Sitting of 3 July 1975

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

  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time upon Monday next.

  SCOTTISH TRANSPORT GROUP (PORT ELLEN HARBOUR) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Read the Third time and passed.
  DUNDEE HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION
  Mr. William Ross presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Dundee Harbour; and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Wednesday next and to be printed. [Bill 193.]
  DUNDEE PORT AUTHORITY ORDER CONFIRMATION
  Mr. William Ross presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Dundee Port Authority; and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Wednesday next and to be printed. [Bill 194.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Green Pound
    Mr. Charles Morrisonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the present disparity between the present rate of the green pound and the true value of the pound sterling; what the disparity was when last devalued; and whether he will now consider devaluing the green pound again.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): The difference between the representative rate and market rate for the £ sterling as calculated for the purposes of MCAs to be applied this week was almost 20 per cent. In February, when the last representative rate change was agreed, the gap was about 15 per cent. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Welsh) on 20th June.—[Vol. 893, col. 564.]
    Mr. Morrison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a further realignment of the green pound is necessary in order to restore confidence? Does he accept that, if this is not done, it will be virtually impossible for the Government to achieve any of the objectives set out in its recent White Paper? When does he intend to raise the matter with his European colleagues?
    Mr. Peart: I accept that certain sections of opinion in the agriculture industry in this country would like a further move in this direction. In my reply to the hon. Member for South Angus I said that the effect of the United Kingdom representative rate was one of the questions that I was considering in current discussions with the agricultural industry. Representations have been made to me and I have had informal talks with the European Commission. I shall take note of everything the hon. Member said.
    Mr. Torney: In discussing the question of the green pound with the Commission, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that while a change might help the farmers it would have an adverse effect

    1649
    on the consumer? We are all agreed on the need to hold or reduce inflation. Does my right hon. Friend not agree that this would be a bad time to make such a change, because it would force up the price of food, particularly basic food, which we surely all want to avoid?
    Mr. Peart: In matters of this kind I have to balance the views of producers and consumers. It is true that a reduction in the rate would affect consumers generally, and that even those buying feeding stuffs could suffer. This is another factor that I have to take into account.
    Mr. Wiggin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no need to obtain further agreement from Brussels to retain the level? The decision is in the Government's own hands. Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the British farmer is no longer content to see his wealth and investment being used for purposes which should be the responsibility of the Government? When will he deal with this matter? Will it, as it should, be before the end of the month?
    Mr. Peart: I have considered the views of the producers and given a promise to the hon. Member who asked me to raise this matter in the Commission. I accept that it is my responsibility.
    Mr. Brothertonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions his Department has had with the EEC officials concerning a devaluation of the green pound.
    Mr. Peart: My Department is in close touch with the Commission on all aspects of the common agricultural policy, but there have been no formal discussions on the green pound.
    Mr. Brotherton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the serious implications of a partial devaluation of the green pound, particularly on wheat? Will he ensure that any agreed devaluation is to the full extent necessary to bring the green pound back in line with the £ sterling?
    Mr. Peart: I cannot comment on that, because no agreement has been reached.
    Mr. John Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that farmers generally regard the totally illusory exchange rate use for converting Community prices to
    1650
    British equivalents as being at the heart of their total disregard of the Government's policy as set out in the White Paper? Having regard to what the right hon. Gentleman said on the stocktaking document, will he ensure that his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House brings this matter forward for early debate, so that we can deal with it with the gravity that it deserves rather than in the cursory manner of Questions?
    Mr. Peart: I do not dissent from the right hon. Gentleman's remark that this is an important matter. As I said, we have had no formal discussions in the Community on this matter, but there have been informal discussions.
    Mr. Peter Mills: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that words, White Papers, discussions and consultations do not produce the extra food required by this country? Will he now start to take action and give the resources necessary to British agriculture, which can be done by helping with the green pound?
    Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman is good at using words. I agree that all will depend on the resources that we put into the industry.
    Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in the light of a continued fall of the £ sterling on the world markets, he will consider introducing a system whereby the green pound is automatically readjusted at regular intervals to ensure reasonable parity between prices received by United Kingdom farmers and continental farmers.
    Mr. Peart: This is one of the questions raised by the Commission in its report on the stocktaking of the CAP which we are considering.
    Mr. Hurd: When the Minister holds formal talks on this subject, will he put forward a proposal on those lines? Is the 20 per cent. gap, which he revealed this afternoon, between the true rate and the green rate, not at an intolerable record level? Why should farmers alone of the community have to pay a special and extra penalty as a result of the Government's failure to maintain the value of the pound?
    Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman asks for automatic adjustments. We must consider the needs not only of farmers but of consumers and livestock producers, because of the monetary compensatory amounts which are paid.

    Common Fishing Policy
    Mr. Brittanasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has put to the EEC Commission for the reorganisation of the common fishing policy.
    The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Edward Bishop): We have gained the agreement of the Council of Ministers to a reappraisal of the common fisheries policy. At this stage it would be premature for me to say more.
    Mr. Brittan: Does the Minister realise that it would be most helpful if we could have some idea of the lines on which the Government hope that the policy will be reorganised? Does he accept that we ought to know when it will be reorganized, because there is considerable anxiety among inshore fishermen about what will happen after 1982, when the present arrangements end?
    Mr. Bishop: I appreciate the hon. Member's anxiety, and as I have toured a number of fishing ports, I am well aware of the concern there. Our fishing industry is the largest in the Community and we have stressed this to our partners. We shall have to consider this matter in the light of possible changes in the international fisheries régime. With regard to the hon. Member's second point, there is provision for a review to take place by 1982. My right hon. Friend has made clear in Brussels and elsewhere that we want changes before then and would expect a review much earlier.
    Mr. James Johnson: Does the Minister not accept that the EEC policy was chipped, chiselled and planned for six Continental countries before the accession of ourselves and Ireland? Is he aware that the House is united on this matter—hon. Members from all the fishing ports are in agreement—and wants him to fight consistently and fiercely at the earliest possible moment for changes to be made?
    Mr. Bishop: I think that my hon. Friend will be aware of the visits that my right hon. Friend and I have made to the fishing areas. We have made clear time and time again that we have not waited for 1982. Already my right hon. Friend has succeeded in obtaining Community agreement on a package of measures including export refunds, storage aids and minimum entry prices. These steps will help the competitive position of our market, but we recognise that other measures will have to be taken into account most urgently.
    Mr. Beith: Did the Minister note, as a result of his visit to the Northumberland fishing ports, that only a six-mile limit was granted to the area in the previous negotiations? It is important to retain a reserved area for fishermen in this country, and there should not be discrimination against areas like North Northumberland, as happened under the previous policy.
    Mr. Bishop: An aim of the Government is to protect the interests of inshore fishermen in all these discussions. Our visits have been most helpful in allowing us to realise even more the situation which must be taken into account in Brussels.

    Dairy Industry
    Mr. Boscawenasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by what number the national dairy herd has declined since February 1974; what the decline in milk production in gallonage terms has been over the same period; and if he will take steps designed to arrest this decline and facilitate the expansion of the British dairy herd as outlined in a recent Government White Paper on the expansion of British agriculture.
    Mr. Temple-Morrisasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps designed to arrest the present decline in the national dairy herd in order to fulfil his aims set out in a recent White Paper on the expansion of agriculture; and when he intends to take this action.
    Mr. Rathboneasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will announce the Government's decision regarding new milk prices for the remainder of 1975.
    Sir J. Langford-Holtasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in view of the further fall in confidence of farmers in the future of the dairy industry, whether he will now make a statement on the state of the industry.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang): Figures for the United Kingdom dairy herd are available on a December or June basis only. Between December 1973 and December 1974, the latest date for which figures are available, the herd declined by 154,000. Sales of milk through the milk marketing boards were 82 million gallons less in the 12 months ending 31st December 1974 than in the 12 months ending 31st December 1973.
    The Government are considering with the interests concerned what measures might be right and practicable to take in furtherance of the aims set out in the Government's White Paper.
    Mr. Boscawen: Do these figures not reveal that the Ministry has presided over nearly 18 months of continual, persistent and unremitting decline in the dairy herd, a decline in the return on every cow, a serious fall in the number of inseminations, and a serious decline in moral in the industry generally? If that is true, will he tell the people that if they want the production of milk and other dairy products to continue they will have to pay a great deal more for them than the idiotically unrealistic price of 6p a pint that they are being asked today? If he will not tell them that, will he say what the Prime Minister meant when he said that help would be available to the industry?
    Mr. Strang: The hon. Member's initial remarks completely ignore the hammering which the dairy industry took in the autumn of 1973, and take no account of the fact that the Government have increased the guaranteed price by no less than 32 per cent. Of course, this decline must be reversed if we are to secure the increase in production which we wish.
    Mr. Swain: Is the Minister aware that the dairy herd has not improved whilst the beef and veal herds have improved by 25 per cent. since April last year? Is not the disastrous effect of this going to be that within 12 months from now we
    1654
    shall have to import liquid milk from the Continent?
    Mr. Strang: My hon. Friend's latter point is a little alarmist. He will recognise that the improvement in the beef market which was secured as a result of my right hon. Friend's intervention, has been very much in the industry's interests.
    Mr. Rathbone: Is the Minister aware that many people share the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain), that by their own admission the Government have not done enough to help the dairy herd in the last two years? If action is not taken quickly, milk supplies to families and, most particularly, to children during this coming winter will be jeopardised. Imports will have to be increased, putting a greater pressure on the already beleaguered pound.
    Mr. Strang: I accept that the Government have a responsibility to reverse the current decline in the level of milk production, and we are having discussions with the unions to that effect.
    Mr. Corbett: I welcome my hon. Friend's announcement that talks are taking place with the industry. Will he ensure that these are conducted with great urgency? If the present decline in the dairy herd continues it will threaten doorstep deliveries and totally sabotage the aims of extra output which we so urgently need, as set out in the White Paper.
    Mr. Strang: I agree that we have to reverse this decline if we are to achieve the targets set in the White Paper "Food from Our Own Resources".
    Mr. Geraint Howells: Does the Minister not agree that the only way to expand production from the land is to give a realistic price for the end product? Is he aware that the cost of production has increased during the last six months? Has he any plans to introduce a special price review this autumn?
    Mr. Strang: The problem is that the consumer and the producer may sometimes disagree about what is a realistic price. I accept that if we are to get the expansion and investment that we need the industry must get a satisfactory income with which to finance it.
    Mr. Jopling: Will the Minister stop living in the past and tell us that he will now look to his responsibilities? Is he aware that there is deep concern over the danger of fodder shortages in many parts of the country next winter? Has he seen statements in the Press that there is a danger of liquid milk rationing next winter, and does he accept the need for higher prices for milk for producers in the very near future, so that they will be able to maintain supplies over next winter?
    Mr. Strang: It is a little alarmist for the hon. Member to talk about rationing at this stage, but certainly we accept that we must reverse the current trend. That is what the negotiations with the farming unions are all about. It is not the question of the Government's having been in office for 18 months. We gave the industry the biggest increase ever last October. We are talking here about a follow-up to "Food from Our Own Resources" and it would be wrong to preempt the discussions which are taking place.

    Agriculture Industry (Expansion)
    Mr. Arthur Jonesasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he proposes to initiate his programme of expansion of British agriculture.
    Mr. Lawrenceasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in the light of the 26 per cent. fall in farming incomes in 1974, he will expedite the implementation of the Government White Paper on the expansion of British agriculture.
    Mr. Michael Lathamasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now make a statement on the details of how he proposes to implement the Government's long-term proposals for agriculture.
    Mr. Peart: The White Paper set out guidelines for agriculture and the development of our agricultural policies over a period of years. Nevertheless, as foreshadowed in the White Paper, discussions are in progress with the interests concerned about whether there are specific measures which it would be right and practicable to take in furtherance of our aims.
    Mr. Jones: The Government's White Paper, "Food from Our Own Resources" said that
    "the potential from greater use of home produced grass was still very great"
    and went on to refer to an intensified programme of work by the advisory services. Does that programme refer specifically to the irrigation and conservation techniques? What progress is being made?
    Mr. Peart: The hon. Member is quite right to ask me this question and to seek an indication of my thoughts upon it. Among the issues being discussed are the effectiveness of capital and production grants, including possible ways of providing incentives for the better use and conservation of grass. Other matters include such things as the green pound. I accept what the hon. Member said about grass conservation.
    Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the number of registered milk producers in Wales has declined from 27,500 in 1955 to 11,300 at present and that this is doing tremendous injury to the rural communities of Wales? Is he also aware that in the year which ended 30th April this year no less than £266 million worth of butter was imported into Britain? Can we not, in an expansion programme, produce this for ourselves?
    Mr. Peart: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. As the Parliamentary Secretary has said in reply to a series of questions, we want to reverse the decline in the dairy herd. I am having, and have had, talks on this matter. I accept that the situation is serious and that it must be put right.
    Mr. Graham: In any discussions which take place, particularly with the Treasury, will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity of pointing out that the White Paper was drawn up after wide consultations, that it has been universally welcomed by consumers and producers as a sound base for both expanding our agricultural economy and of saving money, and that the Treasury action to help implement these policies will he warmly welcomed?
    Mr. Peart: Naturally—[Interruption.] That is not in my brief! The White

    1657
    Paper recognises the producers' need for assurances about their future levels of return. I think I have said in the House on previous occasions that they must, however, get their principal incentive for expansion from the Market.
    Mr. Lawrence: Is the Minister aware that in 1974 farming income fell by 26 per cent. and that the farmers now feel threatened by the Community Land Act, the capital transfer tax, the proposed wealth tax and the possible re-rating of agricultural land? Is he also aware that only an immediate injection of capital will give back to the farmer the confidence that he needs? Will the right hon. Gentleman say when he will give that immediate injection of capital?
    Mr. Peart: I do not want to repeat the history of the Conservative Party in this area. It encouraged people to get out of milk production and to go into livestock production. Conservative Members made a mess of it, and they know it. When I took up my present position my job was to try to bring back confidence. Indeed, in the beef sector we have done so. I want to reverse the present contraction in the dairy industry.
    Mr. Mark Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend confirm or deny the rumour that the European Commission wishes to use price lowering as a means of reducing milk production throughout the EEC? What will my right hon. Friend do to prevent that happening, so that our dairy farmers are not forced to produce even less?
    Mr. Peart: I give the assurance to my hon. Friend that I shall resist it strongly.
    Sir John Hall: In view of the bitterly grave situation of the milk supply and the answers given by the Parliamentary Secretary to an earlier question, will the Minister say categorically that there is no danger at all of milk rationing within the next 12 months or so?
    Mr. Peart: In my view talk of milk rationing is panic mongering.

    Eggs
    Mr. Copeasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied that British egg producers can now
    1658
    trade in the European Community on free and fair terms of competition.
    Mr. Hardyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the working of existing arrangements in preventing further importation of eggs at prices which are unfairly competitive.
    Mr. Bishop: Taking account of the situation in our egg market my right hon. Friend approached the European Commission last Friday requesting action under Article 135 of the Treaty of Accession in the interests of producers here. In response the Commission has authorised the suspension until the end of October of the payment of monetary compensatory amounts on eggs and the doubling of the subsidy paid on exports to selected markets outside the Community.
    We welcome this recognition by the Commission of the need for special measures to deal with the situation in the United Kingdom egg market. The suspension of monetary compensatory amounts removes a subsidy that has been increasing on French eggs sent to this market. The increase in export restitutions means that the financial incentive to Continental traders to export to the most important third country markets will be three times that payable on exports to the United Kingdom. These measures, together with the French Government's continuing programme for slaughtering laying hens, should relieve the pressures on our market. We shall now have to see whether the measures announced prove sufficient. But we shall continue to watch the situation closely and to maintain continuous contact with the Commission.
    Mr. Cope: Is the Minister blissfully unaware of the fact that this situation has not developed over the past few weeks but has been building up over the past 12 months? Is he also aware that there are still accession compensatory subsidies to be paid, and still no restrictions on imports? He seems very pleased with the temporary improvement that he has got, but is that all that the Minister asked for in Brussels?
    Mr. Bishop: I think that the hon. Gentleman is unaware of the efforts that my right hon. Friend has made in Brussels over recent months in considering the

    1659
    problems facing the industry. Article 135 of the Treaty of Accession refers to difficulties which are serious and liable to persist. I am very grateful that the Community has now taken effective and quick action in this respect. I do not think that we should underestimate the value of this concession in terms of the discouragement of imports.
    Mr. Corbett: Is the Minister aware that while Brussels fiddles about with this problem, egg producers are facing continuing and heavy losses? Will he give an undertaking that unless the French Government rapidly carry out their pledge to slaughter 2 million laying hens, he will advise his right hon. Friend to put an immediate ban on further French egg imports until that programme has been completed?
    Mr. Bishop: I assure my hon. Friend that on the French culling scheme, the slaughter of up to 2 million hens is now in operation. I understand that already I million birds have been destroyed. This should help to firm the Community market. The measures I have just announced should help to improve the competitiveness of our own industry.
    Mr. Clegg: Will the Minister explain in simple terms why this and other Governments are so slow to take action against dumping not only eggs but many other products which affect my constituency?
    Mr. Bishop: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that sometimes these matters are difficult to establish. We have certainly impressed upon the Commission the difficulties facing our own industry. I want to underline the fact that monetary compensatory amounts have been paid to importers, thus reducing the cost of imported supplies. From now on an average of 1·495p per dozen will be the amount which importers will bear.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Nicholas Wintertonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the EEC stocktaking document on the common agricultural policy, indicating which proposals outlined in that document he accepts, which proposals he rejects and what representation he has made to the
    1660
    EEC Commission concerning this document.
    Mr. Peart: I refer the hon. Member to the statement I made following the meeting of the Council of Ministers on 28th-29th April. The Council has not discussed the stocktaking report since then, although consideration has continued at official level.—[Vol. 891, c. 732.]
    Mr. Winterton: I thank the Minister for his reply. However, I should like to follow up the point made by his hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes). Is the Minister aware that the Commission's proposals, in their present form, are totally unacceptable to the British dairy industry and will treat the British dairy farmer very severely? This situation is based upon the inadequate structure of the agriculture industry on the Continent. Will the Minister go further than merely resisting these proposals in their present form? Will he give the House an assurance that, if necessary, he will use the veto?
    Mr. Peart: It would be wrong to make such an announcement at this stage. The stocktaking document is very valuable. The Scrutiny Committee, to which I gave evidence, has examined the position. In my view there are some good policies indicated in the document, which we should welcome. I shall not repeat what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes). However, I shall, of course, resist measures that will harm our dairy industry.
    Mr. Welsh: Will the right hon. Gentleman also consider the present position of soft fruit growers, especially raspberry producers, who fear the effects of possible dumping by Eastern European Communist countries into the Common Market? Will he especially look at the position of single fruit growers, with a view to helping them?
    Mr. Peart: That is not in the stocktaking document.
    Mr. Ronald Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the enormous amount of opposition building up on the Opposition benches to the common agricultural policy and, indeed, to membership of the Community? Will he change his mind yet again and defend the sovereignty of the British Parliament?
    Mr. Peart: I am afraid that my hon. Friend is too late. We are in the Community and we must make it work in out own interests.

    Butter
    Mr. Peter Morrisonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the factory capacity for butter production in Great Britain; what was the actual production of butter in 1974; and if he will take steps designed to increase the supply of milk to increase that available to the butter industry.
    Mr. Strang: Production of butter in the United Kingdom in 1974 was 52,000 tons. My Department does not collect details of the capacity of butter factories. As regards milk supplies, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier to the Questions put to me by the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) and others.
    Mr. Morrison: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that unless action is taken now to increase the supply of milk, more factories producing butter are bound to be closed? Will he now answer the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen)? Does he agree that the only way to reverse the current trend is to put up the price of milk?
    Mr. Strang: We certainly want to increase milk production, as has been reiterated. But it is not just the decline in milk production which has affected butter production. Increased supplies of milk have been going into liquid consumption and cheese manufacture.
    Mr. Marten: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the stocktaking document, referred to by the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes), is designed to reduce the supply of milk? Will he persuade his right hon. Friend to have words with the Leader of the House so that we can debate the stocktaking document before the House rises for the Summer Recess, and give a definite instruction to the Minister to veto this ridiculous proposition?
    Mr. Strang: I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House are making rather much of this point. Inherent in the idea of the Common
    1662
    Market is that production should be developed where there is a comparative advantage. We have climatic advantages in grass and dairy production and a more efficient industry. Therefore, it is consistent that we should expect to get a higher share of the production of milk and dairy produce in the context of the total Community.
    Mr. Joplin: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, due to the decline in the dairy herd over which the Government have presided this year, on the latest estimates butter production in this country will cease at the end of this month and will not be resumed until March next year?
    Mr. Strang: Hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to be vying with each other in irresponsibility. Of course there has been a decline in the dairy herd, which we are determined to reverse. But it is nonsense to talk about rationing, and no butter production whatsoever.

    Sugar Beet
    Mr. Shersbyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his Department's estimate of total plantings of sugar beet for the 1975–76 harvest.
    Mr. Strang: 480,300 acres.
    Mr. Shersby: What does the Minister estimate will be the effect of a good sugar beet crop on the price of a 2 lb. packet of sugar in the autumn?
    Mr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman will be the first to appreciate that after what happened in the sugar market last year, when, at the beginning, we were paying a CSA price of £60 a ton and in November the world price reached over £600 a ton, it would be rash for anyone to predict the effect of this year's crop on this year's sugar price.
    Mr. Heffer: Will my hon. Friend tell the House what plans the British Sugar Corporation has for expansion in beet production? Will he indicate what effect it is likely to have on the cane sugar workers in Merseyside and elsewhere? Will he ensure that the workers in those areas are given any extra beet production for refining to maintain their jobs? Is he aware that this is a most

    1663
    important matter for workers in areas like Merseyside, Glasgow and London?
    Mr. Strang: My hon. Friend has raised a number of important points. The Government welcome the British Sugar Corporation's expansion programme. Equally, we attach the highest importance to the interests of workers in the refining industry. My hon. Friend will be aware that my right hon. Friend had numerous discussions with representatives of those workers and that we continue to have their confidence.
    Mr. Freud: What percentage increase yield does the hon. Gentleman expect to get from the 1975–76 sugar crop, and what contingency plans have been made for any shortage?
    Mr. Strang: The basic problem in agricultural marketing is that we cannot predict what the crop will be next autumn, but it is unfortunate that plantings have been somewhat less this year as a result of the difficult soil conditions.
    Mr. Swain: Owing to the disastrous and inevitable effect on the sugar beet crop of a late frost and the drought conditions which now exist, what forecast estimates has the Ministry made of the amount of sugar beet imports which will have to be made from European countries into Great Britain this winter to maintain our supplies?
    Mr. Strang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about conditions to date having been adverse for the current sugar crop. The imports which we make in the coming year will, by and large, come from those developing countries from which, traditionaly, we have imported sugar.
    Mr. William Clark: In view of the projected increase in sugar beet production envisaged by the BSC, will the Government give a categoric assurance that the commitment that we gave to the cane sugar growers in the Caribbean and African countries still stands, and that consequently those countries can be assured of a continuing market in this country?
    Mr. Strang: Absolutely. That is not only a British, but a Community commitment, by which we shall stand.

    Horticulture Industry
    Mr. Wakehamasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has made to the Government of the Netherlands with respect to the artificially low cost of natural gas used in that country for horticultural production and the effect that the use of that gas has on the terms of trade in horticultural produce between Great Britain and the Netherlands.
    Mr. Strang: I have no evidence that the prices charged for natural gas in the Netherlands are artificially low in relation to the cost of distributing the onshore supply available in that country. Gas costs in the Netherlands are only one of many factors influencing the volume and price of Dutch horticultural exports to the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Wakeham: Is the Minister aware that there are many people engaged in the glasshouse crop production who disagree with the answer which the Minister has just given and who are greatly concerned about the failure of the Government to make representations to stop what they consider to be unfair competition?
    Mr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman may have noticed that the Commission, in its latest proposals to the Council of Ministers, envisaged that the price of natural gas—it was thinking especially about the Netherlands—should be brought more into line with the price of oil.
    Mr. Newens: Does the Minister regard it as satisfactory to pay glasshouse crop producers to dismantle the glass which was frequently erected with Government grants? Is it not an absolute disgrace at a time like this, when we need to produce at home rather than to import, that we should be prepared to accept an outrageous policy of this description because we failed to give the support which we should have given to our home industry?
    Mr. Strang: No. That would not be satisfactory. As my right hon. Friend did not find the Commission's proposals acceptable, he opposed them in the Council of Ministers. Those proposals have been taken back, and are being reconsidered.
    I cannot accept that we have in any way neglected the industry. The support

    1665
    which we gave it at the right time, when it needed it, last year, was welcomed by horticultural interests.
    Mr. Hicks: Will the Minister confirm that our glasshouse producers are suffering from unfair competition at present, as a result of his Department's refusal to take the appropriate action?
    Mr. Strang: Frankly, I think that the Opposition are about six weeks out of date. They have not noticed that the prices of tomatoes and lettuces are up more than 40 per cent., compared with last year. The industry is doing well now.

    Fishing Quotas and Conservation
    Mr. Cleggasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the outcome of the fishing quotas agreed at the recent meeting of the North Atlantic Fisheries Commission, indicating whether he is satisfied with the outcome; and if he intends to ratify the agreement.
    Mr. Hendersonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on conservation of fish stocks.
    Mr. Bishop: The stocks of greatest importance to our industry are heavily fished by several countries. The Government believe that effective conservation must depend upon measures agreed internationally between them. The means for achieving agreement is the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission, of which all North European fishing nations are members. At its recent meeting, the Commission agreed on a number of important steps, including quota reductions for plaice and herring in the North Sea, and for herring to the West of Scotland. This will involve sacrifices for our industry which, as the Government are well aware, already faces considerable difficulties. Nevertheless, I believe that the measures agreed—which also involve sacrifices for the other States concerned—are essential to secure the industry's future.
    Mr. Clegg: It was not easy to hear what the Minister said. Will he ensure that other countries as well as ourselves observe these agreements? Is he aware that officials of his Department are very good at seeing that the agreements are
    1666
    observed in this country? Will he please ensure that they are observed elsewhere so that we are all on an equal footing?
    Mr. Bishop: This matter was discussed when I visited Fleetwood recently. There is a common feeling amongst fishermen of all countries that the fishermen of other countries do not observe their quotas. However, this is a matter for national Governments. My Department is very much in touch with the situation locally around our coasts, and with other members of the Commission.
    Mr. Henderson: The Minister said that the fishing industry will have to make sacrifices. Is he aware that the Scottish fishermen have already suffered a reduction of 25 per cent. in the value of their landings for the first five months of this year? Will he tell us when the Government will take action on this matter, instead of the endless discussions, promises, and debates?
    Mr. Bishop: There are two points here. The first is the quota, which is a matter of reduction for all members of the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission. The question of catching more fish is bound up with the question of limits. Those matters are now being considered in the discussions in the Law of the Sea Conference and on the common fisheries policy.
    Mr. James Johnson: Is the Minister aware of the anxiety not only of the Opposition and of hon. Members representing constituencies north of the Tweed, but also of hon. Members representing constituencies in England? Why is it that we have come off so badly in the quota system? Are the quotas determined on a percentage of last year's catch, or of catches in former years? Britain is the major fishing nation—Scotland is the major herring fishing nation—of Western Europe, yet we have come off badly in the matter of quotas. I understand that less than 40,000 tons of herring is allotted to us. Why is that?
    Mr. Bishop: The quotas are based on scientific evidence as well as on the catches over the previous 10 years. The quota reduction for us in some cases is much less than those of other countries. The management of quotas is being discussed with the industry at present.

    PRIME MINISTER (VISITS)
    Mr. Hicksasked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to South-East Cornwall.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I have at present no plans to make an official visit, although, as the hon. Member knows, I am able to keep in close touch with Cornish problems.
    Mr. Hicks: I am sorry that the Prime Minister is not to renew his family association with Liskeard at this stage. Is he aware that the rural areas, such as South-East Cornwall, are dependent upon a large number of small industrial and commercial units? Is he further aware that those small commercial organisations are now facing extreme financial pressures? Does he believe that the fabric of regional development policies is sufficiently flexible in their application to take account of the requirements of small firms in rural areas?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has not put this at all unfairly. There is a serious problem in this and other rural and mixed areas. There are many difficulties. As Cornwall has special status under the regional policy, the Development Commission has been holding discussions with the chairman of the South-West Economic Planning Board and some of the county and district councils to see whether special Development Commission assistance is needed. Industry Act assistance is available to all eligible firms irrespective of size. The Development Commission has assisted small enterprises. The small firms' information service is devoted to helping smaller businesses to find solutions to those problems.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: As the Prime Minister is not going to Cornwall, will he come to Merseyside and explain to the people there how the measures announced by the Chancellor are likely to reduce unemployment levels? Will he explain to my constituents in Kirkby how those measures will reduce juvenile unemployment in that town?
    The Prime Minister: I did not say that I was not going to Cornwall; I said that I was not planning to pay an official visit to South-East Cornwall. I am
    1668
    going to Cornwall, but it will not be an official visit.
    I visit Merseyside regularly. I am well aware of the serious problems of Kirkby, which I represented for many years until my hon. Friend took it over. As that area has almost the largest number of children under the age of 15 in the country there is always a problem of juvenile employment there.
    I do not believe that what my right hon. Friend announced on Tuesday will be adverse to Kirkby or anywhere else in the country, because an attack on inflation is the best and surest way of ensuring a quick return to full employment.

    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY HEADS OF GOVERNMENT
    Mr. Cartwrightasked the Prime Minister when he will next attend a meeting of EEC Heads of Government.
    The Prime Minister: The week after next, Sir.
    Mr. Cartwright: In view of this week's comment by the Belgian Prime Minister, Mr. Tindemans, which defines the British attitude towards European union to be very positive, will my right hon. Friend make clear in his discussions with EEC Heads of Government that he will not accept any programme for integration which leads inexorably to economic and monetary union?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. We made that clear to Mr. Tindemans and at the summit conference in Paris. In addition, after the discussions which my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and I had with Mr. Tindemans when he came to No. 10 the other evening, I made a statement, part of which has been issued. If I were to publish that statement in the Official Report or in some other appropriate way, my hon. Friend would be reassured on these matters.
    Mr. Dykes: Is it not time that the Prime Minister and his colleagues dropped their timid reservations about direct elections to the European Parliament and entered into wider discussions with EEC Heads of Government about this important move in Europe?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that following the referendum, as I announced the following Monday, we proposed that my hon. Friends should take their places in the European Assembly. It is premature for any of us to consider the question of a change in the form of elections. It raises many questions. I know that views have been expressed, but I am not sure whether it is even the policy of the official Opposition to support direct elections. We all need much more time to think about this question.
    Mr. Kinnock: When my right hon. Friend meets European Heads of Government will he draw on their experience of incomes policies and acknowledge that while there is almost universal support for incomes policies, those policies which require the force of law to turn bosses into pay police are the surest formula yet devised for industrial chaos and disaster?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot agree with my hon. Friend's account of what was said by my right hon. Friend on Tuesday. As I have said in the House on many occasions at Question Time, I believe that criminal sanctions against workers would be an extremely ineffective and dangerous way to deal with these problems. We certainly have been considering—as has the whole House—the experience of other countries, and looking at the different methods they have used. I am sure that the whole House would like to see us getting down, after all these years, to something like the rate of inflation of some of our European partners.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Is the Prime Minister aware that one of the questions that most concern the European Heads of Government is whether the British Government have the will and determination to beat inflation? Will he, therefore, assure the House that whatever form of wage restraint he adopts, whether cash limits or compulsion, if he is faced with an excessive claim by the powerful unions in the nationalised industries, his Government will stick to the new limits and not be blown off course?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend has made clear in relation to incomes—he did not refer to wages only, as did the right hon. Lady—what will be our policy, and we shall stick to it. He
    1670
    made clear, although it caused a lot of silly tittering from Opposition Members, that, in relation to the public sector, the Government have a very large range of weapons capable of use to ensure that any temptation to excessive incomes settlements does not lead to subsidies, borrowing or loading the charges on the public. The right hon. Lady will no doubt study what my right hon. Friend said about the private sector and will in due course say whether she agrees with his statement.

    PRESIDENT FORD
    Mr. Batesasked the Prime Minister if he will invite President Ford to visit the United Kingdom.
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, I met President Ford in Washington early in May and had another talk with him in Brussels at the end of that month. Yesterday I met Vice-President Rockefeller at Downing Street for an hour.
    Mr. Bates: When my right hon. Friend next meets President Ford, will he express to him the concern of many people in this country about the statement which President Ford made at his Press conference last week, which seemed to imply that the United States no longer rules out the use of nuclear weapons in a first strike situation?
    The Prime Minister: I have to rely on reports of the President's statement in this context, but the President will know from what was said to his predecessors that the Labour Party, when in government before, when in opposition, and now, is totally opposed to the first strike use of nuclear weapons. That is and has been our position, and I hope that it is fully understood in all parts of the world.

    NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
    Mr. George Gardinerasked the Prime Minister when he will next chair a meeting of the NEDC.
    Mr. Peter Morrisonasked the Prime Minister when he will next take the chair at a meeting of the NEDC.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Members to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) on 24th June.
    Mr. Gardiner: When the Prime Minister next goes to the NEDC he will doubtless wish to explain and discuss his Government's measures designed to beat inflation. Will he be able to assure private firms, large and small, that they will not be made the whipping boys of the Government's new policy and will not be forced to choose between the devil and the deep blue sea when faced with strikes in support of claims above the limit?
    The Prime Minister: It is not usual, although it occasionally happens, for NEDC to deal with matters affecting pay. A brief statement was made yesterday on this subject. There is no question of making small firms the whipping boys of the policy. The hon. Gentleman will know that we are in close touch with the CBI, which itself put forward a number of proposals. We want to reinforce the proposals of the CBI and the TUC in this direction.
    Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: On the general question of incomes, which may well be one of the major subjects of discussion with the NEDC, will my right hon. Friend say what steps the Government propose to take on the recommendations of the Boyle Report and when the House may expect a statement?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I fully appreciate the depth of feeling among hon. Members. I have received a number of representations from both sides of the House about the way in which pay and allowances have been eroded since the last review in December 1971. Since then, prices have risen by 65 per cent. and average earnings by 85 per cent. There is undoubtedly real hardship among Members of all parties, especially young Members with family responsibilities. The Government are considering this matter very urgently. We intend to publish the report, together with our recommendations, within 10 days or so.
    Assuming that the House accepts our recommendations, I give an assurance now that the Government will propose to pay the resulting increases in pay and allow-
    1672
    ances as from the date when Lord Boyle signed the report on 13th June, so that hon. Members will not be adversely affected by the time which the Government must take to get the right answers in the context of our current discussions with the TUC and the CBI on anti-inflation measures in the year ahead.
    The Government are anxious that, in applying the limits on incomes for the coming year which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced on Tuesday, we shall be able to take decisions about anomalies in respect of awards in industry generally including hangover cases from the last pay round and arbitration decisions which have been made or are already proceeding. The transitional arrangements which we must announce in the next few days will be very important, and we certainly want to consider how they should be assimilated to the report of the review body dealing with Members' pay and allowances.
    Mr. Morrison: Will the Prime Minister explain now what he intends to do should the miners come out on strike in defiance of a statutory policy?
    The Prime Minister: Sir, that is a hypothetical question, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I hope to have the opportunity of saying something about this, not to the hon. Gentleman, who has not spent long at the coal face, but to the members of the National Union of Mineworkers when I address them next Monday.
    Mr. Mike Thomas: Will the Prime Minister give two assurances—first, that the increase in prices since the Members' salaries were last increased will be met in full in the Government's recommendation, and, secondly, that the Government will now consider getting us out of this bizarre charade of having to pretend and "Box and Cox" about our pay, by having it linked to a decent index, so that the difficulty may be sorted out?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot give any information to my hon. Friend on the first part of the question. All I can say is that nothing that happens in the next week will change the Government's attitude to the report. There will be no question of any guillotine falling, or anything like that, between now and publication.

    1673
    As to the second part of the question, while I am not in a position to announce the details of the Boyle Committee's recommendations—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—because I think the House is entitled to read the report itself, when we publish it, with the Government's recommendations. This problem might have been easier to handle if during the three and a half years, for most of which time there was a Tory Government in office something had been done. Nothing was done for three and a half years.
    While I am not yet in a position to announce these details, I think it is right that the House should know, on procedure, in relation to the financial proposals, that the Boyle Committee recommends that, for the future, Members' pay should be reviewed every two years automatically. The Government accept this, but I think the House itself may wish to consider it, and I propose to initiate discussions through the usual channels and in every way to get back-bench opinion on the question whether the time has not now come for Members' pay to be linked directly and automatically with other relevant salaries. What they are is a matter for discussion. I am sure that the House will—[Interruption.] For a lot of younger Members in the House this is not a laughing matter. It may be for some well-heeled hon. Members opposite, but not for younger Members. I believe that it should be for the House as a whole to decide—there are arguments for and against, and I have always favoured this myself—whether it would like to take the whole question out of the range of external inquiries and debates in this House and make it more automatic. If that is the wish of the House, the Government will most certainly very happily make the necessary arrangements.
    Mr. Thorpe: Is the Prime Minister aware, on the vitally important question of Members' salaries, that some of us believe that it might have been better if this information had not arisen out of a purely coincidental supplementary question from the Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party, to which the Prime Minister made a long and totally unprepared supplementary answer? We would prefer a proper statement in the normal way, and a proper opportunity for the House to discuss it.
    1674
    May I have the temerity to return to the Question originally addressed to the Prime Minister about the NEDC, and ask him whether his attention was drawn to the speech of Sir Ronald McIntosh on 11th March, indicating that there were occasions on which it would help to enlarge the membership of the NEDC by including consumers' interests and, indeed, representation of the Opposition parties in this House? In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman will rightly wish to get the maximum support for the proposals which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is likely to introduce, would not this be a suitable occasion on which to make that enlargement, so that all parties in this House can have detailed discussions about the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposals?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman's proclivity, on matters of great importance to the House, to go into purely procedural issues—as he has done in regard to the question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes)—does not necessarily fit him for membership of the NEDC. But, concerning the early part of the question, this is a matter of very great importance. If the right hon. Gentleman had wanted a statement after Questions, he would no doubt have put down a Private Notice Question. I believe that it has been to the advantage of the House that it was taken in the way it has been.
    With regard to the NEDC, the right hon. Gentleman is quite right in indicating that Sir Ronald McIntosh said that it would be a good thing to extend the membership of the NEDC to include consumer interests. The right hon. Gentleman may not have been aware that Mr. Michael Young, from the Consumers' Association, has been a member of the NEDC for two months. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman's first reference was to the Consumers' Association. I am glad to tell him that Mr. Young has attended two meetings of the NEDC, one of which was under my chairmanship.
    As to broadening the membership of the NEDC to include representation of Opposition parties, I do not believe that this would be right. It has not been the view taken by any Government, by the CBI or by the TUC in the 12 or more

    1675
    years since you, Mr. Speaker, in another capacity, set up the NEDC

SHARMAN NEWSPAPER GROUP (INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE)
Mr. Hastings Mr. Hastings (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will ask the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service to intervene in the current dispute between the Sharman group of newspapers and the National Graphical Association.
The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): The independent Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service has been closely involved with this dispute for some time. It has held several meetings with the parties, both separately and together. It has not so far been able to assist them to a mutually acceptable solution but remains ready to do so. I understand, however, that a joint employer-union committee has now been set up at national level to attempt to find a solution to the dispute.
Mr. Hastings: Is the Minister aware that this union has instructed its membership throughout the United Kingdom not to handle the copy of any advertisers using the Sharman group of newspapers, and that since the NGA has a virtual monopoly of the typesetting function, this amounts to censorship of the announcements of any of these firms in the newspapers, even though they are not parties in any sense to the dispute in question? There are a number of them in my constituency. Does the Minister recognise that this latest form of trade union blackmail results directly from the Government's own Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974, by which they confer almost total indemnity in tort on strikers? How can he justify such action being within the law in what is still supposed to be a free society, and what precisely does he intend to do about it?
Mr. Booth: I have seen reports that the union has instructed its members, working for other papers, to block advertisements of companies continuing to advertise in papers produced by the company. Any obstacle in the way of dissemination of information is to be regretted. How-
1676
ever, I think that the bandying of words in this Chamber such as "blackmail" and "censorship", when what we are talking about is secondary action in pursuance of an industrial dispute, does not assist at a stage when ACAS is seeking, together with the union and the employers' society involved, to bring about a solution to this dispute.
Mr. Ward: My hon. Friend will be aware that some weeks ago members of the ACAS staff undertook negotiations with both the employers' and the employees' side of this dispute at my request. Indeed, if the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) had contacted me, as the Member for the constituency containing Sharman and Co. Ltd., I should have been delighted to give him the information that I had concerning the dispute. However, may I ask the Minister whether there are any meetings actually in hand between the two parties in the Peterborough works, and when he expects to get a report of developments?
Mr. Booth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Ward) for the action he took in contacting ACAS when the matter was first brought to his notice and for the attempt which he made with me on the matter. My understanding is that the meetings which are taking place are at the level of the Newspaper Society and the National Graphical Association. I understand that these are continuing.
Sir David Renton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in spite of the sincere attempts of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Ward), this dispute has escalated and worsened in recent weeks? Is he aware that it started as a dispute between a small family firm and a minority of its employees—the firm wishing to introduce modern machinery and the employees having been consulted and promised that there would be no redundancies—and that it has now become something with which the NGA has concerned itself at national level, and upon which it is extending its national influence? Will he ensure that the conciliators of his Department bring this matter to a conclusion before it escalates further and before we have a national strike upon our hands?
Mr. Booth: The members of the National Graphical Association may well

1677
be a minority of the total number of employees of the firm. Nevertheless, I think that those engaged in this operation are all members of the NGA. On my understanding of the situation, it is perfectly true to say that the NGA is exercising its influence well beyond the confines of this firm in attempting to prosecute its dispute. For that reason, I am anxious that the conciliators of the ACAS should do everything in their power to bring the dispute to a conclusion. Nevertheless, I think that the setting in which the discussions are now taking place is the best possible one. It recognises that there is a wider interest both on the part of the employers, through the Newspaper Society, and on the part of the employees in the firm, through the NGA.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Mrs. Thatcher. Business Question.
Mr. Prior: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not customary, when a statement of this kind is made, for an Opposition Front Bench spokesman to have an opportunity to ask a supplementary question?
Mr. Speaker: The Chair is put in difficulty in allowing Private Notice Questions if, every time, it takes 15 minutes, because the result will be that the Chair will not allow them. I must occasionally be allowed to give a Private Notice Question about the same amount of time as an ordinary Question. That I have done today.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mrs. Thatcher: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:—
MONDAY, 7TH JULY—Private Members' Motions until seven o'clock.
Afterwards, consideration of a timetable motion on the Petroleum and Submarine Pipelines Bill.
Remaining stages of the Child Benefit Bill.
1678
TUESDAY, 8TH JULY—Supply [24th Allotted Day]: A debate on the Plight of Voluntary Organisations, until about seven o'clock. Afterwards, a debate on Arms Sales. Both will arise on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Remaining stages of the Statutory Corporations (Financial Provisions) Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 9TH JULY—Supply [25th Allotted Day]: A debate on the Royal Navy, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Motion on financial assistance to Alfred Herbert Limited.
THURSDAY, 10TH JULY—Supply [26th Allotted Day]: A debate on a motion to take note of the Third Report from the Expenditure Committee, Session 1973–74, on postgraduate education and the Third Report of 1974 on education maintenance allowances, together with any Special Reports, until about seven o'clock.
Afterwards, a debate on a motion to take note of the Seventh Report from the Expenditure Committee, Session 1974 on police recruitment and wastage and the related Special Report.
Motions on the Weights and Measures 1963 Act Orders relating to dried vegetables, flour and flour products, and cereal breakfast foods and oat products.
FRIDAY, 11TH JULY—Private Members Bills.
MONDAY, 14TH JULY—Supply [27th Allotted Day]: Subject for debate to be announced later.
Mrs. Thatcher: Although we shall make our views on the timetable motion known in detail on Monday, is the Leader of the House aware that the Opposition do not think that it is necessary to bring forward this motion at the moment and that we shall protest most vigorously when the time comes?
Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to give us any more information about when the White Paper on economic measures will be published? Will it be at the end of next week? Will the Boyle Report come with it, or after it? When will the economic debate take place? Surely the right hon. Gentleman can undertake that no legislation based on the White Paper will be brought forward until

1679
the House has had a chance to debate it fully.
Mr. Short: First, on the timetable motion, we have still a long way to go to catch up with the Conservative record in this respect. But certainly it will be a very generous allocation of time, and discussions can take place through the usual channels about the way in which the time is allocated. I hope that we shall reach agreement on that.
The White Paper will be published towards the end of next week. I am not sure whether the Boyle Report will be published at the same time, but it will be roughly the same time.
I do not know yet when the economic debate will take place. We can discuss this through the usual channels. Certainly there will be an extended debate before the Summer Recess.
Mrs. Jeger: Has my right hon. Friend had time to consider Early-Day Motion No. 551, signed by Members of all parties, suggesting that a Select Committee of this House should visit Cyprus at an early opportunity?
[That a Select Committee be appointed to visit Cyprus on a fact-finding mission and for the purpose of examining what steps the United Kingdom may reasonably take to comply with their responsibilities imposed under the Treaty of Guarantee (Command Paper 1253):
That the Select Committee shall consist of Ten Members.
That the Select Committee shall report upon their findings to this House and pay particular regard to the plight of British residents in Cyprus and any steps recommended to assist in this regard.]
Mr. Short: Yes, Sir, and, as I said last week, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have been discussing this matter. I hope that we can find a way of meeting this request before the Summer Recess.
Mr. Stephen Ross: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the experiment in broadcasting our proceedings finishes tomorrow? Does he not think that it would be a good idea for this to be continued until the Summer Recess? It will be an expensive business to remove the equipment, and there is widespread pub-
1680
lic interest in what goes on in this Chamber. What is more, there is impending legislation and debates are coming forward which will also be of great interest to the public. Could we not have a discussion through the normal channels or, if necessary, a debate to see whether this experiment should be extended?
Mr. Short: I should be happy to discuss this through the usual channels. However, the Resolution of the House was for an experiment, and the experiment ends this week. I think that the House will want an opportunity for a debate on this matter while it is fresh in our minds. But there are a number of very important questions to be settled, not least the question of how we finance it. I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman said.
Mr. Urwin: Does my right hon. Friend recall his several promises to me and to the House in the recent past about the early introduction of a Bill to combat labour-only sub-contracting in the construction industry? Can he now say how soon this Bill will be introduced?
Mr. Short: Yes, Sir. The necessary legislation—a Bill or an order—will be one of our top priorities in the next Session.
Mr. Emery: Although it could in no way take the place of a full debate on the Floor of the House, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of referring the problems of unemployment, economic rundown and the lack of Government interest in the West Country to the new Regional Affairs Standing Committee, so that we may have a debate on these matters before the rising of the House, and will the right hon. Gentleman realise that we make this request only because we shall not get time on the Floor of the House because of the chaotic state of Government business?
Mr. Short: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for suggesting this procedure. The first debate in that Committee takes place on 9th July. It is a debate on the North-West Region. Certainly I shall bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's request for a second debate in this Committee.
Mr. Radice: Will my right hon. Friend tell us when the Government will

1681
announce their intentions on industrial democracy?
Mr. Short: No, Sir. I cannot say when. But I undertook last week to ensure that a statement on behalf of the Government would be made in the very near future. It will be.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: As between 20,000 and 30,000 people are about to lose their jobs as a result of the shortage of milk for manufacturing into butter, cheese and cream, when will the Government give time for a debate on their own statement "Food from our own resources" so that we may know what action, if any, the Government intend to take to prevent any further rundown in the dairy herd? The Leader of the House has said several times that he would draw this matter to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture, but nothing whatever has happened.
Mr. Short: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman. As I have pointed out on many occasions in the past few weeks, most of the time for general debates is now in the hands of the Opposition. For next week they have selected the plight of voluntary organisations, arms sales, post-graduate education, and so on. It is up to the Opposition to select a date for this debate.
Mr. George Cunningham: Has my right hon. Friend had reported to him the question raised yesterday about the photographing machines in the basement of the House? Can he give us any clear idea of the purpose of those machines?
Mr. Short: Yes, Sir. I regret that I was not in the House when this matter was raised yesterday. Perhaps I can explain. The equipment to which reference was made yesterday has been installed to augment the copying facilities in the House to meet the requirement for various documents. The pressure of parliamentary business has been growing rapidly in recent years.
Perhaps I might quote the example of one day last week, 30th June, when the Votes and Proceedings ran to 388 pages, of which 277 pages were amendments. As hon. Members will be only too well aware, there has been increasing difficulty of late in meeting the demands of the House for papers, especially given the
1682
long and frequent sittings of Standing Committees. It became clear to me—and I gave a pledge to the House on this—that additional facilities were necessary within the House during such periods of intense parliamentary activity both on the Floor of the House and in Committee so as to ensure that business can proceed if normal supplies cannot be made available in the time.
I discussed the matter with you, Mr. Speaker, and through the usual channels. I discussed it in the Services Committee. After all these consultations, I gave authority to the staff of the House, as Leader of the House, for the equipment to be installed. It will be operated by staff acting under the authority of the House.
I accept that the equipment will restrict accommodation to some extent on the interview floor, but the essence of these facilities is the speedy supply of temporary documents. They are all temporary and they will have to be printed afterwards. As quickness of supply is the essential feature, it has been necessary to site the equipment within the precincts of the House so as to ensure that the needs of the House are met. I emphasise that only temporary documents are involved and that every document must be printed later.
Mr. Maurice Macmillan: As the dangers that confront this country come from abroad as well as from home, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that we can have an opportunity to debate the European Security Conference before the summit takes place?
Mr. Short: I shall certainly bear in mind what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but I am afraid I do not see much prospect at the moment.
Mrs. Hayman: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing concern amongst workers in the aircraft industry as to the fate of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill? Will my hon. Friend arrange for a statement to be made next week like the statement that was promised for this week?
Mr. Short: A statement was made on Tuesday, in fact, to say that the Bill will have top priority in the next Session. It is now too late to proceed with the Bill in this Parliament.
Mr. John Davies: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that I have pressed him on numerous occasions for a debate on the findings of the Procedure Committee. He will be aware that meanwhile the backlog of undebated items recommended by the Secondary Legislation Committee grows and grows, and that items of first-rate importance are now being delayed. I refer, for example, to a matter that has come up very keenly during Questions to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food relating to the common agricultural policy and stocktaking documents. Will the right hon. Gentleman please further his undertaking and that given, moreover, by his right hon. Friend to bring forward this debate? This is becoming essential.
Mr. Short: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I have discussed this matter with him. I pay tribute to the work that is done by the Procedure Committee. However, there are many younger Members in the House who have children, and I am anxious that we should not go too far into August before we begin the Summer Recess. [HON. MEMBERS: "1st August."] Therefore, I cannot really promise that there will be a debate before the recess. However, there will be a debate on the Procedure Committee in this Session.
Mr. Rooker: Will my right hon. Friend tell us why we are not proceeding with the proposed guillotine motion on the Employment Protection Bill? May I offer my right hon. Friend some advice? If the mess-up which has occurred in the past 24 hours is not resolved my right hon. Friend will have to look for a second eleven for Standing Committee F.
Mr. Short: I do not know who has proposed a guillotine motion on the Employment Protection Bill but I certainly have not.
Mr. Cormack: Once again, I return to the subject of the Finer Report. It is now over a year since the report was published. Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that he promised to try to find time immediately after Christmas? We have still not had a debate on Finer. Yesterday some 5,000 people came to the House to demonstrate their concern. It is totally absurd that the Government should be clogging up the parliamentary
1684
timetable with unnecessary legislation when matters such as this are not debated.
Mr. Short: I have agreed with the hon. Gentleman week after week that this is a most important matter to debate. In fact, one of the Private Member's motions is concerned with one-parent families. However, I do not think that that discharges the promise I gave to the House that there should be a debate. I shall ensure that there is a debate in this Session.
Mr. Hal Miller: Will the right hon. Gentleman afford time for a debate—or, if not a debate, at least a statement to the House from his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry—on the situation at Norton Villiers Triumph? We understand that the firm is being threatened by the Government's insistence on maintaining a three-factory solution to the motor cycle industry. What steps will the Government take to ensure the viability of Norton Villiers Triumph?
Mr. Short: I realise that there are problems. I shall convey what the hon. Gentleman has said to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and see whether he can make a statement on the matter before the recess.
Mr. Greville Janner: In view of the grave unemployment situation, will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on unemployment before the recess? When considering the matter, will he bear in mind especially the anxieties that are felt in areas such as Leicester, where the unemployment level has been very low but where there are now the most grave anxieties because the level has increased so very much during the past few months?
Mr. Short: This is a subject which would be very relevant to the extended debate on economic affairs which I have promised before the recess.
Mr. Amery: Further to the question raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan), does the right hon. Gentleman realise that it would be unacceptable that the Prime Minister should go to the summit meeting to conclude the European Security Conference without having first heard the opinion of the House? If the right hon. Gentleman cannot find time for that, will he at least assure us that there will be a

1685
statement and a full opportunity to discuss the statement before the right hon. Gentleman ventures on any such journey?
Mr. Short: I shall bear in mind what the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend have said. However, I recollect that when the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister there were occasions when what he has raised took place. However, I shall bear in mind what he has said.
Dr. John A. Cunningham: Has my right hon. Friend seen Early-Day Motion No. 560 concerning the incidence of pneumoconiosis in industries other than the coal mining industry?
[That this House congratulates the National Coal Board, the National Union of Mineworkers, and the Government on the introduction of the pneumoconiosis scheme, hut, noting the incidence of this disease following employment in other industries (e.g., iron ore mining, quarrying, foundry working, the pottery industry) calls upon the Government to initiate talks between employers and unions in the appropriate industries, with the intention of establishing a parallel fund, with Government support, to ensure that all sufferers from pneumoconiosis are accorded similar treatment.]
Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread support for this proposal? Will he consider providing time for this grave issue to be debated? It is a matter of social justice and equity and it should be debated in the House.
Mr. Short: I know of my hon. Friend's concern, and I know that pneumoconiosis affects a great many people in the area which he represents and where I live. Certainly I shall convey to my right hon. Friend my hon. Friend's concern and the concern that is felt by many Members on both sides of the House as regards this problem.
Mr. Body: In view of the answer that the right hon. Gentleman gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), does he mean that the Goverment now think so little of their White Paper, and regard it as so undeserving of parliamentary attention, that they will not find any time for it to be debated before the recess? Does the right hon. Gentleman mean, in view of his answer to my hon. Friend, that the
1686
Opposition have now to give up their own time and to give it, as it were, to the Government so that the Government's policy on this issue can be debated?
Mr. Short: I think that the White Paper is a very good and very important document. It has been generally welcomed throughout the country, and especially in agricultural circles. Almost all the time for general debate is now in the hands of the Opposition. That has been the situation for some weeks past. We look to the Opposition to provide time for a debate on agriculture, but so far they have not done so.
I very much regret that I can find no time before the recess, but if hon. Members are willing to sit well into August—[HON. MEMBERS: "We are"]—we could debate it. We shall note what Conservative Members have said. We shall have to sit some time into August, but I am anxious that we should not sit too far into August. However, there will be some weeks left in the autumn of this year.
Mr. David Steel: Has the right hon. Gentleman had time to consider the debate which took place on the composition of our delegation to the European Parliament? In the light of that, will he consider setting up a Select Committee to consider what method we should use for the selection of the delegation in future?
Mr. Short: I shall consider what the hon. Gentleman has said. I understand that the other place is discussing this matter this afternoon. We had better await the outcome of that discussion. I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman says. I realise that there is a problem.
Mr. Raphael Tuck: In view of recent reports that the number of accidents to drivers of three-wheeled vehicles increases year by year, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to come to the House in the near future to tell hon. Members what the Government intend to do about the situation?
Mr. Short: I shall convey my hon. Friend's remarks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. I know that my hon. Friend is concerned

1687
about this topic and he has expressed his anxieties on a number of occasions.
Mr. Percival: Is the right hon. Friend aware that the fact that the House has not yet debated, let alone decided, the situation in regard to the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse) is giving rise to wide concern and severe criticism in the country? Is he aware that this concern is shared by many right hon. and hon. Members? When will time be allotted to discuss the position of the right hon. Member for Walsall, North?
Mr. Short: I cannot give any undertaking in that regard. This is a particularly difficult problem—one which becomes more difficult all the time since the situation changes from day to day. If there is any change in the situation, I shall inform the House. I appreciate the concern on this matter in all parts of the country, a concern which I share. There are especially difficult problems involved in the case.
Mr. Swain: Will my right hon. Friend have discussions with the Secretary of State for the Environment and will he ask him to make a statement next week denying the rumours in the national Press that the Secretary of State for the Environment is prepared to accept some of the amendments carried in the House of Lords at the initiation of the only man in both Houses who lives up to his name, Quintin Hogg?
Mr. Short: The Bill to which my hon. Friend refers is to be received from another place today. My right hon. Friend will consider the amendments made in another place and in due course will announce his view on them.
Mr. Peyton: I am sorry that the Leader of the House did not take the opportunity to refute the remarks of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain). They amounted to a monstrous attack on my noble Friend, Lord Hailsham.
May I raise two points with the Leader of the House? Will he first give the assurance, which has been requested by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that the debate on the White Paper promised for next week will precede any legislation which will arise out of the White Paper?
1688
Secondly, I invite the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the subject of statements made in the House. Earlier this week the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a very important statement without prior announcement to the House, in breach of our well-known practice. Today, the Prime Minister, in answer to a supplementary question, gave a lot of information which would have been very much better contained in a statement.
Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman said that the information about printing equipment had nothing to do with the business for next week. That matter would have been better contained in a separate statement. I wish to confirm that the Leader of the House consulted the Opposition and that we fully support him in any efforts he makes to further the practicability of parliamentary government.
Mr. Short: On the question of attacks, if we were to refute all the attacks made on us we should have no time to do anything else. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the other place?"] There is nothing special about the other place. In regard to a debate on the White Paper, I apologise to the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition for not answering that question in terms. I cannot say when a debate will take place, but we can discuss the question through the usual channels. We can see how the debate should be arranged for the convenience of both sides of the House.
I shall bear in mind what the right hon. Gentleman said about statements to the House. I was present just before 12 o'clock on Tuesday morning when the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave instructions to contact the House to ask for a notice to be put on the annunciator. I think that there was some fault in the communications system, although I do not know that as a fact. Perhaps we can look into the situation to examine why there was no announcement in the normal way.
In regard to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, that was a proper reply to a proper Question tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes). There is nothing for which to apologise.
I have already dealt with the question of printing and I have set out the situation to the best of my ability.
Mr. Canavan: Has my right hon. Friend seen Early-Day Motion 569?
[That this House, in view of the appalling hardships faced by immigrant workers and their families, calls on the Government to strengthen the Race Relations Act and to expedite the repeal of the 1971 Immigration Act and its replacement by legislation which is not based on any racial or ethnic discrimination, so that people living in the United Kingdom shall enjoy full civil rights, including freedom from deportation.]
When can we expect legislation to strengthen the Race Relations Act and to replace the 1971 Immigration Act with legislation which is not based on any racial discrimination?
Mr. Short: Without committing the Government in detail in regard to the last part of my hon. Friend's question, I wish to tell the House that we hope to be able to take some action in the next Session of Parliament.
Mr. Edward Gardner: Will the right hon. Gentleman find time to debate the Phillimore Report on contempt of court? Does he realise that this is one of seven reports from distinguished committees, including the report of the Younger Committee on privacy, still awaiting decision by the Government? Is he aware that Lord Gardiner, as Chairman of Justice, has recently criticised the delays and said that he is disturbed at the number of reports on which the Government have yet to make up their mind? Have the Government lost interest in the sound reform of the law?
Mr. Short: No, Sir. The last Labour Government had an excellent record of law reform. The reports mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman are among a number of first-rate reports which should be debated in the House. There will be a rather extended spillover in the autumn and I hope that there will be time for debates of this nature.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, but the House will realise that the guillotine on amendments to the Industry Bill falls at 7.30 p.m. We must proceed.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Prior: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask how the Opposition can be expected to conduct business.
Today you, Sir, refuse to take a question—and these matters are entirely in your power—from a Member of the Opposition Front Bench who wished to deal with a Private Notice Question. At the same time the Opposition were prevented from putting questions to the Prime Minister and also to the Leader of the House on a number of matters. The result was that when the House considered the Private Notice Question, Mr. Speaker felt that he had to restrict the time available and thus the Opposition were unable to put their point of view.
In short, my point of order is that if the Government insist on using Question Time as a means of making statements which have no relevance whatever to Questions tabled to them, and you, Mr. Speaker, use your discretion not to call Opposition Members on Private Notice Questions dealing with subjects of great importance, how can the Opposition carry out their duties, and how can you, Sir, protect the rights of the Opposition?
Mr. Frank Allaun: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Some of us were surprised that a Private Notice Question on this subject was granted at all. I do not want to reflect on your view, Mr. Speaker, and in fact I support you on this occasion because I felt that you devoted adequate time to discussion of the dispute. There are hundreds of disputes taking place, and if I we are to have a long debate at Question Time on each dispute there will be no time for ony other business at all.
Mr. Speaker: I have noted what has been said. I am certain that those who are in charge of the business of the House also will have taken note of those remarks. I do not propose to make any further comment today.

PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS
Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that yesterday I raised a point of order with you about the installation of machinery. I realise

1691
that the Leader of the House referred to this matter when dealing with business questions, but I should like to ask how back benchers are to have access to decision making when it is clear that the decision to install machinery was made via the consent machinery through the usual channels without any consultation with the House as a whole.
Secondly, the Services Committee has made no report to the House on what many people consider to be an important matter.
Thirdly, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to find out whether there is some machinery whereby further information on this sort of procedure can be provided—for instance, whether the trade unions have been consulted and have given their agreement to this sort of installation? It is an important matter. In the interests of open government this should be introduced.
Mr. Speaker: I have nothing to add to what the Leader of the House has said. It is for him rather than for me to consider what the hon. Member has said.

STANDING COMMITEES (MEMBERSHIP)
Mr. Cyril Smith: May I ask for your help, Mr. Speaker, on the protection of the rights of minority parties in this House? I ask for your guidance on a point of order about how minority parties can have proper representation on certain Committees of the House which are being appointed and which, indeed, have been appointed. I refer to two Committees in particular. First, I refer to the Committee to deal with the Welsh Development Agency Bill on which every Conservative Member of Parliament from Wales, with the exception of one who is a Whip, has been placed. On that Committee there has been placed a Member of the Welsh National Party. I do not object to that, but the Liberal Party polled a third more votes in Wales than that party at the last General Election, and on the Second Reading of the Bill a Liberal Member took part. However, no Liberal Member of Parliament has been included on that Committee.
May I also draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to a similar Committee for the
1692
Scottish Development Agency Bill, again on which no Liberal Member of Parliament has been placed?
May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, how minority parties can ensure proper representation on Committees which directly effect their constituency work and their party work? In relation to an earlier point of order, I am seeking an extension of the rights of back-bench Members. Some hon. Members take the view that the Front Benches in this House have too many rights already.
Mr. Speaker: On the question of minority parties, I do my best to call hon. Members. Two Liberal Members were called during business questions, which proportionately might be said to be more than a fair share. I have no power to direct the Committee of Selection, but no doubt what the hon. Member has said will have been noted.

SHARMAN NEWSPAPER GROUP (INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE)
4.12 p.m.
Sir David Renton: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"The current dispute between Sharman Newspaper Group and the National Graphical Association".
This is a specific matter because it is admitted that there is a dispute with, admittedly, damaging implications. It is an important matter because first of all it affects censorship and the freedom of the Press; secondly, because of the methods which admittedly have been used by the National Graphical Association; and thirdly, because, in spite of the efforts made by the Department of Employment, the dispute runs the risk of becoming a national one.
It is urgent and has become more so since the statement of the Minister of State this afternoon. Normally I would not rise to seek an Adjournment under Standing Order No. 9 when conciliation machinery is being pursued. However, on this occasion it was made clear that the attempts so far made have been unsuccessful, and it seems to me—and I trust

1693
that it will commend itself to you as well, Mr. Speaker—that both parties in this matter would greatly benefit from knowing the views of all hon. Members.
Therefore, in spite of the fact that the conciliation machinery is to be further used, I submit that this is a good reason for having such a discussion.
The only other point I would add—because it may affect your discretion, Mr. Speaker—is that I am conscious of the fact that we have a timetable motion today. However, if we do not raise these matters when they are urgent, we may not be able to raise them at all. The fact that there is a timetable motion should not inhibit the House from exercising its rights.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) has made his application under Standing Order No. 9.
My answer is a procedural one. I have to decide whether to disrupt today's business or Monday's business. I am not allowed to give my reasons for my decision. The only advice I can suggest, if the matter is as important as the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests and as his right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) suggested earlier, is that it might be considered for debate on a Supply Day. I shall not grant the application under Standing Order No, 9.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  INDUSTRY BILL
  [THIRD ALLOTTED DAY]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Clause 23

  RELEASE FROM DUTY TO DISCLOSE INFORMATION TO TRADE UNION
  4.15 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Gerald Kaufman): I beg to move Amendment No. 109, in page 16, leave out lines 17 to 34 and insert:

  '(1) A Minister who has served a notice under section 22 above may by notice be required to refer the matter to an advisory committee.

  (2) Such a reference may be required—

  (a) by the company or companies concerned, where the Minister proposes to require them to furnish information under sestion 22 above and they claim that it should not be furnished for special reasons, or

  (b) by the representative of any relevant trade union, where the Minister proposes that some or all of the information furnished to him shall not be furnished to representatives of relevant trade unions for special reasons.

  (3) A Minister may himself refer to an advisory committee any proposal that some or all of the information furnished to him shall not be furnished to representatives of relevant trade unions for special reasons.

  (3A) Schedule (Advisory committees) shall have effect.'

  Mr. Speaker: With this amendment we may also discuss the following amendments:
  Amendment (a), in subsection (1), leave out 'an advisory committee' and insert "the Appeals Tribunal".
  Amendment (b), in subsection (1), leave out 'advisory' and insert "appeal".
  Amendment (g), in subsection (3), leave out "an advisory committee" and insert "the Appeals Tribunal".
  Amendment (i), in subsection (3A), leave out "(Advisory Committees)" and insert "(Industry Act Appeals Tribunal)".
  Amendment (k), in subsection (3A), leave out "Advisory" and insert "Appeal"
  Government Amendments Nos. 110, 111, 112 and 113.
  Amendment (a) to Government Amendment No. 113, leave out from second "the" to end and insert "Industry Act Appeals Tribunal".
  Government Amendment No. 123.
  Amendment No. 187.

New Schedule

  INDUSTRY ACT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
  (1) There shall be established a tribunal in accordance with the following provisions of this section.
  (2) The said tribunal (in this Act referred to as "the Appeals Tribunal") shall be called the Industry Act Appeals Tribunal.
  (3) The Appeals Tribunal shall be appointed by the Lord Chancellor, the Lord President of the Court of Session, and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, acting together, and shall consist of a President and other members of such number as those appointing the Appeals Tribunal, acting together, shall determine.
  (4) The President shall be either a person who has held judicial office under the Crown (in the United Kingdom or elsewhere) or a barrister or advocate or solicitor of at least seven years' standing, and other members shall be barristers or advocates or solicitors of at least seven years' standing.
  (5) In appointing the Appeals Tribunal the Lord Chancellor and the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland shall have regard to the desirability of ensuring that so far as is practicable the President and the other members shall be persons with knowledge and experience which will be relevant to carrying out the Appeal Tribunal's functions.
  (6) In the event of temporary absence or inability to act of the President the Lord Chancellor, the Lord President of the Court of Sessions, and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, acting together, may appoint some other person having the appropriate qualifications under this section to act temporarily as President or may appoint any of the other members of the Appeals Tribunal to act as President, and a person or member so appointed shall when so acting have all the functions of President.
  (7) If the President or any other member of the Appeals Tribunal becomes, in the opinion of the Lord Chancellor, the Lord President of the Court of Session, and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, acting together, unfit to continue in office or incapable of performing his duties, they shall jointly forthwith declare his office to be vacant and shall jointly notify the fact in such manner as acting together they think fit, and thereupon the office shall become vacant.
  (8) Subject to subsection (7) of this section, the appointment of the President or of any other member of the Appeals Tribunal shall be for such term as the Lord Chancellor, the Lord President of the Court of Session, and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, acting together, may with the approval of the Treasury decide upon before making the appointment and shall be subject to such conditions as may be so decided upon.
  (9) There shall be paid to the President and to the other members of the Appeals Tribunal such remuneration and allowances as the Lord Chancellor, the Lord President of the Court of Session, and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, acting together, may with the approval of the Treasury determine.
  (10) The Lord Chancellor, the Lord President of the Court of Session, and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, acting together, may appoint such staff to the Appeals Tribunal as they may jointly, with the approval of the Treasury as to numbers and remuneration, determine.
  (11) The remuneration and allowances of the President and the other members and the staff of the Appeals Tribunal, and such other expenses of the Appeals Tribunal as the Treasury may determine, shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament.
  (12) The Appeals Tribunal shall hear and determine any reference made to it under section 23 of this Act.
  (13) In carrying out its functions under subsection (12) of this section the Appeals Tribunal shall subject to the provisions of section 23 of this Act and subject also to the provisions of subsection (14) of this section conduct its proceedings in such manner as it thinks fit.
  (14) The Appeal Tribunal will conduct its proceedings in private except when on any particular occasion it decides, or is directed by the Lord Chancellor, the Lord President of the Court of Session, and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, acting together, to conduct its proceedings in public.
  (15) The Appeals Tribunal shall as soon as may be after the end of each calendar year make a report to the Lord Chancellor, the Lord President of the Court of Session, and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, jointly on its activities during that year.
  (16) The Lord Chancellor shall lay before Parliament the report referred to in subsection (15) of this section'.
  Mr. Kaufman: The effect of the amendment to Clause 23 is considerable. It will probably be of most use to the House if I quickly outline the procedure that would be adopted if all the amendments were accepted, and then explain the main changes that are proposed by the amendments.
  First, let me describe the procedure if the advisory committee is involved. A reference will be made, by the Minister on his own initiative, or as a result of a

  1697
  union representative seeking to see disclosed information the Minister considers should not be disclosed "for special reasons", or as a result of a company seeking to have less disclosed than the Minister indicated in his proposal. If a reference is made, the committee after giving the company and trade union representatives an opportunity of making their case and considering these, must report its recommendation to the Minister. Only after this has happened may the Minister make his final decision, which he must give to the company, the union representatives and the committee, informing them of whether it accords with the committee's recommendation. Should the Minister require information to be disclosed contrary to a recommendation of the committee, he must make an order to this effect, subject to negative resolutions in both Houses of Parliament.
  The procedure if there is no reference to the committee is somewhat simpler. After the end of the period set out in the preliminary notice, if there is no requirement for a reference to be made to the committee, the Minister may simply inform the company and union representatives that notice now becomes operative, and all or part of the information in it must be provided to trade union representatives.
  Mr. Eric S. Heifer: Does my hon. Friend intend to explain the basic reason for the change in relation to the amendment, because this, while not a fundamental change, is a change of some importance. Labour Members would like to know the reason for that change in order to determine their views, because they are not entirely happy.
  Mr. Kaufman: I certainly accept that my hon. Friend would like an explanation of that change. When I have concluded outlining the actual provisions, which will be of benefit to the whole House, I shall gladly outline the reasons behind the change that we are proposing.
  There are three main changes that are proposed by these amendments: first, the committee is to be advisory, rather than being the final arbiter; second, the committee will be especially established, according to the new Schedule, and will not he the Central Arbitration Committee; third, there is a new and additional
  1698
  form of Parliamentary control, should in any circumstances the Minister require disclosure contrary to the committee's recommendation.
  The original arrangements established a division between those safeguards to be decided by the Minister and those which were to be decided by the independent committee. Under these arrangements neither could in any way affect the other's decisions.
  This division of responsibility had some unfortunate rigidities. In particular, if any question of withholding information for reasons of commercial injury arose, the Minister could do nothing. It had to be settled by the company making an application to the committee even if, as might well have happened, there had been many previous such applications and it was well accepted that information of the sort in question should not be furnished to trade union representatives. This inflexibility was clearly unaktractive—and, in response to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Walton, I shall return to this question of inflexibility.
  We therefore propose to introduce a more flexible and I believe more effective system by which the Minister makes the final decision on rational and special reasons for non-disclosure but has access to an advisory committee which he may be required to consult.
  It is important that the independent committee which will advise the Minister is seen to be impartial, fair and effective. The Government originally proposed that the CAC should discharge the duty of deciding on cases involving what we have now called special reasons for nondisclosure. This matched the CAC's responsibilities under Clause 17 and 18 of the Employment Protection Bill. In many respects the CAC would have been a suitable decision-making body. However, since the rôle of the committee is now to be advisory rather than a determining body, it is no longer appropriate to be used. We have taken the opportunity of the change to an advisory committee to provide for a special committee whose composition and functions are specified in a new schedule. We have provided for a balanced committee chaired by a lawyer, whose members will have exactly the powers required to

  1699
  determine the questions on which they are asked to advise.
  My hon. Friend will have seen that workers and management are to be represented on the committee equally, one each. The composition and procedure of the new committee takes account of the criticisms made in Committee about the procedure of the CAC in this rôle. Having read those proceedings at some length, I believe that there was a great deal of force in a number of criticisms made. As a consequence of the special committee and the new schedule, we are able to delete what was Clause 23(6) which was criticised as conferring excessively wide powers on the Secretary of State.
  I recognise that there were some misgivings about conferring powers on the Secretary of State contingent upon the passage of a Bill which it was not certain would be passed—although obviously we are extremely anxious that it should be—and which would have left an open end of an unsatisfactory nature had the Bill for some reason or another been frustrated.
  Since we have made the committee advisory there is a possibility that its advice may be rejected. We have required the Minister, when announcing his final decision, to state whether he is in agreement with the committee's recommendations. In addition, if the Minister requires disclosure of information contrary to the committee's advice he can do so only by laying an order subject to Negative Resolution before Parliament. No disclosure of information in this category may be required while the possibility of annulment exists. This additional parliamentary control will, I hope, give assurance that we intend to treat the committee's advice carefully and seriously.
  I have outlined the procedures and the main changes in the Bill which will follow from these amendments. The arrangements now proposed should be equitable to both sides of industry, more flexible and, I submit, more effective than those originally proposed.
  I would like now to deal with the valid and important question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Walton. Like many hon. Members who were not involved in the Bill, who were mere spectators of its proceedings in Committee,
  1700
  I came to it afresh, as one does as a Member of Parliament involved in a great deal of legislation but necessarily closely involved in the legislation of one's Department. Together with my senior colleagues, I examined this issue.
  It seemed to me, if I may say so to my hon. Friend without seeming patronising, that one of the most engaging aspects of his contribution to the Committee proceedings was the way in which, while remaining a spokesman on Government policy, he felt free at the same time to state his views on Government policy.
  It was very much my view that it was entirely wrong that on a matter of such importance, particularly for the unions, the Secretary of State should be bound by a decision of a committee, which was responsible to no one, whether he should pass on information to trade unions. Even if he had wished to do so following consideration of the matter by the independent committee, he would not have been able to do so. He would have been bound by the committee's decisions, very much in the way on which Ministers in the Conservative Government were bound by extra parliamentary bodies which they set up under various pieces of legislation and which they were then unable to influence.
  It also seemed to us that there was a grave danger that the machinery of the committee would become clogged. There was no case law and no precedent. Everything started anew, ab initio. It seemed likely that although the disclosure provisions were mandatory—and that was something about which my hon. Friends and other colleagues felt strongly—the mandatory nature of the provisions might be frustrated by a blockage caused by a succession of applications to the committee. In addition, this was a one-sided committee. It was a committee to which the company applied and to which the union had no access.
  We therefore decided upon a change. The change was that there should be an advisory committee to the Secretary of State and set up by him from four panels—a management panel, a workmen's panel, and either an English legal panel or a Scottish legal panel, the chairman to come from this latter panel. That committee would advise the Secretary of State. The trade union would have to

  1701
  be notified of an application and would also be able to apply on its own behalf. Trade unions would have parity with companies in being able to put their case to the independent committee. Although naturally the union would not be acquainted with the full information, it would be acquainted with the nature of the information which the company was seeking to withhold. A trade union would therefore have the right, which it does not have under the Bill as drafted, to put its case to the independent committee.
  The Secretary of State would then be able to consider it. If he decided contrary to the committee and wished to hand information over to the trade union regardless of the committee's advice, he would be able to do so. I believe that that is right. I do not think that the Secretary of State, a Minister of the Crown, should be bound in a decision, which is not a narrow decision like that of, for example a social security appeal tribunal, by a committee set up of his own choosing. Naturally it is right, if the Secretary of State chooses to disregard the committee, that he should be answerable for his disregard.
  We have therefore said in the final stage that if the Secretary of State decided to set aside the advice of the committee and to hand over the information to a trade union, Parliament should have the right to examine that decision through the Negative Resolution procedure and the Secretary of State should be answerable to Parliament rather than be bound by an independent committee which he has established.
  Mr. Heffer: May I ask a question about the factual position? The committee will be drawn from the employers' panel, the work force panel and the legal panel. Does that mean that there will be one from each panel, so that there is a total of three members? I see that my hon. Friend is indicating that it does mean that. Who will be the chairman? Will it be the legal man? This is crucial, because if there is an anti-union chairman from the legal profession nothing put forward by the trade unions will be accepted. On the other hand, if it is an anti-employer legal man who dislikes employers' organisations, the employers will never get a decision in their favour.
  Mr. Kaufman: My hon. Friend is right to probe the issue. It is as well, since it is an important innovation, that it should be clarified and queried. The provision in the Bill as we intend, if the House consents to amend it, is clear. There will be a management member and a workers' member. There will be an equal balance between management and unions and the lawyer will be the chairman—
  Mr. James Dempsey Mr. James Dempsey (Coatbridge and Airdrie) rose—
  4.30 p.m.
  Mr. Kaufman: Perhaps I may complete my sentence. I quite understand the fear of my right hon. Friend that the committee might be overbalanced if there were a biased chairman one way or the other, as there easily could be. That is a problem we always face. I faced it in the Department of the Environment when I was considering appointments to the rent assessment committees. It is because I recognise that that I regard as of the utmost importance the fact that the Secretary of State will not be bound by the committee. If he were so bound, as he was in the Bill as originally drafted, then I can assure my hon. Friend that I would have been slightly more neurotic about the way it was made out because, like him and other of my hon. Friends, I have no great love for lawyers and I do not believe that they are great repositories of wisdom.
  Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn (Kinross and West Perthshire) rose—
  Mr. Kaufman: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. I have a great love for the hon. Gentleman but an even greater love for finishing my sentences before giving way. I promised to give way to my hon. Friend before concluding. This is an important matter. I would tell my hon. Friend the Member for Walton that under the original proposal one would have had no greater confidence that the committee would come to a right and fair decision but the Secretary of State would have been bound by its decision, even with that lack of confidence. The great protection of this present procedure against a feeling that the lawyer might balance one way or the other is, first, the fact that the Secretary of State need not be bound by the decision of the court and may still pass on

  1703
  the information to the trade union; and, secondly, that if he sets aside the decission and passes on the information to the trade union, he has to explain himself to Parliament. That seems to me absolutely right, first because discretion lies in the hands of a Minister of the Crown responsible to Parliament and, secondly, because Parliament is the body which, in the end, will decide.
  Mr. Tom King Mr. Tom King (Bridgwater)
  rose—
  Mr. Dempsey: As I understand it, we are discussing a matter which would be regarded as of commercial confidentiality in deciding whether that information should be released. I cannot understand why it is necessary to have a lawyer there at all to tell people such as myself, who have had practical business experience, whether it is wise to disclose this information. I would like my hon. Friend to develop his argument on why there is any necessity at all to have a legal representative there, far less in the chair.
  Mr. Kaufman: My hon. Friend's simple questions are always more difficult to answer than more complicated ones. It is received wisdom that lawyers make good, impartial chairmen because they know the law. It might well be that lawyers and others would make equally impartial chairmen. I have in my constituency a wide range of people in whom I would have great confidence and therefore I am not passionate on that. It is received wisdom and I believe my hon. Friend would be right to be suspicious if there were not to be a representative of both workers and employers. But I do not think it is a matter on which one need be overly concerned. I will give way to the hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire and then to the hon. Member for Bridgwater.
  Mr. Fairbairn: May I ask the Under-Secretary two questions? First, he says that he does not have much fondness or feeling for lawyers. I thought that Socialists regarded all men as their brothers regardless of their occupation. Perhaps partiality is at last creeping into the Labour Party. But leaving that aside, the function of this committee, or whatever one might call it, must surely be a simple matter of the interpretation of the law and nothing else under this clause—
  1704
  whether the release of the information would be substantially prejudicial to people's interests. What has that to do with people not qualified in the interpretation of the law?
  Mr. Kaufman: On the hon. and learned Gentleman's first point, I have the utmost brotherly feeling for lawyers as people but when it comes to lawyers as lawyers, my feelings are less brotherly. All men are my brothers but some are more brotherly than others. Industrial matters, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Walton, had a great deal to say during the passage of the Industrial Relations Bill, are not matters simply for law courts. Industrial matters are matters of flesh and blood, and those who are involved in them, workers and management, have a right to be heard and, indeed, it is necessary to hear from them. This is not a legal situation.
  The trouble with the ramshackle machinery that hon. Gentlemen opposite want to erect to deal with such matters is that of having an obsession with dragging lawyers into everything, like the mad National Industrial Relations Court they set up, which caused precisely the same problems for their Government as I fear the committee as originally envisaged might have caused us had we proceeded with it—though I must confess their Government suffered on a far larger scale than we would have suffered.
  Mr. Tom King: As I understand what the Under-Secretary has said—that the protection against a prejudiced chairman of the committee who might be biased one way or the other is that the committee's decision can be overriden by the Secretary of State—it carries the implication that the man who can be guaranteed at all times, without any political thought at all, to be totally unbiased is the Secretary of State. It seems a very odd doctrine.
  Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman did not listen to what I was saying. I said that the Secretary of State is the Minister in charge of this legislation. That is why we believe that the checks and balances in this situation are very fairly placed. If the Secretary of State exercises his discretion in a way which sets aside a decision of the committee, he has to lay an order, and the Secretary of

  1705
  State's decision can be debated by Parliament. The great glory of our parliamentary democracy is that Ministers are answerable to Parliament. I believe that they should be, and that they should not be bound by an independent committee of their own appointment. That is why I believe—although I said yesterday that this whole machinery is inevitably cumbersome—that we have the checks and balances about right. I very much hope the House will agree with these Government amendments.
  Question proposed, That the amendment be made.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I understand that the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. John Stanley) wishes to divide on an amendment. Will he please move it now?
  Mr. John Stanley: I beg to move Amendment (a) to the proposed Amendment, in subsection (1) leave out 'an advisory committee' and insert 'the Appeals Tribunal'.
  There is not and never has been any difference between the Opposition and the Government as to the basic intentions of Clause 23. We have been united in seeking to ensure that whatever procedure is adopted in that clause provides us with the means, both legally and procedurally, of having a watertight system for safeguarding commercially confidential information. We are talking in essence about two very different routes to the same end—about, on the one hand, proceeding down the Government's advisory committee road or, alternativeley, proceeding down our own road of an industrial appeals tribunal.
  Clearly it is not a simple matter of procedures as far as industry is concerned. This is no academic, administrative debate because it is incumbent upon us to get Clause 23 right. If we fail to do so and create a situation in which commercially confidential information can be gratuitously leaked, we shall end up by jeopardising the prospects of individual companies and those employed in them. This is a vital matter which directly affects the bread and butter and the living standards of possibly many thousands of employees.
  During the Committee stage we spent, by my calculations, a total of 11 hours debating this particular matter and I
  1706
  would certainly acknowledge that we in no way wholly wasted our time in doing so. I would be the first to acknowledge that the Government—and I do not know whether it was the outgoing or incoming Minister in the Department who was concerned, or possibly both—have certainly displayed flexibility in considering our objections and the criticisms we made during the Standing Committee proceedings.
  The Government have, for example, accepted our case that it was wholly inappropriate to use the Central Arbitration Committee of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service that is being set up under the Employment Protection Bill. They also accepted our criticisms of subsection (6) of Clause 23 in the original Bill, which gave Ministers carte blanche to establish appeal bodies under existing enactments or not simply by laying orders. They should be able to set up what we regard as courts without passing additional legislation.
  In addition, the Government have accepted our criticism that people were inadequately qualified to take decisions on commercial disclosure as members of the Central Arbitration Committee. The qualification was that they should be experienced in industrial relations, and we did not see that that was necessarily a suitable qualification for the decisions that that appeal body would take. We welcome the Government's alteration of the composition of the advisory committee to provide a mix of lawyers and those from both sides of industry with experience, not in industrial relations but in industrial affairs, which we accept as a much wider qualification.
  While it is true that the Government have accepted some of the substantial points of detail in the objections we put forward in Committee, it is also the case that they have not accepted the arguments of principle that we advanced against the way in which they were trying to proceed. We come back in these Report proceedings with two major areas of objection in principle that we continue to see even in the amended proposals that the Government have brought forward.
  First, without doubt a huge degree of discretionary power is given to Ministers, even under the new proposal. Concern about that degree of discretionary power

  1707
  has been expressed on both sides of the House today. The Under-Secretary gave examples of how that power might be used. He said that it would be used by Ministers overruling a decision by the committee to withhold the information. The Minister might say that it should be passed on to trade union representatives. But—and I am not sure that all hon. Members are aware of this—the Minister can overrule the committee both ways. In other words, if the committee decides that the information should not be withheld, it is open to Ministers under the Bill to rule, against the committee's advice, that it should be withheld. Here I comment on what the Minister said at the end of his speech. There is in fact no statutory instrument laid before the House, unless the Minister is overruling a committee's decision decides against its advice that the information should be disclosed.
  Enormous discretionary power for Ministers is still present in the Bill. Our original criticism of the clause concerned ministerial discretion. Previously our fears were that the ministerial discretion might be used to set up appeal bodies under subsection (6) which would not be fully independent or fully competent to do the job. I agree that the Government have eliminated that area of ministerial discretion, but they have replaced it by an equally potent area of ministerial discretion—Minister's ability to overrule the judgement of the advisory committee.
  Let us see how the advisory committee will consider the individual cases that will go to it. First, there will be a reference, which can be made by Ministers or the company or trade unions, to an advisory committee comprising only three people. As Labour Members have already highlighted, the composition of the committee and the outlook of those three people, will be fundamental. They will be critically important to seeing that there is fair play. Two of the members of the committee will be appointed by Ministers solely on Ministers' own authority. Only the lawyer member of the committee will be appointed by the Minister in conjunction with the Lord Chancellor.
  4.45 p.m.
  The advisory committee considers the case brought to it and then tenders its
  1708
  advice to the Minister, who is free to accept or reject that advice. The advice may be either way. It may be a recommendation that the information should be withheld or that it may be published and given to representatives of trade unions. The Minister can overrule the committee. If he does, it is only if his final decision is that the information should be published, when the committee has recommended that it should be withheld, that his decision is subject to a Negative Resolution order in the House.
  Effectively, Parliament is being asked to act as appeal body against a ministerial decision. The Under-Secretary has laid great stress yesterday and today on what he regards as the important parliamentary safeguard of the Negative Resolution procedure if the Minister overrules the advice of the Committee. I do not suggest that hon. Members cannot successfully harry Ministers when a controversial statutory instrument is placed before the House. But we are considering a statutory instrument dealing with a particular type of subject matter, in which the Negative Resolution procedure will be singularly ineffective, because the statutory instrument will say that a certain amount of information, which cannot be described in any detail in it, will be passed on to trade union representatives. How on earth can a company successfully contest that sort of statutory instrument? How can hon. Members take a factual view on it when we are dealing with highly classified, commercially confidential information?
  The Negative Resolution safeguard, of which the Government have made so much, is a sop. It is hardly worth having, because by definition the information which we are discussing, and which is the subject of the statutory instrument, cannot be made available to hon. Members on either side. Therefore, there is no possibility of the company concerned properly informing hon. Members of the nature of the information and giving them a factual basis on which to decide whether to negative the statutory instrument.
  I come to the second objection that we made in Committee. Here, too, the Government amendments do not begin to meet our point. We have referred to the fundamental constitutional principle that the judiciary should be kept fully independent

  1709
  of the executive. Our original objection was that the Central Arbitration Committee was being asked to perform what was in our view a judicial function under the clause as originally drafted—to decide on the grounds laid down in the measure whether the information should be released to trade union representatives. We maintained in Committee that it was improper for a body such as the Central Arbitration Committee, a body within the executive, to perform that judicial rôle.
  The clause as it has been redrafted confuses to an even greater extent the judicial and executive functions, because now it is not merely an arm's-length committee carrying out the judicial function but the executive, Ministers themselves. I suppose that the Government will argue—indeed, they began to argue in answer to interventions by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn)—that the real rôle of the advisory committee is an administrative rôle, not a judicial rôle at all. The Bill has been amended to try to convey that impression. I suggest that it has been amended misleadingly to try to convey that impression erroneously.
  The Government suggest that the advisory committee is dealing with a matter in the same way as an advisory committee might advise the Secretary of State for the Environment in dealing with a matter such as a planning appeal. They suggest that it is art administrative matter, legitimately the subject of ministerial discretion.
  Mr. Kaufman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the system of planning appeals is a semi-judicial process and that the secretary of State has a semi-judicial function in deciding on appeals?
  Mr. Stanley: The way in which planning appeals and procedures, leading to a decision, are dictated follows a semi-legal form, but under the Town and Country Planning Acts this is delegated authority given to the Minister to exercise his perfectly legitimate executive discretion. We are talking about a different situation. The Government have acknowledged the semi-judicial—we would say, fully judicial—functions of the advisory committee by proposing to appoint lawyers as the chairman and one-third of the membership.
  Sir Raymond Gower: Can my hon. Friend explain the term "semi-
  1710
  judicial". I have never heard of it before. I have heard of quasi-judicial, but there is no such thing as semi-judicial.
  Mr. Stanley: I apologise to my hon. Friend. I meant to say quasi-judicial, but the function being performed here is a fully judicial function and is not quasi-judicial.
  I refer the House to Government Amendment No. 109 which is being discussed with our amendment. The wording of that amendment demonstrates that the issue before the advisory committee, whether the case is brought by a trade union, a company or a Minister, will be whether the "special reasons" are valid. Paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of that amendment reads that a reference to the committee may be required by a company
  "where the Minister proposes to require them to furnish information under section 22 above and they claim that it should not be furnished for special reasons."
  A reference may be made by the representative of a relevant trade union
  "where the Minister proposes that some or all of the information furnished to him shall not be furnished to representatives of relevant trade unions for special reasons."
  In subsection (3) of the amendment, we read,
  "A Minister may himself refer to an advisory committee any proposal that some or all of the information furnished to him shall not be furnished to representatives of relevant trade unions for special reasons."
  In every case where there is a reference to the advisory committee, the special reasons will be at issue.
  Clearly the function is a judicial one and Ministers are taking it upon themselves to operate the law as well as to legislate. They have substantial discretionary powers and are effectively putting themselves in the position of being members of the judiciary.
  Our alternative proposals are set out in Amendment No. 187 under which we would establish an appeals tribunal which would not be as cumbersome as the appeals system provided for in the Bill. There is a clear requirement in the Bill for a body to hear contested disclosure of information cases. The key characteristic of such a body must be its independence of the Government and the only way this can be achieved is to make

  1711
  it part of the judiciary. It must be able to carry out, within the judiciary, its limited technical and expert functions in deciding disclosure appeals.
  The Lands Tribunal provides an exact precedent for the sort of body we have in mind. It is firmly within the judiciary and carries out a limited, expert and technical function in land valuation and compensation. Our amendment is modelled on the Lands Tribunal Act passed by a Labour Government in 1949. There would be no doubt about its political independence—which is as important as anything—because its members would he appointed by the Lord Chancellor, the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland. Nor is there any reason to doubt the ability of these members to deal competently with the disclosure cases. Members would be appointed with regard to relevant experience and knowledge of matters likely to come before them and, in the Standing Committee I referred to the recent case of Hoffman-La Roche v. the Department of Trade and Industry—a case specifically concerned with the release of commercially confidential information—to show that the legal profession is wholly competent to deal with such matters.
  Mr. Arthur Palmer: The difficulty with the Opposition's proposal is that public money may be involved in this matter and their suggestion would take away all control from this House. At least Ministers are responsible to the House.
  Mr. Stanley: We believe that it is the function of the House to legislate and to hold the executive accountable to the House. The rôle we see being performed under Clause 23 is the judicial rôle of deciding whether the special reasons hold good in particular cases.
  I am sorry that, because of the disgraceful guillotine and very short period of time allowed for the Report stage, we were not able to discuss the Government's "special reasons" amendment yesterday. The Government have never contested the practicability of the tribunal we propose and I do not believe it can be argued against on practical grounds. It is a basic matter of principle that we should
  1712
  have a body outside the executive. It is wholly wrong in principle that a body which is effectively a court should be set up in the executive. It is wholly wrong in principle that a Minister should arrogate to himself the rôle and functions of a member of the judiciary. The result of Ministers taking these sweeping and discretionary powers against which there is no effective right of appeal will be enormously to increase the uncertainty of companies and trade unions.
  Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman is getting into a bit of a logical fix. He is saying that the Opposition want the appeal body to be a court and consequently the Government are getting involved in a judicial situation. We are doing so only if we want the body to be a court, and we do not want that.
  5.0 p.m.
  Mr. Stanley: It is not a question of who wants it to be a court and who does not. As the Bill is drafted, and as it will be redrafted by the Government amendments, the advisory committee will perform a judicial function. If the Under-Secretary is denying that that is so, why have the Government brought forward their "special reasons" amendment? Those are the criteria against which individual cases are to be judged. If, as the Under-Secretary maintains, there is no judicial rôle here, the special reasons will be superfluous.
  What the Government are doing will lead to enormous uncertainty for the companies and the trade unions. Since there will be an element of ministerial discretion by which the Secretary of State can freely override the judgment of the Committee, there can be no certainty for any company that the grounds for withholding information, which are spelled out in the Bill under the "special reasons" provision, will be adhered to or ignored by the Minister. The special reasons will apply only if the Minister considers that they should. Amendment No. 105 of yesterday, which we were unable to debate, made that clear.
  Neither companies nor trade unions can be certain that the powers will be used without political bias or partially by a Government, whatever its political complexion. The powers ultimately belong to Ministers, and Ministers are

  1713
  political and not judicial animals. Neither side of the House should be mollified or satisfied by the assurance, which I am sure the Under-Secretary will give, that these powers will be exercised reasonably, responsibility and fairly by the present administration. We are not legislating for this set of Ministers or for this Government. We are legislating for any Minister and any Government, and the Government's amendments make it possible for Minister to exercise judicial powers on a discretionary and, therefore, potentially arbitrary basis.
  For 300 years successive British Parliaments have jealously guarded the principle that executive and judicial functions should be kept clearly separate, and I hope that the House will show that its jealousy of that principle is in no way dimmed and will support our amendment.
  Mr. Heffer: This is a most complicated matter. Anyone who pretends that he has an easy answer to it is talking rubbish as those of us who debated the matter at great length in Committee know.
  The information in question could be of a highly confidential commercial nature. The Government, I know, in urging that this information should be given to trade unionists, realise that the commercial interests of a firm could be damaged merely by the information becoming known. They do not intend it to be given to the general public and the mass of the workers in the industry concerned. It is difficult to know precisely where to draw the line between what is confidential and what is not. Perhaps a company would argue that information was confidential and should not be given to the unions when it was not confidential at all. We therefore are thrown back on defining the special reasons.
  It has never been said that all information would be given freely and without hindrance. There are two areas in which it is recognised that information could be particularly sensitive. The first concerns the national interest and involves questions of security and so on, and the second concerns information of a sensitive commercial nature.
  I am not completely satisfied with the Under-Secretary's explanation but I would never support the Opposition
  1714
  amendments. We have examined this matter many times and we are not completely happy with it. Nevertheless we are prepared to give the proposals a chance and see what happens. In practice we shall see whether the system works sensibly and intelligently, and if it does not, that is a matter which must be pursued. I have no doubt that the trade unions and employers will take the matter up if necessary with the advisory committee.
  I do not accept the Opposition contention that there should be an appeals tribunal consisting of
  "barristers or advocates or solicitors of at least seven years' standing."
  I do not see why someone in that category should be able to decide any more intelligently what is commercially sensitive information than a trade unionist, an employer's representative, a dustman or the charlady who cleans this House. I do not understand why lawyers should be regarded as being all-knowing, and in saying that I stress that I am not "anti-lawyer".
  The Under-Secretary said that we were dealing with individuals in industry, and that sums up the thinking of the trade union movement. It wants this information because it concerns the lives of the work people, who have a right to that information as it affects their future. With it they can adopt a more positive approach to industrial matters, industrial relations and the industry in which they work. Whether they should get the information should not be determined by a group of lawyers. If we are to have an advisory committee, it should be made up of representatives of the work force, the employers' organisations and—I will accept for the moment—legal people.
  Mr. Tom King: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) suggested that there might be substantial validity in our proposal because the trade union representative might be biased in favour of greater disclosure. I am not trying to put words into the hon. Gentleman's mouth. He has explained why trade unions have a natural interest in this aspect and therefore may not be as impartial as lawyers. Therefore, lawyers may have an advantage, quite apart from the legal training aspect, because they are not directly concerned.
  Mr. Heffer: The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) has answered the point himself. If there is one trade unionist and one representative of the employers' organisation, and the employers' organisation representative says, "No, this should not be given to the trade union", then the lawyer, precisely for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman suggests, will come down on the side of not giving the information to the trade unionists. That is what I fear and that is why I am not entirely happy. I shall give it a go. We shall look at it and hope that it will work out in an unbiased fashion. Even with this set-up, I am afraid that it is likely to be more biased against trade unionists getting information than if the composition were different. That is precisely the point I am making.
  Mr. Keith Stainton: A relevant point that we tried to develop in Committee was that, right from the start, the trade union representative is at a great disadvantage because he is not privy to the nature of the proceedings and does not know the case to argue before the committee. He is pleading in the dark.
  Mr. Heffer: I do not know whether the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) has experience of appeals tribunals of any kind. For a considerable time I was a member of the appeals tribunal concerned with national insurance legislation. The position was that all the information was given to the tribunal. It was possible to have people brought before it, and queries were raised at the local offices, and so on, before a decision was given.
  Trade unionists are not unintelligent. Surely they would be able, having looked at the information available, to decide accordingly. They would be privy to information to which we would not be privy. If they are not privy to the information, it would be absolutely absurd to have a committee at all.
  Mr. Stainton: The whole issue is whether they should have access to that information. Therefore, how can they be privy to it in order to argue their case when the committee has to decide whether they should have it? This is a very important point.
  Mr. Heffer: I was talking about the composition of the committee. The hon. Gentleman is now talking about the trade unionists and the type of information that will be disclosed. I accept that this is a difficult problem. Indeed, that is why the committee must have a trade union representative who will know what the arguments and the information are about and will then be able to say whether such information should be given in view of its highly sensitive commercial or other nature.
  I accept that some of the points made by the hon. Gentleman have validity. I accept the argument about the CAC. I accept that this is not a good idea. I am glad that we have got it away from that committee, first, because it will have enough to do anyway without being cluttered up with arguments about whether information should be given through the provisions of the Industry Bill. It is right to have a separate body. I do not agree with the concept of an appeal tribunal made up of various lawyers, barristers, and so on.
  I am not entirely happy with the proposals made by the Government. I helped to draft the original Bill. I still feel that perhaps there is a great deal to be gained from having a separate committee, not the CAC, to look at the matter as was originally suggested. However, I suggest that we should give it a go and look at it on the basis of experience.
  5.15 p.m.
  Mr. Stanley: Would the hon. Member feel equally happy about the composition of the appeal committee regardless of which political party were in government at the time?
  Mr. Heffer: This is a hardy annual that is always raised. Any Government at any time who are dissatisfied with legislation introduced by a previous Government can and do change that legislation. They may have to operate for a period under the previous legislation, but, if they find that that is not helpful because they have won an election on a certain point of view and that is what the people are expecting them to carry out, obviously they change the legislation. Every politician is politically biased. If not, he would belong to an amorphous group known as "the party of non-politicians". Who would get elected to the House of

  1717
  Commons on the politically biased policy of being non-politicians? This is not a logical situation. We all belong to political parties and we support certain legislation based upon our election manifestos.
  Therefore, the point made by the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing does not worry me at all. If the Tories, God forbid, ever came into power again and had to carry out the policies laid down in the Industry Bill, I have the feeling that, after a period of time, if it were not in line with their political philosophy, they would change it. I have no doubt that that would be the position.
  Mr. Emlyn Hooson: This is not the first time in my life that I have not been impressed by the case put by the Government or by the Opposition Front Bench on this matter. I am not saying that both hon. Gentlemen did not present their cases well, but I do not think that this matter has been sufficiently thought out, because it covers a very sensitive area. We are moving into new ground.
  I largely agreed with much of the reasoning of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). However, I disagreed with him when he suggested that we should allow this matter to be tested and that time would prove whether it was successful. That is a dangerous doctrine because often these things work out totally differently from the way in which we expect. They might work out to the disadvantage of the viewpoint expressed by the hon. Member for Walton. Indeed I suspect that that will be the case. Therefore, we should look more closely at the matter.
  In view of the Under-Secretary's presentation of the case today, I do not think that the Government can possibly have thought the matter through. They have virtually appointed the House as the final court of appeal for what will be a dispute between parties. How can it be appropriate for this House to consider these particular matters? A firm which has commercially sensitive information, which even the trade union may not understand is commercially sensitive, will, if the Minister has made an order or decided not to accept the advisory committee's advice, have to come here as a final court of appeal. But how on
  1718
  earth can that commercial company allow Members of Parliament to know what it is that is commercially sensitive to enable individual Members to make a judgment on that point? It is an absolute nonsense. Although it may sound marvellous to uninstructed listeners, it may sound as though this is preserving the powers of this great democratic institution, it is a nonsense when we consider the matter with which we are actually dealing.
  I cannot accept the view put forward from the Opposition Front Bench that this is a judicial matter and that a tribunal constituted of lawyers should consider it. That would not be appropriate in this sensitive sphere. We have embarked upon something of the nature of a quasi-judicial body, which is completely different from a planning tribunal. Though itself a quasi-judicial body, a planning tribunal is subject to the law of the land. Prerogative writs apply. If a quasi-judicial tribunal such as a planning tribunal goes wrong in law, the matter can be transferred to the High Court. Therefore, such bodies are independent on matters of fact, but not on matters of law.
  It would be impossible to transfer a matter of this kind to the High Court and have a judge decide it, because the commercial firm concerned would have to reveal its secrets or the reasons why the information is sensitive to that court, which necessarily has to sit in public. Therefore, we are considering something totally different and have not yet struck the right note.
  My hon. Friends and I suggest, in the form of an amendment, that this body should be an appeal committee, not an advisory committee. The advantage of its being an appeal committee is that it prevents the Minister being the judge in his own cause. That is very important. Ministers are highly charged political animals. One can anticipate that, whereas the present incumbents in office may think it highly desirable that they should finally decide these matters, they may find that somebody at present on this side of the House with totally different views would be taking most of the decisions. Therefore, that is inappropriate.
  Another reason is that, if it is an appeal committee and it is known that it will decide important and sensitive matters,

  1719
  we are likely to have highly responsible and skilled people appointed to it. The greater its powers, the more likely the Minister is to take great care over appointments to it. If it were an appeal committee, totally different from what is suggested by the Opposition, we could have a highly responsible and experienced trade unionist, a highly responsible and experienced employer and, one would hope, a senior and responsible barrister or solicitor in the chair.
  There are advantages in having a lawyer serving on such a committee. After all, what is envisaged is a dispute between two conflicting bodies—men of flesh and blood. If they have a dispute, somebody has to decide it.
  There are two basic advantages in having a lawyer on the committee. The trained lawyer is accustomed to assessing both sides of an argument. This may be to his disadvantage in a political sphere, but it is to his advantage in a judicial or quasi-judicial sphere.
  The trained lawyer is also very good at articulating the conclusions reached by a committee. We may have highly skilled and knowledgeable people in industry serving on the commitee as representatives of the trade unions and employers, but they may be no match for the lawyer in articulating what they decide. In my view, based on such experience as I have in this sphere, a highly responsible committed of this kind would agree in nine cases out of ten.
  Mr. Tom Litterick: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hooson: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman later.
  Right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House can draw on their own experience. My experience is that a body of this kind, composed of a highly experienced member of one side of industry, a highly experienced member of the other side of industry and a lawyer in the centre, is likely in almost every case to reach the same conclusion.
  In considering this body we must remember that the only guidance afforded to it is the term "special reasons". That would have to be interpreted over a long
  1720
  period. A magistrate or anybody who has knowledge of the law knows that there is an interpretation of "special reasons" in the Road Traffic Act. But "special reasons" has to be interpreted in the context of this legislation.
  The hon. Member for Walton pointed out that we are dealing with difficult matters in the sense that there is no precedent for evolving an interpretation of "special reasons" in this sphere. That is why, if this advisory committee were to be changed in kind and, I hope, improved in quality from what was contemplated, we might have a body ideal for this purpose. I promised to give way to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick).
  Mr. Litterick: My point has almost been lost in the welter of highly articulate words which have flowed from the hon. and learned Gentleman. A few hundred words ago the hon. and learned Gentleman characterised his hypothetical body as being highly responsible. We are talking about words—at least the hon. and learned Gentleman was—their use, and people's ability to use them. When he referred to this highly responsible body, did he mean it in the sloppy sense of a lot of dignified people or in a precisely technical sense?
  Mr. Hooson: I meant it in a precisely technical sense. I should have thought that any responsible Minister appointing people in this sphere would appreciate that it was important that both the trade unions and the employers should have faith in the committee. Therefore, it would be important for him to appoint people who were respected and had a great deal of responsibility in their respective spheres.
  Obviously with this kind of development in the law and the change in our attitude towards the sharing of information between both sides of industry, it is important that, whether this be an appeal committee as opposed to an advisory committee, highly responsible people in the technical sense should be appointed to it. I do not mean dignified gentlemen with bowler hats in this instance, although I have nothing against bowler hats as such. I do not think that we have quite got the right answer to the problem and it is important that we should try to get it.
  Mr. Palmer: I did not have the advantage of serving on the Standing Committee which considered the Bill in detail. Indeed, I did not have the advantage of hearing my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary when he introduced the amendment. What struck me, listening to the arguments from both above and below the Gangway opposite, was how academic the whole matter has become. We are dealing with industry which makes things and in which people are employed. Therefore, the issues are essentially practical.
  My experience of asking for information is that one needs to know what information is available before asking for it. This was well illustrated by the experience of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, of which I have the privilege to be Chairman, when it wanted from the Government the report of the Vintner Committee which looked into the choice of reactor in this country. That was refused to the Select Committee on the ground that the Government had given an undertaking not to release it, presumably even to a Select Committee, because it contained delicate commercial information.
  5.30 p.m.
  Government supporters have referred to the possible partiality of Ministers. Information of a delicate commercial nature was refused in the first place by a Conservative Minister and was refused later by a Labour Minister. The Department behaved in the same way. It is important that the Department should do so. When the Bill becomes an Act and its provisions are put into effect a system of precedent and experience will be built up in the Department as to what matters and what does not matter.
  The decision should be left with the Minister, although in practice it will be left to the Minister's expert assistants who will advise him. As a result of their experience they will know what is important and what is genuinely sensitive. That judgment can be challenged. As a result of the amendment it would be possible for anyone, whether trade union or employer, to request that the matter be reconsidered. It will be possible for the Minister to put the matter to an advisory body. He will choose that advisory body according to the nature of the business of the company and the type of information involved.
  1722
  The proposal in the Government amendment to deal with the difficulty is practical and provides the common sense solution in those circumstances. With all respect to lawyers, that is the reason why this proposal does not appeal to them.
  Mr. Fairbairn: I compliment the Under-Secretary on the fact that the Government have listened to our case. He read the arguments which were made in Committee and has to some extent understood them. Unfortunately, not being a lawyer, he has failed to understand the judgment of Solomon.
  With that remarkable capacity for misunderstanding that judgment he has done what all people in those circumstances do. He has divided the baby in equal halves—between the original proposition, which was outrageous, and the criticisms of it, which were intelligently marshalled in Committee. Under the pretence of going half way with the mother, and, no doubt, the baby, the duty of appointing the lawyers has at last been granted to an independent person, as if that alone cured the fundamental defects of this procedure.
  We are not dealing with an appeal from a minor road traffic offence. We are dealing with the question of whether the disclosure of information of great sensitivity by enormous organisations will cause damage. This machinery must deal with important questions. The Minister, an executive politician, and his advisers start off by making a judgment in law. This is a legislature. We pass laws. We do not pass menus, from which we can choose what we like. A law is a law.
  If the Government wish to say that they will appoint advisers to decide in every case whether or not the information should be disclosed for any reason they care to think up, that is one interpretation. That is not what the Bill says. It says that the Minister shall make an interpretation in law of whether furnishing the information would be undesirable in the national interest. That is a matter of absolute interpretation. It has nothing to do with the Minister. He must decide whether he can do so without contravening any prohibition. Again, that is a matter of law.
  Against that there is an appeal. To whom do we appeal? We appeal to the Minister. With respect, the hon. and

  1723
  learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) echoed many of the arguments which I put in Committee. The first appeal is to the Minister. He is judge in the first case. He then becomes the court of appeal. That procedure is laid down in Clause 22(5).
  There is the ridiculous proposition that the matter be transferred to any advisory committee, which has to interpret a matter of law. According to the amendments passed yesterday, it must decide whether the information was communicated to the company or companies in confidence or was obtained in consequence of a confidence. What connection that has with a committee of people who have nothing to do with the interpretation of a statute, I do not know.
  There is the proviso whether the disclosure could cause substantial injury to the undertaking. What does "substantial" mean? The word "substantial" is chosen in this Bill. The well-known definition of the word "substantial" occurred in the case of Terry Motors v. Rinder, when it was held that it was a word of no fixed meaning, and was an unsatisfactory medium for carrying the idea of any ascertainable proportion of the whole. The advisory body must say whether the disclosure could cause substantial injury to a substantial number of employees in the undertaking. It is thought fit that the committee should make that judgment in law.
  I first criticise the composition of the committee. If we wish a judgment to be made impartially we do not, for instance, on a Northern Ireland matter, appoint a member of the UDA and a member of the IRA, and ask the Lord Chancellor to put a judge between them. We do not say that that will constitute an impartial committee because the persons serving on it are so partial that they will be impartial. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) gave the game away. He said that he was terrified that the referee might belong to one side or the other. He includes in his concept the idea of taking sides and the award of a prize to one side or the other. That is not what this is about. The wounds and the damage to people, whether they are earning wages or salaries or whether they are shoppers or other members of the community, will
  1724
  be just as disastrous if the judgment is made wrongly.
  The advisory committee should be composed of people who are competent to make impartial decisions. The responsibility should not be given to those who are partial to one or other side of industry. That is not the purpose of this measure.
  This is a question of the disclosure of commercial information which would hurt the national interest or those employed in industries, or a substantial number of employees.
  Mr. Litterick: The implication of what the hon. and learned Gentleman says is that there is ipso facto in the mind of a lawyer a species of objectivity which is grafted on to him by reason of his legal training and to no other type of human being. The hon. and learned Gentleman is a lawyer. He sits on one side of the House of Commons. As a lawyer, he is partial by definition. Therefore, by reason for his legal training, he could not pose as an objective judge of anything. I wish he would realise that fact of his life and apply it as a more general fact to his argument.
  Mr. Fairbairn: I may be an impartial judge of nothing, but I know rubbish when I hear it. The Prime Minister obtained the services of Lord Hailsham, a member of the other place, to defend him, so as to demonstrate his impartiality. Let us keep off the subject of lawyers. I have not yet mentioned that question.
  It is foolish to start by deliberately creating a doubly partial body and appointing a referee in the middle of it. I do not want to stick up for the legal profession, but lawyers have certain advantages and they are trained to be impartial. It may be said that it is not possible for me, as a Conservative Member of Parliament, to be impartial, but I have represented far more Socialists than Conservatives in the course of my criminal and civil practice, and I have never shown the slightest partiality. I regret to say that the conviction rate amongst my Socialist clients is higher than it is amongst my Conservative clients.
  The body must be a high-powered one. I think that there should be lawyers on it. The members should not be partial. They should be impartial judges because they have to make a judgment of law.

  1725
  The procedure is not about a trade union saying that it wants the information, whether it be good or bad for anyone else, and the employers saying that the information will not be supplied, good or bad for anyone else, so that the job of the man in the middle is to make a decision.
  I come to the fallacies. It is necessary to argue the case whether the information for special reasons should be withheld without being able to disclose that information openly, just to the tribunal—it has to be done in secret—and, secondly, to the side which is arguing the opposite case. That is a fundamental fallacy, and I do not see how the procedure can work.
  Next, there is no appeal, Suppose the tribunal gets the answer totally wrong. The ground has now moved to "special reasons", and anyone with the slightest knowledge of that expression will know that the concept "special reasons" has been adopted into road traffic law, criminal law, consistorial law, election law and the law of damages. It is a very difficult concept, and some of the greatest minds the country has produced have gone to great lengths to try to define it. To get a couple of amateurs of opposite poles of view, a Tory on one side and a Socialist on the other, with a lawyer in between to decide, is farcical.
  There is no appeal in law from that procedure. What happens if it is decided that the special reason is that the case is heard on Friday 30th April? What appeal has the party against that judgment? At last there is to be a judgment, but what is to be the appeal against a wrong interpretation of the Act? There is not one. How can one appeal against it to the appeal court in either country if the information cannot be disclosed and if the basis of the argument of one side has not been allowed to be presented?
  I compliment the Under-Secretary of State on attempting quickly to amend the flaws which were obvious in the previous procedure, but the new one is just as bad a scrapheap and contravenes natural justice just as badly. These are some of the most important decisions that will ever have to be taken, and there must be proper machinery for taking them. We have had hundreds of lengthy amendments from the Government and amendments to
  1726
  amendments, and there have been mistakes in them. The law of the land is meant to be accurate.
  It is wrong to change the previous procedure by shuffling in this Benjamin Bunny concept of getting the Lord Chancellor to appoint a chap in the middle. We are dealing with an important national matter, and to set up an important body in such a hurry, so trivially, with very little thought of the concepts and principals involved, is a great mistake.
  I do not think that the body will favour one side or the other, but it will do immeasurable damage to both.
  I beg the Under-Secretary of State, before the Bill reaches the statute book, to improve this slipshod committee which should be a tribunal at law because its sole function is to interpret the law. There should be an appeal to the law. The purpose of the law is to be impartial, but this procedure is secret, inadequate and contrary to all the principles of justice and natural justice. It is a compromise between the dreadful scheme we had before and the criticisms that were made of it, and it is still not right. As I recalled at the beginning, the judgment of Solomon was to get it right, and not to divide and mutilate the baby.
  5.45 p.m.
  Mr. Ian Gow: The Committee spent more than 13 hours considering this important Clause 23. It is a matter of great regret that we are now considering such an important clause virtually completely redrafted by the Government since the Standing Committee ceased its deliberations, and considering it under the guillotine procedure, which allows us only three hours to discuss a virtually new clause which the Government recognised to be of crucial importance.
  Like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) I think that the composition of the committee of the so-called three wise men is open to grievous objection. First, two out of the three members of the committee are appointed solely within the discretion of the Secretary of State subject, it is true, to the consent of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Why we have to bring the Minister of Agriculture into

  1727
  the appointment of this advisory committee I do not know, but two out of the three members of the committee are appointed exclusively by the Secretary of State, subject only to the consent of the Minister.
  This extends the power of political patronage. Amendment No. 112 provides that the Minister shall also have power in cases where he thinks it appropriate to make payments to the members of the committee. Again, I deplore the extension of the power of political patronage to what should be—as the amendment in the names of my hon. Friends and myself shows—a committee appointed independently and not by the political executive.
  I criticise the wording of Amendment No. 109. If the phrase "special reasons" is to appear in an Act of Parliament, it should be judicially defined in the interpretation clause. No guidance is given to the three wise men on how they are to interpret "special reasons". Those words appear twice in the amended Clause 23 and, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire said, the words "special reasons" have been defined principally by the courts in connection with the Road Traffic Act 1930 and the Road Traffic Act 1962. But the definition given in those two Acts of Parliament and the interpretation of those words as decided by the courts since bear absolutely no relationship whatever to the meaning which the Government have in mind under the provisions of the amended Clause 23.
  How can the three members of this advisory committee interpret what is meant by "special reasons"? Is it that the directors of the company concerned feel very strongly that the information should not be disclosed? Would that amount to special reasons? Is it because the unions concerned, to which the information might be disclosed, are particularly anxious that there should be disclosure? How on earth and by what criterion are these words "special reasons" to be defined? If the words mean anything, why do not the Government come clean with the House, come clean with the trade unions and come clean with the companies which are to be asked to disclose this information, and
  1728
  tell them precisely what is meant by "special reasons"?
  Mr. Kaufman: It may save the hon. Memeber a good deal of heartburn and the House a good deal of time if I refer him to Amendment No. 105, carried by the House yesterday, which specified what the special reasons were.
  Mr. Gower: The Minister may think that that is an adequate definition. We on the Conservative side most certainly do not.
  The fourth reason why I believe that the amended Clause 23 is wholly unsatisfactory is that there is a provision that the order which the Minister may make for disclosure shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a negative resolution of either House of Parliament. How can Parliament make a decision of this kind without the disclosure to Parliament of just precisely that information which is the subject matter of the order? It seems to me to be quite meaningless to suggest that Parliament itself could pass any kind of sensible judgment on the opinion of the advisory committee or the decision of the Minister upon that recommendation without—
  Mr. Stainton: Would my hon. Friend be good enough to develop this point also in relation to the suggested definition of "special reasons"? As I understand the situation, no body of precedent would be forthcoming, inasmuch as no detailed judgment would be available, so that no corpus of opinion on this could be built up.
  Mr. Gow: I agree with my hon. Friend and hope that this is something he will be able to develop if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. But I do not see how the procedure for annulment by either House of Parliament can possibly be effected without disclosing precisely that information which ought not to be disclosed, because, of course, as envisaged, the advisory committee will sit in private.
  My prediction is that the amended Clause 23 will prove to be unworkable. I think that this procedure will be challenged in the High Court because it offends against the rules of natural justice. I predict that before long the Government will be coming back to the

  1729
  House of Commons seeking to amend Clause 23 in precisely the way that is suggested by the amendment standing in the names of my hon. Friends and myself. But at least the Government have the possibility of escape from the trap they have laid for themselves. They can still, in another place, introduce amendments along the lines suggested in the amendment.
  I beg the Minister to look again at his amended Clause 23. It will not work, the courts will prove that it will not work, and he will have to come back to this House within a few months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent in order to make precisely the changes that were urged by my hon. Friend when he moved the amendment.
  Sir Raymond Gower: I agree with practically everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) said in his very decisive contribution. My hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley) said in his opening remarks that we need to preserve the distinction between the executive and the judiciary which has been enshrined in our laws. I wish I could be quite as sure about that. I am afraid that there have been, unfortunately, several infringements. There has been a gradual process for many years which has lessened this salutary distinction, which I should have liked to see preserved to a greater degree.
  What my hon. Friend would like to see preserved is enshrined in a much more real way in the constitution of some other countries, including Canada and the United States. I agree with him that it is highly desirable that we should seek to preserve considerable distinction between the executive and the judiciary. That in some degree answers one or two interventions by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) a short time ago.
  It is not that we want necessarily to have lawyers in a body of this kind. It is necessary, I believe, that we should have the sort of body which is divorced from the person making the political judgment when implementing the political part of this machinery. If the hon. Gentleman cannot see that, I am afraid that there is a great divide between us. That is the vital distinction.
  1730
  I admit that in the course of many years in this House I have detected at times, not among all Labour Ministers and Members but among sonic of them, a deep-founded suspicion of lawyers and of the courts. I quite understand it. It is probably based on the ancient dictum that the law is open to all, the same as the Savoy Hotel.
  Mr. Hal Miller: If my hon. Friend had been with us in the Committee proceedings, I wonder what he would have made of the remarks by the then Secretary of State, who claimed that his actions under the Bill would not be subject to interpretation by the courts. This is, my hon. Friend might think, an example of what he meant.
  Sir Raymond Gower: I am not thinking of a particular case, but there has been a general suspicion, which I attribute to a quite understandable feeling, that in the past, certainly before legal aid, there were people with a perfectly valid case who for financial reasons could not go to court. There were other reasons, too, such as a feeling that perhaps the courts were not always aware of the practicalities of everyday life as they affect the more humble citizen. I can understand all that. Nevertheless it is vitally important that any country, whatever its standard of civilisation or its mechanical progress, should preserve a judiciary and a system of law which is divorced from the executive government.
  Hon. Members will recall how dangerous any blurring of this issue has always been, especially in countries like pre-war Germany and pre-war Italy. Once this principle is allowed to become unimportant, countries proceed at their peril.
  This may all appear to be somewhat remote, but I believe that it has a real relationship with what is proposed here. If we are to preserve it in the context of the Bill, I appeal to the Minister to look at this again. He has, as has been indicated, shown that he has a great sympathy for the argument as used in Committee. He wanted to arrive at a practical solution, but I submit that the one he has arrived at is not a very good one.
  6.0 p.m.
  As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) pointed out, it is a

  1731
  temptation to adopt the expedient of getting someone from each side and thinking that this will achieve some sort of neutrality. But it is not the answer. We want a body which is accustomed to assessing the weight of evidence, a body which will not be swayed by influences of a transient kind but one which looks at the evidence of a case. As my hon. and learned Friend said, it will be dealing with matters of tremendous importance to the life of the country and to the life and welfare of our industry, some of it possibly with international implications. There are rival companies overseas, some with offshoots in this country, which would be only too anxious to get some of the evidence which our own domestic companies would not want to be known generally at vital stages in their formation.
  I appeal to the Government to look at this again. If they set up a judicial tribunal, a body with neither an employer nor a member of a trade union on it, far from divorcing fair treatment from both sides they will increase the probability of fair and impartial treatment for both sides.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) that if we set up a judicial tribunal we shall need an interpretation clause to define "special reasons". The Minister said that the phrase was defined adequately by the new amendment which was agreed to yesterday. Even in that case, however, we should need a reference in the interpretation clause to the amendment which was made yesterday. Even if the Government adopt the looser new clause, they will need some reference to "special reasons" at the end of the Bill. I hope that the Under-Secretary appreciates this. I am sure his advisers will confirm that he will need some interpretation of "special reasons", even if it is merely a reference to the clause which was changed yesterday.
  I appeal to the hon. Gentleman, therefore, to prefer the impartial judicial tribunal—one which is accustomed to weighing dispassionately the evidence of cases of this kind—to one which will be subject to the buffetings and pressures which, in the long run, cannot ensure a fair and impartial judgment.
  Mr. Giles Shaw: This debate has rightly been dominated by the legal
  1732
  arguments by the lawyers seeking to point out to the Government the difficulties of interpretation and the awkwardnesses of precedent in the procedure which is to be set up. I wish to draw attention to other aspects of the clause and of these amendments, especially the Government amendment, which cause me equal concern.
  When we debated this matter in Committee, some of us recognised that in this extremely sensitive area where employers and relevant trade unions were to be involved it would not be easy to find a correct solution. The Government will be aware of the view they took of the Conservative Industrial Relations Act and of the view they took of the setting up of that special court. Therefore, I think that there is virtue in recalling that precedent and in recognising that in setting up a procedure for something as important as heading off a potential and serious industrial dispute, great care should be taken to ensure that the procedure is seen to have three characteristics: that it should be a clear and well-understood procedure; that it should be a fair procedure, the findings of which can be acceptable; and that it should be a procedure in which the litigants on both sides can have confidence. I find the present Government proposals lacking in conviction in terms of those three criteria.
  As for the clarity of the procedure, I found it difficult in Committee—and I have not yet been reassured—to believe that the representatives of relevant trade unions can argue the case effectively for what they want to see done. They are not in possession of the facts which are material to the case, nor are they in possession of the interpretation of what is prejudicial or seriously prejudicial, which the company or companies will themselves have. Furthermore, they are now no longer in a position in which what they might argue is known to be binding within the appeal procedure itself, because we now discover that the advisory committee as set up will literally advise and that the Minister may or may not accept what the committee has to say. It means that it will be very difficult, for example, for the representatives of relevant trade unions to build up confidence in the machinery by knowning that it works by a clear pattern of decision, because the Minister may vary the way in which he

  1733
  wishes to take the decision at which the committee arrives.
  Equally, the company itself will find the procedure very difficult. It is being offered "special reasons", and the reasons are clear as to (a) and (b): that it believes that the disclosure would be seriously prejudicial to the company and its interests, or that the information which it is required to disclose would be passed in confidence.
  At least the company will be clear about its belief in the confidential nature of the information passed to it. If it was in confidence and it could show it to have been in confidence, it could be clear about about its standing before the committee. Equally, it could take a strong view about the serious nature of the disclosure of information if that was forced upon it. The company will therefore be able to prepare a good case on those counts. But there could be a substantial number of employees affected, and here there might be difficulty.
  The company, in relation to its relevant trade union, is dealing purely with the employees of that company. But the relevant trade union in dealing with its total membership. In relation to the appeal procedure, it will be largely representing the employees of the company which has failed to take a disclosure order from the Minister. But the relevant trade union will take a fair measure of interest in the protection, on the wider front, of its total union membership. It is bound to do so. Therefore, it is very difficult for the company to be assured that what it is talking about is a local matter which is contained within the company itself and upon which it can argue with a degree of conviction.
  I find the clarity of this process faulty because both participants are on shifting ground. They cannot be sure about the way in which the procedure will work.
  That leads me to ask whether the procedure will be fair in its findings. This is the second criterion. There was a view that if the appeal committee arrived at a unanimous decision and was seen to be composed of impartial members—I do not share with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) the anxiety about having members from trade union and management sides—and if the parties
  1734
  could be certain that the findings would be accepted—and we have here a procedure which will build up precedent value and its own case law—they would know precisely where they stood on claims being made and, therefore, they could be reasonably sure that it would be fair. If it was fair, it would be a procedure which they could follow willingly.
  On the Government's proposals, however, the Minister does not have to accept its findings, so that the fairness which is so important in building up confidence in the procedure will be put at risk. The Minister may determine for his own reasons whether or not to accept the findings of the committee. And so I come to the third factor, which is whether the procedure is one in which both parties can have confidence.
  Here again I find the present proposals lacking, for the reasons I have adduced. It does not seem to me that the procedure lends itself to being consistent. It does not lend itself to arriving at fair judgments, because they might be overturned. I cannot believe that it is a procedure which will attract significant confidence. I remind the Under-Secretary of State that the whole procedure of the Industrial Relations Act foundered because neither the relevant trade unions nor the employers were confident about the effective working of that measure as regards their industrial problems. For example, unions failed to register because they were not confident of the benefits of so doing. We had a piece of legislation which did not find great acceptance in the sector of industry in which it was meant to work. I suggest that the precedents are not good. That means that we must find a procedure which we all understand and which everyone believes will arrive at fair decisions. There must be general acceptance that its decisions will provide the confidence that is clearly required.
  I understand the enormous advantage to be gained by the relevant trade unions sharing to the maximum extent the information which will be obtainable within the Bill, but it is not the information itself which is important but the use which is made of it. In that sense it is vital that the appeals procedure does not exacerbate bad relations and cause damage between the parties. After all, a dispute can have dramatic repercussions. It is vital that the procedure is

  1735
  one in which all parties can have confidence. Frankly, I do not think that will be the case.
  Mr. Hal Miller: I support the sub-amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friends and myself. I shall endeavour clearly to set out the reasons for that support. Before doing so, I must say that I recognise the impatience that at times must be felt by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and his hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer). Clearly they are both taking a plain man's practical and experienced view. They are considering these matters as part of the collective bargaining process and they are looking for some give and take. They are seeking to establish confidence in the committee in the eyes of the shop floor and in the eyes of management. No doubt it is their wish that a recommendation will eventually be made to the Minister and that the procedure will be set up on that basis.
  I understand and sympathise with that point of view and with the impatience that might arise from a lot of seemingly legal wrangling by my right hon. and hon. Friends. However, I cannot follow the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend because what we are discussing is a question of fact. A Minister is supposed to consider reasons for the withholding of information. If we refer to Clause 22 we see that the reasons include national policy or special reasons. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) has been into "special reasons" at some length. Among those reasons is that information has been communicated to the company or companies concerned in confidence or that information has been obtained in consequence of a confidence and that disclosure would cause substantial injuries. Those are questions of fact. They are not questions to be negotiated. It is not a question of reaching a view after hearing two cases and saying on balance that one finds for one or the other. The committee is being asked to determine straightforward questions of fact.
  Reasons involving national policy have also been defined—namely,
  "that to furnish it would be undesirable in the national interest",
  1736
  or that it could not be furnished
  "without contravening a prohibition imposed by or under an enactment."
  There is some area of indecision as regards "national interest" and it is clear that the committee would not be peculiarly qualified to advise the Minister on the national interest. However, whether or not a company could furnish information without contravening a prohibition is once more a clear question of fact. We are dealing with fact and not with negotiation. I appreciate the reasons which lead Labour Members to approach the matter in terms of negotiation, but I submit that that is the wrong approach. The question falls to be determined as a question of fact—namely, in front of a court.
  6.15 p.m.
  I turn to advisory committees. At the outset I pay tribute to the Government for taking on board the discussions which showed that the original proposal for the Central Arbitration Committee of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service to be responsble in this sphere was wrong. The hon. Member for Walton was generous enough to admit that it probably was not the right body and that it had better things to do. The idea that we should have a committee set up by the Minister, with the Minister free to decide whether to accept its advice on questions of fact, is plainly ludicrous. It all arises out of confusion as to the purpose of the Bill, to which I and other hon. Members have had occasion to refer to in previous remarks.
  The information that the unions need for their collective bargaining is stated in the Employment Protection Bill. There are disclosure provisions set out in that Bill and procedures are established. I had occasion to refer yesterday in an earlier amendment to the wide-ranging nature of the disclosure provisions contained in the draft company legislation put forward by this side of the House when we were in office. That fell because of the February 1974 election. It is the confusion of purpose between industrial relations, industrial democracy, which is a sort of refinement of industrial relations, and employment protection that has led to the setting up of this ludicrously long-winded procedure. I think that the hon. Member for Walton and myself would be in agreement about that.

  1737
  It seems incredible that we should have to set up a procedure of this complexity and of this length, with so many ramifications, to achieve an exchange of information between a company and its own employees. I well understand the hon. Gentleman's feelings of impatience, and on that basis I share them. However, we are talking about reasons involving national policy—for example, whether a company is breaking a confidence or an enactment. Those are questions of fact and they are not matters to negotiate.
  These difficulties arise because the whole procedure is misconceived. It is misconceived because the Bill's provisions are misconceived. The provisions are misconceived because the objects are ill conceived and muddled. We should revert once more to the main purpose of the Bill—namely, an attemp to try to do something about regenerating British industry and bringing about greater investment through the NEB and planning agreements.
  The Conservative Party produced its own Industry Act. That Act covered a great deal of the same ground as regards the regeneration of British industry. It is foolish to try to restrict an Act that is designed for that purpose, an Act that is doing something about employment practices, industrial relations and employment protection. It is that approach that has led us into this tremendous gobbledegook. If we are to have a procedure of this sort to meet the Government's wishes, we must ensure that concern is paid to questions of fact and that we have a properly constituted appeal body.
  That body has to be independent, and must be seen to be independent by both sides. It is necessary that the union representatives should be satisfied that the case has been impartially and fairly heard—not bargained away as part of an odd job lot along with other considerations about holidays or pensions. If I were a representative of a trade union, that is how I would wish the matter to be considered. It is a clear question of fact for an appeal tribunal to consider on the lines set out in the amendment. For that reason, I have pleasure in supporting the proposal.
  Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw)—he has explained his
  1738
  reasons for not being present to hear my reply—said that the debate would be dominated by legal arguments. It is true that from the Opposition side of the House we have heard a litigation or procession of lawyers one by one getting up and stating their opinions. I do not agree that it is right that this matter should be dominated by legal arguments put by lawyers, valid and interesting though many of those arguments have been. This is a practical issue rather than a legal one. One of the problems of the Conservative Opposition is that they have a tendency to trammel practical issues into legal toils.
  The hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley) attempted to demonstrate that what was required was to separate governmental and political decisions from judicial decisions. It is a little late in the day to want to separate these matters. I pointed out in an intervention that when it comes to decisions by the Secretary of State for the Environment on compulsory purchase orders or planning agreements, he acts in a quasi-judicial capacity. But the Secretary of State is a politician, and in exercising that function he operates as a politician and must do so. Having seen the report of the inspector on, say, a compulsory purchase order, the Secretary of State in exercising his final decision will take into account national policy. Furthermore, in dealing with a compulsory purchase order in which the arguments are finely balanced he will consider whether national policy should be biased in favour of redevelopment or of renovation. That must be the case, and it is impossible to separate out these functions.
  The Industrial Relations Act, to which the hon. Member for Pudsey referred, got the situation hopelessly muddled since that legislation sought to deal with industrial disputes and the ordering of ballots and gave the Minister responsibility for making legal judgments and the National Industrial Relations Court the task of making political judgments. When the NIRC ordered a ballot among the railwaymen, it did so not on legal grounds but on grounds of having been compelled by the Industrial Relations Act to make political and industrial judgments about the mood of the railwaymen. What is more, the NIRC, having been given a political and industrial function by the

  1739
  then Government, got its assessment wrong.
  The Conservative Government of the day got hopelessly trammelled in the legal toils to which I have referred partly by being bound by difficulties of their own making and partly by being unable to control their own sorcerer's apprentice. When the five dockers went to gaol, the Conservative Government had to search for an expedient and came up with the services of the Official Solicitor as the only way of getting out of the dilemma into which they had trapped themselves. In a small way we also could have got trapped if we had persisted in the machinery which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) rightly said was mistaken and which we have abandoned.
  Mr. Fairbairn: The Minister said that the Secretary of State's decision—this is what frightens me—will be political and not judicial. Therefore, if the Transport and General Workers' Union or the National Union of Railwaymen put pressure on the Minister by saying "We want this information disclosed", he will make a political decision regardless of the terms of this legislation.
  Mr. Kaufman: No, that is not so. The Secretary of State is bound by the Act. One of the most satisfactory things about British public life is that Ministers in both parties which have held office in the last 30 years have overwhelmingly behaved properly in the exercise of their functions and in the use of their discretion. The number of occasions when Ministers have dragged political judgments into the situation has been small, if they have existed at all. It ill becomes the House of Commons to discredit the use of the discretion of politicians. I emphasise that one of the most satisfactory things about British public life is the honourable way in which politicians have discharged their ministerial functions.
  Mr. Hal Miller: The Minister spoke about the legal toils and trammels of the Industrial Relations Act. I have some sympathy with his remarks, but will he explain why the Government are now attempting to legislate in that same area of activity despite the unhappy experience to which he referred?
  Mr. Kaufman: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the Government should never legislate in industrial matters. All Governments have done so. I agree that a Government should be cautious when setting up a new court for ad hoc purposes. One of the most regrettable aspects of the Industrial Relations Act was that the then Government set up a new court for ad hoc purposes. The Conservatives in their amendments ask the Government to set up yet another new court for ad hoc purposes. I cannot accept the Liberal Party amendment, but at least the Liberals recognise that trap and do not wish us to fall into it.
  Mr. Stanley: Will the hon. Gentleman further consider his remark that the Minister will be bound by legislation? Surely the legislation is drafted so as to achieve a position in which the Minister is not bound to implement the decision of the advisory committee. Although that committee may take the view that special reasons apply, the Minister is not bound by that view. He is saying to the whole of British industry and to every trade union which may wish to approach the advisory committee that no one who makes an appeal to the advisory committee can be certain that the special reasons laid down in the Bill will be acceptable and implemented.
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. Kaufman: I do not accept that at all. It is certainly true that no one who makes an appeal can be certain of the outcome. It would be a very strange procedure if one appealed and knew the result before the appeal was heard. It would be wrong for it to be understood that the procedure the House of Commons is proposing, which I trust will be incorporated in the Bill, will be operated other than totally and honourably and in accordance with the Bill. The Minister does not have carte blanche to set aside the decisions of the advisory committee.
  The advisory committee is asked to make decisions on certain criteria, including the special reasons. The Minister will set aside the advice of the advisory committee if he believes that the special reasons are nevertheless being conformed to. He will not do it simply because it will please the Transport and General

  1741
  Workers' Union or the "Selsdon Society" or whatever powerful body he seeks to please at the time.
  Mr. Tom King: We know the criteria by which the advisory council will be bound. The Minister has said that the Secretary of State will be bound by the provisions of the Bill. On what criteria will the Secretary of State's decision be taken?
  Mr. Kaufman: The Secretary of State will examine the decision in the light of the criteria laid down in the Bill. He will be answerable to the House of Commons. Conservative Members seem to imagine that any debate on a negative order would operate in a vacuum. Without the precise information being passed on, it is perfectly obvious that a company, perfectly justifiably, would fully brief the Conservative Party if it had tabled a Prayer to deal with a situation such as this.
  Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman has Just said the the Secretary of State will be bound by the House of Commons and will be answerable to it. If the advisory committee says that the information should be disclosed and the Secretary of State says that it should not, is there any recourse to the House of Commons?
  Mr. Kaufman: No, and that is absolutely as it should be. I was about to deal with that point, and this is a suitable place to do so.
  Under the machinery as we put it forward there was no recourse to the House of Commons at all. Conservative Members have made a great deal about the serious nature of this information. I do not grumble with that. My hon. Friend the Member for Walton (Mr. Heller) has quite rightly done the same. If the advice is that the information should not be disclosed and the Secretary of State accepts that advice, he is keeping the confidence. It is absurd to expect the Secretary of State to be answerable for keeping the confidence. We propose that if the Secretary of State rejects the advice and decides that the confidence shall be broken, he shall be answerable for breaking that confidence. They are not parallel situations, and I am sure that Conservative Members realise that the balance is as it should be.
  Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman has not got it right. If the Secretary of State agrees with the advisory committee, everything is all right—there is no further recourse. However, if the advisory committee says that the information should be disclosed and the Secretary of State disagrees, that matter would not be laid before Parliament.
  Mr. Kaufman: I accept that. However, I am saying that by doing this we are protecting the company. If my hon. Friends grumbled about it, that might be understandable, but the fact is that we are biasing the system to that extent in favour of the company. If the advisory committee has advised that the information should be disclosed and if the Secretary of State uses his discretion to prevent the information from being disclosed, as he is keeping the confidence we are weighting it that way and he should not be answerable to the House of Commons. He should be answerable to the House of Commons if, contrary to the advice of the committee, he decides to break the confidence.
  Mr. Fairbairn: This is a serious matter. The Under-Secretary has conceded that the advisory committee has to interpret the statute and that that binds the committee and the Secretary of State. Assuming that the committee comes to one conclusion and the Secretary of State comes to another—in other words, that the interpretation of the Secretary of State supersedes the interpretation of the committee—as that is binding, why have the advisory committee in the first place? If, without hearing any parties, the Secretary of State is able to overturn the legal decision of the committee, why have the committee at all? If the Secretary of State is such a genius, why cannot he do it on his own in the first place?
  Mr. Kaufman: I am glad the hon. and learned Gentleman concedes that my right hon. Friend is a genius. That is widely known throughout the country.
  The situation is that before making his decision the Secretary of State can ask the advisory committee for advice. It is an advisory committee to the Secretary of State to which he, the company and the unions can apply. That is the great merit of this body as distinct from the

  1743
  Gilbertian paraphernalia which the Conservative Party seeks to set up in rivalry to it.
  Mr. Stainton: I do not want to resort to derogatory remarks. If the Under-Secretary wants to proceed in that manner, we can go back to the Green Papers and the White Papers that have been issued. We could waste a great deal of time and embarrass the Under-Secretary. I want to pursue the point raised by my hon. and learned Friend, namely, the duty being placed on the advisory committee or the Secretary of State of interpreting the statute. My interpretation is slightly different. The Secretary of State and/or the advisory committee would be interpreting not the statute but the circumstances, in particular within the framework of the statute. If we have a discussion on this basis, we shall make progress.
  Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman, as so often in Committee, has got it absolutely right. I would not quibble with his interpretation. On the other hand, I hope that he does not think that a reference to W. S. Gilbert is derogatory. A great many people, including my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, have a high admiration for W. S. Gilbert. I certainly would not quarrel with him on that ground.
  What troubles me about the Opposition's amendment is that they never seem to learn. They have this inexplicable passion for setting up courts of law. They set up a court of law under the Industrial Relations Act which was one of the greatest disasters in legal terms which any Government have ever dabbled in. They are now attempting to set up a new court on which they have tabled a massively detailed amendment.
  The Opposition hold the view that everything must be left in the hands of lawyers. We believe that there should be a more practical approach. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walton and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) pointed out, it is a practical issue. This is an Industry Bill. Let us deal with it in a sensible way. I call upon the House to reject the Opposition's amendment and to carry the Government's amendment.
  Mr. Tim Renton: I apologise to the House for not having been present during the whole of this debate.
  I would like to take up one or two points made by the Minister in his reply. Understandably he referred to the fact that the Secretary of State, in considering the appeals procedure, would act totally honourably. I am sure that none of us would deny that. In a case of confidential information relating to a company's forward plans or to plans that might affect a large number of employees it is sometimes difficult to say that a Minister is acting honourably in the decision that he makes.
  I refer to a case in history when a decision was taken by Harold Macmillan about the building of new steel works. If the steel industry were still in private hands this would be just the sort of forward planning, affecting a large number of employees, that might be referred to the Secretary of State. The decision taken by Harold Macmillan was that a big new steel complex should be split up and that part of it should got to Ravenscraig outside Glasgow and the other part to Port Talbot. Many of us who were not in the House at the time but who were, as I was, involved in the steel industry thought that that was a wrong decision. It was a decision that almost doomed both plants to economic failure. The size of the two separate units was not sufficient to enable them to compete with the big new steel complexes built at deep-water ports in, for example, Germany and Japan.
  I have no doubt that Harold Macmillan acted honourably and felt that he was considering the arguments about the labour forces at Glasgow and in South Wales. He felt that he took a correct and honourable decision, but it was a highly political decision. It is just this sort of situation involving the future of a major company that makes it extremely difficult for the Secretary of State, however honourable his motives, to decide what is the right course.
  Hence the whole question of the advisory committee, or, as we we would say, an appeals tribunal with quasi-judicial functions. The Under-Secretary made the point—I hope I understood him correctly—that if the appeals advisory committee were to decide against the company and said that the information

  1745
  should be revealed to the trade union involved it would be up to the company to make it clear to Opposition Members what it was worried about. Opposition members would then be able to pray against the order revealing the information to the trade union. That is a totally fallacious argument. If a company briefs Opposition Members the confidentiality of the information which it seeks to preserve goes by the board.
  This was the point made at the beginning of the debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley). The fact that a company wishes to keep information confidential makes it impossible for the negative order procedure to be utilised at all effectively. The more a company tries to brief Members of Parliament about what is involved the more it will be breaking the confidentiality which it is essential to maintain.
  The most important point is that in the original Bill, debated at such great length in Committee, the conciliation and arbitration tribunal then put forward by the Government was a committee of decision. It had a deciding power on the release of information. It is that aspect which has disappeared as a result of this new Government amendment and which I find most worrying. We have a state of affairs where the Secretary of State appoints his own jury, leaves them to look at the matter and then decides whether to abide by their decision.
  I find that an intolerable state of affairs. In many ways the provision in the original Bill was preferable. Then the committee had a definite power. Now it is a neutered animal. The Government will be able to see what the advisory committee has come forward with and decide whether to follow its recommendation.
  For that reason I shall certainly join wholeheartedly with my hon. Friends in voting against the Government amendment and supporting our amendment to it.
  6.45 p.m.
  Mr. Tom King: These amendments and this whole procedure are final evidence of how complicated and totally inadequate is this whole system. I was not in the least surprised that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) came somewhat fresh to our
  1746
  deliberations to say what an absolute nonsense the Government amendments were and also to criticise our amendment. We accept a measure of criticism of our amendment because, like the Irishman who was asked the way, we should not have started from this point.
  In such a chaotic situation we are trying to find something that makes sense. I feel that the hon. and learned Member regarded the case as fairly hopeless and put down a tentative marker which at least indicated his dislike of the two proposals. We agree that there is difficulty in finding anything in this appallingly complicated structure which makes any sense.
  Mr. Hooson: What the Liberal Party has suggested is simply that we should change the advisory committee into an appeals committee, make it more high-powered and let it decide. That stems to be the best practical opportunity we have for doing something acceptable.
  Mr. King: I listened with great interest to the hon. and learned Member and I understand his point. He will realise that, whatever we do here, there are other inadequacies and problems relating to how any case can be discussed in the light of the confidentiality requirements.
  The Minister has slipped blandly through these proceedings. It might not have been so easy for him in Committee. It was an interesting approach of his—I put it no higher—to criticise Conservative members for introducing legalistic arguments into our discussion. Who is creating the law? Who is introducing law into this area? The Bill, if it becomes an Act, will become the law of the land. The Minister is creating a legal instrument. It seems to be a curious approach for him to say "You chaps are being rather legalistic in your arguments." We have had interventions from certain distinguished lawyers. It is right that they should bring their experience to us to warn of the problems. Some of the issues in this measure will end up before the courts.
  I would not have thought in the present state of the country that politicians were in a strong enough position to enable them to sneer at other professions. Living in this glasshouse, I would not want to throw stones at practitioners elsewhere. I find it difficult to know whether we are

  1747
  discussing a joke, a non-event or something particularly disastrous.
  Congress has recently abolished a committee, I think the Mines and Mineral Workings Safety Appeals Committee. A gentleman was appointed to be in charge of that committee three years ago and has spent the past one and one half years petitioning Congress to dismiss him. He has been sitting in his office, with a secretary and expensive equipment but with not a single thing to do. It has taken him a year and a half to get his committee abolished and to be dismissed from his post. I wonder whether we are possibly seeing in this advisory committee a British version of that transatlantic phenomenon, because seriously I wonder how his committee can possibly work.
  The advisory committee will start, and the first problem is how on earth it is to conduct its business—not because of the amendment which the Government have tabled, which is the correct amendment, but because it clearly outlines the problem. It says that it is the Minister's duty to give such indication of the nature without disclosing the substance of any information which the Minister proposes
  "shall not be furnished … for special reasons".
  How on earth is a trade union to argue its case if it does not know what it is arguing about? If the information on which it wishes to present its case has to be kept confidential, how is the case to be pursued? That is what the advisory committee has to do. We have this advisory committee which is splendidly impartial, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) has said, which starts by having one partial person appointed on each side. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has made the point that it will be natural and right that the trade union member should be biased in favour of greater disclosure, and the impression of the hon. Member is that the implication is that the management representative will be naturally biased against disclosure, though I would not accept that. So the advisory committee starts with two people preconsidered to be biased, and we end up with one impartial lawyer.
  Mr. Russell Kerr: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that this is the basic principle on which English law is conducted?
  Mr. King: I am sure the hon. Gentleman has been engaged on important parliamentary business, and I would not in any way condemn his absence from the Chamber, but this matter has already been exhaustively discussed and, if he will forgive me, I shall not respond to that comment.
  We have this basic fallacy at the heart of this so-called impartial committee with one biased member balanced by another biased member and the independent lawyer in the middle as chairman. I put this point to the Under-Secretary. If the Lord Chancellor is to appoint that person as the balancing member, and the Minister is to take the decision in the issue, would it not be more desirable, and more clearly seen to be independent and impartial, if the Lord Chancellor were to appoint all three members? Panels could be recruited but the Lord Chancellor could have the independent appointment of all three members. That might be preferable.
  Then we have the rather peculiar situation that if the Secretary of State overrides the advice of the committee he has to lay an order before Parliament. This was the great answer of the Under-Secretary to my objection about the possibility, the faint and remote possibility, that there might be a Secretary of State who might himself be politically biased. It is a suggestion that I would not dream of pressing but it might occasionally arise. There is the faint eventuality that we might have a politically-biased Secretary of State. The Under-Secretary said "There is the great protection of Parliament, because he can lay an order before Parliament for negative resolution".
  Would the Under-Secretary like to give me an estimate of what percentage of Prayers to annul resolutions have actually been debatable in this House and have had time for debate? I have tried to check but the figures do not seem to be available. I put it at between 10 and 20 per cent. In other words, it is four to one on, at the very best, that no resolution under the negative procedure will get any chance of debate in this

  1749
  House. So much for parliamentary protection.
  An order becomes effective when laid, and ordinarily after 40 days it cannot be annulled if there is no opportunity for debate. If by chance we got a debate, what a splendid debate it would be. We are to have an order put forward by the Secretary of State saying "I consider that information—I cannot tell you what it is—ought to be disclosed to trade unions, and I would like to make this order." Those who might be opposed to it would have to say that the information, of which they were not aware, should not be disclosed to a trade union. What an illuminating, splendid debate it would be, with unknown information being debated between the two sides, one side saying "No" and the other side saying "Yes" and no one having the slightest idea what he was supposed to be talking about!
  If that is not Gilbertian in the extreme —and the Under-Secretary has the nerve to describe our proposals as Gilbertian—I really do not know what is. The final outcome of this appeal procedure shows just how ludicrous the whole procedure is that at a time of economic crisis for this country Parliament should be debating a proposal so ludicrous and so irrelevant as the introduction of this complicated panjandrum of law into a matter which is certainly of vital importance to employees and companies but which should be able to be dealt with within the factory or the company, a matter on which Parliament should not he trying to legislate in this appalling and complicated way.
  Sir Raymond Gower: I believe that the position is even more Gilbertian, if that is possible, than my hon. Friend has described, because in answer to a point I made earlier the Minister said that there was a definition of "special reasons". The new clause passed yesterday says that for the purposes of this
  Act special reasons apply "if the Minister considers"—and then we find that a company can require the matter to be referred to the advisory committee if the company claims that for special reasons the information should not he furnished. If we go back to the definition of "special reasons" we find that it is "if the Minister considers". Therefore, is not the position even more Gilbertian than my hon. Friend states, and have not the Government got themselves in their drafting into a most appalling hiatus?
  Mr. King: It was a line in Gilbert referring to parliamentary draftsmen, which said:
  "We only suffer
  To ride on a buffer
  In Parliamentary trains."
  In due deference, it would be extremely unkind to apply that to the parliamentary draftsman in this case. Blame for the present situations rests on the Government and on Ministers who have tried to introduce a concept which turns into a legal nightmare. I have every sympathy with the draftsmen. I fancy that they are the only people who still understand all this, with great respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley), who may well be the only other one who understands it.
  The complexities are quite extraordinary, and my hon. Friend's intervention on the complication of "special reasons" serves only to emphasise that point. This whole debate and this final climax of the question of the advisory committee or appeal tribunal, call it what one will, has illustrated the unsatisfactory nature of this whole situation. It is for that reason that we shall certainly press our amendment to a Division.
  Question put, That the amendment to the proposed amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 253, Noes 297.

  Division No. 270.]

  AYES

  [7.00 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Bradford, Rev Robert

  Alison, Michael

  Benyon, W.

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Bitten, John

  Brittan, Leon

  Arnold, Tom

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Brotherton, Michael

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Blaker, Peter

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Body, Richard

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Baker, Kenneth

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Buck, Antony

  Banks, Robert

  Bottomley, Peter

  Budgen, Nick

  Bell, Ronald

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Burden, F. A.

  Hurd, Douglas

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  Carlisle, Mark

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Churchill, W. S.

  James, David

  Pym. Rt Hon Francis

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

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

  Raison, Timothy

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Jessel, Toby

  Rathbone, Tim

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Clegg, Walter

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Cockcroft, John

  Jopling, Michael

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Cope, John

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Crouch, David

  Kimball, Marcus

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Crowder, F. P.

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutstord)

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Knox, David

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Lamont, Norman

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Dunlop, John

  Lane. David

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Durant, Tony

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Dykes, Hugh

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lawrence, Ivan

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Lawson, Nigel

  Scott, Nicholas

  Elliott, Sir William

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Emery, Peter

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Lloyd, Ian

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Farr, John

  Loveridge, John

  Shepherd, Colin

  Fell, Anthony

  Luce, Richard

  Shersby, Michael

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Sims, Roger

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  McCrindle, Robert

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

  McCusker, H.

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  MacGregor, John

  Speed, Keith

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Spence, John

  Fox, Marcus

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Fry, Peter

  Madel, David

  Sproat, Iain

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Stainton, Keith

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Marten, Neil

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Mates, Michael

  Stanley, John

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

  Mather, Carol

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Maude, Angus

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

  Stokes, John

  Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

  Mawby, Ray

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Goodhart, Philip

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Tapsell, Peter

  Goodhew, Victor

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Gorst, John

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Mills, Peter

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Moate, Roger

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Molyneaux, James

  Trotter, Neville

  Grist, Ian

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Grylls, Michael

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Hall, Sir John

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Morgan, Geraint

  Viggers, Peter

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Wakeham, John

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

  Hannam,John

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Walters, Dennis

  Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Mudd, David

  Warren, Kenneth

  Hastings, Stephen

  Neave, Airey

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Nelson, Anthony

  Wells, John

  Hawkins, Paul

  Neubert, Michael

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Newton, Tony

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Normanton, Tom

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Heseltine, Michael

  Nott, John

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  Hicks, Robert

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Osborn, John

  Younger, Hon George

  Holland, Philip

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  Hordern, Peter

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Mr. Fred Silvester and

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Mr. Anthony Berry.

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Ashton, Joe

  Bates, Alf

  Allaun, Frank

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Bean, R. E.

  Anderson, Donald

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Beith, A. J.

  Archer, Peter

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Ashley, Jack

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  1752

  1753

  Bishop, E. S.

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Grocott, Bruce

  Moyle, Roland

  Boardman, H.

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Booth, Albert

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Newens, Stanley

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Hardy, Peter

  Noble, Mike

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Ogden, Eric

  Bradley, Tom

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hatton, Frank

  O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Orbach, Maurice

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Ovenden, John

  Buchan, Norman

  Henderson, Douglas

  Owen, Dr David

  Buchanan, Richard

  Hooley, Frank

  Padley, Waiter

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Palmer, Arthur

  Campbell, Ian

  Horam, John

  Pardoe, John

  Canavan, Dennis

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Park, George

  Cant, R. B.

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Parker, John

  Carter, Ray

  Huckfield, Les

  Parry, Robert

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Hughes, Rt Hon C (Anglesey)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Cartwright, John

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Penhaligon, David

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Hunter, Adam

  Prescott, John

  Cohen, Stanley

  Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Coleman, Donald

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Radice, Giles

  Conlan, Bernard

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Reid, George

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Janner, Greville

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Corbett, Robin

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Crawford, Douglas

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Crawshaw, Richard

  John, Brynmor

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Cryer, Bob

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Roper, John

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Judd, Frank

  Rowlands, Ted

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Ryman, John

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kelley, Richard

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Kerr, Russell

  Selby, Harry

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Deakins, Eric

  Kinnock, Neil

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Lambie, David

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Lamborn, Harry

  Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

  Delargy, Hugh

  Lamond, James

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Lee, John

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Dempsey, James

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Sillars, James

  Doig, Peter

  Lever, Rt Hon Harold

  Silverman, Julius

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lipton, Marcus

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Dunn, James A.

  Litterick, Tom

  Snape, Peter

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Spearing, Nigel

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Loyden, Eddie

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Eadie, Alex

  Luard, Evan

  Stallard, A. W.

  Edge, Geoff

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  English, Michael

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Stoddart, David

  Ennals, David

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Stott, Roger

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Strang, Gavin

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

  Evans, John (Newton)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  McNamara, Kevin

  Swain, Thomas

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Madden, Max

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Flannery, Martin

  Magee, Bryan

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mahon, Simon

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Ford, Ben

  Marks, Kenneth

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Forrester, John

  Marquand, David

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

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

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Tierney, Sydney

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Tinn, James

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Tomilnson, John

  George, Bruce

  Meacher, Michael

  Tomney, Frank

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Torney, Tom

  Ginsburg, David

  Mikardo, Ian

  Tuck, Raphael

  Golding, John

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Gould, Bryan

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Gourlay, Harry

  Molloy, William

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Graham, Ted

  Moonman, Eric

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

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

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  1754

  1755

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  White, James (Pollok)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Ward, Michael

  Whitlock, William

  Woodall, Alec

  Watkins, David

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Woof, Robert

  Watkinson, John

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Watt, Hamish

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Weetch, Ken

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Weitzman, David

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Wellbeloved, James

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Mr. Josepn Harper and

  Welsh, Andrew

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Mr. John

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Amendment (6) proposed to the proposed amendment, in subsection (1), leave out 'advisory' and insert 'appeal'.—[Mr. Richard Wainwright.]
  Question put, That the amendment to the proposed amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 267, Noes 227.

  Division No. 271.]

  AYES

  [7.13 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Fell, Anthony

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Alison, Michael

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

  Knox, David

  Arnold, Tom

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Lamont, Norman

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Lane, David

  Awdry, Daniel

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

  Fox, Marcus

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Baker, Kenneth

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  Lawson, Nigel

  Banks, Robert

  Fry, Peter

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Beith, A. J.

  Galbraith, Hon, T. G. D.

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Bell, Ronald

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Lloyd, Ian

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

  Loveridge, John

  Benyon, W.

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Luce, Richard

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Bitten, John

  Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

  McCrindle, Robert

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Goodhart, Philip

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Blaker, Peter

  Goodhew, Victor

  MacGregor, John

  Body, Richard

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Gorst, John

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Madel, David

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Marten, Neil

  Brittan, Leon

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Mates, Michael

  Brotherton, Michael

  Grist, Ian

  Mather, Carol

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Grylls, Michael

  Maude, Angus

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Hall, Sir John

  Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

  Buck, Antony

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Mawby, Ray

  Budgen, Nick

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Burden, F. A.

  Hannam, John

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Hastings, Stephen

  Mills, Peter

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Hawkins, Paul

  Moate, Roger

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Henderson, Douglas

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Clegg, Walter

  Heseltine, Michael

  Morgan, Geraint

  Cockcroft, John

  Hicks, Robert

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Cope, John

  Holland, Philip

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Cordle, John H.

  Hordern, Peter

  Mudd, David

  Cormack, Patrick

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Neave, Airey

  Crawford, Douglas

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Crouch, David

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Neubert, Michael

  Crowder, F. P.

  Hurd, Douglas

  Newton, Tony

  Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Normanton, Tom

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Nott, John

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  Drayson, Burnaby

  James, David

  Osborn, John

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

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

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  Durant, Tony

  Jessel, Toby

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Pardoe, John

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Elliott, Sir William

  Jopling, Michael

  Penhaligon, David

  Emery, Peter

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Eyre, Reginald

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Kimball, Marcus

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Farr, John

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Raison, Timothy

  Rathbone, Tim

  Sims, Roger

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Trotter, Neville

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Reid, George

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Speed, Keith

  Viggers, Peter

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Spence, John

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Wakeham, John

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Sproat, Iain

  Walters, Dennis

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Stainton, Keith

  Warren, Kenneth

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Watt, Hamish

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Stanley, John

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Wells, John

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Host, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Stokes, John

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Wigley, Dafydd

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Tapsell, Peter

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Scott, Nicholas

  Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Younger, Hon George

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Shepherd, Colin

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  Mr. Emlyn Hooson and

  Shersby, Michael

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Mr. Geraint Howells.

  Silvester, Fred

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Allaun, Frank

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Huckfield, Les

  Anderson, Donald

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Hughes, Rt Hon C (Anglesey)

  Archer, Peter

  Deakins, Eric

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Ashley, Jack

  de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Ashton, Joe

  Delargy, Hugh

  Hunter, Adam

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Dempsey, James

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Doig, Peter

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Bates, Alf

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Janner, Greville

  Bean, R. E.

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Dunn, James A.

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  John, Brynmor

  Bishop, E. S.

  Eadie, Alex

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Edge, Geoff

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Boardman, H.

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Booth, Albert

  English, Michael

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Ennals, David

  Judd, Frank

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Kelley, Richard

  Bradley, Tom

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Kerr, Russell

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Flannery, Martin

  Kinnock, Neil

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Lambie, David

  Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Lamborn, Harry

  Buchan, Norman

  Ford, Ben

  Lamond, James

  Buchanan, Richard

  Forrester, John

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Lee, John

  Campbell, Ian

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

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Lever, Rt Hon Harold

  Cant, R. B.

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

  Carter, Ray

  George, Bruce

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Lipton, Marcus

  Cartwright, John

  Ginsburg, David

  Litterick, Tom

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Golding, John

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Gould, Bryan

  Loyden, Eddie

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Luard, Evan

  Cohen, Stanley

  Graham, Ted

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Coleman, Donald

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Concannon, J. D.

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Conlan, Bernard

  Grocott, Bruce

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Corbett, Robin

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Mackintosh. John P.

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Hardy, Peter

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Cralgen, J. M. (Maryhill)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Madden, Max

  Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Magee, Bryan

  Cryer, Bob

  Hatton, Frank

  Mahon, Simon

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Marks, Kenneth

  Dalyell, Tam

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Marquand, David

  Davidson, Arthur

  Hooley, Frank

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Horam, John

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  1758

  1759

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Tierney, Sydney

  Meacher, Michael

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Tinn, James

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Tomlinson, John

  Mikardo, Ian

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Tomney, Frank

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Torney, Tom

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

  Roper, John

  Tuck, Raphael

  Molloy, William

  Rose, Paul B.

  Urwin, T. W.

  Moonman, Eric

  Rowlands, Ted

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Ryman, John

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Sandelson, Neville

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

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Moyle, Roland

  Selby, Harry

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Ward, Michael

  Newens, Stanley

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

  Watkins, David

  Noble, Mike

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Watkinson, John

  Oakes, Gordon

  Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

  Weetch, Ken

  Ogden, Eric

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Weitzman, David

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Wellbeloved, James

  O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

  Sillars, James

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Silverman, Julius

  White, James (Pollok)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Skinner, Dennis

  Whitlock, William

  Ovenden, John

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Owen, Dr David

  Snape, Peter

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Padley, Walter

  Spearing, Nigel

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Park, George

  Stallard, A. W.

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Parker, John

  Slewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Parry, Robert

  Stoddart, David

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Stott, Roger

  Woodall, Alec

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Strang, Gavin

  Woof, Robert

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Prescott, John

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Swain, Thomas

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Radice, Giles

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Mr. John Ellis.

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 110, in a page 16, line 35, leave out
  'applicant and each such representative'
  and insert
  'company or companies concerned and each relevant trade union's representative'.
  No. 111, in page 16, line 37, leave out application' and insert 'reference'.
  No. 112, in page 16, line 38, leave out subsections (5) to (7) and insert—
  '(5) The advisory committee shall consider any representations made under subsection (4) above and shall make a report to the Minister after the close of their consideration, giving their findings of fact and their recommendations.
  (6) Where a matter has been referred to the committee, the Minister may make a final decision relating to his proposal only after receiving and considering the committee's report on it.
  (7) Subject to subsection (11) below, where there has been a reference, the Minister shall notify—

  (a) the company or companies concerned;

  (b) the representative of each relevant trade union; and

  (c) the advisory committee,

  of his final decision; and a notice under this subsection shall be treated as requiring the
  1760
  information specified in it to be furnished to a representative of each relevant trade union.
  (8) The Minister's notice under subsection (7) above to the company or companies concerned and to the representative of each relevant trade union shall state whether or not he accepted the committee's advice.
  (9) Where there has been no reference to the advisory committee, the Minister may notify the company or companies concerned and each relevant trade union's representative at the end of the period specified in his provisional notice under section 22 above, that that notice is to be treated as containing his final decision.
  (10) A notice under subsection (9) above shall state that the provisional notice is to be treated as requiring the information specified in it to be furnished to a representative of each trade union.
  (11) If—

  (a) the Minister's final decision in relation to any information is that it shall be furnished to the representative of each relevant trade union, and

  (b) in making that decision he rejected the committee's advice,

  he shall make an order specifying the nature (without disclosing the substance) of the information to be furnished contrary to that advice, and accordingly requiring the company or companies concerned to furnish it to the representative of each relevant trade union.
  (12) An order under subsection (11) above shall not take effect until the end of a period

  1761
  of 28 days from the date on which it is laid before Parliament.
  (13) During any such period of 28 days the order shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a negative resolution of either House of Parliament.
  (14) In reckoning the period of 28 days no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which either House adjourn for more than 4 days.
  (15) This section shall apply with appropriate modifications in any case where only part of the information furnished to the Minister falls to be disclosed to representatives of relevant trade unions'.—[Mr. Varley.]

Clause 24

  CONFIDENTIALITY
  Mr. Stanley: I beg to move Amendment No. 188, in page 17, line 15, leave out paragraph (a).
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): With it we shall discuss the following amendments:
  No. 113, in page 17, line 17, leave out paragraph (b) and insert:
  '(b) for the purposes of a reference under section 23 above, to the advisory committee or to a person whose aid is called in under paragraph 5 of Schedule [Advisory committees] to this Act;'.
  No. 189, in page 17, line 17, leave out paragraph (b).
  No. 190, in page 17, line 20, leave out paragraph (c).
  Mr. Stanley: In the remaining six minutes left to us before the guillotine falls we can have a short debate on the meaning of this clause. We were unable to discuss it during the guillotined Committee. It deals with information which is agreed to be withheld under Clause 24, but we are here involved with the circumstances in which it will be legitimate for the Government to pass this type of information around. By definition, the information will be deemed to be likely to cause serious injury to a particular company if it is divulged. The clause concerns information which can be released without the consent of the company.
  It is not immediately apparent to us why there should be any release within Government of information which is likely
  1762
  to cause serious injury to a company, and certainly no reason why that information should be released without the consent of the company concerned. The Government propose that the information should be released to Government Departments and to the appeal committee as well as to the Manpower Services Commission and other bodies attached to it. We could see no justification for such a wide release within Government and we therefore tabled our amendments.
  There is no reason why this particularly highly sensitive information, which, for example, could concern a company's acquisition proposals or its expenditure on research and development, should be passed around from one Government Department to another. Under the Bill the information can go to any Government Department for use in any of its functions.
  Under Clause 24(1)(b) it is right for the committee to have access to it, but why should that be done without the consent of the company? There is no obvious reason why under paragraph (c) the Manpower Services Commission, the Employment Services Agency or the Training Services Agency should be entitled to it. Under the Employment and Training Act 1973 the commission already has powers to obtain information. Under that Act, also, the Minister has powers to enter into agreement with the commission to prepare a major job of relocation and job retraining programme. There appears to be no reason, therefore, why this sensitive information should be passed so readily to bodies which are outside the immediate confines of Whitehall and which, under the terms of its legislation, are semi-independent.
  It must be in the interests of the companies and the employees that information which it is agreed by Ministers should be withheld from trade union representatives should be subject to the tightest commercial confidentiality, and that can be achieved only by confining its circulation to the minimum number of people. Our amendments will achieve that objective.
  Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley) has been explaining amendments which, I am sure, totally against his intentions, would

  1763
  make the working of the Bill rather difficult. The amendment he moved would make it impossible for the Minister to discuss with his officials the information he had received, or for them to discuss it with other Government Departments. It would therefore certainly prevent the machinery of Government running as it should. The Government are not concerned simply to acquire information as an end in itself. We are anxious to have information because with it we should be able to exercise the functions of Government efficiently.
  It being half-past Seven o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order 43 (Business Committee) and the Orders [12th May and 1st July], to put the Question already proposed from the Chair.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put successively 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 half-past Seven o'clock.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is now my duty to put successively the Questions on all the remaining Government amendments. To save the time of the House I propose to read the amendments out by number. If any hon. Member wishes to divide on any one of the amendments, will he please say so, as I read the numbers out. I shall then put the Question on all the preceding amendments en bloc and then formally put by itself the Question on the disputed amendment. I shall now proceed to read the Government amendments by number.
  Amendments made: No. 113, in page 17, line 17, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
  '(b) for the purposes of a reference under section 23 above, to the advisory committee or to a person whose aid is called in under paragraph 5 of Schedule [Advisory committees] to this Act;'.
  No. 114, in cage 17, line 32, leave out 'a' and insert—
  'the representative of each relevant'.
  No. 115, in page 17, line 33, leave out '22' and insert '23'.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

Clause 26

  OFFENCES, AND ENFORCEMENT OF ORDERS
  Amendments made: No. 116, in page 18, line 5, at beginning insert:
  '(a) refuses or fails without reasonable cause to comply with a requirement of a preliminary notice under section 20 above;'.
  No. 117, in page 18, line 10, leave out from 'particular' to end of line 18.
  No. 118, in page 18, line 33, at end insert:
  '(3A) Summary proceedings for an offence under subsection (1)(c) above may be brought within a period of six months from the date on which evidence sufficient in the opinion of the prosecutor to warrant the proceedings came to his knowledge; but no proceedings shall be brought by virtue of this subsection more than three years after the commission of the offence.
  (3B) For the purposes of subsection (3A) above a certificate signed by or on behalf of the prosecutor and stating the date on which evidence as aforesaid came to his knowledge shall be conclusive evidence of that fact; and a certificate stating that matter and purporting to be so signed shall be deemed to be so signed unless the contrary is proved'.
  No. 119, in page 19, line 5, after 'Act', insert—
  'other than an offence under subsection (3) above'.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

Clause 28

  INTERPRETATION
  Amendment made: No. 120, in page 20, line 13 after 'means', insert:
  'subject to subsection (1A) below'.—[Mr. Kaufman.]
  Amendment proposed: No. 121, in page 20, line 38, at end insert:
  '(1A) In determining the extent to which an undertaking is engaged in manufacturing industry, the following activities shall be treated as manufacuring industry so far as they relate to products manufactured or to be manufactured by the undertaking—

  research,

  transport,

  distribution,

  repair and maintenance of machinery,

  sales and marketing,

  storage,

  production and distribution of energy and heating,

  administration,

  training of staff,

  packaging'—[Mr. Kaufman.]

  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 288 Noes 269.

  Division No. 272.]

  AYES

  [7.30 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Allaun, Frank

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Anderson, Donald

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Archer, Peter

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Flannery, Martin

  McNamara, Kevin

  Ashley, Jack

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Madden, Max

  Ashton, Joe

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Magee, Bryan

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Ford, Ben

  Mahon, Simon

  Atkinson, Norman

  Forrester, John

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

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

  Marquand, David

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Bates, Alf

  George, Bruce

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Bean, R. E.

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Ginsburg, David

  Meacher, Michael

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Golding, John

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Gould, Bryan

  Mikardo, Ian

  Bishop, E. S.

  Gourlay, Harry

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Graham, Ted

  Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, Itchen)

  Boardman, H.

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Molloy, William

  Booth, Albert

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Moonman, Eric

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Grocott, Bruce

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Bradley, Tom

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hardy, Peter

  Moyle, Roland

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Harper, Joseph

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Newens, Stanley

  Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Noble, Mike

  Buchan, Norman

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Oakes, Gordon

  Buchanan, Richard

  Hatton, Frank

  Ogden, Eric

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Campbell, Ian

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

  Canavan, Dennis

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Orbach, Maurice

  Cant, R. B.

  Henderson, Douglas

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Carter, Ray

  Hooley, Frank

  Ovenden, John

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Horam, John

  Owen, Dr David

  Cartwright, John

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Padley, Walter

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Huckfield, Les

  Palmer, Arthur

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Hughes, Rt Hon C (Anglesey)

  Park, George

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Parker, John

  Cohen, Stanley

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Parry, Robert

  Concannon, J. D.

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hunter, Adam

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Corbett, Robin

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Prescott, John

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Price C. (Lewisham W)

  Cralgen, J. M. (Maryhill)

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Crawford, Douglas

  Janner, Greville

  Radice, Giles

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Reid, George

  Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Richardson Miss Jo

  Cryer, Bob

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  John, Brynmor

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Davidson, Arthur

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Judd, Frank

  Rooker, J. W.

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Roper, John

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Kelley, Richard

  Rose, Paul B.

  Deakins, Eric

  Kerr, Russell

  Rowlands, Ted

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Ryman, John

  de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Kinnock, Neil

  Sandelson, Neville

  Delargy, Hugh

  Lambie, David

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Lamborn, Harry

  Selby, Harry

  Dempsey, James

  Lamond, James

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Dolg, Peter

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lee, John

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lever, Rt Hon Harold

  Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

  Dunn, James A.

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Lipton, Marcus

  Sillars, James

  Eadie, Alex

  Litterick, Tom

  Silverman, Julius

  Edge, Geoff

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Skinner, Dennis

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Luard, Evan

  Snape, Peter

  English, Michael

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Ennals, David

  McCartney, Hugh

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Stallard, A. W.

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Whitlock, William

  Stoddart, David

  Urwin, T. W.

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Stott, Roger

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Strang, Gavin

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

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

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Swain, Thomas

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Ward, Michael

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Watkins, David

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Watkinson, John

  Woodall, Alec

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Watt, Hamish

  Woof, Robert

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Weetch, Ken

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Weitzman, David

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Tierney, Sydney

  Wellbeloved, James

  Tinn, James

  Welsh, Andrew

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Tomlinson, John

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Mr. Donald Coleman and

  Tomney, Frank

  White, James (Pollok)

  Miss Betty Boothroyd.

  Torney, Tom

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Knox, David

  Alison, Michael

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Lamont, Norman

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  Lane, David

  Arnold, Tom

  Fox, Marcus

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Freud, Clement

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Baker, Kenneth

  Fry, Peter

  Lawson, Nigel

  Banks, Robert

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Beith, A. J.

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Bell, Ronald

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Lloyd, Ian

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

  Loveridge, John

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Luce, Richard

  Benyon, W.

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

  McCrindle, Robert

  Biffen, John

  Goodhart, Philip

  McCusker, H.

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Goodhew, Victor

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Blaker, Peter

  Goodlad, Alastair

  MacGregor, John

  Body, Richard

  Gorst, John

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Madel, David

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Bradford, Rev Robert

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Marten, Neil

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Grist, Ian

  Mates, Michael

  Brittan, Leon

  Grylls, Michael

  Mather, Caroi

  Brotherton, Michael

  Hall, Sir John

  Maude, Angus

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Mawby, Ray

  Buck, Antony

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Budgen, Nick

  Hannam, John

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Burden, F. A.

  Hastings, Stephen

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Butier, Adam (Bosworth)

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Mills, Peter

  Carlisle, Mark

  Hawkins, Paul

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Moate, Roger

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Heseltine, Michael

  Molyneaux, James

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Hicks, Robert

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Clegg, Walter

  Holland, Philip

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Cockcroft, John

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Morgan, Geraint

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Hordern, Peter

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Cope, John

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Cordle, John H.

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Mudd, David

  Crouch, David

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Neave, Airey

  Crowder, F. P.

  Hurd, Douglas

  Nelson, Anthony

  Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Neubert, Michael

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Newton, Tony

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Normanton, Tom

  Drayson, Burnaby

  James, David

  Nott, John

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

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

  Durant, Tony

  Jessel, Toby

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  Dykes, Hugh

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Osborn, John

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Elliott, Sir William

  Jopling, Michael

  Pardoe, John

  Emery, Peter

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Eyre, Reginald

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Penhaligon, David

  Farr, John

  Kimball, Marcus

  Percival, Ian

  Fell, Anthony

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  1768

  1769

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Shepherd, Colin

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Shersby, Michael

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Silvester, Fred

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Raison, Timothy

  Sims, Roger

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Rathbone, Tim

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Trotter, Neville

  Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Speed, Keith

  Viggers, Peter

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Spence, John

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Wakeham, John

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Sproat, Iain

  Walters, Dennis

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Stainton, Keith

  Warren, Kenneth

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Stanley, John

  Wells, John

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Stokes, John

  Wood, Rt Hen Richard

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Tapsell, Peter

  Younger, Hon George

  Scott, Nicholas

  Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Mr. Spencer Le Marchant

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  and Mr. Michael Roberts.

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 123—new Schedule—Advisory Committees—
  1. The Secretary of State, with the consent of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, shall draw up and from time to time revise—

  (a) a panel of persons who have experience in industrial affairs as employers or managers;

  (b) a panel of persons who have experience in industrial affairs as representatives of workers;

  (c) a panel of persons who are barristers or solicitors; and

  (d) a panel of persons who are advocates or solicitors who have practised in Scotland.

  2. Of the panels—

  (a) that mentioned in paragraph 1(c) above shall be appointed with the consent of the Lord Chancellor, and

  (b) that mentioned in paragraph 1(d) above shall be appointed with the consent of Lord President of the Court of Session.

  3. When either of the Ministers is required to make a reference under section 23 above or makes such a reference himself, he shall constitute, for the purpose of advising him, a committee consisting of three persons, namely—

  (a) one from the panel mentioned in paragraph 1(a) above,

  (b) one from the panel mentioned in paragraph 1(b) above, and

  (c) one from the relevant panel of lawyers;

  and for the purposes of this Schedule, "the relevant panel of lawyers" means—

  (i) the panel mentioned in paragraph 1(d) above, if the Minister constituting the committee considers, having regard to any representations made by the company or companies concerned or by a relevant trade union, that this is appropriate, and

  1770

  (ii) in any other case, the panel mentioned in paragraph 1(c) above.

  4. The Minister constituting a committee shall appoint as the committee's chairman the member of the committee appointed to it from the relevant panel of lawyers.
  5. A committee may, at the discretion of the chairman, where it appears expedient to do so, call in the aid of one or more persons who appear to the committee to be specially qualified for the purpose, and may settle its advice wholly or partly with the assistance of that person or persons.
  6. A committee shall sit in private.
  7. The Minister appointing a committee shall pay its expenses, including such (if any) fees for its members and for any person called in under paragraph 5 above as he may, with the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service, determine.
  8. Any such Minister may make arrangements for securing that such of his officers as he considers are required are available to assist a committee.'.—[Mr. Kaufman.]
  7.43 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Eric G. Varley): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  During the past three days we have been debating this Bill in very great detail as is appropriate, necessary and right.
  The Bill has been changed partly by amendments inserted by the Government, partly by amendments accepted by the Government, and, of course, some amendments made in Committee have remained in the Bill, perhaps even against the wishes of the Government on one or two occasions. These include a requirement to develop economic policy as a branch

  1771
  of mathematical economics. I think it would be helpful to discuss these further in another place and to have discussions with my hon. Friends about them. But all the details of amendments, and of amendments to amendments, should not obscure the main purpose and provisions of this Bill.
  This Bill is one of the most important to be presented to this House in recent times, since its aim is no less than to help bring about a solution to the problems that have held back the regeneration of British industry to which Government after Government have sought in vain for a solution for 20 years or more.
  As a nation, we have fallen industrially further and further behind our main competitors. As we have done so, we have had one balance of payments crisis after another. Each crisis has meant yet another check to the economy and further weakened our competitiveness.
  No responsible Government can claim to be serving the nation unless they are prepared to face not the symptoms of our problems, but their fundamental causes. It is with these that the Bill is concerned.
  As a Government and nation we have to face the fact that our investment per worker has been well below the rate of our competitors. It might not matter if this was a short-term phenomenon, but anyone who looks over the record of the last 20 years will see that throughout this period we have had a problem that has been getting progressively worse. We must therefore tackle the issue of investment in industry. But that itself will not provide the answer. Even more important, we must also match the skill of our competitors in making effective use of manufacturing equipment, and here our record must be a matter of very great concern. We simply are not getting the results.
  We need to make a new and major attempt to advance industrial democracy since attitudes, pretty well as much as management and lack of investment and out-of-date structuring, have been responsible for the difficulties which have so relentlessly afflicted us.
  Apart from some minor or less controversial provisions, together with the important provisions for dealing with undesirable foreign takeovers by prohibition
  1772
  or vesting orders, this Bill covers three main areas. The one which has taken up most of our time, on Report at least, and also occupied a great amount of the time of Standing Committee on which I did not have the pleasure of serving is that of disclosure of information.
  We have had our differences on this side of the House, just as there have been at least four different and distinct points of view put forward on the benches opposite by the various Opposition parties.
  For my own part, I believe that we have got the balance about right. I look forward to the keen wind of free flowing information blowing through industry, improving relationships between management and workers and giving workers access to the information which will help them to become truly an integral part of their own industry.
  I shall not hesitate to use the powers this Bill gives me to compel disclosure of information if need be. But, as I have said before, and said yesterday, I very much hope that satisfactory voluntary arrangements will mean that I do not have to exercise these powers.
  For me the greatest success of this part of the Bill would be if it were to bring about voluntary arrangements for information sharing throughout industry. I say to managements who might be reluctant or dubious that nothing could transform the atmosphere more than this sharing of information with their work forces through their union representatives.
  But if this free flow of information can change the atmosphere of industry, planning agreements can change its direction. How to plan an economy within a genuine democratic framework is the key to orderly and fruitful industrial progress.
  Planning agreements, on which the Labour Party made proposals during its period in Opposition, are the means of creating a new partnership between workers through their trade unions, companies through their managers, and the Government—a partnership in which the three sides will come together to discuss and pool their wisdom and resources in order to increase the effectiveness of the major companies upon which our prosperity so much depends. We shall seek to do this through this real voluntary system.

  1773
  The Government intend to make available shortly a consultative document which we will discuss with the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress. This document will, of course, be made available to Parliament.
  But for me the real heart of this Bill is its provisions to set up a National Enterprise Board. One of the clearest signs of the frivolous and irrelevant Tory Opposition tactics that we faced was that, during this Report stage they chose—for it was their choice—to devote two of the three days of Report stage to the disclosure provisions of this Bill and less than a day to the section dealing with the NEB.
  Under its prospective Chairman, Sir Don Ryder, the Board will have a crucial task and a number of rôles. It will, as directed by the Secretary of State in any particular case, exercise the selective powers in the Industry Act 1972, assisting industry in trouble and not necessarily just making handouts. It will ensure that the British people will obtain a return in terms of finance and control for the finance which they inject into an ailing industry.
  Mr. Tim Renton: The Secretary of State said that he would ensure that the British people received a satisfactory return for the finance which they injected into industry. Will he tell us how he expects to achieve that, and what he would regard as a satisfactory return?
  Mr. Varley: This matter was debated in Committee and on Report. I had correspondence with the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) as to how we would determine an adequate return. That is not an easy definition. It can be made over a period of time. I recently made an announcement about the financing of the RB 211 engine. When that is vested in the National Enterprise Board it will be some time, perhaps much longer than three years, before a return on capital is shown there. We cannot be precise but we are utterly determined that there should be an adequate return.
  But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) so rightly pointed out in a speech last Tuesday, it is no longer acceptable that public ownership should simply be used as a
  1774
  device for propping up unprofitable concerns. It is time that the public sector was extended into profitable private industry and this will be the most important and one of the first rôles for the NEB.
  Mr. Heseltine: The Secretary of State says that it is necessary for nationalisation to be extended into profitable manufacturing industry. Why?
  Mr. Varley: Because it is essential. When we trace the record of hand outs of Conservative and Labour Governments to private industry over the years, we see that in some cases there has been a return but that the British taxpayers have not had a stake. We shall not allow that situation to occur again.
  Mr. Heseltine: As private industry contributes £8,000 million a year in taxes, and at most gets back £2,000 million a year, why is the Secretary of State so worried at the prospect of industry continuing as it now is?
  Mr. Varley: Because there are certain projects and activities in which private industry will not become involved. It wants the Government to take the risk in the first instance to put concerns on their feet, after which it wants the State and the taxpayers to leave the scene. That is not good enough for the Labour Party. We shall not have that situation in the future.
  The NEB can provide a framework within which the public and private sectors—which in the past have operated largely in self-contained areas—will come together and should be very surprised if, within a fairly short time we do not find, just as we did with the Industrial Re-organisation Corporation, that industry's initial reservations about public enterprise progressively change. We shall find that this change will bring about an honest recognition of the value of the contribution public enterprise can make, certainly when it is directed in the public interest.
  As we have repeatedly made clear, the Board is to have no special powers of compulsory acquisition. It will be on all fours with other companies in private ownership. Its success will therefore depend in substantial measure upon the quality of the contribution it can make to industry.
  The NEB will be an agent, too, for the restructuring of industry. Too much of

  1775
  British industry is outdated, inefficient, ill-equipped and unsuited to meet the challenges we face. It has rightly been said that the best of British industry can stand comparison with the best that can be found anywhere else in the world. But go much below that level and we are faced all too often with penny-farthing industry in a supersonic world. We must put that right. We intend to put that right.
  The NEB must act as a channel for the investment, which has been so very sadly lacking for far too long. This is the underlying cause of our problems as the Ryder Report on British Leyland made clear. For too long in the locust years British industry ate up its own seed corn instead of preparing for future harvests. The NEB must make sure that the lean years of under-investment come to an end quickly.
  We shall look to the NEB to make an important contribution to the solution of the problems of high unemployment in those parts of the country which have suffered for so long from the effects of the decline of the traditional industries. In this its work will be strongly complemented by the Scottish and Welsh development agencies, which are the subject of separate legislation, which will be subject to public debate and debate in the House and which will be major public bodies in their own right with fully separate status and answerable to the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales.
  This Bill is based on a new partnership between management, workers and Government. We need to harness the whole of our resources if we are to solve our problems, because we must find new and more constructive methods of reconciling the purposes of industry with our national priorities.
  We shall not succeed in changing old ways overnight. Old habits of thought are too deep for that. We all recognise that. This is essentially a long-term policy but one in which we are determined to provide a framework in which there is an opportunity for workers to have a much more constructive role in industry.
  It is also central to our purpose that the Government should be brought into closer day-to-day touch with the heads of
  1776
  industry so that it is better equipped to do its job of formulating national policies and to respond to particular problems. Our purpose is to provide the backing industry needs to prosper and expand, through offering the possibility of creative participation by the Government in the decisions of our major companies, through public enterprise, often in partnership with private enterprise, through the National Enterprise Board; and by enabling those who work in industry to play a proper part in the major decisions that mould their lives.
  This Bill is a start, but only a start. As my hon. Friends have pointed out throughout these debates, the real worth of this Bill will be tested by the way it is implemented. It can simply be an interesting curiosity on the statute book, or it can be a dynamic instrument for the regeneration of British industry. We intend it to be a dynamic instrument for the regeneration of British industry. And that is why I commend this Industry Bill to the House.
  7.59 p.m.
  Mr. Heseltine: It is customary at the beginning of a Third Reading debate, after a long Committee stage and Report stage, to thank the Ministers who have steered the Bill through the parliamentary processes. I feel at some disadvantage, because although the new Secretary of State for Industry brought charm and grace to his contribution, it was relatively short. The reality is that the three earlier Ministers, who all made speeches of the kind which the right hon. Gentleman made tonight, were sacked by the Prime Minister for doing so. I feel as though I am making the funeral speech and toast to absent friends to the other three Ministers in this Government who tried so nobly to carry through the purpose which has now landed in the hands of the Secretary of State for Industry.
  In thanking the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, I also pay tribute to my own colleagues who have soldiered through 40 sittings of the Industry Committee with hon. Members on the Government side. Despite the guillotine, which I greatly regret because it has foreshortened our deliberations, the Bill has been thoroughly examined, in so far as it has been allowed to us to do so, and there has been a constructive dialogue.

  1777
  Without wishing to be invidious, I single out my hon. Friends the Members for Bridgwater (Mr. King), Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie) and Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley) for the particularly hard work load they have carried in Committee. In doing so I am sure that I shall reflect the general view of all of us who have watched what has gone on over the last few months.
  The fine phrases of the Secretary of State for Industry, who so eloquently moved the Third Reading of the Bill, showed a lack of contact with what is actually going on in the country and ignorance of the way in which Government intervention by the Department of Industry during the last 16 months has begun to reach to the point when the birds are coming home to roost.
  To take the first newspaper I happened to pick up this morning, in the Business News section of The Times, there is a headline:
  "Norton facing end of cash support"
  above an article which suggests that the bizarre experiment at Meriden is about to bring down Norton Villiers, the co-operative and the jobs of the people in those two companies. A little further down the page there is the headline:
  "Govan Shipbuilders want £25 million more"
  across the page, there is a reference to the Imperial Typewriter rescue—which was to be the fourth venture in co-operation by the late departed Secretary of State for Industry—being abandoned in the new spirit of reality which the difficulties of the Government abroad have created.
  I have to tell the Secretary of State for Energy that the glowing talk of partnership and regeneration may sound fine at the Dispatch Box, but it does not have much ring for the 1 million people who are out of work and the further half-a-million people who will be out of work before the next year is out.
  Mr. Heffer: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that one of the problems in relation to NVT is that the Meriden Co-operative is producing a bike that is £700 cheaper than the NVT bike, and that it is about to sell on the American market from a better position than the
  1778
  bike which was produced by the original NVT company? To suggest that the workers' co-operative has failed is contrary to the truth. IPD in Kirkby is now breaking even. If I remember rightly, Govan Shipbuilders was developed under the previous Tory Government.
  Mr. Heseltine: If the hon. Gentleman is as careful with his figures as he is with his theories, he will know that the bikes produced by Meriden are the tail-end of the bikes paid for by the taxpayer and that there is no commercial price on the bikes. He will also know that the prototype of the new bike on which the future depends has not yet been produced for NVT and that no selling price has been agreed for it. The reality is different from the situation which the hon. Gentleman tries to present.
  The Bill, broadly, has two objectives, first, setting up of the National Enterprise Board with £700 million of taxpayers' money at its disposal and, secondly, the compulsory disclosure of information to trade union representatives.
  I will deal first with the NEB which broadly, has two objectives. The first objective is to carry out the process of aiding industry largely for the purposes of regional policy, and that could be said to be exactly the purpose for which the previous Conservative Government enacted the Industry Act. The NEB has virtually no functions which could not have been carried out under the Industry Act which is already on the statute book, with one exception, and that is the function of deliberately taking over into nationalised hands profitable private companies.
  So the only argument about the NEB outside the specific one of nationalisation is whether it is better to do what the Conservative Party did in Government, which was to handle all these regional problems within a Government Department, or to have a body called a National Enterprise Board as an agency of Government to act on the Government's behalf. That is a very fine distinction on which the arguments are evenly balanced and I do not wish to detain the House with the niceties of those arguments. Those arguments are so easily resolved between the two sides of the House that they would not have taken a day and a half in Committee.

  1779
  The Committee's time has been absorbed because, underlying the first half of the Bill, is the determination that industrial power, which is now spread widely throughout Britain, should be gradually eroded and transferred to the State. The NEB has as one of its principal purposes that transfer of power from the ordinary people of this country to Government, Whitehall and the State. If ever there were a moment of time in our history when we cannot afford to spend £700 million on nationalising profitable companies it is today.
  At any time nationalisation is unpopular, as is shown by opinion surveys. Every nationalised industry is losing money. The responsivness of nationalised industries to the market is insensitive because they are guaranteed a monopoly position, and virtually all of them feature among the most over-manned areas of the British economy. If that is the standard we are now to apply to those industries which are profitable and able to stand on their own two feet, it is little wonder that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was forced to the Dispatch Box in a panic at the beginning of this week to try to explain why the follies of the Government were about to come to an end.
  Every time Ministers have stood at the Dispatch Box in the name of the Labour Party and argued in favour of nationalisation, the eloquence of their words has always carried the same message—a new beginning, a new partnership, a different relationship in industry and a real and adequate return for the taxpayer. I have heard all Labour Ministers do that ever since I have been in the House. I have watched the Bills go through, I have watched the industries being transferred from private to public ownership and, as night follows day, I have watched the losses escalate as politicians of all parties began to intervene in the way that they always will. I say "of all parties" because the moment the management of industry is entrusted to the politicians, the priority ceases to be the economic interests of the country and becomes the political interests of the Government.
  There are some good reasons for intervening in the public sector and there are some bad reasons, but what is incontrovertible is that the moment intervention occurs the losses mount. We all know
  1780
  that it is almost impossible to see a way in which the losses of those industries can be eliminated.
  What are we saying? We are saying to the people who work in free enterprise companies that their tax rates shall be maintained at an artificially high level so that their taxes shall help to subsidise the jobs of people whose industries in the nationalised sector are not able to pay their way. That is what we are saying, and I do not believe that that is the way to maximise the use of the nation's scarce resources. So I find it incomprehensible that the Government should now bring before the House a Bill to nationalise without restraint profitable private sector companies for no other reason than that they exist and represent a centre of power independent of Government.
  Mr. Varley: The hon. Gentleman is saying that nationalised industries have shown enormous losses and have had to be bailed out by the taxpayer. That is the burden of his case. He was a member of an administration that deliberately altered the prices charged by nationalised industries during the period of the counter-inflationary policy and he introduced to the House the Statutory Corporations Bill which provide for the payment of subsidies. It was at that time freely admitted by Treasury Ministers that that is what had happened. What is the hon. Gentleman's attitude today? He is not misleading the House, is he? What was his attitude at that time?
  Mr. Heseltine: If the Secretary of State for Industry had been listening he would have heard me say—perhaps with unaccustomed frankness in a political debate—that all parties had intervened. My party intervened and his party has intervened. We have all intervened, and all parties will go on intervening. But the question I would put to the Secretary of State for Industry is this: in what year, under the Labour Government from 1964 to 1970, did any nationalised industry earn what he would describe as an adequate rate of return?
  I am not surprised that he sits in his place, because there are no examples, except, I think, the two years in which one airline earned an adequate rate of return. As for the rest, throughout the whole period of Labour Government when the

  1781
  State was intervening, the nationalised industries failed to show an adequate return on the nation's assets that were tied up in them.
  I accept that all Governments and all parties will intervene. If power is given to politicians they will use it. The issue to be faced is this: will politicians use power for the more effective use of the nation's resources, or will they seek so to fudge the issues, for good or bad reasons, that the short-term opportunism of Government is made supreme, and the long-term economic interests of the country are subjected to it?
  A good example is the steel industry. Let us look at what has been done over 20 years to the key manufacturing industry of this country. First, the Labour Party said that they would nationalise it, and by doing so the Labour Government destroyed the incentive of the private sector to invest in it. Having taken over the industry, they could not make up their mind what to do with it. They conducted a review, during which time there was no investment. The Conservative Government then denationalised the steel industry. The Labour Party then said that it would renationalise the industry. There was no opportunity again for the British steel industry to do what the German, the French and the Japanese steel industries, under private ownership, were doing—to expand and invest.
  Having reached this situation, the Conservative administration in 1972 said that it was time to stop and to agree to a long-term investment programme in the public sector, which would mean rationalisation, closing down some uneconomic plants, and facing the consequences of change. What did the Labour Party then do? For narrow party reasons, because there were marginal seats involved, they said, "We will will not go on with the programme of rationalisation worked out by the Conservative Government when we come to power."
  The situation now is that, after a further 16 months, the steel industry of this country does not know what its investment plans are to be, because these plans have been held up by this Government. There is no need to ask the Minister responsible. Ask the Chairman of the British Steel Corpora-
  1782
  tion, Sir Monty Finniston, and he will confirm that this is the position.
  Mr. Varley: This is a very important issue between the two sides. It is the fundamental issue. I understand the hon. Gentleman's conversion, in that he now believes that the interference by past Conservative Governments was wrong. Is he saying that, if ever this situation should arise again, an incoming Conservative Government would never take a public stake in or take into public ownership, for example, another Rolls-Royce case, another Alfred Herbert case or another British Leyland? Is he saying now, as the responsible spokesman for the Opposition—perhaps doing my job in a few years' time—that he would never intervene in circumstances like that.
  Mr. Heseltine Mr. Heseltine rose—
  Hon. Members Hon. Members: Answer.
  Mr. Heseltine: Of course I will answer. I always answer. Perhaps hon. Members opposite will be good enough to listen to the answer, as opposed to prejudging it, which is their familiar trick. Then they might learn something.
  The Secretary of State for Industry has only relatively recently come to his office, therefore he cannot be expected to know that time and time again I have said that the Conservative Government introduced the Industry Act, which had powers of the sort he is talking about, so there is no great doctrinal divide between what the Conservative Government did in 1972 and the practical help to industry, which I personally support, in 1975. But there is a world of difference between that and what he is saying—that he wishes to pursue nationalisation as an end in itself, regardless of its purpose in society.
  I regard the National Enterprise Board, in its doctrinal application, as a totally irrelevant act of Government at this time. But before I leave the National Enterprise Board I should like to deal with the underlying policy on which it is based. The argument is that British industry will now be put in a position where there is to be a great regeneration, and the spearhead of this is to be the National Enterprise Board, which has £700 million at its disposal. Let us assume

  1783
  that this is all invested. That is extremely unlikely, because much of it will be used for other purposes, but let us assume that all that money is invested. In consequence of this Government coming to power, there has been a reduction of 15 per cent. in the investment intentions of British industry at large over the next year. The investment figures are £6,000 million or thereabouts. A 15 per cent. reduction is about £900 million. Therefore, if the entire funds available to the National Enterprise Board were all invested in this year—which they will not be—they would not be sufficient to undo the damage to British industrial investment resulting from 16 months of Labour Government.
  Anyone who talks of the regeneration of British industry without looking at the figures—the scale of which is totally dwarfed by the reality of our economic and industrial problem—is talking in political platitudes and totally divorced from industrial reality.
  That is the charge that I place before this Government. They have sacrificed the opportunity to galvanise British industry with a new sense of opportunity and partnership on the altar of their doctrinal pursuit of nationalisation. That is an unforgivable thing to do to this country at this time.
  I should like to move to the second key aspect of the Bill—the disclosure of information. Let us be quite clear where we all stand. This is not, in the main, an issue. There is no political party that is not in favour of disclosure. I do not believe that there is any political party that would not be prepared to legislate for disclosure or to have disclosure of information backed by legal enforcement. Certainly the Conservative Party is committed to it. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] As hon. Members have asked me, I can tell them that we did it precisely in the Indusrtial Relations Act Bill, which the Labour Government has repealed.
  Mr. Ron Thomas: It was mentioned in the Industrial Relations Act. As I recall, the Conservative Government then asked the CIR to look into it, it produced a report and then the Conservative Government forgot about it altogether.
  Mr. Heseltine: If the hon. Member had read the Companies Act he would have seen that there was a great deal of advance made in regard to this situation, therefore it is clearly on the record that the Conservative Party would legislate in this field. It is not an issue. The only issue is as to the way in which we set about doing it. Our view is clear—that it is right that there should be disclosure but not disclosure of a sort that is likely to damage investment prospects and employment levels in this country. We believe that the Bill as originally drafted went exactly in the direction in which it was likely to have an adverse effect on the possibility of creating new jobs in Britain.
  I think that the House of Commons last night, in its wisdom, improved the Bill in a remarkable way, because the planning agreements under the Bill are now to be conditional upon the Government providing a very substantial amount of information before those agreements are entered into. There is to be a two-way give and take, and it at least enables industrial concerns to know what are the economic parameters in the mind of the Treasury for the next few years, before they have to give their own figures. The House was quite right to make that stand last night.
  The second improvement that the House made last night was to Clause 20, which deals with the disclosure of information. Before companies can be expected to give information about their forward intentions, the Government are to provide companies, for the period that is relevant to their forward plans, with detailed forecast information about the economic parameters. That is a very important step forward, in co-operation between the Government and private industry.
  I welcome the fact that so many hon. Members on both sides supported this proposal, and I am only sad that the Government resisted this new opportunity for a genuine partnership. It was wise of the House to resist the Government's attempt to renege on what I believe to be the part of the bargain that they ought to have been prepared to offer. So I praise the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Dr. Bray) for his work—
  Mr. J. W. Rooker: Labour.
  Mr. Heseltine: Everyone knows that the hon. Gentleman is a member of the Labour Party. Everyone knows also that there were Conservative amendments on the Notice Paper doing very much the same thing in Committee. So there was all-party agreement. although 170 Conservatives went through the Division Lobby and only 50 Labour Members. So the credit is almost evenly divided.
  Let us bury the differences which Government supporters below the Gangway seek to exaggerate. Let us agree on the consensus that we have reached. I do not see why members of the Tribune Group should seek to undermine their good work last night. We have achieved something together. Let me stretch the hand of friendship across the great sea which divides us. Who knows what we may be able to build upon in the future if we see this as the base for further cooperation and partnership?
  But whereas we may have improved the Bill in this respect, there is still the element of compulsion about the disclosure powers which I and my party resent deeply. It was in flagrant contradiction to what the Government said before the General Election. They said that they would be voluntary. It was only after the election, when they thought that they had the power, that they went back on their word.
  I give only one example to the House of why I believe Government supporters have failed totally to understand the damage which the compulsory nature of these disclosure powers may have. I give only one example because many hon. Members have heard the argument before.
  I ask the House to consider the situation of a major international company trying to decide whether to create jobs in Britain or somewhere else in Europe because it is looking for a European manufacturing base for its products. In every other European manufacturing country, it will be welcomed by the Government of the day. It will be given every facility to set up its manufacturing there, to create jobs there, to create exports from that country, and to add to the real standards of living of the German, French or Italian people.
  If that company has to decide whether to come to Britain, the first matter that it
  1786
  must consider is that legislation is about to hit the statute book which will compel it to disclose to the Government virtually all its innermost secrets.
  Next, the company will find that it has to hand over almost all that information to trade union representatives who do not work for the company but who represent the people working for the company. No such sanction will be imposed on the company if it goes elsewhere. How many companies do members of the Tribune Group think will come to this country?
  Mr. Rooker: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I seek your assistance, in view of the very brief speech made by my right hon. Friend compared with the very long one to which we are now being subjected? Many hon. Members wish to take part in this very short but important debate.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Everyone in the House knows how long this debate can last.
  Mr. Heseltine: I knew that I should not have given way so often, because I realised that I had a great deal to say. However, I am about to bring my remarks to a conclusion.
  If the company which I was describing decided to invest here but did not want to reveal its secrets and went through the appeal procedure which is now included in this legislation, it would know that the ultimate sanction was that there could be a debate on the Floor of the House, when the trade unions would not know what information they had not been given, and hon. Members would not know what information had been withheld. However, there would be a wide debate in which no doubt the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) would explain the evils of multinational companies and the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) would explain how we ought to have more cooperatives, but in which the climate of our industrial outlook would be exposed to the company which was considering creating jobs here. If anyone imagines that the company would not be deterred and that jobs would not be lost to the country, he can have no concept of what is meant by industrial confidence.
  I summarise the Bill by quoting an advertisement which appeared in the

  1787
  house journal of the Department of Industry this very week. Presumably it was aimed at the audience to which that journal circulates. It says:
  "Goodbye Britain. Plan your escape now with the 1975 guide to emigration, 'Living and working abroad'. Send £1·10, including p. & p."
  In our view, that advertisement typifies the attitude that this Bill engenders. It is an irrelevant and expensive Bill at a time when unemployment is rising, investment is slumping and Britain is immersed in one of its worst economic crises since the war. The Opposition will vote against the Bill decisively.
  8.27 p.m.
  Mr Heffer: We have just listened to a typical Oxford Union debating speech by the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). I remember debating with him at the Oxford Union about two years ago. He has not improved one little bit on the debating capability that he showed on that occasion.
  Before making any comments on the Bill, I want to pay tribute to one or two hon. Members who are not present this evening, for the obvious reason that they are no longer Front Bench spokesmen dealing with the Bill. I pay tribute first to my hon. Friend who was Under-Secretary of State in the Department, the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). After my rather sudden departure from the Department of Industry, my hon. Friend carried the main burden of the Bill in Committee. No one who saw my hon. Friend in operation can fail to admire his tenacity and his serious work in dealing with the vast number of Opposition amendments which were moved extremely ably by hon. Members opposite. I think that the whole Committee admired him tremendously for the job he did. It would be remiss of the House not to pay him a compliment.
  It is true that my right hon. Friend the previous Secretary of State for Industry did not put in his time in Committee as we did, but we all know that the sittings took place when Cabinet meetings were going on. The same position would have applied if my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State had had responsibility for the Bill throughout our proceedings in Committee. It is clear that he would not have been able
  1788
  to put in the same amount of time in Committee.
  The work that my right hon. Friend the previous Secretary of State carried out in helping to formulate and develop industrial strategy for the Government should not be underestimated. I think he made a tremendous contribution in his capacity of Secretary of State. When they recognise and understand the contribution that my right hon. Friend made over the year, not only the Labour movement but the entire country will pay a compliment to the activities of my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Joseph Harper (Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household): What about the Whips?
  Mr. Heffer: Yes, the Whips did a most remarkable job in Committee. I agree that they are right in asking for a compliment. They justly deserve one.
  The Bill has been portrayed in two ways. First, many hon. Members have said that the Bill will do more than it was ever intended to do. Unfortunately the impression was given that the Bill would introduce the Socialist millennium. It was never so. It could never happen as a result of the Industry Bill. There were people in the CBI and among the employers' organisations who believed that the Bill would transform Britain into a total Socialist State. They reacted accordingly, and on that basis we heard the most exaggerated claims for the Bill coming from the CBI. That is understandable because the CBI is opposed to any extension of public ownership in any direction. In particular, it is opposed to the extension of public ownership as regards profitable manufacturing industry.
  The hon. Member for Henley asked the fundamental question. He asked why we want to extend public ownership. Let me explain. The extension of public ownership is part and parcel of the philosophy of the Labour Party. That is because the existing private enterprise system has let the British people down over the years. The hon. Gentleman referred to investment as though there had been a fall in investment only in the past 16 months. The hon. Gentleman knows that in the private enterprise system there has been a fall in investment of a greater scale than in any great industrial country in the world—[HON.

  1789
  MEMBERS: "Socialism!"] That is the most fantastic nonsense. We have had a private enterprise system. We have had a mixed economy with most of our industries being controlled by private enterprise.
  Mr. Ian Lloyd Mr. Ian Lloyd (Havant and Waterloo) rose—
  Mr. Heffer: No, I shall not give way. I am not being discourteous. I do not want to speak for too long as I know that many other hon. Members wish to speak.
  We want to extend public ownership to get, apart from anything else, the necessary investment in productive industry. That is the first point. The second point is that it has been said that the previous Industry Act could have done the job. I think of my experience as Minister of State, Department of Industry. There were almost queues of private enterprise companies waiting to get subsidies from the Government under the Industry Act, but when the Government said that they wanted something in return we were told that that represented Government interference.
  It was said that we were daring to enter into the management of industry. That is said when taxpayers' money to the tune of some £2 million a day has been going into public industry. That is what is said when the Government say that they want something in return—namely, some control. No Government have ever said that they should interfere with the management of industry on a day-to-day basis. The publicly-owned industries are not run by Ministers, and it would be an exaggeration to say that they were.
  It is important to remember that we need to extend public ownership because the whole structure of our class-ridden society—we are one of the most class-ridden societies in the world—is based on private ownership of the means of production, distribution and all the rest. If we want to end the class system and the power of privilege which goes with the ownership of a vast industry, we need to extend public ownership much more than is suggested in the Bill. The Bill is only a tiny step towards the type of public ownership I want to see. If full employment is to return and we are to guarantee our people a constant rising
  1790
  standard of living, we need to extend public ownership on a much greater scale than is happening at present.
  Private enterprise is constantly attacking the Labour Party for its policy of extending public ownership. It does so because its power and privileges are tied up with the private enterprise system. My right hon. and hon. Friends are not pushing forward an octopus and taking over every industry. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] The reason is that it does not happen to be in the Bill. Conservative Members would like it to be said that such a concept was contained in the Bill. They would like it to go out on the radio that the enactment of the Industry Bill will mean the taking over of every industry. They know that to be untrue. This is the kind of exaggeration which we have experienced over the years.
  I wish to deal with the disclosure of information. My complaint about the Bill is that it has been weakened in a number of directions. It is not the Bill that we envisaged originally in the Labour Party. The proposals in the party programme have not been carried out to the full. Unfortunately it is an emasculated Bill, but it can still be a useful instrument. The disclosure of information to trade unionists can be one of the most important methods of involving the work force in the running of an industry in regard to industrial development and also in securing the extension of the system of planning agreements. Such a move is vital if we are to see a regeneration of British industry, since that is what is required to put our economy in order. Although I do not support the whole of the Bill as it stands, because I believe that we weakened the Bill last night, the clauses which now exist on the matter of disclosure of information are important and vital for the future of our country and our industry.
  I believe that the Bill can do a great deal to help regional development. I come from Merseyside, and in that area 59,000 workers are unemployed at the present time. We need to attract industry to that area. Indeed, we have never had enough industry since the end of the Second World War. It is true to say that industry has come to the area, but we have never solved the problem of unemployment on Merseyside. This is also

  1791
  true of other areas such as the North-East Coast, the West of Scotland, South Wales, Cornwall and so on. Those areas require industry. The National Enterprise Board through its policy of extending industry, if necessary on a Government basis, in the regions could be the most important instrument in the Bill.
  In spite of my reservations and criticisms, plus the fact that it is not the Bill I had originally hoped for, I shall support it tonight because it is a step in the right direction. I want to go a step towards building the type of egalitarian society in which the working people, through continuity of employment, will come into their own and in which they benefit from the labour they put into industry.
  8.40 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Wainwright: I hope and I dare to believe that hon. Members in whose constituencies there are mills and factories which are closing down or struggling desperately against imminent closure will appreciate that there is a need for Government measures to deal with the restructuring of industry.
  Certainly the Liberal Members do not share the complacency, which I am sorry to say has already been aired from the Conservative benches, that the Industry Act 1972 was quite sufficient and that there is no need for Government action on this front. That is not the case at all. The need is there. We need much more disclosure to workers of the purposes of the work that they are being asked to do. We need much more co-operation on a practical basis between Government and industry, both public and private. We need to develop a strategy for dealing with major industries which get into difficulties.
  Therefore, the Liberal Party does not in any sense dispute the need for strong measures. But one of the difficulties is that tonight we are confronted with a Bill which is really three major Bills dressed up as one. This makes it difficult for parliamentarians and even more difficult for the public in our democracy to follow what the Government are asking Parliament to do. On the other hand, some of the proceedings in Committee
  1792
  showed that Parliament is capable of overcoming an obstacle—a vast swollen Bill which is extremely difficult to discuss.
  It is our view that some of the 40 sittings of the Committee represent a watershed in British Parliamentary politics. At the unofficial end of the Committee room there was the old, dreary, two-party confrontation—the last relics of something which the British electorate did its best to get rid of last year. There these dismal final scenes were being enacted. At the official end of the room official obscurity on the part of the official Government representatives was matched by arrogance, and almost unbelievable long-windedness, from the official Opposition—a long-windedness which has survived the most strenuous criticisms of it and which has been exhibited in this debate again tonight.
  Mr. Max Madden: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the characteristics of the Committee was the often empty seats on the Liberal benches?
  Mr. Wainwright: The Liberals have many tasks to perform in this House and are not represented by one-tenth of the number to which the votes at the last General Election entitled them. I am glad to say that the Committee survived even the occasional absence of the Liberal Member, because there was a splendid unofficial cohort of independently-minded Members from all parties, including Plaid Cymru, various sections of the Labour Party and some unofficial Conservatives who made distinctive and independent contributions to the Committee's proceedings.
  If the unofficial end of the Committee room is to be taken as a token of the future, the proceedings in Committee, although patchy, indicate that there is a future, on a very much revised basis, for our customary parliamentary procedures in this country.
  I have said that the Bill is really three Bills in one, and the score for the Liberals on these three is 21 against and one for. The aspect of the Bill which we have broadly welcomed is that dealing with the National Enterprise Board. Unlike the Conservative Opposition, we do not believe that public bodies should be confined to the rescue and preservation of lame ducks. We have no objection, so

  1793
  long as the commercial proprieties are respected, to the NEB moving with due care into some profitable areas of British industry. We would have liked to have seen the National Enterprise Board built upon a more regionalised structure because there are great dangers in having yet one more State-dominated corporation inevitably based on London.
  We hope that in time, and as soon as possible, the NEB will have a distinctive regional structure. We also hope that before long it will regard employees' shareholdings and other forms of worker participation, in ownership as well as in policy making, to be part of its mandate. In the hope that these improvements might come with time, we would have been prepared, if this had been a National Enterprise Board Bill, to give it a cautious welcome.
  The second part of the Bill which was loudly trumpeted in the White Paper "The Regeneration of British Industry" concerned planning agreements. Liberals welcomed moves to get the Government properly into a relationship with specific industries and to get rid of the blanket approach to the CBI or some other body which makes the ludicrous claim to represent the vast spread of British industry.
  We hoped that the concept of planning agreements might be well developed in the Bill. When the Bill appeared, however, the planning agreements part of it came as a great disappointment to the Liberal Party. The planning agreement provisions are half-hearted. They have few teeth. Above all there is little provision for the medium and small-sized business, the dynamic sort of business which is often in the lead and which is so necessary to prod the sleeping giants of industry into enterprising action.
  We see great danger in that the privileges which will go with planning agreements may reinforce the dominance which large and not necessarily very efficient businesses already hold to the detriment of the small up-and-coming firms and medium-sized concerns. Above all, we regret that there is no provision for adapting the machinery of government to proper co-operation with industry. The great flaw in all the attempts to get Government and industry together lies in the fact that the machinery of British
  1794
  government is so hopelessly ill-adapted to meshing in with the industrial processes, with shop floor and management responsibilities. The two worlds are still so different that mere legislation of a rather superficial kind will not bring about the necessary partnership.
  The third concept, which ought to have been the subject of a separate Bill, is the question of disclosure by industry, first of all to the Government and secondly to employees. This could have been a measure of major importance and constructive value to everyone in British industry. But, alas, the way the Bill has turned out this is not the case. Some improvements have been made as a result of our deliberations while others have come about as a result of public pressure. Nevertheless, regrettably the provision of industrial information is being used as a source of privilege for trade union organisations. As we tried to make clear during the earlier debates, it seems to us a great loss of an opportunity to install a form of disclosure which would treat the whole mass of British workers, whether unionised or not, as the intelligent people they are.
  Therefore, we regret the Bill as, on balance, a great opportunity lost at a time when there is an overriding need to assist British industry in its appalling difficulties, a need which the Government have recognised to their credit but, in our view, have not carried through in a statesmanlike manner, and we shall be obliged to vote against this measure tonight.
  8.50 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Crawford: Right hon. and hon. Members will not be surprised if my party, the Scottish National Party, returns to the theme of centralisation, to which the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) has alluded, a theme which haunts us in general terms and haunts us especially with regard to this Bill. We in the Scottish National Party are not concerned whether the Bill is doctrinaire, we would not have been concerned had it even been laissez faire, but we are concerned that it is centralist.
  In 1969 the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) produced a document called "Centralisation" which was headed "Scotland's Twentieth Century Nine Diamonds"—which I believe was

  1795
  the card played to James IV on the eve of Flodden. This document states:
  "As the positions of authority within industry diminish in number, so also does the total vigour of the community run down."
  That is what is happening in Scotland, and that is what the Bill will accentuate and perpetuate.
  As the House will know, we sought to ensure that the National Enterprise Board should:
  "exercise no power, jurisdiction or control whatsoever over companies, institutions, partnerships, nationalised industries and all other industrial and commercial bodies operating in Scotland ".
  We lost that amendment on a Division.
  We also sought to nail down the intentions of the Government in this situation vis-à-vis the development of the Scottish Development Agency and the National Enterprise Board. We succeeded in nailing down the intentions of the Government, but we did not get the answer we wanted. We congratulate the Under-Secretary on his extremely frank remarks when he said that he could not give me the assurance
  "that the National Enterprise Board would not operate in the areas north of the border and west of the border".—[Official Report, 1st July 1975; Vol. 894, c. 1229.]
  The Government failed to accept the group of amendments that we tabled for discussion on Tuesday last. We consider that they were reasonable amendments because they would have allowed a nation to look after its own industrial affairs. I was glad to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) when he said that the arguments he was hearing from all sides were clearly to the effect that the people of Scotland were well content to manage their own affairs in Scotland. Our amendments were reasonable. They would have stopped the dead hand of centralisation and enabled the Scottish Development Agency to look after the economy of Scotland, an economy much more manageable than the London-based NEB. But the Government did not accede to what we considered reasonable demands.
  Our opposition to the Bill is not the opposition of the Conservative Party. As the House knows, we have supported—and we shall continue to support—the Government in their aim to create a Scot-
  1796
  tish Development Association. As the House also knows, the Conservatives opposed this in this House last week, stating that the 1972 Industry Act would be good enough. If it is good enough, why have we over 100,000 unemployed in Scotland today? The irony was that it was the Conservatives' own amendment to the Scottish Development Agency Bill, which their colleagues in another place had amended and which was brought before this House, which Conservative Members in this House voted against last week.
  Our opposition to the Bill is not like the Conservatives' opposition. We believe that the National Enterprise Board will not work in Scotland because it is remote and centralist. There may or may not be much good in the Bill for England, but my hon. Friends and my party are not here to speak for England. We are here to speak for Scotland and we believe that the NEB will do Scotland no good whatever.
  At least the Government have been honest. The Under-Secretary said that he could give no assurance that the NEB would not operate in Scotland. I hope that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has noted his remarks that the NEB will operate in Scotland and that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will not claim, in the House or outside, powers for the Scottish Development Agency which we now see that it does not have. The claims made by the Secretary of State for Scotland about the SDA have been exposed for the sham that they are. If the debate of the past three days has done anything, it has made that plain.
  My party, the SNP, is the party which puts Scotland first. The Bill does not put Scotland first. That is why we shall vote against it.
  8.55 p.m.
  Mr. Palmer: I did not have the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee. Therefore, I do not qualify for mention in the dispatches of my hon Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer).
  I start with what is, I think, an independent observation in welcoming the Bill. The nationalisation versus free enterprise controversy, which excites us so

  1797
  much in this country, does not seem to excite the same interest across the Channel. I do not think that that is because the political Left across the Channel particularly likes capitalism. That could hardly be the case in, say, France and Italy, where, apart from the long tradition of social democracy, there are two mass Communist Parties. I think that the difference is that the typical continental industrialist and manager, unlike his British counterpart all too often, is both truly professional in relation to his job and a political realist about public affairs. State intervention has few terrors for him, because to a great extent it has always been part of the system. That is certainly so in France.
  Therefore, it has always been a puzzle to me to decide just why here in the United Kingdom a relatively mild measure such as this Bill should arouse such terror in the vocal section of British industry. With other Bristol Labour Members, I recently met the local leaders of the Confederation of British Industry in the West of England. They seemed to regard the Bill—it was hardly believable—as proof positive that the Government would eliminate the mixed economy and possibly in the not-too-distant future eliminate private enterprise as well.
  I should have thought just the opposite, because in many ways the National Enterprise Board is the very antithesis of Soviet national planning. There is no touch of the Gosplan about this legislation. In the Soviet Union they start with the raw materials and allocate resources downwards under the direction of political functionaries. Lord Ryder has no doubts about avoiding that approach. He intends to stand no nonsense from Ministers, according to what he said recently.
  The Evening Standard reported on 30th June that Lord Ryder, the appointed chairman of the National Enterprise Board, had said:
  "If we do not think a company is viable we will say so. There is no intention for the NEB to become the biggest hospital in the country."
  The report continued:
  "He claimed that if the Government insisted on a lame duck being rescued, the NEB would dissociate itself from the project.
  1798
  He said 'if the Government comes back and says for one reason or another it wants the company sustained, we will do what we can and charge a management fee to the appropriate Ministry'."
  Sir Monty Finniston could hardly have done better than that for independence.
  In a sense that quotation points my nagging fear about the Bill. It is that in the quite correct attempt, from a Socialist point of view, to provide more public control and accountability, we may end up with a new expensive outside bureaucracy that will stand between this House and the industry by which we live.
  I trust that future Select Committees of this House that look at public enterprises will be vigilant on this score. As for using the NEB as an instrument for nationalisation, I feel that, despite what the new Secretary of State has said, many of my hon. Friends will be disappointed and disheartened. There are no compulsory powers. This does not surprise me. I believe that the only way to nationalise an industry in a constitutionally governed country is by an Act of Parliament for that purpose. There are no short cuts to nationalisation.
  Much hope has been held out and many pages of Hansard have been filled by debates on the Floor of the House and in Standing Committee about getting more trade union and worker involvement through planning agreements and the disclosure of industrial information. Some of this information will be of considerable value in negotiations and collective bargaining. Much of it should assist towards a better sense of unity and understanding between managements and the managed, but it is doubtful whether it will lead to more industrial democracy, despite the high hopes of the former Secretary of State for Industry, the present Secretary of State for Energy. I prefer the more formal methods of the nationalised industries to ensure employee influence.
  I tried to intervene in the speech of the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who opened for the Opposition, not to lessen the velocity of his observations—that would have been almost impossible—but to put him right on a matter of fact. He was inaccurate in saying that no nationalised industry had made a proper return on capital at any time. It was not true of the electricity supply industry until

  1799
  the Conservatives took over in 1970—they put it wrong quite successfully—and it was not true of the gas industry or the airways.
  In spite of its limitations, this Bill has provided an intellectual turning over of the soil about industry, by the public debate. An inquest into the capital starvation of British industry has been stimulated and perhaps there will be action. As I say, I welcome the Bill, but I do not think that we on this side of the House should expect too much from it.
  9.4 p.m.
  Mr. Fairbairn: I have promised the Chair to take only half the time taken to deliver the Gettysburg Address, and I trust that what I have to say will be twice as important and more widely noted and remembered by hon. Members below the Gangway and others.
  There is a saying in Russia that every river eventually finds its way to the sea. This dribbling, stagnating water of the Industry Bill is about to leave the British people and British industry at sea. It is supposed to be about the regeneration of British industry, profitability, competitiveness, vitality and all those things which provide wealth in the community.
  The Bill is not about that at all. It is about the degeneration of British industry, not the regeneration. It is about industrial bureaucracy. Its inexperience of any form of life would say that to regenerate something or make it democratic it must be handed over to a new creature of the State. Who would ever regard that as a reasonable concept? I believe the answer is nobody. Industry is to be placed gradually in the hands of a new bureaucracy some way under the Secretary of State for Industry, nominally answerable to this House, but in fact not at all so.
  The Bill has nothing to do with the urge of human beings to have dignified employment, to be represented and to be informed, as Labour Members have pretended. This is one half of the pledge of the social contract to put eventually into the hands of the small cabal at the top of the biggest unions the power of this country. It is about that and nothing else. I should be glad to hear how it will regenerate even the smallest of industries, far less the biggest. No Minister or Labour Member has explained that yet.
  1800
  It is a bad law, it is verbose, it is meaningless and it adds an enormous number of drones to society who will be running industry but giving nothing to regeneration, profitability, or competitiveness. It is just another Socialist measure based on the theory that if industry can be put into the hands of the plaster cast of bureaucracy it can be controlled and so much the better.
  Poor old Scotland will have not just one of these carnivorous slouches of bureaucracy; it will have two—the NEB and the Scottish Development Agency.
  Mr. Crawford: The hon. and learned Member does not want either of them.
  Mr. Fairbairn: I do not want either of them, but we are to be forced to have two. One thing I do not understand about the Scottish National Party is that it believes that centralisation is rotten in London. Manchester, Birmingham or Bristol, but that it is splendid in Glasgow and Edinburgh.
  The Bill is born of a suspicion, mistrust and dislike of everything that moves in industry, emotions which inspire such passionate people as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). The Bill will be yet another dead hand on British industry which is already being so wounded, handicapped and fettered by more State intervention, more bad legislation, more powers and more executives than the industry of any other nation. That is why the country is in such a dreadful pass, and the Labour Party is anxious to fasten a few more of these organisations of the State upon industry because it believes that eventually if its wisdom, through State control, can prevail, everything will be well. Will it never learn that the more it interferes the less the animal is able to move? This Bill will be a curse on British industry and I trust that it will be quickly removed from the statute book.
  9.4 p.m.
  Mr. Ian Mikardo: I am always careful to avoid making prophecies if only because people always remember when you are wrong and forget when you are right. However, I am prepared to make a reasonable forecast that the expectation of the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) that

  1801
  his remarks that he has just made will endure and ring around the world and resound about the ears of men long after the Gettysburg Address has been forgotten is not, on the whole, likely to be fulfilled.
  We have now reached, unless some noble gentleman in another place seek to muck about with it further, the last stage of this Bill in its course through the House. We are all familiar with the extent to which the processes of getting the Bill through the House—some believe them a bit too long drawn out, a bit too etoliated—have enabled us to have a close examination of the Bill.
  We always finish up with a Bill which is different from the one with which we started. It is right that the examination we give to a Bill should result in changes. However, nearly always, with the exception of this Bill, the differences are what may be described as differences of degree. We do not use Committee and Report stages to alter the principle of a Bill. We argue the principle on Second Reading and in Committee. On Report we polish, refine, make more sophisticated, sharpen or weaken the provisions.
  What we are experiencing tonight is something which I cannot recall happening in the not inconsiderable number of years I have been in the House. We are discussing on Third Reading a Bill which is different not in degree but in kind from the Bill with which we began Second Reading. Those fundamental changes were not made at any time during the months of the progress of the Bill through the House, except in the last week or two.
  I believe that hon. Members from both sides of the House who sat through the one hundred hours in Committee will join me when I protest that the Government have put down amendments on Report which totally change the character of the Bill. They have made nonsense of the assiduous and hard work that we all did throughout the one hundred hours in Committee. The Government, by their behaviour have insulted the Members of the Committee.
  In Committee we talked and argued about many matters, but we clashed hard and fairly and in an informal way after having given the matters considerable
  1802
  thought and study. The items that we discussed do not exist any more. We tried to work out and improve various provisions, but then along came the Government and they rubbed it all out like somebody shoving a wet duster across the surface of a blackboard. This is an abuse of our procedures.
  If the Government were in the end to defer to an authority outside the House, and alter the Bill, not in the terms that the House demanded through its work in Committee but in the terms demanded by somebody outside—and it is bad enough that they did so—at least they should have had the grace and good sense to do so weeks, indeed months, before and thus to save us all the wasted weeks in Committee.
  What is the good of talking about increasing productivity in industry if we do not set an example and increase the productivity of the House? I have estimated that in Committee, because we were discussing something that has disappeared off the face of the earth—we were talking about nothing but we did not know it at the time—we have wasted between 3,000 and 4,000 man-hours worked by highly skilled people who have very considerable responsibilities. In my view that is not good enough.
  I wish to make two further points. First, I should like to say something about the speech of the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), although I regret that I shall have to do so in his absence. Throughout the years that I have been in the House I have indulged in a little game. I sit here and listen to a lot of speeches and think to myself, "How would this speech sound to a chap who, five minutes ago, descended from Mars and came into the Public Gallery, not knowing anything about Great Britain at all, to try to get an impression of what this country was like and what goes on?" I often listen to speeches with my Martian ear to try to figure out what he would make of it.
  If my Martian friend listened to the hon. Member for Henley he would probably say, "This Government must be composed of terrible fellows. That chap is saying that they are interfering with something which works perfectly. It is terrible of them to interfere with the private enterprise sector of the British

  1803
  economy. Why should they want to interfere with something that works perfectly?"
  I have news for the hon. Member for Henley. The private sector of British industry does not work perfectly. It has let us down. It has made a great contribution to getting us into the mess we are in.
  I must tell my friend from Mars who has just decended on us—I thought that he would be sitting in the Gallery, but he is over there. This is the first time that I have seen him. Is he a Member? I must tell my friend from Mars that it is not true, as he might have thought from the speech by the hon. Member for Henley, that the private sector of British industry invests in new equipment and modernises itself more than any of its competitors. It is not true, as he might have thought from that speech, that our private enterprises are great go-getters in the export markets, leaving standing the export salemen of such countries as Germany, Sweden and Japan.
  I must tell my friend from Mars, contrary to what he might have gathered from that speech, that standards of management in the private sector or British industry are pretty low compared with some of our competitors.
  I must tell my friend from Mars that in the private sector of British industry a man is not allowed to grind a tool without giving some evidence of competence but that he can become a managing director without any qualifications at all. That has been known to happen. We do not have the objective criteria of management which, to an increasing extent, other countries have.
  Mr. Michael Marshall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Mikardo: There is not time in this short debate.
  When the hon. Member for Henley says, "Hands off; leave well alone", I just gasp in amazement. There is a case for leaving well alone, but who on earth can make a case for leaving ill alone?
  Finally, I turn to the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. We agree with the objectives which he said the Bill is seek-
  1804
  ing—the regeneration of British industry. The whole point of the planning agreements is to try to stimulate not only more investment but better use of the machinery as a result of the investment and to stimulate better standards of management.
  The whole idea of the National Enterprise Board, as with other holding companies, is to cross-fertilise the best management techniques from one company under its umbrella to another. We want value for the money that the State puts into the private sector by doing it on a micro instead of a macro basis, by doing it selectively, and putting the money where it can be of most use.
  Above all, we want to use this machinery to correct what may perhaps be the worst failure of the private sector of the British economy—namely, its failure to equalise the disparities between the regions of this country. Of course we want all that.
  I believe that the policy put out by the Labour Party, on which many of us worked for many years, if enacted and implemented, would have done that. I believe that all the opportunities provided in the Bill, as originally drafted, if used intelligently and vigorously by the Secretary of State, would have gone a long way towards doing just that.
  The changes which were made to the Bill—and above all the changes which were made in the past three days—lessened to a great extent, the possibility that the Bill could be used to achieve what my right hon. Friend has described as its purpose, to which he rightly attached great importance.
  We began by fashioning a tool which would mend the cracks in the structure of the private sector of the British economy. In these past few days we have blunted the tool which we fashioned. I am deeply disappointed at the outcome. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) that it is better than nothing. If the Secretary of State is willing to use it to the full, it will do a bit. But I am bound to say that since an undertaking by the Government to take effective action in this area was part of their commitment under the social contract they must not be surprised if the other party to the social contract says "You have not done your whack, brothers. Why should you expect us to do ours?"
  9.22 p.m.
  Mr. David Crouch: The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) is probably right. This Bill has perhaps been blunted in the past few days. It is wrong to say that in the one hundred hours in which we debated the Bill in Committee we refined, sharpened and corrected it, or that the Government listened to one word uttered by Government supporters or the Opposition. All that happened in Committee was that Ministers listened, but they did not change much in the Bill. The Bill went through at drafted and was hardly altered. I accept that a word here or there was changed. However, its fundamental strength was retained and was not changed. It is only in the past few days that changes have occurred.
  Let us be honest and say what happened. The Ministers who were initially responsible for the Bill were swept aside. The former Secretary of State for Industry is now the Secretary of State for Energy. The Minister of State wished himself out of office and has been sitting on the back benches ever since. Only the Under-Secretary remained to hold the Government banner in those one hundred hours. I take my hat off to him. He did a good job. He did not deviate. He was not to be pushed from behind or from the front. That was a tough assignment.
  In the past few days a new direction has been given to the Bill. It has been changed. There has been a great debate which lasted many months. I wonder whether that debate extended to people outside Parliament. Great anxiety was created in industry. I accept what the hon. Member for Bristol North-East (Mr. Palmer) said about that matter. Industry expressed great concern about what the Bill would achieve if it were implemented. It is an enabling Bill and concerns the functioning of the private sector of British industry.
  The Bill was preceded nearly a year ago by a White Paper, "The Regeneration of British Industry". The White Paper expressed an aim which I do not think could be criticised by the Opposition as it promised
  "a vigorous, alert responsible and profitable private sector."
  That was the object.
  1806
  But the Bill completely departed from the White Paper. It is a different animal altogether. Even so, I maintain that industrial leaders were prepared to accept the concept of the Bill if only the Government had been prepared to listen to representations and to recognise that some parts of the Bill, in the opinion of industrial leaders, other thinking persons, oppostion Members and even some Government supporters, were wrong and would not produce the results that the Government wanted.
  I seek to speak briefly about one part of the Bill on which the Government were wrong not to recognise the sensible, serious representations made to them by industry. I shall talk about the requirements in the Bill for the disclosure of information. I agree with what was said by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright). The Bill is a series of Bills, and the part which deals with the disclosure of information should be in a separate Bill.
  The trouble with the Government is that they have introduced an Industry Bill which ignores all that is good in industry. I am not saying that everything is good, but there are some good parts where industry has developed and progressed. Nowhere does the Bill recognise the existing achievements. For example, in the little Neddies there has been established a valuable planning dialogue between companies and the Government, between companies and their employees, and between companies and trade unions. That is an achievement. It is a pity that the Bill has not developed from achievements.
  Industry needs Government help and the Government need help from industry. What a pity it is that the Bill has not been allowed to evolve from the existing best practices in industry. Instead, it has apparently been drafted to deal with poor performances in industry and bad practice. That is hardly the best way to build confidence between Government and industry, hardly the best way to establish a harmonious relationship, hardly the best way to produce an alert, vigorous and profitable private sector which we know is essential for the progress of the nation and essential if we are to achieve the regeneration of the whole concept of industry.

  1807
  I accept that the Bill's appearance on the scene has prompted many companies to look to their laurels. Many have had to examine the whole question of what they tell their employees. That at least is an achievement for the Bill. But the Government are wrong if they assume that Britain's industrial leaders are against industrial democracy. They are not, I am not, and nor are any of my colleagues.
  Industrial democracy should have been the subject of another Bill. I see that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) is smiling. He is the sponsor of such a Bill but, with the greatest respect, I suggest that it should come from the Government Front Bench and be given priority. I am sure that the Conservative Front Bench would agree to that. Industrial democracy is a vast project which deserves a special Bill. The Government should not have attempted to fit it into the Industry Bill in an ill-conceived, piecemeal way. It requires a more comprehensive, unified and consistent approach. We have to work out the whole complex structure of the involvement of employees in the affairs of their companies.
  The trouble with the Bill is that it attempts too much. It is a very wordy Bill which tries to spell out every detailed action required of a company and of the management of that company. Nothing is left to doubt. Everything is set down by statute. It is a Bill without spirit, a harsh Bill and an uncompromising one. A company can be ordered to disclose, in great and vast detail, its plans, its costs, its successes, its failures, its past and its future.
  The Government have refused all along to listen to the real and sensible protests that have been made to them about this advance warning of a company's intentions, its warning to its competitors, both at home and abroad. We have been saying this in Committee for a hundred hours, but the Government have never taken that point. They have never accepted the simple commercial advice that has been given to them: "Do not tell your competitors everything. For goodness' sake remember that in industry there is some commercial reality which has to be retained."
  The Government appear not to want to listen to commercial arguments. They
  1808
  seem to want to stand aloof from such mundane matters. They seem to want to put themselves in the hands of the bureaucrats and assume that that is a better way of life, and that these mundane commercial requirements should not feature in their thoughts.
  Do they not recognise the danger that they may be creating for the continued flow of foreign capital into this country? I hope they are not against foreign companies investing in this country and increasing their investments, but such companies may well fear to expand their investment in this country and may seek other places where there are not these requirements which limit a company's commercial opportunity and commercial good sense.
  The Government must think again on this question of disclosure without safeguards of confidentiality. It is only this point that I would seek to make to the Minister. It will prejudice commercial competitiveness and harm companies, and in the end it will hurt their employees as well. There must be safeguards. This Bill offers not safeguards but committees of appeal, and it is wrong to have this approach. If we are to have disclosure, let us do it properly and sensibly, accepting that there must be safeguards and that there is a reason for having such safeguards.
  The automatic passing of information to trade unions will do great harm to the existing relationships between an employer and his employee and between an employer and the Government. Already there is a dialogue established between many companies and the Government, and on a voluntary basis it is far better than on a statutorily required basis, as suggested in this Bill.
  If we proceed without any of these safeguards, I can only say what has been said so many times in Committee—that there will be less information coming to the Government without these confidential safeguards, and the Government and the nation will be the losers. As I have said, I am not against disclosure provided that it is sensible and provided that there is a recognition that some of it must be on a confidential basis.
  We shall have to get used in this country to open plan living in industry, but it will work only if each side shows respect

  1809
  for each other's territory and understands that sometimes there is a need for a little privacy.
  The Secretary of State tonight, in his opening speech on Third Reading, said that he thinks that the Government have got the Bill "about right" at last and that he hopes to obtain all he wants by voluntary means. That is at least a hopeful sign to me. It is a change of tune. It may be a change of tune that many Labour Members do not like, but it is a change of tune, though not a change of the Bill by the Government.
  But there has been another change affecting this Bill, since the Prime Minister recognised the reality of industry's concern about it. The Bill started off fiercely as a wolf ready to devour any prey, huffing and puffing and ready to blow the house down. What the Prime Minister has done is to dress it up. In a way typical of the Prime Minister, he has now put it into sheep's clothing, but it is still the same wolf underneath, and it deceives no one. The Bill has been debated for months, and it has not changed in any significant way. The Government have ignored advice all along the line. All that has happened is that the Bill is now under new management.
  It is a great enabling Bill. It gives the Government immense powers to intervene in the management of industry. It gives the Government power to strengthen the hold which trade unions already have in industry. It gives the Government further powers to introduce politics into business decisions. It gives the Government power to take over great chunks of the private sector of British industry. These are frightening powers for any democratic Government to assume.
  We can only hope that the Government will not try to use those powers. I hope, from what I heard the Secretary of State say tonight, that he will rely on voluntary means and not push this Bill to its utter limits, because, if he does the latter, he will go a long way to destroy confidence in British industry and he will not produce the regeneration of British industry that we all want to see.
  9.37 p.m.
  Mr. Robert J. Bradford: As an hon. Member who represents a Northern Ireland constituency, I
  1810
  am conscious of a certain dilemma in trying to assess the merits of this Bill, and I know that that dilemma is shared by quite a number of my colleagues. Many of the arguments from both sides of the House are appealing, but I think that it must be said that the votes of Ulster Members will come down on the side of opposing the Bill.
  We have many apprehensions about the clauses dealing with the disclosure of information. We are apprehensive about the lack of parliamentary supervision in respect of the wide powers which are assumed by the Secretary of State for Industry. We are also apprehensive about the share of the national cake which the public sector is receiving and will continue to receive at a time when the nationalised industries are not revealing encouraging returns on investment.
  Having said all that and having aired those apprehensions, it must be said that Northern Ireland could not remain for very long unaware of the importance of Government involvement in industry. It must be said, and I say it readily, that this Government have met the peculiar and exacting demands of the Ulster situation in a very benevolent way. Indeed, successive Governments have kept industry alive in Northern Ireland by their direct involvement and their regional development policies.
  However, there is one fact of human nature which, unfortunately, compels me to oppose this legislation. It is the unfortunate, apathetic dependence on apparently endless Government resources. There is not much evidence on either side of the channel that the nationalised industries and the workers involved in them are motivated by some patriotic dynamism. Instead, there is something psychologically depressing which tends to make workers involved in the nationalised industries lapse into a sense of utter dependence on another, namely, the Government.
  Let a man accept that quality, integrity and volume of production will ensure a prosperous future. Let a man accept his share in investment and in the imaginative policy of worker participation, worker investment and the sharing of profits as a basic premise, and I believe that we have the beginning of a true formula for prosperity.

  ROYAL ASSENT
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

  1. Nursing Homes Act 1975

  2. Export Guarantees Act 1975

  3. Hearing Aid Council (Extension) Act 1975

  4. Diseases of Animals Act 1975

  5. Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1975

  6. New Towns Act 1975

  7. British Leyland Act 1975

  8. Fraserburgh Harbour Order Confirmation Act 1975

  9. Friends' Provident Life Office Act 1975

  10. Sheffield City Council Act 1975

  11. James Hugh Maxwell (Naturalisation) Act 1975.

  INDUSTRY BILL
  Question again proposed.
  9.42 p.m.
  Mr. Giles Radice Mr. Giles Radice (Chester-le-Street): The Bill is mainly important because it sets up the National Enterprise Board. A lot of nonsense has been talked about the NEB, and particularly by the Conservative Party. It has repeated its mistakes yet again tonight. It is implied that somehow the setting up of the board will bring industry to its knees. That is nonsense. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has said, some of my hon. Friends have sometimes implied that the setting up of the NEB will in some way bring about the Socialist millenium. Well, it will not do that either. However, it will provide the British Government with potentially a highly effective instrument of intervention that will be the equivalent to and in many ways the superior of those instruments that exist in the Continent of Europe and in other industrial countries.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) has said, in most other industrial countries the introduction of a body such as the NEB
  1812
  would have been warmly welcomed. There would have been none of the absurd hysteria that we have had from the Conservative benches or from the CBI. I have spoken to managers in my constituency about the Bill and it is my experience that they do not echo the criticisms that are being made from the Conservative benches. On the contrary, like the majority of trade unionists, including members of my own union, the Union of General and Municipal Workers, they think that it will be extremely valuable and helpful to industry.
  None of those who took part in the proceedings in Committee would claim that the National Enterprise Board, as it has emerged on Third Reading, is perfect. The board should be able to buy shares in the open market. It should be able to operate more freely in other areas of the economy apart from the manufacturing sector. It should have far more resources.
  But what is more important is how the NEB operates in practice. That will depend partly on those who operate it and work it. The appointment of Lord Ryder was criticised in some quarters. I think that it was criticised unfairly and I wish him well. I was pleased to see that he did not envisage the NEB as a hospital for sick industry.
  The success of the NEB depends on whether it operates within a clearly defined strategy. It has only limited resources and it cannot dissipate them purely on lame ducks. If we are to improve our industrial situation we must concentrate our resources on export industries and on import-saving industries. The basic job of the NEB must be to back winners, not merely to prop up losers. I would not argue that the NEB does not also have a social role to play. I am hopeful that in regional policy the NEB will play a constructive role, but it will have to concentrate on job creation, not just on being a hospital and on propping up jobs that are in difficulties.
  What I have said about the NEB in relation to its having a clearly defined strategy is relevant to the Department of Industry. That Department must play a positive role in industrial planning in concert with the NEB, which is doing a useful job. The planning agreements will be useful in the future, but they will take some time. We need a clearly defined plan now for national survival.
  I turn to the provisions of the Bill dealing with industrial democracy. It is often said by Conservatives that they are in favour of more information, but when it comes to voting for more information for trade unions they seem to be reluctant to give it. It is not just related to information for trade unions but also to information for companies. That is why on an earlier occasion I supported the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Dr. Bray) which would have provided more information.
  It is becoming clear that we also need an institutional framework for industrial democracy. Some of us have been busy in the Standing Committee on the Industrial Democracy Bill in seeking to provide at least one institutional option. I hope that the Government will make a start in the near future on implementing their intentions for industrial democracy. That will bring the information requirements in the Bill into proper perspective.
  I was honoured to be a Member of the Standing Committee on the Industry Bill and I have the honour to support the Bill on Third Reading. I do so in the belief that it represents a milestone in the Government's relations with industry and will provide the Government for the first time with an effective instrument of intervention.
  9.48 p.m.
  Mr. Tim Renton: The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) said that Conservatives regarded the National Enterprise Board as a body likely to bring British industry to its knees. What a distortion that is of everything we have said throughout the many long sessions in Committee.
  We feel that the NEB is a frivolous and expensive exercise which the nation at present can ill afford. We believe that it is unnecessary and misconceived. It is unnecessary because there are existing institutions available which can funnel help into manufacturing industry. It is misconceived because it is a fundamental mistake for the State to move, by acquisition, into the control of profitable sectors of industry. Furthermore, it is a mistake for its enterpreneurial and acquisitive role to be fused in one organisation with
  1814
  the rôle of conducting the rescue operation or acting as a banker for failed enterprises.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) said, the existing legislative framework under the Industry Act 1972 provides all the necessary help for industry which finds itself in temporary trouble and all the help needed for assisted areas. This has very great potential and is an important vehicle at the present time. In regard to institutions whose purpose is to funnel help, there are sponsoring Ministers and there is also a new and strengthened system in Finance for Industry. We are pleased to know how many applications for loans have been received. Obviously Finance for Industry can be strengthened and its capital base can be enlarged so that it can provide more funds.
  In our approach to these matters we should study the examples set by the French. Their revenue is provided by the State for the implementation of five-year plans. It is provided by the means of Credit National rediscounting the banks' medium-term loans to industry and thus effectively assuring industry of subsidised loans. There is no reason, in my judgment, if there is a need to improve the mechanism for channelling the money into industry, for a similar rediscount facility to be examined for the clearing banks at the Bank of England, and there is certainly no shortage of funds from the clearing banks at present.
  Therefore, there can be no question of the National Enterprise Board being required to fulfil the functions that it is given under Clause 3 of the Bill. Nor is there any possible need for the NEB to come into being in order to handle planning agreements.
  As we have heard, many companies already enter into voluntary discussions about their future planning with the Secretary of State. If this is to be developed, why not let it be developed through a committee of the National Economic Development Office? That would represent the Government, industry and employees, and one of its functions could be the handling of planning agreements. With these aspects removed we come down to the basic function of

  1815
  the NEB being simply the overt acquisition of profitable companies,
  "extending public ownership into profitable areas of manufacturing industry"
  I have no doubt that those are the most significant words in the Bill. It is in this respect that the Bill is utterly disastrous.
  I am opposed to nationalisation in any case. I believe that what belongs to everyone belongs, in fact, to no one, and, because it belongs to no one, no one is concerned about its success. Employees in nationalised industries feel far less involved in the viability of their concern than employees in a private company, who are really concerned and mixed up in the success of the enterprise.
  I object to other aspects of nationalised industries—for example, privileged access to State capital. I do not want to go into this tonight because other hon. Members wish to speak. However, the fundamental point underlying my opposition to nationalised industries is that throughout the mixed economies of the Western world they have been a failure. As hon. Members have said tonight, if it is in this way that the Government seek to regenerate British industry, they are condemning us to many more years of failure.
  Labour Members have frequently especially in Committee, quoted Italy as being a good example of a country where State involvement in industry has succeeded. I should like to remind hon. Gentlemen of what has happened in Italy. First, the Institute for Industrial Reconstruction is losing money—it is losing more money this year than last year. Moreover, it draws only one-tenth of its capital requirements from the State. The balance comes from the capital market through its subsidiary companies and through joint participation with private companies. Those arrangements oblige the IRI to earn a return on capital employed which is in line with normal commercial returns.
  It is on that point that we have never managed to obtain guidance from the Secretary of State for Industry. He did not give us any guidance when I intervened during his opening remarks tonight about what sort of adequate return the NEB will be seeking. The Government have constantly huffed, puffed and fudged on this issue. They have come up with
  1816
  no figures, because they cannot produce any which they will be able to live up to, on how the NEB will justify itself.
  The State oil industry in Italy is in tremendous trouble due, according to its deputy-chairman, to the intermarriage between business and politics. The same deputy-chairman of the State-owned oil company has recently said that the atmosphere in that industry was comparable to the continual palace revolutions of the late Roman Empire.
  There is another State-owned industry in Italy at which hon. Members who are so enthusiastic about nationalisation should look. That is the very recently formed State-owned mineral agency, EFAB. It started only four years ago. It was acclaimed with great trumpeting at the time, in the same way as with the NEB tonight. In four years it has taken over 43 public companies. It has quadrupled its turnover to more than £450 million and at the last count it had made a loss of £100 million. It is now in great disarray because of the recent take-over of shipping, insurance and newspaper businesses.
  Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Tell us about private industry.
  Mr. Renton: Those are examples of State ownership at which the Labour Government should look. There is no record anywhere in the Western world of a nationalised industry competing successfully in fair trading competitions with private industry.
  I am forced to the conclusion that the main reason for the creation of the NEB is to satisfy the Peter Pans in the Labour Party's Left wing. To justify its creation there have been a series of platitudes to tonight from the Secretary of State. He has spoken of creative participation but has not given us one hard fact. What will the NEB do? It will serve the industrial ambitions of the Secretary of State and it will be an expensive pleasure ground for tuft-hunting, retired industrialists and trade union leaders. To spend £700 million to achieve these mediocre purposes is a luxury that the country cannot now afford.
  9.58 p.m.
  Miss Joan Maynard: My theme is the urgent need to extend public ownership. I very much

  1817
  regret the fundamental alterations to this Bill which have taken place in the past three days. I say to the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) that if the private industry about which he has been talking had anything like as good an investment record as our publicly-owned sector we would not be in the mess we are in today.
  I represent part of the city of Sheffield, a city whose prosperity is based on steel, part of which industry is in public ownership. It is interesting to note that the lucrative part, Special Steels, is in private ownership. It should be a first priority of the Naional Enterprise Board to reorganise the Sheffield-based Special Steels so that it can be returned to public ownership. This would mean a reversal of the policies of the last Conservative Government which transferred licences and assets back to private industry.
  Mr. Michael Marshall Mr. Michael Marshall rose—
  Miss Maynard: Special Steels should be looked at in total.
  Mr. Marshall Mr. Marshall rose—
  Miss Maynard: It does not compete with the British Steel Corporation because the Corporation produces a different type of steel.
  Mr. Marshall Mr. Marshall rose—
  Hon. Members: Sit down!
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. If the hon. Lady does not wish to give way, the hon. Member must resume his seat.
  Miss Maynard: Special Steels should be served by a separate management structure. Many of the prime customers of Special Steels are funded by public firms. This is another reason why it would he particularly appropriate for the attentions of the NEB. Some of the customers for special steels are in aerospace, nuclear power, North Sea oil, North Sea gas and coal mining. This is a sector of the industry which has a high potential market but under its present private ownership it is not equipped to exploit this potenial to the full and is in no way realising this potential. Much of the work on oil rigs and gas rigs goes to firms outside Britain. The National Enterprise Board would do well to start
  1818
  setting up a special steels section under public ownership. It could start with such companies as John Firth Brown, Osborne Steel and Daniel Doncaster.
  I want to come back to the remunerative special steels industry's market. At the moment, Doncaster of Sheffield have their shares listed at only 45p per share but there has been a bid for this company by the International Mineral Corporation, a Canadian multinational, no doubt using American capital, of 101p per share. This indicates how remunerative is this market.
  Mr. Michael Marshall Mr. Michael Marshall rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Lady does not wish to give way she need not do so.
  Miss Maynard: I end by stressing that this very remunerative market should be taken into public ownership and I would reiterate a point made by my hon. Friends and others outside this House that we do not want to take over only "lame ducks". We want to take over some of the profitable sector—and the National Enterprise Board would do well to start with Special Steels, which are a remunerative operation.
  10.2 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Marshall: I am glad to have the opportunity of following the hon. Lady the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard), because while I would not wish in any way to embarrass her I felt that she had intervened in this debate tonight to make what was largely in one sense a constituency speech, and in another respect a special plea to the House on a specific proposal for the future activities of the National Enterprise Board. I did not know that the hon. Lady was to put forward these views tonight, and being conscious of the limited time available under the guillotine I shall be brief in putting forward my argument.
  The hon. Lady has brought immediately to the attention of the House many of our worst fears over this legislation. She has suggested that there is here a profitable sector of British industry which, if one compares it with the British Steel Corporation, shows precisely what has happened and the difference between success and lack of success.

  1819
  If one looks at the companies that the hon. Lady has mentioned, over the whole independent steel sector in the period since nationalisation the return on capital for the British Steel Corporation has been zero, apart from two years when it had figures of 2 per cent. and 6 per cent. Over the whole of that same period the special steels sector has had returns of between 10 and 15 per cent. every year. That illustrates the profitability aspect.
  As regards employment over the same period, much as one regrets the problems of hon. Members on all sides, the British Steel Corporation has made 40,000 workers redundant while independent steel producers have increased employment opportunities. Over the same period the independent steel industry has been operating profitably and employing more people. It has been producing goods that people wanted, meeting consumer demand. The British Steel Corporation has not been meeting consumer demand. It has been unable to meet its export commitments, and it has seen imports of undersea steel pipe building up, whereas the independent sector has been exporting successfully at great profit to this country. That example highlights the dangers of the doctrinaire way in which the Labour Party will operate the Bill. It is well that within the House we have opportunities to see reality more closely.
  Like other hon. Members, I have sat through the hundred hours of Committee and through the whole of the Report proceedings, and now this debate. I share with Labour Members a sense of disappointment that the Bill, which had the opportunity to be constructive, has in many ways been used simply as a hobby horse for the doctrinaire arguments that we have just heard.
  I do not want to end my speech without a word of compliment to the Labour benches. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) played a significant part in the Committee proceedings. Because he made a certain political gesture, we lost him as Minister of State. I would not want the occasion to pass without saying that we regard his work in Committee as valuable. He was plain and honest, and he told us what the Bill was all about. Since then, there has been
  1820
  a steady decline, with obscurantist uncertainty creeping in. We felt more and more that the Committee was being used as an experimental test tube, while the decisions on the Bill were being worked out at No. 10, Downing Street, with Ministers being used as the final sounding board before No. 10 spoke. It is hard for us to accept that the Bill now before us is meaningful. I think that it is open-ended, with dangers of the kind that I described earlier.
  One thing that was brought out very clearly on Report was the Government's total inability to meet constructive criticism, from whatever quarter. We say a total unwillingness to meet the regional views. The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) presented balanced arguments for the use of the Welsh Development Agency, and other hon. Members argued for the use of the Scottish Development Agency. That argument was ignored. Similarly, the whole argument that members of the NEB should have qualifications which would give us some assurance that they knew what they were talking about was brushed aside by the Government. There was also a refusal to have a more realistic definition of the NEB's functions.
  All the way through there has been a total failure by the Government to accept constructive views, from whatever quarter. We had a refusal to make information available to all employees. There was also a refusal, until it was voted down last night, to make more information available from the Government. Finally, we had the rejection by the Government of amendments which would have given a mechanism for appeals, or at least a more honest and open approach, by taking the court of last resort away from the Secretary of State. As we heard earlier, the Bill has been reduced to a Gilbertian state.
  In many ways, the Bill is now out of touch with reality. It does not have the approval of the majority on both sides of the House. It ignores the representations made from outside.
  There have been many views from all parts of industry and informed quarters which the Government have ignored. Right at the outset, the Institute of Directors put forward some constructive views to get better parliamentary accountability

  1821
  for this legislation. I declare a passing interest as a Fellow of the Institute, but hon. Members opposite have put forward the views of trade unions and it is right that they should be reminded of other views.
  The Institute asked that details should be brought before Parliament whenever action was taken by the NEB. They wanted Parliament informed of the aims of any action, why the Minister thought these aims would be achieved, who would be responsible in the board or Department for carrying out this action and any views the Industrial Development Advisory Board had on the matter. Such views are precisely the kind of views the Government have ignored.
  Those of us who served on the Standing Committee feel that we were only experimental, murmuring noises in the background while higher powers bargained outside. It is because of our resentment of that attitude and the fact that we regard this Bill as a blank cheque which, if cashed, will implement the sort of doctrinaire views we have heard from the hon. Lady the Member for Brightside, that we shall oppose the Bill so strongly.
  10.12 p.m.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: On Second Reading my party supported the Bill because we believe that considerable changes are needed in the structure of industry in Wales. We have suffered from the failures of both private and public industry. We looked to the Bill as a base on which to build, although there were many points on which we had fears, including the centralisation it involved.
  We tabled 350 Amendments in the Standing Committee. Some were consequential, but they covered 30 major issues. Unfortunately only two have had any success.
  I believe that the contribution of my party and the amendments tabled by us and the Scottish National Party contributed constructively to the Committee debates, and this is borne out by the fact that hon. Members of all parties supported various of our amendments.
  We have much sympathy with many of the Bill's objectives, particularly those relating to genuine disclosure. We have some doubts about other aspects of the measure, but we do not accept much of
  1822
  the Tory criticism. The failures which we see in this Bill are not the matters on which the Conservative spokesmen have concentrated.
  In our amendments there were five main points. Firstly, we were concerned with the dangers of centralisation. We are opposed to State capitalism because it has the same dangers we have seen in private capitalism and does not solve the problems of people at their work place or get employment to areas such as many of those in Wales.
  Then there is a need to clarify the relationship between the National Enterprise Board and the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies. We have put this point to Government Ministers many times, but it has still not been answered.
  There is a need to transfer to employees much more control from centralised organisations, whether they are companies or a State. We do not want centralised corporations, whether in the public or private sectors and this Bill has gone a very little way towards meeting this requirement. We believe that there should be disclosure even more than is already in the Bill—but that it should be made to all employees, not just to those who represent trade unions. We believe there is a real danger of building a structure that embodies second-class citizens within the legislative function of this Chamber. Finally, I believe that disclosure should be plant oriented. As much authority and responsibility as possible should be passed down to plant level so that the employees there can be involved to the maximum possible extent.
  In all these ways we had hoped that our amendments might have built this Bill into something useful, yet in that objective we have failed. Our failure on the questions of the relationship between the NEB in Wales and the Welsh Development Agency, and the question of greater control for employees at plant level, are to us critical. Neither of these has been met and there is now a danger that the control of companies in Wales will be moved to London as a result of the operations of the NEB in Wales.
  We could create a new form of democracy in industry and my party believes that to be highly necessary. However, with this Bill, we shall only further

  1823
  nationalisation of the old type, the type which has failed in Wales in coalmining, the railways and steel, and we fear that that will be the pattern for the future. We believe that that is a centralising mechanism moving towards a corporate State. We do not need that power in Wales because we shall have the Welsh Development Agency, which we support, which already has the powers necessary to do the job in Wales.
  The NEB in Wales will at best confuse the situation because there is no clear delineation, and at worst it will further centralise control of our industry. We need industrial change in Wales, but this Bill does not give us the industrial change that we seek, and we fear that it will give us only more of the failed and outdated forms of centralised and State capitalism. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) said that the Bill is better than nothing In Wales we have more than nothing we have the proposals for the Welsh Development Agency. We therefore do not need this Bill and we shall oppose it.
  10.17 p.m.
  Mrs. Audrey Wise: I have been astonished at the differing descriptions that Conservative Members have presented of the Bill. It has been astonishing, too, to hear their descriptions of the British economy and British industry. The pictures that have been painted have depicted our economy as being virtually wholly publicly owned with all the faults in it being laid at the door of the nationalised industries. A very small proportion of it is publicly owned—about 10 per cent., or less, as we were constantly told during the referendum campaign, than in the other EEC countries.
  The industries which are publicly owned were by and large grossly unprofitable and in a very inefficient and rundown state when they were taken into public ownership. They were nationalised in order to keep basic services running for the benefit of the economy as a whole, an economy which, as I have pointed out, is mostly privately owned.
  Mr. Heseltine Mr. Heseltine rose—
  Mrs. Wise: I shall not give way to the hon. Member. He took a considerable amount of time in opening and I
  1824
  understand that we shall be having a closure soon. Our economy is neither healthy not internationally competitive and it does not safeguard employment. The Bill is aimed at correcting those three defects. Our industry is uncompetitive internationally, and unemployment is growing. It is privately owned for the purpose of making private profit. It is not run for the benefit of the workers, the consumers or the nation as a whole. If the interests of any of those groups coincide with the interests of private profit, it is purely coincidental.
  Therefore when faced with an economy which is not in harmony with the nation's needs and objectives, we placed in our election manifesto a promise to deal with the situation. For example, we said that
  "a new and urgent Industry Act will provide for a system of planning agreements between the Government and key companies to ensure that the plans of those companies are in harmony with national needs and objectives".
  I emphasise the word "ensure", because the planning agreements clause in the Bill cannot ensure anything at all since there is no sanction. It is purely voluntary. There is no reserve power.
  If the planning agreement system works, it will do so because private industry is running down so fast that even it recognises that it has no alternative but to go to the Government.
  I suggest that the Bill, useful though it will be, is much weaker than was foreshadowed in our manifesto and too weak to do the job that it should do.
  Opposition Members have painted a terrifying picture of the disclosure of information or, as they call it, secrets. They say that companies will have to disclose automatically their secrets, but they completely overlook the fact that discretion is written into the Bill at every stage and that the disclosure provisions are hedged around with appeal procedures. It is very doubtful how much information will be disclosed to anyone, even to the Government.
  What are the secrets which may have to be disclosed to the Government and the workers? They are matters like the sales of an undertaking's products, the export of those products, the number of persons engaged in the undertaking, the capital expenditure and the productive capacity of the undertaking. It is reasonable for the Government and the workers

  1825
  to take the view that they have a right to the disclosure of this type of information. The idea that this is some sort of private monopoly of management is ludicrous and is one reason why the Government could be prevented from ensuring that the correct decisions are taken in our economy.
  Therefore, we are faced with an economy which is totally unbalanced. Imports of manufactured goods rose by 65 per cent. in the four years from 1970 to 1974, whereas exports rose by 35 per cent. We cannot check the figures because we do not know the distortions between imports and exports which are made through the manipulation of the multinationals.
  My hon. Friends and I wanted the information provisions of the Bill greatly extended so that they would cover not only the sales of products but production volume and product development. How can we judge sales without this information? How can we judge export progress without knowing what is happening about imports? How can we judge whether a company is meeting national objectives if we do not know, for example, how many components are being brought in from abroad unnecessarily and if we have no means of developing a policy on import substitution?
  Far from expecting the disclosure of any real secrets, the Bill is modest. It is also modest in the rights which it gives to trade unions. My hon. Friends and I have been disappointed by the weakening of the Bill in that respect. I believe that a great discipline would have been improsed upon the Government had the trade unions retained their statutory right to information and had it still been the Minister's duty to ensure that information was disclosed to trade unions with all the commercial safeguards written in. Had that situation still obtained, the trade unions would have had a great interest in seeing the Bill activated.
  The obstacle race is such that many workers and trade unionists will have lost some confidence in the Bill's effectiveness. Nevertheless, I hope that they will press for its full implementation.
  I want to add my voice to the tributes which have been paid to the Ministers
  1826
  who originally piloted the Bill through Committee. I hope that their removal is not an expression of the fact that not only is the Bill toothless but that it may finish up with lockjaw. I am not suggesting that the present Ministers will lack enthusiasm, but I regard with suspicion the fact that the original Ministers, doing a perfectly good job, were removed.
  A toothless Bill with lockjaw will not meet the requirements of our manifesto. Therefore, I hope that workers and trade unionists will press for the activation of the Bill and that the Government will seek to use it to the full.
  10.27 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Grylls: I do not think that at this extremely late hour it would be wise for me to follow the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise) down the path that she pursued.
  It is perhaps right, in the closing minutes of the debate, to point out that in normal times a Bill proposed by a Labour Government to extend nationalisation would, by most people's judgment, be immensely damaging. At this time of grave economic crisis it could be described as national sabotage for a Labour Government, or any Government, to propose taking over more of British industry. What is needed more than ever today is for British industry to throw off the leeches of the Socialist dogma and to get on with the job of making profits and creating new jobs for people in industry. It must not be hamstrung by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West and her fellow traveller, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard). It must get on with making profits and creating new jobs and it must not be hamstrung by such activities as those that have been going on during the passage of the Bill.
  At worst, the dread hand of State intervention would be damaging to industry. At the present moment, it would be very much worse than that. I hope that the changes that have been made in the Bill, both in Committee and on Report, will blunt the worst effects that the Bill, as originally introduced, could have had and that at least the new Secretary of State, in the way that he handled this legislation

  1827
  when it becomes law, will not make it as damaging as we thought it would be at the beginning. It is dangerous, but we
  1828
  hope that he will use it in a responsible way and allow industry to get on with the job of making profits and creating more jobs.
  10.30 p.m.
  Mr. Tom King: At this late hour we come to the closing stage of what, for many hon. Members who served in Committee, has been a long journey. It started on 17th February with the Second Reading. It has been a long and remarkable journey. It started in a strange way. There was a two-day Second Reading debate. There were two opening speeches by Government spokesmen. The first version was that of the then Secretary of State for Industry. At the next stage the Prime Minister quickly inserted the Paymaster-General to put in an alternative Government version on the second day. That was a remarkable start for the Bill, which proceeded in a similar way.
  There were revolts in Committee. Government supporters abstained and refused to provide a quorum. There are two new faces on the Government Front Bench who were not there when the Bill started. One Minister was sacked. He is now on the back benches. I refer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). I mean no disrepect to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he conducted his part of the Ministerial responsibility during the first stage of the Bill. We saw that the present Secretary of State for Energy was rapidly transferred in the closing stages, as was the Under-Secretary.
  We are faced with a new team at this stage. That is a procedure without precedent. It is not the only precedent. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) said that he thought the way the Committee was treated was an insult to Parliament. All members of the Opposition parties thoroughly agree with the hon. Gentleman.
  At times the proceedings in Committee were reduced to an utter charade. The reputation of Parliament has not been enhanced by the way in which the Government handled these proceedings. It will come as no surprise that as a result of the way in which the matter was handled, and the way in which constructive Opposition amendments were treated in Committee, the Government, in what is a fairly multifarious Parliament, succeeded in uniting every Opposition party against the Bill, as it approaches its Third
  1830
  Reading. That was made clear by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright), on behalf of the Liberal Party, the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford), on behalf of the Scottish National Party, the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley), on behalf of the Welsh nationalists, and the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford). My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) made clear the total Conservative opposition to this Bill. I congratulate the Government on what is a rare achievement. Not only have they produced total opposition from all the Opposition parties but they have received the faintest possible support from a large section of the Labour Party. That is no mean achievement for a Government with a Bill of this magnitude.
  We all know that the British economy and industry are facing problems at present. The country knows that Parliament is debating the closing stages of the Industry Bill tonight. People listening to the debate might be entitled to think that the Bill must therefore be a supremely relevant measure with which to tackle all the problems now faced by British industry and that it will make a valuable contribution to the nation's problems. Those of us who studied the Bill in Committee know that that is not the case.
  The Bill proposes, first, a vehicle for more nationalisation. My hon. Friend the Member for Henley made clear its main purpose. The Conservative Government's Industry Act 1972 was intended to help the regions and to give power to the Government to help industries in difficulties. The main distinction between those powers and the powers to be given to the NEB is that the purpose of the NEB is to extend public ownership into profitable manufacturing industry.
  I do not wish to be ungallant, but I find it difficult to decide whether to award the palm for the least-informed speech tonight to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) or the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise). The comments of the hon. Member for Brightside on the situation in the steel industry were totally demolished by my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) who has the

  1831
  advantage of 12 years' experience of working in the industry. The suggestion that the British Steel Corporation has been more successful than was the private sector steel industry is totally untrue.
  If the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West is under the impression that there is no evidence that on nationalisation industries become less profitable, perhaps she could spare a moment to study the results produced by the National Bus Company and the British Steel Corporation and compare them with those of their private predecessors. She may acquire some illuminating information from those studies.
  The first damage contained in the Bill is the Socialist obsession with nationalisation for the sake of nationalisation. How right was my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) in saying that something that everybody owns, nobody owns and nobody cares for.
  Apart from nationalisation—which is the purpose of the NEB—the other part of the Bill which has been the main subject of discussion is the power of disclosure. The Times second leading article, published on the day that the Government's amendments to the disclosure provisions were announced, summed up the situation very well. Significantly, it was headed:
  "You can't run away from both sides"
  The leader contained the following passage.
  "There is widespread support across the whole spectrum of industry for the idea that the quality of information and consultation with employees within a company should he unproved … If such reform is to develop, it must be based on existing best practice in industry. The worst possible climate for such development would be one in which the provision of internal information was agreed to under the threat that, if it was not voluntarily forthcoming, it would be extracted by the Minister and given to the trade unions."
  That is exactly the point we have made.
  It is odd that we have found difficulty in persuading hon. Members that there could be any reason for a dislike of statutory powers and the use of compulsion, and that in a situation in which the voluntary principle should be encouraged the use of compulsory powers is often counter-productive. I leave aside the pledges given by the Prime Minister to the House which have not
  1832
  been honoured, the intention that planning agreements should be voluntary and the way in which the Labour Party misled the country in the White Paper, the provisions of which were not reflected in the Bill.
  We believe that the powers of disclosure should be based on a voluntary principle. It is extremely significant that throughout the Committee debates and again yesterday on Report, when the Government were challenged to name one company that had refused voluntarily to provide them with information, the Minister was not able to give one example.
  Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Chrysler.
  Mr. King: The hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore) says "Chrysler", and he said it in Committee. It came as a nasty shock to him to find that the Prime Minister had been in discussion with the President of Chrysler at the time when he was under the impression that the Government had no conversations with the firm. He must have his argument about that not with me but with the Prime Minister.
  The other charge that has been made frequently by hon. Members in this debate is that somehow British industry has failed the country. They claim that as though it is a self-evident truth, but one might consider that question in another way. Might it not be suggested that perhaps British Governments have failed British industry on occasion?
  There is a very easy crack to make: "Why does British industry do so badly?" Might it not be a more valuable question—particularly for those of us in this House who might share some responsibility across the benches on this matter—to ask: "Why is it that British industry has done so well against a constant pattern of Government changes in economic policy, against a rapidly rising rate of inflation, and against consistent stop-go policies?"
  If we study the question realistically, we ought to consider the latest NEDO study of the investment problems in industry. The first point made in it is that the central problem is low productivity. The Secretary of State for Industry, when asked about low investment, used to

  1833
  change the subject. He never ceased to be amazed that people came to him and said that they could get 10, 20, 30 or 40 per cent. more out of their existing equipment. How in that situation are people to be encouraged to get more out of it, and how was it that the NEDO study brought out for the time time the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself was not aware—nor was the Treasury, as far as is known—that the effective tax rate on industry cash flow this year was 127 per cent.? If that is the figure, compared with about 43 per cent. five or six years ago, that is the effect of cumulative inflation.
  Let no one say that British industry is failing the nation or the taxpayer. The basic fact is that British industry is making a simply colossal contribution, out of its earnings, to the British tax revenue, and clearly in that situation we shall never get real investment. At last the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to have recognised the central problem.
  Let us imagine a situation in which a British company and a German company are both embarking on a similar investment. The British company does market research in export markets and decides that it can sell competitively with its German competitor. But what on earth does the British company do now, in the knowledge that its own domestic inflation rate on its costs is running at 27 per cent.? How can it make that investment in the knowledge that it will be competing over a five, 10 or 15-year period against a German company with a domestic inflation of 6 per cent.?
  Those are the real issues, the real liabilities, facing British industry at this time, and to pretend that it has a lack of will or that these are greedy people who are not prepared to invest money, and who are failing to identify the real problems, is completely to ignore the facts. The challenge facing the House and the Government is to start looking at the real problems and the real difficulties. This Bill is a smokescreen, and a dangerous smokescreen, enabling the Government to pretend one thing to the British people while at the same time seeking to achieve their Socialist ambitions of further nationalisation. It is because of this that the Conservative Opposition will vote against the Bill.
  10.44 p.m.
  Mr. Kaufman: The House has now come to the end of the 146 hours which it has devoted to the consideration of this Industry Bill. The Bill has occasioned fierce exchanges across the Floor of the House, but what has been particularly notable has been the passionate anxiety of Government back benchers to get this Bill enacted.
  I have been involved in legislation fulfilling such major Labour Party commitments as security of tenure for furnished tenants and repeal of the Housing Finance Act. These were certainly greeted with great satisfaction, but not with the urgent zeal which has characterised the support of Government back benchers for this Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise)—not the most easily sidetracked or deluded of hon. Members—made this clear when, during some confusion on the last day of the Bill's Committee stage, she insisted:
  "We believe that the Industry Bill is worth saving."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 12th June, 1975, c. 2290.]
  My hon. Friends are not so ardent about this Bill because it is some wild revolutionary Socialist measure, at it has been blown up to be by the hysterical hyperbole which is the habitual substitute for reasoned argument of the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). Indeed, as they have made clear throughout these proceedings, their only misgivings are that the Bill might not be going far enough.
  Mr. Mikardo: Is not the problem with this Bill that the Opposition reckon it is a piece of "Bennery" whereas it is worse—it is a piece of "Leverage"?
  Mr. Kaufman: I had the good fortune to succeed Sir Leslie Lever as Member for the Ardwick constituency. Therefore, I ought not to be side-tracked even by my affection for my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo).
  The view that this Bill does not go far enough is not simply the view of those of my hon. Friends who are members of the body called, I believe, the Tribune Group. It is held by others of my hon. Friends whose general attitudes might not even bring a blush of anxiety to the maidenly cheek of Mr. William Rees

  1835
  Mogg but who, in their desire to strengthen the Bill as they saw it, nevertheless united with various Opposition parties last night to help bring about a couple of slight defeats for the Government in the only coalition that this Parliament is likely to see.
  This is a Bill supported with enthusiasm throughout the Labour movement because it offers a true hope of bringing about essential changes in the ownership, management and investment policies of British idustry, and of helping to provide an essential infusion of industrial democracy.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) pointed out, the plight of large sections of British industry today is the result of a daunting extent of lack of investment and outdated structure. The situation was devastatingly highlighted in the Ryder Report on British Leyland, which described how British Leyland's
  "Profit before tax … has been inadequate … despite this low level of profits BL has over the period distributed nearly all of them as dividends … over the whole period the net profits after charges including extraordinary items amounted to £74 million of which £70 million has been paid out by way of dividend. There should however have been substantial retentions to finance the increased cost of replacing fixed assets and additional working capital".
  Ryder pointed out that
  "In the automotive industry, most machinery is replaced after 8–12 years. … In BL more than half the machines and equipment are over 15 years old. …. This record of under-investment is the main reason for the low productivity of BL's work force compared with say Fiat or Volkswagen".
  It is that under-investment and that frittering away of profits, and not the work force, which is responsible for the record of British Leyland, which has led it to this pass, and which led you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to announce that the Queen had given the Royal Assent to the British Leyland Act.
  Yet this is the situation with which the Opposition are perfectly satisfied. They believe that their Industry Act 1972 is the last word on the subject. They have no other proposals for dealing with the chronic and underlying investment and structural problems of British industry. It is true that under the Tory Industry
  1836
  Act Government have poured out £393·5 million in cash hand outs and £79·5 million in loans, yet at the end of it all, as the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) pointed out, too much of British industry remains ill-equipped to meet the technological challenges from the Continent and from Japan.
  The Bill provides two major instruments for dealing with these crucial problems. The first instrument is the system of planning agreements. The second instrument, which is even more important to my mind, is the National Enterprise Board. We are already at work on guidelines which will ensure for the NEB maximum democratic accountability coupled with maximum freedom to go about the massive tasks which have been assigned to it.
  In two amendments tabled by Conservative Members to Clause 5 dealing with the NEB a number of detailed proposals were made concerning fair competition by the NEB and the criteria for the appraisal of investment. It is the view of my right hon. and hon. Friends that it would be a serious mistake to write into the Bill a detailed charter for the operations of an enterprise such as the NEB which, as an instrument of Government policy and a major commercial enterprise, must have the flexibility to respond to changing circumstances and changing national needs. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear on several occasions that the detailed exercise of the powers of the NEB under the Industry Bill will be covered by guidelines which can be amended as circumstances required.
  Mr. Tim Renton Mr. Tim Renton rose—
  Mr. Kaufman: No, not now. The hon. Gentleman has blathered on the whole time and it is now time for the Government to put their case.
  Mr. Renton Mr. Renton rose—
  Mr. Kaufman: Perhaps I should give way to the hon. Gentleman. He could declare a few more interests if I gave him a moment or two.
  The guidelines have been the subject of some preliminary discussion with the TUC and the CBI, and there will be further consultation with interested parties, including the NEB organising committee, before they are settled.

  1837
  I take this opportunity to inform the House of the issues under consideration although, of course, we shall be making the guidelines available at a later stage. The general approach of the guidelines will be to accord the NEB the fullest possible operating freedom by exercising Government surveillance so far as possible through long-term strategies and annual budget plans. The Government will settle with the board a broad framework of objectives and strategy, looking only at large individual cases.
  The guidelines will cover acquisitions, loans, interest payments and the criteria for investment and pricing. The board and its companies will be subject to general prices policy and to a requirement to avoid showing undue preference in its trading relationships. The Bill itself has made clear that the board will be subject to the fair trading legislation.
  The guidelines will cover financial and other objectives, the eligibility of NEB companies for the generally applicable forms of financial assistance, the discharge of duties imposed on the board under Clause 3, its employment responsibilities, its rôle in furthering industrial democracy and its relationships with consumers. In the course of the proceedings in Committee great emphasis was placed upon the threat of unfair competition from the NEB. We do not intend that the board's companies shall be given any unfair competitive advantage. The NEB will follow the City code on takeovers and mergers and the Stock Exchange listing requirements where these are relevant. The board's companies will, of course, be subject to the whole body of company law and fair trading legislation.
  Particular concern has been expressed about the NEB acquiring shares without the consent of the board of the company concerned. The guidelines will require the NEB to inform the Government of any case in which it proposes to seek to acquire more than 10 per cent. of the shares of a company in opposition to the views of the company's board. The Government will then decide whether to intervene. But it would be inappropriate for the Government to come to a final conclusion about the text of the guidelines until our consultations have been completed and until, in particular, there has been consultation with the board itself.
  1838
  The Opposition shrilly demand that we drop the NEB and indeed this Bill. They suggest that at a time of great national crisis consensus is required, and that it is the duty of Government to abandon contentious policies in favour of consensus policies. To the Tory Party consensus consists of all other parties dropping their own policies and adopting Tory policies. Then we are all truly non-political and objective.
  If these policies embodied in the Bill were important when they were first conceived in the early 1970s, today they are absolutely essential. To deal with the crisis we face today, the Opposition put forward a range of contradictory policies from which we are asked to perm any three out of seven.
  Mr. Heffer: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but he has talked about guidelines about which, up until now, we have had no indication. When he talks about a figure of 10 per cent., this means that the NEB could be put at a disadvantage in relation to ordinary private industry. This point surely needs spelling out.
  Mr. Kaufman: I assure my hon. Friend that this is not the case. I assure him that we shall return to this matter.
  Mr. Heseltine: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance about a most significant development. Although we have considered the Bill for 146 hours, and we are now asked to give a Third Reading to the Bill, the Minister now has the effrontery to tell the House about guidelines which have never been put before the House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): That is not a matter for the Chair.
  Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Member for Henley has been like it for 25 years. He has not changed.
  Throughout the debate on the Government's industrial policy over the last year, we have heard again and again of the need to unite the country in common cause, to end divisive policies and to seek consensus.
  The deepest of divisions in our society is to be found in the concept of the managing class and the work force—"masters and men"—as Harold Macmillan could still call them only a few

  1839
  years ago, those who take the decisions and those who carry them out. But the workers are no longer prepared to be the class that mindlessly does what the managing class plans for it. They want to know what is going on and to have a voice in the decisions of industry. A large part of this Bill is to provide for the destruction of this damaging and artificial barrier between the managers and the
  managed, and for its replacement by a new partnership in industry.
  This Bill is of the utmost relevance both to the country's current problems and to its underlying malaise. I ask the House to give it a Third Reading.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 289, Noes 276.

  Division No. 273.]

  AYES

  [11.00 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Doig, Peter

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Allaun, Frank

  Dormand, J. D.

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Anderson, Donald

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Archer, Peter

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Dunn, James A.

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Ashley, Jack

  Dunnett, Jack

  Judd, Frank

  Ashton, Joe

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Eadie, Alex

  Kelley, Richard

  Atkinson, Norman

  Edelman, Maurice

  Kerr, Russell

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Edge, Geoff

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Lambie, David

  Bates, Alf

  English, Michael

  Lamborn, Harry

  Bean, R. E.

  Ennals, David

  Lamond, James

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Lee, John

  Bishop, E. S.

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Flannery, Martin

  Lever, Rt Hon Harold

  Boardman, H.

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

  Booth, Albert

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Ford, Ben

  Lipton, Marcus

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Forrester, John

  Litterick, Tom

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Bradley, Tom

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

  Loyden, Eddie

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Freeson, Reginald

  Luard, Evan

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

  George, Bruce

  McCartney, Hugh

  Buchan, Norman

  Gilbert, Dr John

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Buchanan, Richard

  Ginsburg, David

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Golding, John

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Campbell, Ian

  Gould, Bryan

  Mackintosh John P.

  Canavan, Dennis

  Gourlay, Harry

  Maclennan, Robert

  Cant, R. B.

  Graham, Ted

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Carter, Ray

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Madden, Max

  Cartwright, John

  Grocott, Bruce

  Magee, Bryan

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mahon, Simon

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Malialieu, J. P. W.

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Hardy, Peter

  Marks, Kenneth

  Cohen, Stanley

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Marquand, David

  Coleman, Donald

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hatton, Frank

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Corbett, Robin

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Meacher, Michael

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

  Hooley, Frank

  Mikardo, Ian

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Horam, John

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Cronin, John

  Howell, Denis (B'ham Sm H)

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

  Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Molloy, William

  Cryer, Bob

  Huckfield, Les

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Hughes, Rt Hon C (Anglesey)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Moyle, Roland

  Davidson, Arthur

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Hunter, Adam

  Newens, Stanley

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

  Noble, Mike

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Ogden, Eric

  Deakins, Eric

  Janner, Greville

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

  de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Orbach, Maurice

  Delargy, Hugh

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

  Ovenden, John

  Dempsey, James

  John, Brynmor

  Owen, Dr David

  Padley, Walter

  Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric Q.

  Palmer, Arthur

  Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Park, George

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

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

  Parker, John

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Parry, Robert

  Sillars, James

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Silverman, Julius

  Ward, Michael

  Peart, Rt Hon Fred

  Skinner, Dennis

  Watkins, David

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Watkinson, John

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Snape, Peter

  Weetch, Ken

  Prescott, John

  Spearing, Nigel

  Weitzman, David

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Wellbeloved, James

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Stallard, A. W.

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Radice, Giles

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  White, James (Pollok)

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Stoddart, David

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Stott, Roger

  Whitlock, William

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Strang, Gavin

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Swain, Thomas

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Roper, John

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Rose, Paul B.

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Woodall, Alec

  Rowlands, Ted

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Wool, Robert

  Ryman, John

  Tierney, Sydney

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Sandelson, Neville

  Tinn, James

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Tomlinson, John

  Selby, Harry

  Tomney, Frank

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Torney, Tom

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Miss Margaret Jackson.

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Urwin, T. W.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Aitken, Jonathan

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Henderson, Douglas

  Alison, Michael

  Dunlop, John

  Heseltine, Michael

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Durant, Tony

  Hicks, Robert

  Arnold, Tom

  Dykes, Hugh

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Holland, Philip

  Awdry, Daniel

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

  Elliott, Sir William

  Hordern, Peter

  Baker, Kenneth

  Emery, Peter

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Banks, Robert

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Beith, A. J.

  Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Hurd, Douglas

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Benyon, W.

  Farr, John

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Fell, Anthony

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Biffen, John

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  James, David

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

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

  Blaker, Peter

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

  Jessel, Toby

  Body, Richard

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Fox, Marcus

  Jopling, Michael

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Bradford, Rev Robert

  Freud, Clement

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Fry, Peter

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Brittan, Leon

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Brotherton, Michael

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Kilfedder, James

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylds)

  Kimball, Marcus

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Buck, Antony

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Budgen, Nick

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Kirk, Peter

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Burden, F. A.

  Goodhart, Philip

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Carlisle, Mark

  Goodhew, Victor

  Knox, David

  Carr, Rt Hon Robert

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Lamont, Norman

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Gorst, John

  Lane, David

  Churchill, W. S.

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Lawson, Nigel

  Clegg, Walter

  Grist, Ian

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Cockcroft, John

  Grylls, Michael

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Hall, Sir John

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Cope, John

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Lloyd, Ian

  Cordle, John H.

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Loveridge, John

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Luce, Richard

  Crawford, Douglas

  Hannam, John

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Crouch, David

  Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Crowder, F. P.

  Hastings, Stephen

  McCusker, H.

  Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Hawkins, Paul

  MacGregor, John

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  1842

  1843

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  Stanley, John

  Madel, David

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  Marten, Neil

  Raison, Timothy

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Mates, Michael

  Rathbone, Tim

  Stokes, John

  Mather, Carol

  Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Maude, Angus

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

  Mawby, Ray

  Reid, George

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  Mills, Peter

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Trotter, Neville

  Moate, Roger

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Molyneaux, James

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Viggers, Peter

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  Morgan, Geraint

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Wakeham, John

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Walters, Dennis

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Warren, Kenneth

  Mudd, David

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Watt, Hamish

  Neave, Airey

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Nelson, Anthony

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Wells, John

  Neubert, Michael

  Shepherd, Colin

  Welsh, Andrew

  Newton, Tony

  Shersby, Michael

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Normanton, Tom

  Silvester, Fred

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Nott, John

  Sims, Roger

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Osborn, John

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Speed, Keith

  Younger, Hon George

  Pardoe, John

  Spence, John

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Penhaligon, David

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Mr. Adam Butler and

  Percival, Ian

  Sproat, Iain

  Mr. Cecil Parkinson.

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Stainton, Keith

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time and passed.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

  ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES
  Motion made, and Question put forth-with, pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments),
  That the draft Administration of Estates (Small Payments) (Increase of Limit) Order 1975, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.—[Miss Betty Boothroyd.]
  Question agreed to.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND)
  Motion made, and Question put forth-with, pursuant to Standing Order No. 73 A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments),
  That the Rate Support Grant (Increase) (Scotland) (No. 3) Order 1975, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th June, be approved.—[Miss Betty Boothroyd.]
  Question agreed to.

PETITIONS

  Abortion (Amendment) Bill
  Mr. Bryan Gould: With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House, I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of 1,500 signatories from Southampton and the surrounding area. The petitioners are concerned that the Abortion (Amendment) Bill will restrict the availability of abortion and will therefore take away what they describe as a woman's essential right to avoid an accidental and unwanted pregnancy.
  They are particularly concerned that this will penalise women on low incomes unable to afford a private abortion:
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that no legislation be passed which would restrict the circumstances in which women can have legal abortions, believing that women should have the right to free National Health Service abortions, and that restrictions will lead to enforced pregnancies and motherhood, unwanted children or dangerous back street abortions.
  I beg leave to present the petition.
  To lie upon the Table.
  Mr. Stan Thorne: With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House, I beg leave to present a petition which, purely coincidentally, is on the same subject.
  I believe it is the customary practice to indicate the size of the petition. I have not counted the signatures accurately but it is a smaller petition than that presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould). It is the result of the work of the Preston Women's Association. The main gist of the petition is:
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that no legislation be passed which would restrict the circumstances in which women can have legal abortions, believing that women should have the right to free National Health Service abortions, and that restrictions will lead to enforced pregnancies and motherhood, unwanted children or dangerous backstreet abortions.
  To lie upon the Table.

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

COUNCIL ON TRIBUNALS
11.15 p.m.
Mr. Bryan Gould: The Council on Tribunals was set up under the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1958 following the recommendation of the Franks Commission. The 1958 Act has been replaced by the 1971 Act, which imposed and conferred upon the council a certain number of functions.
The council has a general duty to keep under review and to report upon the constitution and working of a number of specified tribunals, and it has the right to be consulted when procedural rules affecting those tribunals are to be made. The council also in practice is consulted, although it has no right to claim to be consulted, when draft legislation is in preparation which will affect administrative procedures. The council is also required to make reports on matters referred to it by the Lord Chancellor and matters which the council itself thinks of special interest.
It is extremely difficult to assess the council's effectiveness in performing a
1846
range of such vaguely defined functions. The rôle of a body which is consultative only, which has no machinery for making sure that its views are enforced, is always difficult. No one can have read the annual reports of the council without appreciating the limitations and the frustrations of that rôle. I think, however, that the suspicion persists that Governments have increasingly seen their consultation with the council as a necessary preliminary which simply establishes their virtue, after which they can go on to make the real decisions.
I think that the suspicion is also present that the council has all too often acquiesced in this apparently supine rôle.
It is to a particular aspect of the council's functions that I wish to draw attention. The function that I have in mind is not described in terms of the Act, but it was described by the council in its annual report of 1960 as being
"to act as a watchdog for the ordinary citizen and to see that he gets fair play."
Although those words are not in the Act, there are very few people who would disagree with that description of a vital function of the council, because in truth, apart from a very limited programme of visits to special tribunals, and an even smaller number of special reports, the council is restricted to the investigation of complaints from the public as its major means of carrying out its functions of keeping tribunals under review. Therefore, the way in which the council has performed this aspect of its functions is very important in assessing its overall effectiveness.
The council's responsibilities are of some significance. There are no fewer than 58 different types of tribunals for which the council is directly responsible and which fall under the direct supervision of the council. In 1973 these tribunals dealt with approximately 1¼ million cases. In other words, the tribunals for which the council is responsible are likely to affect the ordinary citizen more directly and more frequently than do the ordinary courts of law. Not only is the area of responsibility very great, but so also is the degree of responsibility, because the council is virtually alone in this field in having imposed on it some degree of supervisory responsibility over the whole range of tribunals.

1847
The Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 excluded from the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman those issues where the complainant had a right to seek a remedy before a tribunal. That means that the ordinary complainant who wishes to show that he has not been properly treated by a tribunal is precluded from going to the Ombudsman. It may be true that he has a right to take his case to the courts, but that is likely to be such a time-consuming and expensive procedure that one can expect very few people to pursue it.
The ordinary complainant has no remedy with the Ombudsman or with the courts. In some areas, particularly in connection with supplementary benefits, he will not even be able to appeal against tribunal decisions. The council has a very great responsibility.
Virtually the only attempt to assess the effectiveness of the council has been a report published recently by the Child Poverty Action Group on the outcome of 10 cases it has submitted to the council in the past three-and-a-half years. The group's report is entitled to respect. It has undoubted expertise in social security matters, and only a body which has submitted a series of cases to the council is able to form a judgment and take a wider view. The report is a sad and sorry catalogue. In some cases no reply was received by the complainant; in other cases replies were received only months or years after the matter was first raised. Action was delayed and ineffective and sometimes was not even notified to the complainant. In only one or two cases does the group feel even moderately satisfied.
The conclusion to which any objective reader must be driven is that the council is not only hopelessly ineffective, it is guilty of maladministration in terms of delay and ineptitude that would attract the attention of the Ombudsman if it came under his jurisdiction.
The report is not the only evidence. A voluntary advice service I set up in Southampton three years ago is now handling 1,000 cases a year under the capable guidance of a member of the law faculty of Southampton University. It has had unhappy experiences of the council. A case raised over a year ago
1848
involved a complaint that the chairman of a national insurance tribunal had failed to give an adequate statement of reasons for his decision and that the clerk of the tribunal had failed to pass on a request to the chairman for a detailed statement. No action or substantive reply has yet been forthcoming from the council.
In part, the answer to this sorry state of affairs is that the council is not sufficiently equipped with staff and resources to deal with the volume of complaints one would expect it to receive. The council seems to have abandoned the practice of publishing in its annual report the number of cases received in the preceding year.
I am sure that the council is an estimable body, but it meets only 10 times a year and is, no doubt, concerned with loftier matters than individual complaints. One must conclude that individual complaints are dealt with by the very small executive staff with very few being referred to the council or its complaints committee. Such complaints are, quite wrongly, given very low priority.
There are not only staffing, and machinery problems. The council has no statutory power to enforce any of its recommendations. It is compelled in many senses to sail under false colours, to offer the illusion, rather than the reality, that it is an effective machinery for dealing with complaints about tribunals. I fully accept and understand that it was never intended that the council should be able to redress individual grievances. That is quite properly the province of the appropriate appeal body. We must, however, look for some sign that what the council says in response to individual cases will be said clearly and quickly and he taken into account. I think that is simply not happening.
I think particularly of one area where the council has intervened with recommendations about the giving of reasons, an area where one would hope that its intervention would be effective but where, regrettably, that has not been the case. The whole concept of this aspect of the council's function needs substantial review. It would be nice if replies to correspondence could be given more promptly, but something more is needed. It is not my function to recommend exactly what that should be, but I hope

1849
that the Minister might come up with some suggestions.
It would be possible to provide the council with much increased staff and resources to enable it to do an effective job. It would also need increased powers, particularly of enforcement. As an alternative, my hon. Friend might consider the transfer to the Ombudsman of the powers of the council in this respect. There is a further difficulty which would involve tackling this problem at a much more fundamental level. I am thinking of tribunals which fail to provide adequate safeguards to people appearing before them. The answer should be the provision of some statutory form of procedure to which tribunals would be obliged to adhere. Under such a code, individual complainants would be given a simple form of remedy in the courts for breaches of that code.
In the matters which have concerned the Child Poverty Action Group—for example, the question of supplementary benefit appeal tribunals—it would be possible and highly desirable that a second-tier appeal body should be introduced which would greatly improve the operation of those tribunals. That is something for which the group and others, including myself, have argued on many occasions.
All of these suggestions merit consideration, but my real purpose tonight is simply to suggest to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, on the basis of the group's report, that something is seriously wrong and needs putting right. This needs to be done initially at the practical level, but arguably also at a more fundamental level. After all, someone should be doing in an effective way the job which the council is claiming for itself of ensuring that the ordinary man has a watchdog and a guarantee of fair treatment from the tribunals of this country.
11.28 p.m.
Mr. Michael Hamilton Mr. Michael Hamilton (Salisbury)
rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Has the hon. Member reached an agreement with the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould) and the Minister to speak in the debate?
Mr. Hamilton: That is so, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I intervene for only two minutes, not because I have any particular knowledge of the Child Poverty Action Group but because I would not wish it to be thought that concern about the Council on Tribunals is confined to one side or the other of the House. I was granted an Adjournment debate on this very topic exactly two years ago, and I am not conscious that my words on that occasion had the slightest effect.
Parliament expects the council to speak out fearlessly whenever and where-ever injustice occurs. It was, by coincidence, 17 years ago tonight that the then Mr. R. A. Butler, piloting through the Bill setting up the council, said:
"some continuous supervision is essential if the confidence of the public is to be inspired and the citizen assured that they"—
that is, tribunals—
"carry out their duties in accordance with the principles of fairness, openness and impartiality."—[Official Report, 3rd July 1958; Vol. 590, c. 1606.]
Thus it is the job of the Council on Tribunals to inspire public confidence.
I ask myself whether the council is fulfilling that rôle. If it were not for my considerable personal respect for the chairman of the Council on Tribunals, I should find it easy to dismiss that body as some tame satellite of Government, a sub-branch of the Lord Chancellor's office, a body which opts for the quiet life and is careful to keep its head well down below the parapet.
Of course, Ministers encourage the impression that the Council on Tribunals is some obscure academic advisory body. It may be that we shall hear more of this theme tonight. Of course, Ministers wish to damp down the rôle of the fearless independent critic. Ministers do not welcome the idea of an independent watchdog such as the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould) referred to. But that is not what Parliament intended, whatever Ministers may say.
I remember that in July 1969 a Minister told this House:
"We are having these discussions and can rely upon the Council on Tribunals to insist"—
that was the word he used—
"if it is thought necessary."[Official Report, 25th July 1969; Vol. 787, c. 2344.]

1851
Most Ministers, however, prefer to stifle the idea that this is a strong and independent council. I well remember my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) saying:
"There is no power for the Council … to insist".—[Official Report, 19th July 1973; Vol. 860, c. 984.]
With respect to him, I would say that this is a ministerial conspiracy and that it is a travesty of Parliament's original intention.
Yet, if I have doubts, I do not yet despair of the Council on Tribunals. Distinguished public figures would not be prepared to serve on such a body without the assurance that their recommendations carried decisive weight. Moreover, they are courteous people, people of eminence in their several spheres. I therefore reserve judgment. I hope that they will realise that, while Lords Chancellors come and go, Parliament looks to them to speak out. I intend approaching the council very shortly for its help, and I hope that it will give it.
11.33 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Law Officers' Department (Mr. Arthur Davidson): I have listened with great interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould) on a matter on which I know he has considerable expertise and about which he feels great concern. I congratulate him on the manner in which he presented his argument—all the more commendable, because he has been engaged, night after night, in the deliberations on the Community Land Bill. It must be a welcome relief for him, even at 11.30 at night, to speak on a different matter.
I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Hamilton) spoke on a matter concerning the Council on Tribunals, because he has been concerned about this topic over the years. Indeed, he has done the council a great service by consistently raising what he genuinely regards as great shortcomings in the way that it operates. Speaking for this Minister, I certainly welcome the idea of the council being an independent watchdog and being so regarded.
I hope that the House will forgive me if I detail the composition of the council. I know that both hon. Members who have
1852
spoken in the debate are familiar with it, but, as they are aware, it goes to the very root of the issues which have been raised tonight.
The council at present has 16 members, one of whom has been appointed primarily to represent Welsh interests. There is also a Scottish committee which at present has eight members, of whom four are members of the council.
The chairman of the council, whom the hon. Member for Salisbury has rightly praised, is the right hon. Lord Tweedsmuir. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, by virtue of his office, is a member of both the council and the Scottish committee. The chairman's post, as I am sure my hon. Friend knows, is a part-time salaried post, but the other members are unpaid. The council is supported by a small staff of officials. The staffing of the tribunal was a point raised by my hon. Friend. The staffing requirements are being reviewed now by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor.
As my hon. Friend said, the council was set up in 1958 to supervise the operation of tribunals which were growing in number and which covered an extremely wide field. As my hon. Friend will be the first to appreciate, the numbers have grown considerably since then and, indeed, the matters with which the council deals have consistently grown more complex.
My hon. Friend also stated quite accurately that the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971 confers three duties upon the council: first, to keep under review the constitution and working of tribunals and to report on this; second, to consider and report on particular matters referred to the council—such references being usually made by the Lord Chancellor or the Lord Advocate; and third, to consider and report on such matters as the council may consider to be of special importance with respect to administrative procedures involving statutory inquiries.
The council is, therefore, concerned with supervising the procedures and proper functioning of tribunals. It is not, as my hon. Friend said, equipped to deal with individual cases, save where these raise a point of general application. It

1853
receives a number of individual complaints, but it is rarely open to the council to intervene to secure any redress for the individual complainant, unless a tribunal is able and willing to review a decision already given or, in the case of an inquiry, the Minister has not given his decision and is prepared to reopen the inquiry.
Complaints about individual cases do, however, enable the council to perform a very important function. They are of great assistance in identifying weaknesses or shortcomings in the procedure or organisation of tribunals. They are also of assistance to the council in framing advice to Departments. The council regards this as its main function and one with which it is fully equipped to deal. On the one hand, it seeks to deal with the issues raised by complainants in a constructive way. On the other hand, it is able to ensure that any proposals it may put forward take account of departmental difficulties or other administrative factors.
After that introduction, perhaps I may deal with the points raised by my hon. Friend. The main criticism he made was the major criticism in the report of the Child Poverty Action Group—he is quite right in supposing that I have read that—which my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor is studying. The main criticism made is that the council is dilatory in dealing with complaints. I certainly have no intention of defending administrative delays. They are always to be regretted wherever they occur. I think that the council would be the last to claim that there has been no delay on its part or that the cause for delays has never lain within the council. I know that the council is aware of the complaints that have been made. I am sure that it will take them to heart, and certainly take to heart the criticisms my hon. Friend has mentioned.
Perhaps I ought to make a few points, not by way of defence but in order to get the matter into perspective. The council covers a very wide range of tribunals, inquiries and other administrative procedures, many of considerable complexity. It would be unrealistic to expect the council's staff to have at their fingertips a detailed and expert knowledge of them all.
In order to appraise itself properly of a complaint, it is invariably necessary for
1854
the council to refer the matter to the Department concerned for its comments. It is only in this way that the council can obtain a full and complete account of the surrounding circumstances and ensure that it is aware of all the relevant considerations, particularly those of a procedural nature. This process may, of course, involve inquiries of a tribunal or local office of a Department. All of this takes time. Indeed, it may require a protracted exchange of correspondence with the Department before all the issues have been thoroughly examined and the council is in a position to make proposals, if the proposals are appropriate.
The Lord Chancellor and I are anxious to dispel any impression that the council is an impotent body, while at the same time I would not want to overstate what the council can do.
It may be appropriate if I illustrate this area of the council's work by examples of action taken in respect of the supplementary benefit appeal tribunals as my hon. Friend mentioned those bodies. These tribunals heard 26,000 cases in 1973. The Child Poverty Action Group's criticisms in its pamphlet were specifically concerned with the supplementary benefit appeal tribunals. It is fair to say that the criticisms are directed more at the way in which Parliament constituted the council and the system of supplementary benefit appeals which is placed under the council's jurisdiction than at the way in which the council has carried out the duties entrusted to it by Parliament.
My hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Salisbury and I would not want to comment on individual cases which are the concern of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.
I have discussed this matter with the Lord Chancellor and I invite my hon. Friend to meet my noble Friend if he wishes to draw his attention to any points. I know that my noble Friend will be only too glad to meet him, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will avail himself of that opportunity.
My hon. Friend said fairly that he wanted to air certain issues. I do not think he would have expected me to go into details or to pass comment on his useful and well-thought-out suggestions. I shall see that they are drawn to the

1855
attention of the Lord Chancellor. No doubt my hon. Friend will make the same points when he meets my noble Friend.
This has been a valuable debate, not least because it has enabled the House to discuss a matter which is seldom discussed. It has also reminded the House of what the Council on Tribunals is, what it does and how it carries out its duties. I hope that the misconceptions about its rôle and powers have been dispelled and, what is more important, that I have been able to assure my hon.
1856
Friend the Member for Test that the council has a rôle of importance to play. Although I do not suggest that there has not been a lack of communication between the council and the individual complainants, which can be irritating to the ordinary citizen, the council nevertheless has an important rôle. The House is grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this subject tonight.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.

  CBI AND TUC
  CBI AND TUC
  PRIME MINISTER (VISITS)
  PRIME MINISTER (VISITS)
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  GOVERNMENT MINISTERS
  GOVERNMENT MINISTERS
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  NATIONAL UNION OF RAILWAYMEN
  NATIONAL UNION OF RAILWAYMEN
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  NATIONAL CONSUMER COUNCIL
  NATIONAL CONSUMER COUNCIL
  FOOD PROCUREMENT AND DISTRIBUTION
  FOOD PROCUREMENT AND DISTRIBUTION
  PRESIDENT FORD
  PRESIDENT FORD
  CROWN SERVANTS (APPOINTMENTS)
  CROWN SERVANTS (APPOINTMENTS)
  LEGISLATIVE PROGRAMME
  LEGISLATIVE PROGRAMME
ENVIRONMENT
  Tied Cottages
  Tied Cottages
  National and Local Government Officers Association
  National and Local Government Officers Association
  Rented Accommodation (Overcrowding)
  Rented Accommodation (Overcrowding)
  Local Government Reorganisation
  Local Government Reorganisation
  Rented Housing
  Rented Housing
  Pedestrain Crossing (Western Avenue)
  Pedestrain Crossing (Western Avenue)
  Housing Associations
  Housing Associations
  Road Accidents
  Road Accidents
  Housing Co-operatives (Working Party)
  Housing Co-operatives (Working Party)
  Liverpool Street Station Site
  Liverpool Street Station Site
  Derelict Land
  Derelict Land
  Liverpool (Minister's Visit)
  Liverpool (Minister's Visit)
  Housing Action Areas
  Housing Action Areas
  Local Authority Staffs
  Local Authority Staffs
  Construction Output (Correspondence)
  Construction Output (Correspondence)
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Beef Cattle
  Beef Cattle
  Referendum Effects
  Referendum Effects
  Milk
  Milk
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
  Dairy Products
  Dairy Products
  Agricultural Production
  Agricultural Production
  Beam Trawling (South Coast)
  Beam Trawling (South Coast)
  Animals (Slaughtering)
  Animals (Slaughtering)
  Agricultural Holdings
  Agricultural Holdings
  Veterinary Service (Health and Safety at Work)
  Veterinary Service (Health and Safety at Work)
  Glasshouse Industry
  Glasshouse Industry
  Beef Conversion Scheme
  Beef Conversion Scheme
  Agriculture Industry
  Agriculture Industry
  Agriculture (Taxation)
  Agriculture (Taxation)
  Pigs
  Pigs
  Mutton and Lamb
  Mutton and Lamb
  Inshore Fishing Industry
  Inshore Fishing Industry
  Fodder Conservation
  Fodder Conservation
  Shepherds
  Shepherds
  Tractors (Safety and Noise Levels)
  Tractors (Safety and Noise Levels)
  Poultry Waste
  Poultry Waste
  Agriculture Industry (Expansion)
  Agriculture Industry (Expansion)
  Fishing Quotas
  Fishing Quotas
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
  Flowers
  Flowers
  Cereals (European Community Regulations)
  Cereals (European Community Regulations)
  Wheat
  Wheat
  Green Pound
  Green Pound
  Vegetables (Sale)
  Vegetables (Sale)
  Seed Regulations
  Seed Regulations
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Inflation Accounting
  Inflation Accounting
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Child Benefit Scheme
  Child Benefit Scheme
  Duty-Free Shops (Airports)
  Duty-Free Shops (Airports)
  Petrol and Tobacco Taxation
  Petrol and Tobacco Taxation
  Save-as-you-earn Contracts
  Save-as-you-earn Contracts
  Labour-only Subcontractors
  Labour-only Subcontractors
  Government Vehicles, Ships and Aircraft
  Government Vehicles, Ships and Aircraft
  Tax Yield
  Tax Yield
  Earnings and Taxation
  Earnings and Taxation
CIVIL SERVICE
  "Nationalisation of British Industry" (HMSO Publication)
  "Nationalisation of British Industry" (HMSO Publication)
DEFENCE
  Gibraltar Workers' Union
  Gibraltar Workers' Union
  Explosive Tests (Spithead and Solent)
  Explosive Tests (Spithead and Solent)
  School Transport (Consultations)
  School Transport (Consultations)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Nursery Schools
  Nursery Schools
EMPLOYMENT
  North-West England
  North-West England
  General Electric Company (Telephone Equipment Installation Dispute)
  General Electric Company (Telephone Equipment Installation Dispute)
  Teachers (Pay)
  Teachers (Pay)
  Safety Committees
  Safety Committees
  Construction Industry (Scotland)
  Construction Industry (Scotland)
  Scotland
  Scotland
  Unemployment (Deputations)
  Unemployment (Deputations)
  European Community Social Fund Applications
  European Community Social Fund Applications
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Merseyside
  Merseyside
ENERGY
  Nuclear Power
  Nuclear Power
  Oil Production Platforms
  Oil Production Platforms
  Fuel (Family Expenditure)
  Fuel (Family Expenditure)
  Nuclear Power Stations
  Nuclear Power Stations
  Coal (Transportation)
  Coal (Transportation)
  Central Electricity Generating Board
  Central Electricity Generating Board
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Maze Prison (European Commission on Human Rights Hearing)
  Maze Prison (European Commission on Human Rights Hearing)
  Housing
  Housing
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  World Food Council
  World Food Council
  Fertiliser
  Fertiliser
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Welsh Centre for International Affairs
  Welsh Centre for International Affairs
  Portugal
  Portugal
  Botswana Beef (Import Levies)
  Botswana Beef (Import Levies)
  United Nations System
  United Nations System
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Hypothermia
  Hypothermia
  Barium Meal X-rays
  Barium Meal X-rays
  Retirement Age
  Retirement Age
  Over-80s' Pension
  Over-80s' Pension
  Retirement Pensions
  Retirement Pensions
  Family Allowances
  Family Allowances
  Ormskirk Hospital (Orthopaedic Patients)
  Ormskirk Hospital (Orthopaedic Patients)
  Harold Wood Hospital
  Harold Wood Hospital
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Electoral Reform
  Electoral Reform
  Prison Population
  Prison Population
  Seals (Culling)
  Seals (Culling)
  Referendum
  Referendum
  Parliamentary and Local Government Elections
  Parliamentary and Local Government Elections
  Female Prisoners (Tattoo Removal)
  Female Prisoners (Tattoo Removal)
  Police
  Police
  Police (Pay)
  Police (Pay)
  Animals (Experiments)
  Animals (Experiments)
  Equal Opportunities Board
  Equal Opportunities Board
  Parliamentary Election Candidates (Deposit)
  Parliamentary Election Candidates (Deposit)
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  Vegetables
  Vegetables
  West Acton Middle School
  West Acton Middle School
  Milk (Subsidies)
  Milk (Subsidies)
SCOTLAND
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
  Drug Offences
  Drug Offences
  Civil Servants and Departmental Costs
  Civil Servants and Departmental Costs
  Electricity Supplies
  Electricity Supplies
  Electricity Disconnections
  Electricity Disconnections
  One-Parent Families
  One-Parent Families
  Urban Renewal Unit
  Urban Renewal Unit
  Films
  Films
  Arthritis
  Arthritis
  Rheumatologists
  Rheumatologists
  Teachers (Hamilton and Larkhall)
  Teachers (Hamilton and Larkhall)
  Parental Rights
  Parental Rights
  Rates
  Rates
  Common Services Agency (Glasgow Office)
  Common Services Agency (Glasgow Office)
TRADE
  South Africa
  South Africa
WALES
  Rent Allowances and Rebates
  Rent Allowances and Rebates
  Rate Rebates
  Rate Rebates
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Storey Arms (Road Improvements)
  Storey Arms (Road Improvements)
  Tied Cottages
  Tied Cottages
  Health Authority Allocations
  Health Authority Allocations
  Health Centres
  Health Centres
  Migration
  Migration
  Housing Action Areas
  Housing Action Areas
  Welsh Language
  Welsh Language
  Population
  Population

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury.
The Marquess of Ely—Took the Oath.

FERRANTI LTD.: NEWSPAPER REPORT
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have read the reports in the Sunday Telegraph of 1st June that GEC and Vickers and a third engineering company all made approaches to the Government in an effort to help the Ferranti company to solve its difficulties and that these approaches were strongly discouraged.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Lord Beswick): My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for calling my attention to that newspaper report and for giving me this opportunity of saying that the report did not correctly represent the facts. No viable proposals were made by the private sector which would have secured for Ferranti Limited a future as a single entity, and it follows that none was dismissed by the Department of Industry in the manner suggested by the noble Lord on 14th May and by the newspaper report of 1st June.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, the noble Lord in his reply is saying that no proposals were made. Is he denying that any inquiries were made at the Ministry from Vickers, from GEC, and from another electrical giant? Obviously, firm proposals cannot be framed until some acquiescence and willingness is shown by the Ministry. Are we clear that there is no possible foundation for these reports that inquiries were made at the Ministry by these responsible companies?
Lord BESWICK: Yes, my Lords. I am saying that the newspaper report to which the noble Lord has called my attention is not accurate. While it is perfectly true, as I told the noble Lord at the time, that there were inquiries, there were never any proposals and there was certainly never the kind of behaviour on the part of my officials which the noble Lord indicated.
Lord ORR-EWING: Yes, my Lords, but I make the point that the Industry Act 1972 lays down that taxpayers' funds cannot be used to assist a firm if there is any alternative. Obviously, no alternative can be submitted unless some willingness to accept it is shown by the Ministry. Is it not very important that Government Ministers—in this case, Mr. Wedgwood Benn—should not try to bend past Acts to suit their philosophies, but should act with the utmost discretion and integrity?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I absolutely agree with the noble Lord: we should all act with discretion. That is the course I was advising him to take at the time we had the other exchanges. As for the inquiries, may I remind the noble Lord of what was said in that Sunday Telegraph article? It said:
" In a notable and painful interview Mr. P. A. Matthews, the managing director of Vickers, was ' warned off ' by the Department of Industry ".
The managing director dismisses this as a nonsense, and he has permitted me to quote from the speaking brief which he issued from Vickers the following day, which said:
" We were approached by Ferranti, but this was very late in the day. We certainly would not have wished to take over the whole of the Ferranti business and we decided not to become involved ".
In my judgment, the newspaper had no right to print what they did in the light of the facts.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, for clarification can the noble Lord tell us, if the newspaper reports are wrong, whether he is in fact saying that no approach was made by other companies to come to the rescue of Ferranti?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, what I am saying, and what I repeat, is that no viable proposal was made. Of course there were inquiries; of course there were discussions. These discussions were

331
never followed and there was never any viable proposal for taking over Ferranti as a whole.
Lord ORR-EWING: Oh no, my Lords! The noble Lord is now beginning to wriggle on this one, because of course you cannot—
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd): My Lords, would the noble Lord permit me to intervene? It seemed to me that the noble Lord was entering into debate. The purpose of Question Time is to put questions. When he puts his point, will he please put it in the form of a question and not in the form of a debating point?
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, I bow to the noble Lord and I am glad to have his correction. Is the Minister aware that it is impossible for any industrial concern to offer a firm proposal unless discussions take place within the Ministry and they have an opportunity of framing some proposals regarding the money which may be available? Should not the Ministry lean over backwards to give these opportunities to industrialists who come forward from such companies as GEC—who did not even get an answer to their letter when they made a proposal to try to help Ferranti? This is surely not the way for a Ministry to act with responsibility.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, if the noble Lord will permit me to say so, he is now floundering. He is making hopeless accusations, none of which could be justified. It is not possible for me to enter into all the discussions that took place, but I assure him that there was never any question of anybody being "choked off", which is what he originally suggested.
Lord BROWN: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that it is the consistent and enthusiastic practice of those officials in the Department of Industry who advise the Secretary of State and are responsible for advising the Industrial Development Advisory Board, to make the maximum effort to get the involvement of private firms in helping other firms in difficulty on every occasion? May I say that I speak with experience?
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, would the noble Lord consider this point? All his remarks have been in the negative. Is it
332
utterly impossible that an account of what actually did happen should be published?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I have considered that and it is not possible—and I have written to certain noble Lords explaining why it is not possible—to go into all the details. For example, some proposals were put forward by another company which involved the acquiescence of Ferranti, but the Ferranti company would not go along with them. Therefore, those proposals lapsed, not because they were "choked off" by the Department of Industry, but because Ferranti did not pursue them. I am sure noble Lords will appreciate that the details are confidential and that it is not, therefore, possible to publish them.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, it was the Opposition who nationalised the Rolls-Royce industry because they failed, and if Ferranti is part of our defence system and no help was forthcoming, then I think the Government did well to take it over.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the last words of the noble Lord's last answer but one referred to proposals for taking over Ferranti as a whole. Was it a condition made by the Government that any proposal must involve taking over Ferranti as a whole?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, this was never laid down. In fact, the particular proposals to which I referred—we are now talking about separate proposals, not the ones from Vickers—would have dealt with Ferranti as a whole. Those proposals did not go through, because the Ferranti shareholders themselves would not agree with the financial terms involved.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, if the report in the Sunday Telegraph is wrong, has the Ministry asked that newspaper to publish an apology stating that it was wrong?
Lord BESWICK: No, my Lords. Personally I would not pursue it with the Press. However, I would have expected the Sunday Telegraph to check their facts before publishing this story.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, we have a long debate before us and eight

333
minutes on the first Question is long enough. Perhaps we could move to the next Question.

BRITISH AIRWAYS: OVERBOOKING
3.14 p.m.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: 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 percentage of oversales or overbooking is regarded as essential by British Airways; whether this applies to all types of flight and, if not, which are exempt; how many passengers have missed their flight thereby in the past 12 months; and whether such a policy is acceptable from a nationalised undertaking; and if they will make a Statement.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I have asked the Chairman of British Airways to write to my noble friend, to provide an explanation of his airline's practice of overbooking on scheduled services. I understand that British Airways, like other international airlines, adopted this practice because experience had shown that a significant proportion of the passengers booked to travel on any particular flight normally failed to take up the reservations made for them. As my noble friend knows, the Civil Aviation Authority is currently reviewing the practice, in consultation with the airlines, and the Government look forward to receiving the Authority's advice in due course.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, does the Minister realise that not once in these exchanges has he expressed one word of condemnation or even regret at this practice which deprives people of something for which they have paid, and yet he speaks for a consumer Department? Concerning his Answer, if I may call it such, to my Question today, may I ask whether the noble Lord is aware that it is quite unacceptable? I should like to ask the Lord Privy Seal a question. Is it not the case in both Houses of Parliament that we put down Questions for Answer by the Government and not by people outside the
334
Government? Is he aware that I have no desire to receive any letters from the Chairman of British Airways and is he further aware that in this Question today I have asked for four specific pieces of information, all within the order of such Questions? Am I not entitled to an Answer to those Questions which do not concern only the Chairman of British Airways and myself but all air travellers, all consumer organisations and this Government?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Baroness directs her question to me. I have not had notice of the Question that is on the Order Paper; perhaps I should. However, I understand that this is a matter which deals with one of the public Boards. The responsibility for the everyday conduct of that company belongs to the Chairman and directors. Ministers themselves are not responsible. If that is the case, I should have thought that the Answer of my noble friend was quite generous. He has asked the Chairman to communicate directly with my noble friend. However, in the past my noble friend has pursued—I will not call them vendettas—but cases which have had a good deal of sympathy. If the noble Baroness would care to come to see me—not today but another day—I will see what I can do to help her.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord the Leader of the House does not wish to be unfair. I object to the term "vendetta". Is the noble Lord aware that over the West London Air Terminal we had the sympathy of this House in a majority vote, that we had the sympathy of everybody except British Airways, and we were ignored. Secondly, I have put down Questions on this matter and I have had Answers to them. Would not the noble Lord agree that it is not my fault if the Questions have become too good and too difficult for the people concerned to answer? I am sorry; I was trying to be brief! If the Lord Privy Seal cannot help me further and thinks that I should have an answer from somebody outside this House, may I ask him whether that answer could be published in the Official Report so that other people may see it as well as myself?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I will look into that. I was, of course, quite

335
wrong to use the word "vendetta"; it was a word that came rather easily to the tongue. I should have said that the noble Baroness has resolutely pursued matters of particular interest to consumer protection.
Lord KINNAIRD: My Lords, if Ministers are not prepared to take responsibility for nationalised industries, may I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House why they nationalise them?

PRIVATE BILLS: COSTS AWARDS
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider allowing Select Committees the discretion to grant costs to successful petitioners in opposed Private Bills, thus bringing them into line with planning inquiries and the courts.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, under the Parliamentary Costs Act 1865, a Select Committee on an opposed Private Bill may award costs to successful petitioners who have been unreasonably or vexatiously subjected to expense by the conduct of the promoters. This principle is in line with that of planning inquiries.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask whether the Government would consider changing this Act or introducing a Bill to amend it? In the past—and I speak from experience here—certain private citizens have opposed Bills promoted by local authorities who have vast financial resources behind them. These Bills have been opposed by worthy citizens who stand to gain nothing financially by opposing the Bills and they have done it purely from a sense of public duty. It seems wrong that not only have these people to be ratepayers in their own right, but that they should then have to collect extra money to pay their costs.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I believe this was a matter which your
336
Lordships' House considered and some progress was made towards reducing costs for petitioners. The point made by the noble Earl could have wide ramifications not only in terms of Private Bills but also for public inquiries. While I cannot hold out any hope to the noble Earl, I am quite willing to consider the matter in which I think he was involved with some of the other amenity societies. The situation is difficult, but I will certainly have a look at it.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the full costly processes of Private Bill procedure urgently need revision, particularly as they relate to the burden on local authorities, and consequently ratepayers? This matter is really urgent.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I could not possibly disagree, and only yesterday afternoon I saw a certain noble Lord who had proposals to make towards some amelioration.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal aware that by implication, my noble friend Lord Onslow agrees that this particular Private Bill was reasonable in that the Surrey County Council should look for a county hall within their own boundaries and not within the boundaries of another council. Guildford was the natural place to have it. Is the noble Lord further aware that while my noble friend is fortunate in enjoying the position of High Steward of Guildford and thereby the honour of that position, he is doubly fortunate in that it is hereditary and that he does not depend on the vote of the borough council today?
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, is the noble Lord further aware that I should never dream of allowing what I consider to be my public duty to be influenced by the snide remarks just made by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I suspect that there is something strange in the atmosphere of your Lordships' House this afternoon. I suggest we move to the next Question.

TEXTILE IMPORTS: SAFEGUARD MEASURES
3.23 p.m.
Lord HALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can state the Special Safeguard Measures relating to the importation of special textile products announced on behalf of the European Communities Commission to the European Assembly and specify the varieties of textiles and multi-fibres involved; the nature of the measures contemplated; and when they are likely to come into force.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, if my noble friend refers to the statement made by M. Simonet, Vice-President of the Commission, on 20th June the action taken under Article 3 of the GATT Multi-fibre Arrangement is: to establish quantitative restrictions on imports from South Korea into Ireland of knitted and woven shirts of synthetic fibres; to establish quantitative restrictions on imports from South Korea into Germany and the Benelux countries of socks made from yarns of synthetic fibres; to enable the German authorities to suspend the issue of import authorisations for woven cotton cloth from Brazil until 31st May 1976.
Analogous action has been taken to impose quantitative restrictions on imports from Taiwan by Germany and the Benelux countries. These measures are already in force.
Lord HALE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that M. Simonet also said that, following the completion of their major surveillance operation, they were having a meeting on 20th November in which he promised that measures would be considered for the protection of this industry, which is now the third largest industry in the Community? All are suffering similar distress, as he said. Can the noble Lord say what are the protective measures contemplated for early implementation on 30th November, and whether Her Majesty's Government will fully support them?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, what has happened is that we already applied restraints on woven cloth from Brazil and on shirts of woven cotton and on some synthetic fibres from South Korea, and these will be extended to include shirts of all fibres, knitted as well as woven, when the current negotiations between the EEC and South Korea are completed. Other discussions are taking place which we are trying to expedite.
Lord HALE: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, while thanking him for that answer I would point out that it was not an answer to the question I put to him. Will Her Majesty's Government support the proposals contemplated by M. Simonet, who made an excellent speech on this matter and recognised the problems, and will he realise that talking about preventing the import of a pair of knickers from here or a pair of stockings from there is wholly irrelevant to a situation in which 150,000 workers in the British textile industry are now on short time?
Lord BESWICK: Yes, my Lords, I am aware of that, and as the noble Lord knows these negotiations are being conducted with the object of applying restraint in certain cases. I hope they will be brought to a satisfactory conclusion.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the position is very acute with so many people on short time in this most important industry, and that we really cannot afford to wait month after month while different items are picked out, while yarns, fabrics and garments in much greater quantity than the items listed by the noble Lord are pouring in at distressed prices? As this is one of our most valuable industries, would he ask his right honourable friend to move as fast as possible to give some protection to this industry?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I recognise the difficulties that exist here, and I also recognise how deeply a number of my noble friends feel about them, but in fact we have taken certain action. We are proposing to take certain other action and, on the wider interests of assistance to the textile industry, I hope there will be a Statement, if not next week, very shortly.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, can the Minister say if the extension of surveillance as requested by the Commissioner be extended to garments also, that it is still the view of the Government that the provisions of GATT under which that would fall would still, because of our adverse balance of payments position, not be a safeguard against retaliation, or the fear of retaliation, which has been emphasised as a possibility in the past?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, there is surveillance licensing now on fibres, yarns and fabrics from non-EEC sources. The British Textile Confederation's proposal that this should be extended to the made-up textile garments is, as the noble Lord knows, being considered and I hope a Statement will be made shortly.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in this particular case the trade unions have behaved in a responsible. helpful and co-operative manner, and it seems grossly unfair that when they do behave like that they are the wretched people who suffer, as opposed to those who do not behave in a responsible manner and who do not suffer?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I am not quite sure that I go along with the noble Earl in that. I have met joint delegations, and it is perfectly true that the unions, together with the employers, have acted most responsibly. There have been very close discussions with both sides of the industry; some things have been done and I hope other things will follow.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, I do not wish unreasonably to press the Minister, but with regard to the attitude of doubt under GATT he did not answer my question as to whether the surveillance would properly fall as permissible.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I am sorry, but I do not quite understand what the noble Lord is asking. I have told him that certain surveillance licensing is already in operation. He asked me whether the extension to the made-up textile garments has been included; my answer to that is that the matter is still under consideration, but I hope that a Statement will be made shortly.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that clarification. Will he really take notice of what has been emphasised already, and of the real urgency of this matter from the point of view not only of employment, but also from the viewpoint that many textile firms are bleeding to death? Will he take note also of the fact that there will be further closures, as there was last week of a large spinning concern in Yorkshire? These will prove to be a great danger for future employment.

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
3.30 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD Lord SHEPHERD rose to move, That the Order designating certain Lords members of the European Parliament dated 20th December 1972, as amended by the Orders dated 24th October 1973 and 10th March 1975, be discharged.
That the Lords following be designated members of the European Parliament:

E. Bessborough,

L. Ardwick,

L. Bethell,

L. Bruce of Donington,

L. Castle,

Bns. Fisher of Rednal,

L. Gordon-Walker,

L. Reay,

L. Saint Oswald,

L. Walston.

That this Order shall remain in force and effect, notwithstanding the Prorogation or Dissolution of Parliament, until this House otherwise orders. The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps we could agree on one thing—that it is right, and to be welcomed, that the Labour Party has now decided, through its Parliamentary representatives in the House of Commons and in your Lordships' House, that the Labour Party should be represented at the European Parliament. Of course, the consequences of that decision will mean that there must be changes in the delegation to Strasbourg. New faces will appear, and some old faces will not be present. I should like to pay tribute not only to those who may not be going, but also to those from this House who have borne a very heavy burden during the last two and a half years in service at the European Parliament.
I will mention only one name, and I single him out for one simple reason. The strain of going to the European Parliament, of dealing with strange procedures, coping with many languages, is a very heavy one, but for one there was not the comradeship of being a member of a political Party, or of being able to join a political grouping in Europe. Therefore, I would single out the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, who went as an Independent Member, who rendered considerable service to the European Parliament and rendered great service to your Lordships' House when he gave evidence to the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, and some of us on his Select Committee. I am sure that we are not only grateful but have admired all that he has done.
My Lords, the Motion in my name on the Order Paper is one that is required of the Leader of the House. I move it in no way differently from the one earlier in the Session, when at the request of the Conservative Party I moved a change in the Conservative delegation at Strasbourg. Today, I move a Motion to put forward names for the European Parliament which have been submitted from the Labour Party and from the Conservative Party. The House will be aware of two Amendments on the Order Paper. Naturally, I will be able to deal with them more fully when I have the opportunity of winding-up the debate. But I should like to make one point very clear to this House. Some of us have spent many years here seeking to improve the relationship between these two Houses, and the relations between the political Parties here and in another place. I do not believe that if these Amendments were passed we would in any way be serving the long-term interests of closer relationship and co-operation between the two Houses.
I believe passionately that if we were to act unilaterally in this matter we could well destroy all the hard and good work that has been done over recent years, and which many of us can see when we observe the way in which Peers and Members of another place not only go to the European Parliament, but also sit together at the Council of Europe, the WEU, NATO, and many of the other overseas delegations. So I would ask the House to bear this point particularly in mind. I do not suppose anyone can speak with greater authority of the possible conse-
342
quences than the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, who is an ex-Speaker of another place.
It seems to me that we should be clear what the Parties had in mind in 1972 as to how the British delegation should be made up at Strasbourg. The European Assembly is a political Assembly. Members sit in political Parties; they act as political Parties. It is true that countries select their members in varying ways. There is one cardinal principle, which is that the delegation going to Strasbourg reflects the relative proportions of the elected political Members in Parliament, whether it is in the Lower or the Upper House. So when the Conservative Government were considering representation in 1972 they had a number of possibilities. They could well have taken the Committee of Selection formula, which would have provided that the delegation should have been made up of 19 Conservatives, 15 Labour and two others. According to Mr. Peter Kirk, who had already been nominated as leader of the Conservative delegation and was very close to the Prime Minister of the time, a decision was taken not to accept that formula, but to use the one that was in practice—and still remains in practice—in the Council of Europe. That gave a benefit to the main Opposition Party. It provided for a representation of 18 Conservatives, 16 Labour, and two others.
Rightly or wrongly, the Parliamentary Labour Party decided not to go to Strasbourg, and to wait until the issue was more clear. As a consequence, a delegation was sent to the European Parliament on a Resolution of both Houses, providing for 18 Conservatives, 2 Liberals and one Independent. I again fall back on Mr. Peter Kirk, who is reported in Hansard of yesterday. The Liberals were allowed two, but I believe it was made clear to Mr. Thorpe in 1972 that in the event of the Labour delegation going to Strasbourg that number would have to be reconsidered. Certainly, no hope or expectation was given to the Liberal party that two would necessarily remain the final figure for Liberal representation.
My Lords, I appreciate that there has been much concern in your Lordships' House about the position of the Independents, particularly the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan. Again, I rely on Mr. Kirk.

343
The noble Lord, Lord Strang, is present, and perhaps he can correct me, or otherwise. I understand that my predecessor, the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and the noble Lord, Lord Strang, considered the question of an Independent Member of your Lordships' House going to Strasbourg, and that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, said that he would raise no objection to such an approach. The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan himself, I am sure, will agree that that arrangement was entered into on the very clear understanding that if a Labour delegation went to Strasbourg then the position of an Independent was open to reconsideration.
I come back to the issue which I believe is fundamental. It is that no Member from either this House or another place goes as a representative of either House; he goes as a representative of Parliament as a whole, and he is in fact a nominee of his political Party. It therefore seems to me—and I fully acknowledge all that the Independent Members have done in your Lordships' House and the contribution they have made—that on that basis they have not a prescriptive right, or a right at all, to send a representative to Strasbourg.
If in the light of review and reconsideration of this matter an occasion arose when each House had a prescriptive right to a particular number of delegates, then the Independents could be considered. But I would suggest that under the present arrangements, the formula to which we are now working, the Independents have no basis. I will come back to this in a moment in the light of the Amendment of the noble Earl, Earl Perth.
If we assume that it is right that Parliamentary Parties should send their own delegations, their nominees, I think it follows naturally that it is for those Parties themselves to consider the basis on which they make their election or selection. The Parliamentary Labour Party holds its meetings in confidence, although much leaks into the newspapers. But I can disclose that this was a matter which was very carefully considered by the Parliamentary Labour Party. Finally, we decided that so far as the House of Commons is concerned our members should be selected. It was left entirely to the
344
Labour Peers to decide how they would either select or elect their members. The Labour Peers met in Committee Room 4. They considered the question of election or selection, and they decided that they should entrust a system of selection to my noble friend Lord Champion, who is the elected representative of the Labour Peers to the Liaison Committee, and also to my noble friend the Chief Whip.
I can assure this House that on no occasion did I in any way seek to consult with either as to the membership of that delegation, nor did the Prime Minister at any stage have a communication with either of them. When they had made their selection, the list of names was submitted to the Labour Peers again at their Thursday meeting. It was approved and reported to the Parliamentary Labour Party. So the Labour delegation is one that has been accepted by the Labour Peers and the Parliamentary Labour Party as a whole.
My Lords, I cannot speak for the Conservatives. If they have a sense of disquiet about the way in which their selection is carried out I suggest it is a matter for the Conservative Party alone, not for anyone else. We therefore have the names on the list. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, proposes that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, shall forthwith become members of the European Parliament, that the 10 names that appear on my list, a list submitted after due consideration and decision by the Conservative and Labour Parties, should be submitted to a Committee of Selection of your Lordships' House, and from those 10, 8 shall be selected. The European Parliament is a political being. Is it conceivable that Members of the Labour Party sitting on the Committee of Selection should choose which Conservatives should go to Strasbourg? I myself would find it quite intolerable if it was ever suggested that Members of the Conservative Party should sit in judgment as to which Members of the Labour Party should go to Strasbourg. A Committee of Selection is all right for the domestic matters of your Lordships' House, but it is not the vehicle for selection of members for any political assembly in Europe.
I was under attack in another place for deviousness and discourtesy. I have had

345
many things thrown at me, but I have never yet been called devious. But I think I ought to say something by way of apology to the noble Lord, Lord Byers. The intention to place a Motion on the Order Paper last Monday was included in italics in future business to give warning that a Motion would be taken. There was a good deal of discussion in Parliament as to what was to be the membership of the British delegation at Strasbourg. Certainly the noble Baroness, Lady Hylton-Foster, the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, and the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, were aware of it. I think it was some two weeks ago they came to see me, at their request, to express their concern about the position of the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan.
I did not receive any representations from the Liberal Party until Thursday of last week. I got back to my office in your Lordships' House at about twenty minutes to 7 to find a note that the noble Lord, Lord Byers, wished to see me. I sought to communicate with him, not only from your Lordships' House but from my home, but, unfortunately, we were not able to make contact. I at least took the initiative, I think at a quarter to 9 on the Friday morning, to make contact with the noble Lord. That was the first occasion on which I was aware that the Liberal Party in your Lordships' House were concerned about the situation. I apologise because I did not quite appreciate the full implications of the Motion on the Order Paper. I knew what was sought to be done by the Motion, but I did not appreciate that it arbitrarily removed a certain name from the existing list. But I would say to the noble Lord that I was under the impression that, while the Liberal Party were still seeking to increase their number, they themselves had decided that the Liberal Member in the Commons remained at Strasbourg. I do apologise. I gave that explanation, and I hope the noble Lord will acquit me of deviousness and discourtesy, bearing in mind that I have sought to keep my door open to all. I would not wish it ever to be thought that there is a weakness in our communications.
My Lords, may I conclude with these few words. I think it would be wrong for this House arbitrarily to change procedures which are the practice in another place and which have been the basis of
346
our nomination to, and our membership of the European Community and many other international bodies. I do not maintain that the present system is perfect. So many things in this Parliament are established, they grow, and they become custom, but from time to time they ought to be reviewed. However, a review would need the co-operation not only of the three political Parties in your Lordships' House but also those in another place. It would need a real and genuine appreciation of the problems of both Houses, and I know the concern that we shall hear later this afternoon could well be reflected in another place.
But I say to this House that good progress is made in this Parliament that we serve only when it is made by reasonable approaches seeking consent and agreement. I believe that an arbitrary decision by your Lordships' House in a political field—because we should be under no illusions but that if the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, is passed it would automatically mean that the formula that has been established of one Liberal member will immediately become two, that there would then be a presence of an Independent, and this at the expense of the two major political Parties. None of us should underestimate the consequences that might flow at the European Parliament from any reduction of the Party strengths.
So I come back to this: I hope that we shall debate this matter, that the concern shall be expressed, and if the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Byers, and, for that matter, if they so wish, the Independents, wish to enter into immediate conversations with me, I shall see what progress can be made to seek a solution with another place. But we can do this only by co-operation and restraint. On that basis I hope that the Motion will be passed and the Amendments withdrawn.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I say that this is an important pronouncement which he has made. Could he indicate what form that solution is likely to take, so that we shall know the position for the rest of this debate? Is he offering to restore the Liberal position?
Lord SHEPHERD: No, my Lords, I am not offering to restore anything. I

347
said that I was appreciative of the concern that has been expressed in this House. I could not refuse anyone who suggested to me that there should be a review or a consideration. In fact, I think it is part of the Amendment to be moved by the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale. All I said, and suggested, was that we should enter into immediate discussions to see whether there is a way of dealing with both this matter and the concern in your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the Order designating certain Lords members of the European Parliament dated 20th December 1972, as amended by the Orders dated 24th October 1973 and 10th March 1975, be discharged.
That the Lords following be designated members of the European Parliament:

E. Bessborough

L. Ardwick

L. Bethell

L. Bruce of Donington

L. Castle

Bns. Fisher of Rednal

L. Gordon-Walker

L. Reay

L. Saint Oswald

L. Walston

That this Order shall remain in force and effect, notwithstanding the Prorogation or Dissolution of Parliament, until this House otherwise orders.—(Lord Shepherd.)
3.54 p.m.
The Earl of PERTH The Earl of PERTH rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion of the Lord Privy Seal—
(1) At the end of the first line of the second paragraph to insert—

(" L. Gladwyn

L. O'Hagan

That the Committee of Selection do meet forthwith to select and propose to the House which of the Lords following should be designated the remaining eight members of the European Parliament.") The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move the first Amendment standing in my name. Before I proceed further I should like to express my pleasure at the fact that the Labour Party are now to be represented in the European Parliament. That is to me a very welcome move—
348
late but, none the less, better late than never. Perhaps, at the start, I should explain the purposes of my Amendments—I say "Amendments" because two have been put down, although, of course, we consider No. (1) first—and then I have in mind very briefly to tell you why I seek your Lordships' support.
The Amendment which I first propose is to the Motion of the noble Lord the Leader of the House who has just sat down, who asks that we approve a list of 10 members for the European Parliament, Labour and Conservative. My Amendment gives two other names, and then goes on to suggest, as well, that if it is accepted, eight out of the remaining 10 already listed be the members of the delegation. In my Amendment I suggest that the Committee of Selection of your Lordships' House should do this choosing. Perhaps I was wrong to do that, but I saw no other easy instrument to use. If you look at the Committee of Selection you will find that among its members are the Leader of the House, the Chief Whip, the Leader of the Liberal Party, and so on. The Committee of Selection, being composed of wise men, would in fact—and I emphasise this—leave it to the respective Parties to choose who they wanted out of their numbers for the purpose. So, if I may say so, I feel that the noble Lord's point on this is something of a red herring. I know—and I feel that all your Lordships would realise—that the Committee of Selection is very wise, and, in that sense, is a political animal and would so act. To finish on my Amendment, in the sense of the explanations of it, may I say that Amendment No. (2) is purely consequential, and I do not feel, at this stage, that I need go into any detail about it. It is not of concern unless the first Amendment is carried.
My reasons for seeking your Lordships' support for my Amendment should now be given. The noble Lord the Leader made a great point about the need for political representation at the European Parliament. In broad terms I go along with this, but if I look at Article 138 of the Treaty of Rome I find no mention of the need for political Parties. May I quote it to your Lordships. It says:
" The Assembly shall consist of delegates who shall be nominated by the respective Parliaments from among their members in accordance with the procedure laid down by each Member-State."

349
There is no mention of political Parties in that. I believe that that means that members should be designated who are representative of both Houses of this Parliament. I understand, in passing, that this is certainly the practice in other Houses in Europe where they have two Chambers as opposed to a single one.
It seems to me of great importance that your Lordships' House should have a real say in the choosing of those who are to represent them, and not accept a list which is unrepresentative of this House. I say "unrepresentative" because we have four main groups in this House: there are the Conservatives, the Cross-Benchers, Labour and Liberal Parties. I am rather careful about the order; I have put them alphabetically so that nobody will think there is any prejudice in what I have said. I believe that all four groups should continue to be represented, as has been the case heretofore—anyhow, until such time as a Select Committee, as proposed in the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, has been considered. I fully support the Amendment which stands in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, which is in no way contradictory to mine. Rather, it is complementary to it. My Amendment is designed to deal with the present, until such time as the future method of selection can be determined, and it was interesting to hear from the Leader of the House that he himself would wish to consider the present methods.
What can I say about the two representatives whose names appear in my Amendment, those who have been omitted from representation as groups for this House? Remember, my Lords, that these two—the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan—represent us at the present time. Lord Gladwyn's record of service over the last 25 years in Europe is too well-known to your Lordships for me to develop or to do other than praise. His service during these years to the European Parliament has been of the greatest value to the country and the European Parliament and I was glad that the Leader of the House paid tribute to him. I was particularly glad of that because I understand that neither he nor the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, were told ahead of time that it was proposed that they should no longer be members. If that is the case—
350
and I have reason to believe that it was the case in respect of the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan—then that is an unhappy situation.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Earl could not have been listening to what I said. I said that I saw the noble Baroness, Lady Hylton-Foster, the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, and the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, who came to see me as representing the independents, and I then informed them, at the second meeting, of the situation. So I think the noble Lord is being less than generous.
The Earl of PERTH: That is certainly not my desire, my Lords. I do not know the timing of that and if the courtesy was done then I withdraw, but I query it in the sense of whether it was done last week or only on Monday when the list was first published.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, it was done before the Motion was put down on the Order Paper.
The Earl of PERTH: My Lords, that may have been a matter of an hour before—
Lord SHEPHERD: Really!
The Earl of PERTH:—but I will not develop that further. It has been argued at great length that the Cross-Benches as such are not a political group and that therefore they do not deserve representation in the European Parliament. Yet I recall when, some ten years ago, the question arose of the reform of the House of Lords and a Bill was proposed by the then Prime Minister, who is the Prime Minister today, it was with the Cross-Benchers—if I may put it this way—that the balance of power was to lie. In other words, at that time it was recognised by the political Parties that the Cross-Benchers had a real role to play in this House, and so it was proposed. Surely what was true then should be true now.
When we were asked if we would choose a Member, as Cross-Benchers there was full consultation and we decided on someone young and enthusiastic. How right we were and how well served we have been! In the last three years, the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, has not only done great work in Europe but has been of immense benefit to us in this House by keeping us informed of all that has been

351
happening, and perhaps because he is not a member of any political Party, this has been all the more helpful and advantageous. Thus, I feel that he, with the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, are in every way proper representatives for two groups who otherwise will be excluded from any representation from this House in the European Parliament.
I hope that many of your Lordships will feel that I have shown good reason for my Amendment. If my friend and sometime chief, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd, were here, he would be speaking for this Amendment and voting for it, but, alas! he cannot be here. Your Lordships have a chance, by accepting my Amendment, to kill two birds with one stone, and in this time of economic crisis that is an economy which must be worth while. In voting for my Amendment noble Lords would show, first, that we have a small but real voice in deciding who should represent us in this House of all four groups; and, second, that voice would ensure that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, who have represented and served us so well, would continue to serve for the next few months, until the present session of the European Parliament comes to an end in the spring.
4.8 p.m.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, it might presumably be for the convenience of the House if the debate that follows ranges over all the subject matter on the Order Paper, and I take it that this is what will ensue. First, I wanted to say how grateful I am for the courtesy, which is unfailing, of the Leader of the House. He has asked me to see him on various occasions; he has never been difficult to contact and I am sure that nobody in this House would infer from anything I am about to say that I have any complaint whatever about the noble Lord's unfailing courtesy, kindness and good humour. However, I was interested to listen to his account of the present formula, as he put it, for choosing Members to go to the European Parliament. That, and his accusations of a plan for "arbitrary" change—the words he used, and his fears of a clash with another place, all were apparently based on citations not from the spokes-
352
man of his own Party in the other place, but from Mr. Peter Kirk.
Had he followed that debate as closely as some others have done, he might have noticed that the Labour Party spokesman, Mr. Mellish, said:
"The other place "—
that is, referring to your Lordships' House—
" is doing the honourable thing; namely, tabling a Motion which will be properly debated. "
He went on:
" It is not for me to question the procedure in another place. I shall not suggest to the other place how it should select its delegation. "—[Official Report, Commons, 1/7/74; col. 142]
I find it difficult to find in those words the overtones of a forthcoming constitutional clash between the Lords and the Commons.
My own Amendment, as the noble Earl, Lord Perth, pointed out, is simply couched to create a machinery which may be suitable to the problem which we all admit confronts us. Of course I heartily support the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, sitting on the Cross-Benches, but my own case is simply that we ought to have a system of election, whether it is within each Party, or non-Party, group or whether it is across the House as a whole. Thrice this matter has been raised—in December 1972, in October 1973 and in March 1975 by myself. Thrice I have argued for a system of election within this House. Thrice the Leader of the House has promised consideration. Thrice that consideration has proved to be a non-event. Perhaps we should say, with Turgot. "Scrupulous people are not suited to great affairs".
My Lords, I have five objections to the Government's Motion. First, the delegation is offered to this House on a take it or leave it basis without any process of election overall, whatever may have happened within the Party opposite. It is a simple Soviet style, one list endorsement that we are invited to give. I seek due process of election. My second objection is that the nominations have been made by the management without consultation with the ordinary body of workers in the House. My third objection is that this is a carve-up of patronage between the two main Parties. My fourth

353
complaint is that this simply means that significant elements in your Lordships' House have been disfranchised. My fifth objection is that the method of nomination chosen is unworthy of Britain's Parliamentary contribution to Europe's Parliamentary experiment.
There are two Articles of the Treaty which are not only relevant but binding. Article 139 requires the European Parliament, to which we are sending a delegation, to put forward a scheme for direct elections on a uniform procedure applying within all Nine countries of the European Community. The delegation that we send now will speak for Britain's point of view in making those preparations. Surely in such a critical matter we owe it to ourselves to ensure that the credentials of that delegation are satisfactory, to make certain that their mandate is sufficient and to be absolutely sure that their authority cannot be gainsaid either at that end in Strasbourg and Luxembourg, or at this end at Westminster. The noble Lord the Leader of the House, weaving his tangled web, told us about a formula that was established. But the Treaty is relevant and binding, and Article 138 requires that delegations meantime shall be chosen by their respective Parliaments: not just by the Lower House, not just by the Parties within it, but by the respective Parliaments—and I quote from the Article—" according to a procedure laid down by each State ".
My Lords, this State has not yet laid down a procedure. All that has happened is that the Front Benches of the two Houses have found it convenient, and a saving of trouble, to follow the procedure used in sending people to the Council of Europe and the Western European and NATO Assemblies. Those are consultative. We are talking today about representatives to go to a Parliament-to-be—and this is what it is intended to become—a Parliament that will gradually acquire the powers of a Parliament, powers to curb an international executive and powers to curb the Council of Ministers. That is a very different function from sending representatives to a consultative body which can do no more than make some suggestions, and which has no Parliamentary ambitions whatsover.
How do the other countries proceed? Five of the other six members which
354
have Upper Houses select their Upper House delegates by an electoral process. Belgium chose seven of their total 14 from the Upper House; France, 12 out of her 36; Eire, two out of their 10; Italy, 18 out of their 36; Holland, four out of their 14. Three of the other six do this without any reference whatever to the political balance in the Lower House, and I am now referring to Belgium, France and Italy.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene, but this is important. Which of those Houses is not elected?
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I was just coming to that. I am much obliged to the noble Lord for anticipating a point to which I was about to come. In fact, two of those Houses, Eire and Belgium, have non-elected members. In our case, the situation is rather different. The Labour Party evidently debated their list and, if the Press is to be believed, they did so at length. But also, if the Press is to be believed, your Lordships, Members of the Party opposite, were debarred from whatever vote took place within their Party—
Several Noble Lords: No.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE:—so far as Members of the other House were concerned. So far as I am aware, in my Party there has been no electoral procedure of any kind. It may be that I have not been attending meetings of independent Unionist Peers lately, because I had other things to do at 2.30 on a Thursday afternoon, and it may have happened when I was not there. But to my knowledge there has been no form of election within the Tory Party. Speakng generally, the 130 or so working Lords who sit on the Cross-Benches have been ignored. So far as one can see, the 40 or so working Lords who sit on the Liberal Benches have been ignored. Furthermore, the 26 Bishops who, like it or not, are Peers of Parliament appear to have been ignored. And, my Lords, what about the 20 Law Lords, wise men and grave, who counsel us over and over again? Have they been consulted? Perhaps the noble Lord can tell us that. My general impression—
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I think there are only 9 Law Lords.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: Obviously, my Lords, a Law Lord counts as more than two of one of us! It is now quite certain that confusion "hath made his masterpiece". This managerial carve-up has two consequences. First, it concedes new patronage to a national executive just when Parliament is losing power to an international executive, which is bad enough. Secondly, only the Party conformist, or the licensed non-conformist, is allowed to join in the European Parliament's struggle to lay hold on the levers of power now being lost to the Parliament of Westminster.
At different times, five objections have been mentioned to me to the principle of election to which I adhere, and to my suggestion that we should have a Select Committee. First, it is said that we must keep in step with another place. What, then, is your Lordships' role as a review Chamber? What about our obligation as long-stop for the quinquennial Act? What about our remaining power of veto on any tampering with the electoral system of Parliament? Surely, those obligations themselves require us not to be so concerned with keeping in step as with our obligations as a review Chamber. Then it is said that we have no business, as an unelected Chamber, to talk about elections. At least two other Parliaments—those of Belgium and Ireland—have non-elected members in their Upper Chambers.
Then it is said that the hereditary element is an embarrassment. I am quite sure that it is so today. Two hereditary Lords have caused the Government, and, I dare say, my own Front Bench, a certain amount of embarrassment. But let us not worry about that. Surely the jury principle, which the hereditary Peers represent in this House and which lays down that one shall take a group of chaps and put them on a jury to weigh up the judge's summing-up, is a normal and ingrained part of British procedure and is a valued element in this House. If it is said that we are the scions of privilege, I shall look around the Chamber and ask which of your Lordships was able to choose his father.
Then we are told that the Cross-Benchers do not deserve representation because they are non-Party. But the Party system is falling apart and, whether on the right or the left or in the middle, is
356
in utter confusion. There is nothing sacrosanct about it and to disfranchise 130 or so working Peers, out of a House which has about 500 working Peers, because they do not adhere to a Party would be something very strange. The Cross-Benchers are a valued element in our House because, when we have a debate for which the Whips are on, it is the way they vote that tells the public who won the argument.
My Lords, it is said that a system of nomination is necessary to secure proper regional representation. Let us take a look at the list. The list which has been laid before us today covers the South-East, the Midlands, East Anglia, Yorkshire, Lancashire and that part of the Northern Highlands—the Forest of Reay—which is empty. What about the areas which are not covered? Wales is not represented, the South-West is not represented, the North-East is not represented, the North-West is missed out, and the Central and populous part of Scotland is omitted. Then we are told that we must have a system of nomination to secure continuity. We are to do that by knocking out the noble Lords, Lord O'Hagan and Lord Gladwyn.
This age has seen, and continues to witness, grotesquely unrepresentative minorities imposing their will on the supine. At the heart of Parliamentary democracy lies the principle of the accountability of power. To whom, then, shall these delegates render their account? By whom shall their mandate be confirmed or withdrawn? Shall it be by the management or, as elsewhere in the Nine, by the Parliaments themselves? The squalid spectacle of Party bickering, the unhappy sight of the semi-clandestine manoeuvres of the past weeks, should surely be enough to persuade your Lordships that we can do better than that. Setting up a Select Committee, as my Amendment will propose when I move it later on, would enable the matter to be examined calmly. It would enable the difficulties to be seriously probed and would make it possible for the problems to be objectively encountered. The setting up of such a Select Committee would enable that to be done by a machinery suited to the subject, familiar to the House and worthy of the age, and it would be an exercise becoming to the people's overwhelming choice about our place among the Nine.
4.25 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, it is not my intention to detain your Lordships for long, if for no better reason than the length of the list of speakers this afternoon. However, it may be helpful to your Lordships in deciding what may, at first blush, seem to be a difficult matter if I speak as what might be termed an "old boy" of the European Parliament, if not as an "old lag" of that organisation. I should be wrong if I did not begin by welcoming the advent of the Labour delegation from another place and from your Lordships' House. If I wanted to be contentious, I should say something about repentant sinners, but I do not want to be over-contentious so I shall say no more. Those of us who have time and again—and the words are there for all to see in the Official Report—prayed, if that is the word, noble Lords opposite to use their best endeavours to see that a delegation is sent have now had their prayers answered. Until there was a Labour flavour in the British delegation to the European Parliament, it was not a cohesive or an all-embracing delegation.
My Lords, if it is not out of place for me to say so, I feel that the country and Parliament and, indeed, this. House, have been well served by the delegation which they have had up till now. I do not think noble Lords or the country at large have always realised the political and personal strain which is put upon members of the delegation. That is something which the new members will find out very shortly. It is a strain on one's finances, on one's marriage, and on one's business, but, above all, I found that it was an almost intolerable strain on my family. Living 455 miles North of your Lordships' House—the only other person who was living further North at that stage was Mr. Russell Johnston—it was 455 miles more of a strain as well. Insufficient stress has been laid in your Lordships' House—and I quite understand the reason why—on the political nature of the European Parliament. It is intensely political. I do not suppose the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, would disagree with that.
I should have said before and I say it now with all the sincerity at my command, that everybody throughout the country should be more than grateful to the noble
358
Lord, Lord Gladwyn, with all his great experience and political expertise, and to the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, for what they have done in the past two years. The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, was really a lone voice crying in the wilderness. He was the only independent in the European Parliament. There were solitary Italian Fascists and Italian and French Communists until their numbers grew sufficiently for them to form a group, but the noble Lord has been the only true independent. I dare say that at moments he found it fairly thankless. The representation on committees, for instance, of the European Parliament is decided according to a mysterious formula—the De Hondt formula—which gives the political groups or Parties representation on the committees according to their numerical strength. The same goes for the officers of the Parliament and the officers and the presidents of the committees. As a result, it is impossible for a person who is, to quote the translation, "non-attached ", or still more so one who is an independent, to make any effective representation as to what committee he wishes to be on, still less to achieve anything once he is on it by way of an office.
It is also not generally known just how political the committees and the Parliament are. On many occasions, Motions and consideration of various measures which had been proposed by the Commission were passed or Amendments upon them were passed or lost by very small majorities. In my own group, we had a most effective whipping system and, on many occasions, especially early on before the Socialist group realised what we were about, we were able to turn the Parliament upside down and on its head because of our efficient West-minister system of whipping. The reason why I say that is that if we seek to upset the political balance in the European Parliament—and I am not saying that your Lordships or Parliament as a whole is not entitled to do just that—it must be something we do consciously and in the full realisation of what we are trying to achieve. It is a matter of the greatest regret that the names of the noble Lords, Lord Gladwyn and Lord O'Hagan, are not the subject of the Motion proposed by the noble Lord, the Leader of the House. But I think it would be idle, if I may say so, to ignore the political facts

359
of life both as they are in the country and as they are in Europe. The European Parliament is a political institution.
Perhaps I may now come to another point. Much has been said by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and also by my noble friend Lord Lauderdale on the matter of representation. I am bound to say that on the occasions when I went to Europe and attended meetings of the European Parliament or its committees or its delegations I never felt that I was representing this House. I always felt that, however humble and inadequate. I was a member of the British delegation at the European Parliament and that, however inadequately, I spoke for Britain. I think this is reflected by the attitude in which we were held by the other members of the European Parliament. It is right to say that after an uncertain start other members of the European Parliament regarded us as members of the European Conservative group—and not as Lords' members and not as Commons' members.
I can say in parenthesis that the initial confusion was compounded perhaps by the fact that of the original delegation of 21 members, no fewer than 12 had a title of some sort; whether a noble Lord or a Knight or. in one case, a Baronet; but there it was! We were a sort of Duke of Plaza Toro's army. Once that situation was sorted out and we were accepted as what we were, (that is to say, delegates from Britain) and not as who we were (delegates from one House or the other) the situation was completely satisfactory. I would imagine that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, would agree that so far as the Liberal group is concerned, a distinguished and revered person he may have been in it—but as a Briton and not as a Member of this House.
It is in that sense that we are asked to consider both these Amendments. I say "both" but there are four; I refer to both noble Earls who spoke to them. Can one reflect for a moment on what would happen if the selection of your Lordships' delegation—and I say that against the background of how I regard the delegation and how I believe it is regarded both in Europe and in this country as a whole—was made by a committee answerable to the House but
360
not to the Party; and the possible effects that could flow from such a decision? I have no quarrel with what the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal has said so far as the historical background and flavour of this delegation is concerned. Suffice it to say that when the Party of noble Lords on this side of the House were in Government a balance of 18–16–2 was considered appropriate. That was with an overall majority of 40. In my submission it is praiseworthy that the present Government with not quite so big an overall majority (or at least with some of that majority not readily to hand) considered the appropriate numeration could be exectly the same.
What happens if the Committee of Selection selects a number of Lords whose political complexion is not according to that formula? Can it be said there will not be a clash between the two Houses? What would the Government say if instead of 18–16–2 it was 18–16–2 the wrong way; because the Committee of Selection in their wisdom had so selected? If that would not lead to a clash I do not know what would. I appreciate, and I think noble Lords on this side of the House appreciate, that there is not a fully democratic system of selection or nomination. I believe that is a very good thing; because one of the reasons why, as a group, we were so effective in the European Parliament came from the fact that we had Members of both Houses who came from different parts of the United Kingdom. One was from Northern Ireland; three lived in Scotland and two, while they did not live in Scotland had a Scottish flavour; and so on round the United Kingdom. We had lawyers—and this is a matter which should not be ignored. Sir Derek Walker-Smith, a Member of the other place, was one of the most distinguished members of the Legal Affairs Committee on which I had the honour to serve. He is now the chairman. The Committee of Selection, if it were to make the choice—
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, before leaving that point—and I am closely following the noble Earl's speech—would he not agree that if a Select Committee were set up to look into the problems and the possibilities, this is one of the problems it is necessary

361
to look at? As for saying the delegation is representative of the various Parties, would he not refresh his mind on what I said about the Lords' delegation now proposed?
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I think that there is more than that between the noble Earl and me. I regard this as a national delegation and not as a House of Lords' delegation; except in the narrowest sense. However many counties there now may be in England and Wales—for they have all been turned upside down—you cannot, in a delegation of 36, get 52 members from the old number of counties.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl again, but would he not agree that it is perfectly possible to devise a system of election in either House or both Houses whereby, taking this House, for example, noble Lords were offered a panel to choose from, from various parts of the country? It might be done within the respective Houses of Parliament and that would still conform with what he is after.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I shall go further. Not only did we have lawyers, splendid people, but also an accountant. We also had ladies; and in this day of the Sex Discrimination Bill we must not forget them. How is this Panel to reflect all this, all the different expertise required in a delegation of this nature. We may seek; but we shall not find—except chaos.
My Lords, I hope very much that what I have said, and what I think other noble Lords will say, will move the noble Earl, Lord Perth, to reflect upon his Amendments; certainly upon the first one. Perhaps I can say a word before I sit down about the second Amendment of both noble Earls, the general purport of which is to provide a fixed term for these members of the new delegation to serve as members of the European Parliament. I will take first my noble friend Lord Lauderdale who proposes, in effect, that the shutter should come down at the end of the present session of the European Parliament which would be in February 1976. Any noble Lord who has had anything to do either with the European Parliament or with the various Select Committees which now investigate its
362
legislation will know that it is quite impossible to understand, let alone to play a constructive part in under two years. If within such a time the whole matter has once more to go into the melting pot, I do not think anybody of calibre would agree to serve on a delegation; and that goes for the other two Amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Perth.
The Earl of PERTH: My Lords, may I clear this matter up? The noble Earl has misunderstood my second Amendment. It is a purely consequential Amendment which, I am advised, has to be included if my first Amendment is successful. It would be open to the Government tomorrow if there was a new list, to include in that new order the exact words here now. I would ask that people understand that this is not an Amendment designed to change time or anything else, but is a purely consequential and necessarily technical Amendment.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I am sure the noble Earl's advice is of the best quality and from the best source. I can only read into it my own humble, stumbling thoughts. The effect would be to limit the duration of the order—that is to say, the last paragraph of the Motion of the Lord Privy Seal. Members of the European Parliament, so far as your Lordships are concerned, continue their membership until one of two things happens; either they drop down dead, or your Lordships pass another Motion of the same flavour as this. If I am right, the second Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, is not needed. I do not think I need detain your Lordships any longer on that.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords. before leaving the question of the fixed term, if the noble Earl is so certain that an unfixed term is better, why should he be afraid of the Select Committee looking at the matter?
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I am not in the least afraid of the Select Committee, except of what conclusions it will come to unless its labours are carefully directed. It should be a matter for Parliament to decide as a result of performance, as a result of inclination, as a result of continuing political change which occurs both in the House and in the

363
country, to make its mind up when and if a delegation is going to be changed. I say this in the knowledge that in 1978, if the Governments of the Nine confirm the wishes of the European Parliament, there will be direct elections. Therefore what your Lordships are talking about will go into the melting pot because there will be a term of election and after that term, as with any other Parliament which has ended, there will be new elections for the European Parliament. Therefore what we are discussing is of a temporary nature, and I do not think it would be very wise for a Select Committee to investigate matters which, in any event, are going to come to an end, we hope, in two or three years' time. That is a waste of time, labour and effort. I hope on this occasion your Lordships will consider particularly what the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal has said.
There is not a distribution of patronage. As I caught the dawn 'plane to Brussels I never thought that I was in receipt of any patronage. This is the selection for a particularly arduous if honourable and satisfying job—unpaid, I hasten to say! That is the way we should look at it, and I suggest by this Motion the Government are continuing, at least for the moment, although they may well have debates on future policy, to carry out a policy and a programme which has been satisfactorily in existence since our entry into the Community in January 1973.
4.45 p.m.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was good enough to tender me an apology, and of course in this House when any noble Lord does that one must accept it, and I do so. I am extremely puzzled at the remarks which he made when he said, for instance, that early Friday morning was the first occasion he knew, thought or felt there was in the Liberal Party any dissatisfaction with what had been done. Hansard will show what the noble Lord said. The noble Lord must have known talks were going on between the Prime Minister and my right honourable friend Mr. Jeremy Thorpe, and that there had been correspondence about our worry at the Press reports. These conversations, as I understand it, ended on Tuesday in a second meeting in which the Prime
364
Minister said he would have a word with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. I do not know whether or not he did. All I can say is that is what we were told about it. I feel that on an occasion like this, where a distinguished person of any Party is to be dropped by Government decree, at least courtesy demands that he should not hear it on the 10 o'clock news on the radio.
I believe all fair-minded Members of this House will feel the present method of allocating the United Kingdom seats in the European Parliament, and the method of selecting members of the British delegation, is both unsatisfactory and unfair. The only satisfaction is expressed by the unity of the two Front Benches, who find this a very convenient way of handling our affairs. It is totally unsatisfactory for a Party like ours, with a substantial vote of between 5 million and 6 million in this country, to have our inadequate membership of two arbitrarily cut to one without any warning, and then to find, without any consultation, the Government have decided which of our two members shall be excluded from the European Parliament. If this is not discourtesy, I leave it to the House to judge what is. Even leaving out the question of discourtesy, we believe the method to be totally unfair. It is unsatisfactory because there is no proper agreement between the two Houses as to the basis on which the delegation should be selected, and the selection rests entirely in the hands of the Whips of the two major Parties, taking what advice they may care to do. So far as I can see, it has certainly not been done in consultation with anyone outside the two major Parties. I do not believe that this is right. It results in this House having no real say as to the members who would best reflect the political makeup of this Assembly.
As to the basis of the representation, I am advised that there is nothing in the Treaty of Rome nor in rule or custom that decrees that national delegations should be based on the number of seats and votes in the Lower Chamber or seats generally in one or both Houses. As has been said, in seven out of nine countries the proportion of seats and votes is similar because they use an electoral system based on the proportional representation. On this basis, the British delegation would consist, if that formula

365
were applied, of 15 from the Government, 15 from the Conservatives, 6 or 7 from the Liberals and one or two others. I am told by a prominent Member of the FDP whom I met yesterday that for 5 million people to be represented by one member would be unique in the EEC, and would certainly not be understood. Luxembourg, with a total population of 350,000 people, has six seats. The European Parliament is supposed to represent the main political forces in the nation. Therefore some regard must be had to the number of votes cast for each Party at the previous General Election. Even the French now include the Communists in the European Parliament because there was a strong feeling that the Communists should be represented as a group. I think they have a couple of members.
In 1972, on the basis of the 1970 General Election in which the Liberal Partly polled 7·5 per cent. of the votes, won six seats and had about 2 million votes, we were allotted two seats in the European Parliament. It is true that at that time the then Prime Minister said this might have to be reviewed if the Labour Party were to send their own delegation. But that was on the basis of under 8 per cent. of the national vote being gained by the Liberal Party, and only six seats in the Commons. In the October 1974 Election, where we did not do so well as we did in February, over 5 million Liberal votes were cast and the percentage of the national vote rose to 19 per cent. On this basis, where the Liberal Party is nearly half that of the Conservatives and of the Labour Party, and five times that of the SNP, surely there cannot be any case for reducing the Liberal representation from two to one.
Then we are told that a good guide to representation would be the proportions adopted by the Commons Committee of Selection when, for instance, they appoint members to Standing Committees. These proportions are: Government 19, official Opposition 15, and others 2. If this was in the Prime Minister's mind at the time he was having these discussions with my right honourable friend, it is quite clear that what has happened is that the Labour Party have forgone one seat by going down to 18 in order to raise the Conservatives from 15 to 16. I see no rhyme or reason at all in that.
366
But then we are told that that is not the basis. The basis is that which was used for the Council of Europe and that, I understand, is 18–16–2. That formula was agreed—if it ever was agreed—over 20 years ago and it is still used, despite the fact that the Liberal Party vote has come up from under 2 million to over 5 million; despite the fact that our percentage has come up from single figures to nearly 19 per cent. It cannot be right that that formula should be used today. In the days when that formula was first hit upon, there was no such thing as the Scottish Nationalist Party, no United Ulster Party and no Plaid Cymru. Times have changed and it seems to me that, if the noble Lord says this formula is still being used, that is a condemnation; it means that no notice has been taken of any electoral change over the last 20 years or so.
Apart from these considerations, I should like to put forward further claims for our representation not being reduced. First, it is widely recognised that it has been the Liberal Party alone which since the War has urged the formation of a European Community in which Britain would be a partner; and we campaigned in favour of Britain joining the EEC right from the beginning, when the Treaty of Rome was first mooted. And when we hear from the Conservative Front Bench about political balance, let it not be forgotten that the Liberal group in the European Parliament is the third largest group, and we ought to have at least two representatives in that group from the two Houses.
Secondly, both our representatives in the European Parliament, as has been recognised today by the tributes which have been paid, are men of outstanding distinction. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, whose membership of the European Parliament is to be summarily terminated without notice or consultation, is one of the more distinguished and effective members of that body. I do not know whether the House realises this, but he has continuing responsibilities; he is the active Vice-President of the Political Committee and he is the rapporteur of the draft Resolution on the defence of the Community. This is to be debated in September or October. It is his own Report and, according to the Government, he will not be there. The noble Lord has also

367
played a very large part in the preparation of the Report on the whole future of the Community, which is to be debated next week in the European Parliament. I am sorry my Lords, but I did not hear what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, it could be agreed, for the period, to drop the Member from the House of Commons.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, why should we do that, because he, too, has on-going responsibilities? What seems to me utterly fantastic is that at less than 48 hours' notice you can terminate the work that is being done by a man in an important Parliament. If it is insisted that Liberal representation is reduced to one, my right honourable friend and I have the invidious task of choosing between two distinguished Members who have contributed much to the European movement in the last two and a half years, while the Labour Party have been sulking on the sidelines. I think it is totally unfair, after bearing the brunt of the referendum campaign and considering the work done by the Party ever since the formation of the EEC, that this should be the reward they get from the two major Parties in this Parliament.
Moreover, I would ask whether there is not a strong case for this House to be adequately represented. With over 40 Peers now taking the Liberal Whip, are we not entitled to at least one member? How can it be right for the Labour Party, with about 140 Peers taking the Whip, of whom I understand about 100 are active, to have six seats in the European Parliament, when the Liberal Party, with 40 Peers taking the Whip, of whom more than 30 are active, are to have no representation. Does the noble Lord wish to comment? I think he may be a little surprised when it comes to the vote. My right honourable friend put all these considerations to the Prime Minister, both in writing and verbally at two meetings last Tuesday. He gained the firm impression that the Prime Minister had been convinced of the Liberal case, and it was a complete shock to all of us when this Motion appeared on the Order Paper without consultation. Therefore I would ask the Government, on the grounds of justice alone, to withdraw this Motion so that further thought may be given to this whole question.
368
In 1972, when this matter was debated in another place, Mr. Michael Foot was one of the great protagonists of the appointment of a Select Committee to look into the whole basis of how this Parliament should be represented, and he was met by Mr. Geoffrey Rippon, who was speaking for the then Government, and who said, "We could go a long way along these lines ". This is not a new problem; it is something which must be threshed out, whether by means of a Select Committee, by consultation or by any other method. This present method cannot possibly be the right way to do it, and I shall ask my noble friends to support the Amendments of the noble Earls, Lord Perth and Lord Lauderdale. If these are not carried, we shall seriously consider opposing the Motion itself.
We have no intention of denying representation to the SNP or to the Cross-Benches of this House. We believe that they can be accommodated and our representation preserved if the behind-the-scenes patronage of the two major Parties, particularly in another place, is slightly eroded. Is the noble Lord trying to say that it is not patronage? If it is not patronage, what is it? We have been in politics for a long time and can recognise patronage after 40 years, and we know exactly how it works. The Government want to keep the present system because, as the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, said it is a "carve-up" between the two Front Benches. I hope we shall have the support of the many fair-minded Peers here today to retain what is, after all, still a meagre representation compared with anything which would, as in other countries, be related to the total number of votes cast for the Party in the country.
I think we have to get a proper basis on which representation is agreed and selection is made; and I am not in the least deterred by the threats of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that this would mean a constitutional clash between the two Houses. I get the feeling, having been to another place, having friends there and also having taken the feeling here, that there is a sense of unfairness and injustice about and I hope that that will be shown in the vote tonight.
4.58 p.m.
The Earl of BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, perhaps it would be inappropriate

369
for me to say that I should like to defuse this situation; but certainly I should like, in a minute or two, to pour a little oil on these troubled waters. If the Motion by the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal is accepted by your Lordships this evening, then I should like to say how much we in the European Conservative Group, of which my noble friend is also a member and which is led by my honourable friend, Mr. Peter Kirk, shall welcome the new Members of this House at the plenary session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg on Monday. We have had to wait two and a half years for them to join us but, as one noble Earl said earlier, "better late than never", and perhaps they are all the more welcome for that reason. I look forward to working with noble Lords opposite in the various committees of the Parliament and have no doubt that on many occasions, in representing British interests in the Community, we may well be supporting each other more often than not.
The only other observation I would make is this. Despite the tremendous eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and indeed that of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and of my noble friend Lord Lauderdale, it seems to me, pending direct elections to the European Parliament and perhaps ultimately electoral reform in this country, that the method of designation adopted by the last Conservative Government and accepted by the present Government is the most practical way of designating noble Lords in accordance with Article 138 of the Treaty. Therefore, regardless of the fact that I am one of those concerned—and I thought hard as to whether or not I should take part in the debate—I feel I should support the Lord Privy Seal's Motion and also what my noble friend Lord Mansfield said, whatever may be the ultimate solution. But we need a solution now, my Lords, because we shall look very silly in Strasbourg on Monday if we have not resolved this matter.
If indeed the noble Lords mentioned in the Lord Privy Seal's Motion are so designated, then, like other Members of your Lordships' House, I shall certainly greatly regret the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, and of my noble friends Lady Elles and Lord Lothian who have not yet been mentioned in this debate.
370
But clearly some have had to drop out. That is what politics is about. In the past I myself have dropped out of Governments; so occasionally have certain noble Lords opposite. This happens. We shall miss the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, and my other noble friends, very much. Lord Gladwyn has, as has already been said, put in a tremendous amount of work on the subject of political union and defence questions within the Community. After what the noble Lord, Lord Byers, said, I admit to having some understanding of the numerical case which the Liberal Party has put forward. But in regard to Lord Gladwyn, who has an important platform in your Lordships' House as, I think, Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party and that Party's spokesman on foreign affairs, I only hope that we shall continue to benefit from his advice here. I certainly will always listen to him with attention, as I always do to Lord O'Hagan, when he speaks either in your Lordships' House or on the Continent. But above all, my Lords, I would repeat the words of welcome which I mentioned at the outset of my remarks: we all look forward to seeing noble Lords on the opposite Benches in another Chamber on Monday.
5.4 p.m.
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, I must confess that I had not intended to speak in this debate, but when the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, was kind enough to inform me about it I felt so sympathetic to his position that I thought I had better do some thinking about the issue. The conclusions to which I came were of such a kind that, although I am somewhat more removed from Party politics than I used to be when I was leading on one side of the House or another, I felt I ought to give your Lordships the benefit of them. On this occasion, not for the first time in politics and indeed not for the first time in anybody's life, we are confronted with the choice between a greater or a lesser evil, or alternatively between a greater good or a lesser good. The personal aspects of this controversy are particularly painful I think to all of us in your Lordships' House. I am glad to have heard the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, mention that others are involved—not merely the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and the noble

371
Lord, Lord O'Hagan, much as we respect them.
If the Labour Party, as I would have wished, had three years ago gone into the European Parliament we should not have been faced with this problem at all. But unfortunately it did not—and I do not propose to go back over the referendum campaign. Incidentally, let me say to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, that the Liberal Party were not the only people involved in the referendum campaign. I am reminded of a platform on which I spoke along with a Liberal and a Conservative Member of Parliament. I spoke before the Conservative Member, and when he rose to speak he said he thought that I had not given enough prominence to the Socialist case for entering Europe. I admit I had rather sensed that the audience was not particularly Socialist. However, he proceeded to give that case and it was a powerful one. It was the case that we are serious politicians; we are not just playing at representing this or that issue. We are here to make the European Parliament work and to take it very seriously indeed. Either it is a serious body or one that is just a bit of fun to which you send your friends as an act of patronage—a reward for good boys, particularly in another place, who have always obeyed the Whips, with nothing for those who have occasionally stepped over the line. That is a problem from which we do not suffer here.
Party politics may be working badly in this country at the moment. In looking at the serried ranks of the Cross-Benchers, I think they may be justified. I heard one saying that politicians were demonstrably failing. I should like to think that the Cross-Benchers are politicians, too. But although I have left active politics I still happen to be a Party man. I believe that the conduct of democracy depends on established groups within defined rules of behaviour and democratic custom. It is vital at this moment that the Labour Party should take up its full quota and work, as I hope it will, with its European Social Democratic colleagues and make the European Parliament a more effective body. Conservatives and Liberals, sometimes in a rather patronising way (I excuse them that; they had some grounds to be patronising) have twitted us and urged
372
us to take this matter seriously. My Lords, we are taking it seriously. This—and I beg noble Lords to think in these terms—is not just a matter of fairness to a particular individual.
I sympathise with what the noble Lord, Lord Byers, has said, but it so happens that we are net debating the electoral system of this country. It may well be that the right answer—I personally hope that this will come about—is direct elections. But I would not for one moment accept that the methods that have been employed in selecting those whom the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has put forward have been in any way undemocratic. It has been the subject of full consultation. I do not know how the Conservative Party dealt with it, but certainly the Labour Party was given a full opportunity to express its views on how individuals should be chosen and to approve that choice, and then it was put to the House for decision. I do not accept that the methods that have been put forward are in some way undemocratic.
We now have two Amendments in front of us. I find the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, peculiarly difficult to understand. He spoke highly of the qualities of the Select Committee, but apparently he does not propose to submit the choice over the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, to that Committee. And we are up against a timetable. We may not be finding the right answer. The answer may offend some of us individually; indeed, I have been worried about it. But on 7th July, as the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, pointed out, it is important that a full delegation should appear at the European Parliament.
The Earl of PERTH: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way on the question of timetable? What is proposed in my Amendment, if it is accepted, is that the Committee of Selection should meet forthwith. I understand that it would be possible for them to meet this evening or first thing tomorrow morning. On the assumption that they have made their choice it is then possible—and would follow, I think—that a list of 10 members would be put before your Lordships tomorrow and could meet with your Lordships' approval. Therefore, I wish

373
your Lordships to understand that my Amendment would result in no difficulty of timetable and that the full representation of this House could be present on Monday.
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, I understand that the noble Lord is not proposing that all 10 members should be chosen or recommended by the Select Committee. But even granting his argument, I am bound to say that in a difficult situation it is always very easy to blame the Party managers. Let me also say to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, that in our Party in this House the decision would be made not by the usual channels or by the Whips; it would be made by unanimous election. My noble friend Lord Champion was advised by the Chief Whip but he acted for us all. Let me say this about the position of the House of Lords: there is nothing that your Lordships enjoy more than occasionally beating your breasts and saying, "We shall not give in to threats from another place." It is very popular and lovely to be brave and say, "We shall stand out"; and when the last bee sting of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, goes in, no doubt we shall be able to have the satisfaction that we stood out!
Nobody has greater affection for your Lordships or for the work of this House than I have and I think that this is known to the House of Lords. One of our great qualities is that we are not always Party political, that we do not always know the way the votes are going, that it is possible for a Conservative Government as well as for a Labour Government to be defeated in this House, despite their large paper majority. But let us accept that we are quite unrepresentative in democratic terms. I wish to goodness that we had carried through the reform of the House of Lords. Then we should have had rather more influence in these matters. It is quite all right for us to go on working within our own conventions and to make valuable contributions, but I am doubtful whether we should export our somewhat peculiar constitution to the European institutions. This is a difficult problem. In this dilemma the decisions which have been reached after very anxious thought by the leadership of the two main Parties who are most likely to have the responsibility for the Govern-
374
ment of this country is the best that can be done in the circumstances.
Indeed, it is arguable that your Lordships' House—which is not always the most popular of institutions with certain of our colleagues in another place who do not realise what splendid people we are—has been treated generously in this matter. I would say, not as an act of cowardice or of giving way to threats, that we should be very ill-advised to carry either of these Amendments at this moment and not to take the advice of the noble Lord the Leader of the House of Lords—and no doubt in due course the advice of the Leader of the Opposition. Sometimes we in this House forget that politics are about power within rules.
I believe that the Labour Party must now play the part that I greatly regret they have not played until now. Despite my sympathy for the great services of the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, I come inevitably to the conclusion that what we should do today is carry the Motion which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd.
5.16 p.m.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, I am as embarrassed to be speaking as your Lordships may be to be listening. So embarrassed was I yesterday that I took my name off the Order Paper, but I put it on to the Order Paper again because I have played a small part in doing what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has just said cannot and should not be done, which is to export the peculiar constitution of this House to the institutions of the European Economic Community.
Perhaps I could very briefly give a firsthand report to the House of the practical consequences of trying to do this. I should like to congratulate wholeheartedly the Labour members of the delegation and to sympathise with those others who, like myself, are under sentence of death. I agree with the noble Lord the Leader of the House in what he said about the origin of the Cross-Bench place in the European Parliament. I have always known that I was a squatter, although I have made every effort to acquire security of tenure. I am speaking today with no sense of bitterness, or personal betrayal, or sour grapes. I always knew that what has happened to me was a possibility.

375
Despite what the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, has said, I believe that until direct elections take place, both Houses of all the Parliaments of all the Member-States have something to contribute to the European Parliament. There is a wide variety of views represented in the European Parliament. Apart from those whom the noble Earl mentioned, there is Mr. Morgan of the No-Tax Party. There is an Italian monarchist and there are two members of the Walloon Nationalist Front. If the European Parliament has been able to absorb them, I can assure your Lordships that it has been able to absorb me! It may be that the noble Earl was cocooned by the elaborate paraphernalia and the expensive services provided by the European Parliament for members of groups.
I can assure the noble Earl that one reason for having a non-Party member in the European Parliament is to keep a watching eye on what the political Parties are doing with all the money that they vote themselves continuously, because the European Parliament is responsible for its own budget and is accountable to nobody for it. I can also assure the noble Earl that, in fact, the working realities of the independent member are much less harsh than he has suggested. I have found that it is possible, with ingenuity and imagination, to be an effective member of the European Parliament. Some noble Lords say, "How can any Cross-Bencher represent the rest of the Cross-Benchers?" The answer is that, of course, we cannot, except in an administrative way through our convener. I was elected to the European Parliament by my fellow Cross-Benchers at the end of 1972 to be as Cross-Bench there as I am here, and this is what I have tried to do.
I believe that other Upper Houses reflect the proportions of their working membership. In Belgium, France and Italy the representation of their Upper Houses in the European Parliament is not according to the representation as elected in their Lower Houses, but according to the spread of opinion in their Upper Houses. Although I am not speaking personally, I believe that our own peculiar constitution has been and until the next Election can continue to be successfully and usefully exported to the European Parliament.
376
What complaints have we had so far? The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, mentioned the importance of Committee work in the European Parliament, and he was quite right to do so. But he also said that the European Parliament discriminated against independent members. This is true. In the past, the European Parliament has made it difficult for independent members to be represented on committees. But I should like to read a letter that I received this week from the President of the European Parliament. It began "Dear Colleague", which encouraged me, and went on:
"… it becomes necessary to review the membership of European Parliament bodies to ensure that non-attached members are guaranteed the same opportunity as other members to sit on Parliamentary committees."
"Non-attached" is the European Parliament's word for "Cross Bench."
The European Parliament is capable of dealing with independents and is making increased provision for them. The President enclosed a resolution from the Bureau—which is the "usual channels" of the European Parliament—and the extract which he sent to me stated:
" Considering that after the British referendum and the arrival of Labour members at the European Parliament, it will soon be necessary to hold new elections for the appointment of members to Parliamentary Committees "—
the Bureau—
" adopted the principle that non-attached "—
that is, independent—
" members will then be individually entitled to the same number of Committee seats as the average available to the other Members of Parliament, subject to a limit of one non-attached member per Committee. "
My Lords, the European Parliament has independent members. I admit that all the others except myself belong to political Parties, but increased opportunities for them to work in and through the Parliament are being created. The President of the European Parliament is the President of a Socialist group. He is not expecting a Cross-Bench Member of your Lordships' House to be removed. If I read this letter aright, he does not see this as part of the price to be paid for the arrival of the Labour members at Strasbourg, which we all welcome.
I hope your Lordships will vote for the two Amendments that we are discussing today, because I do not feel that

377
what has been settled between the two Front Benches is fair nor do I believe that many of your Lordships feel it is fair. If your Lordships are not able to vote for the Amendments for reasons of loyalty, I hope you will at least abstain, because today we are being asked to reinforce the powers of this House and to ensure a fair representation of its working Members in a legislative body that has taken away some of the powers and influence of this House. One of the cases against the Community was, and is, that membership of the Community results in a permanent downgrading of the power of Westminster. By going to Strasbourg, British Parliamentarians can reclaim and recoup some Parliamentary control. Is that privilege to be denied to two important sections of the working membership of your Lordships' House? I do not think that would be fair, and I hope the House will vote for both Amendments.
5.24 p.m.
Lord CHAMPION: My Lords, it took a great deal of courage, I am sure, for the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, to make his speech in this House today. I remember that when the noble Lord came to this House, in his first and immediately subsequent speeches we recognised that this was a new force coming into this Chamber and one which we all welcomed. The only regret that I have about the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, is that he has not increased the power which is clearly his by joining the Labour Party where he clearly belongs, for here he would have done a first-class job of work and I am sure he would have had the backing of this Party in the work that he has had to do.
I join with those who have sympathised with him and with the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, but I also sympathise with the two Conservative members who have been dropped from this delegation. I sympathise with them because I know what it is to be dropped. I was dropped from this Front Bench and it is not a very pleasant thing to happen to one. But I also sympathise with Mr. Kirk, who had to take the decision with regard to the two Conservative members who have been praised by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, for the work they have done in the European Assembly. They too have undoubtedly
378
rendered a great service to this country, and I sympathise with Mr. Kirk in having to drop them.
It was said by the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, that those of us who were engaged in the selection of those whose names appear before your Lordships today were engaged in—what did he call it?—a "carve up of patronage". I never realised that I was doing that when I was selecting, or rather helping to select, the group who appear on the Order Paper and who represent the Labour Party. I very much doubt whether the patronage that I have exercised in this connection will bring any kudos to myself. I can well imagine that when those who are going have experience of the European Assembly, of the work involved and the financial sacrifices they will have to make, they will curse me rather than feel that I have conferred upon them a very great favour.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, they might even come borrowing, and that would be worse still.
Lord CHAMPION: Yes indeed, my Lords, they might come borrowing, but they will not get anything from me. The Prime Minister, speaking in the other place on 24th June at column 240 said:
" … about the European Assembly … It is a matter for this House because the list has to be approved by this House. It has long been understood in relation to both the Council of Europe and other overseas assemblies that the names are selected by the individual Parties concerned, but they require approval by this House and this will happen in this case. "—[Official Report, Commons; 24/6/75, c. 240.]
It seems to me that the key words in that statement are, "it has long been understood" and,"the individual Parties concerned". In the matter of delegations, so far as my memory goes back—and that is to membership of the Council of Europe, 1949 to 1951—agreement as to the membership of that Assembly was always hammered out between the Parties, as to numbers and so on. It was always a matter for Party decisions. There has been agreement on the allocation of places available to the British Parliament as between the Parties in the Commons and in the House of Lords, and also on the proportion of the places going to each House. That agreement resulted when neither major Party had a large majority in the Commons in the formula

379
that we now know of the 36 places being divided as to 18 to Government members, 16 to the main Opposition Party and two to others—the 18, the 16 and the two being selected by the Parties concerned. The only difficulty that I can ever remember being raised on the Floor of the other place about the selection was by a Member who thought that his very exceptional qualities had been overlooked by his Party.
My Lords, the formula devised for the Council of Europe was adopted by the Conservative Government in 1972 as a sound basis for the European Parliament membership. In the circumstances of the decision made necessary by the nearness of the meeting of the European Parliament, it was a wise decision of the Government of today to stick to a tried and tested formula. This day, four days before the opening of the plenary session of the European Parliament on 7th July, is certainly not the time to start interfering with the selections made by the Parties in this House. Even to talk of the Committee of Selection meeting forthwith is to fail to recognise what is involved in the preparation for such a meeting, and in the preliminary discussions that normally precede it.
In the light of past practice and custom which has worked so well, the House would be well advised not to embark on the selection of members for this delegation in opposition to the advice of the Parties. That is what the first Motion on the Order Paper embodies namely, the advice of the Parties. Clearly, it would be inadvisable for us on the Floor of the House to start to try to assess the qualifications of this Member as against that, but that is what the first Amendment on the Order Paper is asking us to do—virtually to cut out two of those already appearing in the Motion of my noble friend and to substitute two others mentioned in the Amendment. It is the case that the rules of neither this House nor the other recognise Parties as such, but without Parties the system of Parliamentary democracy as we understand it would be unworkable. Although the rules of neither House contemplate the two-Party system, practical politics consist of conflict between Government and Opposition, with the minor Parties intervening. This means that we have to
380
accept that in practice much of Parliamentary procedure in fact is dominated by the Party spirit.
Although I accept the fact that the Party system is essential to our form of democracy and that conflict is desirable, I assert that without the arrangements of the usual channels, the behind-the-chair discussions and decisions, this and the other place would be unworkable as reasonable institutions. These consultations necessarily take place, and are known to everybody to take place. This is an incontrovertible fact which has for many years been accepted by the vast majority of Parliamentarians in this country.
My Lords, having said all that, I must add that I am not opposed to an examination of the system of allocation of places as between Government and Opposition Parties, and as between the elected and non-elected Houses of Parliament. I think an examination might take place—all of which certainly demands some thought being given to it. For, as I understand it, what has happened, has resulted in ten places being allocated to this House, and this arose not from any particular desire to see this House holding nearly one-third of the places on the delegation, but because pairing arrangements in the other place made such a division between the two Houses essential in the circumstances of the narrowness of the balance between Government and Opposition. These are the facts of life that we have to face. An examination of these general arrangements, including that of the proportion of places allocated to this House, ought not to be decided by the pairing necessities of the Parties in the other place.
This matter certainly needs consideration, not just by a Select Committee of this House alone, but by both Houses of Parliament. This is where I disagree very much with the Amendments that appear on the Order Paper. Certainly I would favour an examination of the whole system of appointment and allocation of the places between the two Houses, but certainly not by a Select Committee in the first place, not even a Joint Select Committee drawn from the two Houses. Consideration should be given to the matter by the Parties in both Houses; there should be consultations between the leaders of the Parties in both Houses.

381
They know what the parties feel about this, and they could do something in preparation, perhaps, for ensuring that eventually there shall be a fairer and better method of allocation. Such consultations might eventually have to have over them the umbrella of some formal decision, perhaps by a Select Committee. But initially to attempt to do this by the methods proposed in the Amendments appears to me to make a nonsense of what we know to be the facts of life in relation to Parliament as a whole.
My Lords, in the coming period and before we have again to decide on who should go to Europe, I hope that we shall see that the consultations I have suggested will take place, and that decisions will be taken which will prevent us having to discuss such a matter as we are today—talking about personalities, talking about people, paying tribute and so on. I should like to see something acceptable to the House as a whole, including, of course, the Cross-Benches and the Liberal Party.
The Motion before us today does not result from an abuse of Parliament or the Party system, but rather from its sensible application. The simple fact is that the Motion on the Order Paper is the result of a system that works reasonably well. It is not perfect, of course; it is something which should be subject to examination, as I have suggested. But the very fact that it works is the supreme test of the British Constitution and the British Parliament. That it works is an example to the rest of the world seeking to institute Parliamentary democracy.
5.38 p.m.
Lord STRANG: My Lords, my reason for speaking today is to place on record some points about Cross-Bench Peers which may be material to the present debate. I intend to speak in a low key. May I recall what happened in December 1972. Then, two places for Cross-Bench Peers were asked for; one was agreed to by the then Leader of the House, the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. But it was explained at the time that when at some future date the Labour members took their places, the position would have to be reconsidered, and that was accepted. That is what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, told the House a short time ago. I have the permission of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, to say that that is what occurred.
382
My Lords, three names came before a meeting of Cross-Bench Peers, and one was chosen. It was a good choice. The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, has won golden opinions. He did not go to the European Parliament to represent the Cross-Bench Peers, to speak in their name, or on their behalf. He could not do that. As the noble Lord himself said, he went to the European Parliament to act as an independent, a non-Party member exactly as he does in your Lordships' House. As he has testified, his position was well understood by his colleagues in Strasbourg.
My Lords, who are the Cross-Bench Peers? They number about 150. Their regular attendance, of course, is very much less than this. Essentially they are Peers who take no Party Whip, who, when they attend, habitually sit together on these Benches, who allow their names to be enrolled on the Cross-Bench list, and, when they can, attend the weekly meeting of Cross-Bench Peers. Outside this definition there are, of course, the Law Lords, who sit with us but are not carried on the Cross-Bench list. And for all we know, there may well be Peers in other parts of the House who take no Party Whip but who do not sit with us.
Why do Peers decline to take a Party Whip? Some are genuinely non-Party; some are retired public servants who have served Governments of both Parties. Some have definite Party sympathies, but because they hold some public office prefer for the time being to lay aside their active Party allegiance. Some are not in full sympathy with their Parties. Some just do not like to be at the receiving end of a Whip. In our political opinions we range widely from Right to Left. We have no Leader and no Whip. One of our number, curiously called the Convenor, helps us in our relations with the authorities of the House, and I should like to say here and now how much we owe to Lady Hylton-Foster for the help she gives us.
We make no attempt to co-ordinate our voting patterns. At the time of the discussions on the reform of the House, statistics showed that the Cross-Bench vote for and against the Government was cumulatively about equal. There are occasions when the Cross-Bench vote is predominantly in favour of the Government,

383
and there are occasions when the Cross-Bench vote is predominantly against the Government, and I would guess that the Party Whips pay close attention to this. Clearly, therefore, we are political animals, but we are not politically organised political animals. It would be foolish to deny that Party is a major part of the fabric of political life as it is carried out in our kind of society. It would be equally foolish to claim that Party is the sole component of politics. There can be politics without Party, and that is the kind of politics we try to practise. If we are united about one thing, it is that we deeply cherish our independence.
The political role of the Cross-Bench Peers was emphatically stated in the proposals for the reform of the House contained in the White Paper (Cmnd. 3799) of November 1968. Those proposals were elaborated by a Committee composed of representatives of all three political Parties in both Houses. On occasion, under those proposals the votes of 30 Cross-Bench Peers, out of a total voting House of 230, could in effect have held the balance between Government and Opposition. That would have been an important political role. In addition, for a wise and well-informed appraisal of the position of the Cross-Bench Peers in this House, I would recommend your Lordships to look at pages 124 to 126 of a recent book by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, which is called Politics in Practice.
My Lords, after what has already been said, I do not propose to repeat the case for the inclusion of a Cross-Bench Peer among the members of the European Parliament. Lord O'Hagan in particular, from personal experience, has shown how hollow are some of the arguments against such inclusion. In effect, what has happened is that the two main political Parties have taken all the places. Calling upon all the moderation I can, I am bound to say that that does them no credit, no credit at all. I have no more to say. While realising that there are strong objections to the two Amendments before the House, I still feel that it would be right to support both of them.
5.45 p.m.
Lord MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, may I first say how glad I am to realise that for the first time we are going to have a full delegation of British representatives in the European Parliament. I would pay tribute to Mr. Peter Kirk, who, in the absence of a Labour delegation, has led the British representatives so well at Strasbourg; to Lord Bessborough, who has been Deputy Leader of his Party and Vice-President of the Assembly; and especially to Lord Gladwyn, about whom it is almost impossible to speak too highly, as Vice-Chairman of the Political Committee, Chairman of the Defence Committee, a noble man with a tremendous reputation of international service behind him.
I am happy to follow my noble friend Lord Strang, who has given us the picture of the nature of the Cross-Bench animal. He was for many years our distinguished mentor and our Convener until he was succeeded by my noble friend Lady Hylton-Foster. In the nature of things, Cross-Benchers can rarely be unanimous; but the Cross-Benchers, all 156 of them, are unanimous in their appreciation of the work Lord O'Hagan has done at the European Assembly.
My Lords, Cross-Benchers are a unique phenomenon in the Parliamentary world. We had hoped that when the new delegation was chosen the Government would make provision for the Cross-Benchers to have a seat. Especially we felt that in view of the excellent work I have spoken about by Lord O'Hagan. So some of us went on a delegation to see the Leader of the House. He received us several times, most courteously, as always; but we gathered then, and we gathered once we saw the Motion on the Order Paper, that our visits, though pleasant, had been fruitless.
I am one of the first to realise that the structure of Britain's representation in Europe is an intensely Party political question. And it must be governed by the usual considerations of the Government Party having its majority and, as far as it can giving fair representation to the minorities. It is also true that the European Parliament itself is intensely Party political in its make-up—more Party conscious, I believe, than

385
even our own Parliament. So it might be thought that the Cross-Bencher would be as anomalous in the European Parliament as the House of Lords is in the free democratically-elected Parliamentary bodies. But the experience that Lord O'Hagan has described today, founded on his experience, has shown that it is possible for a Cross-Bencher, despite the chasms and the structure of the Parties, to play a useful part.
The number of Cross-Benchers, to quote part of Dunning's famous Resolution, has increased, is increasing; far from diminishing, it is increasing year by year, will increase as long as the present practice of creating Life Peers continues, and that seems to be a permanent institution now. So sooner or later I think your Lordships will have to consider the case of the 156 Cross-Benchers, different, but alike in one thing, in their independence and their love of Parliament and their desire to serve it.
On the issue of the two Amendments before us I speak with great diffidence, and I feel I must express a personal opinion. In the other place when I became Speaker I was defender of the rights of the House of Commons against all corners, including your Lordships. But I also there sought, as I do this afternoon, to preserve the courtesies and the good understanding between the two Houses. I am happy that this debate is being continued in such a fine, high, and generous tone. I have not changed; on the day that I was elected Speaker I said that although I left my Party for all time I believed, and I do now, in the Party system, even though I no longer belonged to it. I believe that on all important matters of policy the power of decision must lie finally in the hands of elected Members. We here can seek to amend, and we do; we can seek to advise; we can urge the Government to have second thoughts—and often do with tremendous success. But constitutionally the House of Commons is the final arbiter of important matters, and it consists of a Government and the Government are the majority of the elected Members in that place.
Now in this matter of choosing the delegates to Europe the decision has been made by the Government. They have consulted the Opposition, but apparently have not adequately considered all the
386
Opposition. We have seen that from what the noble Lord, Lord Byers, has said. I regret that very much. I feel that if the Liberals had been given the choice, and had to accept the fact that they had only one delegate to Europe, they would have sent the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, rather than Mr. Russell Johnston. But the Government decided, as the Conservative Government did previously, what the Party strength at Strasbourg should be. The Conservatives were freer because when there were no Labour delegates there they were able to be generous and provide two places for the Liberals, and indeed one for the Cross-Benches. The present Government have, as we know, dropped the Cross-Bencher here, and then had to decide to what other minority Parties they would give seats, and they gave one to the Liberals and one to the Scottish Nationalists. So the Liberals at this moment are, I think, paying the price of the Scottish Nationalists having a seat in Europe.
The reasons for this decision are political and not personal. As I said earlier, I regret the loss of the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, but according to Peter Kirk in the debate early yesterday morning—and indeed, according to my noble friend Lord Strang, who has just confirmed it—it was made clear at the time of Lord O'Hagan's appointment that it would be only for the time that no Labour delegation existed, and that once the Labour Party took a full delegation the position of the noble Lord. Lord O'Hagan, and indeed of the two Liberals, might have to be changed.
As for the Liberal loss, that is a Party matter on which I cannot comment, except once more to pay tribute to the character and quality of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, an elder statesman of supreme distinction. I regret that the Liberals were not allowed themselves to choose which Liberal they wanted to send to Strasbourg.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene here, because the noble Lord has twice referred to this matter. It is still open, even at this very moment, for the Liberals to decide who shall go to Strasbourg. If the Liberals were to inform the House of Commons that the honourable Member for Inverness should be withdrawn and were to

387
ask me, as Leader of the House, as the Conservatives have done on a previous occasion, to move a Motion that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, should go to Strasbourg, that could be done, and would be done, with the greatest of expedition.
Lord MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, I am sure that the Liberals will have noted with interest what the Leader of the House has said. I speak for myself, as all Cross-Benchers do, and I would regret it very much if the happy relations between the two Houses were in any way marred this afternoon. I believe the relations would be marred if the first Amendment were carried, and the House of Lords said not that we are choosing certain people as delegates, but that we are changing the Party structure which Her Majesty's Government have set out for the delegation to Europe, for the effect of the first Amendment would be just that. Therefore, I cannot support the first Amendment. I hope that the Leader of the House will look sympathetically on the second Amendment which, as I read it, accepts the position but says that in the months ahead we might look at the whole question.
Finally, in all this I think that the Leader of the House has acted blamelessly. Her Majesty's Government created a Party structure. Here, his Party and the Conservative Party carried out in a proper way—and we have the noble Lord, Lord Champion, giving us an example of his work—the selection of the delegates, without any interference from the Leader of the House or the Leader of the Conservative Party in this House. As a fervent European I regret that there have been any difficulties at all at this historic moment. It may yet be possible for the Government to think again. I took comfort from the last words of the speech of the Lord Privy Seal when he opened this debate. Perhaps some day your Lordships will recognise that the Cross-Benches are a force. It has been suggested that we can settle the fate of any Division. If we voted as a party of 156, indeed we could; but you will find that on any question Cross-Benchers are on both sides of the House. I end by hoping that the delegation now setting out on its great and very important career will have success and the good will of this House and the other place.
5.58 p.m.
Lord DIPLOCK: My Lords, I am perforce compelled to speak from the Cross-Benches because there is nowhere else from where I can speak, but I cannot speak as a Cross-Bencher. Beyond, therefore, expressing the sympathy and regret which any human being must express to those Members of this House who have served in the past in the European Parliament and will serve no longer, it would be quite improper for me to express any views about who should be nominated, or indulge in an expression of any views as to their qualifications. I shall therefore abstain upon the first Amendment, because that is the one which dictates the persons who shall go to the European Parliament. What I am concerned with is how those representatives in this House should be selected.
There is only one function which the Treaty recognises as being possessed by national Parliaments, and that is the nomination of representatives to the European Assembly, in striking contrast to the power to nominate to the other three Community institutions—not only the Commission and the Council, but also the European Court of Justice—which in contrast, is in the hands confided by the Treaty to Governments, and nomination to the European Parliament is confided by the Treaty to the Parliament, not the Government.
The referendum being over, we are now in the Community for keeps and it is—and it has appeared from every speaker in this debate so far—our common aim to make the Community work efficiently and better than it has worked before, and the particular institution for which this House is concerned and for which it has a responsibility is the European Parliament. It should be our aim, and I am sure it is the aim of all of us, that we should appoint to the European Parliament the Members of this House who are best qualified to enable it to perform its functions of a Community institution efficiently, in the best interests of the Community as a whole, of which we are members, and with due regard to the particular interests of the United Kingdom. When the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, said that in the European Parliament he spoke for Britain and not for this House, it is true of all the Members of this House who have been in the European Parliament that they

389
spoke for Britain and not for this House and not for any particular Party in this House.
There is, I venture to think, some misconception of the functions and of the method of working of the European Parliament if one supposes that it is a similar political institution to the United Kingdom Parliament. It is, of course, highly political but it is political in a different way. At present it exercises no legislative powers; it is purely consultative, and it is this Parliament, constituted as it is at present and exercising the powers that it has at present, to which we are engaged in nominating representatives tonight. There are three years at least before direct representation comes—years of great importance in the functioning of the Community, years perhaps of economic crisis, and it may well be that 1978 is a date earlier than that at which direct representation will come in—and it is to that Parliament, working as it does now, that our representatives are going.
Although in theory the European Parliament is consulted on Community proposals only after they have been submitted to the Council—and this is the most important way in practice in which its influence is exercised—they are consulted by the Commission on the proposals when they are in avant-projet stage before they are submitted to the Council, and it is at that stage that the most important part of the work of the European Parliament is done today and will be done in the few years that we are contemplating. The major work of that Parliament is done by, I think it is now, 13 sub-committees dealing with groups of subjects, specialist subject meetings, in the same way as we have found it necessary in the Select Committee of this House to divide up into sub-committees with similar groups of subject matter. The object of most of the Community legislation is uncontroversial in the Party political sense; controversial yes, but controversial as to the best methods of achieving a common object on which all are agreed but having regard to technical considerations arising out of different circumstances and different systems of law, to come to my own subject, of the Member-States.
This has certainly been borne out by my experience as a member of the sub-committee of the Select Committee and
390
Chairman of the Law Sub-Committee for the last nine months. On to those sub-committees we have co-opted noble Lords because of their experience or expertise in the particular subject of the committee to which they are adopted and I cannot recall during those nine months any proposed legislation coming from the Commission which did not raise questions which I could describe as bipartisan. I do not recall any case in which the views of the committee depended on whether they took any or which Party Whip, and indeed I have to be a non-political animal; unlike the Cross-Bench Peers, I could not tell your Lordships which Whip, if any, many of the members on that committee take.
In this House we have a fund of expertise among the Members which is quite independent of which Whip they take or whether they take no Whip at all, and we can best achieve what is the common aim of all of us, to assist the European Parliament to do its job well with due regard to the particular interests of this country, if we adopt a method of selection of Members of this House with the expert knowledge and experience which will enable them to bring their service to these specialist committees of the European Parliament and produce, at that important formative stage when they are consulted by the Commission, the result which technically is the best way of achieving an object that we have in common.
I am not only not a political animal, but I have little knowledge of how the procedure of this House operates in matters outside the Judicial Committee. But surely our object should be to find the best procedure for selecting Members with those qualifications which will enable them to help the European Parliament to do a better job than it has done before, and for that reason I shall support the Amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale.
I would just add that, as I understand the noble Earl's Amendment, it would not affect the timetable for the next meeting, which I think is on Monday or Tuesday next week. It is concerned to allow those whose names are on the Motion to go until the next session, and in the meantime we should appoint a Select Committee to consider the best way of selecting membership of this House so as to

391
have members who can best serve the interests of the Community and make the institution of Parliament work well.
6.12 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, this is clearly a painful occasion, and it is the more regrettable to me because it is a consequence of the refusal of the Parliamentary Labour Party to send delegates to the European Assembly at the outset. Had that been done, we should have overcome some of the difficulties which have since arisen. In any case, we should not have had the temporary representation in the European Assembly which today we are asked to remedy and bring to an end. I know it is easy to say, "Better late than never", but that overlooks the trauma of the Labour Party and the anguish of some of the delegates, which we have gone through to get where we are. It was a very bitter experience for many noble Lords and many of our colleagues in another place. But that cannot be helped now. We have to try to adjust ourselves to the decision of the Parliamentary Labour Party to send delegates to the European Parliament.
A number of the speeches which have been made in this debate leave me with the impression that, while we may be part of the institution of Parliament, we are not a very important part of the political life of the country. I suppose that is why so few people are interested in what we do. It is only when we make trouble that people give their attention to your Lordships' House. However, there are one or two fundamentals that it is right to mention in this debate. The first is that, whatever we do on an important matter like this, it has to be done in a spirit of accommodation with another place. In this matter we are not a power by ourselves. The second point is that we are not an elected Chamber, and therefore we can make no claim to an elected representative role.
We have only a constitutional existence and not a representative place in the institution of Parliament. We are of great value in domestic politics and affairs, but I doubt whether your Lordships' House could really claim to represent this country in political and Parliamentary institutions elsewhere, which are based on
392
the expression of the political will of the member-States. This is quite fundamental to the matter. Up to a point, we have reserve powers in Parliament, we have delaying powers, a revising function, a safeguarding role, but in many respects we are an anachronism. Your Lordships' House, as it is today, exists through the failure of political opinion and political power to resolve the underlying dilemma of the continued existence of the House of Lords in our Parliamentary institutions in 1975.
We all remember the preamble to the 1911 Parliament Act. How many years have gone by since then without fundamental revision of the position and power of your Lordships' House? If we are asked bluntly to speak the truth, I do not think your Lordships' House has any real case to participate in the European Assembly. In my opinion, we can make that claim only by consent of the elected Chamber. We have no claim deriving from our own representativeness, or from our own constitutional position. When we have direct elections to the European Assembly—and I join with the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, in hoping that that will come soon—I hope that Members of your Lordships' House can stand for election to the European Parliament alongside other candidates who may be eligible to serve this country.
Much stress has been made upon the nationalistic aspect of our representation at the European Parliament. The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, said that when he was there he spoke not for Party but for Britain, but with great respect to him, I think one has to be very modest indeed in claiming to speak for Britain. Which Britain? Which part of Britain? Which sections of Britain? Moreover the European Economic Community is not a League of Nations; it is a Community.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that at the time of which I was speaking, because there was no Labour representation at Strasbourg, it was incumbent upon us to speak for everybody?
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I shall not pursue the matter. I am sure that the noble Earl, in making his claim, did so sincerely and genuinely. But I would still beg leave to question whether the noble Earl could speak for

393
the sort of Britain for which I should want to speak. We each have our different approaches to our role on these occasions. But I think I am entitled to say that the European Economic Community is not a League of Nations, with each country speaking for itself. I hope that there will be a much greater degree of integration of the representatives of the peoples of Europe, so that those who go to the European Parliament can speak for that section of political thought and action which they believe they represent in their own country, and can join with others of like-minded politics and bring about a new dimension of political controversy and debate within the European Community. That is my expectation and hope of the European Community and its Parliament.
A further point I should like to make is that the members and political composition of the delegation to go from your Lordships' House must be determined by the elected Chamber, by reference to the balance of political power in that Chamber. I do not believe that we in this House can reserve to ourselves our own concept of political balance and representativeness. I feel we must reflect what the electorate has said in the composition of the House of Commons.
Another point with regard to representation is the following: the noble Lord, Lord Byers, opened up the whole question of electoral reform when he referred to the number of Liberal votes as opposed to the number of seats they would have in the European Assembly and the number of seats they have in the House of Commons. I have a good deal of sympathy with the Liberal point of view about electoral reform, but we have to deal with existing circumstances in the field of representation in Parliament. We cannot begin to revise representation by reference to votes when the power in the elected Chamber exists by means of seats. I believe that it is the seats in Parliament which have to be taken as the basis of dividing up representation because they represent the reality of political power in the elected Chamber.
Lord RAGLAN: My noble friend talks about this House being—as it is—unelected and unrepresentative, yet he says that the Lower House also tends to be unrepresentative although it is elected.
394
Can he clarify his thinking on this? He seems to have two opposite and colliding strands of thought.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I have not time to clarify my thinking on the matter. I am trying to be very brief indeed and to make a few assertions for your Lordships' consideration. If I may say so to my noble friend, he can clarify his own thinking on what I am saying and that may help me one day to clarify mine. I believe that these are the crudities of the situation. Finally, I come to the distressing case of the Cross-Benchers. Here, I feel in very close proximity to them, divided, however, by a strip of carpet which I hope will protect me from any unwelcome demonstration.
Several Noble Lords: They are behind you!
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: Cross-Benchers in front of me and Cross-Benchers behind me, my Lords, but there is no place in a political assembly in Europe for the Cross-Bencher. He is a valuable domestic animal and of enormous use to your Lordships' House, but, frankly, in a European Assembly I believe him to be practically useless. After all, Cross-Benchers represent no political point of view. They may embody an enormous amount of expertise, but it is not expertise that we are sending to Europe. We are sending political power and opinion to Europe. The expertise can be obtained by the politicians.
A final word about the sudden change. Personally, I feel deeply distressed at the exclusion of the noble Lords, Lord Gladwyn and Lord O'Hagan. These are very painful occasions. One thing that has struck me as a relative newcomer to your Lordships' House is the deep personal attachment which large numbers of members have one for another. There is a feeling of personal comradeship here which is in striking contrast to the bitterness, political rivalry and discord encountered in another place. However, it is there that the real battle and struggle for power is going on, not here.
In political life, we are all at risk of being stopped in our tracks when we have ongoing commitments. My noble friend Lord Champion said that he had been so stopped when he had ongoing commitments; I was stopped in my tracks when

395
I had ongoing commitments. With a change of Government after a General Election, a lot of people are stopped in their tracks with ongoing commitments. We just have to give them up. After all, we read the story of a Minister who is leaving Office and in the paper the next morning it says he called briefly at his office to clear his desk of his personal papers and then departed. That is a measure of how quickly it takes place. Did I not once read of a noble Earl who was Prime Minister leaving by the back door because it was embarrassing to leave by the front? These painful experiences are part of the ruthless life of politics and, if we cannot stand them, we do not have to take part in them. It is sad but inevitable that there should be these sudden changes.
My conclusion is that noble Lords, if they pass these Amendments, would be in danger of making a serious political mistake. I believe that that would be a great pity. It will be a tragedy of some dimensions if we put ourselves in conflict with another place over a subject which, while it is important, is one which is not of permanent duration. I hope that, within a relatively short period of time, a new form of election to the European Assembly will overcome these difficulties.
6.27 p.m.
Lord ALPORT: My Lords, while the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, was speaking and in the middle of his argument, I was struck by the same point which brought the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, to intervene. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, was saying that the present system ought to continue until a new system of direct elections came into being, perhaps in 1978 or thereabouts. In the meantime, we could go on with a system of appointment based on the original system of the Council of Europe. But surely what we are proposing here with the second Amendment of my noble friend Lord Lauderdale is a step in what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, would agree is the right direction, because it would enable the delegation going from this country not to be merely a reflection of the House of Commons as it is produced by our existing electoral system but also to be a reflection of a wider representation which would be closer to the eventual form of the representation
396
when it takes place as a result of direct election.
I should have thought, therefore, that the noble Lord would have been on our side. Further, I believe that he was under some misapprehension when he suggested that, if there had been a Labour component in the delegation in 1972, there would never have been a problem of this sort. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, made exactly the same point, but I am sure the noble Lord, will remember that exactly the same problem arose on that occasion. The only reason why I am intervening very briefly in this debate is in order to support my noble friend Lord Lauderdale as I did on that previous occasion. On this occasion, I am trying to make exactly the same point as I did then. What I objected to and what my noble friend objects to is that the present system of appointment is based on patronage. I do not say for one moment that this was a very great element in the minds of the Front Benches of both Houses on this occasion, but there is no doubt at all that the appointments to the Council of Europe which this system exactly reproduces were a form of political patronage which was very useful at that time.
The fact of the matter is that the Council of Europe was and is a body of very little importance, but the Parliament of Europe is a body of very great importance. It seems to me to be totally illogical that simply because there is a precedent of a form of appointment to a body of no importance it should govern the form of appointment to a body of very great importance. I hope, therefore, that, though I shall not support the first Amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Perth, the House on this occasion will give serious thought to supporting the second Amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Lauderdale. The fact of the matter is that we do not know—and I certainly do not know—the criterion of choice which was used in the selection of the present members. It may have been perfectly right. It may have been just in every circumstance. Indeed, they may have chosen, for all I know, the best people to take on these responsibilities. But I have an indication, and perhaps I am wrong, that the main criterion of choice was to give representation in the

397
delegation, both from the Conservative and Labour Parties, to those who were in favour of Europe and to those who were against Europe in the recent referendum. If that was the case it may be right, for all I know. I personally would doubt whether that is the right criterion and I am doubtful whether that necesarily means that the individuals concerned are equipped to carry out what are grave and heavy responsibilities in the Parliament of Europe as well as perhaps others who would be chosen on a different basis. That is the reason why I criticise and object to the means whereby this choice has been made simply as a decision by the management, by the Front Bench, by the leadership of the Parties in Parliament as on the basis of their present strength in the House of Commons.
I think that the political atmosphere, although I have no direct experience of the Parliament of Europe, particularly in the Party context of the Parliament of Europe must be very different from the politicial atmosphere in the Party context in this country. I do not believe that there is necessarily a natural affinity between Conservatives from here and Christian Democrats from Germany or elsewhere; nor necessarily between Socialists—Labour Party members—from here and Social Democrats from other countries. When they reach the Parliament of Europe—and it was certainly true of the Council of Europe—there is a melting pot. As we heard from the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, and from my noble friend Lord Mansfield, when they got there—and it will be the same for Labour representatives when they get there—the objectives and criteria in their judgment change from a purely Party point of view into something much more on a national basis. That is as it should be. It is certainly all the more illogical that we should base our representation from this country to the Parliament of Europe on a direct reflection of the Party divisions of the House of Commons.
Lastly, I should like to say, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, that I deprecate appeals to this House not to enter into conflict with the House of Commons. I understand the
398
significance of it, but the truth of the matter is, let us be frank, the reason why we are the ineffective Second Chamber that we are, is largely because the House of Commons has decreed that we should be so; and because on no occasion do we every try to establish our own independence as a Second Chamber. Whether we are hereditary or non-representative or whatever it may be, we are, for better or for worse, in this day and age the Second Chamber of the Parliament of Great Britain. That we could have been a better Second Chamber might have been true if certain reforms which were proposed from this House and which were turned down by the House of Commons had been passed a few years ago during the period when the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and my noble friend Lord Jellicoe were leading us here. The fact is that the object of the House of Commons over a long period of time has been to keep this House as ineffective and powerless as possible. It is remarkable that we have been able to do what we have been able to do. I do not think it is in the interests of Parliamentary institutions, at a time when Parliament is under great attack, from so many quarters, that we should continue to take this rather cowardly—so I regard it—point of view. We should try to ensure—whatever may be the background of our appointment here, however we as Members got here, whatever may be the power that we have left to us, however small—that at any rate we are able to conduct ourselves with dignity and effecttiveness and with the decisiveness of a Second Chamber of a great Parliament.
However, that was my view. I hope that in the future we shall have less of these appeals to go like—I almost said "whipped dogs"; but I am not sure that that is a good simile—following the policies, the decisions, ambitions, the desires of the House of Commons. That is my personal point of view. I shall on this particular occasion support my noble friend Lord Lauderdale's Amendment as I hope will your Lordships. But I realise that, from the point of view in our interests in the European Parliament at this moment, it would not be right for us to put any obstacle in the way of those, nominated by this very unsatisfactory method of nomination, who are going to represent us there on Monday.
6.37 p.m.
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, as one of the domestic animals to which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, referred and was kind enough to say we were valuable, I promise to be brief and I am anxious to get back to my saucer of milk. I came this afternoon for one reason and for one reason only—I wanted to support my noble friend Lord Perth on his Motion. I have listened with great attention and careful attention to a subject on which my mind was anything but made up, and it remains anything but made up. But I have reached an interim conclusion which to some extent will be dependent on an answer I may be able to extract from the noble Lord the Leader of the House if he can be cajoled to return and join the night watchmen who are still batting while the light is failing. I should like to ask him a direct question.
At the end of his speech the noble Lord made an important statement that he was prepared to enter into discussions. I ventured to send a note to the Chief Whip asking whether, consequential on those discussions, if in fact they failed, there would be a further opportunity for discussion in this House. I am sure she will not mind if I read her helpful reply. It was:
" For future delegations, yes. This delegation is due at the "—
somewhere or other; I cannot read it—
" on Monday. Derisory if after referendum etc. British delegation were 10 short on first occasion. "
That seems to make good sense. We are discussing only a very transitional matter. We are apparently discussing the representation of the delegation for a matter of a few months. If there will be ample opportunity to discuss the matter further at the end of this Session and before a fresh delegation is appointed, and in particular if we can have an opportunity of discussing all the points we want to raise here again so that our discussions can sound in the future constitution of subsequent delegations on a more permanent basis, I should be disposed to abstain. Nothing on earth, may I say to noble Lords on the Government Benches, would induce me to vote for this Motion; for that would involve a declaration from me that I approbate the selection of the persons whose names appear
400
on the list. It would be invidious to say anything about their selection.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, on the question of the duration of the mandate, as it stands, the Government Motion is for an indefinite period, notwithstanding dissolution or prorogation. Therefore, although one day there will have to be another delegation, there is no guarantee in the Government's Motion that this is for a limited period.
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, if I may say so to the noble Earl, whose exceptionally engaging speech entitles him to the utmost consideration for it is such a novelty, that is precisely what I want to ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House. He said that there would be an opportunity for consultation. The Chief Whip said that these would be an opportunity, if consultation failed, for further debate in this House. If that is not the situation, then I will go into the Lobby with the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I interevene? Your Lordships' House is well aware that any matter is open to discussion at any stage; it can always be put on the Order Paper. As I said earlier, I am willing to open consultations through the usual channels with the leadership of all the Parties, and also with those who sit on the Cross-Benches, to see what steps could or should be taken, and perhaps then enter into consultations with another place. I will give this undertaking. It is always open for your Lordships to debate a matter of this importance and I will certainly see, if it is the wish of the House, that time is provided for it.
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, I have a feeling that that is an assurance which, for my own part, I ought to accept. One has to weigh it carefully. It would be wrong not to accept that assurance which is in two parts: first, there will be consultation (which I take to mean honourable consultation); and secondly, following that, there will be an opportunity for a debate which can reverse the situation by a vote. If that is so, then that is as much as we can hope for in this situation. I am not particularly affected, and I wholly approbated the closing remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Alport, about the constitutional issue. We behaved like

401
hypnotised rabbits instead of whipped dogs—if the noble Lord is looking for another parallel. There is no reason why we should accept instructions from below as to what our constitutional position is, since it is clearly defined in the Parliament Act. I am not sure that this issue is clear-cut enough to make it appropriate to promote a constitutional crisis.
I venture to say this to my noble friend Lord Perth. I am not sure either of the Amendments give a sufficiently clear delineation of the method that might be used to elect the delegation when the time comes. This needs a great deal more thought. I believe that the method of the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, would produce for him an entirely satisfactory solution, and perhaps for other people, too, and it would a least ensure that the majority of the delegates, if not all, were Tories. You cannot avoid that conclusion if you have an elected representation from this House. I am not saying it would be any worse than the present method. It would be different but it does not seem, in terms of democracy, necessarily ideal.
It is unfortunate that we have had this debate. My noble friend Lord Perth was prompted by what I know to be the extra-ordinary generosity of his own feelings. He felt, as many did, a sense of deep resentment that the noble Lords, Lord Gladwyn and Lord O'Hagan, were left out of this delegation, and there ensued the consequence of these Amendments. They should not have been left out; it was ungenerous, churlish and wrong. It would not have been difficult for consultation to take place between the two major Parties, to enable these two noble Lords to continue in their positions at least until the end of this European Parliament. We can feel slightly ashamed of ourselves that this was not brought about. But I do not think either noble Lord would wish to promote a constitutional issue in relation to their personal positions.
Having had that assurance from the Leader of the House, we should watch the position faithfully and closely, and if there are full discussions, in which I hope the Cross-Benchers will participate—not by dint of my own participation, but by dint of our accepted leaders and the people who play that role on the Cross-Benches—we shall arrive at a more generally accepted method of appointing the
402
delegates to this Parliament. I do not know what the method is. I do not know whether you can use any method other than a Party method. Having regard to the fact that the Liberal Party did at least as much as, or more than, any other Party to win the referendum, a more ungenerous way of treating them it would be impossible to imagine. The whole situation is shot through with ungenerosity, and that is disagreeable and provokes decent people to action which may be too emphatic for the situation as it exists. My own recommendation is that we abstain from the Motion and do not vote on the Amendments. That would be my recommendation having given careful thought to the matter on the basis of one person who will happily provoke a constitutional issue at any moment of day or night. In view of events which may occur in the next week or so, it is important that I should make that position absolutely clear.
6.46 p.m.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, like many noble Lords who have spoken, I deplore the political fate of the noble Lords, Lord O'Hagan and Lord Gladwyn. I have great sympathy with the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, but if he presses it to a Division, I do not feel I could support him in the Lobby, for the very powerful reasons which were deployed by the noble Lord the Leader of the House and the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King. I will not elaborate upon those, but they were convincing reasons why the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, would not be the right one to take to a Division. It is for the noble Earl to say whether or not he wishes to take the matter to a Division, but personally I would not support him. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, who regretted this debate, I am glad we are having this debate because it is a form of much-needed political bloodletting on this issue.
The Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, brings to the fore the general dissatisfaction that has been expressed on all sides of the House, by Members of all Parties, at the present procedures which have grown up regarding the method of selection or nomination, whichever you like to call it, of members of the European Parliament. There is great dissatisfaction. I have a

403
feeling, which I hope other noble Lords share, that Members of your Lordships' House should be associated more closely in the future with the selection of members for the European Parliament. If this debate brings that objective nearer, then it will have been worth while. Coming again to the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, it is for him to decide whether he takes it to a Division, and if he does I shall support him. Nevertheless, I shall regret the need to take it to a Division, because I believe there is a possibility of elements in that Amendment which are rather impractical, or if not impractical perhaps not the best way of doing something. I do not know whether a Select Committee would be the best method of examination. There are other possible methods which I will not go into.
I think there is a need now to examine not only the short term until 1978, but the long term methods of possible election after 1978. I was not impressed by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, when he said that we were considering only a short-term problem. We are probably considering both a short-term and a long-term problem at the same time. I believe both should be considered now. Perhaps the noble Lord the Leader of the House and the noble Lord the Leader of my Party would tell me, and perhaps other Members, that they admit there is dissatisfaction at the present position and that they agree there is a need to associate Members of this House more closely in the future than in the past. Perhaps they would express a willingness to examine and inform your Lordships' House of their views on the duration of the membership of the European Parliament. It seems wrong that membership should continue after a Dissolution of Parliament and a General Election which, at the present time, is the case. I hope they will tell us that they think the Select Committee is not the best method of proceeding with this matter.
If we could hear those things, I would hope that the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, might feel that he had obtained the substance of his Amendment, if not the exact wording of it. In that case, I believe we might avoid having a Division, which I personally should be very sorry to see but in which I would support him in the Lobby, without reservation as
404
regards the general picture but with reservation as regards his method of obtaining the common objective. Perhaps our Front Benches will be able to tell us that this is not an impractical proposition to put to your Lordships.
6.51 p.m.
Lord DARLING of HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I believe it was my noble friend Lord Shackleton who pointed out that this House is quite a unique part of our Parliamentary institutions. All of us who have been involved in European institutions or assemblies have had some difficulty from time to time in trying to explain to our European colleagues just why and how this House still exists in what is supposed to be a system of popular democratic Government. But whatever explanations we may give—and now I express a purely personal view—one thing that is certain is that if your Lordships press for more representation in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Communities, your Lordships are in danger of coming into conflict with the principles of Article 137 of the Rome Treaty. We have heard references, particularly from those noble Lords who are supporting the Amendments, to Article 138; but Article 137 seems to have been overlooked so far and I think I had better quote it. It says quite simply that—
" The Assembly— "
which is now, mistakenly in my view, called the European Parliament—
"shall consist of representatives of the peoples of the States brought together in the Community".
From my point of view. "representatives of the peoples" means those representatives who have been elected by the peoples to represent them.
It is perfectly true that Article 138 may be interpreted as allowing non-elected Parliamentarians to be included in the delegations to the European Parliament; but even this seems to have come in for some misinterpretation. Again speaking personally, it seems to have been misinterpreted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, because Article 138 says this:
" The Assembly shall consist of delegates who shall be nominated by the respective Parliaments from among their Members in accordance with the procedure laid down— "

405
not by Parliament, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, said—
" by each Member-State. "
This means that the Government and Parliament of each Member-State are involved in deciding how the system of designating their delegates shall be arrived at.
I do not want to pursue this matter at length, but should like to express agreement with the views put forward by my noble friends who have said that we must not, especially at this time, come into conflict with the elected representatives of the people—those who are mentioned in Article 137 of the Treaty as being the representatives who go along to the European Parliament. I was astonished when the noble Lord, Lord Byers, put forward the thoroughly illiberal and undemocratic point of view that whatever the number selected by the representatives of the people to go from your Lordships' House, they should be, as it were, elected or in some way selected according to the representative numbers of the Parties here. My Lords, if there is one Parliamentary Assembly within my knowledge that is thoroughly unrepresentative, it is this one. How do we come here? Some come by birth, and the rest of us come because we have the patronage of the Party leaders, who think that we can make a contribution here. Indeed, I am sure that we all try to do so; but this is not a representative Parliamentary Assembly. Therefore, to suggest that we should choose the representatives of this House according to the Party strengths within it seems to me thoroughly undemocratic.
Following the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, I agree that this is a very good opportunity for some "bloodletting", and I hope that your Lordships will not take my remarks as being in any way personal if I venture some criticisms. I believe we are quite right to follow the established procedure of selecting Parliamentary representatives to European institutions which has gone on for so long in the Council of Europe, the Western European Union, the North Atlantic Assembly, and so on—that is, in proportion to Party strengths in the other place. How many Peers are to be included in each delegation must be decided by the other place—the elected
406
representatives of the people—and not decided here.
Perhaps we need some changes, particularly as regards providing for the representation of minorities. These have hardly been mentioned during this debate: the Scottish Nationalists, the Welsh Nationalists, the Ulster Unionists, and so on. Frankly, I do not see how the Independents can fit into this political scene, but I am willing to discuss them, too. However, all these changes in the matter of selection, if they are made, will have to be made by another place and not your Lordships' House. I think it would be utterly unconstitutional to decide upon changes here.
I can well understand the disappointment of the noble Lords, Lord O'Hagan and Lord Gladwyn, who are no longer going along to the European Parliament; but as my noble friend Lord Houghton said, this is part of the rough and tumble of politics; it is something we all have to accept. Those of us who have had the disappointment of being rejected and barred from Parliamentary representation by a fickle electorate can well understand how people feel when, trying to get into Parliament or having once been there, they find themselves roughly turned away. We all have to take the rough with the smooth.
Some noble Lords will know that I have been very closely involved with the Council of Europe for many years, and in that context perhaps I might claim to have held high office there—Vice-President of the Assembly, Chairman of the Economic Affairs Committee, Vice-Chairman of the Socialist Group, and so on—and I have twice been removed from the delegation by people on the Front Bench in the other place. One is disappointed when this happens, but I have never complained, because I accept the need for change. I think it is a good idea to have changes in delegations.
We have heard noble Lords talking about the importance of continuity in Office. But, my Lords, this can be overdone. It is not always desirable to have continuity: indeed, I think it is seldom desirable. Those of us who have been delegates to the Council of Europe and the Western European Union for many years can see the faults in continuity, when there are long-serving delegates,

407
deeply immersed in all the machinery of procedure, and so on, who have never given birth to a new idea for decades. But they are still there and they have become a hindrance and a handicap to progress.
I do not say that either of the two noble Lords who unfortunately are now no longer in the delegation, and the two Conservative noble Lords who are being left out, come into that category. I can share their sense of disappointment. But there is—I do not mean this in any personal way at all—a rather unfortunate implication in the first Amendment, as there was particularly in the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, when he was moving it, that, knowing very well the good service that Lord O'Hagan and Lord Gladwyn have given to the European Parliament, none of the newcomers will ever be able to measure up to their standards; the new members will not be able to be as useful or to make such a constructive contribution. I do not believe this. I think we should try out new people all the time. It may well turn out that they make a better contribution than the people they have replaced.
However, the real issue here is a constitutional one. This has been brought out clearly in the debate: that power in this respect—the selection of delegations and the number of Peers in them—must reside in the elected Chamber of the other place. I was surprised when the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, suggested that we should stand out in this matter against the other place. This is a very dangerous course and I hope that he and his noble friends will reconsider the challenge which is presented by the first Amendment—the challenge to the authority of the elected Chamber of our Parliament. As I say, this is a dangerous course on which to set out, and I hope therefore that that Amendment, at least, will be withdrawn.
7.2 p.m.
Lord HANKEY: My Lords, it seems to me politically undesirable and personally most unjust and most unfair to the noble Lords, Lord O'Hagan and Lord Gladwyn, that they should be excluded at this point. Let me explain these two major criticisms separately, one political, one personal. I
408
am rather a Hegelian. I think that truth usually emerges as a kind of synthesis of opposing arguments. How often in your Lordships' House we cause legislation and even political principles to be sensibly modified to meet the practical needs of the situation! I believe our House renders a great service to the nation in this way precisely because we do not exist solely in dedicated blocs bound by every command of the Party Whips; and this goes for all sides of the House.
In this the Cross-Bench Peers have a rather special function and position; so do the Liberals. We do not gang up or set out to embarrass the Parties politically. We respect the Parties. We often help them. But we do try to help truth to emerge. On these Benches we include the judges, many scientists, former diplomats and experienced administrators, and many experts on economics, banking, industry and other matters. And I think we can very often help quietly and without intellectual arrogance to create the current of sensible, middle-of-the-road opinion which can promote and find solutions. The Cross-Benchers claim to be, and I believe are, a unique feature of our Parliament. I contend that they ought not to be ignored because they are not a formal institution and have only the most elementary organisation, as the noble Lord, Lord Strang, has explained. May I add that it is much more trouble to be a Cross-Bencher than a faithful Party man. Nobody tells us ho wto vote; we have to do our own homework. We try hard to be impartial, progressive and sincere, but let no one think it is easy.
This brings me to the injustice which is being done to my noble friend Lord O'Hagan and to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn—I call him a "noble friend" also. Anyone who has been at Strasbourg will confirm, as we have heard, that Lord O'Hagan has distinguished himself there. He has been a most worthy delegate of your Lordships' House and of this Parliament. I should like to say that that is the position which he occupies in accordance with Article 130 of the Treaty of Rome—a delegate of the Parliament. I do not accept that because this distinguished House, with a very long history, is not elected by the whole nation it is not part of the Parliament. We have a right to be represented and we ought to be represented until our Constitution is

409
changed. Lord O'Hagan has worked really hard. He has shown courage and initiative and a real devotion to his work far beyond what would normally be expected from a man of his age. After two years, apparently, a sort of bandalog of Party Whips sweeps down out of the trees and hoofs him and Lord Gladwyn out of the way. I think that is a most ignoble procedure and that it casts a sombre light on our Parliament and on the distinguished men of all Parties and sections, including the Cross-Bench Peers who serve in it. It would be unjust and unfair to Lord O'Hagan; and Lord Gladwyn has also greatly distinguished himself and it is personally unfair to him also.
Then it would be politically undersirable to suppress the expression of Independent and Liberal opinion, especially now when it seems to me and to so many other people that neither of the great Parties can expect to control our national situation all by itself, and when we obviously so greatly need the co-operation between moderate and sensible men of good will, of all Parties, which we saw with such great effect during the referendum campaign. The national interest which we have in making a success of Britain and in making a success of Europe is so much greater than these Party issues. I will end by repeating to the two main Parties that famous phrase used in Cromwell's Parliament:
" I beseech you in the bones of Christ that you may yet think whether you may not be mistaken. "
My Lords, I shall vote for both Amendments.
7.7 p.m.
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, I want to say only two or three sentences, and they are these: I was a member of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe for seven years. I found the continuity gratifying and satisfactory and it is a good idea to get people there on a semi-permanent basis. I do not think it is altogether desirable that as soon as they learn the job they should be hoofed out and somebody else take their place. The idea of permanency is good. This debate has shown that the present position in which we select members to go to the European Parliament is not altogether satisfactory. The element of election should come in. I share the views of almost everybody in this House that it
410
is a pity that the noble Lords, Lord O'Hagan and Lord Gladwyn, should be kicked out at this moment when they have done such good work in Europe. But I see the force of the argument in favour of Party nomination.
The real issue was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, when he said, in effect, that it is a question of selection or election. I believe that sooner or later election is the answer. I regret bitterly that the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, is not a member of the European Parliament. He wanted to go and he would have been a superb ornament and a very fine representative of this House. I believe he would have been overwhelmingly elected if this House had had an electoral vote. I am sorry he is not there and I am sorry that the situation of continuing Whips' nominations by a sort of carve-up between the two major Parties has resulted in this situation.
I shall not vote for either of the Amendments because I do not think the situation can be changed at the moment. We are right to accept the position which has been put forward by both of the major Parties but I hope that some kind of Committee will be set up to devise a system of election by both Houses of Parliament of those whom they think should represent them on a rational basis and, of course, on a Party basis. However, the Labour Party in another place and the Labour Party and the Conservative Party in this House should elect their own members and not allow them to be nominated by the Whips. Election or selection is the choice and I come down on the side of election.
7.12 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I shall be very brief. I feel impelled to speak tonight, although not very happily. I am doing so because of what I shall say at the end of my speech. I have spent hours trying to decide how one should vote on this occasion. It is now recognised that the present system is not satisfactory and that we shall have to reconsider it, but for three reasons I feel unable to vote for the Amendments.
The first reason is that I believe that the British delegation to the European Parliament should be a national delegation representing Parliament as a whole, and I not the two Houses separately. Certainly

411
I do not take the view that this very undemocratic Assembly should have the right to decide the British delegation. Secondly, I reject the Liberal view that representation in the European Parliament should depend upon the strength of the vote given at Elections. It must represent Parliament at the time when those delegations are appointed. Speaking for the Liberal Party, the noble Lord, Lord Byers, argued that at Strasbourg the representatives reflect the votes in the Elections. But that is not why they are there; they happen to do so because the Parties from other European countries are largely elected by proportional representation. Therefore, this is not a matter for representation at Strasbourg; it is a matter for electoral reform.
The third reason why I do not feel able to vote for the Amendments is this. There is a claim that the Cross-Benchers—very large in numbers in this House—should have representation. The difficulty is that there is no unity in philosophy or in programme among the Cross-Benchers. They extend from what is regarded as the most extreme Left Member—a Communist—to the most extreme Right Members in this House. You could scarcely get three Cross-Benchers together who would agree on any issue. For that reason, I reject the suggestion that as a group the Cross-Benchers have a right to representation, because their delegate would not reflect any common opinion among them.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to remind him that very often, when there is a Division in your Lordships' House, he can witness the spectacle of more than three Cross-Benchers going together into one or other of the Lobbies?
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I apologise for being a little rhetorical in saying three, but I should not have to multiply the number by very much. The reason why I have felt almost commanded to take part in this debate is to regret that our delegation to the European Parliament will not include the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan. There is scarcely anybody in this House with whom I differ more than the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. I almost prickle with
412
political hostility whenever he rises in his place. But his knowledge and experience, which have been recognised in the European Parliament itself by his appointment to the important positions of Chairman of one Committee and Reporter of another, and the service which he has given there, is, apart from political views, a loss to British representation. Therefore, I regret very much indeed that he is not a member of our delegation.
What I have said about the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, is also true of the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, who is one of our youngest Members. I think he was at Eton College when I represented Eton in the House of Commons. I hope that I did something to influence his views! He is a young person who is absolutely devoted to service in the European Parliament. He was an independent member; I am not sure whether he was the only independent member. Therefore, he was without the privilege of Party support and Party pressure. Despite all that, he made a valuable contribution at Strasbourg. He came back to this House and made constructive proposals to us arising from the experience. Particularly valuable was his service in the Strasbourg Parliament for the migrant workers of Europe. Again, I say that although my political views do not always agree with those of the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, it is a loss to the representation of this country that he should not be at Strasbourg. My only consolation is that by more frequent attendance in this House, since he will no longer have to go to Europe, he may now be able to make contributions here which will be equally valuable. My Lords, I have said this because I feel that from the Back-Benches of the Labour Party recognition should be given to the services of the two Members of this House who will no longer be going to Strasbourg, and whose service to the European Parliament has been so notable.
7.20 p.m.
Lord CACCIA: My Lords, at this stage I have only three points to make. The first is that when the noble Lord the Leader of the House spoke he emphasised a point which has been taken up by other speakers, including the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King; namely, the great disservice that might be done if there was any collision between this

413
House and another place. I do not think any speaker who has entered this debate so far would wish that to happen in any circumstances whatever. But at the same time the evidence in this regard does not seem to be clear. At least the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, in his speech drew attention to the fact that the Government Chief Whip seemed to be content that the House of Lords should appoint their own delegation. The numbers would be laid down, but it was very much up to them to decide whom they would choose and what methods they would use. So having said that I do not think anybody would wish a collision I do not see that this need in any way take place if these Amendments are passed. Quite the contrary: if the other place could see what has been said by people who have spoken in this debate one after another from all sides of the House, they would see that it is clearly not the wish of this House as expressed today that there should be a collision, and one can only assume that there are means of avoiding that by drawing attention to what has been said.
The next point, which was made more particularly by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, from the Opposition Front Bench was that there really is no place in Strasbourg for an independent. But when we heard the experiences of the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, it became manifest at once that there is such a place. As things develop in Strasbourg they themselves recognise that they should make more room for such representation, if it comes, and it will come, not only from this country but also, as he explained, from other nations as well. Therefore, again I found myself unpersuaded by the argument that if the first Amendment were passed we would be committing the idiocy of sending to Strasbourg somebody who could take no real part in the progress of affairs there.
The third point which, with the leave of your Lordships, I wish to draw attention to, is that again and again it has been said that those who go there represent, at any rate, the British Parliament and the people who meet them there wish to find representation of this Parliament as it now exists. As the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, said, on occasion they may have to speak, in a sense, for Britain. In that case it is inevitable to
414
look down to ask whether it is right in the circumstances which have been described, and by no one more clearly than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, that in these next three formative years this Parliament and this country should be represented by two people who have such expert knowledge of its workings as the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, who has an appointment in it, and the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan. It would seem to me that we should diminish our stature by their omission because these are the three years before elections that may be decisive in the formation of the future of the Parliament of Europe. Therefore, once again I do not find the arguments against the first Amendment to be of great force.
In saying that, I would add at once that I accept that in these political appointments there may be the criticisms—and well founded—which the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has used, about the rather ignoble manner in which these things have happened. Never mind, it is not so much a question of whether it was done nobly or ignobly, but who is to represent in Strasbourg, in these next formative years, the British Parliament. I should enormously regret it and I think we should be diminished if any procedure were to end in the omission of those two noble Lords.
Again, it may be said, and it was indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, that it may be an act of great generosity on the part of the other place to have accepted as many as 10 noble Lords. That is a point of view, but they have done so and if that is the case I should have thought there were very strong arguments both for the first Amendment on the basis of experience and good representation, taking both Houses together at Strasbourg, and for the second Amendment on the grounds that the method of selection surely has been the one thing that so many noble Lords have thought in this case at least merited reconsideration.
Finally, I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said about his readiness always to allow a further debate, further discussions through channels, and so on but, of course, as the noble Earl Lord Lauderdale, has already pointed out, what we are committing ourselves to here

415
and now, if the Motion moved by the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal is accepted, is that the Order shall remain in force until this House otherwise orders. Surely if we were to have another debate all the same arguments would come up and the same result as is achieved tonight might be achieved. So, my Lords, I intend to vote for both these Amendments.
7.27 p.m.
Lord GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, I have the responsibility, if one can call it that, of being the last of the convention of Cross-Benchers—to use a collective noun which seems to fit with the Convener—to speak from these Benches. Although one can never say that one speaks "for" the Cross-Benchers, I think what I shall say represents a very broad stratum of view among the people who speak from these Benches. I should like to start by associating myself most warmly with what the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, said about the help we have had from the noble Lord the Leader of the House. He has been accessible to us, he has made time for us when we wished to ask him questions, and he has always told us as much as he was able, or was proper for him to do, and we are most grateful. It might be best for me to speak very shortly, taking just a few of the really bad arguments against the Amendments, and also rehearsing one or two of the better arguments for them.
The first bad argument has been that this is a normal way of selecting the representatives who are to go to the European Parliament. One must think in terms of public impressions and public relations. What has happened is that the selectors have given the impression of preferring political expediency to experience and merit. That is bad for Parliament and one really must object on those very basic grounds to what has been done. I am saying nothing against the personal or political qualities of the noble Lords chosen, but that is the impression which has been created and it will not depart.
Then there is the argument which has been dealt with by a number of noble Lords, and which was first advanced by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield—who has already been subjected to a great deal of attack, but I must also join in—that the European Parliament is a place for
416
which one needs professional politicians, and where nobody else will fit in. The first refutation of that is the noble Lord sitting behind me, the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, and I need not add to that. However, I would also argue that the noble Lords who sit on these Benches, while they are not politicians in having not, in large degree, gone through the burden and heat of the day in fighting constituencies, none the less if they had not some liking for and interest in, and possibly even some aptitude for, politics, would not be sitting here at half-past seven in the evening discussing matters like this. The people who sit on these Benches must be allowed a little interest in, and possibly an ability to learn something about, politics, in addition to representing the individual point of view which each of us has.
My Lords, there has also been a bad argument used in this debate by implication, but I think not spotted by noble Lords altogether, that much of the argument is based on the assumption that the Select Committee will do its job wrongly. I do not understand why this assumption has been made, but so many noble Lords whom I have heard based their argument—unconsciously maybe—on the feeling that somehow the Select Committee will do a less good job than the Whips. I cannot see why this should be the case.
One must treat the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, on the basis that this would lead to a thorough, necessary and probably wise basis of selection being produced. I do not need to rehearse again the argument that under Article 138 of the Treaty of Rome the representatives sent to the European Parliament should represent Parliament, not part of Parliament, nor political Parties. They represent Parliament. As the noble Lord, Lord Strang, made so abundantly clear—and I am now speaking for these Benches—these Benches exist. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, called this House an anachronism, and said that we were people who were occasionally useful on domestic issues. This makes me totally useless! I do not resent it. But in fact, of course, the knowledge and experience possessed by those on these Benches covers most of the world in one way and another. I think we can say without immodesty that whoever might be chosen from these Benches, while he

417
might do as well as the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, would have a good chance of holding his own.
Then there is the argument against the Amendments, so charmingly put by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, that it will be all right quite soon because we are to have direct elections. All the experience of Europe shows that we get there in the end, but that we do not get there—wherever it may be—nearly as quickly as we should like. To base our immediate procedures of selection and nomination on the assumption that we shall make the direct election deadline, would seem to me to be a very shortsighted way of proceeding. As a House, we must try to choose what is the best way for our voice to be heard now or, at any rate, as quickly as possible.
There are many other arguments; it is not for me to rehearse them again at this moment. But, clearly, there is dissatisfaction about what has happened. It is a very good thing that this matter should have been brought out so clearly in your Lordships' House over the hours which have just passed. It was encouraging to hear the noble Lord the Leader of the House saying that he was open to suggestion, and we thank him for that. However, I have to take up one word he used; that is, the word "arbitrary". We must insist from these Benches that this is not an arbitrary proposal in the Amendment. It is very carefully thought out as a better way of doing things than they have been done. It is a well thought out proposal, and the Amendments cannot be opposed on grounds or arbitrariness. They really represent serious thought and practical suggestion.
So that based on what I have said, if a little breathlessly, I shall vote for both Amendments. I shall vote for the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, with my heart, because I believe it is not sufficient to praise the noble Lords, Lord Gladwyn and Lord O'Hagan, with obsequy. I should wish to express it more strongly than that. I shall vote for the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, because in the last resort I believe it to be fundamentally non-controversial. I believe a great many noble Lords who may feel it their duty to vote against the Amendment will have the feeling deep down
418
that it is in fact the best way to handle the matter.
7.37 p.m.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, I do not wish to detain your Lordships for more than a few sentences. I came into this debate, almost every word of which I have listened to, intending to vote for both Amendments. In the event, I intend to vote for the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, if it is put to a Division, but I shall abstain from voting on the Amendment put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Perth. I do this because I have been convinced that this is not the occasion to provoke a clash between this House and the other place. I do riot think that this is a suitable issue on which to vote on such a clash, and having regard to the extreme gravity of the economic situation at the moment, I think it would be very unfortunate if in this House we were to give other people the pretext for creating a diversion of attention from the grave issues being debated at this date.
In saying that, I must confess that I am still very unhappy indeed. I would certainly not vote for the Motion put down by the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal. In saying that, I am not activated by general discontent with the electoral system, although I have great sympathy indeed with the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, in that respect. In saying what I have, I am not activated by any sense of being "holier than thou" as regards the main organisation of politics. I agree with Edmund Burke and with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that organised Parties are an essential part of orderly Government. None the less, I would plead to leaders of both the Government and the chief Opposition Party that there is more elbow room in this respect than they have allowed themselves on this occasion.
My Lords, the moving testimony with regard to his experience at the European Parliament given by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, shows that the existence in that area of talents such as he possesses tends to produce a more wholesome atmosphere there, as I would humbly submit they do in this House, than if they were absent. I was immensely impressed, as I always am, by the exposition of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock,

419
when he pointed to the fact that in the next formative years of the European Parliament what is needed—and those of us who believe in the European Community most desire this—is not tight Party organisation but contributions of vision and expert knowledge, contributions which could have been made by the two noble Lords who are excluded by this Amendment. Without any personal aspersions at all, I do not think that the Parties concerned have acted in a visionary or generous sense in this particular respect. I would remind your Lordships—and this is my last sentence—of what I think is an accurate quotation from Measure for Measure; namely:
" O! it is excellent
To have a giant's strength, but it is tyrannous
To use it like a giant."
7.40 p.m.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, we have had a long debate but a good debate, and I do not think it would be too unkind to say that towards the end perhaps the material became a little well-worn. We have one notable first today; I think this is the first occasion when we have ever had a three-line Convener, because I have never seen so many Independent or Cross-Bench Peers turn up to any debate in my life. I think it is too much of a coincidence if they did not have a three-line Convener. I congratulate them, too, on their discipline, though perhaps just recently one or two have disappeared.
Perhaps I may single out two splendid speeches; that of my noble friend Lord Lauderdale, which I greatly enjoyed, and I think the whole House must have enjoyed, though I cannot pretend that I agreed with all of it, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, who in the course of his speech made a surprising, and I should have thought quite untrue, observation, that the Liberal Party had been more responsible than anyone else for the success of the referendum. I think he does less than justice to Mr. Jenkins and to Mr. Heath and to Mr. Wedgwood Benn.
Having said that, I think the first thing one should have said on this Motion is that this House owes a great debt of
420
gratitude to those Members of both Houses who pioneered British entry into the European Parliament. If I may say so, we should be particularly grateful to Mr. Kirk and his 17 Conservative colleagues, and of course the two Liberals, and of course the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan. They have done a splendid job in rather difficult circumstances, with very little recognition in this country, and we are grateful to them. Secondly, I hope that the differences which divide us do not obscure the fact that we welcome the occasion for this Motion, which is the decision of the Labour Party to take part in the European Parliament; all of us will welcome that. They have now repented of their decision, and even those most bitterly opposed to our membership seem anxious to take part in the European Parliament's decision. I know it is genuine, and that those who voted against the Common Market will not go to Strasbourg with any idea of playing a negative role or making things more difficult.
This is not, of course, the issue about which most of your Lordships have spoken, and I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye that there is obviously disquiet about the way in which these delegations were chosen. I must confess to your Lordships that trying to get to the bottom of how they were chosen is really quite difficult. So far as I can make out there has been over many years a convention by which Members of the Council of Europe, the forerunner of the European Parliament, have been selected on the basis of 18 members for the Government, 16 for the Opposition and two for the other parties, regardless of the state of the Parties in the House of Commons; though I think on one occasion it was 19, 15, 2, because the Government of the day had a rather larger majority over the other Parties than was usual. The Conservative Party in 1972–73 followed this precedent, and since the Labour Party did not take up their allocation of 16 seats, one of their seats was given to the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, on the understanding that this was open for review should the Labour Party take up their allocation. It seems that the Labour Government on this occasion have followed exactly the same precedent; 18 seats for the Government, 16 for the Opposition and 2 for the other Parties.

421
I must admit that I do not quite know who selects which two members of the Opposition Parties it will be for the minority two. I imagine it is the Chief Whip of the Government in another place, but I do not know. As I understand it, the usual channels in the House of Commons make all these decisions, and they apportion the number of Peers to go, having regard to the Parties and the pairing necessities in another place. On this occasion they decided that the House of Lords was to be given six Labour Peers and four Conservative Peers. I think that is a more or less accurate account of what happened.
It is, of course, open to argument as to whether this is the right way to do it, and I shall say a little more about that later, but the fact remains that it has always been done this way, and the Government have, in my view, done nothing whatever out of the ordinary. It also seems to me—and I think this is important, though not all of your Lordships have agreed with this—perfectly proper that the representation in the European Parliament should reflect the political composition of the elected House and not of this House. Were it to be otherwise, there would be a large preponderance of Conservatives, which would not reflect the political situation in the elected Chamber. I agree very much with what my noble friend Lord Mansfield said, when he said that he, when he was in Strasbourg, was regarded not as a Member of the House of Lords but a member of the British delegation and the British representation. If it were not so, if this was not accepted, my Party would have an enormous majority over all the other Parties. The noble Lord, Lord Byers, talked with great pride of having 40 working Members. We have 350 working Members, all of them working, and working even harder than noble Lords on the Cross-Benches. If the present practice was not accepted, we would have an enormous majority over all the other Parties, taking the two Houses together, and I cannot believe that would be the right thing.
I would ask your Lordships to remember, when we talk of the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn—I will say something about them in a minute—that my own Party has lost two seats; we have lost two noble Lords in this House. I have heard a great
422
deal about the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, and I have heard a great deal about the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. I have heard very little about what my noble friend Lord Lothian has done or what my noble friend Lady Elles has done. And yet we on this side of the House have, without too much fuss, acknowledging that these are difficult issues, accepted that we have to lose two seats and my two noble friends have given up their seats. Though it is perfectly possible for the House to decide which Conservative Peers and which Labour Peers should be selected, it would be extremely difficult to adopt the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Perth without upsetting the balance of the Parties, which it seems to me, as I have said, quite rightly gives the Government the largest number of seats. I have great sympathy—of course I have—with everybody who has spoken about the four noble Lords who have lost their seats and the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, and I have had a lot of letters about it, you will be pleased to hear. The noble Lord and I have sat on "Britain in Europe" platforms together, and I know the work that he has done.
With regard to the Liberal Party, it seems to me that they should discuss with the Government whether they should have both the minority seats, or whether they should have one only, on the basis of their numbers in the House of Commons. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, it is, I think, rather difficult to argue that they should have more because of the votes they polled at the last Election. Although, of course, it is perfectly true, and nobody can deny it, that they polled votes at the last Election which are not reflected in the number of seats in the House of Commons, the fact remains that hitherto we have always based our system upon the seats in the House of Commons and not the votes cast.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite wrong. In the case of broadcasting it is the votes, because I negotiated that with the Labour Government in 1945.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, this may be the one exception. I do not know. Certainly in other cases it is on the basis of seats held in the Commons; all Committees are on the basis of the seats held.

423
We do not yet have proportional representation, if ever we do. I am not at all convinced that in this one particular case, at this particular moment, we should depart from our well worn rules. In the case of the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, the situation is not the same. I wish he would come and sit on this side of the House, because if the speeches made about what he has done in the European Parliament are any guide there would be no doubt whatever about his selection or election to the Conservative representation in the European Parliament. He is, however, an Independent, and he can represent only himself. I do not see how an Independent can represent other Independents; by definition he can represent only himself, unless we have the absurdity of an Independent Party in your Lordships' House, agreed, it seems, on nothing else except to be independent.
As I look at noble Lords on the Cross-Benches I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Platt, is exactly a soul-mate of the noble Lord, Lord Monson; nor does the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, seem to me to be a blood brother of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman; nor is the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton. Tweedledee to Lord Milford's Tweedledum. They are united, it seems to me, only in their determination to join no other Parties, and in nothing else.
I confess that however admirable they may be—and admirable they are singly—they really cannot be capable of representing any other of them than themselves. Nor am I quite sure that it would be right to do so, because if there are only 36 members for this country in the European Parliament, it does not seem to me entirely right that one of the 36 places should be taken up by one man who represents only himself.
Lord GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, the noble Lord is having such fun with these Benches that I think that somebody from these Benches should say something. Perhaps in answer to the noble Lord, and to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, in one voice, I would remind the House that all the Cross-Benchers present on one occasion voted on one side in favour of fundamental freedoms. I would only further say that I think that this argument of
424
how independent we are will obviously go on for a very long time without solution.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, the occasion on which they all voted together was so unique that the noble Lord has remembered it! It seems to me that in the European Parliament we should surely seek to express the views of political opinion in this country. Having said that—and these are my own opinions—it may well be that the system which we have followed for so long is not the right one; but I would hope that your Lordships, in view of the fact that the European Parliament assembles next week—and it is important that the Labour Party should take their seats and attend—will not support the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Perth—my noble ex-friend Lord Perth—whose motives I understand. To support his Amendment would upset the political balance of British representation, and I do not think that we ought to do this without considerable care.
The noble Earl says that we can get it all settled in the Committee of Selection, for whom he expressed a profound admiration. I think that the Committee of Selection would have great difficulty if they were charged with this task. This would have to be agreed by your Lordships in your Lordships' House, and in view of the debate we have had, I do not think that it would be easy for either Party in the present circumstances to accept any lessening of their representation at Strasbourg. As for the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Lauderdale, some of these objections apply, but not very many of them. I do not believe that we, as a House, can choose our own representatives in isolation from the political composition which must be agreed by both Houses.
It would seem to me much wiser, therefore, if your Lordships were to pass the Motion of the Leader of the House, but ask the Government to initiate discussions between both Houses of Parliament to see whether, in the future, it is desirable or proper to continue the traditional method of selection, or whether some change ought to be made. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has gone some way to agreeing to that, and it may be that my noble friend's suggestion, if my suggestion is adopted, will be

425
one way in which this can be done. But I hope very much that until such time as the Leader of the House says "Yes" or "No" to my suggestion, your Lordships will certainly not vote for my noble friend's Amendment but will see perhaps that there is a wiser course in discussing this matter in both Houses of Parliament.
7.56 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am sure that the best service that I can render to your Lordships' House is to be brief, and if there is to be a Division we should deal with it with the greatest of expedition. I should like to say just one word about the number of Peers who may be able to go to the European Parliament. The Motion before the House lists 10. They are names that were submitted by the Labour and Conservative Parties. As I said earlier in an intervention, if the Liberal Party wish to change their own representation then it is open for them to include a Peer in substitution for a Member of another place.
Where the noble Earl, Lord Perth, is so wrong is in saying that there is a prescriptive right to this House of 10 places for Strasbourg. The reason there are 10 places today is because the Labour Party and the Conservative Party, within their own discussions and consultations, agreed what their Party composition should be. Therefore, I would say that for this House to intervene, to substitute, to change in an arbitary way, would be of great disservice to this House and its relations with another place.
One could say a great deal about the debate as a whole. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, who I believe exerts a great deal of influence among the CrossBenchers, asked me whether there was a possibility of discussions within the House. I said earlier that discussions could commence with the agreement of all sides as soon as we wish, and nothing will prevent a debate inside this House on this matter at any stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, said that he might be disposed to support the Motion that I have moved if I could deal with four questions, and perhaps I could use those four questions in the way of reply to this debate. Do the
426
Government accept the discontent in your Lordships' House? My Lords, I should need to be blind and deaf not to be aware of a degree of concern that exists in this House. Discontent is a natural thing in a political assembly but, if I may say so, I think some of the strictures that have been levelled on recent occasions at the usual channels are less than fair. They serve us well. It is only through the efficiency of the usual channels that this House is enabled to continue its work in such a civilised way, and we ought to be grateful to those who serve within the usual channels.
As to the need for closer consultation with Back-Benchers, I am always open to suggestions as to how this could be improved. As the Leader of the House from a minority situation I feel that my strength is more likely to come from a contented House than a discontented House. Therefore, if any noble Lord can tell me how we can improve the situation I shall be only too happy to listen. In regard to the duration of these appointments to the European Parliament they are, as we have them in the Motion, of an indefinite nature, but they can always be brought to an end and it may be that with the new European Parliament of 1976 this might be an appropriate occasion for a general reconsideration of our membership. But this, I suggest, is again a matter for the Parties themselves rather than for the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Balfour, then asked me what were my objections to a Select Committee. In practice, I have no objection to this procedure, and I think a great deal can be learned by a careful examination of the problems. My reluctance to advise the House to support the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, is that I think it is too precipitate at this moment. As I said at the outset, this is something on which the two Houses have to be brought together; no single House should go out on a limb and we should seek to work together for a common purpose. It is for that reason and that reason alone that I would not wish to see a Select Committee being set up at this stage.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, on the question of consultations, I confirm that we will be willing to enter into consultations between the Parties in both Houses before the end of

427
the present Session of the European Parliament, which is in the spring of 1976. I suggest that all past practice and custom shows that we make greater progress through this form of approach than by setting up Select Committees solely for one purpose and one Chamber. This is a matter for Parliament as a whole, and I therefore hope that with the assurances I have now freely given to the noble Leader of the Opposition we can enter into consultations between the Parties of both Houses and that they will take place before the end of the present Session of the European Parliament—
Lord BYERS: My Lords, does that include all Parties in both Houses?
Lord SHEPHERD: When I use the phrase "all Parties" I mean all Parties.
Lord BYERS: Did the noble Lord say "all Parties "?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I think I said "all Parties", but if I did not then I say it now. I hope that that assurance will satisfy the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale. I also hope that the noble Earl, Lord Perth, will recognise the very great dangers that could flow from the acceptance of his Amendment, and that he will feel that the weight of the debate has been such that he should now withdraw it. It has been a debate of which I have taken great note, which I will study with particular care in the light of the fact that we will enter into consultations.
Lord STRANG: My Lords, will these proposed consultations include Cross-Benchers?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Strang, is prepared to be included within a Party—which of course Cross-Benchers never have been—then of course that will include them. May I tell the noble Lord that when I refer to all the Parties in this House I am really referring to all quarters of this House, which clearly would include the Cross-Benchers. It has been a debate the Report of which we will study with the greatest care. I hope that the House will approve the Motion unamended, and will wish all good fortune to the new Members who will be going to Strasbourg and who, I know, will receive every support from those who are now old hands, particularly those from this House, in dealing with this new system of
428
Parliamentary control. I hope the House will now feel it right to let the Motion go through unamended.
8.6 p.m.
The Earl of PERTH: My Lords, I am advised that I have the right of reply and I intend to exercise it very briefly. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said that politics is power, but power should be tempered with justice and fairness and the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, was right when he said that that is what prompted me to move my Amendment. I do not believe that at this moment that power is being so used. This House is made up of four important groups and I believe it right that all groups should be represented in the Parliament of Europe. That is why I have put forward in my Amendment the name of one Liberal and one Cross-Bencher, and have left the other eight to be chosen, undoubtedly five from the Labour Party and three from the Conservative Party. I accept what the Leader of the House said about our not having an absolute right to 10, but given the 10 I feel that we should have the right to distribute the number in some way in relation to who the House is composed.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, and others, pointed out that the European Parliament was a political force and that my Amendment would upset the political balance. Consider, my Lords, what my Amendment would do. It would mean that instead of 18 representatives of the Labour Party there would be 17, and instead of 16 Members of the Conservative Party there would he 15. Would that really upset the political balance? The noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, and many others made the very serious point that this might upset the good relations between the two Houses. I do not know how to assess this. I think that all your Lordships have to judge this issue for yourselves and I feel it would be wrong for me not to press my Amendment so they may have just that opportunity. Therefore, at this point I intend to go forward with the Amendment. Then the question arises—at any rate, it has been implied—that if my Amendment were accepted the time-table for next Monday could not be achieved. I say that it could be, and your Lordships must take my word for that—
Several Noble Lords: How?
The Earl of PERTH: —and if noble Lords do not want to take my word for it, I will explain how. There would be a meeting of the Committee of Selection tonight, tomorow what they decided would be put before your Lordships, it would be voted on, it would go through and Members could go on Monday. During that time—and, if my Amendment is accepted, there is that delegation—the important undertaking given by the Leader of the House that there should be consultation could still go forward and nothing stops that. I end by saying that in my opinion that undertaking is of the greatest value and, indeed, has justified all those who have taken part
in this debate, and I thank the noble Lord for giving it.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, the original Question was in the terms of the Motion set out on the Order Paper in the name of the Lord Privy Seal, since when an Amendment, No. 1, has been moved—At the end of the first line of the second paragraph insert the words as set out on the Order Paper. The Question I therefore have to put is that this Amendment be agreed to.
8.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 57; Not-Contents, 99.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Garner, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Amherst, E.

Gladwyn, L.

Onslow, E.

Arran, E.

Gore-Booth, L.

Perth, E. [Teller.]

Avebury, L.

Greenway, L.

Platt, L.

Banks, L.

Grey of Naunton, L.

Porritt, L.

Barrington, V.

Halsbury, E.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Bourne, L.

Hampton, L.

Rochester, L.

Brain, L.

Hankey, L.

St. Davids, V.

Byers, L.

Hanworth, V.

Seear, B.

Caccia, L.

Henley, L.

Stamp, L.

Clancarty, E.

Hood, V.

Strang, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Hylton-Foster, B. [Teller.]

Swaythling, L.

Clwyd, L.

Kimberley, E.

Tanlaw, L.

Combermere, V.

Kinloss, Ly.

Terrington, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Vernon, L.

Erskine of Rerrick, L.

Loudoun, C.

Wade, L.

Esher, V.

Monson, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Feversham, L.

Moyne, L.

Wigoder, L.

Foot, L.

Ogmore, L.

Wilberforce, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Cowley, E.

Henderson, L.

Allerton, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Crook, L.

Inglewood, L.

Ardwick, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Jacques, L.

Auckland, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Janner, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Kissin, L.

Balogh, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Leatherland, L.

Berkeley, B.

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, [Teller.]

Bernstein, L.

Denham, L.

Bessborough, E.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Long, V.

Beswick, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Longford, E.

Bethell, L.

Elton, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Birk, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chanceller.)

McLeavy, L.

Blyton, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Maelor, L.

Brockway, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Mais, L.

Brown, L.

Falkland, V.

Mansfield, E.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Maybray-King, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Gaitskell, B.

Meichett, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Gardiner, L.

Merrivale, L.

Carrington, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Castle, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Northchurch, B.

Champion, L.

Hale, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Collison, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Pannell, L.

Peddie, L.

Sandford, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Pitt of Hampstead L.

Sandys, L.

Thurlow, L.

Popplewell, L.

Shackleton, L.

Vickers, B.

Raglan, L.

Shannon, E.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Reay, L.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Walston, L.

Redesdale, L.

Slater, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

White, B.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Winterbottom, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Samuel, V.

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

8.19 p.m.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE The Earl of LAUDERDALE moved, as an Amendment to the Motion of the Lord Privy Seal—
In the last line to leave out (" this House otherwise orders ") and insert (" the end of the present session of the European Parliament "). The noble Earl said: My Lords, during this debate I have wondered just how precise the Government's assurances were meant to be, and I have listened with interest to their gradual response, I will not say to pressure but to approaches and appeals. I do not want the final stages of this afternoon's debate despoiled by any kind of ill will. We are offered the assurance of consultations through the same usual channels that have brought us to the present unworthy situation. We are promised a debate at the end of it, which we can have at any time, anyway, but we have in the last half-hour had a further promise—and I take it that it is a promise—that these consultations will be finished by the time the present Session of the European Parliament finishes in March. I will gladly give way to the noble Lord the Leader of the House if he cares to confirm or deny that. I am assuming that he has given an assurance that these consultations through the usual channels will be completed by the time the present Session of the European Parliament finishes in March. I am glad to give way if he would like to confirm that.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I do not think I can be expected to commit anyone here by saying that we shall be able to complete these discussions by any fixed time. Certainly, it must be the determination of us all to achieve that end. However, as I say, I think it would be a little harsh on me to be called upon to give a specific assurance that consultations between the various Parties, which could be difficult and protracted,
432
would be completed by any given date. I am sure, however, that it would be the wish of the Government that we should seek to end the consultations by that date.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord has said and of my normally uncontroversial contribution to situations in this House, I should like to beg leave to withdraw my first Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.21 p.m.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE The Earl of LAUDERDALE moved as an Amendment to the Motion of the Lord Privy Seal—
At end to insert—
" That a Select Committee be appointed to propose to the House the method of choosing the Lords members to serve in future sessions of the European Parliament best designed to secure the representation of all sections of the House and to recommend whether or not such members should be chosen for a fixed term. "
The noble Earl said: My Lords, we now come to the Select Committee. A Select Committee could perfectly well take account of all that is done through the usual channels. It could call evidence and there is nothing to stop it collaborating with another such Committee if one were set up in another place. The Select Committee offers all the machinery for review. Therefore, in view of the catholic scope which it offers to the operations and studies of this House, I beg to move my second Amendment and I believe that it will be right to test the opinion of the House.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I do not think I ought to detain your Lordships for too long on this matter. I indicated earlier, and I have been drawn a little more in the course of the afternoon, that the Government are willing to undertake consultations with all the parties in all quarters of your Lordships' House and in another place. The noble

433
Earl is asking that there shall be a Select Committee to go into the various matters that no doubt the Party machines and the leadership will be considering. I said earlier that I thought it a little precipitate and that there was some advantage in letting the usual machinery work, but I am willing to agree in principle to the establishment of a Select Committee. However, I should like a little more time to consider the terms of reference of the Committee. I think that that is something we ought to deal with through consultation, but I hope that the Select Committee will be one which will seek to bring forth all the facts governing the European Community and also that it will be able to provide advice to the parties themselves.
If the House accepts that, I feel we should look at the terms of reference to see that we have them quite right and, if the noble Earl is willing to accept that, I will be happy to proceed with a Select Committee, so long as we have care and attention that we do not create a confrontation between the two Houses.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for what he has just said. I believe—because I always take absolutely literally everything he says, even when it is in jest—that what he has said now is of great importance. He has said that he is willing to consider a Select Committee and I believe that "consider" means that he is willing to have one set up once there is agreement as to the terms of reference. Am I right to understand that?
Lord SHEPHERD: Yes, my Lords. I am personally not opposed to the idea of a Select Committee for the examination of a particular problem. But I should certainly need to look at the terms of reference. I have said—and I hope the House will accept this—that, before we come to a decision about the Select Committee, if we are to go through this process, it is better to have consultations between the various parties concerned to see which is the best way of proceeding.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, may I just thank the noble Lord. Am I right in understanding that these will be consultations with all quarters of the House and also that they will be set in hand pronto?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Earl is really pressing very hard.
Several Noble Lords: Hear! Hear!
Lord SHEPHERD: The noble Earl is getting me into difficulty with some of my noble friends. I suggest that he takes what I have said. It has been said in good faith. If he pushes too hard, we shall have a vote.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord has said, but not of the barrage behind him, I beg leave to withdraw my second Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SCOTTISH TRANSPORT GROUP (PORT ELLEN HARBOUR) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
FRASER HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a, and passed.
BRITISH LEYLAND BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

HOUSING FINANCE (SPECIAL PROVISIONS) BILL
8.30 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Melchett.)
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, after the somewhat contentious matters that have been dealt with this afternoon it is a relief to be able to move on to the non-controversial issues at Clay Cross. This Bill goes back to the other place in a totally unrecognisable form save as to its short Title. The Government will clearly

435
want to consider with some care what attitude they should now adopt towards the Bill in its amended form. In these circumstances, on behalf of my noble friends on these Benches I have to make two points which may perhaps be borne in mind by the Government when coming to consider what their reaction is to the amended Bill.
First, there has been a great deal said about Clause 4 in the course of the discussions on this Bill. There is some confusion about it. I want briefly to reiterate the position. The original Clause 4 of the Bill as it was unamended dealt only with 11 Clay Cross councillors. It did not affect the surcharge that they had been ordered to pay; for that was to be dealt with, we were told, by a private fund; and in relation to their disqualification of five years which had begun to run, it proposed after the 18-month period that had now elapsed, the remainder should be remitted.
By the time Clause 4 came to your Lordships' House it was something of an uneasy cross between a sitting pigeon and a dead duck. I say that for this reason. Those 11 Clay Cross councillors had incurred substantial other surcharges nothing to do with the Housing Finance Act. They had been disqualified for a period of five years recently—nothing to do with the Housing Finance Act. They had failed to appeal within the necessary time limit and therefore the period of disqualification had begun to run. In those circumstances Clause 4 became of purely academic interest to your Lordships. It was rather as if the Home Secretary, faced with the problem of a murderer who had been sentenced to death on two charges of murder, decided to reprieve him on one of the two.
I stress this point because although Clause 4 was a reprehensible clause, it was not by any means the most objectionable feature of the original Bill. I desire to stress this clause because there have been comments in the Press and there have been undertones in what was said both in the other place and by the noble Lord the Leader in this House, which rather indicated that it might be that the Government were contemplating abandoning Clause 4, which they could do now in any event since it serves no
436
purpose and that this might be some basis for compromise.
I must state on behalf of my noble Friends that it would be no basis for any acceptable compromise at all. Indeed, in the view of my noble friends on the Liberal Benches, the real evil of this Bill. far more serious than Clause 4, was the original Clause 1 of the Bill as it was first sent here, which dealt with some 400 councillors where the surcharge was imminent but had not been yet announced of people who had, in order that the surcharge should be applicable at all, wilfully defied the law. Clause 1 provided that they should be exempted from every penny of the surcharge and every day of the disqualification. That seemed to my noble friends and to me a far more evil clause than Clause 4 to which I have referred.
In those circumstances when the Government come to consider whether they are prepared to accept this Bill in its amended form or whether they desire to restore it to the form in which it first came here, I am bound to have to indicate that if the Government proceed to take that latter course we on these Benches will find it impossible to accept or assent to any such Amendments and will vote accordingly in the Lobbies.
We regard this original Bill as being a matter not simply the subject of a philosophical disquisition on the rule of law; we regard it on the particular facts of this case as being an appalling constitutional impropriety in which a Government have sought to absolve a small group of their own political supporters from the consequences of deliberate defiance of the law for political purposes, carried out at a time when the Party in Government, then in Opposition, were encouraging them to defy the law. It is in these circumstances that we take the view that if an attempt is made in the other place to restore this Bill to its original form, we have no alternative but to resist that. I need hardly say that that observation is not made in any way as a threat. It is not for minority Parties, whether they have one or two delegates at the European Parliament at Strasbourg, to make threats of that nature.
Knowing as one does that the Government are to reconsider the position about this Bill in the light of the Amendments

437
carried in this House, it seems to me to be only proper that that reconsideration should be carried out with the full knowledge by the Government of the very passionate feelings that this Bill arouses in the minds of many noble Lords in this House.
I hope therefore that the Government will be prepared to accept this Bill in its amended form, that they will have the courage to do so; and I can assure noble Lords opposite that if they do have that courage they will receive from these Benches every credit for accepting the position as it has now been sent back to them as a result of the Amendments made in this House.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, as a relative newcomer to this House I have always been told with what good sense and sensibility your Lordships consider Bills sent here from another place. I must say that it has astounded me at the amount of fuss there has been from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and from noble Lords on the Liberal Benches about a clause which I am now told is purely academic, a sitting pigeon and a dead duck. However, I think we can safely leave it to the good sense of the elected Chamber to reinstate this sensible and conciliatory Bill to an effective form. I am glad to know from the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, that they will be able to do this without a threat from the Liberal Party hanging over their heads. I hope your Lordships will see fit to give this Bill a Third Reading in order that we may send it back to another place.
On Question, Bill read 3a with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

INTERNATIONAL WHALING COM- MISSION (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES) ORDER 1975
INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES) MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ORDER 1975
8.39 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts)The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts) rose to move, That the Draft International Whaling
438
Commission (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1975, laid before the House on 10th June, be approved.
and
That the Draft International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) Miscellaneous Provisions Order 1975, laid before the House on 10th June, be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move together the Motions relating to the International Whaling Commission (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1975 and the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) Miscellaneous Provisions Order 1975. These draft Orders were laid before the House on 10th June and will be made under the International Organisation Act 1968.
The draft Order relating to the International Whaling Commission is needed to give effect to a Headquarters Agreement which has recently been negotiated between Her Majesty's Government and the Commission. Although the International Whaling Commission was set up in 1946, its Secretariat has until now consisted only of a part-time Secretary, who is British, assisted by four junior staff of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. They also work for the Commission on a part-time basis. In these circumstances, the question of privileges and immunities had not arisen before.
However, the Secretariat is now being reorganised, so as to enable the Commission to implement the recommendations of the Stockholm Conference of 1972 on the Human Environment. These recommendations include strengthening of the Commission and the development of conservation efforts by means of international research in the field of whaling. The Commission decided that such changes required the establishment of a small international Secretariat, having its own premises and led by a full-time Secretary. This post will be filled by a qualified marine biologist recruited from among the Member-States of the Commission, and he will be assisted by an executive officer (who will probably be British, but may possibly be from another Member-State) and two locally recruited clerical staff. The Commission may also in the future appoint scientists from any

439
Member-State to carry out research or investigational projects.
The new Secretariat will initially be housed in premises adjacent to the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge, but will later move to a complex to be built, also in Cambridge, under the auspices of the Natural Environment Research Council. The running costs of the reorganised Secretariat will be met from the budget of the Commission, to which the 15 Member-States, which of course includes the United Kingdom, contribute according to their share of commercial whaling.
The purpose of the Headquarters Agreement which this Order will enable us to sign, is to provide the necessary conditions under which the Commission will be able to function freely and efficiently and without financial restraints. The Order follows to some extent the lines of the Orders made in respect of the five international commodity organisations now established in London, of which the most recent was the one concerning the International Cocoa Organisation made in February. Since, however, the International Whaling Commission is a very much smaller organisation with limited membership and responsibilities and a tiny Secretariat, the privileges and immunities it needs are correspondingly less, and this is reflected in the Order.
The tax exemptions accorded by the Order are based on the principle that the State in which an international organisation has its headquarters should not profit unduly from the funds contributed jointly by all the Member-States. This applies both to taxes and rates on the Commission property and goods required for its official use and to the salaries of its staff. The latter will be exempt from United Kingdom income tax but—as is common form in these cases—subject to an internal tax for the benefit of the Commission. This is the system in force in the case of most of the other international organisations in London.
The only immunity from jurisdiction accorded by this Order is in respect of official acts performed by representatives of Member-States, officials of the Commission and experts appointed to carry out specific tasks for it. In no case does this immunity extend to motor traffic offences. Unlike the international commodity organisation, the executive head
440
of the Commission will enjoy no personal privileges other than the right to import his furniture and personal effects free of duty and taxes on first taking up his post here. In view of the very modest scale of privileges and immunities which this Order will accord, I have no hesitation in recommending it for your Lordships' approval.
I now come to the draft International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) Miscellaneous Provisions Order, the purpose of which is to amend the Orders made in respect of a number of the international organisations to enable them to obtain relief from value added tax and car tax in a similar manner to that in which they previously obtained relief from the now abolished purchase tax. It is a technical change which is necessary. The Order is practically confined to that change.
The draft Order also makes certain other very minor amendments to some of the less recent Orders to bring them up to date, for example, in consequence of changes in the social security law. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Earl COWLEY: My Lords, the whole House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, for explaining in such minute detail the contents of the two Orders. They are perfectly straightforward and we on this side of the House have no objections to them, and also commend them to the House. It is remarkable to see from the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) Miscellaneous Provisions Order the large number of international bodies that are represented in this country. While it is a compliment that these organisations should feel it necessary to have offices and representatives in Britain, it raises problems with so many people having some level of diplomatic immunity or privilege. But in many ways I believe that as yet this price is worth paying.
The most important of the two Orders is the one concerning the International Whaling Commission. The IWC came into being in November 1948 under the 1946 International Whaling Convention. The Commission's aim was, and still is, to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and the orderly development of the whaling industry. However,

441
the Commission's recommendations are not mandatory and this is one of its drawbacks. Thus the record of international co-operation provided by the IWC is a mixed one. Although it has not accomplished all the desired results, neither has it entirely failed. Indeed, the record of whale conservation would have been far worse had it not been for this international agreement.
Since I understand from the noble Lord that there are now 15 signatory States to the Convention, does this mean Brazil has now ratified the Convention? Also, could the noble Lord tell the House of the name of the British Commissioner on the IWC, or is his appointment awaiting the setting up of the Commission headquarters in Cambridge? I understand that each signatory State has the right to appoint one Commissioner to the Commission. I was also glad to hear from the noble Lord and read from the Order that the practice of excluding traffic offences and civil liability caused by motor vehicles from diplomatic immunity has been continued. This removes one of the more objectionable sources of diplomatic privileges and immunity granted to foreign diplomats.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I respond briefly but warmly to the noble Earl's cogent speech in reply to the observations I made. I agree with him that there is considerable advantage to this country in being the host country to such a comparatively large number of international organisations, especially in the commodity field. This gives us a certain prestige and attracts to this country a certain expertise which mixes with our university and institutional centres devoted to research and specialised study. It also attracts a certain amount of foreign exchange which at all times is acceptable—and sometimes more acceptable than at others. So I join with the noble Earl in welcoming the fact that the International Whaling Commission—although we are perhaps the least practically interested in the operation of whaling of all the 15 Member-States—should have decided on the basis of its experience, having regard to the welcome and the efficiency which it has experienced here,
442
to look forward to its next phase in an enlarged sense and a more permanent physical basis, and to have its home in Britain.
As to the two specific questions the noble Earl asked, he is right in saying that the total number so far is 15 Member-States. Efforts are being made to augment this membership from any non-Members so far, and the latest, I believe, is Brazil. This is one of the 15. The noble Earl asked for the name of the British Commissioner. Although the noble Earl gave me notice of this question a few minutes before the momentous Division in which we both took part, I have not been able to contact the source of information for this particular answer. With the agreement of the noble Earl, and the House, I will write to him indicating the name and the status. I think he wants to know how appropriately we are represented in what is, after all, a very important Commission, especially from the conservation side of this matter.

ROYAL ASSENT
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Viscount Hood): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Nursing Homes Act 1975,

Export Guarantees Act 1975,

Hearing Aid Council (Extension) Act 1975,

Diseases of Animals Act 1975,

Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1975,

New Towns Act 1975,

British Leyland Act 1975,

Fraserburgh Harbour Order Confirmation Act 1975,

Friends' Provident Life Office Act 1975,

Sheffield City Council Act 1975,

James Hugh Maxwell (Naturalisation) Act 1975.

SOCIAL SECURITY PENSIONS BILL
8.52 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[The VISCOUNT HOOD in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Married women and widows]:
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord ABERDARE: I think I ought to say a word on Clause 3 and ask the noble Lord one question. This clause concerns the married women's and widows' option. We have discussed this matter on many previous occasions and the views of the Conservative Party are well known. Moreover, it has been fully debated in another place and therefore I do not wish, at this hour and with this restricted number of your Lordships here, to go into any great detail. But I think it is right to put on record that we deplore the loss of this option, which will place a very heavy extra financial burden on many working mothers and widows, particularly if they are self-employed.
I acknowledge, of course, that there is a trend for married women and widows to spend more of their lives at work. But there still remain a large proportion who work only at times of particular need, and who spend most of their lives running their homes. For them the option was of great value, and three out of four accepted it. We seek to achieve, as I said on Second Reading, an agreed Bill and therefore I realise that to make any attempt to put the option back into the Bill at this stage would strike at the whole basis of it. So although we remain of the view that the option to married women and widows is very valuable, we shall not put down any Amendment to the Bill.
444
However, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he can give details of the arrangements to be made for those people who are at presented opted out, and of the interim proposals which are foreshadowed in subsections (2), (3) and (4), under which regulations will be made to take care of this point. I know that consultations have been in progress, but I think we ought to know the Government's decisions, certainly before the Bill leaves this Chamber, even if not this evening. The Secretary of State gave a pledge in another place on 15th April last, that she would announce her considered decisions on the transitional period at the Report stage in another place. So far as I am aware, that pledge was not fulfilled, and therefore I hope that the noble Lord will either be able to give us some information tonight or, at least, undertake that before the Bill leaves this Chamber we shall know what decisions have been taken in this matter.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. Before attempting to reply to him, I wonder whether I might say for the benefit of your Lordships that we had hoped to start on this Bill much earlier than this, and that we might have finished Parts I and II before rising tonight. This seems to be quite impossible now and, subject to your Lordships' consent, I suggest that we take the Committee stage as far as we can up to about half-past nine, and then continue our work on Monday as arranged, and again on Tuesday of next week.
I do not know whether I can help the noble Lord a great deal. He knows as well as anyone in your Lordships' House why the Government are phasing out the married women's option, and why we feel, for a whole variety of reasons—all of which the noble Lord knows—that this is the right thing to do. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is giving urgent consideration to the comments made by interested organisations on the Memorandum, in which she outlined the arrangements under which the present option might be phased out. However, I have to confess that it is not possible at this stage to say when the outcome will be known. But in view of what the noble Lord has said, I will make a point of conveying his observations to the Secretary of State in the hope that

445
I may be able to say something to your Lordships at a very early date.
While the contribution option may well be protected, in the sense that those who have opted out will be able to continue to do so, I can only say—and this is by no means authoritative—that it may well be that if a person who has decided to opt out remains out of work for, say, a period of one year, when she returns it will then, perhaps, be required that she enters the scheme as a full contributor. If this were to be done, it would mean that it would come at a time when the person was in a better position financially to meet the cost. Having heard the observations of the noble Lord I will undertake to convey them, in the hope that I shall be able to give a more satisfactory answer at a later stage.
Lord ABERDARE: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, but I wonder whether he would go a little further and say that before the Bill leaves this Chamber we shall be told what the decisions are. His right honourable friend the Secretary of State undertook, during the Committee stage in another place, that these matters would be made known before it left the other place. I think we have gone a long way in avoiding any further opposition to the abolition of this option, and I think it is right that we should be quite sure that those women and widows who have already exercised the option will be fairly treated, but we cannot be sure of that unless we know how the Government will act.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I accept what the noble Lord has said. I cannot go beyond giving him the undertaking that I have given him: that I will convey this point to my right honourable friend and express the urgency which has been indicated to your Lordships tonight. I am sure that if my right honourable friend had been able to give her decisions to another place sooner, she would have done so. But it is important if we are to effect this change that it should be effected only after careful consideration with all the interests involved. I will convey the noble Lord's view.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Rate of invalidity pension for persons under pensionable age]:
9.1 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 7, line 28, after (" shall ") insert (" for any period of interruption of employment ").
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell, I should like to move Amendment No. 1 and, if I may, speak to Amendment No. 2. These two Amendments are technical and are intended to make clear how invalidity pension is to be calculated. The invalidity pension paid for a spell of incapacity, resulting in a period of interruption of employment, will be based on the contribution record in the tax years up to and including the tax year preceding that in which entitlement to invalidity pension arises for the first time in that period of interruption of employment. As noble Lords will know, days of incapacity for work occurring within 13 weeks of each other are linked to form part of the same period of interruption of employment.
This was the intention of the present wording of the clause, but we are now advised that the words "became payable" in the clause are not suitable in this context, because they are open to a number of interpretations. Invalidity pension is payable in respect of days of incapacity for work. In any case, strictly speaking, the pension cannot be said to be payable until the relevant award is made—which means, for example, that in a case of continuing incapacity based on medical certification of 13 weeks' duration it can become payable four times a year. The wording of the Amendments is therefore designed to achieve unambiguously what was always intended. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 32, leave out from (" year ") to end of line and insert (" which includes or included the first day of entitlement to the pension in that period ").—(Lord Melchett.)
Lord CRAWSHAW Lord CRAWSHAW moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 7, line 32, at end insert—
(" (2) Regulations may—

(a) provide for an invalidity pension to be payable to a pensioner who, whilst continuing to be incapacitated for normal full-time work, becomes capable of undertaking light work in circumstances which satisfy prescribed conditions;

(b) prescribe the amount such a pensioner may earn before his pension is affected in any way; and

(c) prescribe the effect any earnings additional to the amount referred to in paragraph (b) above will have on a pensioner's entitlement to invalidity pension. ")

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is a sequel to several Amendments and debates in your Lordships' House over the vexed question of the earnings stop when applied to people receiving the invalidity pension. It incorporates the whole philosophy of the employment of the physically handicapped. At the risk of wearying your Lordships on a rather well-worn subject, and late at night, I feel I ought to give a little background information.
The present position is that a person not of retiring age but who is incapacitated in some way can receive an invalidity pension if he is judged incapable of work. Up to this April a man in this position with a wife and child would receive £26·55 a week, which includes an invalidity allowance of £2·40. There is no complaint about that; it is a very reasonable amount which is often increased at further expense to the State by supplementary benefits. As I have explained before, the trouble with this system is that it creates public-funded cabbages, because if a person makes any effort to get back to eventual full-time work by taking on part-time or light work he is allowed to earn only £7 a week—admittedly this was raised from £4·40 a week following a debate in your Lordships' House in February—before losing entitlement to his entire invalidity pension.
The crux of our plight is that this system is inconsistent with the facts of life. A combination of an Englishman's or a Briton's natural burning desire for independence and some very sophisticated modern equipment has meant that there are very few people indeed who are totally incapable of performing some
448
work. I do not suppose that my noble friend Lady Darcy de Knayth and I are the only people in your Lordships' House who have found ourselves in this rather halfway position. Even if it may appear to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, that being a thorn in his flesh has become now a full-time occupation, I think that rather proves my point. Instead of the system of the subsidised cabbage, garnished with small therapeutic earnings of £7 a week, we want to maximise everyone's potential and encourage them with a small invalidity pension which will decrease as earnings rise.
On the last occasion, to which I have already referred, we proposed a substantial increase—up to £13, in fact—in earnings before entitlement to the entire invalidity pension is reduced on a sliding scale. Your Lordships agreed to this by a majority of two to one, but unfortunately the other place rejected the Lords Amendments on grounds of financial privilege although they did not produce any supporting figures. Nor were they able to answer my contention that Exchequer money would not be saved, because people would be earning something instead of drawing supplementary benefits and automatically receiving the top rate of pension. Anyway, we let it pass.
The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, also informed me in writing that he felt this was a matter which should be dealt with by regulations. On this occasion, we have leaned over backwards to meet these objections. As we have mentioned in the Amendment, we propose that the matter should be dealt with by regulations. We have used the word "may" in order to keep the position flexible—at any rate, for the time being. In this way the Minister can ensure that the so-called "incapable of work" who are at present out of work are not deterred by the present system from trying to return to work. At the same time, he would not be obliged to pay a pension to those lucky people who are working full-time in places such as Remploy, although I feel it should be our ultimate aim to try to reward them for their spirit in refusing to become publicly funded. I am told that the number of people employed in Remploy is being reduced, because they obviously earn less than the normal wage. What one might call the

449
attraction of a fairly high rate of invalidity pension is discouraging them from remaining in work.
May I also remind the noble Lord, if he does not know it already, that there is a social security system in force whereby car workers in the Jaguar factory can work four days a week and claim unemployment benefit for the fifth. What we are saying is rather a parallel to this, but it is being applied to a more deserving case. We have purposely not mentioned any figures in the Amendment, so we cannot upset the Commons Money Resolution or their financial privilege.
As I see it, it has yet to be proved that anything in this Amendment increases the charge on the Exchequer. In comparison with the "earnings stop" of £7, which I said applied to the invalidity pensioner, the retirement pensioner, due to the recent relaxation of the earnings rule, can now earn £20 a week, increasing to £50 over the years, before his pension is affected. When one thinks of that, I believe that the invalidity pensioner is still being treated unfavourably. I beg to move.
9.13 p.m.
Baroness DARCY de KNAYTH: I should wholeheartedly like to support my noble friend's Amendment. He has raised a very important point about unemployment benefit being paid to car workers on a four-day week. At our last, and fleetingly successful, attempt to introduce this Amendment in a different form during the Committee stage of the Social Security Benefits Bill in February of this year, the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, explained—as he has done on several other occasions—that the invalidity pension can be given only if the person who receives it is incapable of work. He added:
" May I compare it with the position of a person who is unemployed? One cannot obtain unemployment benefit if one is employed ".
However, Questions in another place, on 28th April and 9th May this year, have highlighted the fact that certain workers have been paid unemployment benefit when working a four-day week. They drew unemployment benefit while they were, in fact, employed. There seems to be a double standard here. There seems to be one rule for the able-bodied worker and another for the
450
handicapped, would-be worker. But as my noble friend has already stressed, the real point is that the overall concept is so wrong. During the Second Reading of this Bill last week, the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said:
" People who are in receipt of an invalidity allowance or pension—call it whatever you like—get it because they have been certified by a doctor as being incapable of work ".
What a terrifying verdict! Surely the idea of condemning someone as incapable of work is as dead as the Dodo, in the light of current ideas on rehabilitation.
After my noble friend had successfully moved his Amendment to introduce an earnings rule during the Committee stage of the Social Security Benefits Bill earlier this year, I received a letter from a remedial teacher. He said:
" I am what Lord Crawshaw would no doubt classify as an intellectual, publicly-supported cabbage as I am confined to a wheelchair at a comparatively early age (28) but I have had my specialist's approval to do some work for an afternoon a day from my wheelchair. (I am a qualified remedial teacher). The only snag is that I have to be employed at a union rate of about £2·50 an hour; this means that, with the old £4·50 a week ruling, I can only work for about 1½ hours a week. This is no good whatsoever to me or my pupil. This proposed ruling "—
namely, the Amendment which my noble friend introduced—
" would at least enable me to work for about five hours a week—a step in the right direction ".
Before I could even reply to his letter, the Amendment had been removed in another place and I had to tell him that all he could look forward to was the earnings stop being raised to £7.
His comment, in a letter to a colleague concerned with the disabled, was as follows:
" If one takes the earnings stop to have been £4·50 in 1972, this increase does not even keep pace with inflation. It will allow me to work the grand total of 3 hours a week which is doing neither me nor the kid I take any good whatsoever. I will agree that it is three-quarters of an hour more than I could do formerly, but it is nowhere near enough. The old old-person's earnings rule that was proposed (for a very short period of time) was much more satisfactory as, if you are engaged in my sort of work, it is often better, if you have the kid's interest, to go on for a few minutes rather than to stop at say, 15.00 hours dead. "
But in this case not only is the disabled person himself being prevented from operating at his full potential, but the

451
person he is trying to help is also being penalised by the earnings stop.
On Second Reading, I think the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, thought I was being highly critical of the mobility allowance, but I am in fact on record, as is in fact the Joint Committee on Mobility for the Disabled, as welcoming the scheme most warmly. This does not mean that we should not scrutinise the whole mobility allowance carefully and suggest improvements, and I feel that the Amendment proposed by my noble friend would effect one of these improvements. As my noble friend has said, this Amendment is now in a form which offers the Government the maximum possible flexibility and ample time for all concerned to consider the best arrangement for overcoming this out-moded "sick or fit" Social Security system. I very much hope that the Government will be able to accept it, and I can really see no reason why in its present form they cannot do so.
Lord BANKS: I wonder whether I may make a very brief comment on this Amendment. Having listened to discussions on this point in your Lordships' House before, I have no doubt that when the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, replies he will tell us that it is a contradiction in terms to speak about an earnings rule for people who are not entitled to any kind of pension unless they are in fact unable to work. It always seems to me that the fallacy of that argument is the fact that you have the rule—now £7 allowed—so it is agreed that a certain amount may be earned and it is useful that to that extent at any rate the person who has an invalidity pension should be encouraged to work.
It seems to me that all the sponsors of this Amendment are saying is that with regard to that definition of invalidity, which at the moment is limited to the ability to earn £7, they want to alter not the principle but the degree, and to raise the limit from £7 and put it on to a sliding scale. It does not seem to me that that is an alteration in principle; it is merely a question of degree. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, may well say that there are difficulties about finding the money, but I think we ought to dispose of the argument once and for all that any
452
suggestion that it should be increased above the figure of £7 is contravening some obvious piece of logic, because I do not believe that that is the case at all.
Baroness SEEAR: I know that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, is most sympathetic towards arguments of this kind and understands how extremely important it is that people who are incapacitated should lead as normal lives as possible, of which working and earning some money is at the very heart of being normal. The fact that you can earn something yourself makes an enormous difference in a situation of this kind.
I follow the argument that has been put forward, although I should have thought on the point made by my noble friend Lord Banks, that if you allow the principle to be breached to the tune of £7, you have admitted that it can be breached. I am trying to help the noble Lord to find a way out of this, because I am sure he wants to find a way out. Surely for once the inflationary spiral can come to our aid and at least the limit could be raised just above the £7, which at least would take us some way towards what we are after; that is, finding a way by which people who can earn only very little, can be encouraged to work because it is beneficial for them.
Lord ABERDARE: We have been over this ground a great many times and I do not believe there is anybody in this Committee, few as we are, who is not really enormously sympathetic to the case that has been made once again by the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, and the noble Baroness, Lady D'Arcy de Knayth. We all feel the same; we are all completely convinced that it is far better that people should be able to earn money. However, I also recognise the difficulties that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, is going to recite to us again about using this particular invalidity benefit in this way.
We have always hoped to work towards a scheme of different, varied payments to those who are disabled, according to the degree of their disablement—something on the lines of the present Industrial Injuries Scheme, but this, of course, is a major undertaking, an expensive project, and one that would have administrative

453
difficulties because of the medical certification required. Obviously it is something we would have to think of in the future, and which would not lend itself to being brought in by regulation. It would require legislation. So I am afraid I am left in the same position in which I have been before, of having the greatest sympathy, and, like the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, hoping always that the limit can be raised from £7. But in these hard times, I doubt whether even that is possible. I am really hoping that eventually we can work towards some more satisfactory general scheme of payment according to the degree of disability.
9.21 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I hope I can say something that will be helpful. I find it extremely difficult because we are dealing with a situation in which a person has been medically certified as being totally incapable of work, and therefore, there can be no question at all of earnings. The Amendment seeks to extend the provision to such an extent that we have a very different kind of benefit from that which we have at the present moment.
While I find myself in a great deal of sympathy—I think I have to say this—the £7 which can be disregarded can be disregarded only if a doctor certifies that, from a therapeutic point of view, it is desirable for the person to undertake some kind of activity. That is the situation. If I may use the term in the widest possible way, that is the law. This is what we have to apply. The noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, and the noble Baroness, Lady D'Arcy of Knayth, are not thorns in my flesh. If they were, I could not imagine two nicer thorns. But we have this difficulty of dealing with a situation under the existing regulations in the way they want it dealt with. It has nothing to do with unemployment. If society cannot offer a person full-time employment, so that he can work only for three or four days, because of society's inability to employ him fully in the course of the week, he is permitted to go along to get unemployment benefit for two days. The two things are not comparable, and cannot really be considered in the same breath.
454
It seems to me that the difficulties facing your Lordships on this question of the amount are really due to the fact that we are talking about a situation in which a person is held to be totally incapacitated, whereas my noble friends, if I may call them so, would like to think of this—and they may be quite right—as a long-term disablement benefit which, therefore, ought not to be subject to the same kind of limitation. That is not to say that the Government do not understand the motives behind the Amendment, or that they do not sympathise with the aims of the thinking which has produced this Amendment.
We have a great deal more sympathy than is perhaps realised by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness. But we are up against this regulation, dealing with total incapacity, that requires a competent medical person to sign that a person is incapable of work. The fact is that the Government have already acknowledged the existence of the problem; namely, the position of those disabled people who are able to work but whose working ability is limited, or whose work costs are high. We have given an undertaking, and have promised to carry on further work in this area.
On the 27th February last the noble Baroness referred to a Commons Paper, Social Security Provision for Chronically Sick and Disabled People. It said:
" The problems for the disabled worker of extra expense, of low income and of incentives are closely related. Such evidence as there is, here and abroad, points to the possible value of a separate standard benefit to be paid to severely disabled people who are working despite their disablement. This sort of benefit must not be confused with invalidity benefit, which provides for the maintenance of disabled people who are unable to work. "
The paragraph concluded:
" This is an area in which more informed discussion and more information are needed before the right answers can be found. The Government is anxious to draw on the practical experience of those who are professionally and personally involved, and will be making the necessary arrangements for consultation. "
In other words, we take the view that the basic condition for entitlement to sickness or invalidity benefit, that is, incapacity for work, which has to be satisfied on the 10 million or more claims a year, cannot be carelessly cast aside or in any way weakened without serious consequences. The cost, for example, could be substantial. I am a little tired

455
—and I say that in the nicest possible way—of having to emphasise the whole question of expense. We have in this country 26 major benefits, and this year we shall be paying out £9,000 million. It is a lot of money, and it is all very well for people to say "It is only £5 million, £10 million, £20 million", but in the present situation we have to call a stop. As I said, the cost could be substantial, because it would enable people who are currently earning wages to claim an incapacity benefit in addition, and it could also result in numbers of people reducing their present activities and earnings in order to qualify for benefit. If total incapacity is no longer to be the yardstick, the issue is not simply one of people now on benefit being encouraged to earn.
It is true that there is already an earnings limit associated with the incapacity benefits, which, as I have said, is known as the Therapeutic Earnings Limit. Noble Lords will remember that, largely due to the noble Lord who has just spoken, and the noble Baroness, who twisted our arm, if I may say so, on a previous occasion, it was increased to £7. As things are at the moment, I would ask the noble Lord and the noble Baroness not to press the Amendment. I know one hears this so often on these occasions. I want to assure them both that we are not unmindful. We find it difficult to get away from this term "total incapacity". We are looking at the whole problem to see whether there is some way, maybe some kind of re-designation of the situation. I can only hope that if I say we are looking at it to see what can be done, they would feel able to leave it with us a little longer and not press the point at this stage.
Lord CRAWSHAW: I wonder whether I could ask the noble Lord if he could be more specific on these discussions and research taking place. Can he give any sort of timetable?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: No, I cannot. I do not want to mislead the noble Lord or the Committee. Much of this has to be done internally. As the noble Lord knows, we are in touch with a vast number of organisations, probably all the organisations in the field, and their experience must have told them that we are not unsympathetic. It is a question of
456
seeing just what can be done, because we realise there is a point here which we cannot meet in the present situation. But I cannot go further on the timetable.
Lord CRAWSHAW: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his answer. I still remain unhappy about the universal use of the criterion "incapable of work" because, as I tried to explain, I do not believe that that is a realistic appraisal in this day and age. I hope that we can get away from that before very long. I am still not convinced that the cost, in the words of the noble Lord, could be "substantial", because in the Amendment, which is purposely framed to be flexible, no figures are mentioned. The Minister would have a great deal of scope to adjust it to economic circumstances.
I do not accept that people already in work need automatically to be paid invalidity pension in addition. The Minister could phrase it so that it was paid to people at present out of work but to encourage them to come back into work. That was the reason for using the word "may" in the Amendment. I should like to look at his reply a little more carefully. I do not feel that this evening is a particularly appropriate moment to press this matter because there are not many present. Before the next stage I will discuss it with my noble friends and see what they think. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 15 and 16 agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
House resumed.

DART HARBOUR AND NAVIGATION AUTHORITY BILL
The Queen's Consent signified and Bill reported with Amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before ten o'clock.