Centre
  Risley Remand Centre
  Taxi Trade
  Taxi Trade
  Public Appointments
  Public Appointments
  Prisoners (Tattoos)
  Prisoners (Tattoos)
  Prisoners (Treatment)
  Prisoners (Treatment)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Guatemala and Belize
  Guatemala and Belize
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  United Nations Conference (Crime and Criminals)
  United Nations Conference (Crime and Criminals)
  Anguilla
  Anguilla
  Israel
  Israel
  European Parliament
  European Parliament
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Departmental Staff and Costs
  Departmental Staff and Costs
  Harland and Wolff Ltd.
  Harland and Wolff Ltd.
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Developing Countries
  Developing Countries
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Chicken Manure Dehydration Plants
  Chicken Manure Dehydration Plants
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
  Fodder Exports
  Fodder Exports
  Eggs (Imports)
  Eggs (Imports)
  Farm Capital Grants Scheme
  Farm Capital Grants Scheme
  Water Authorities (Land Drainage)
  Water Authorities (Land Drainage)
  Lamb
  Lamb
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  School Examinations (11-plus)
  School Examinations (11-plus)
  Secondary Schools Reorganisation (Ormskirk)
  Secondary Schools Reorganisation (Ormskirk)
  Centre for Information and Advice on Educational Disadvantage
  Centre for Information and Advice on Educational Disadvantage
EMPLOYMENT
  Women (Wales)
  Women (Wales)
  Liverpool Docks
  Liverpool Docks
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Trade Unions' Accounts
  Trade Unions' Accounts
  "Mary Poppins" Ferry
  "Mary Poppins" Ferry
  Dairy Products
  Dairy Products
  Houghton Main Colliery (Inquiry)
  Houghton Main Colliery (Inquiry)
INDUSTRY
  Norton Villiers Triumph Ltd.
  Norton Villiers Triumph Ltd.
  Research
  Research
  Clothing Imports
  Clothing Imports
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Wealth Tax
  Wealth Tax
  Invisible Earnings
  Invisible Earnings
  Capital Gains Tax
  Capital Gains Tax
  Investment (Plant and Machinery)
  Investment (Plant and Machinery)
  Low-Income Families
  Low-Income Families
  £1 Sterling
  £1 Sterling
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Estate Agents
  Estate Agents
  "Mary Poppins" Ferry
  "Mary Poppins" Ferry
  Trading Stamps (Petrol Service Stations)
  Trading Stamps (Petrol Service Stations)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Personal Social Services Council
  Personal Social Services Council
  Widows
  Widows
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Pensions and Benefits (Uprating)
  Pensions and Benefits (Uprating)
  Disabled Housewives
  Disabled Housewives
  Vietnamese Orphans
  Vietnamese Orphans
  School Health Service (Sunderland)
  School Health Service (Sunderland)
  Nurses (Schools)
  Nurses (Schools)
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Absence from Work
  Absence from Work
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
TRADE
  Aircraft Noise (West Midlands)
  Aircraft Noise (West Midlands)
  "Association" Wreck
  "Association" Wreck
  Bryanston Finance Ltd.
  Bryanston Finance Ltd.
  Ferry "Mary Poppins"
  Ferry "Mary Poppins"
  Trade Deficit (OECD Countries)
  Trade Deficit (OECD Countries)
  Ministerial Appointments
  Ministerial Appointments
  Company Accounts and Inflation
  Company Accounts and Inflation
WALES
  A55
  A55
ENVIRONMENT
  Roads
  Roads
  Railways
  Railways
  Local Government Finance (Consultative Council)
  Local Government Finance (Consultative Council)
  Harlow New Town
  Harlow New Town
  Telford Development Corporation
  Telford Development Corporation
  Preservation Orders (Non-observance)
  Preservation Orders (Non-observance)
  Water Charges
  Water Charges
  Homeless Persons (London)
  Homeless Persons (London)
  Council Rents
  Council Rents
  Council House Improvement (Finance)
  Council House Improvement (Finance)
  Mortgage Interest Rates (Derwentside)
  Mortgage Interest Rates (Derwentside)
  Tipping
  Tipping
  Transport Policy
  Transport Policy
  Rent and Rate Rebates
  Rent and Rate Rebates
  Ombudsmen (Complaints Procedure)
  Ombudsmen (Complaints Procedure)
  Pollution (Motor Vehicles)
  Pollution (Motor Vehicles)
  Clay Cross Councillors
  Clay Cross Councillors
  Cavity Wall Insulation
  Cavity Wall Insulation
  Planning Permission Conditions (Non-observance)
  Planning Permission Conditions (Non-observance)
  Sewerage Charges
  Sewerage Charges
  High Alumina Cement Construction (St. Helens)
  High Alumina Cement Construction (St. Helens)
  Local Authority Employees
  Local Authority Employees
  Road Accidents
  Road Accidents
  Rates (Mixed Hereditaments)
  Rates (Mixed Hereditaments)
  Rating (Caravans)
  Rating (Caravans)
  Humber Bridge
  Humber Bridge
  Church Land
  Church Land
  Sheffield-Manchester Motorway
  Sheffield-Manchester Motorway
  Rural Transport
  Rural Transport
  Motor Vehicles ("L" Plates)
  Motor Vehicles ("L" Plates)
  Local Government Administration
  Local Government Administration
  Private Rented Housing (Local Authority Participation)
  Private Rented Housing (Local Authority Participation)
  Mortgage Interest Stabilisation
  Mortgage Interest Stabilisation
  A2, Barham Crossroads
  A2, Barham Crossroads
  Council Houses (Sale)
  Council Houses (Sale)
  Motorway Signals
  Motorway Signals
  Vehicle Tests
  Vehicle Tests
  Council Rents
  Council Rents
  Improvement Grants (Main Drainage)
  Improvement Grants (Main Drainage)
  Woodlands (Taxation)
  Woodlands (Taxation)
  Buses (Countryside)
  Buses (Countryside)
  Historic Buildings
  Historic Buildings
  Railway Land (Bury St. Edmunds)
  Railway Land (Bury St. Edmunds)
  Drainage Rates (Plymstock)
  Drainage Rates (Plymstock)
  Nonconformist Chapels
  Nonconformist Chapels
  Departmental Correspondence
  Departmental Correspondence
  Somerset House Site (Labour Dispute)
  Somerset House Site (Labour Dispute)
  Departmental Building Contracts
  Departmental Building Contracts
  Land Sales
  Land Sales
  Channel Tunnel
  Channel Tunnel
  Thames (Riparian Planning Applications)
  Thames (Riparian Planning Applications)

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

OPEC OIL PRICES
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: 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 steps they propose to take in the event of a further increase in the price of oil by the OPEC countries to ensure that prices of oil products to the public are held at their current levels until stocks acquired prior to such an increase are exhausted.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the United Kingdom prices of the oil companies and their distributors are subject to the Price Code in exactly the same way as the prices of other manufacturers and distributors.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that, according to the Economist publication, the oil companies are at the moment building up very substantial stocks of oil in anticipation of a possible price increase in October? Does my noble friend agree that it will be necessary for the Government's machinery, which is at their disposal, to keep a very careful eye on these matters in order to ensure that undue burdens are not put upon the consumer?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that the Government are fully alerted to this position. But I would direct his attention to paragraph 42 of the Price Code which states:
"Any company in pricing which has consistently used the replacement cost for raw materials is at liberty to continue to do so. But if at the end of the quarter it has made profits in excess of the reference period profits
198
it is required by the Price Commission to use this surplus either to reduce prices or to delay any increase in prices."
If the noble Lord refers to page 77 of the latest Report of the Price Commission, he will find figures to support the point I have made.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is at the moment a glut of petroleum products? Is the noble Lord further aware that normally when there is a glut prices fall? Is he also aware that the prices of oil, in true value, have fallen quite substantially since October or November 1973? May I ask what plans Her Majesty's Government have in mind in the event of the price of Middle Eastern crude falling below the economic cost of landing North Sea oil in Scotland or England?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, that is another question, and if the noble Earl puts it on the Order Paper I shall do my best to answer it.
Lord MOLSON: My Lords, are we to understand from the reply given by the noble Lord that the Price Code gives adequate consideration to the importance of taking into account the replacement of stocks when prices are rising in an inflationary period? Also, will the Government agree that basing prices on historic costs is largely responsible for the lack of working capital in British industry at present?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, taking the latter point first, I should have thought it was, until the Chancellor made the very important tax concession on stocks. I think that must be taken into account. Paragraph 42 of the Price Code covers the point about the working capital, provided there has been consistency.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, arising out of my noble friend's previous reply, is he aware that on a previous occasion when there was a quadrupling in the price of oil the oil companies in this country made thousands of millions of pounds out of their then existing stocks, and that it is simply no case to plead that these are largely paper profits arising from the appreciation of stock values? Will my noble friend take steps to ensure that the public are protected in this matter if there is an increase in the future?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I think the reply to that supplementary question is in two parts. First, I would ask my noble friend to bear in mind that only a tiny fraction of the profits of the international oil companies are made in the United Kingdom, and in the case of B.P. it is only 10 per cent. Secondly, I would refer him to the Report which I mentioned. If he looks at page 77, he will see there that while the profits of the oil companies in the first quarter of 1974 were 162·5 per cent. of the reference period, in the second quarter they were only 62·2 per cent. There was a loss in the third quarter, and in the fourth quarter they were only 13 per cent. of the reference period. That shows that the Price Commission had done its job remarkably well.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, if the noble Lord opposite wishes to deny the oil companies any profit, how are they to provide facilities to drill for more oil?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, we are not trying to deny anybody more profit. We are trying to keep profits at a proper level.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the accountancy of multi-national firms is beyond mere elementary arithmetic? Is it not time that the balance sheets of such companies were gone into in depth internationally?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, perhaps I may say that even the accounts of companies which are not multi-national are sometimes beyond most of us.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, as the noble Lord was prepared to answer questions about the accounts of multinational companies, which seem to be much further from the Question on the Order Paper than the question I asked, perhaps he could be inclined to lean his mind towards answering my question.

MILK SUPPLIES
2.43 p.m.
Earl FERRERS: 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 action they propose to take in order to ensure adequate supplies of milk for liquid consumption this winter.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Lord Beswick): My Lords, the United Kingdom is self-sufficient in milk for liquid consumption. Although actual production this winter will depend on weather and other factors, there is no reason to expect any shortage for the liquid milk market, which is given first priority by the industry. Discussions are now taking place to determine what measures are practicable to further the aim of the White Paper, Food from Our Own Resources, for an increase in production.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the assurance that there will be adequate supplies of liquid milk this winter. Does he realise that this will be at the expense of butter manufacturing, and that no butter will be produced from our factories between August this year and March next year? Is he also aware that fresh cream is likely to be in short supply in the winter and will have to be imported?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I was aware of that, but I was answering the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, arising out of that reply, may I ask whether the Government are prepared to disclose anything in addition to what the Prime Minister said at the opening of the Royal Show a few days ago? There he rather indicated that—and I quote his extra six words— "and for help to do it" would be included in a Government White Paper?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, what I have said is that discussions are now taking place, and following those discussions undoubtedly there will be a statement.

IMPORTED FARMED FISH
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: 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 tonnage and cost of imported farmed fish, whether shell or fin, and from which countries they are imported.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I regret that the information is not available. While the published Overseas Trade Statistics show the various types of fish imported, the figures do not separately distinguish farmed fish.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that rather unsatisfactory reply, may I suggest to him that if the figures were studied they would be found to indicate that the cutting down of imported farmed fish would probably greatly help his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place? Will he therefore give his mind to studying those figures?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot give an undertaking to study non-existent figures. The point is that one cannot distinguish farmed fish from other fish when it arrives in this country.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us, for instance, the tonnage of imported trout, because imported trout must be farmed and not wild caught?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I can give a figure for the total amount of imported trout. In the year 1974 there were 32,341 cwt.; but that is trout and not necessarily farmed trout.
Lord MAELOR: My Lords, can the Minister tell me from what country we get herrings for the House of Commons canteen? Is he aware that on a recent evening, Members of Parliament and noble Lords having formed a Welsh
202
Society, we had what was called a dinner. The dinner consisted of thin soup—in which a herring could dwell, it was so thin—a herring and a simple sweet, for which I had to pay £5·04. I was bankrupt for the rest of the week.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that red herrings are a local product?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I thought my noble friend was referring to soused herrings.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware—to return to the more serious point of the Question—that fish farming is a very useful method of converting protein into food and that it should be encouraged? Is he further aware that the conversion ration is now down to 1.5 lb. of food and below to 1 lb. of grain fish? This is something which should be encouraged by Her Majesty's Government; people should be encouraged to eat this food because it is a very beneficial source of protein.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I am interested in what the noble Earl says about the conversion ratio. If he will let me have the basis of evidence for what he says, I shall be very interested to look at it. But he should not, by implication at any rate, suggest that we are not encouraging fish farming; we are, and are spending something like £600,000 on research into the subject.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I have certain figures on the value of imported fish which I shall be very pleased to send him?
Lord BALERNO: My Lords, if the Government are supporting fish farming to the extent the noble Lord said, why will they not introduce legislation to remove the bureaucratic rules and regulations which are preventing the extension of fish fanning in this country?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I have no knowledge at all of any bureaucratic regulations, but if the noble Lord will tell me what he means I will have a look at it.

UNITED NATIONS REFORM REPORT
2.49 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: 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 are their views on the recommendations of the Experts' Committee for the reform of the United Nations and its agencies as stated in A New United Nations Structure for Global Economic Co-operation.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, this is a valuable report which puts forward in outline a coherent scheme for the reform of the structure of the United Nations on the economic and social side. It deserves, and is receiving, careful study. Much detail is inevitably lacking and further work will be necessary in the United Nations before definite conclusions can be reached. We intend to play a constructive part in such further work.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, in welcoming the Minister's reply may I ask first this general question. In view of the fact that in the General Assembly and at conferences of the Special Agencies there have during the past year been unfortunate confrontations between the developing and the developed countries, is it not significant that this report is absolutely unanimous and that 15 of the 25 experts come from the developing countries? Is that not encouraging?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, those points are indeed encouraging; but particularly encouraging is the suggestion that there should be negotiation groups to take away from the limelight of the debating Chamber the work of arguing certain contentious points. One hopes that part of the generally acceptable recommendations will be that much of the work will be done away from the atmosphere of ideological debate.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, while appreciating what the Minister has said about the proposed negotiating groups, may I ask him this specific question on
204
the economic and social aspects of this report. Does it propose that there should be a Director-General, covering the whole of economic and social affairs, who will be directly responsible to Dr. Waldheim and will co-ordinate the numberless organisations and agencies which now overlap and cause chaos?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, my noble friend has substantially summed up the central part of the recommendations, with this difference—that it is proposed that there should be a development authority, not an economic authority, to be headed by a special Director-General. Equally important is the proposal to restructure the third and second committees which, as my noble friend will know, in part deal with certain subjects which would be better dealt with if they were concentrated, as the report suggests, in the second committee.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, when my noble friend is considering this matter will he pay attention to the fact that the United Nations and the Special Agencies are being abused by many of those who constitute their membership and that, whatever takes place with regard to the United Nations or its Special Agencies being put on a proper basis, it should be assured that they are not to be used for abusive and uncontrolled political action?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, my Lords, I am sure that that is an injunction to which every part of the United Nations would be well advised to listen.

FOOD FROM OUR OWN RESOURCES AND CAP
2.52 p.m.
Lord WALSTON Lord WALSTON rose to move. That this House takes note of the White Paper Food from Our Own Resources (Cmnd. 6020) and of the Twenty-fifth Report of the Select Committee of the European Communities on the EEC stocktaking of the Common Agricultural Policy. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is indeed a vast subject and I approach it with considerable diffidence. At the end of my speech I fear that many people will feel that I have skated rather too thinly and in too global a manner over matters which require more detailed treatment, while others may feel that I have gone in too much detail into a matter as wide as this.

205
I am very much afraid that the great majority of your Lordships will undoubtedly feel that I have trespassed for too long on your time.
I make these preliminary apologies but I do not make any basic apology because these two subjects—Food from Our Own Resources and the Report on the EEC stocktaking of the Common Agricultural Policy—are of interest not only to those concerned with food production, not only to those concerned with the organisation of the European Economic Community, but to every man, woman and child in this country today and to those who are going to come afterwards, because our food supplies are in jeopardy at the present time. I do not want to be alarmist about that, but we must accept the fact that the situation that we have grown up to be used to and that our fathers grew up to be used to has radically changed, and we must give thought to a radical change in our own organisation if we are to ensure adequate supplies of food in the coming decades.
It is probably worth going back very briefly into history to get into perspective the differences that existed—and still to some extent exist—between what one can call Continental Europe and the United Kingdom. For approximately the last 150 years we in this country have been accustomed to getting most of our food at very low prices from many parts of the world, and only a relatively small quantity—something of the order of 30 per cent. up to 1939—from our own land. We did that for a variety of reasons. We did it because during the Victorian period we had our colonial Empire developing to unprecedented heights and wealth; because we had enormous investments throughout the world, not only in the colonies and in the Empire but in other countries such as Latin America. Those investments had to be paid for and could only be paid for by the primary products of those countries—that is, food; because we had a very large Merchant Navy which could carry our food for us; and because we had complete military command of the seas we were not in fear, until 1914, of any interference with the free access of food. That is the basis upon which our policy for agriculture in this country grew up.
On the other hand, Continental Europe had a very different situation. It had
206
the very vivid and fairly recent memories of the Napoleonic wars and of the British blockade of the Continent; it had a much wider amount and variety of land; and it had a powerful political voice, ranging from the great landowners of Prussia to the peasants of France whose influence on the Government was every bit as great as that of the great Whig landowners of the 18th century in this country. Therefore, their attitude was, "Food from our own resources, both for political and for economic and for defence reasons." whereas ours was, "Food from overseas." There was a very wide divergence between those two policies. But in recent years those differences have to a large extent disappeared. On the one hand, in Continental Europe the power of the agricultural vote has diminished and is diminishing rapidly. For instance, the number of farmers in the Community has halved in the last 10 years. We no longer need to pay any attention to the voice of the large landowners unless, perhaps, they come from certain parts of the United Kingdom—and we do not pay much attention to them, either!
The economic feeling of the Community is developing more and more towards the Third World, towards increased international trade, as their industry becomes of increasing importance to them. So they are coming more to the situation that we were in before the First World War; whereas in this country our investments overseas have virtually disappeared, our foreign exchange earnings are giving us perpetual problems and our desire to cut down our imports is of greater and greater importance. Above all, the world food situation has radically changed. We are now entering into a phase where the world population is increasing at the rate of some 70 million people a year and all those people have to be fed. The standard of nutrition demanded by those people—lamentably low as it is today, and as it has been in the past—is slowly, far too slowly, rising. The conscience of the world has been awakened to starvation in many parts of the world, but what is perhaps more significant—we are, after all, governed more by economics than by conscience—is that because of this increased pressure on food from more and more people with an increasing amount of money to spend on food the competition for food is increasing.

207
Our position as virtually the sole buyer—as it was in the old days—has disappeared and we shall have to look forward in the future to paying more for our food than we paid in the past. So we have the convergence of these two different policies which makes easier the problem of bringing together the Common Agricultural Policy, increased production at home, preference for the home producer and the British former policy of relying on other countries for our food. It is easier to bring those together in the future.
Perhaps at this stage it would be right for me to describe as briefly as I can—and it is a difficult job to condense this fairly and honestly—some of the salient points of the stocktaking of the Common Agricultural Policy which it may be your Lordships have before you; you certainly can obtain them if you wish in the Twenty-Fifth Report from the Select Committee of the House of Lords on the European Communities. I should like to give my very sincere thanks to my colleagues on the agricultural sub-committee of the Select Committee and to the officials who have helped us so much in the preparation of this Report, and also to our technical adviser, Professor Josling who has been of very great help to us in all our work.
Perhaps it is best for me to mention briefly what seem to me to be the most important points which emerge from this Report. In Part III paragraph 28 we say:
"The stocktaking document identifies four problem areas to which the specific proposals of the Commission are addressed. They are: problems of market balance;"—
which is a very wide term, including the balance between demand and supply and also the balance between different countries and different regions of the same countries—
"disparities among farm incomes; the lack of a truly unified agricultural market; and"—
the very important—
"problems of financial cost."
The Community has decided that it should modify its agricultural policy in a fairly drastic way by relating prices to the needs of what is described as the "modern farm"; this means that a vast
208
number of small, inefficient high-cost farms in unsuitable areas are not taken into account in arriving at prices. The problems of those people, great as they are, should be taken care of by social means rather than by economic and agricultural means, and the price paid to the farmers should be based on the modern farm.
I would draw your Lordships' attention to paragraph 31, where it is stated that:
"The House may wish to consider whether another principle enunciated in the stocktaking should not be the guideline for setting farm prices."
The principle is that different products are located in areas that have a comparative advantage in their production. In other words, there should be a movement towards encouraging production in those areas with natural advantages and therefore where the costs are less. There is also the suggestion, which I am sure your Lordships will endorse, that when there is a surplus of farm products it should, in the first instance, be made available at subsidised prices, if necessary, to the neediest consumers within the Community; it should not, as in the past, be disposed of at subsidised prices, as, for instance, butter to the Soviet Union. Where such disposal cannot take place for one reason or another, or there is no no reason for it, the food should be disposed of, again at subsidised prices, to the most needy people of the Third World in conjunction with the food aid programme.
I then move on to the patterns of future Community trade with the Third World and here we said, in paragraph 38:
"In the past the Community's trade policy was based on tariffs and quotas; henceforward it will be affected by two main factors. The first is the Community's decision to expand her traditional policy to include development co-operation with Third World countries on whose development tariffs and quotas can only have slight impact. The second is the Community's need to establish stable supply and prices for raw materials in the light of the world economic situation since the oil crisis."
In other words the Community is now moving—rightly, in my opinion—towards a general idea of some form of long-term contract primarily with the exporting countries of the Third World, but also on a reciprocal basis in certain cases. It is necessary to plan world food needs in the light of the dangerous situation of the

209
future, so that we shall not find ourselves in the position in regard to food that we found ourselves only a few years ago in regard to oil. I believe that to be an important and significant change in the Common Agricultural Policy.
There are also the proposals for an active storage policy for agricultural goods, for setting up buffer stocks, for instance, of cereals, sugar and—as they have at present though they are not called buffer stocks—dried milk powder. These stocks are to be used to mop up surpluses when they arise as part of the intervention programme but also to go out when there are shortages, as there have been in the last 18 months in grain, so as to lower prices and thereby benefit consumers just as much as producers.
One problem which needs special attention from your Lordships and special thought—and I hope some of the later speakers will develop it more than I have time for—is the problem of milk. We have today had a Question from the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, concerning that. Undoubtedly there is a danger of a shortage of fresh milk in this country during the coming winter, and without any doubt there is a shortage of milk for manufacturing. It is therefore reasonable—and I shall come to this later when I discuss the White Paper—that there should be efforts to increase milk production in this country. But in the rest of the Community there is a surplus of dairy products and the efforts of the Community are still directed towards reducing the size of the Community dairy herd and increasing the size of the beef herd. This is a problem which needs far more elaboration than I have time for this afternoon, but which is of very great importance in regard to the Common Agricultural Policy and in regard to the assurance of our own food supplies.
While I am on the subject of milk, I think it is worth pointing out some figures which have just been published by the Milk Marketing Board. They show that between 1955 and 1975 the cost of labour in the milk producing industry rose by very nearly 500 per cent. The cost of feedingstuffs rose by 250 per cent.; the wholesale price of milk paid to the farmer rose by a mere 88 per cent. That is a record of which any industry might be proud. I think from this House we should give our congratulations to all
210
those who are concerned in it—to the Milk Marketing Board, the producers, the farmers, the farm workers.
Several Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord WALSTON: My Lords, one is tempted to say that if the rest of the industries of this country had a similar record—where the increase in their labour costs was five-fold and their other inputs increased 2½-fold and they only put up their prices by less than double—we should be in a very much better position than we are today. That is roughly what stocktaking does. It has some very good points in it, of that there is no question. It has self-criticism, which is always valuable; it has a willingness to change, Shown by some of its proposals. It gives encouragement to world trade and shows concern for the Third World. I particularly recommend to your Lordships the long-term contracts that it recommends in this respect. It also shows a concern for the consumer, and not only for the producer.
The document also has its bad points. In many respects it is a weak document. It is vague, and concerns itself with generalities. It makes no assessment of the overall world food position, an essential thing to be done if you are going to plan food production, when one must have an assessment of today's situation and a forecast for the future, inaccurate though that may be; one cannot plan without it. There is no indication of how the improvement, accepted as desirable, will be brought into effect. These are some of the criticisms I think it right to mention.
My Lords, now let us turn to the White Paper, Food from Our Own Resources. Very briefly, the White Paper says that we should and can increase our food production in view of the world food situation, and that we should increase it by a specified amount, with which I will not weary your Lordships, although the main areas where increases are to take place are in sugar, where, by the end of 1980 there is a projected increase of something between 25 per cent. and 30 per cent.; an increase in milk for human consumption of about 20 per cent.; an increase in lamb and mutton of about 20 per cent.; an increase in beef of about 10 per cent., and cereals

211
of about 9 per cent. These are very specific figures, and it is valuable that we should have them. I give the White Paper full credit for quantifying the figures, and for taking into account the general world food situation.
But, my Lords, the White Paper gives no indication of how this can be achieved, and what the price of this is going to be. In paragraph 54, the White Paper says:
"The Government are aware of concern in the agricultural industry lest investment and higher output from our farms might be prejudiced by new and proposed forms of capital taxation; and by other developments such as pressure for more rigorous control of effluents and agrochemicals.… The projected increases in the output of British agriculture should not result in any undesirable changes in the environment …".
It deals with the second point, but does not deal in any way with the first point, although the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, in answer to a Question today, suggested to us that discussions are going on. I am glad to hear it, but I am bound to point out that this White Paper is dated April 1975. There has been ample time for discussion. While discussions are going on, increased production is not taking place.
I will not dwell on the very serious state of British agriculture today, due almost entirely to the weather. I am sure others will do that, but this is something the Government must be well aware of. The Government cannot live in a Cloud Cuckoo-land of thinking that a White Paper is a negotiable form of security which a farmer can take to his bank. In addition to that, I would say that credit facilities are not enough. It is all very well to borrow, but any prudent borrower or lender must be concerned with repayment. Until we are sure how we can repay the amount of money which admittedly we can borrow today from the banks, expansion will not take place as the Government and all of us wish.
My Lords, there are other handicaps apart from financial ones, and I will mention only a few. Among these are the slowing down of agricultural research. I have here a general report from Dr. Fowden, Director of Rothamsted Institute for the last year. I will read a short part of it. He says:
212
"… in November the Secretary of the ARC had to tell listeners at a conference held at the Farmers' Club that the 'agricultural research service is now a shrinking service'. As part of a programme of reduced government expenditure, the grant received by ARC in the present financial year was cut by about 6 per cent. With inflation also pushing up costs at an alarming rate, not least those of rates and essential services, other forms of expenditure have had to be drastically curtailed. … At a time when all economic and political considerations indicate that Britain should become more self-sufficient in food production, the wisdom of extending the cuts in government expenditure to agricultural research is surely questionable."
May I give your Lordships a few indications of where I believe research of one form or another—and I hope it can be done on a community basis and not solely on a national basis—will give valuable and important results. Dr. Pereira, who is Chief Scientist at the Ministry of Agriculture, gave a public lecture some time ago in which he suggested that of all the food actually sold off British farms—not produced on them, but sold off them—and of all the food imported into British ports from overseas, 25 per cent. in some form or another was wasted. I grant that much of that is inevitable, but this is surely an example of where research could have a great effect in a fairly short space of time.
Take, for instance, the recycling of animal waste. Much valuable protein which is wasted could be used as animal feedingstuffs, and very little research is being done on that at present. Available research is not enough. Similarly with the conservation of fodder crops and the extraction of liquid—magnificent work has been going on in this sphere for years at Rothamsted, but it goes slowly; more money is needed to make that into something which will pay dividends. Let us take one small specific point, the precision drilling of grain crops. I am told that the theoretical maximum yield of wheat is 118 cwt. an acre; of barley, 115 cwt. an acre, based on the nutritional uptake of which the grain is capable in the environment in which it finds itself. It needs to be put into the ground in perfect condition. One of the ways in which this can be done is by precision drilling. However, experiments are going very slowly on that. An enormous increase of three- or fourfold over the present average increase could be achieved by success in this type of research.

213
The harvesting of beet crops is another matter. Every year, we produce from our sugar beet crop the equivalent of 500,000 to 600,000 tons of fodder grain. The great majority of that is wasted, ploughed back into the ground. There is no machine capable adequately of picking it up. These are just some of the examples. I am sure that any of your Lordships who are concerned with the matter could enlarge the list. So increased research, not a cut to 6 per cent., is one thing which must be done.
My Lords, then there is uncertainty in the industry over the future of the tied cottage. There is uncertainty in the industry over land ownership, due to the capital transfer tax. It would not be right for me to move into that sphere now. These are both subjects for complete debates. As have many of your Lordships, I have my own answers to the problems which I might suggest at certain times, but if the Government are going to achieve the expansion that they desire, these uncertainties must be removed. We need the same atmosphere in agriculture as we had in 1940, when we had that enormous surge forward in production and in the utilisation of land, the adoption of new methods, the increase in production in spite of the wartime difficulties, and a great increase in the actual amount of food which we produced from our own acres. The conditions then were extremely difficult. We were short of all sorts of materials; we were short of money and men and we were short of imports. Today, we are short of money and of imports. The need is no less great. We have a somewhat longer time to do it, but not a great deal of time. We must inject into the industry—and in this the Government must take the lead, which they have done with the White Paper, but they must follow up that lead rapidly —the feeling that the job is vital and that the resources will be made available.
I hope, in addition to this—I am moving from the purely domestic sphere to the international community sphere—that in company with our partners in the EEC we should work very closely with the United Nations and with FAO towards far more realistic international agreements and buffer stocks and long-term contracts, both ways, to ensure not only our own food, but also to ensure that the starvation and malnutrition in two-thirds of the
214
world is, by the end of the century, if that is not too optimistic, entirely banished from this world. We must no longer content ourselves with saying—which people, I am glad to say, are now saying, and it is worth repeating—that the days of cheap food are now over. That is not enough. We must ask ourselves what it means that the days of cheap food are over. It means that we must no longer have in our agriculture a policy of deficit, of producing less than we need, curtailing production, knowing that we can buy cheaply whatever we need to make up our requirements.
We must instead plan for a surplus production in average years in order to have sufficiency in the bad years. That means that there will be times when we have too much food for our own needs, but not too much food for the hungry world, and we must concentrate our minds on the best means of disposing of these surpluses, rather than reducing production and buying from overseas. It means that we must spend a greater proportion of our national wealth on food than we have done in the past, and that can only mean that there will be less of our national wealth to spend on other things; in other words, a curtailment of our standard of living or of the increase in our standard of living. These are the things that the phrase, "the days of cheap food are over" really mean, and we must face them and we must accept them and their implications. If we do that, as a country, and, above all, if we do it as a member of the Community, I am quite sure that we shall not go hungry in this country in our lifetime, or in that of our children; and more important perhaps than that, we shall make a really valuable contribution to the problems of hunger and starvation in the whole world. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the White Paper Food From Our Own Resources (Cmnd. 6020) and of the Twenty-fifth Report of the Select Committee of the European Communities on the EEC stocktaking of the Common Agricultural Policy.—(Lord Walston.)
3.24 p.m.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Walston, for introducing this debate this afternoon, and he is in a unique position to do so, being not only Chairman

215
of the Agricultural Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on European Community Legislation, but also an eminent agriculturist and agricultural political thinker. I therefore listened to him with great interest, as I always do, and with much respect, and I for one should like to thank the Select Committee which the noble Lord chaired for the Report which they have produced and for scrutinising the European document.
Of course, what the noble Lord has done this afternoon is to set us a fairly formidable task. We are, in fact, considering in these documents the future development of European agriculture, British agriculture and British agriculture in a European context. Both are forward-looking documents and are designed to meet the needs of farmers and consumers alike, and I welcome them both. They are, of course, different in style and purpose and, in certain areas, they are also contradictory—but none the less valuable for that. Food From Our Own Resources is really stating the Government's aspirations for British agriculture and what they require from it. The European stocktaking document is a basic scrutiny and self-criticism by the EEC of the way in which the Common Agricultural Policy has functioned since its inception and how it might be improved. Soul searching is not always an easy thing to do. It needed doing, and I have no doubt that the whole of the EEC will be the better for it, though I note that the Select Committee did not think that they had gone quite far enough, and the noble Lord, Lord Walston, said so in his speech.
It is, of course, fashionable to decry the Common Agricultural Policy: it is too expensive, it is monolithic, it does not work, it provides mountains, or it produces expensive food. But I suggest to your Lordships that there is another side to it which is not wholly derogatory, within which the Common Agricultural Policy has met with a remarkable degree of success. Common to all European countries and, indeed, to most countries in the world is the need, for one reason or another, to protect their agriculture. The reasons for this and the methods by which they can be protected vary, but the Common Agricultural Policy has been a means by which
216
all the different countries of the Nine, and the national requirements of the Nine from their own agricultures, have been brought under one common system of support. It is almost a superhuman success to have constructed a system, despite all its faults, which supports at the same time the small orange-growers of Sicily, the extensive corn growers of East Anglia and the wine growers of the South of France with the intensive pig units of Denmark.
On top of this, let us remember that no method of support will ever be perfect because one is trying to get into equilibrium two things which never will be in equilibrium—supply and demand. If, in an ideal world, you were to pitch your incentives absolutely right, so that in normal circumstances the supply from farms would neatly equate with the demand from the consumers, in a bad year you would have a shortfall and prices would rise, and in a good year you would have a surplus—and what do you do with that? You can destroy it, sell it to others, give it away or store it. But in all cases someone has to pay.
This simple fact is absolutely basic to any form of managed agriculture, and it is an obligation which I suggest any Government or Governments who try to operate a managed agriculture have to accept with their eyes wide open. When one hears, therefore, of beef mountains or butter mountains, or even, as one does now, of a wine lake of 20 million hectolitres—which in a fantasy dream world your Lordships might not consider to be wholly disagreeable—one should not immediately come to the conclusion that the system which produced them is necessarily useless. Rather should one attempt to find a way within that system of minimising the occurrence and of dealing with it more effectively when it does occur. In that I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Walston, said. We can be sure of one thing—inevitably, those surpluses will occur.
I agreed with the Select Committee Report when it said in paragraph 36 that sales of surpluses outside the European Community, like butter to Russia, were "politically vulnerable as well as economically dubious". They were quite right. Equally. I regard it as wholly inadequate and inefficient that such surpluses should be disposed of, as in the case of meat,

217
by such methods as giving 30p vouchers to old age pensioners. I was glad to see that the Commission recognise that a more conscious effort should be made to get surpluses back into the system from which they were produced as soon as possible, and so benefit the consumers in the countries which paid for those surpluses to be produced. But, of course, some stockpiles, such as grain, for example, are welcome and it is prudent to have them. This kind of stockpiling is not new; it has been going on since the days of the Pharaohs, and it is particularly desirable now that the United States Government have pulled out of the responsibility of storing structural strategic reserves. But, of course, the Community, in one form or shape, have to be prepared to meet the cost.
I would here pay tribute to the Government for having achieved an improvement in the beef situation by encouraging the Community to adopt a combination both of intervention and of national support. I am sure that this will prove to have a more stabilising effect both on price and on meat supply. But one must accept that if there is to be free and fair competition in agricultural products, then it must depend, broadly, upon an end-price mechanism supported, if necessary, by national aids—and I do not see anything wrong with that.
Of course, the level at which the end-price is pitched determines, to a certain extent, the likelihood of surpluses, and I commend the Commission's determination to orientate their policy towards the modern farm. I am sure that that is right, but it immediately throws up the social problem of what you do with the small farm. In this country, we have an enormous structural advantage over our EEC partners. In 1947, the average size of holding in Great Britain was 83 acres, now it is 124 acres and, if you were to exclude part-time holdings, the average is 239 acres. But in the whole of the EEC since 1958, a period of nearly 20 years, the average farm size has increased by only seven acres to the present size of 30 acres. One must accept that there is here both a social problem and a structural problem. In this country over the last 25 years, through consistent policies, we have gone a long way to resolving our structural problem, and this gives us a huge advantage over our Community
218
partners, and one which we should be careful not to emasculate. If there is a social problem, that should be catered for by social policies and not by the Agricultural Policy, and I am glad that the stocktaking document recognises that fact.
Between 1963 and 1973, 4 per cent. of the population have left the land in the countries of the Community, but it still leaves a vast proportion of the EEC population engaged in agriculture. More will have to leave, and if this comes about—and to enable it to come about —there is need to be proper regional policies to offer alternative employment. Small farmers in many parts of Europe today are locked into their land with no way of escape, and this must be changed.
Therefore, the Common Agricultural Policy, for all its success, needs the support of social and regional policies as well, and these in turn depend on successful economic policies. Today, the Common Agricultural Policy is an agricultural and a social policy in one. An Agricultural Policy, which is designed both to achieve and solicit a required level of protection in the interests of consumers and farmers alike, cannot, at the same time, cater for the social consequences which those very policies inevitably produce. That is why I welcome paragraph 115, which says:
"A solution to the problem associated with farm incomes and the disparity of incomes in the agricultural sector … requires the continuous correlation of the Common Agricultural Policy and the regional and social policies."
That is the key to the problem relating to productivity and farm incomes.
The establishment of a single market was a fundamental objective of the Common Agricultural Policy and it must remain so, but at present this is destroyed by the variation of European monetary exchange rates against each other, and the famous monetary compensatory amounts which are designed to minimise the effect of these changes. Inflation, and the weakening of currencies in different degrees relative to each other, has put a torpedo through any form of monetary parity within the EEC and the Common Agricultural Policy. This has subjected the Common Agricultural Policy to immense stresses, not of its own making. Any devaluing or revaluing of currencies

219
totally distorts the common pricing system.
The monetary compensatory amounts were, of course, designed to avoid this distortion. They have certainly saved the CAP over the last two years, but they have been very expensive to operate, although we in Britain have obtained great benefit from them—a fact which is not readily recognised by many people. But they cannot operate fairly so long as, in our case, the mystical thing called the Green Pound is out of parity with the pound sterling. The present rate of the Green Pound was fixed last March, and since then the value of the pound sterling has dropped by some 20 per cent. The answer must be an immediate realignment of the representative rate of the Green Pound.
I recognise the problem which a full 20 per cent. jump will present to the Government, but I suggest that the Minister must know that this will go a long way to injecting confidence in the United Kingdom industry, and it will prevent the type of absurdity whereby somebody gets a fiscal advantage by sending lorry-loads of beef to England, sending them around the roundabout, and then sending them back to Europe again. I hope that the Minister will be able to comment on that.
I agree with the Commission when they say that the monetary compensatory amounts cannot in future be tolerated when they constitute factors where they disrupt the unity of the agricultural market and create distortion in competition, but I suggest that they can serve to minimise the short-term effects of fluctuation in exchange rates, and that is what they are intended to do. All this depends on economies being sound—which manifestly they are not—and that is why, in this area as well as in others, it is vital for our economy to be strengthened, and I welcome the appearance that the Government intend to introduce measures to bring this about.
With our economy being bad at the moment, with dwindling world food supplies, with our inability to find or pay for large imports of food, the case for an expanding British agriculture is really quite overwhelming. The Government recognised this in the Queen's Speech of
220
March 1974 and October 1974, and again in this White Paper, Food from Our Own Resources. I commend this resolve and this White Paper. But if we are to expand, this poses two questions: first, where do we expand?; and, secondly, how do we expand? The White Paper says:
"Most benefit is likely to come from higher output of milk (with its by-product, beef from the dairy herd) and sugar beet. Cereals and sheep should also make a significant contribution."
In other words, the key to expansion relies on the better utilisation of grassland—greater productivity and, if possible, from a smaller acreage. That must make sense, and I fully endorse it, although I am bound to say I wonder how thrilled the European Commission were by the emphasis on milk at a time when they find a not peculiar embarrassment in the surplus of milk in the EEC.
The Commission want producers to share the responsibilities of surpluses and to achieve this they want to apply the target and intervention prices for milk in two stages—the first in the spring and the second in the autumn. This, I believe, is directly contrary to British interests, and I venture to suggest that it is not a long-term solution to the surplus milk production in Europe which, in the Community, is geared to the manufactured market where as in Britain it is geared to the liquid market. It is an inbuilt structural surplus in the EEC, where the average herd size is only nine cows as opposed to a herd size in Great Britain of 39.
As the White Paper says:
"Britain has a comparative advantage in milk and milk by-products."
This, I suggest, should deserve encouragement and not penalties. A more appropriate and less emotive answer to solving the European Community's milk problem is an improvement in marketing in Europe, as the stocktaking document suggests; the promotion of liquid milk on the Continent, which accounts for about only 30 per cent. of all the milk produced, compared with 90 per cent. in our case; and the implementation of an adequate structural policy. Tinkering about with prices on an ad hoc basis cannot resolve the underlying cause of the EEC milk problem, nor will it achieve a better market equilibrium.

221
British agriculture is predominated by its livestock sector. It always has been, and in terms of our comparative advantage in grass growing it always will be. This is perhaps all the more true in a European context. Any expansion policy must be designed to follow, but not be wholly restricted by, the course of greater comparative advantage. In the case of Britain, that course must be orientated initially to our grassland. More and better grass, and more and better grassland management, is no new philosophy; that cry was put forward some 25 years ago and we do not seem to have made much of a fist at it. But now that the price of grain and the universal demand for grain are such as to make grain an expensive commodity to use for animal feed, the Government are quite right to lay the emphasis yet again on grass.
The Government have set the objective, for which both they and the industry should aim, of an expansion, on average, of 2½ per cent. per year. This is to be in the national interest. I commend the Government for seeing this need and for stating it, and I fully endorse the White Paper. The problem is how to achieve it and, as the noble Lord, Lord Walston, said, about this the White Paper is totally silent, other than paragraph 23 which says:
"The prospect of higher market returns should itself give farmers an incentive to plan for greater output."
If that is to be the sole criterion for encouraging increasing output, the corollary would equally apply, that the prospect of enormously increasing costs would remove any incentive for farmers to plan for greater output; and indeed such a statement would apply right across the board to the whole of British industry.
But the vital word in that paragraph 23 is "incentive". If there is to be expansion then there must be incentive to expand. Incentive comes from confidence—from a whole variety of causes, of which prices is one—and confidence comes from stability. Of course, it is one of the hazards of Government that they get blamed for everything when things go wrong, and particularly is this so in a managed agriculture. I readily recognise that no Government, not even in a totalitarian State, can be responsible for prices which are paid or for cost of inputs, nor can they be responsible for
222
market trends, at least not wholly. If wheat prices drop from £70 to £50 a ton, as they have done, that is not the responsibility of Government, but it is a fact of life. However, Governments can influence and they can set the conditions, and if we are to achieve this expansion then the Government will have to set the conditions in which this can come about.
One cannot disregard the fact that, for one reason or another, there was a major beef slump about 12 months ago; the pig herd has dropped back to the level of 1966, and the milk industry is still contracting. There are 5 per cent. fewer cows in the dairy herd this year than there were last year; 60 million gallons of milk less is being produced this year than last year; inseminations of cattle were down 9 per cent. in April and 11 per cent. in May, showing that more empty cows will be walking about and the likelihood is that milk production will decrease yet further; no butter at all will be produced between August and March in our own butter factories because there is not the milk there; farmhouse cheese-making is likely to be stopped because of inadequate milk supplies; it is anticipated that cream will have to be imported this winter.
All these things show a continuing decline since the peak years of 1972–73, and on top of that farm incomes were down 26 per cent. last year. This is not stability. It is not expansion. It is contraction. I am not here trying to attribute to the Government the blame for this. What I am saying is that it is a fact which the Government must take into account and one which we must all take into account and recognise. We all know and accept the need of this country for an expanding agriculture, and I was delighted that the Prime Minister re-emphasised this at Stoneleigh on Monday in words of quite unmistakable clarity, when he said:
"The argument for expanding agricultural output today—"
and his next words my noble friend Lord Standys quoted—
"and for help to do it—rests on grounds which the most hard-bitten economist, the most dispassionate industrial consultant, would accept."
One could not get anything much clearer than that, especially from a Prime Minister, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will be able to say how those

223
six vital words— "and for help to do it —will be implemented.
As the noble Lord, Lord Walston, said, no longer is there cheap food. As the value of the pound is lowered daily, so our imports become more expensive and therefore the Government must encourage agriculture to expand. But how is this to be done, and how will it be done? We have an efficient agriculture. Each man employed in agriculture is backed by no less than £34,000 in capital assets. Even compared with ICI, which must be rated one of our most efficient industries, the figure is not £34,000 in capital assets but £24,000. The growth in productivity per man has averaged 7 per cent, over the last eight years, which leaves most industries standing. These figures represent a quite outstanding achievement. Agriculture turns its capital over only once in five years, whereas most industrial organisations turn theirs over twice in one year. In a time of roaring inflation it is not surprising that agriculture faces severe liquidity problems.
This is not the Government's fault, but again it is a fact which the Government must recognise. Not only will 30 per cent. more working capital have to be found to take care of inflation over the next 12 months but more capital will have to be found to replace that which is removed by capital taxation just in order to keep production at the same level as last year, before one talks of expansion, and that requires yet more capital. My question to the Government is: where is this coming from? I do not ask that in an offensive way, but in a genuinely interrogatory way, because that is the question which all farmers and all those in agriculture want answered. One cannot remove capital from an industry and expect it to expand. That just does not work. The Government must realise that some of the actions they have taken in some quarters have had an effect on agriculture which has been totally at variance with the Government's wish in the White Paper. As the noble Lord, Lord Walston, said, the industry is faced with the capital transfer tax, the Community Land Bill, a proposed wealth tax, proposals to re-rate agricultural land, and the Government have promised the abolition of tied cottages.
224
I ask your Lordships: where is the incentive or the capacity or even the ability to expand? I beg the Government to realise that, however meritorious these actions may be for the purposes for which they were introduced—whether these were social, economic or political, and I accept that there are many commendable if disputable reasons for them—these actions are having an influence on agriculture which is diametrically opposed to those put forward in the White Paper, and they are acting as a rebuttal to expansion. If the Government want to see increased production from agriculture, the industry must be encouraged.
A plant will not grow if one stamps on it with the heel of one's foot and then uses in justification the argument that one did not really mean to hit the plant but merely the weed which was growing alongside it. My experience is that in these cases the plant dies but the weed continues to grow. When things have precisely the reverse effect from that intended and required and when we are in an economic mess, I urge the Government—and I mean this in no Party sense because I urge my own Party to do the same thing—to stand back, to put sums momentarily on one side and to scrutinise basic attitudes and what motivates people, whether their lives be in agriculture or elsewhere.
The first fact that one sees is that fundamentally people right across the board, whether in agriculture or in other industries, from the highest paid to the lowest paid, want to work. They want to work in order to earn. They want to earn in order to keep. High taxation militates against this and generates the feeling, "What on earth is the point of trying?" The second is that it is a natural and, I venture to suggest, commendable instinct for people to want to pass on to their children the fruits of their life's work. If it is not a commendable instinct, the antithesis must be that it is more virtuous to seek high rewards only to spend them on oneself, and such a self-indulgent society as would ensue from that philosophy is one that cannot have been seen since the days of Sodom and Gomorrah. This basic and fundamental concept is all too easily forgotten by our political masters of all persuasions and all Parties. The curious

225
thing is that the nearer to the centre of the political machine one gets, the heavier one gets showered from the bureaucratic tarbrush as it swings round, and the more obfuscate become the simple principles which motivate the individual.
My Lords, I make no apology for mentioning this, because it strikes at the very heart of the Government's desire for expansion as put forward in their White Paper. Many of the most successful and well-established farming families throughout the country have come about by the endless hard work and effort which has been put in by themselves or by their fathers or by their grandfathers in order to build up a business, often from small beginnings, to hand on to their children. Maybe they were inspired by the idea of increasing their standard of living—people throughout the ages have done that, and none more than the present generation—and there is not much wrong in working hard for that. Maybe they were also inspired by a natural instinct to give their children a better start in life than they had—and I venture to suggest that there is nothing wrong in that either. Many people in all walks of life, throughout the length and breadth of the country, and not confined to agriculture, are similarly motivated. These may be unpopular, unfashionable or even despised attitudes, but I venture to suggest that anyone who disregards them disregards the very mechanism which makes the clock tick. And any nation which tries to suppress them will inevitably stop the clock.
If we want an expanding agriculture the Government can only set the conditions. That they can do; and, indeed, that they must do. But I would earnestly urge the Government to reconsider some of the things which they have done—commendable as they have been for many reasons and to many people, but for reasons which are totally disconnected with the expansion of agriculture—and to realise that they are at this time having an effect quite the reverse of that for which they are asking in this White Paper. I cannot urge the Government too strongly to note this and, having noted it, to act upon it.
We are all agreed on two things the first is that the country is in considerable economic difficulties. The second is that because of that and for other reasons, we need more food from our own resources.
226
The only thing which is lacking is the means to bring this about. That means lies within the capacity of the Government—and I can do little better than quote the words used in the time of Winston Churchill, in different circumstances, "Give us the tools and we will do the job". It is just that for which the agricultural industry looks to the Government.
3.54 p.m.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, I, too, must congratulate and thank the noble Lord, Lord Walston, for initiating this debate. I think he deserves the thanks of the whole House for the work he did in summarising for our consumption the work of the stocktaking on the Common Agricultural Policy. I do not want to say much about this because it has been well covered by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, and by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers.
I should like to say that many of the indicators in the Report point towards a great deal of common sense coming into the thinking on CAP by the Community at large. I would point out that paragraph 10 reads:
"(a) the need to relate price levels to the supply and demand situation for each product as well as to the earning ability of modern farms"—
and further—
"(f) the establishment of better price relationships between agricultural products"—
and then—
"(g) the assumption by producers of some degree of financial responsibility for surpluses",
which means that the Community policies are moving towards a high degree of common sense in production. But I would stress that in the Community the policy which may have supported small and inefficient farmers has done a tremendous service to Europe as a whole in seeing that the supply of food by these people, uneconomic as it may seem, was there when we had a shortage in the world two years ago and certainly kept down world prices to a very large degree.
I should like to spend some time on the White Paper, Food From Our Own Resources, and would say, first of all, that the target of 2½ per cent. a year is quite achievable. I do not think there is any doubt at all that we can have

227
a net gain and can save £500 million of imports at today's prices, and that the farming community can do it. They have done it in the past, and anybody who knows anything about practical farming has no doubt that if the standard of farming throughout the country was the standard of the best farmers throughout the country, the achievement could be far greater. Given the fact that the Government have said firmly that they want this and that they are to provide the means to do the job—which, as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said means providing the money to do it—then I should like to examine some of the steps which I think the Government should take.
The reason for the great advance in agricultural production in this country since the war has been the confidence of farmers in the pricing system, in the annual Price Review and in the guarantees which successive Governments have given. The reason for the malaise at present felt in farming is the total abandonment of this policy during the last couple of years in the case of beef. Some measures have now been taken, but the lack of confidence is very strongly felt in the industry today. The Government must give this confidence to farmers otherwise they cannot get the production because, as everyone knows, farming is a very long-term business. It can be done and it will be done, but the confidence must be there and only the Government can give it.
We have great resources in this country which we have been slowly building up. One of them, of course, is the use of our hill land. I have spoken on this before, but I do not think one can mention it too often. The fall in the price of beef—the drastic returns received by producers of hill lambs and producers of calves from the hills—has knocked confidence to an extent that I would say has undone maybe 50 per cent. of the work which has gone on since the end of the war. It will require very firm assurances to make these men, who do not get a high return from their capital, begin to expand their herds again. This is absolutely vital, especially in the case of hill farming, where the capital is high and the return is not great.
228
There is a curious lack of confidence among the beef farmers today, and it is worth while the Government studying this. If you send a store beast to market at the moment and it is 8 cwt. or over and near the end of its work and it can be fattened in three of four months, you will get a reasonable price for it. But if you send in cattle of 5 cwt. which have just gone through the tricky period—the period of great expense; of aborted milk and so on—they will fetch anything from £5 to £6 per cwt. less than the more mature cattle. This can only indicate a tremendous lack of confidence regarding the future among beef farmers. This is one of the major tasks which the Government must tackle.
It is no good the Government talking about £23 per cwt. as being a price which will encourage people to produce cattle. All the costings I have seen from independent sources presently show that the minimum to give a reasonable return is in the region of £25 per cwt. At present our colleagues in the EEC are receiving returns which, while they vary, average £27 to £28 per cwt. Our costs in this country are not all that amount lower than they are on the Continent, and this is a perfectly straightforward matter which the Government will have to face. I know it is tremendously important to keep down the price of food, but the fact remains that we will not get the food unless the costs of production are covered and some return is made to the farmers producing the beef.
The Green Pound, so-called, is really a scandalous device in the farming industry, and the Government must assure farmers that there will be a realistic value put against the unit of account so that the prices come more into line with those pertaining on the Continent. I believe that consistency is very necessary because at this time ridiculous situations obtain: you can actually get a subsidy for going out of milk and into beef, while at the same time you can get help to go into dairying, in the form of grants for buildings and other items. The farmers need to know exactly what is the Government's intention. Many other things are necessary, too. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, was absolutely right when he said that there must be a return for your money; there must be a simple material reward. But the supplying of the capital will be

229
very difficult. I think that the calculation is that we need £500 million of capital in order to provide the equipment to give this increase.
The Government should look at some form of land banking system which would provide capital for expansion at reasonable rates of interest. This is done in almost every one of the better agricultural countries on the Continent, such as Denmark and Holland. The Government should look at this as an extra source of capital for expansion. The Government must look very carefully at agricultural education as well as agricultural research, because it is only by getting farmers rewarded, and by their knowledge and their willingness to adopt the most modern products of research, that we will get the sort of expansion we require.
The advisory service needs to learn lessons from some of the commercial firms. One of the most successful forms of advice in this country has been provided through the ICI scheme of promoting certain farms and giving full details of their financial success. This has certainly had an enormous effect in the dairy industry, in terms of the proper use of grass, the application of fertilisers, and the raising of the return. The Government must consider establishing demonstration farms along these lines, or promoting those which have already been successful, thus giving the information to farmers so that they will realise that it will pay them to follow the best practices.
My Lords, if the Government are to get expansion they must do something about the system of land tenure. What do they want? Do they want to nationalise the land, and rent it to farmers; or farm it themselves? Do they want a system of owner-occupancy; or do they want to preserve the many good features of the landlord-tenant system? No one could say what the Government's policy is in this regard. On the one hand there is taxation designed to discourage the owner-occupier. The 45 per cent. relief on estate duty for tenanted farms has been removed; and I trust and hope that the Government will not go ahead with plans for nationalisation. But there is no consistent policy on land tenure, which is one of the most important factors in any advance in agriculture.
230
I personally have no objection at all to a capital transfer tax. I think it is a good thing—or a bad thing—for a young man to start where his father left off. There is no better incentive than to have a lot of money to repay a large overdraft; and let him get down to it. But if one adds that to an income tax system with tax on personal earned income at the highest rate in Europe you are getting nowhere fast. The ridiculously high taxation of personal incomes in this country has probably done as much harm as anything to land structure and the efficiency of farming.
I ask the Government to sort out the situation in their minds and tell us what type of system of land tenure they want. because it is absolutely vital for production to get this clarified. Along with this the Government must think of how we are to have a ladder in farming. At present there is no real farming ladder. In days gone by, a young man could work on the land, save a little money, and by immense effort could get a farm; but that is almost impossible today. No industry can be really efficient and thrive unless people are coming up from the bottom. The established farmers—I am happy to say that I am lucky enough to be one—need pushing from below. In present circumstances, without a land bank and without any device to bring the keen young men into farming, the farming ladder is practically non-existent. This matter is tremendously important to agriculture and to the achievement of the modest target of 2½ per cent.
We also ought to watch this business of productivity per man. The highest productivity in the world is in the States, where a man can plough vast acreages of flat land and can grow a very large amount of corn, fairly easily, by fairly simple and not very commendable systems of agriculture. The production per man in the States is very high. We must watch that we do not move too far in productivity per man, and we must remember that with our limited acres productivity per acre is probably more important for us. At present we are losing 77,000 good arable acres every year. It appears to me and to many farmers, who should not worry about it as much as the town folk, that it is absolutely ludicrous that this amount of good land is disappearing every year. Every

231
effort should be made to preserve it. As a farmer, I should perhaps selfishly welcome it, because the less land the higher our prices. But the community, and certainly the people who buy the food, should be thinking very seriously about this desperate loss of land.
I do not wish to detain the House longer because many other noble Lords wish to speak. I simply reiterate that if the Government want the expansion they must pay for it. They must give farmers the confidence, and if they do that—if the confidence is there—the farming community has the will and the skill to achieve the target.
4.10 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Hughes): My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Walston for initiating this debate and for providing us with this opportunity to discuss what, it will be generally agreed, are two of the most important publications on agriculture to come before your Lordships' House in many years: the Commission Report on the stocktaking on the Common Agricultural Policy and the Government's White Paper which examines the prospects and policies for food production at home into the 1980s. I should like to say to my noble friend that I am grateful to him on three grounds.
First, I appreciated, as I think did all who listened to my noble friend, the way in which he painted the historical background to agriculture which so very effectively demonstrated the wholly different circumstances in which we now live and, therefore, the totally different views we have to take on certain of these matters from what we might have taken even as recently as four or five years ago. Secondly, I want to thank him for the very skilful way in which he directed our attention to certain of the highlights in the report of the Select Committee. Thirdly, I want to thank him for the opportunity which he has given to noble Lords generally to hear a number of effective contributions to this subject.
If those that we have just heard from the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, are indications of the general attitude to be
232
adopted during the debate, then I can assure your Lordships that Her Majesty's Government will find this a very worthwhile debate. If I might comment first in general terms on what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said in a most interesting and very constructive speech which lasted exactly 30 minutes, I thought that only four minutes could be attributed to the fact that he sat on the Opposition Front Bench. The rest of his speech could have been made from any part of the House. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, with traditional Liberal modesty, spoke only half of that time. An equally small proportion of his speech could have been attributed to the fact that he was speaking from the Liberal Benches. I hope that I shall not transgress unduly on the pattern which my noble friend, the noble Earl, and the noble Lord, have set.
We also owe a special debt of thanks to the Select Committee for their careful scrutiny of the stocktaking Report and their consideration of papers submitted by a wide range of interested organisations. The Committee have not only prepared an extremely useful summary of a very long report, they have also helped us to focus our attention on the main issues and have made a number of useful suggestions which the Government will bear in mind in the discussions which will take place in Brussels. Noble Lords will know that both in Opposition and since taking Office, we on this side of the House have been critical of certain aspects of the Common Agricultural Policy, and have sought, and will continue to seek, changes in the mechanisms by which the Community pursues its aims. But I doubt if many people would quarrel with the basic objectives of that policy which are quoted in paragraph 6 of the Committee's Report. There is a great similarity with the aims of the 1947 Agricultural Act which was the charter for the agricultural policy pursued by successive Governments for about 25 years and which was so effective in improving both the productivity of the land and the income and standards of living of farmers and farm workers in this country.
My Lords, I think we must acknowledge—and perhaps in this respect the Committee has been not quite fair—that

233
the application of the Common Agricultural Policy has brought about substantial improvements in farming in the original Member States. But the Commission recognises, and has conceded in the Report, that while the Common Agricultural Policy has been most successful in achieving market stability and security of supply, it has done so at heavy cost. It has been less successful in securing the optimum use of resources and reasonable prices for consumers. Moreover, wide divergencies between the incomes of producers have persisted. I agree with the Committee that one of the prime reasons for the policies' shortcomings has been an excessive reliance on end price support. I think that there is a general awareness in the Community now that a more flexible application of the policies is needed in order that we might achieve all the Common Agricultural Policy objectives and at a reasonable cost.
My Lords, if I now look at the Government's views on the stocktaking Report and the broad policy objectives, I think it will be helpful to the House if I explained our general approach and commented on some of the points made in Part III of the Committee's Report. I know that the Committee has expressed disappointment at the form and content of the paper. In particular, it is critical of what it calls the failure to answer the fundamental question of how the Commission envisages that the food supply of the EEC will develop; and consider that while the Report is useful it is not an appropriate response nor a realistic appraisal of the views of member Governments. I think that is a rather pessimistic view.
It seems to me that the Commission approaches its task in a commendably critical way; and as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said, soul-searching is not a terribly easy task. It produced what was called for: a full-scale reappraisal of the Common Agricultural Policy. Some of the proposals in the Report represent fairly major changes in the Commission's thinking. It is true that there are some important omissions and some proposals that we like less than others and we shall have to try to put matters right in the discussions now in progress; but in general the Report has been welcomed by all Member-States and that is quite
234
an achievement in itself. We believe that it holds out good prospects for further progress along the lines we have been advocating for the past 18 months.
We do not look upon the stocktaking as a self-contained exercise. It has been said before, but I do not think I need refrain from saying it again, that the CAP is not a rigid and fixed system; it is constantly subject to review and revision. In our view, the stocktaking report should be looked upon as providing a basis for ensuring continuing improvements in that policy. In replying to the discussion on the stocktaking in the Council of Ministers on 28th and 29th April, Commissioner Lardinois agreed that the CAP had become more flexible and could be further adapted to meet the needs of Member-States and changing circumstances and he pointed out that, primarily on British initiative, the Community had made considerable progress in finding pragmatic solutions to its problems.
I have myself some direct experience of this in Brussels as I took part in the negotiations leading to the introduction of the variable premium scheme for beef and the agreement on the Less Favoured Areas Directive, both of which represent significant departures from previous Community policy.
The Commission have rightly drawn attention to the fact that the key issue in obtaining the objectives of increased productivity so as to produce food at reasonable cost to the consumers, while at the same time agreeing a reasonable standard of living for farmers and farm-workers, is an improvement in farm structure throughout the Community. It is a matter for regret that some Member-States have not yet implemented the Directives which provided for, first, aid for farmers undertaking a farm modernisation programme; secondly, compensation for farmers leaving the industry: and, thirdly, the introduction of service to provide social and economic advice to persons engaged in agriculture.
Your Lordships will know that similar measures have been in force in the United Kingdom for many years, and have contributed to the very good structural position and efficiency of United Kingdom farming. But I endorse what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said in this

235
connection. Improvements in structure inevitably create social problems which cannot be solved by agricultural measures alone. They require sound regional and social policies, and no Governments have been more prominent than the United Kingdom Government in pressing these issues.
May I now turn to some of the specific issues which have been commented upon by the Select Committee. On the matter of price decisions which relate to the needs of the modern farm, we have been pressing for this for some considerable time and progress along these lines has already been made. I note the Committee's warning that costs on high technology farms can be high relative to those in agriculture as a whole. Our objective must be to relate prices to efficient farms whether or not they are "high technology" farms. The Committee has suggested that the House may wish to consider the principle that products should be located in the areas that have a comparative advantage in their production. This should of course be the automatic consequence of the establishment of an agricultural common market with common tariffs and the elimination of obstacles to trade. I am sure that it is right that the CAP should be designed to encourage that result, but I stress the word "encourage". I would hope that the Committee did not envisage some kind of direction towards that end.
Then we come to the subject of the disposal of surpluses to Community consumers. There is no doubt that pressure from the United Kingdom has undoubtedly had a considerable effect in persuading the Commission to conclude that,
"Community consumers ought to be able to obtain more benefit from any surpluses occurring";
and consumers in the United Kingdom have derived considerable benefits from this in the past year. I fully accept the point made by the Committee that it is better to try to prevent the surpluses from occurring in the first place, and my right honourable friend, in welcoming this particular proposal, has stressed that it must not be regarded as an alternative
236
to a sensible price policy. It is practical, however, to recognise, as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, emphasised, that temporary surpluses will occur whatever the system of support, and we are glad to see the prospect that our own consumers may benefit more from them. It was demonstrated last year in relation to both beef and butter that a system can be introduced that generates an increase in demand and so reduces the need for intervention buying.
On the subject of external trade arrangements, we shall certainly bear in mind the Committee's comments on this aspect of the stocktaking report. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture has long stressed the need to encourage trade with third countries whenever this can be done without detriment to our own production within the Community, and he has cited strong wheat and lamb as examples. I am sure that noble Lords will agree, however, that there is a very delicate balance to be struck here. An increase in self-sufficiency, provided it is not as a result of high cost production, can benefit consumers in the Community by helping to assure the availability of supplies, which is a major objective of the CAP: and it can at the same time help consumers elsewhere by releasing stocks which might otherwise be bought by Community States.
Then there is the subject of direct income subsidies and other structural measures. We have always taken the view that there might be scope for more use of direct aids to producers as a substitute for higher common price increases or a high level of intervention. I think it is understandable that the Commission should give only a "guarded" approval to the idea of direct income payments to farmers since it is their view that the way in which these have been used in the Community in the past has tended to militate against the improvement of the agricultural structure and has tended to distort competition. I think these are real dangers, but it should be possible to devise arrangements that can avoid these difficulties and add flexibility to the operation of the CAP.
The Commission's suggestion that farmers should assume some degree of

237
financial responsibility for structural surpluses will clearly require careful consideration. The stocktaking report concentrates particularly on the imbalance between supply and demand in the dairy products and wine sectors. The Committee has recognised the difficulty for the United Kingdom dairy industry in the suggestion of a two stage price arrangement which could depress the premium for winter milk. The Committee has rightly drawn attention to the significant differences in the pattern of production and consumption of milk as between the United Kingdom and most other Member-States and I can assure the House that my right honourable friend will have this point very much in mind in discussions on amendments to the milk régime.
I should like, if I may, to spend the last few minutes at my disposal to comment on the relationship between the Commission's stocktaking proposals and our own plans for agricultural expansion as set out in the White Paper Food From Our Own Resources. In this connection I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, for the general welcome that they have given to the Government's proposals. I have noted, of course, the comment which they shared with my noble friend Lord Walston about the absence of specific Government measures to achieve the objectives. I think they will agree that a White Paper dealing with long-term objectives is not the place for such measures. In saying that, I do not dispute that they are right to say that the industry expects the Government to follow this matter up. I do not think that the noble Earl was wrong in directing attention to what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister had to say earlier in the week.
Noble Lords will be diminishing the value which ought to be attached to speeches made in this debate if they judge them as successful or otherwise by the extent to which they extract instant information from the Ministers replying to the debate. No debates which take place in this House are more carefully examined and noted for the value which can be extracted from them than the debates which take place on agriculture. The real value which will accrue from this debate is not what I am saying today or, with
238
all due respect to my noble friend Lord Strabolgi who has, as we say in Scotland, the tarry end of the stick in having to reply to the debate, will say, but on what action the Government take as a result of what has been said by your Lordships.
I was most interested in what my noble friend Lord Walston said about the need for research and development. We recognise the importance of these matters and of advisory work in agriculture. As we had indicated in paragraphs 18 and 19 of the White Paper these services will have an important role to play in increasing productivity. In common with all the activities financed from the public purse, these services have had to accept some reduction in funding because of the need to limit public spending. But in the current year the Agricultural Research Council will receive, in real terms, only marginally less than in 1974–75. On the subject of milk production, for example, I may say that we cannot accept that there is any inconsistency in our looking for increased production in the United Kingdom of the commodities in which the Community as a whole is self-sufficient, or indeed is over-supplied, as in the case of milk, It is not the objective of the Common Agricultural Policy to preserve the present pattern and application of production. The common price structure and harmonisation of national aids are designed to create a situation in which commodities are produced in the areas in which this can be done most efficiently and economically. It is our duty to determine the best future pattern of United Kingdom agricultural production, based on the best use of our own resources.
This is perhaps best illustrated in the case of milk production. We believe that, particularly through the better use of grassland, we should be able to increase milk production more economically over the early years of the 1980s and that this would be a good use of our resources. In short, we believe there is a case for our having a bigger share of the total Community milk market. Currently, we have a smaller share of this market and, more particularly, of the butter market, than we had a year ago. Under the impetus of the transitional steps which will increase our producers' return, and through the improved use of

239
grassland, we hope to reverse this trend. This is what a Common Market is about.
I am pleased to say that the proposals in the Government's White Paper have been generally welcomed by all sections of the industry. Despite the difficulties which have been caused by a declining labour force and a decreased use of productive land, the farming industry of this country has continued to improve productivity and maintain output. I should be failing in my duty if I were not to join with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and my noble friend Lord Walston, in paying a special tribute to the way this has been done. Like them, I must agree that if the rest of industry in this country had been able to achieve the same results, the Chancellor of the Exchequer might not have had to make the sort of Statement which he made the other day.
Noble Lords will note that our conclusions, following a period of intensive consultations with all the major organisations connected with agriculture, are that the industry should be capable of a continuing expansion of about 2½ per cent. per annum which, on the basis of the projections of the White Paper, would produce by 1980 annual net import savings of about £500 million. I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, said that this was well within the capabilities of the industry. We fully recognise that if the industry is to move forward in the way that is desired, producers need to have a fair return for their labours and for capital invested. A prosperous agriculture should also enable farm workers to be assured of a reasonable standard of living.
The main incentive for expansion must, however, come from the high level of market prices, the expectation of which underlies the analysis in the White Paper. At the same time, noble Lords will note that we have given a firm assurance that our agricultural policies will be framed in the light of the White Paper's conclusions. We have already started discussions with the industry to determine whether there are measures which it would be right and practicable to take to achieve the White Paper's aims. I am confident that the Government and the inndustry, working together, can bring about the expansion we are seeking,
240
which can make a significant contribution to the improvement of this country's economic situation.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, mentioned one rather peculiar fact that emerged from the way the Policy has worked recently, when he spoke about bringing meat across from the Continent and sending it back by a roundabout way, and making money. I can understand the concern which has been expressed that the EEC system should have been exploited in this way by certain beef traders. What happened was that for a period it was found by certain people, who were not breaking the law but had found an ingenious way of working within it, that by transporting beef from Germany to France via the United Kingdom they were able to make a substantial profit out of the accession compensatory amounts system.
I can assure the noble Earl that the reports of the "carousel beef trade", as it became known because of this roundabout way of working, were thoroughly investigated by the Departments concerned. As a result of this, Her Majesty's Government were able to persuade the Commission of the need to tighten the rules for calculation of the compensatory amounts supplied in this sector during the transitional period. As a result of that, certain changes were introduced in March. So far as our investigators have been able to establish, this abuse has not been a problem since then. I should not be prepared to go as far as saying that it never happens, and because of that the matter must naturally be kept under constant review. The Government will not hesitate to seek further changes if they seem to be necessary, because it is by abuses of what in themselves are perfectly sound procedures that, perhaps, sometimes unjustified general criticism of the CAP is most easily brought about.
I have come to the end of my remarks and think it would be appropriate for me once again to congratulate the Select Committee on its Report. Noble Lords in this House have a very great experience of agriculture. I, for instance, am very conscious of the fact that the first three speakers have been actively engaged in agriculture and speak from great experience, whereas I am merely an amateur pitched in from the political end. But, as

241
I have said, the value which the Government will extract from this debate comes about because the people who take part are those with a great general experience of agriculture and, while the debates on this subject do not necessarily always show complete unanimity, they are always of a very high standard. My Lords, other duties will prevent my being here during the whole of the debate, but I look forward to hearing as many speeches as I can before having to leave at about half-past six. I can assure your Lordships that I shall read the Report of those speeches which I have not heard and, in addition, I know that my noble friend Lord Strabolgi will be an ample compensation for my departure.
4.39 p.m.
Lord RATHCREEDAN: My Lords, I feel that I should declare an interest, as I own and manage personally a highly specialised dairy farm. For that reason, I propose to confine my remarks to the dairying industry and to the milk industry. This will have two advantages, in that I shall be talking about a subject which, from my own knowledge and my contacts with other dairy farmers, I should know something about. It will also mean that I shall make an even shorter speech than I would have done had I embarked upon a general view of the White Paper, Food From Our Own Resources. I feel that it is not necessarily unwise that I should concentrate on the milk industry, because in the White Paper, in assessing priorities, I think it is agreed that the milk industry and beef from the dairy herd are given a high place.
It seems there is no doubt that the Government wish to have an expansion of the milk industry, and it is certain that it is necessary that they should take steps rapidly, not necessarily to increase the milk output but to prevent an even further decline in production of milk; that has already been referred to by previous speakers. I suggest that the way in which this should be done is stated in paragraph 40 of the White Paper, which says:
"In order to secure a sustained increase in milk production to 1980, dairy farmers will need to have sufficient confidence of a remunerative return from their milk and from beef from the dairy herd."
I think all your Lordships will agree that that is what we need to aim at.
242
How is it to be done? It is to be done by two methods: cash and confidence. The Government have it in their power to provide cash by providing an increase in the price of milk to the producer. The more important factor is confidence—to give the dairy farmers confidence. I maintain that it will be extremely difficult for the Government to do this. Probably your Lordships realise that during the last year the Government and the Ministry have been stating that they still require an increase in milk production, while at the same time, up until the end of last month, until the day before yesterday, they were giving an incentive to the milk producer to go out of milk into beef. I am sure that this has a great effect. At any rate in the area in which I am I know that many, certainly half a dozen farmers in an area of about 10 to 20 miles, took advantage of this beef incentive scheme to go out of milk. It is very difficult for a milk farmer who is deciding whether to stay in milk or go out if he realises that simultaneously the Government are encouraging him to go out of milk. It is often the one factor which turns the scale, and he goes out of milk.
As was stated in a recent edition of the Farmers' Weekly, the result has been the slaughter of cows; 100,000 extra breeding cows have been slaughtered in the first five months of this year. They are potential breeders and the dairy herd in this country is thus being reduced. Also, any noble Lord who has had an opportunity of discussing this matter with those in this country who control the markets and the slaughterhouses, knows it is common knowledge that a great many in-calf cows have been slaughtered. This means that in the future we shall have an even greater shortage of milking cows.
Unfortunately, the Government have not as yet produced any proposals as to what they intend to do about increasing the production of milk. Certain promises have been made. I am delighted to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that they wish there to be an increased production of milk in this country despite the fact that there is a surplus of milk in the European Community. A great many farmers are frightened that in the future the Government may well desire to increase the production of milk in this

243
country but, through some reason arising from our being part of the Common Market, something will arise and the Government will say: "Oh, we should have liked to increase the price of milk or to have taken certain action for you, but unfortunately we are unable to do so because of our having joined the Common Market." I think I am right in saying that, had this country not been part of the European Community, the beef incentive scheme would never have been brought in here. That is the kind of fear the dairy farmers have which makes them hesitant to expand in milk, or certainly to start up afresh in milk.
The price of milk will I think undoubtedly be increased. The Government have more than hinted that they are going to increase it. But the important point—and this has been suggested by many—is that the price of milk ought to be revised more often. The price is now fixed once a year. With the rate of inflation as it is at the moment the farmer has no guarantee that in six months' time he will be obtaining for his milk a realistic remuneration to reward his efforts. As has already been mentioned, the effect of the Green Pound is that the milk producers of this country are not receiving for their milk the price that is being received by milk producers on the Continent. It seems at any rate to many producers and farmers in this country that often the benefits which they might derive from the Common Market do not accrue to them. If something arises which is not of benefit to them, it is said: "We cannot possibly get out of that," whereas if something arises to their disadvantage, such as instituting a Green Pound, that is said to be perfectly feasible. So I hope that the Government will immediately give an increased price for milk and also give some indication that there will certainly be a higher price if the cost of production rises in future.
The other incentive which the Government possibly have in mind is that of grant for buildings and milking equipment. It is very doubtful whether that will be a great incentive to numbers of dairy farmers. They see their friends who have taken advantage of grants now in the position of not making sufficient out of their dairy enterprise to cover the
244
amount of money they themselves have put in and often money which they have borrowed at very high rates of interest. The remuneration they receive from their milk is not sufficient to cover the interest on these loans. Therefore, the one incentive which I feel will mean that production will rise is the increased price and the guarantee that this price will be a realistic one in six months' or a year's time.
To come to a rather more specialised question—the question of the eradication of brucellosis in this country—the Government are going ahead with the eradication scheme and have designated certain areas that should become brucellosis-free. This is of very great importance because there is danger that unless this country becomes brucellosis-free we shall have great difficulty over the export of certain of our cattle. There are rumours that next year regulations will be made which will prevent us from exporting our cattle. I should like to know whether the Government are in a position to deny this or whether they say that there is this possibility.
Owing to the slaughtering of cattle that has been taking place there is likely to be a shortage of milking cows and of replacements for the dairy herd, and if the Government wish to increase the production of milk they must increase the number of milking cows. Nevertheless, I hope that on this account they will not slow down the brucellosis eradication scheme. They may well be tempted to do so, because it would mean the further slaughtering of cattle: of necessity the brucellosis scheme will mean an initial reduction in the number of cattle. However, I hope that the Government will not be tempted to slow down the brucellosis eradication scheme; already they have dragged their feet considerably with regard to it.
My other question concerns the tied cottage. This affects the dairy and the milk industry more than any other part of farming. It is important that we should get away from the term "tied cottage" which is rather a dirty one now. Instead there should be some arrangement whereby one can be certain that the herdsman, or whoever is looking after the cattle, lives—of necessity

245
he must do so—within a short distance of where the herd is kept. Noble Lords must realise that in the same way as the cow will not stop producing milk on Saturdays and Sundays, a cow will not be prevented from having calves—sometimes these are difficult births—in the middle of the night. It is essential, therefore, that somebody should be on the spot to deal with these calves.
Finally, although I know that at this stage the Government cannot possibly give even an indication of what they are proposing to do in order to encourage the milk producer to produce more milk, I hope that they will do something quickly, otherwise, as has already been stated, there is a distinct likelihood of there being a considerable shortage of milk before the end of the year. As has already been indicated, this White Paper has done nothing to stop the decline in, let alone increase, milk production. The answer that discussions are taking place does not help in any way to give confidence to the farmers to increase production. If discussions are taking place, let us hope that they will not take too long and that the results will soon be announced to the country.
4.56 p.m.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, I had the privilege of asking a Question at the beginning of today's sitting and I must confess that I was deeply shocked and saddened by the completely blank Answer which I received from the Minister. I did not think it was possible that he could come here and give no Answer whatsoever to the Question that I put to him. I do not blame the Minister, but I blame the Department who briefed him, because the figures for which I asked should be known and familiar to everybody.
I shall limit what I have to say to two points. May I refer to what the noble Lord, Lord Walston, who initiated this extremely interesting debate on home produced food, said about the war? During the war, food was our big problem. I was rearing four children at the time and had great difficulty in feeding them. The result was that one developed a great deal of ingenuity. I kept rabbits, chickens, guinea fowl, the family pig, geese and goats. The kids were a great help with the meat and the milk went to the elderly people in the village who were
246
short of it. Also we reared a turkey for Christmas, but unfortunately the old retainer who looked after the turkey became so fond of it that when the time came to cat it she would not have a single morsel, although the rest of us enjoyed it.
Even the people who lived in towns had ingenuity and developed ways of growing food. I remember Lady Horsbrugh telling me that she was determined to have tomato plants in her window boxes. She knew where to get the plants, she had the window boxes but she had no soil. That night a bomb fell in the square in which she lived and the soil arrived in her window boxes. The problem was therefore solved in that beautiful way. These may sound trivial matters but the fact is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Walston, has said, during the war there was a spirit in the country, which is missing at the present time, of trying to produce food and being more self-sufficient in every way.
I personally very much regret the disappearance of allotments. Allotments should come back as quickly as possible. While I was waiting to enter this afternoon, somebody suggested to me that a very good place for allotments is along those disused railway tracks which are at the moment lying waste. Therefore, may I ask the Ministry to do all they can to try to revive in this country the spirit of self-sufficiency in food production? To grow tomatoes in a window box may sound a little thing, but it adds up if everybody does it. I think that in the noble Minister's country they say, "many a mickle makes a muckle".
The other point I want to stress is the question—and your Lordships will not be surprised at this—of fish farming. I am deeply disappointed in the White Paper. There is only one mention of fish on, I think, page 18, which refers to fish and fishmeal and shows that we import £122 million worth of fish and fishmeal. I should have thought this was money that could be saved by our becoming self-supporting—or much more self-supporting—in fish farming. I know that I have two sympathetic Ministers on the Front Bench opposite at the present moment, and I am making my appeal directly to them.
I should like the Government to help with three very short legal problems by which the fish farming community are

247
hampered. These problems could easily be overcome by the Government, whereas it is much more difficult in a Private Member's Bill. These are the three points which I should like to put to the Government. The first is that fish farming should be recognised as part and parcel of the farming industry in the country, as it is in the EEC. If it were so recognised it would be in the White Paper, but it is not. It is a most valuable form of food production, and it is shameful that it should be so disregarded by a Ministry which calls itself the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Where are the fisheries?
The second point is an important one. It is that free swimming fish, in an area which is recognised and licensed as a fish farm, should be recognised as the property of the fish farmer and protected from interference. I do not know whether your Lordships realise that at the present moment anything that is on the bed of the sea belongs to the fish farmer, but anything that is swimming free belongs to anybody who can catch it, even though it may be within the farmer's own fish farming area. Fish farmers need protection from skin divers and so on, very urgently.
Thirdly, the size limit for fish, and the close season for certain fish where they are part of the production of a fish farm, should be lifted. At the present moment, there is a close season for sporting fish such as trout and salmon, and where they are produced in a fish farm this close season should be lifted, as also should the size limit where it is a question of fingerlings and so on, which are needed for the repopulation of a fish farm.
These are three quite simple legal matters. It would not cost any new money; it could be put through by the Government on the nod, because I am quite certain that nobody would be against these regulations being redressed. So I appeal to the two Ministers sitting in front of me—I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has not had to go before I said this—to help, as far as they can, in putting these matters right. It would be a very great encouragement to the fish farming industry and would help in increasing the production of food at home, which is what the noble Lord, Lord Walston, hopes to do. So I hope that
248
my very short intervention will have some success.
5.4 p.m.
Lord SAINSBURY: My Lords, first I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Walston for giving us the opportunity of discussing this very important White Parer. Food from Our Own Resources, and also the Report of the Select Committee on the stocktaking of the Common Agricultural Policy. Secondly, I wish to apologise to your Lordships for the fact that owing to a previous engagement I shall have to leave your Lordships' House before the end of this debate.
The first paragraph of the introduction to the White Paper clearly states that its subject matter directly concerns not only those who work and invest in the agricultural industry, but also those who work and invest in food processing and distribution. In paragraph 12 on page 4, it also states that,
"An expanding home agriculture would also provide the basis for a bigger United Kingdom food processing industry. Not only would some agricultural imports be replaced but there would also be a benefit to the economy and to employment from the value added by United Kingdom processors."
Perhaps I might crave your Lordships' indulgence to say a few words from the point of view of these industries. In the past, we have suffered from the interests of the processing and distributing industries being regarded as in conflict with those of the agricultural producer, whereas they have many interests in common. For example, both need to make profits if they are to have the necessary resources to maintain or improve productivity and efficiency, and both prefer stability rather than violent fluctuations in the price of their products. Consumer interests and points of view should always be kept in mind. For instance, it is obviously no use growing, producing or processing something that the consumer does not wish to buy or cannot afford.
There is also the general question which has been mentioned in your Lordships' House earlier, and was mentioned again this afternoon, of new investment necessary to achieve the new targets. The White Paper has little to say about the source of these funds. Would it be right to infer that the Government plan to achieve expansion by the improvement in farm gate prices which would follow phased

249
devaluation of the Green Pound, rather than by new grants or subsidies? This would be understandable in view of the need for controlling public expenditure, but it would mean significant increases in food prices unless this was counteracted by consumer subsidies. It is also an obvious truth that we should concentrate production in areas where we know we have certain advantages from climatic conditions and can produce efficiently and obtain high yields. We are blessed with many good grass growing areas, and if we feed them with nitrogen we can become less dependent on imported grains as animal feedstuffs.
I welcome what John Grant, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Overseas Development, said at the World Food Council meeting in Rome on 26th June. He stated that Britain would be making more use of nitrogen fertiliser to produce more grass, and so reduce the country's demand on world supplies of food grains. I quote:
"to demonstrate our political determination to make sacrifices to help the poorest and those most threatened by the spectre of hunger."
However, I notice that the Government White Paper states that world supplies of nitrogenous fertiliser may be short over the next two or three years, until manufacturing capacity is increased. If we have to make better utilisation of our grassland it will require new investment in land drainage. No doubt farming experts, of which there are so many in our Lordships' House, although I do not claim to be one, would agree that a firm undertaking by the Government to maintain grants for this purpose at the current level, or better still to improve them, would help considerably.
My Lords, in reference to the Twenty-fifth Report from the Select Committee, as one who has criticised the Common Agricultural Policy in the past, I freely admit that it has shown itself more flexible than some of us expected, but we still have to face the problem of surpluses, in particular of milk products and cereals. It is as well to remember that the occasional surplus is better than the occasional shortage, as we experienced recently with regard to sugar. I also welcome the greater use of consumer subsidies in the disposal of surpluses, rather than sales at ridiculously low prices to the Soviet Union and elsewhere.
250
I welcomed particularly the beef vouchers for old-age pensioners. In my view, the right honourable gentleman Mr. Peart obtained a notable victory for beef producers in getting the agreement of his colleagues in the Community on maintaining returns to farmers by deficiency payments. In my opinion, this is infinitely preferable to piling up stocks in cold stores, which is very expensive in terms of cold storage costs, and when meat is taken out it is likely to be fit only for manufacturing purposes at a much lower price than the fresh product.
My Lords, among the stated objectives of the Common Agricultural Policy is the importance of reasonable prices for consumers. It is sometimes overlooked that foods compete with each other—for example, meat with poultry, beef with pork and lamb, margarine with butter. Many housewives are good judges of comparative values, and buy accordingly. This should reinforce the need to relate price levels to the supply and demand situation for each product. There is also need for improved consultation between the producer and trade interests for their mutual benefit and understanding.
In conclusion, may I say that no one can doubt that the continuing expansion of food production in the United Kingdom is in the national interest. I agree with the White Paper when it states that a return to a period of low prices such as we experienced in the 'sixties is unlikely, although it is always hazardous to predict future trends as there are so many factors which can affect price levels. What applies to prices also applies to predictions about future world food supplies. Agricultural expansion requires the use of resources. It is the task of the Government to try to ensure the right use of resources, to make an assessment of comparative costs, and to determine priorities. But we will not get the desired increase in production without the confidence of the farmers and without assurances about their future returns. The task of the Government must be to give farmers the necessary confidence to plan ahead and take long-term decisions. I am confident that the Government will respond to the challenge.
5.17 p.m.
Lord CRAWSHAW: My Lords, I am sure the whole House will particularly

251
welcome the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, because of the unfortunate distress he must be suffering at present, about which I heard on the wireless on the way to London. Along with many others, I welcome the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Walston, in introducing this debate this afternoon. I was particularly glad to find myself in total agreement with so much of what he said. I have always respected the deep thought that the noble Lord has given to the many agricultural problems, but I thought this afternoon that I might have to question one or two of his conclusions. I am delighted to find myself so much in agreement with him. If it is not too presumptuous of me. I also wish to say how much I appreciated the speech of my noble friend who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench. I have known the noble Earl perhaps longer than any Member of your Lordships' House. I think I can say that this afternoon he showed to greater advantage than I can ever remember, and I agreed with every single word he said. My only regret is that I may be repetitive in my speech.
My Lords, I have a little good news for your Lordships, in that when I was in the Printed Paper Office looking for the Twenty-fifth Report of the Select Committee, I picked up the Sixteenth Report—and unless your Lordships would like an assessment of the Lomé Convention I will leave that for another occasion and concentrate my attention on the Government White Paper, Food from Our Own Resources. I am among those in this House who over the past decade have been advocating the increased supply of food from our own farms. We have not always had total support because of the recent belief that plenty of cheap food was still available from abroad; in other words, from our old Empire. There is much less talk of that now. I warmly welcome the White Paper; I might even have written it myself. It is becoming more and more obvious every day that we must depart from the present situation, in which we have to buy from abroad with a fast depreciating currency nearly half the food we eat, including 30 per cent. of the food that could be grown here.
British industry, apart from failing to emulate the agricultural output at level
252
prices, should be doing far more to help cure our present habit of buying millions of depreciating pounds' worth of foreign plant and machinery. I found it ironic the other day to visit the national grassland demonstration at Stoneleigh to find that 80 or 90 per cent.—and that is no exaggeration—of the machinery on show was German, while only a stone's throw away, in Birmingham and in Coventry, millions of pounds of taxpayers' money was being used to subsidise unprofitable and overproduced motor cars.
I am feeling particularly sore on this point, because only 18 months ago, unable to find a suitable British plant, we bought a Dutch grass drier for a great deal of money. To take advantage of their 9½ per cent. rate of interest, we arranged a loan from the Dutch, repayable over five years. In the comparatively happy days of Christmas 1973, the pound was worth 6·3 Dutch florin, while today it is worth 5·3. Therefore, all plans have been drastically upset. Add to this illustration the problem caused by the Green Pound, which has been referred to by several noble Lords today. Nobody can refute my contention that the first essential in any programme for the future of agriculture, or any other industry for that matter, is the protection of our currency and in that light I welcome what the Chancellor had to say yesterday.
Unfortunately, this instability is still being compounded by the introduction, or threatened introduction, of the notorious and excessive capital taxes. Several noble Lords have mentioned this today. The noble Lord, Lord Walston, said that it should be the subject of a separate debate, but I find it so fundamental to our problems that I cannot reconcile it with the Government White Paper, which in paragraphs 4 and 23 stresses the importance of stability. The only thing certain in the present state of bewilderment and uncertainty is the current wave of cynical resentment throughout the farming world, and this is hardly the atmosphere in which to fashion the spirit of co-operation and trust between the Government and farmers which is so needed if the intentions of the White Paper are not to be stillborn. Surely, to gnaw away at the capital and lifeblood of such an industry can only frustrate the cause of social justice, as well as strangling any plan to produce more food.

253
I mention social justice, because I believe that there are many people who consider that these taxes are, in some way, a form of social justice. I do not mean those who encourage inflation in order to destroy our society; I mean those who are genuinely concerned. As I understand it, social justice—and I think this needs a little scrutiny—means, above all, that the interests of those not in a position to protect themselves should be safeguarded. The only realistic way to pay out adequate social benefits is to maximise the profitability of industry, and that really means private enterprise. Agriculture in this context is not only our largest industry in toto but also the largest collection of small privately owned firms, which form the most vigorous sector of our economy. That is by way of a diversion, but I felt that one ought to try to look into the minds of those who believe that these taxes are in some way socially justifiable.
Some people also base their assumptions on the basis that these capital taxes are here to stay, that farms and properties will inevitably be fragmented and bought by the State, which would henceforth act as landlords. I do not accept that. The State very often is bad at business, and very often not as good as the private individuals at labour relations. Also, the Government's efforts to improve efficiency by gradually reducing numbers of smallholdings through the farm structure scheme will be threatened. It is realised that the large owner is likely to suffer more than the smaller, but 15 per cent. of farm businesses—that is, the larger farms—produce more than half of our total output.
It is not only the owners and the employers who will be adversely affected by fragmentation. Most of the highest paid and contented employees in the industry work on these larger units and gain satisfaction from being part of a modern and efficient enterprise. Capital, or the word "wealth" in this context, means a new tractor or an improved milking parlour, and a denial of these things in order to pay a tax will have just as adverse an effect on the morale of the employee as the employer.
Taxes on land will have the further effect of bringing to a halt a large proportion of planned improvement work, such as new buildings, drainage schemes,
254
et cetera. People will prefer to keep their cash liquid. Taxes on stock, such as on a dairy herd, may well prove to be the last straw to break the camel or dairy cow's back. There are quite enough headaches involved in running a dairy herd without adding this one to them. I know there are various forms of stock relief proposed for herds, but I do not fully understand how they apply to capital gains tax and capital transfer tax. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, when he winds up, will be able to enlighten us.
I have dwelt rather at length on the Government's fiscal policy, because the fact is that it is more fundamental and of more concern to farmers than the Government's agricultural policy. The present situation may be a bonanza for the various accountants, solicitors, insurance and investment consultants and a host of middle men—I hope I have not trodden on any noble Lord's toes who indulges in any of these practices—but in this climate no more food will be produced, and that is the acid test. If the wealth tax is nevertheless added to the capital gains tax and capital transfer tax, can the Minister assure us that the Government will adopt the procedure of most European countries by allying it to income tax with a ceiling which restricts the total liability and ensures that the taxpayer can meet both taxes out of income?
Turning to paragraph 17, I entirely agree that agricultural workers will have a key part to play if higher output is to be achieved, and that they will need adequate incentives and facilities. A prosperous industry will pay a good wage. This is beneficial only if the value of the wage is maintained. But a good wage can be paid only so long as a realistic price is paid for food. Cheap food can only mean low wages. This point was stressed over and over again during the Common Market referendum campaign in relation to hypothetical cheap food from abroad. Many speakers said that it was morally wrong to expect this, and that it amounted to exploitation. So it is with cheap home-produced food. Facilities for agricultural workers mean, above all, housing, and here the matter of the service or tied house crops up. The Tavistock Report, of course, will deserve a debate by itself. But for the meantime, I would implore the Government

255
to be careful before the total abolition of the tied house is effected.
The noble Lord, Lord Rathcreedan, mentioned the problem of the dairy farmer and the herdsman. I fully understand a point that I read in the farming Press mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, about the retiring farm worker. This is a genuine position, and in the debate on the Queen's Speech last November, I asked the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, whether he had anything to say about the idea of putting a retired farm worker at the top of the council housing list. He promised he would look into that. Perhaps he can enlighten us this afternoon. I believe that that is the first step, because we have to face the fact that the existing system in many ways is convenient, is efficient and the least extravagant. Other systems could work but they are likely to increase the cost of food, and we have to make up our minds whether we are prepared to pay for it. There would be extra cost of travelling, rent, the possible idea of licensing tied houses, and all these will ultimately mean that the cost of food must increase.
I have nearly finished. My final point concerns milk, and paragraph 35 onwards. I am glad that the Government feel that increased milk production should take overall priority. The White Paper rightly says that grass is the best and most suitable crop we grow. If I had not already spoken enough I would expound on this. Its conversion into milk is a familiar exercise in this country. Like other noble Lords, I am concerned that, as shown in Table 2 Annex V, in the EEC as a whole milk and milk products are now 2 per cent. overproduced. My other concern—and here I return to the nub of my speech —is that with the present fiscal policy farmers will find that their cows are the most readily realisable asset they have, and will gradually be forced to sell off to pay taxes. You cannot run a longterm project like a dairy herd on a hand-to-mouth basis like that; you cannot run the most important national industry on a basis like that; my Lords, you cannot run a sweet shop like that.
5.32 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of WINCHESTER: My Lords, I also want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Walston, for introducing this important debate. I wish that
256
I did not have to be under some discourtesy, because I understand that normally when one speaks in a debate one shows enough interest to remain until all others have spoken. Unfortunately, I am under a courtesy obligation to appear a little later this evening in the Mansion House—and in a considerably more complicated costume than I am wearing at present. However, I shall stay for as long as possible because this is a debate of such importance.
By the nature of the case this debate is bound to be repetitive; yet noble Lords will readily concede that it cannot be repeated too often that the context of this and similar debates is a world shortage of food. This state of affairs is due to a variety of causes. We are no longer dealing only with the perennial poverty of large populations living on or below the subsistence level in the developing countries. That distressing problem has been compounded by unprecedented monsoon failures in recent years and the dramatic expansion of the great deserts, and by bad harvests in the major grain exporting countries of the developed world. Reserves of wheat, as we are told in paragraph 29 of the White Paper, which four years ago were about equal to the whole volume of world exports, have shrunk to only a third of that volume; yet at the same time the developing countries are having to a much greater extent to join the bread queue in the world market since their own production, in spite of the so-called Green Revolution, falls further and further below their needs as a population.
Demand is rising, supply is decreasing, so prices go up. High prices hurt everyone. We know they hurt us, but they hurt him who can pay more a lot less than they hurt him who can pay nothing. In Britain a high price on the world food market means subsidies to the consumer; in India it may mean death to the consumer. So currently the World Food Conference recommends that at least 10 million tons of grain is contributed as emergency food aid each year from 1975 to meet the present needs in developing countries.
What is happening to cereals is typical of what is happening to mankind's food in general. Even if the White Paper had included food from the seas the story would have been the same. But cereals

257
are more than typical; they are, in a unique way, staple. Noble Lords will recall the statement in the White Paper that cereals are the most important group of products in world food trade, and, either directly or indirectly as animal feeds, they provide most of the world's basic food requirements. Moreover, considered directly as human food they are cheaper to produce and easier to store and to distribute than any other forms of food. So for most of mankind cereals are synonymous with food. In the last resort, they are the thing you buy with the money you make by producing something else.
Only when they are in surplus can cereals be a cash crop. For most of mankind there is no alternative to cereals. Other kinds of food are extras, even when eating habits are adapted to include soya or other augmented proteins. It is certainly true, as the White Paper says, that, either directly or as animal feeds, cereals provide most of the world's basic food requirements, but that bland either/or, if it is applied anywhere outside the wealthy over-consuming nations, smacks of the same culpable lack of awareness as that more famous inanity,
"They have no bread. Let them cat cake".
For most of mankind neither meat nor milk products are an alternative to cereals. So every time grain appropriate for human consumption is used up in the production of meat or milk, the prospects of keeping human beings alive is being reduced. My plea this afternoon is not only to Her Majesty's Government but to all who have occasion to plan, however locally, part of our nation's agricultural policy, that we keep this global perspective of human welfare ever in mind.
In one sense the White Paper recognises the global context. It shows a detailed knowledge of the short supply of food in the world market and recommends a policy with the consequential high world price in view. But the conclusion it draws from this context betrays a narrow Western insularity. The world perspective to which I have drawn your Lordships' attention demands an agricultural policy in which productivity is paramount. But this White Paper presents one in which profitability is paramount. Food is regarded in exactly
258
the same way as any other industrial product—something to be sold—and choice of product is determined solely in terms of short term financial return. I quote:
"It is in the national interest to concentrate on those commodities which seem capable of yielding the greatest economic return to the nation."
This is farming money rather than farming food. Food is an incidental means of making money. All very well for us, but for most of mankind money is only a means of obtaining food.
I am of course open to misunderstanding when I put it this way. I am not advocating another worldly altruism. Those who live by growing the nation's food must of course receive a proper, and I would say a better, remuneration. That is what they work for. But it is certainly not all they work for. The farmers I know, the ones who really farm their own land, are concerned with food for its own sake, not merely as a means of making money, and if they could have their way their choice of priorities would be governed not only by the immediate profitability of this or that product, but certainly by two other considerations as well; what foods are most genuinely needed to keep people alive and healthy, and what food is a particular farmland best suited to produce? Provided a fair profit can be assured to the farmers, those I know would prefer to farm in the way that is most in keeping with the climate and nature of the land and in the way which enables the greatest number of consumers to have the food they really need.
I welcome gratefully the White Paper's acknowledgement of the special place that grassland should naturally have in a good British farming policy when it says:
"The favourable climate for the growth of grass makes this country particularly suited to milk production."
It also says:
"The potential from greater use of homeproduced grass is very great. It is important that the size of our national herd and flocks should not outrun the pace of improvement in the use of grassland and the conservation of grass."
it concludes that
"With the wider application of better methods of grassland production and the more general use of well-known and tried

259
conservation techniques for grass, a higher density of dairy cows could be supported without increasing the amount of imported feed.…"
That would be an altogether admirable policy, reflecting a far-sighted concern for the people of the world as a whole, together with the people of Britain and the European Community—a steady substitution of pasture and conserved grass feed in place of the home-grown and imported grains that are needed to swell the world's supply of human cereal food —and all achieved while maintaining the level of milk production we knew, or even slightly more, before the recent decline.
But no, my Lords. That is not what is intended. The last sentence I quoted from the White Paper does not end where I stopped—
"… without increasing the amount of imported feed …".
It contains the qualifying phrase, "required per cow". Thus, if one has more cows one must import more feed. In fact, the Government intend to increase the amount of domestically Brown cereals to be used as animal feed by an extra 1·4 million tons, according to Table 2 in the White Paper, and also continue to import 4 million to 5 million tons of grain for animal feed, in spite of the drastic situation in the world cereal market. Greater advantage is to be taken of our natural wealth of pasture and grassland, not in order to alleviate the world cereal situation, but because the Government have decided that the most profitable short-term objective is to increase our production of milk by 20 per cent.
It might be said that as long as total food production of all sorts is pushed up, it does not matter whether it be cereals or milk. But whereas I have already shown the vital necessity of more cereals for mankind as a whole, there is nothing like the same call for more milk products. Of course we must recover the shortfall of the past 18 months and ensure that cheese factories in Britain do not stand idle. But I seriously question whether a 20 per cent. increase in milk production is a sensible target as the number one objective in the national policy in face of the existing over-production in the European Community as
260
a whole. The stocktaking of the Common Agricultural Policy noted as the primary problem the fact that milk production is the sector which has a persistent structural surplus and is also the one with the highest budget expenditure. There is a grave need to achieve a better balance and a wider sharing of responsibility for the surplus.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, included dried skimmed milk among the derivatives of food surpluses which could he distributed to alleviate need in developing countries. But I remind noble Lords that there is some argument as to the value of skimmed milk as, according to the White Paper, "a valuable protein food for developing countries". It is at best an emergency food, as has been proved time and again in major disasters, and when the disaster has passed what the people need for continuing life is more abundant cereals and technical aid to help them produce their own vegetable and animal fats and proteins. So on balance, I would welcome a policy of improving by all possible means our use of grass in order to eliminate as far as possible the use for animal feed of any cereals that could serve for human consumption and, within those conditions, of building up our output of milk with its by-product, the beef from the dairy herd, but not to make this so outstandingly the main thrust of new policy as to add greater imbalance to the Community's marketing arrangements.
The principle of respect for the quality of the land and the climate of a particular region makes me endorse the emphasis which the White Paper gives to upland farming, and my other principal concern for the world perspective adds point to its encouragement of wheat farming in Britain, though I would have preferred to see a larger proposed increase than the 9 per cent. of the White Paper. I confess that I was considerably angered by the suggestion that it was beyond the wit of British invention still to bake an English loaf from English wheat.
The other feature in the White Paper which I welcome is its assent to the Economic Community's declared intent to relax the terms of the Common Agricultural Policy in order to grant more favourable terms to the agricultural exports of

261
developing countries. Paragraph 13 of the White Paper says:
"It is important to frame our policies with regard to the interests of developing countries as producers, particularly of those commodities which we do not grow ourselves."
But if developing and developed countries are ever to reach agreement on the prices and supply of commodities, that agreement must surely cover all commodities, not only those from the developing countries. Fair terms of trade are what the developing countries need far more than aid even food aid. The original simple laws of supply and demand are still the best. They are tough and they are competitive, but they are just and anyone can learn to play the game.
What makes the game impossibly unfair is the use of superior bargaining positions to evade the consequences of supply and demand by intervention and manipulation. The Green Pound is only one of many devices with which we have distorted our trade relationships. In the long run these invariably come home to roost to our own disadvantage, but in the meantime they have condemned other struggling peoples to complete helplessness. Will the Community stand by its agreements, as at Lomé for example? When it became self-sufficient in beef, the provisions to allow beef exports from South America were unilaterally suspended by the Community. Will our policy of increased sugar beet production tempt us to renege similarly, either on our own or in the Community as a whole, from our agreements with the cane producing countries of the Commonwealth? The price of that kind of honour is eternal vigilance.
My Lords, in all this I am not standing for any unrealistic idealism. Britain's first responsibility, like that of every other nation, is to give her citizens adequate and secure supplies of food. But to try to do that without taking the world situation, mankind's situation, into the picture and into the policy at every point is truly unrealistic.
5.50 p.m.
The Viscount of ARBUTHNOTT: My Lords, at this stage in the debate rather than stick to any previously prepared notes I will take up some of the remarks made by previous speakers and
262
add some comments of my own. First, like other speakers. I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Walston, on the work he did with the Select Committee and to thank him for introducing this debate. May I also wish him well as a member of the delegation to the European Parliament where he will add a sound agricultural voice to the delegation and its deliberations. Various speakers have raised points that I should like to have made myself. I can only endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Walston, said about the uncertainties that affect the industry, particularly in the fields of land ownership and tied cottages. These subjects have been taken up by later speakers. Indeed, the question of the concern and lack of confidence due to the threat to the capital invested in the industry has been most ably outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, and I can only endorse and support all that he has said.
My main personal comment would have been in relation to the stocktaking exercise and to the comments in the White Paper on the same subject, and I would ask the Government to take a very urgent and serious look at the question of the monetary compensatory amounts. In paragraph 56 and also in paragraph 11 of the White Paper the Select Committee referred to the fact that there must be some adjustment. Whether or not the adjustment goes the whole way to repair the discrepancy is a matter for judgment. But everyone concerned with agriculture would also hope that the adjustment will he linked with a system for adjustment in future if there are any further changes.
The other matters on which I should like to comment are all concerned with the White Paper, Food From Our Own Resources. A problem which faces the the industry today and which so far has not been mentioned is that of marketing, and I should like to throw in some rather philosophical comments. A number of people have suggested that apart from a thorough monitoring system for agricultural marketing there must be greater recourse to producer-run boards of one kind or another, even though there are commodities which cannot possibly be tackled in this way. There should be producer-imposed levies or some large self-disciplining co-operatives (which I know people would prefer) which are

263
more concerned with selling for the farmer than simply selling to him. But I believe that a balance has to be struck between this form of discipline, however self-run and self-imposed it may be, and that characteristic of the British farmer which is enshrined in the word "individualism". By an independent attitude to all around him and a regard for his land and his countryside he has taken the industry to the high place at which it is today. But how far—and I think we need to be careful about this—can we sacrifice this spirit of independence for what may be a necessary spirit of interdependence in marketing?
I should like to comment on the current fodder situation; the conservation of food for winter feeding which is of considerable concern to the industry at present. I would illustrate two agricultural aspects which I think are important for our deliberations. One is the fact that, with the emphasis in recent years on the expansion of livestock production, particularly that of beef, farmers were lulled into a false sense of security. They were lulled initially by the low price of cereals in relation to cattle-feed costs, and then by mild winters, into neglect of one of the old principles of the farming world; that is, the need to be as self-sufficient as possible in fodder crops and grass conservation and storage on your own farm. Then there were those who expanded and expended capital on reseeding, fencing, water supplies and drainage to improve their management capability and their stocking rates. They erected silos and bought improved machinery so that they could conserve their own grass and grow their own fodder crops to better advantage. They now find themselves paying excessively high interest rates without the expected returns on those investments. I must admit that I am slightly less sorry for what one might call the foolish virgins, even though they were led up the primrose path by the emphasis on expansion of livestock farming, than I am for those who have expended their capital and now find themselves in a parlous state. The added threat of capital taxation to those who have expanded, and with Rood sense, is one of the sad aspects of the industry today.
The other point which I would have taken up myself. and which I should like
264
to follow up, is that made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, on the subject of loss of land from agriculture to development. In paragraph 16 of the White Paper there is mention of 144,000 acres of agricultural land going to other uses in an average year. But 69,000 acres of this land were transferred to forestry and woodland. Before anyone else introduces this point, I should like to say that I do not necessarily consider this a loss to agriculture or the countryside. It is fair to point out that, in the border uplands of Scotland and the North of England, the present very high investment in forestry land has been equalled by a larger number of hill cows and beef cows and sheep drawing subsidies than ever before. There has been an equal expansion in forestry and hill agriculture.
The problem about the loss of land to agriculture needs watching in two ways. I am sure that the Ministry and the Department of Agriculture need to stiffen their resolve in considering applications for the development of land. I believe further that the limits at which they can look at acreages of land should be lowered from the present figure of ten to five. Equally, I think we all need to strengthen our resolve, and if we can. give strength to the arm of the agricultural Ministers and the officials of the Department so that they can pay greater regard to the importance of agricultural land in future, and not be overruled by other Departmental Ministers and officials. This will not be any easier if the Community Land Bill goes through in its present form, because, so far as one can see, it gives unrestricted powers to local authorities in this field.
My Lords, MCAs, marketing and loss of land lead me to the final point I wish to make; namely, the consideration which we must all bear in mind that agricultural land and the countryside did not just happen. I wish to pay tribute to those who have already spoken of the need for a wider regard for the future of our agricultural land in this country. Where it is best used, and most productively used, in the best agricultural sense, I am sure that our people and our Governments will pay due attention. It is in the areas where there is less opportunity for full agricultural development that I should like to see more attention paid

265
by European institutions, by our Government and by the agricultural establishment. I wish here to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and the team of United Kingdom negotiators who have produced the Less-Favoured Areas Directive in its present form. This recognises the importance of the hills and marginal lands of this country, and of other European countries, for their agricultural value primarily, but it builds into the agricultural thinking the ability to supply other than agricultural income-producing facilities.
I again urge the Government and the agricultural establishment to retain as much of the management of the activities that are possible under that Directive within their own hand. I believe that they may be fighting shy of handling benefits for tourism, amenity benefits, and benefits for other than purely agricultural uses. I urge them to maintain the whole farm approach in both agricultural land management and in the advisory services. Once again I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Walston, for giving us this opportunity of discussing both his Committee's work and the White Paper.
6.3 p.m.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, I, too, wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Walston, for giving us this opportunity to discuss this important White Paper. I welcome this opportunity. I also welcomed the White Paper until I opened it and saw the first paragraph of the introduction, whereupon I noticed that fishing had suddenly become divorced from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and was not to be discussed and thought about in the same context. I can only assume from this that the Government expect us to eat chips without fish, to withhold from a main dish on a Friday and to give up our smoked haddock with our high tea; and that, further, they have in mind that we should no longer use fishmeal in agriculture, and should instead use imported nuts, beans and seeds wherewith to balance up the extra cereals which we shall be growing in order to carry the increased dairy herd.
I do not seriously believe this, my Lords, but certainly one can read the White Paper in this way. I, for one, am most disappointed that it should have been possible to start considering the
266
needs of agriculture, and the needs for feeding this country, without considering our fishing fleets. In my view, this is a very serious omission from a White Paper that is concerned with food and which is supposed to examine how we feed ourselves from our own resources, and which, at the same time, includes a figure which shows that we import £122 million-worth of fish and fish products annually, and that the bill for fish and fish products has risen by 27 per cent. between 1972 and 1974; and no doubt is rising fast at this moment.
Here surely is an area where our own resources not only could, but should, be called upon to help feed us. The fishing industry can help the farming industry, as I have said, by producing livestock feed. In this context I wonder why we discourage commercial fishing for species which, although not suitable for human food, are used by other countries, and are fished out of our waters by other countries, to be made into fishmeal and sold back to us as animal feedingstuffs. We must do more to help and encourage our fishing fleets and to help them to assist our agriculture. We must do more to conserve the stocks of fish from which our fishing fleets take their catches to feed us and supply our agriculture.
I find most parts of this White Paper rather vague and sweeping—almost as vague and sweeping as some of the speeches I make in your Lordships' House—in its treatment of the subject under review. Yet it talks blandly about offering the farmer a sufficient assurance of the level and of the stability of his return. It does this at a time when there are two schemes—as we have already heard—running concurrently; one offering a subsidy to farmers to go out of dairying into beef, and the other offering subsidies for beef farmers to go into dairying. One point is clear: whatever this White Paper says, Her Majesty's Government will have to work hard to gain the confidence of the farming industry, especially when one considers that they no longer have a practical farmer in any position of day-to-day executive responsibility.
Among the tables of statistics with which the White Paper is adorned is Annex II, in which one sees a table demonstrating the average annual increase in farm product and decrease in labour

267
force, and with it an increase in productivity. If your product goes on increasing and the labour force goes on increasing, so you must have an increase in productivity, because that is what it means. The White Paper seems to me to assume that this will go on forever as a sort of straight-line graph. I cannot believe that this is likely; I do not think that it is even desirable. Certainly by itself this Annex means little, and in my view it is dangerous to assume that this situation can continue for very much longer. I suggest that we have already gone far enough. We have depopulated the land for too long—certainly too long for the good of the farming industry.
The criterion we should be seeking in this context is not productivity per man but productivity per acre. The farmable acreage of this country is not only limited; it is shrinking. Many noble Lords this afternoon have referred to the fact that we are continuously losing good agricultural and arable land to other forms of development. We cannot go on borrowing land from the hills in order to pay back what we take for other purposes. We have to face the fact that if we want more per acre we shall need more people working on the land, not less. We have pruned our labour force enough.
My noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie referred to the farming ladder. He might equally have referred to the mix of farm size. There is no intrinsic merit, for every purpose, in large farms which makes them better than crofts. For some purposes the small unit is actually better and more efficient than the large. We must take a second look at these latter days clearances and, if we do, we shall suddenly see again the value of the crofter and the smallholder. I was brought up on the old saying that the best manure is the farmer's boot. There are dangerously few boots treading the acres of Britain today. We will gain nothing by diminishing their numbers. Little or nothing is said in the White Paper about how we are to keep our farm labour force and how to foster our crofters and smallholders from whom, very largely, come the workers who go to help on the larger farms and from whom come the larger farmers of the future.
268
Finally, my Lords, I endorse the plea of my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie to instil confidence in the farming industry; to make that its priority; to safeguard the supply of capital to the farming industry and to ensure an adequate flow of capital into the industry and to safeguard the essential bottom rungs of the farming ladder. I also endorse the pleas of other noble Lords that the Government be not afraid of surpluses. I hope that they will realise with what grave suspicion the farming industry regards Government—not this Government, but all Governments. I hope that this Government will work hard to dispel that suspicion and instil that confidence so that the White Paper will not be just another bureaucratic belch from the churning paper in the rumen of Whitehall.
6.12 p.m.
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I want to thank my noble friend Lord Walston for introducing this debate, and I am particularly grateful for his having started his speech by putting the whole situation in historical view. In fact, I felt tempted—but I will restrain my temptation—to go further back, if only to point out that all civilisation has been based on the tillers and that all through history the tillers have been the exploited part of the community. They have had to carry the weight of the priesthoods, the warlords, the moneylenders, the artisans and so on which formed the city civilisations. In recent history we had, in the 19th century, exploitation of the underpaid tillers in order to produce inadequately (at least it was not effective) the food for the underpaid industrial workers. It was then that we moved into the wider exploitation of the tillers of the wider world. I point out that one of our problems today when we look at the situation in West Africa and so on is the fact that we have in the course of our history taken land out of food production—food in the sense of subsistence or provision for the people on the ground—and have turned it into such vast plantations as those which produced margarine for the industrial population of Britain. We did this at the expense, now, of the people who have to turn back these plantations into producing real survival food.
This is a problem which has been with us through the whole of history. I do not

269
regret having to say, though some people hesitate to say it, that the price of food will never be cheap again. My Lords, food has always been cheap, too cheap in terms of what is the return ultimately to the people who produce it; and this has had the effect of holding back production because the people who were producing the food were not getting adequate returns. I am not talking about successful farmers, or landlords; I am talking about the tillers, in the total sense of the word, anywhere in the world, including this country. It seems to be that we are now facing the facts of life. The price of food is relative. If people are hungry and they have no means to purchase food, therefore they have in the widest sense to make food cheap and totally available. We have a compulsion to produce food which will be available to the people who need it. I repeat that the price is relative; but it must not be at the expense of farmers.
I have quoted in this House before, but it is always appropriate in the circumstances, the epitaph of the Canadian farmer in the 1930s:
"Here lies the body of Farmer Pete,
Who died from growing too much wheat."
I quoted it in India and I got a reply from an Indian student:
"Here lies the body of Achariya,
Who died 'cos Peter's wheat wasn't here"
I quoted it in the London School of Economics and a smart guy said:
"Statistics prove one must be shammin' If there's too much food, you can't have famine."
The answer is that we have famine and we are liable to go on having it. We can have food in abundance; still people starve to death.
Therefore what we are talking about is not the cheapness of food, or the cost of food; it is the failure of adequate distribution. That is what we are concerned about. When we are talking about what we are going to do to safeguard the British farmer—and I agree with what is suggested in the White Paper and I have other suggestions—the fact is that we are talking here about something which is of real concern and desperate concern to all of us. As the White Paper says, and as anyone who knows anything about the matter says, Britain is moving back (I hope moving back) to producing food
270
from our own resources. That is the only contribution that I can see that we in this country can make to the grotesque food situation throughout the world. And we do so simply by withdrawing our demands on the food which ought to be going to the starving.
I notice with some approval, and I am grateful that it is in the White Paper, that our demands of wheat and feeding-stuffs have been reduced (from 12 per cent. in the case of wheat and 20 per cent. in feedingstuffs) to 5 per cent. last year. This I regard as a contribution to the world situation. There is not much we can do in an industrialised country like ours with the demand by our own population on resources which we are looking to the farming community to sustain.
It is to me totally ironic that we should be discussing this matter today. For the last 40 years I have been involved in the world food situation and nutritional problems; and yet we seem to have forgotten all the lessons that we ourselves learned. It is important, as my noble friend Lord Walston re-emphasised, that we not only get back to the spirit of 1940 but to the realities of it. We were then facing a siege economy and we had to realise what our resources amounted to and what we were capable of doing by our own efforts and by our own imagination.
I would remind your Lordships that we went into the war in 1939 as a malnourished country. There was a high state of malnutrition, throughout the country; there were committees against malnutrition: there were the hunger marches in the 1930s. During the war we had been reduced to a situation which, I suggest, we should be facing up to today. We had depended on our own resources and the spirit of our people not only to produce but to accept what was then the nature of the case. But we must remind ourselves that we came out of it a healthier country than when we went in. We forget sometimes there is a form of malnutrition which is the malnutrition of the well-to-do—what I call "death on the expense account." We had to cut back and share out in the war. This meant realistically that not only did we meet the situation we are now looking at again in this White Paper, but we

271
emerged a very fit people. It is regrettable that we have to be reminded of this.
I was looking at the questions raised in the White Paper about what we should be doing about regeneration of grasslands, but I have been here before. We went through that with Sir George Stapleton in the 1930s and the question of research which my noble friend Lord Walston rightly mentioned. Whatever my noble friend on the Front Bench may say, what we are spending on research is not enough in terms of the situation which we are now facing. It is not a question of whether you can save on research, or whether it is adequate for what you think; you have to do a great deal more, and this is the challenge of our time. We have to employ our ingenuity to meet the situation. We did it during the war and we can do it again.
I come back to a fault which the nobie Viscount, Lord Thurso, has pointed out, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley. It is a curious phenomenon that we have the "Min. of Ag. and Fish" but we get a White Paper entitled: Food from Our Own Resources in which fish is deliberately and specifically left out. I am not thinking just about the sea fish catches, but about what the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, is always emphasising: What are we doing about aquaculture? What are we doing about fish farming? This is part of farming. It should be as much a part of the farmer's concern as growing potatoes and grain. We should look around the world to see how far short we are falling.
The irony of the situation is that lots of us, farmers and research experts, have been going around the world wagging our fingers at the developing countries, giving them do-it-yourself instructions. But we did not take the do-it-yourself instructions ourselves. We have been telling them what was good for them, but it was also good for us. I recall, in emphasising the need for agriculture, that throughout South-East Asia, in the Middle East, particularly in Israel, the production of food from farms in the shape of fish cultivation is an enormous contribution. When the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, said we were going to have the chips without the fish (or something to that effect) I recalled that in South-East Asia they planted their fish supper at sowing
272
time. The paddies were flushed with water and the fingerlings were put in. When the paddies were drained to harvest the rice there was the fish supper ready made.
We have to consider seaweed again. I am not talking vulgarly about caller dulse and Fangle which I ate when I was young, but about the potentialities of harvesting the seaweed and using it at every stage right down to the refined stage, as the Japanese do in the shape of delicacies. You can do this in terms of manure or increasing feedstuffs and so forth. I was speaking earlier this year to the intensive farmers, the horticulturalists of the National Farmers' Union, and I pointed out that this country has been preeminent in the development of intensive farming. But they are now on a spot because they have found themselves trapped in the oil shortage. The oil problem is again a matter of missed opportunities. From the 1940s through to the 1950s we were thinking seriously about how we could make farms self-sufficient in terms of fuel, as the Israelis do. You can do it by the cycling of farm waste. You can produce methane. We want constructive management in this regard.
I should like to know what Rothamsted and the other research bodies are going to do, if there is a restriction on their resources, about things which people like Dr. N. W. Pirie have done so magnificently and imaginatively in terms of the protein. You can take what is now waste, the indigestible forms, and turn it into human foodstuffs. This is something which is not a matter of investment of money, but all we have to do is get enough imagination to call upon people, as we did in the war; and it is not a question of sacrifice but imagination and responsible leadership.
I am getting more and more concerned about the inescapable fact that we in this country are going to have a decreasing growing season in the future. I believe changes in climate will mean that we will need to look at the nature of our crops. There is no threat provided we have the imagination to cope. A new cereal has been established. I have been having arguments all day about the pronunciation. It is called "triticale". This is a hybrid between the wheat and the rye and it is extremely effective in its characteristics. It is drought resistant and cold

273
resistant. It has a much higher protein content than either the wheat or the rye. It is very sturdy in relation to the amount of sunlight required. This is something which we should be developing. If it is a high source of protein, as claimed, as it is sturdy it is obviously tailor-made for these islands.
There are many other things we should be looking at, not only for adequate production for our own people, but in order to set an example. Your Lordships will notice I am not saying that we shall keep the rest of the world alive by exporting our surpluses, but we could set an example to the rest of the world by practising what we have been preaching. This is not a political situation; and I think the Minister of Agriculture was perhaps rather unwise to say in Rome in the opening days of the World Food Conference that we were facing malnutrition in this country. I do not think that for one moment.
What is more—and I have just caught the eye of my noble friend Lord Sainsbury—I will finish by saying that what he said concerning food technology is vitally important. We now have the capacity not only to avoid great wastages in food by processing, but we have a means, by utilising food technology, of adapting foods which are not palatable or which are not normally acceptable so that they may become part of our normal diet. For example, when I was young in Strathmore—a part of the British Isles which is familiar to many of your Lordships—Indian corn was something that was fed to chickens and not to human beings. Today it is a breakfast cereal, and this is simply due to the processing of the corn. We can do so many different things in these days. We can encourage people to eat what is good for them, but which they do not eat at the moment because they do not perhaps like the taste. All we need to do is use imagination and make full use of the many different processes available in food production, and food technology and we shall certainly be able to take care of our people from now on.
Lord BALERNO: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to ask him about one point. He mentioned triticale. As I understand it, one of the dangers of triticale is that it carries the ergot of rye. Does the noble Lord know whether sufficient precautions are
274
now available to prevent infestation with ergot and the consequent unpleasantness to humans?
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for for his question. This was indeed one of the difficulties about triticale. It is well-known that one can get the ergot-poisons of rye, which caused the "dancing" disease from which people suffered in the Middle Ages. As I understand it. work has been done in Mexico for Rockefeller Foundation, and assurances have been given. The side-effects might, as the noble Lord says, be serious but they can be taken care of.
6.34 p.m.
Lord VERNON: My Lords, the aim of expanding food production in this country and reducing our enormous import bill of £3,000 million a year is bound to appeal to all of us, and to none will it appeal more than to the hungry millions, to whom the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, has referred in his speech. These people will be able to eat some of the food we might otherwise import. I, too, should like to say how grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord Walston, for giving us the opportunity of debating this very important subject.
The doubts which I have are whether the White Paper really gets to the root of our problems and how it is possible to reconcile the intentions of the Government, as stated in the White Paper, with some of their actions in certain fields, which seem to be completely contradictory. The first contradiction I should like to refer to is that relating to land ownership and capital taxation. I do not wish to deal with this at all fully because it has already been covered by my noble friend Lord Ferrers; but I do not think it can be emphasised too often that 90 per cent. of the land in this country is still privately owned, and until the Government come forward with constructive proposals about who is to replace the private land-owner—and no proposals have yet been forthcoming—it is extremely foolish, to put it no higher, to kill the goose which lays the golden egg. Notwithstanding the so-called concessions to working farmers in the Finance Act, a great many eggs that would have been laid are not being laid, and they will not be laid so long as the

275
present Government attitude continues. One can only hope that the study mentioned in paragraph 55 of the White Paper into the effect of capital taxation on agricultural production will produce a more consistent Government policy.
The second contradiction has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, and also by my noble friend Lord Arbuthnott, and relates to the loss of land for agriculture. According to the Government figures given in the White Paper, we have in this country 47 million acres of agricultural land and, leaving out of account the land lost to forestry, 76,000 acres are being lost to agriculture every year. One can look at this in another way. I happen to live in Derbyshire, and in that county we have 480,000 acres of agricultural land. Therefore, in seven years we shall lose nationally the equivalent of all the agricultural land in Derbyshire. In another seven years we shall lose all the agricultural land in Nottinghamshire and so on. Moreover, once this land goes under concrete you can never get it back.
Why is it taken? For housing, for industrial development, for recreation, for reservoirs and for motorways; at least those are the main uses. Can we afford it? I shall, of course, be told that all these things are needed and that as stated in paragraph 16 of the White Paper, Government policy is to ensure that agricultural land of a higher quality is not taken when land of a lower quality is available. But, my Lords, that is not adequate, and in any case much of the land that is of a low quality can be vastly improved if enough effort is put into treating it.
I should like to give a few examples of what is happening. Before the Third London Airport was scrapped for economic reasons, it was proposed to take some of the best agricultural land in Essex for a new town; and in The Times today we read that although there is to be no airport at Maplin, 1,300 acres of the land that was to be taken will now be used for housing development. In the Farmers' Weekly of 16th May. it was reported that 1,000 acres of the best farmland in Glamorgan was scheduled for quarrying. Earlier this year, 1,000 acres of farmland due to be flooded for a reservoir at Carsington in Derby
276
shire was reprieved at the 11th hour after massive local protest and after the inspector at a public inquiry had ruled that alternative methods of finding the water by extraction from the rivers Der-went and Trent should first be examined. But why was not this examination carried out in the first place?
Then there are motorways. With their wide, wasteful verges which have to be expensively mown, they use up 40 acres a mile. And they are not even always needed. In the case of the proposed M.64, which is to link Stoke-on-Trent with the East Midlands, traffic requirements can be adequately met by dualling the existing trunk road, which is already dualled in some places, with an enormous saving in agricultural land and no farm severance. But that is not a solution which appeals to the planners; it does not look so good on a map. These are just a few examples—one could give many more. I have mentioned them because I believe that the whole attitude of Ministers, of Government Departments and of local authorities needs to be changed.
As a start, the disastrous proposals in the Community Land Bill, whereby vast acreages of farmland will be blighted and sterilised ten years ahead pending their development by local authorities, should be withdrawn. It is difficult to conceive of any measure more calculated to damage the agricultural industry. And much greater use should be made of derelict land. I believe that new directives should be sent out to local authorities and others with a view to reducing the loss in agricultural land by at least 50 per cent. Given the will it could be done, and in other countries less profligate in the use of their most precious asset it would be done.
I return now to the White Paper. Both the Government and the National Farmers' Union are in agreement that, given the necessary incentives, a 2½ per cent. annual productivity increase, with a saving of £400 million to £500 million in the balance of payments, could be achieved. These targets are to be reached partly by producing more per acre and partly by producing more of those higher-cost products which have the biggest impact on our balance of payments. This last is an important point because some of the improvement will not affect our

277
actual degree of self-sufficiency, an aspect to which I will return in a moment. It is an economic improvement and not an agricultural one. Moreover, if the cost of inputs and feedingstuffs continues to rise, as seems likely, even the economic benefit may not be quite as great as forecast.
On the specific proposals, I particularly welcome that in paragraph 42 that we should make better use of our grassland and expand the national dairy herd at the expense of our beef herd. It seems to me absurd that, with some of the finest grassland in the world, we in the United Kingdom in 1973 were only 60 per cent. self-sufficient in dairy products, whereas the Netherlands, which is equally densely populated, were 250 per cent. self-sufficient, and Italy 84 per cent. After allowing for the fact that these countries, especially the Nertherlands, have a far higher input cost than we do, the discrepancy in our two performances still seems far too wide. But our lack of self-sufficiency in dairy products is only one example of the weakness in our whole position. With 56 million people dependent on imports for roughly 45 per cent. of our food and feedingstuffs we are as a country highly vulnerable.
We are vulnerable as regards the price of imports, over which we have no control, and in a world whose population will double in 30 years we are also vulnerable as regards a continuing source of supply. That is why I do not believe that the Government are setting their sights nearly high enough. The aim should not be merely to increase production by 2½ per cent. per year, which, judging by experience over the last 20 years, will do no more than satisfy the growing needs of an expanding population. We should be much more ambitious and seek over a period to become largely self-sufficient in temperate zone foodstuffs. This means not only expanding production by making better use of our resources, as suggested by the White Paper; it means also reducing consumption and altering our diet. The case for doing all these things is cogently argued in a paper entitled, Losing Ground, published by the Friends of the Earth, which I commend to your Lordships and a copy of which I sent to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, prior to this debate.
278
How is consumption going to be reduced? First, we must eat less meat, and perhaps eat less altogether. We must develop alternative and much less wasteful sources of protein. Fish farming—so ably advocated by my noble friend Lady Emmet of Amberley on so many different occasions—is an obvious example. But, in general, what I am proposing will mean obtaining a higher proportion of our protein direct from cereals rather than from animals which are such inefficient and expensive converters. Secondly, our population should be gradually reduced to a more realistic level, to the 30 million to 40 million people whom we can feed from within our own resources.
This is not the occasion for me to argue the many benefits, as I see it, of a population policy. I have done so before in your Lordships' House and I shall probably do so again. But for the purposes of this debate I should like to remind your Lordships that, notwithstanding the falling birth rate, our population is likely to continue to expand if only because of the number of potential mothers who are already born. At present, the average family size is roughly 2·2 when the replacement level is 2·1. If we produced two per family from now on, the population would begin to fall in about the year 2050. Only if we now produced 1·6 per family would there be any immediate decline in our population. Therefore, we have a long way to go. The sooner the Government make up their minds positively to encourage smaller families the sooner we as a nation will be able to feed ourselves.
In conclusion, I should like to return very briefly to the matter of productivity. The British nation have always been very good at patting themselves on the back. We do so as regards our political institutions and in many other ways—often, I suspect, without sufficient justification. I am the last person to wish to denigrate our very fine agricultural industry but sometimes, perhaps, we tend to be a little smug. Indeed, before our accession to the European Economic Community there were some farmers who feared that we should be helping to subsidise the allegedly inefficient farmer on the Continent.
Yet what are the facts? West Germany produces 2 per cent. more wheat, 16 per cent. more sugar beet, 56 per cent. more

279
fodder beet and 12 per cent. more livestock per hectare than we do. They achieve this by a much higher input of feedingstuffs and fertilisers, by using 194 per cent. more tractors per hectare and by employing a 133 per cent. greater labour force. Productivity in Belgium and the Netherlands is greater than in West Germany, although their inputs are also greater. In Ireland, on the other hand, the situation is quite different. Their labour force is comparable with ours. Their inputs and mechanisation are much less, whereas their yields are similar, except in the livestock sector where the Irish are considerably behind.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to ask one question? When he makes a comparison between this country and Western Germany is he taking account of the fact that a very large proportion of our country's agricultural land is hill land and, therefore, cannot produce anything like the same quantities? Is that taken into the calculation, or is it just acre for acre?
Lord VERNON: My Lords, I was coming to my comments on the figures.
Lord INGLEWOOD: Then, my Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord.
Lord VERNON: My Lords, I take my noble friend's point. Equally, it is fair to say that even in West Germany there are certain areas which are very low in productivity. In any case, the moral of these figures is not at all straightforward. The position is highly technical and certainly I am not competent to analyse it. However, the figures do suggest that we have few grounds for complacency and we should not hesitate to learn from some of our EEC partners. For instance, I suggest we might learn from the Irish as regards their low inputs and we might learn something from the West Germans as regards their much higher labour force. The point has already been made—I think by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso —that we cannot afford to allow our labour force to run down much further.
My Lords, I have spoken for too long and I apologise for doing so. In conclusion, I return to the main theme of my speech; that is, that it is not sufficient just to produce more food. There must be a limit to how much food we can produce in this country. Instead, in the
280
very difficult conditions in which we shall find ourselves in the last 30 years of this century we should seek to become largely self-sufficient in food and feedingstuffs. If we are to become self-sufficient, a much more radical approach to the whole problem is required than any so far suggested by the Government.
6.56 p.m.
The Earl of LYTTON: My Lords, once more it is a pleasure to take part in an agricultural debate in which the noble Lord, Lord Walston, takes the prominent part. I congratulate him on his stamina today—also on his elevation to the European scene. I hope that does not mean he will cease altogether to appear in this House.
In the course of preparing the subject for this debate, I obtained by accident from the Printed Paper Office the stocktaking report itself. It is virtually a book of 64 pages and I read it, in parts two or three times before realising that a summary was available and that this is what we are talking about. However, I am afraid that the effect of having read it is that both the summary and the White Paper seem to me to be a little inadequate, the White Paper not having been sufficiently related tot he European problem. Nevertheless, let me say how much I enjoyed—as did the noble Lord, Lord Hughes—the reference by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, to the historical position.
The British tradition of the open door and throwing our farmers to the wolves for most of the time is a long-standing tradition—dating from 1850, anyway. The French tradition—the Napoleonic one of the closed door—is also a long tradition and it persists. But both of these traditions are embodied in the Treaty of Rome —both traditions, not merely one of them. Surely we see the French notion thoroughly embodied in Article 39, and surely we see our outlook on the whole world embodied in Article 110. And if we come to the 1947 Agriculture Act, which I regard as the Magna Carta of this country's agriculture in the modern context, it reads very much like the French version—Article 39—except that it is more full of life and vigorous. It talks about guaranteed prices and secure markets, a stable and efficient agriculture industry capable of producing such part of the nation's food and so on. That is the

281
spirit to which I should like to go back —not that of 1940 which was a siege economy of, "Dig for victory". The 1947 Act turned the corner in our farming history. I remember so well the situation immediately before that, especially on our Exmoor hills, and the position today—that although we have had recessions since then we are still enjoying that Magna Carta. Its value has not been lost.
I believe that any Government now require time to relate our problems more closely to those of the Europeans. After all, the White Paper had to claim that its content was equally valid whether we came out or whether we stayed in. Surely, now that we have decided to stay in a different kind of positive and active thinking is due. Therefore, I am not depressed by the fact that the White Paper seems to be a little insufficient. However, I want to say something about the big change which seems to have occurred—the change in our balance of payments.
According to the White Paper, for every 1 per cent. that the pound falls in value our food import bill may—and probably will—go up £35 million. Is it therefore not a fact, since the pound was floated and started sinking and went down some 28 per cent., that the additional cost is £1,000 million pounds, or thereabouts? And if yesterday's statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—which I greatly welcome—marks the hitting of the bottom and not going any lower, surely we still have to take into account the fact that the £1,000 million extra is something that we have to live with? It is not only the traditional bill but the extra bill which has come on us recently in a very short period, that we have to take account of. If that is the case, one of the inadequacies that I see in this is the question: is the 2½ per cent. increase and the saving of £500 million enough? It seems to me to go towards only half the extra and might well be doubled, if not trebled.
Secondly, I share the doubts of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester (although for totally different reasons from the ones he gave), about the increase in milk because of the fact which he mentioned, that there is a structural surplus of milk in the Community; and even according to the White Paper it looks as though we are encouraged to
282
produce more milk only up to 1980, which is less than five years away. After that time, we are exposed to the end of the transitional period and the full brunt of whatever discouragement is imposed by the Community on those who produce more milk. Therefore, I am in doubt whether sufficient thought has been given to it. I am not depressed, but I am in doubt.
I am a little shaken by some of the remarks, both in the White Paper and in the stocktaking document, about the slightly airy way in which by tinkering with prices the production of milk can be altered within half a season, and the production of beef within two years. Surely, if you have a holding of any sufficient size you realise that cows do not live by grass alone; they live with a milking parlour and a feeding yard in which in winter they live for most of the time, and the same with the followers and the beef by-product. These buildings cost anything from £10,000, £15,000 to £20,000 and they are going to last for 30 years. By tinkering with prices you cannot alter that sort of thing. It may be that with smallholdings of 30 acres and nine cows you can reduce by one cow, but if you start tampering with the capital investment in buildings you will find yourself up against something just as inflexible in terms of supply as the allegedly inflexible demand in the language of the European Community. I believe their thinking is based on a kind of peasant economy which we have grown out of, and I think we want to beware of taking part in that.
I now want to turn to the very inspiring remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, on our need to study our basic philosophy with regard to the land. I agree that that should be studied. After all, in the Community our holdings are still pointing to the necessity of fewer farmers, fewer labourers and larger farms. In this country, a lot of that is over and done with. A great deal of the consolidation has already occurred. Farms are substantially bigger and there comes a moment when you ask how big they should he in any given circumstances. That is one of the things that I think should be studied: how much further consolidation is really desirable, especially with animals? With cereals you can treat with machines alone, whereas animals require a personal touch and it is

283
with animals that the size of the holding and the manner in which it is managed is important.
Having studied these things, I think it is a great mistake that the people should be taxed in such a way that they will fragment what is desirable. Having decided what is a desirable holding—let us say, over a large area, 300 acres or 600 acres—then do not apply a tax system which causes them either to sell when they inherit from their parents or to fragment further. We have encouraged consolidations; they have received help from the taxpayer. Do not turn around now and introduce a fiscal system which induces fragmentation. So much of this needs to be studied. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, who said earlier that if the landlord/tenant system is generally to be terminated, let us face the matter and do it properly.
I have had occasion to disperse one estate, given plenty of time, and I did it because I thought it was in the best interests of the tenants. I had occasion to disperse another estate because I jolly well had to—I had to pay 80 per cent. death duties and it was most inefficient. I was succeeded by a whole string of millionaires here, there and everywhere, taking the pickings. That is not the way to reform the countryside. If it is to be done, let us face it and do it properly. Have a co-operative, have landlords in a different relationship, but do not destroy it in this dreadful way. I believe we ought to get down to that and study it; we cannot, of course, do it today.
I want to conclude with a remark on surpluses. I have had the greatest difficulty in finding out what is the general position of the Third World regarding food. I know the areas where the people are starving, and I should have thought those should be treated in a special way. Then there are tens of millions of children who, even if they are not starving, go to bed every night very hungry. They are near to starvation. But one must look at the picture as a whole and over a longer period, and look away from periods of drought and monsoon failures as well.
I notice that the expectation of life in this country from the middle of the century to the 'seventies has risen from
284
about 40 to 70. It is only very lately that we in this country have had an expectation of life of over 70 years. Most of what we used to call the primitive countries had a terribly low expectation of life until quite recently. It was not 40; it was 25 or less. In spite of the shortcoming of what we have done, the expectation of life in India is now 40 and in Pakistan it is 50 and that is double what it was at the beginning of the century. It is satisfying that there is some progress, but of course the changes do not occur instantly.
There are two factors which require emergency treatment—the very considerable factor of famine, and gross undernourishment. I strongly support what I understood was the contention of the noble Lord, Lord Walston, that these surpluses should be devoted to relief, and that that relief should have a prior claim, always provided that it is possible, over redistribution among the consumers of the country where it was produced. I think that is what the noble Lord meant to say. I have said before that this should be regarded as a natural burden on the rich nations towards the starving element of the poor nations.
When we think of other countries, there are so many different factors. For example, the people of Nigeria have an expectation of life of only 36 years.I cannot believe this is due to lack of food, because Nigeria has plenty of food. With all its teeming multitudes and all its difficulties, India is handicapped beyond belief by having a non-slaughter policy. There are 70 million barren cows, 70 million "teacup" cows, as some of my Indian friends call them, because these cows yield only a teacupful of milk. The Indians handicap themselves. They alone can only help themselves. I was talking to a Minister of Agriculture in India, and asked him, "How are you getting on with the problem of slaughter?" He replied, "You people were here a long time, and you did not succeed. We do not want to offend everyone all at once. Give us time." This is very true. There is something about self-help which is just as important as giving for famine relief. They alone can do it. That, my Lords, concludes my scattered remarks collected from the speeches of many speakers.
7.12 p.m.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Walston, to whom we are all grateful for initiating this debate, said in his opening remarks that we do not take much notice of large landowners. I believe he himself is a large landowner. I hope Her Majesty's Government will not take the advice of the noble Lord on that subject, but will listen to what he said in the rest of his speech. I was going to talk at considerable length on the problem of land use. The noble Lord, Lord Vernon, has said it more briefly, so I will spare your Lordships that.
My Lords, the agricultural industry, like all others, will degenerate into a low production and barter trade if we do not get on top of the inflation problem. As an example, the fixed costs per acre on a general cropping farm, according to reliable figures produced by the ICI Farm Advisory Service, have risen from £49·3 per acre in 1973 to £65·8 per acre in 1975. This is pure and complete inflation. It has not produced one extra grain of wheat, one extra husk of maize, one extra gallon of milk—it is pure inflation. If I may, I will come back to this factor, I introduce it only to underline the difficulties caused by inflation.
Turning to the White Paper, will noble Lords opposite please accept that any criticisms I am making would have been made if Her Majesty's Government's advisers had been drawn from my noble and honourable friends, both here and in another place. If they had presided over recent events and produced this White Paper, I would make exactly the same speech. At paragraph 23 the White Paper says, completely correctly, and this has been underlined by several speeches, that:
"If farmers are to invest in expansion, they need a degree of assurance about their future returns."
The White Paper also says that net farm incomes have fallen by 26 per cent. What a formula for confidence! The Conservative Government were warned in the autumn of 1973, in a debate in this House and certainly from other quarters, of the coming crisis in the dairy industry, but did nothing about it until it was too late. In 1974, just after they came to power with slick slogans about "beef is for eating and not for storing", the present Govern
286
ment abandoned the intervention scheme for beef. It took the ochlocratical-minded Welsh farmers to persuade Mr. Peart to produce what is now agreed to be a very good beef support scheme.
The point of these remarks is that it is the general feeling among farmers that they find it difficult to trust Governments of either complexion. Furthermore on the subject of confidence, the present price of barley for September delivery is £56 a ton. I saw this figure this morning. The average yield on British farms is worth £33 an acre. If, and this is a big "if", the farmer can get £15 an acre for his barley straw, then he will just about break even; he will make no profit on those figures. If barley or wheat has to be sold into intervention at the present prices, the bankruptcy rate will be horrifying.
I am saying this in order to go on underlining the importance of confidence. The present price of barley at £56 a ton and £4 a ton more for wheat, is only at this level because of a feeling in the trade that there must be an adjustment of the Green Pound. If this feeling were not prevalent, the crop forecasts in the rest of the world would depress prices very considerably. For instance, in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the wheat crop is forecast this year as 95 million to 100 million tons. Last year it was 84 million tons. This is merely a 20 per cent. increase in the supply of the grain of the Soviet Union. This is a warning that the amount of food grains and grains coming on to the market could continue the slide in wheat prices and grain prices. If this goes on, and we have to sell into intervention, we will have exactly the same situation, only worse, in the grain section of the industry as earlier on we had in the beef section of the industry.
My Lords, the central theme of the White Paper is the increase in the use of grassland. In my view, without doubt this is right. But as both the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester, said, is it right to increase our milk production when there is an EEC surplus of milk products? Large parts of the South-East of England can be supplied from Friesland and Normandy. There are 600.000 tons of dried milk in store in the EEC at this moment. Should we not perhaps encourage by all means the greater use

287
of our grassland, encourage a higher standard of quality of cow—because a bad cows costs exactly the same amount of money to feed as a good cow—encourage the use, certainly, of better leys, relaying permanent pastures, the greater use perhaps of maize silage for winter feed in certain parts of the country which can grow it very well? If we do that, we will then release more land for crops such as rape, cereals and sugar. After all, this would then be complementary to the EEC and not, as this White Paper implies, slightly in competition with the EEC.
Then ultimately, as has already been asked, how is this expansion to be financed? The disadvantages of all sources of extra finance are politically daunting, but they must be faced. Is it to be higher prices to the consumer, is to be extra Government expenditure? I think this is for the Government to answer. I thought the noble Lord. Lord Hughes, to whom I listened with a great deal of attention, glossed over this matter in his speech. I have a feeling that it has not been thought through.
If it has not been thought through, then the confidence of which I have spoken ad nauseam will certainly not be there. If inflation is not cured, then it will not be there. If there is no confidence and no cure to inflation, Mr. Healey will be left with only the words of the Labour Party Manifesto to eat, as he did with such gusto yesterday, and precious little food will be produced not only for him, but, above all, for his fellow citizens.
7.22 p.m.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, as one who has never been directly associated with the agricultural industry, I have found it extremely interesting to listen to noble Lords in this debate. I was particularly interested in a lot of what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, had to say, though I must admit I was a little surprised to learn that the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah was brought about through a wrong agricultural policy. I had thought that, if there was anything wrong, it was the salinity of the soil that might be wrong there. But apart from learning that interesting fact, there were a lot of other observations which I found
288
very interesting and important. As one who is not an agriculturist, I have looked at this White Paper, and the point that particularly caught my eye was paragraph 18, which refers to research, and on that perhaps I can say something.
From my early student days, I have been interested in agricultural research, not because I have taken a direct part in it, but because I was, first of all, lucky enough to be at the University of Wales at Aberystwyth when Stapledon was doing his famous work on grass breeding. I think it is true to say that almost the whole of our present grass policy stems from the work of Stapledon. It is interesting to notice that although some people think, as apparently it is now becoming the fashion to think, that scientific research is of no significance, the productivity of our grasslands has increased over the last 30 years by about 2½ per cent. per annum almost entirely due to the work of Stapledon and his pupils and successors around the country. I think that is a remarkable tribute to the effect of such agricultural research.
Then, of course, one looks in other fields. I was later in the University of Reading, which had an agricultural school, and indeed still has. There was a Professor of Agricultural Botany there, one Percival, who was world-famous for his study of wheats, and in fact the work which Percival did was, I believe, largely responsible for leading on to the production of Yeoman wheat, which was, I believe, a hard, rust-free wheat. There are many other cases where the scientific research that has been done has been of immense importance. In Reading they had a dairy research institute, at Shinfield, which played an extremely important part. In Scotland, they have had the Hannah Research Institute, the Rowett Research, the Macaulay Research, the Torrey Research, all playing an extremely important part in this agricultural work.
It is important to realise that without this research work, without this scientific work and its application, we should still be using methods that would be giving us a fraction of the yields that we are getting today. People talk about going back to the land. If you go back to the land without the resources of modern science and technology, you are going back to a primitive condition where, with luck, the whole family, working about 18 hours a

289
day, would just about manage to eke out an existence. That is surely not what we are thinking of when we talk about utilisation of land, when we talk about agriculture. We are thinking of the proper, modern utilisation, and this means the application of every form of modern technology to the land. It means having all sorts of scientific research going on in research stations, and in universities throughout the whole country. Without this, we shall never get anywhere.
To a certain extent this is realised in the White Paper, but I do not think it is emphasised enough. I would ask my noble friend, when he replies, to give some indication of how far the Government are prepared to go, because I think they ought not simply to say, "We are prepared to keep research going". We must expand it. We have, in paragraph 18, the statement:
"The rapid growth in agricultural productivity over the last two decades has been materially helped by the successful application of research findings".
That is a very correct statement, and one is glad to see it in this White Paper. It goes on:
"The yields of cereals, potatoes, field vegetables and fruit, the growth rates of beef cattle, the yields of milk cows and the feed conversion ratio of pigs and poultry have all benefited directly from research findings."
That surely means that we ought to put a lot more effort into research, if that is what the result has already been.
I was disappointed when I looked at the recent Report from the Commission in Brussels, dated 26th February last, in which they made very little reference to research, but they said at page 16:
"Increases in productivity are generally the result of a significant increase in inputs, cattle feed, fertilisers, pesticides, machines."
That admits the technological side, without saying much about the research required to produce all that. On the question of what has to be put into the soil according to the reports which I have been able to get, over the last 30 years the input of fertiliser in this country has increased six-fold, and the increase in nitrogen input has increased eight-fold. Where has all that come from. It has come from our chemical industry.
It is not something which is supplied by nature. Nature can supply very little of this sufficiently effectively on the scale that we want it. When you look back
290
you find, if you take, for instance, the whole production of nitrates, ammonia and so on, that they come from the brilliant invetntions of the famous German chemist, Haber, about 50 years ago; this whole development resulted from pure chemical work, originally not even undertaken in order to produce anything of agricultural importance. It is important to realise that we neglect this research and scientific investigation at our peril, because it means that when we want something done the knowledge is not there to enable us to do it.
People are always talking about scientific work as though it is something magical that suddenly produces the answer. It never does. It does not produce the answer, it produces general ideas and specific ideas which intelligent people may later apply in the way they wish. That is the significance of scientific work. So I hope that when we talk about this whole problem of British agriculture we do not forget the fact that, in the end, its productivity depends upon research and serious scientific investigation.
Lord BALERNO: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can I ask him whether he would agree that equal to the astounding results of the specific research that he mentioned is that jewel in the crown of Cambridge University, all the work that has been done on artificial insemination with the resultant increase in the productivity of both beef and dairy cattle?
Lord WYNNE-JONES.Lord WYNNE-JONES. My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for adding that point. As he realises, I was not attempting a complete catalogue. I wanted to pick out merely the few points about which I have knowledge, but, of course, he is quite right.
7.32 p.m.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, has shown, even though not giving us a complete catalogue, how lucky we have been in this country in the number of our research institutes and the people who have manned them. He was too modest to mention Newcastle-upon-Tyne, but a great deal of good work was done there also in the field of grassland improvement. I was glad also that another noble

291
Lord mentioned Rothamsted. It is worth remembering that Rothamsted is one of the earliest, if not the earliest, agricultural research stations in Europe. It was founded before the days of modern taxation, when these things were possible, by an amateur who was interested in these things and who recruited a friend from his Oxford days, a professional chemist, who worked with him, and the two achieved results which have never been equalled in Europe since.
I am glad to be able to take part in this debate today. It is very timely. I was glad of the opportunity to visit Brussels last week as a member of the Sub-Committee, and I am very glad to be able to claim that of the three Papers we are considering this evening our House of Lords' Paper is undoubtedly the best. It is written in the best English; it is the most lucid and is the most helpful. I should like to pay tribute to the member of our staff who put so much work into that Paper and produced something remarkable.
Having been to Brussels, I think I can now see much more clearly than I could before the difficulties that they have to face. Their problems are really very much the same. They are so familiar. They are the same for anyone who has worked in the Ministry of Agriculture in this country, either as a Minister or an official. But, of course, they are on a much bigger scale. They are the same sort of commodity problems, the same sort of regional variations again, only on a bigger scale. They have two extra commodities in olive oil and wine to deal with. The latter is extremely sensitive politically. We have in this country mutton and lamb, and also forestry. It seems strange to me that forestry was not in the catalogue which constitutes the agricultural problems on the other side, but I am told that the Treaty of Rome made no provision for it to be included. I would suppose that, because forestry makes a claim for the same sort of land as extensive farming, sooner or later the Treaty of Rome will have to be amended and forestry included. However, at least today it is not there.
Our own Government's White Paper lays emphasis on increased production, and that is welcome. It is not a new theme for a Government White Paper.
292
I Farmers always look forward to greater production, and so the Government have to say something about it. But they are generally cautious and guarded, and having talked about increased production they then say, "not too much", and that is exactly what they have said in this White Paper. But producers were glad to hear that this is the direction in which the Government want to see our agriculture here move.
I believe—and I do not think I am being over critical—that a Paper in this form, coming to these conclusions, could have been written in the Ministry of Agriculture at any time over the last ten or twenty years. I am glad to see the noble Lord nodding. I do not wish to disparage his efforts at all because he has had a rough time and achieved a considerable measure of success, but it could have been written by any Minister or any group of civil servants in the Department over the last generation. They are just as cautious as ever, because of course any small increase in quantity, or increase in demand, results in big and rapid price movements. No one has yet been able to master that, although I think we can say that on the Continent the agricultural policy of the Six has in fact resulted in lessening these up and down movements. It is one of the great problems that still lies ahead of us. It is easier if we appreciate that our problems are not isolated but are part of Europe's problems, and Europe's problems again are part of the world's problems, and not something separate in the West from the others.
I was pleased to sense that the Community is becoming less rigid and inflexible about surpluses. I am sure that it is right that where surpluses arise—and they will arise from time to time—that the less fortunately placed regions within the Community shall have the first chance of enjoying these surpluses, maybe at a slightly subsidised price. If a wine lake in fact materialises, I hope that some people in this country will be allowed to enjoy drinking part of it, because at least so far as wine is concerned we are less favourably placed than some other parts of the Community.
We must all beware of thinking that stockpiling is simple. It has already been mentioned in this debate. I can remember the difficulties that the French were

293
meeting fifteen years ago, after it had been represented how simple it was to buy when there was a surplus in the market, and to put it back on the market when there was a shortage. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, who pointed that out. Somehow, it never works out as simply as that. None the less it is one of the weapons in the armoury that we may have to use from time to time.
I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Walston, in opening this debate, touched on the fact that half the world, or more than half the world, is short of food. I think it would come ill from us, or from any rich country, to say, "We can produce more, but we are not going to do so", because of some local or national reasons. Success here in the longer term will depend on some control of population increases throughout the world. You cannot solve these problems of starvation and undernourishment by the production of food alone. However, that is another big question and it is far too late in the evening to say any more about that.
I found it remarkable over the last few years what very large steps have been taken to bring the systems of support for agriculture in different countries much closer together. If the Nine come together to try to achieve a common marketing policy, they must move towards some common system of support. That will take time to achieve, not least because of the historic differences in the thinking, the organisation, and the working of the different agricultural departments; and, not least, their ability to collect accurate statistics and the willingness of farmers to co-operate in this work, which is vital. I do not think it is boasting too much about our achievements, nor being too rude to the Italians, to say that we and others in the North-West of Europe are far ahead of some in this respect, because it is a fact. I was glad to sense when in Brussels that there appeared to be no basic opposition during this transitional stage to seeing, say, two different systems of support within the Community. Obviously, every country cannot persevere with its own to the end, but at least in the transitional stage it is not necessary for every one, irrespective of the ability of the different Ministers of Agriculture to administer any system of
294
agricultural support, to go over straight away to the same system.
In the farming policies of many countries, there is always a danger of paying too much attention to the problems of individual commodities. Because votes are at stake Ministers, their advisers and politicians know how even small price changes are brought home to everyone, and very quickly. Milk in Britain is an example of that. Wine in France is a similar example. There are many votes involved in both, but the real foundation of any agricultural policy, as has been said previously in this debate, is the land. The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, mentioned the importance of farm drainage and I would say that it is vitally important; and here in Britain there is a great deal of work still ahead of us in this sphere. However, nobody would deny that there are few votes to be had in connection with farm drainage, compared with small price rises in certain key commodities. All the same, it is the land and the wellbeing of those who live and work on the land around whom any enduring agricultural policy must be built, and I am glad to feel from this debate that at least we in this House have our priorities right.
7.42 p.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I rise to speak not as an expert but as a back garden producer. Perhaps I might mention at the outset that this year I have supplied tomato plants to a number of Labour and Conservative Members of another place, to certain members of staff of your Lordships' House and to friends and neighbours—all from a packet of seed costing 15p. I humbly submit this as an example of increased food production at a minimal cost. The main issue of the White Paper is, of course, the vitally important one of increased food production, and I suggest that the greatest challenge we have to face, remembering that increased production brings problems with it, is the need to ensure a fair return to the primary producer. The men and lads who toil and sweat on the land deserve a fair profit, and it is the responsibility of Government and those who demand more and better food to see that a fair return is given.
This brings me to the need urgently to investigate our marketing arrangements. What causes a poor return to the producer

295
while at the same time prices are high in the shops? Last week in a London suburb a lady I know paid 20p for a lettuce. At this time of the year this is downright ridiculous; for a 5p packet of lettuce seed one can grow enough to feed the whole family and a few neighbours as well. This sort of problem must be examined at the same time as looking at ways of increasing food production. It is no good talking about the season of the year and the type of weather because, for instance, lettuce and other crops grow even in cold conditions under polythene, which is quite cheap to buy. I use it in my back garden and I understand that it is used by some commercial producers as well. Why, therefore, should an ordinary, possibly limp, lettuce cost so much in a London suburb and probably more in the West End or Inner London? This sort of thing must be examined while we are discussing higher and more scientific problems.
I am talking mainly about fruit and vegetables. Do we need to decentralise our markets for fresh produce? When I was returning home after all-night or late night sittings in another place I would see lorries coming from Kent to Covent Garden, where at a later hour buyers from the areas near to where the goods were grown would make their purchases, only to take them back practically to where they were produced. This does not seem logical. It has been going on for years and now we have an even more massive and up-to-date Covent Garden.
Is fancy packaging necessary, or is it a gimmick to boost prices? A week or so ago my wife and I were passing a greengrocer's shop and noticed some nice cucumbers at 12p, so we bought one. A little later my wife, unable to get something she wanted to buy for my daughter, went to another greengrocer's shop and saw the same quality cucumber, this time wrapped in polythene, at 20p. I am afraid that the supermarket methods of fancy wrapping and packaging are having quite an effect on prices. Why is it that, particularly for fresh fruit and vegetables, prices are higher at weekends than during the week? I am a housewife's chief assistant—I call myself that in this age of non-discrimination—and I am certain that prices go up at the weekend. I am all in favour of greater food produc
296
tion, particularly in the fruit and veg. line, because, let's face it, home grown is best; the quality is better as is the flavour and nutritional value.
Home food production is today the vital issue, and in one connection it is closely related to the improvement of the environment, for there are too many areas of derelict land and marshland which could be reclaimed and turned over to food production. While we amateur gardeners are increasingly turning to producing compost from household and garden refuse, much more could be done by way of controlled tipping by local authorities to reclaim land. Many years ago I drew attention to the dumping of London refuse at sea, with frequent return on the tide. In Kent great areas of marshland and areas excavated for chalk, which is used in the main for cement-making, could be reclaimed by controlled tipping and turned over to food production and perhaps grazing. Some years ago a sanitary inspector in my area showed me a piece of land which he had reclaimed by controlled tipping. Within two years that area was growing lush grass, and within ten years it could conceivably be used for building purposes or as a sports ground. I admit that in the intervening years some slight improvement has occurred, but an enormous amount remains to be done along these lines because we are wasting far too much land which could be used for food production and grazing.
The noble Lord, Lord Walston, may recall the Wash barrage scheme, about which I do not seem to have heard much lately. It has been discussed, however, and a former MP for King's Lynn, Mr. Derek Page, and others have done a great deal of work in this connection. Certainly more land could be provided and more port facilities made available in such a development, and the national Exchequer might be put in the black by the discovery of King John's treasure, which is said to have been accidentally lost in the area many years ago. There is a lot in the old saying, "Waste not, want not" but today we see increasing wastage and wanting. More food production at home means growing more in the back garden and the flower bed, and I am glad to say that that is going on now.
Although local authorities have a responsibility to provide allotments, over the

297
years the numbers have been reduced and they have been turned over to grass or used for buildings. Now, with the growing popularity of growing one's own vegetables and of amateur gardening (one can get a packet of spring cabbage seed for nothing and it grows enough to feed a family) it is time that increasing attention was paid to providing land and meeting the need of people to grow their own food. The domestic growing of vegetables and fruit should receive encouragement in a national campaign, not only on economic grounds but on health grounds as well. If I may give a little non-medical advice, it is indeed the finest antidote for the strain of modern living, and I have for many years held the theory that if all the world's leaders were keen gardeners the world would be a happier and more peaceful place than it is at present.
Mention has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, and others of the deprived areas of the world where there are frequent instances of starvation. I have seen some of this myself. I do not want to take much time on this subject, but it is vital. Here there is one important need. Too much aid is given on the basis of national prestige. Aid to countries to develop their food production should be on a co-ordinated international basis, with politics removed.
Although we talk about ourselves and our need to increase food production, we should also be mindful of others. This call to produce more food, not only in this country but to meet the need of starving millions elsewhere, is the greatest challenge that faces mankind. Human needs come before space projects, and I believe that it is far better to solve the problem of the starving millions than to fly to the moon. The big remaining question is, when will mankind get its priorities right?
7.53 p.m.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, may I join with the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and others in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Walston, on the excellence of the report of his subcommittee and on the statesmanlike way in which he introduced this helpful debate. Without creating any acrid atmosphere of Party controversy, may I also presume to congratulate him on his nomination to the European Parliament.
298
I have heard the noble Lord speak not only in this House and in Committee but also in Strasbourg in the rather sterile fields of the Council of Europe. Of course he is recognised as a great international expert in this field and I am sure that if he goes to Strasbourg in another capacity this will benefit European agriculture in the way which he so sincerely desires.
At this late hour I do not propose to make anything in the nature of a winding-up speech. In view of the speeches from these Benches by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, I do not propose to discuss the White Paper except to endorse the views of the noble Lords, Lord Walston, Lord Ritchie-Calder, and Lord Wynne-Jones, and to emphasise how essential it is to continue to spend more money on research in agriculture. May I also support the statement in paragraph 19 of the White Paper paying tribute to the United Kingdom agricultural advisory services which I do not think have so far been mentioned in this debate.
I should also like to applaud the very great work that is done in association with university agricultural departments. Here I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, in paying a tribute to the work of the departments associated with the University of Wales. Although at this late hour one does not want to catalogue the work of universities, I should like to mention the work of Professor Bell in the experimental department in Cambridge.
As a member of the Select Committee of the European Communities, I propose in my few remarks to emphasise some of the major criticisms of the Common Agricultural Policy contained in the excellent Report prepared by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, and his subcommittee. This approach may assist in some small way in emphasing at least a few of the directions in which changes in the Common Agricultural Policy should be urged by Her Majesty's Government.
On many occasions in this House and elsewhere I have referred to the inadequacies and the inflexibility of the Common Agricultural Policy to the present agricultural needs of the United Kingdom. In particular, I have referred to its almost total irrelevance to the needs

299
of hill and upland farmers in the United Kingdom, particularly in Wales and in the North-West of England. However, I should like to join the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in congratulating the Government and, in particular, the Minister, Mr. Peart, for the successful efforts which he has made in Brussels in recent months in introducing much more flexibility in connection with the livestock farming industry. We were told today by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that he also took part in these negotiations; so may I also thank him personally for the great effort he has made in dealing with the aspect of inflexibility of the Common Agricultural Policy. I should like also to draw attention to the Committee's views in paragraph 22 of their Report where it is stated that the Commission's Report on stocktaking does not constitute a fresh approach to the problems of European agriculture and food supplies; and that it does not comprehend the strategy within which national administration can formulate its own policies. I use almost exactly the same words as in that Report. These are basic criticisms which, in my submission, require the urgent attention of the Government.
Therefore, in conclusion, may I emphasise to the Government what the noble Lord, Lord Walston, stated and the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, indicated, that it seems, now that the Commission is willing to be more flexible in its attitudes to agriculture, that every effort by the Government is required at this time to effect radical changes. Again, as the noble Lord, Lord Walston, has said, these are urgently required in order to effect the expansion of agriculture which is now necessary in the European context. In urging the Government to take this action now that the Commission appears to show itself less inflexible, may I express the hope that the Government will not forget the needs of those small and efficient farmers to whom the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, referred so eloquently, and also the desirability which the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, emphasised for more research in agriculture.
8.0 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, as the twentieth speaker in the debate this evening I wish to begin by reiterating what the
300
previous 19 speakers said. In particular I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Walston, for giving us this splendid opportunity of discussing both of these important documents. The remarks of the Prime Minister, in opening the Royal Show at Stoneleigh, are particularly significant, and I should like to quote two sentences from what the Prime Minister said and relate it to the Report. The Prime Minister said:
"We looked at the likely levels of world and Community food prices for major foodstuffs between now and the early 1980s and we looked at the risks of possible shortage and sharp price fluctuation. All those factors pointed to a policy of higher food production in the United Kingdom."
That exactly reflects the principal comment on the first page of the White Paper, that
"The Government take the view that a continuing expansion of food production in Britain will be in the national interest."
But, my Lords, the Consultative Document itself perhaps puts it much more sharply, where it states in paragraph 55 on page 21:
"At a time of unprecedented increases in world prices, the Common Agricultural Policy has proved to be a stabilising factor on most food prices rather than a source of inflation. Thus, the 1974 increase in consumer prices for foodstuffs was 10·4 per cent. in the original Community, 14·6 per cent. in the United States and 29 per cent. in Japan."
Surely, my Lords, those figures alone justify the massive vote of confidence which occurred on the occasion of the referendum on 6th June of this year.
I wish to turn in particular to the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Walston, in which he referred to the importance of Government research. I think almost all other noble Lords who have spoken in the debate also mentioned this. Perhaps we ought, with due deference, to offer a little shopping list to the chief Government research scientist, Dr. Perreira. If I were permitted to put forward three suggestions, I should put very high on the list the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, on research into harvesting of seaweed. As it happens, on 1st May last year, when we were also given an opportunity by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, of discussing agriculture, I made this point myself. If nothing has happened, then perhaps with the backing of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, a greater

301
interest might now be shown in the subject.
I also believe that there is great value in what the noble Lord, Lord Walston, said about the elimination of wastage. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, and many other noble Lords referred to this. We must consider in particular the post harvest situation, involving the storage of grains, feedstuffs, et cetera, and the innumerable commodities which are placed in store, in transport, in shipping and in the docks; in other words, the elimination of pests. At the top of the list, naturally, comes the rat. I believe most sincerely that the world food position can very largely be improved if greater attention were paid to the post harvest situation in all its forms. Therefore the research suggested this evening by all noble Lords should be given prominence.
I also wish to draw the attention of your Lordships for a short time to the question of conservation of the stock of farming land. This matter was raised in considerable detail by my noble friends Lord Ferrers and Lord Vernon, and by other noble Lords. I should not be using too strong a word if I say that I was scandalised by the complacency shown in paragraph 16 of the White Paper. As noble Lords have mentioned, we are told in this part of the White Paper about the loss of agricultural land, which—doing a sum—works out at 75,000 acres per annum. Surely now is the time when the Government—and this would involve nothing short of a Cabinet decision—should take a decision on the erosion of agricultural land and say thus far. We can only grow our stock of agricultural land by reclamation. Every acre that is won from the sea and added to the national stock would be of great and vital importance. Many noble Lords have referred to dereliction. Every acre won back from dereliction would be equally satisfactory. We must also, as my noble friend Lord Inglewood suggested, place in the forefront of our minds every acre brought into fruitful production by means of sound land drainage and irrigation.
It is very important to take in close association with that the asset to which my noble friend Lord Ferrers referred, namely, the system of land tenure, which is one of our principle assets in the Euro
302
pean Community. I should declare an interest because, like the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, I have been closely associated with Oxfam for some years. I think that the noble Lord would agree with me that a basic root cause of famine and the loss of agricultural production in countries throughout the world has been an unsatisfactory land tenure system. This is an absolutely basic point, and it involves one of the lessons which we in these islands have learned. We learnt it with great cost in the last century when, at that time, Ireland used the system known as the Rundale system, and modification of that system has contributed towards a thriving agriculture today. It is a lesson which we forget at our peril.
Your Lordships have laid special emphasis on farm structure. In the past 15 years the increase in the size of farms has been a very significant part of the development of agriculture in the United Kingdom. Perhaps we ought to go back a little further in time, because the two Agriculture Acts of 1947 and 1957 are of the greatest significance. We in this House can take great pride in remembering the late Lord Williams of Barn-burgh, the author of an agricultural policy which has served this country very well since the war; and the success of a price support system then introduced, leading on through the late 1940s, the 1950s, and the 1960s, right up until very recently.
The 1957 Act, introduced by a Conservative Government, was of no less significance. Here I join the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, in congratulations and tributes which should be paid to the agricultural advisory services and all that those services have done to make this Act work. Every barn built, every drain laid, and every major construction for the benefit and improvement of agriculture in the past 15 years has stemmed from that Act, and it has been of great importance in preparing this country for entry into Europe.
I do not think that I have previously had the opportunity of expressing from this Dispatch Box my own personal thanks to the staff of the Ministry of Agriculture. Here I should declare an interest in relation to my own estate. I recollect with gratitude what has been achieved in the past few years due to that Act.

303
I turn now to the particular problems raised in the speech of my noble friend Lord Vernon regarding loss of land. This has been dealt with, but insufficient emphasis has been laid on the fact that fields are but factories for the production of food. Perhaps the speech by my noble friend Lord Hertford, when he addressed your Lordships on 7th November 1973, was extraordinarily helpful in crystallising this problem. He said:
"Every mile of motorway uses 40 acres of land; 40 acres of land can, and in Warwickshire last summer did, produce 80 tons of wheat; 40 acres can, and in Warwickshire do, produce 36 gallons of milk every year; 40 acres can and do produce 24,000 lbs. of beef every year; 40 acres can and do produce £14,000 of best English lamb every year—or one mile of motorway."
This land is a very precious asset. Any Government who fail to recognise the present situation do so at their peril. I think that a greater realisation should take place in the Department of the Environment of what they are doing when they commit a large area—such as has been confirmed yesterday with the 1,300 acres in Woodham Ferrers in Essex—to housing development. Of course we need houses; of course we need an enormous number of developments; but we should place agricultural land in a special category. I recognise what the White Paper says. It says:
"Wherever possible the best agricultural land should be safeguarded."
This is an "eel" answer; it is an easy way out. I feel we should reject it.
My Lords, I should like to turn to the international scene and the World Food Conference, because other noble Lords have referred to this. Surely, in the Commonwealth context this has been of very great significance indeed! My noble friend Lord Balniel referred to this in your Lordships' House on the 18th June when he said that after the very near abandonment of a final solution on the World Food Conference there was a coming together of the Commonwealth countries. In his speech, he said:
"First of all, Canada came forward and said she would provide a million tons of grain as aid to the starving areas of the world." —[Official Report, 18/6/75; col. 892.]
Surely, that gesture was something of which the Commonwealth can be very proud! Further, he referred to the
304
Commonwealth Fund for Technical Cooperation and this once again is a very significant activity. We were delighted when the Prime Minister announced in Kingston this year that our contribution was to be raised from £7,500 to £1·5 million. Every effort made by the Commonwealth for technical co-operation is money well invested. Surely this sum is small enough indeed!
My Lords, I should like to turn to what the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, said in regard to the processing industries. With many of his remarks all sides of the House will agree. I should particularly like to refer to a publication with which he will be conversant, one called the Grocer and to quote, if I may, from its current issue. I think it is of great significance in the present situation. The quotation is from an article called, "Inflation and the effect on the Consumer", which reads:
"The housewife faces the dilemma that over the years her family have come to expect good quality food, substantial meat-based meals and plenty of variety of choice and treats when she has a limited purse and may have forgotten or has never acquired any of the cooking, catering or shopping skills of the past. Surely our agricultural policy should very seriously take into account the needs of the housewife as one of the roots of the policy."
Meat-based meals are really one of the principal problems when it comes to the production of protein. I do not think that even the successful efforts of Dr. Norman Pirie at Rothamstead who is trying to produce protein from grass will produce something completely satisfactory. Nevertheless, I welcome heartily the efforts of those who produce from nuts and other substances something which approximates to meat and with which the chemists are working hard to produce a palatable substitute for meat. We have to change our habits somewhat. We all like our cut off the joint if we can afford it; but surely the great thing is variety of diet and taking into account new substances and new commodities. Here I should like heartily to support the remarks of my noble friend Lady Emmet when she suggested that ingenuity was the watchword and demonstrated her own ingenity during the war.
Fish farming is a notable exception from the White Paper. From these Benches, we should very much like to associate ourselves with what the noble.

305
Viscount, Lord Thurso, said. Its omission from this document is a great gap in the agricultural policy. Nevertheless, I think that what the noble Lord said about Annex 2 of the White Paper is of even greater significance: the idea that the smaller the number of agricultural workers, automatically the greater the production on a declining amount of land. This is an illusion which the 18th century writer Voltaire reminded us was the first of pleasures. I believe that that table is an unnecessary illusion. I am quite sure it was not intended to be interpreted in the manner so described. I should like to congratulate the Government on the other tables at the back of that Report because I think they make a useful contribution towards showing how dependent or independent we were of other commodities. I shall not detain your Lordships longer except to say, in closing, that I believe that this debate, if it can bring about a change in Government policy—a variation and co-ordination of Government policies—will have done a great deal of good.
8.18 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, we have had a stimulating and useful debate this evening on these two major aspects of concern to agriculture at present. I have heard almost every speech and I have found it most rewarding. I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Walston, for providing this opportunity for debate on such important topics.
Noble Lords have raised a large number of issues during the course of the afternoon. I shall do my best to deal with as many as I can. My noble friend Lord Hughes dealt with great clarity with the stocktaking of the Common Agricultural Policy and I really think I need add little to what he said. One or two specific points were raised by noble Lords, however, and I shall come to these later. A large part of our debate this afternoon has been devoted to consideration of the Government's White Paper, Food From Our Own Resources. I should like, therefore, to deal with this first and to describe some of the thinking that lay behind the publication of this White Paper.
My Lords, we in Britain have always had to import a substantial proportion of our food supplies. We are a trading
306
nation with limited natural resources and so it is not surprising that we should do so. Today we import roughly half our total needs and we grow in the United Kingdom some 70 per cent. of the food that our climate allows us to produce. But we have to recognise that the world food situation is changing. We can no longer rely on abundant supplies of food at low prices. The last two years have seen huge fluctuations in supply and price—of cereals and sugar, for example —and while we can and will continue to import much of our food from our trading partners overseas, we must recognise that it is only prudent to look to our own sources of supply, our own agricultural resources, to produce more food for ourselves.
Another major factor is the nation's general economic situation. The effect of rapid increases in world food prices on the United Kingdom's food and total trade deficit has been considerable. Between 1972 and 1974, the United Kingdom's net deficit in food and drink rose from £1,750 million to nearly £3,000 million. The total cost of food and drink imports in 1974 is put at almost £4,000 million, which is a massive sum. We must improve our balance of payments situation and agriculture is clearly one of the key areas in helping to do this. The Government also realise that when dealing with agricultural policy it is essential to take a reasonably long-term view. Policy cannot be based simply and solely on yearly examinations and reviews. Agriculture needs a longer-term framework. Producers need to be able to plan having some guidelines about the desired direction of their industry over a period of years rather than months.
These are all considerations of major importance. They are important to the industry. They are important to the nation. It was in recognition of them that my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food started talks last year with the Farmers' Unions, the Landowners' Associations, the agricultural workers, the food industry and others. These were valuable discussions which lasted over a period of almost a year, and were aimed at identifying the long-term prospects and objectives for British agriculture. They stimulated a good deal of hard thinking—not just by the Government and their officials, but

307
among all sides of the industry. They represented a valuable and far-reaching exercise and provided the essential background on which the White Paper is based.
The Government's main conclusions from the discussions, as set out in the White Paper, are threefold. First, the likely levels of world and Community prices for major foodstuffs between now and the early 1980s, and the risks of possible shortages and sharp price fluctuations, justify a policy of expansion of food production in the United Kingdom. My Lords, this is an important and major conclusion. This Government have always been committed to a policy of economic expansion of an efficient home agriculture, as have all Governments in modern times. But in this White Paper we establish the economic justification for this approach. And it is a powerful justification. Secondly, we have concluded that the net product of the agricultural industry should be capable of a continuing expansion of about 2· per cent. a year on average, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, said, and that this is the objective at which the Government and industry should aim. There is a wide measure of agreement between ourselves and the industry on this. Noble Lords will know that the Farmers' Unions published their own projections of output between now and 1980. These implied a similar overall rate of expansion, although the product patterns of the two projections in the NFU's paper differ somewhat from the White Paper.
The White Paper's third conclusion is that, within the overall objective of expansion, most benefit is likely to come from higher output of milk, with its byproduct beef from the dairy herd, and sugar beet. Cereals and sheepmeat should also make a significant contribution. The estimates made have indicated that in 1980 dairying—and the calves produced from it—would be likely to offer the United Kingdom, as a member of the EEC, a greater margin over resources used and a larger import saving per acre, than lowland beef. Similarly, the assessments made indicate that an expansion in sugar beet production would be likely to give both a higher margin of output over inputs and a larger
308
net import saving per acre than cereals. I apologise for these technical terms, my Lords. I should make it clear, though, that we are not calling for beef production to be reduced. It is simply that the analyses that have been made point to the advantages of increases in beef production coming from the dairy herd, rather than the specialised lowland breeding herd. Moreover, as the White Paper recognises, it may still make sense for individual producers, depending on their circumstances, to expand beef-breeding herds.
The White Paper has been widely welcomed and accepted in the industry. But questions have been asked here and outside about what the Government are going to do to stimulate the desired expansion. I can readily understand the points noble Lords have raised. To some extent, of course, the referendum was a factor here. Until we knew the outcome, we did not know whether agricultural policy was to be framed within an EEC context or elsewhere. Now we know the answer, the discussions foreshadowed in the White Paper are going ahead with the interests concerned to determine whether there are specific measures which it would be right and practicable to take in pursuance of the White Paper's aims. Noble Lords will know that my right honourable friend initiated these discussions in May, when he met the Presidents of the Farmers' Unions. Among the topics being covered are the effectiveness of capital and production grants, including possible ways of adjusting incentives for the better use and conservation of grass; the effect of capital taxation on agricultural production (referred to by several noble Lords in this debate); the effect of the Green Pound on farmers' support and market prices; and the beef market prospects. My Lords, I clearly cannot say tonight what will be the outcome of these studies. Some of them will take longer than others. But I do know that my right honourable friend is closely concerned with the progress that is being made.
The noble Lord, Lord Vernon, referred to the report called Losing Ground prepared by the Friends of the Earth. He was good enough to send me a copy of this and I have read it with much interest. This was prepared before the Government published the White Paper Food

309
from Our Own Resources. This deals with many of the points made by the Friends of the Earth. I do not want to comment in detail on their report this afternoon, but it contains some suggestions to which the Government attach considerable importance; for example, the need to make better use of our grassland. Noble Lords will know that my right honourable friend is currently looking into this. I should like to thank the noble Lord for drawing attention to the report.
My Lords, I have attempted to give an indication of the Government's thinking in publishing the White Paper, and to answer the specific points raised in relation to it by noble Lords. Before leaving the White Paper, I should, however, like to reiterate that it represents an attempt to set objectives for agriculture over a period of years. It must be judged on that basis. Agriculture is not a short-term industry. Short-term decisions and short-term judgments do not help the industry. We have established guidelines for the years ahead. These are a valuable planning framework for producers. Moreover, the Government have stated that they will be framing their agricultural policies in the light of the White Paper's conclusions. We are now engaged in these discussions, as I have said. I should like now to turn to points made by noble Lords during the course of the debate.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves general matters, he referred to the Government's policy in relation to getting more beef from the dairy herd, and in relation to not looking for more beef from the lowland herd. He did not refer to the Government's policy in relation to the hill cow herd. Can the noble Lord give us any idea whether the Government have a policy in relation to the hill cow?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, that was one of the questions raised by noble Lords that I was going to try to answer. I have a long list here, so perhaps the noble Viscount will bear with me. I should like to turn first to the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester regarding the world food shortage. This was a matter which was also referred to by my noble friend Lord Wallace of Coslany. It has been said that these expansion plans may have an
310
adverse effect on our help to developing countries. The Government are aware of the concern which has been expressed here today, and elsewhere, about the shortage of food in developing countries. Indeed, the White Paper refers specifically to the need to keep in mind the interests of the developing countries, both as producers and consumers.
The economic expansion of our own food production envisaged in the White Paper would by 1980 reduce our annual demand for imported food supplies by the equivalent of £500 million. To be successful, however, this expansion must be based upon economically viable methods of production. This implies the continuing use of feed grain as well as other animal feed; but the White Paper emphasises the importance of improving the use of our grassland for feeding livestock. We believe that this policy of increasing our home production on a sound economic basis represents a more practical approach than trying to impose artificial restraints on this country's pattern of production and consumption.
Several noble Lords mentioned the safeguarding of agricultural land. It was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, by the noble Viscount, Lord Arbuthnott, and by the noble Lord, Lord Vernon. The White Paper recognises the implications of the loss of land for agricultural production. It re-states the Government's policy of ensuring that, wherever possible, agricultural land of high quality is not used for development where land of a lower quality is available. Moreover, it is the Government's policy that land taken for development is the minimum necessary, consonant with reasonable standards.
There was also the question of development land, which was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. The Government's proposals for development land are now being discussed in another place, but these are not concerned with land which is to remain in use for agriculture. However, the Government have announced their intention of strengthening the quota arrangements and are consulting the Department of my right honourable friend about the proposals for development by giving them for the first time statutory effect through amendment of the Town and Country General Development Orders.

311
The question of capital taxation reliefs was also mentioned and the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, mentioned livestock. The relief on agricultural land in respect of capital transfer tax and capital gains tax relates only to the land itself. Farmers' other assets, including stock, would be assessed according to their value at the relevant time. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, asked me about credit facilities. As the Government have recognised in the White Paper, there is a need to keep under review the availability of these credit facilities. This we are doing in the discussions we are having with the farmers' unions. The Economic Development Committee for Agriculture has also set up a finance section to look at the financial resources available to agriculture and how these will affect the industry up to the 1980s.
Several noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Walston, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones and the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, raised the important question of research. We shall, of course, take careful note of what has been said but, in common with all activities financed from the public purse, agricultural research and development has had to accept some reduction in its funding because of the need to limit public expenditure. In the current year the Agricultural Research Council will receive, in real terms, only marginally less than in 1974/75. The Government recognise the importance of R and D in agriculture, particularly in the context of the recent White Paper. We have this fully in mind and shall certainly take note of what has been said today.
My noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder mentioned seaweed, and his remarks will be carefully considered. He also asked me about triticale. This is something which he mentioned first on the 15th April. As I was not able to give him an answer here then, it is only fair that I should try to give him one today. I understand that this is a crop between wheat and rye, and that a few farmers have grown it in this country for feed. The crop may indeed have some potential, as my noble friend has indicated, but a great deal more research is needed to overcome the problem of ergot infection and other drawbacks before
312
commercial production on any scale is likely. The Agricultural Development Advisory Service is continuing to watch developments.
Several speakers mentioned the question of tied cottages. It is the Government's firm intention to honour their commitment to abolish tied cottages, as foreshadowed in the last two Election Manifestos. This is not open to doubt. The Government will be publishing a consultative document in the near future which will form the basis of discussions with interested organisations, including the Country Landowners' Association, the National Farmers' Unions and the workers' unions and local authority associations, on the best ways of fulfilling the commitment and on the precise nature of the legislation needed. I have taken careful note of the useful suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, about giving priority in council housing. I know that he has raised this matter before, and I will go into it.
Lord BALERNO: My Lords, would the noble Lord permit me to ask him a question about tied cottages in Scotland? Is he aware that farm workers in Scotland have joined with the Farmers' Union in Scotland in asking that the present system there be not changed?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am sure we shall take note of what has been said and that this will be taken into account in the discussions. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and the noble Lord, Lord Rathcreedan, spoke about the milk surplus in the EEC and how this squared with the proposals in the White Paper. There is no inconsistency in the expansion of United Kingdom production against the background of a Community surplus. It is clearly sensible to make the most of our own national resources. We have the right climate and our grassland is well suited to milk production. Moreover, our farmers are efficient. It is inefficient production which must be discouraged. I am sure that this is the Commission's view, as well as our own. Our producers have still some way to go to before reaching full EEC support levels, though they would have some improvement in support levels to come even if full EEC support prices were held down.

313
The noble Lord, Lord Rathcreedan, asked about brucellosis. Various aspects of the brucellosis eradication scheme are being reviewed and the results will be announced as soon as possible. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, asked about grassland, and he and other noble Lords have quite properly drawn attention to the prime importance of improving the production and conservation of grass if the White Paper targets are to be reached. The White Paper mentions the intensified programme of work by our advisory services. This is at present aimed primarily at improving conservation, bearing in mind the problems of last winter. The study of incentives also referred to has made progress. There have been some discussions with the interests concerned and we hope to announce the conclusions of the study in the autumn.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, as the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso reminded us, raised the question of hill farmers. The Government fully appreciate the difficulties which have faced livestock producers in the hills. The cold spell and wet weather this spring of course did not help. But the much improved fatstock market situation, with better prices for store and cull cattle, and improving prices for farmers, should bring, we hope, some relief, especially if reflected in the autumn sales. The noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, spoke about fish farming, a subject she has made very much her own. In fact, she is almost becoming the leading expert in the House on this fascinating subject. We take note of all that she has said and I am sure there are great potentials in this.
The noble Lord, Lord Rathcreedan, also asked about the dairy herd conversion scheme. The EEC Council of Ministers decided in January that this EEC scheme should be suspended from 31st December 1974. However, producers who applied before that date to join the scheme were allowed until 30th June to decide whether or not to commit themselves to the scheme. No new applicants have, however, been accepted since 31st December. My Lords, I hope that that answers most of the points raised by noble Lords. As I say, I think we have had a very useful debate, and
314
we are most grateful to my noble friend for raising this matter.
8.43 p.m.
Lord WALSTON: My Lords, this has been a long debate, but I have listened to all the speeches, as many of your Lordships have done, with interest and profit. I thank all those who have taken part for having done so with so much thought, and for giving us the benefit of their knowledge. I am also most grateful to my noble friend Lord Straholgi for the very painstaking and conscientious way in which he has dealt with all the questions that have been raised. It is gratifying that there has been, I think I may say, complete acceptance of your Select Committee's Report on the stocktaking of the Common Agricultural Policy; and, what is more gratifying, perhaps, complete acceptance of the fact that the Common Agricultural Policy has changed considerably from what it was originally and from what some people feared it might remain. It has shown that it is flexible; that it can change to meet conditions; that it is becoming more consumer-orientated and, more important than that, that it is becoming more outward-looking and concerned with the Third World and with world trade. It is also quite clear that there is nothing in it which in any way need conflict with the interests of this country from the agricultural point of view.
So far as the White Paper is concerned, here again we have found a large measure of acceptance and approval of it. There has been a unanimous feeling that the world food situation and the nation's economic situation are such that we ought to press forward with a substantial measure of expansion of our agriculture. What is more, that is completely possible technically from our point of view. The general lines which the Government have set out in the White Paper appear to have been accepted by all noble Lords who have spoken. I am glad that there has been such emphasis on fish, and to hear that the Government are taking note of that. Undoubtedly it is something which can provide a very large increase to the very short supplies of protein in the country.
The only point that disturbs me, having listened to all the speeches and to the

315
replies we have had from Government speakers, is that there seems to be a lack of urgency on the part of the Government. All that they have said I agree with; all that they are trying to do I think we on all sides of the House agree with. But when in reply to the strong points that have been made concerning research and the long-term nature of research it is said, with almost satisfaction on the part of the Government, that there has been only a small decrease in the amount of real resources, that is to me most disturbing. I fully accept the stringencies and the economic problems that exist. If the Government say that there is not enough money for research, they must at the same time say that in five years' time we shall have less food than we otherwise would have; and they must face up to that. But if they say we must have more food in five year's time, the money must be found from somewhere.
It is always difficult to cut; expenditure can be cut in some respects and it is a question of priorities. But we cannot fool ourselves, and the Government cannot fool themselves—I am sure they are not trying to fool us—into believing they can achieve their objectives of increased food production and increased efficiency in food at the same time as they make, even marginally, less money available to research. The same goes for the problem of financing expansion from the farmers' point of view. I accept the reasons why the talks have been delayed. I am happy that they are going on and it is right that they should. But the Govenment must realise that, until the results of those talks come out and are seen to be satisfactory, any beginnings of expansion will be delayed.
Another factor the Government must take into consideration is that confidence in the agricultural industry, as on previous occasions many speakers have pointed out, has been shaken. The longer there is delay in restoring that confidence, the more difficult and the more costly it will be. He who gives quickly gives twice—and that applies just as much to the agricultural industry as to charity. I urge the Government to treat these matters with the greatest possible urgency so that by the end of the coming harvest season we know precisely where we are and what
316
resources are to be made available to us. If that is done, I am quite confident that the agricultural industry will respond. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
On Question, Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

RESIDENTIAL COLLEGES
8.49 p.m.
Viscount BRIDGEMAN Viscount BRIDGEMAN rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that under present conditions of financial stringency a number of the existing short term residential colleges in this country will be obliged to close their doors within the next few months and whether they have any proposals for preventing this. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, as the agricultural debate drew to a close and the Chamber predictably emptied there came to my mind an 18th century couplet:
"The ploughman homeward plods his weary way.
And leaves the world to darkness and to me"—
and, of course, to the noble Lord who is to reply and to others who are to support me. As the noble Lord is a much better scholar than I am, he will not need me to tell him where that quotation comes from.
My reason for asking this Question arose because I am a member of the governing body of the Adult College at Attingham in Shropshire. Unless financial help is forthcoming from a fresh quarter, that college is likely to face closure at about the end of the year. However, I do not think I would have taken up the time of the House on the problems of one institution unless, when I came to look into the matter, I had found that out of about 30 colleges of the same kind in the country about half were in the same boat or were likely to embark in it. I believe that this emerged at a conference which the Principals of the Short-Term Residental Colleges held at about Easter-time. If I am right over that, the problem is not a local one affecting one institution but a national one, as I shall try to show in a very few minutes. I believe that already one college in Kent has closed and that another one in Buckinghamshire—Huntercombe—is scheduled to

317
close at the end of the year, and I have mentioned my own college at Attingham.
The reasons are perfectly simple. All of these colleges derive their income partly from students' fees and partly from public money—mainly from the local authorities. Very few of them have private endowments. Especially under conditions of inflation, a well-managed college will naturally do everything it can to keep its fees up to the highest level that the, so to speak, traffic can stand, but there comes a point when the exercise becomes counter-productive if you try to raise the fees unduly and fewer students come. It would be true to say of every adult college that in the last 12 months it has not been possible in practice to raise the fees at the same rate as inflation. Any budget which anybody tries to prepare for the coming 12 months is likely to show that tendency to be even more pronounced.
If, therefore, the Short-Term Residential Colleges are to continue in their present form, more public money—whether it comes direct from the Government or from local authorities—will have to be injected into them. That money will be required not only to meet the inflation element related to their previous local government grants but also to meet the shortfall because of the impossibility—as I have tried to explain—of getting students' fees raised productively at the same rate as inflation.
In the ordinary way, Central Government—whoever they are—might well be justified in taking the line that the problem is one for local authorities. In other words, in normal times it would be quite usual for them to say that local authorities are responsible for maintaining short-term institutions and that it is for them to give that task the right priority in their annual budgets. If one now took that line, the answer for many local authorities would certainly be, No. At the moment every local council is under extreme pressure to cut its expenditure. It is under pressure from Central Government, and the pressure from local ratepayers is even harder to resist.
In practice, that kind of pressure falls harder on the smaller counties with a smaller rateable value and a smaller population. Again, anybody who has served on the finance
318
committee of a local authority—as I have for several years—knows only too well that when the call comes to cut expenditure very few areas of expenditure are capable of being cut. You cannot close schools; you are bound to meet nationally-agreed pay awards. Therefore, when you look for the lambs to be sacrificed you find that the lambs have to come from one or two clearly defined areas. They have to come from the revenue contributions to capital. They come from rating expenditure on the roads, in the same way as when the Exchequer is hard put to it it always raises taxes on tea and tobacco. Finally, they come from the non-statutory and, what one might call, "fringe" activities like adult colleges and so on. If in these straits a local authority finds that the local adult college must go to the wall, one cannot fail to appreciate their reasoning.
The question now is whether we leave it at that tonight, whether the Government are prepared to stand by while one college after another closes, and whether they realise that if this happens all the King's horses and all the King's men will not put them together again. It will be impossible to revive them. At the least, they will be closed for a very long time—probably for ever. Therefore, this area of adult education will become a dead letter. I do not suppose that any of this is news to the Government, but in case they have forgotten about the Russell Report this is the right moment to mention it. In that Report there is a long chapter called the "Government Lead".
I am going to quote only one or two lines from paragraph 158. It says:
"We feel sure that, had there been a consistent lead from the Secretary of State ever since 1944 for the effective provision of adult education, this situation would never have arisen. We also believe that the duty of local education authorities in this matter would have been clearer had there been separate mention, by name, of adult education in Section 41 of the Act …"
Then it gives particulars of the Act with which I shall not trouble the House now. I have quoted this paragraph in the Russell Report to show that the problem had been pinpointed, and that now the crow has come home to roost. The Government of the day received the Report in December 1972. So far as I know, the Department have done nothing about

319
it from that day to this under either Government, except for one small matter which does not affect this case.
This brings me to a point which is fairly familiar to anybody who has been in this House for a long time. Every so often one comes across a case of this kind which is said to be an ordinary administrative problem, but when one looks into it more carefully one finds that it is nothing of the kind, and that handling the administrative problem in the way that is proposed, or leaving it alone, will result in the stultifying of some other piece of Government policy which we are not told about. It is the function of the House to draw attention to matters of this kind when it thinks that they have appeared.
There is no doubt in my mind that if the matter is allowed to slide, and adult colleges are allowed to close one by one, the effect will be to stultify that portion of the Butler Act under which adult colleges were set up and which has run with success for 30 years. If the bell is going to toll for a place like Hunter-combe and Attingham, it is only fair both to the local authorities and to the governing bodies of these places that they should know where the Government stand, and know it in what I am quite sure is the proper way, that is, by a Statement in Parliament. That, my Lords, is why I put down this Question. I await with interest the Answer which I hope the noble Lord will give me. Therefore, I beg leave to ask the Un-starred Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
8.59 p.m.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, may I support the observations which have been made by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, in regard to the difficulties of residential colleges at this time. I do so in view of my interest, which is that of chairman of an educational charitable trust known as the Brantwood Trust, with which I have been concerned for about 18 years. The duty of the Brantwood Trust is to look after the home of John Ruskin at Coniston in the Lake District. It is a very ugly house with about 30 to 40 rooms and 250 acres of land in a beautiful situation, and if the House will bear with me for just a few
320
moments I should like to deal with some personal matters.
When I became involved with this charity, it owned many hundreds of pictures and drawings by John Ruskin and contemporaries of his, and also many thousands of letters associated with him. It became a hobby of myself and my wife to convert this almost derelict house and its grounds into something more habitable. We were fortunate in that after spending many thousands of pounds on the property, we were able to encourage one national institution to take it over at a peppercorn rent and to run it for a few years. Financial difficulties arose and at that stage the trustees—myself and my colleagues—felt unable to accept a large grant for capital improvements that had been generously offered to us because at that time, which was over 10 years ago, we did not think that the financial stability of the Trust was adequate to support further capital improvements.
I was then fortunate in becoming associated with principals of technical colleges and universities, and with an admirable staff we were able to build at Brantwood a project which involved giving courses to some 30 students at a time from these technical colleges and the universities. At the same time the house had to be held open for the public to visit and look around, and see the pictures and the other Ruskiniana that were present there. This was happily going forwards until about 18 months ago, when the cost of living went up, the salaries of staff rose immensely and we also found that the local authorities and the universities were unable—or unwilling—to increase their payments for charges for these residential students.
I understand that members of staff of the Department of Education and Science attended courses, and thought they were very interesting and useful in the progressive attitude that was then taken by certain principals of technical colleges in the modern education of their students of technology. As a result, we found that the local educational authorities became late in their payments and just could not increase their payments to us. Therefore the trustees, with great reluctance and in view of the fact that our endowments consisted of only a few hundred pounds, which was just adequate to put back the slates that were so

321
frequently blown off the roof in the winter on that house in the Lake District, to a large extent have now had to close our doors to residential courses, and we endeavour to rely on daily visitors and the tourists who now come so frequently to the Lake District.
I am sure your Lordships will understand that this is something in the nature of a cri de coeur. The project at Brant-wood has been well accepted in educational circles. It provided a house of great historical interest, in an environment associated with artistic matters of a unique character, and many people have expressed to me their deep regret that these courses have had to be cancelled. Of course, the trustees hope to revive these courses at Brantwood and I have been wondering whether it would be possible for the Government to consider any small help—for instance, in the way of alleviation in relation to rates for a charitable institution of this kind. Of course, we realise the problems of the present financial stringency, and the difficulty the Government would have in giving grants. I thank noble Lords for their patience in listening to me while I expressed my experience of the ravaging effect of the monster of inflation on private individuals like my colleagues and myself as trustees of the Brantwood Trust. in endeavouring to further educational progress in the way we succeeded in doing over a period of 10 years.
Lord BALERNO: My Lords, I should like to intervene briefly in this short debate. I happen to be the Governor of such a college in Scotland—New Battle Abbey—and I confirm what my noble friend Lord Bridgeman has said about times of economic crisis and the reluctance of local authorities to help out students going to such colleges. So far as New Battle Abbey is concerned, we have a large proportion of students coming from South of the Border, so anything that is going wrong with local authorities South of the Border will obviously affect us as well.
I should just like to remark on the civilising effect that these colleges have. They provide a need for a certain type of person who does not have the time, shall I say, to study at the Open University and who wishes to pick up something additional to his life, and to his interests in life, in order to broaden his outlook as
322
he gets older. I trust that the Government will give sympathetic consideration to the plea of my noble friend and that of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran.
9.7 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Crowther-Hunt): My Lords, I am sure we are grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, for asking this Question and for the clarity and restraint of what he said. We are grateful, too, to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, for giving us his direct experiences in this area and for telling us of the initiatives which his Trust has so admirably shown. This gives me the opportunity to clarify the position of the Government on short-term residential colleges generally. I welcome this opportunity of doing so. Of course, I recognise the profound disappointment of the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, that having worked so far for his own college, Attingham, the Governors are now having to face the final decision on whether it should close.
Let me begin by saying something about the short-term residential colleges, which were the subject of the noble Viscount's Question. There are some 35 of these in England and Wales. I will come shortly to the point made about Scotland by the noble Lord, Lord Balerno. The short-term residential colleges in England and Wales are maintained by local education authorities or jointly by a group of authorities. Others belong to university extra-mural departments, voluntary organisations or independent sponsors. Students go to them for a day or two, a weekend or sometimes a little longer to benefit from opportunities for study in a residential setting. And the courses at these colleges seem almost infinite in their variety. Their range is a testimony to the spread of interests that can capture the minds of men. Far from undervaluing these colleges, the Government see them as an important component of our adult education service. They form an essential part of a varied and comprehensive service of adult education, although the further development of that service is impeded by our present economic difficulties. In debate after debate in this House we have the question of a little

323
more money, the little more that would solve all the problems for all our good causes and, of course, there are so very many good causes.
My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, asked whether the Government are aware that under present conditions of financial stringency some of the short-term colleges will be obliged to shut their doors in the next few months. In his speech he said that a large number were in the same boat as his own college of Attingham.
We are of course aware that all the short-term colleges are feeling the effects of present financial stringency—as, indeed, is the whole education service. We could not expect otherwise, since education cannot be exempted from the economic difficulties facing us all. But it would be wrong to allow the impression that the number of short-term colleges about to close is large. Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools keep us in touch with the affairs of these colleges. They have identified some 5 or 6 of the 35 where the future is in jeopardy—including Attingham, Huntercombe Manor, and Kingsgate College in Kent. which were mentioned by the noble Viscount. But in some of these cases arrangements are being worked out which, I hope, will enable them to carry on with, perhaps, a rather different role. No one who values education can with equanimity face the prospect of the closure of any institution. Yet the picture is by no means one of unrelieved gloom. Local education authorities generally are making every effort they can, despite present financial stringency, to preserve these colleges. Indeed, only last month a new, purpose-built college was opened by Lancashire Education Authority at Chorley.
The noble Viscount also asked whether the Government have any proposals for preventing the closure of those short-term colleges threatened by the present conditions of financial stringency. In his speech he implied that the danger to these colleges, and to adult education in general, arose from the absence of a Government lead on the Russell Report. The present conditions of financial stringency affect us all—the local authorities as well as the governing bodies of inde
324
pendent colleges; everyone in the country as well as adult education students; all public services as well as education and, of course, the Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget Statement announced cuts of £1,100 million in public expenditure programmes planned for 1976–77. And my right honourable friends are now urgently having to reassess their priorities for the education service in England, Wales and Scotland to achieve its share in that saving. This amounts to some £86 million from the spending of about £4,753 million originally planned for next year's expenditure on education, libraries, science and the Arts.
That is the context in which I have to consider the noble Viscount's Question and his remarks about the lack of a Government lead on the Russell Report. It is a context in which we now know we have less money for 1976–77 than we had originally planned. It is a situation in which we shall be severely restricted in what we can do. Constraining though these circumstances are, I cannot rule out the possibility of worse to come.
But even if we had the resources to help the short-term colleges, there are other factors we have to consider. Most of the colleges are maintained by local education authorities. The adult education provision of local education authorities is funded by central Government, not by direct grant from my Department for particular purposes, but by the rate support grant settlement. It is for each local authority, and not for my right honourable friend, to decide how to allocate its available resources between, and within, its various services. Even if more resources were provided through rate support grant, it would be for the local authorities to determine their application, as I know the noble Viscount recognises.
There is also the fact that each of the short-term colleges largely serves a local need. But they also attract students from wider areas—including countries overseas. Where short courses of a few days are concerned, it is inevitable that local people will make the most use of them—if for no other reason than the high cost of travelling a long distance. And there

325
is great value in these colleges being geared to the needs of the adult education service in their own particular areas.
For these reasons, my Department has followed the policy that, unlike the six long-term adult colleges, such as Ruskin, and New Battle Abbey mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, which serve a national need and are independent institutions—and they have been specifically included in aid for long-term residential colleges in the 1975 Act of Parliament; I am glad we have been able to do that by making grants for people attending these colleges mandatory—grant aid is not given to the short-term residential colleges. If a local education authority judges that there is need for a short-term residential college in its area, and has the resources to do so, it can maintain its own college, share in its provision with one or more other authorities, or assist an independent institution.
This does not mean that we have washed our hands of the short-term residential colleges. As the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman knows, I visited his college, Attingham, in January of this year, and a very pleasurable and instructive day it was. Attingham has a delightful and historic setting, and a well-deserved reputation. It was to help keep Attingham open that, in 1973, my Department agreed to grant-aid courses at the college which were provided by Birmingham University's Extra-mural Department as part of their approved programme. By this means both the Department and the University of Birmingham made a substantial effort to help the college with its difficulties. But I had to tell the Governors when I met them in January that I did not see how we could offer further assistance, although I undertook to ask Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools to take whatever action they could to try to find other local authorities willing to take a share in assisting the college. I still hope that, even at this late stage, other authorities will join Salop County Council and the Metropolitan District of Walsall in assisting Attingham. If that were the outcome of this debate, it would be a happy one indeed.
The noble Lord also mentioned Huntercombe Manor, a short-term college maintained by Buckinghamshire County Coun
326
cil. My understanding is that the local authority has decided to close the college but that its actual closure has still to take place. Since it is maintained by the local education authority, its future is inevitably a matter for the authority. But my right honourable friend's predecessor asked a member of Her Majesty's Inspectorate to make some inquiries to see whether other solutions could be explored.
My Lords, while my right honourable friend does not provide grant aid for the short-term colleges—and would find it difficult to contemplate doing so for the reasons I have given—we are doing our best with that reservation to help them. The Department's advice and the experience and knowledge of Her Majesty's Inspectorate are readily given, and we will always seek solutions where solutions can be found. I regret that these stop short of grant aid. But I greatly hope that no college doors will be closed finally until all possibilities have been explored.
I now come to the point the noble Lord made about the lack of a Government lead on the Russell Report and the way in which, in his view, this threatens adult education in general and the short-term colleges in particular. My Lords, what has caused the delay on the Russell Report is not any lack of sympathy on the Government's part towards it or towards adult education in general. It has been due to the deteriorating economic conditions of the country. Certainly, when my right honourable friend's predecessor said last July that the Government were ready to open discussions, we did not anticipate then the further deterioration in those conditions which has since taken place. In consequence, we are having to reassess the possibilities for the future.
We are now re-examining the extent to which, in the light of the public expenditure savings required by the nation's economic circumstances, realistic options are still open to us as a basis for wider discussions about Sir Lionel Russell's report. Unfortunately—and I have to say this—the possibilities are far smaller and fewer than we should have wished.
I am grateful to both noble Lords for raising these difficult questions and to the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, for raising

327
the question of New Battle Abbey. It has enabled us to consider the needs of adult education and, in particular, of the short-term colleges. The Government value adult education as an essential part of our national education service. We believe that adults should be provided, as resources permit—and I stress that phrase—with opportunities to return to education when they need to do so at stages throughout their lives. We know that the adult education service has waited long for action on the Russell Report; and we hope to begin the wider discus
328
sions as soon as practicable. As to the short-term residential colleges, I end where I began. These colleges are a valuable component of our adult education provision. We should not lightly lose what has benefited so many in the past—and could benefit so many more in the years ahead. I have explained the Government's position in this respect; and I greatly hope that, before any decisions are taken to close a college's doors, every other possible solution will be explored.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes past nine o'clock.